What do we really know about the crucifixion of Jesus?

The many different accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus find little support in historical sources. The reason is that antique sources generally lack descriptions of crucifixions, says Gunnar Samuelsson, University of Gothenburg, Sweden, who recently finished his doctoral thesis on the topic.

Encyclopaedias, monographs and commentaries generally agree on the type of punishment Jesus had to endure on Golgotha in Jerusalem. There is an ample amount of very colourful accounts of crucifixions in the literature, and researchers from all kinds of disciplines seem to endorse them.

'The problem is that descriptions of crucifixions are remarkably absent in the antique literature,' says Samuelsson. 'The sources where you would expect to find support for the established understanding of the event really don't say anything.'

The 400 page thesis offers the reader samples of antiquity's most terrifying texts and gives examples of mankind's amazing resourcefulness in terms of mind-boggling cruelty against fellow human beings. Samuelsson has studied the available ancient Greek, Latin and Hebrew/Aramaic literature all the way from Homer to the first century A.D. While the texts indicate a vast arsenal of suspension punishments, they do not say much about the kind of punishment the Christian tradition claims Jesus was forced to endure.

The thesis shows that although the studied texts are full of references to suspension of objects and the equipment used to this end, no reference is made to 'crosses' or 'crucifixion'. Samuelsson therefore concludes that the predominant account of the destiny of Jesus is not based on the antique texts, but rather on for example the tradition of the Christian church and artistic illustrations.

'Consequently, the contemporary understanding of crucifixion as a punishment is severely challenged. And what's even more challenging is that the same can be concluded about the accounts of the crucifixion of Jesus. The New Testament doesn't say as much as we'd like to believe', says Samuelsson.


Explore further

Who was Jesus?

Citation: What do we really know about the crucifixion of Jesus? (2010, June 14) retrieved 21 August 2019 from https://phys.org/news/2010-06-crucifixion-jesus.html
This document is subject to copyright. Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study or research, no part may be reproduced without the written permission. The content is provided for information purposes only.
0 shares

Feedback to editors

User comments

Jun 14, 2010
The question about jesus is bogus, just like religion is bogus.
The question should be: how did the Romans perform them?
Who cares that someone maybe have been named jesus and was tortured like 1000's before.

Jun 14, 2010
The question about jesus is bogus, just like religion is bogus.
The question should be: how did the Romans perform them?
Who cares that someone maybe have been named jesus and was tortured like 1000's before.

Hundreds of millions of people care.
But, you have every right to insult them instead of respecting their religious rights.


Thank you for letting us know our rights on discussing fairy tales.

Jun 14, 2010
There is no "right" to not be held in contempt for believing fairy tales.

I would expect nothing less than insults from intolerant, illiberal atheists.


The situation is actually the opposite. It is Marjon and cadre that insist on trying to impose their belief system upon Science, this science-based site, and thescientifically-minded that enjoy its content.

There is no science to back up your belief. This is a science-based site, not a belief-based one.

If your sensibilities are so delicate as to be offended by being called into question as non science-based, then you would probably be more comfortable with any of the myriad other sites that are more in line with your belief.

I suggest you start with the Discovery Institute.

Jun 14, 2010
The bible even states that Jesus was hung from a tree

Interesting... I don't recall that from my many years of forced Church, Sunday School, and religion classes growing up. I figured, "Well, he wouldn't say it unless he read it in the Bible, using the scientific method", so I looked it up:

http://www.bibleg...=Matthew 27:32-56&version=NIV

Looks like it's a cross, but I haven't read the entirety of the Bible in decades, so it's possible I just don't recall it and that I missed it in my quick Googling just now. Perhaps different passages have conflicting accounts? In any case, it'd be interesting to know about that. What chapter and verse did you find that?

Jun 14, 2010
what do we really know about the pot of gold at the end of the rainbow?

not much, but there's likely a bowl of lucky charms there instead due to the recession.

2000 years ago a bunch of witch burning psycho Neanderthals got drunk on some strange red berries. high as kites they created some drunk propaganda that spread like wildfire gossip across the land and somehow got embedded into their primitive monkey brains. 2000 years later, humans have cloning, splitting atoms, space travel, carbon fiber hockey sticks and cell phones and they still believe in the equivalent of magical faerie whisps from the planet narnia.

way to go humanity. way to go. i'm proud of you.

Jun 15, 2010
The question about jesus is bogus, just like religion is bogus.
The question should be: how did the Romans perform them?
Who cares that someone maybe have been named jesus and was tortured like 1000's before.

Hundreds of millions of people care.
But, you have every right to insult them instead of respecting their religious rights.

Actually, I don't think there was any particular insult to the hundreds of millions of religious followers arising from this unless they believe that non-belief is an insult. This opinion comes from the meaning of "bogus", which, if you care to check, is generally defined as something that is a "sham, counterfeit or not genuine." Bob B was quite right in that the question as phrased was just a teaser (and as such was arguably "bogus"), being simply the most well known example of supposed crucifixion, but the real question is indeed, "how did they do it?" And it is this the thesis sought (unsuccessfully it seems) to answer.

Jun 15, 2010
Why should anyone expect the Bible to be perfect?

Well, for a starter, if this book is received wisdom from a God and said God is held to be omnipotent and omniscient and is perfect him/her/it self, and is the only extant God, and the book is reflective of this God's wishes, then could we not reasonably expect that this God would wish the received wisdom to be also reflective of its own perfection? Therefore if said God is able and willing to intervene in human affairs, could we not further reasonably expect this God to ensure that any errors, omissions or other mistakes that have crept in over the past couple of thousand years are fixed up? So it follows that the book should indeed be perfect, doesn't it?

Is it...?

Jun 15, 2010
So it follows that the book should indeed be perfect, doesn't it?


No. I can't compress an education in mathematics, computer science, and formal languages in 1000 characters. So I won't try.

But those of you familiar with Gödel's Proof should realize that shows that the Bible, or any book, written in any useful language, must be inconsistent. (Useful here is a shorthand for can be used to describe something more complex than a very simple subset of arithmetic.)

Could God, in theory, create a book that was perfect? Sure, but it wouldn't be readable. The problem is not with the book, but with the language, any language, that it is written in.

Gödel's Proof is a very tough thing to make part of your belief system. But in computer science and complexity theory, if you don't, you find yourself constantly banging into dead ends.


Roj
Jun 15, 2010
-marjon- Time after time stories of how God's people lost faith in God, suffered, and were rewarded when they regained their faith.
The perpetual recruits to theocracy & faith result from religion having more success controlling paternity, relative to other groups.

When religion provides a structure against polygamy, or its variations, the historical-critical embellishments of its deity are irrelevant. The primal belief in controlling the sexual conduct of your partner, where both participate in the group, has always been more important.

Jun 15, 2010
Why should anyone expect the Bible to be perfect?
Well because it claims to be the perfect word of God. Pretty disingenuous and not to be belived if it isn't as advertised.
Why is the entire theme of the Bible about faith?
Because it's made up.
Europe and the USA have lost faith and are not following a moral path.
Define "moral path".
Is it any wonder Europe and the USA are suffering economic punishment and are being attacked?
By religious zealots.
Of course none of the 'rational' atheists believe this.
Because it's silly.
However, when society acted in a moral way, respected life, respected liberty, respected standards, society prospered.
Yes, like when a bunch of deists and atheists created the US. Then again when their godless children defeated a buch of Catholics who were exterminating Jews.
Europe is dying and being replaced by people who do have faith, Muslims.
And your point?

Jun 15, 2010
It's a 400-page thesis about man's inhumanity to man. Nothing more.

Jun 15, 2010
Assuming God wanted...
Assuming God. Period.

yyz
Jun 15, 2010
"The faithless will be overtaken by the faithfull[sic] just as it has been described in the Bible time and time and time again."

"It is in His best interest for the Bible NOT to be perfect"

These statements seem contradictory. How can you be sure that descriptions of anything in the *imperfect* Bible are accurate "time and time and time again."?


Jun 15, 2010
The faithless will be overtaken by the faithfull just as it has been described in the Bible time and time and time again.

Would you care to explain why Jesus' name is written in Greek Temples dating back to 200BC?

I can tell you why.

ie Sous Kristos
Hail Zeus, the Annointed One.
or if you're an illiterate desert nomad from the mesopotamian or canaan regions:
Jesus Christ.
Millions of of others disagree.
According to AGW supporters, what really matters is consensus. That doesn't apply with the Bible?

Your 1 billion against my 6 billion.

Jun 15, 2010
The interesting core is that old assumptions about the method of execution are flawed.
One may ask of what relevance this is to us -after all, millions of people were killed in horrific ways in antquity- but the point is that even central aspects of received wisdom re. the gospels are flawed.
This should not be regarded as an insult, unless you are really insecure in your faith. The -for Christians- problematic part is "downstream" of the interpretation itself:
When assessing claims made by religious leaders who base their belief on the non-revised texts, this study is obviously relevant. Even those who depend upon revised translations can never be certain that their particular text is the "true" one.
And if you are frightened by this lack of certainty, just wait until you find out how many rival gospels that once existed (see the book "Lost Christianities" at Amazon.com).

[this comment may contain minor spelling errors -it is not my first language]

Jun 15, 2010
And if you are frightened by this lack of certainty, just wait until you find out how many rival gospels that once existed (see the book "Lost Christianities" at Amazon.com).
Well said Birger.

Jun 15, 2010
In 1968 an ossuary was found near Jerusalem at Giv’at ha-Mivtar, and contained the remains of Johanan ben Ha-galgol, who was crucified by the Romans sometime in the 3rd century, A.D. Among the evidence found was a 6-inch iron spike driven through the sides of his heels; the remains of an olive wood plank placed on his foot prior to nail being driven in was also found, evidently acting as a "washer" to prevent the victim from pulling his foot off the nail. Nail marks were also found on the inner portion of the radius arm bones, and both legs were broken as per Roman practice.

A person wishing to change history could easily narrow greek translation to erase such instructions. Hand has broader meaning in greek than english.

Given that it was christianity that invented science and made the universities to study reality (the work of god), its odd that luddites and atheists speak in half truths to change this past history (having nothing to do with validity of god, but only worldview)


Jun 15, 2010
Since socialism requires revising/making history to create a mental state in the collective masses, maybe, just maybe, you can’t trust them to write or do science, as they can’t resist the power of manipulating science fact. After all if the end justifies the means then ALL information is subjected to becoming a tool to move people the way you want them. They sacrifice validity and function to achieve an arbitrary aesthetic future that only exists as presumption of an end, as the end is never reached. So the truth is sadder than anything people are arguing here, as it’s the presumptive end that justifies the means that then prevents the end forever.

Jun 15, 2010
Re: 'The problem is that descriptions of crucifixions are remarkably absent in the antique literature,' says Samuelsson.

I'm left to wonder if Samuelsson bothered to actually research ancient literature or if he merely let his biases inform his argument.

It's obvious that he didn't bother reading Josephus or Seneca the Younger.

Jun 15, 2010
otto,
Question: You were taught by people who in turn believed what they were taught, about what the kjv bible was supposed to mean and what you were supposed to find in it.

Duh!
That particular version is little more than cryptic poetry anyway. But do you honestly believe you were given an unbiased account about what is written in there?

Asking that question implies you think I think that. On what basis do you form that opinion?
Were you told the bible is perfect?

Given that I grew up in the buckle of the Bible belt, amazingly, no.
Well it's not.

LOL! (this is fun watching you think I'm a Bible thumper! :)
You should start with that revelation on reexamining the bible.

You're a person full of assumptions and and appear to be full hate based on how hateful you're being about a particular religion and how you're acting towards your fellow man on this board (though, you've been relatively OK with me).

continued...

Jun 15, 2010
For those you who might enjoy some actual history from original sources, there is this snippet from Cicero's oration against Verres, at the trial of the very corrupt Roman governor of Sicily in 71 BC.

For what was your object in ordering the Mamertines, when, according to their regular custom and usage, they had erected the cross behind the city in the Pompeian road, to place it where it looked towards the strait; and in adding, what you can by no means deny, what you said openly in the hearing of every one, that you chose that place in order that the man who said that he was a Roman citizen, might be able from his cross to behold Italy and to look towards his own home? And accordingly, O judges, that cross, for the first time since the foundation of Messana, was erected in that place. A spot commanding a view of Italy was picked out by that man, for the express purpose that the wretched man who was dying in agony and torture might see that the rights of liberty ...

Jun 15, 2010
Parents lie to their children, in good faith, to protect them and to foster maturity. Is that evil?
Depends on how long they continue the lie and what the depth of that lie is. According to your religion, all lies are damnable sins, wether you believe them to be true or not. For tyhe most part, yes. Lying to children is entirely evil, simply because they're not informed enough to seperate fact from fiction.

To those who are insinuating that there are no retellings of crucifixion, that's false. The Romans had instruction manuals on how to do it, many survive today.

To those who say there are any first hand accounts of a Jesus of Nazareth, you're either misinformed or overtly lying.

In these discussions, one cannot stick to fanciful reconstruction, or lying forgery to prove their point.

Jun 15, 2010
Well thats a sneaky point, but we're not children and the churches implication that we are is another way of crippling our self-confidence and enabling that authority to make us do things we normally wouldnt.
Otto, your statement above brings up another point.

What must adults do for children? Well, that's easy. Raise them to adulthood. Bad parents are seen as having children who never really grow up.

Why would the church do the same thing? Well, that's simple. Turn the average savage into a civil adult. I'd say the church was very successful at this back before we had cities, now I think it's time for us to all grow up and lose the lie.

Jun 15, 2010
Otto,
Well sorry, though the assumption was understandable given the tone of your post and the implication that I didnt know what I was talking about.

hehe. Actually, I was pretty sure you had read that and I wanted to know so I could use it in discussions too. The tone was only in your eyes. You're too eager to fight with the other side and are finding bugymen where there are none.. I have lots of discussions with my very religious friends and one point I make a lot is about inconsistencies in the Bible. Having another one at hand is helpful, especially with chapter and verse so they can validate it themselves.

Jun 15, 2010
I have no problem with people having faith. Faith is believing the unbelievable. Personally I don't believe a God would create a universe like this a spend all his time on this insignificant rock. I'd be going from one end to other. This assumes the universe is an experiment of God's and he needs to check things out. That's the version I like anyway.

Actually my main problem with the faithful is their requirement to enlighten us heathens. To force their beliefs down our throat via laws. Have your faith, leave the rest of us alone.

Jun 15, 2010
blyster,

To force their beliefs down our throat via laws.

That's definitely true of Islam, but all religions are different and I see this less and less from the Christian community. Having lived in the buckle of the Bible belt (yah, I think I'll be overusing that phrase), I've only met ONE Christian who said they think ALL Christian laws should be the law of the land. Most Christians I know just want the government to stick to government and stay out of religion.
Have your faith, leave the rest of us alone.

Definitely! But I think it's a strawman argument that the average Christian wants to force their religion on the rest of us. Most Christians I know (and growing) have the EXACT opinion you just stated: "Believe what you want, just leave us alone and keep the politicians out of my Church!"

The human psyche looks for reasons to justify its opposition in an "us vs. them" situation and in this case, I think that strawman argument is one of those.

Jun 15, 2010
continued...

The human psyche looks for reasons to justify its opposition in an "us vs. them" situation and in this case, I think that strawman argument is one of those.

I wanted to be clear... I'm not saying those opposed to Christianity are the only ones that do this. I'm saying EVERYONE does this to some degree or another. I'm just pointing out one example that's relevant here.

Jun 15, 2010
What laws?
Do you support laws based upon the last 7 commandments?

What last 7?

There are only 4 commandments:
1) Sabbath
2) Don't murder
3) Don't Lie
4) I'm your only god.

Everything else is a manipulation of the other 4. Very telling that you don't recognize that.

Jun 16, 2010
{Prior parts edited out}... Why would the church do the same thing? Well, that's simple. Turn the average savage into a civil adult. I'd say the church was very successful at this back before we had cities, now I think it's time for us to all grow up and lose the lie.

While I tend to agree with you and Otto, it's also interesting to note in this regard the disparity between the parochial attitude fostered by churches of the Abrahamic religions towards "civilising savage peoples" and the documented actuality of those peoples (viz. hunter-gatherer or agrarian tribal societies). In the majority of cases studied by competent observers, there is a distinct separation between their (typically multi-theistic) religion and their moral code; the latter is not informed by the former. There are many good reasons for this but one of the best is that in a small tribal society it's not easy to commit a crime and have nobody know so their religion didn't need to spell out the consequences.

Jun 16, 2010
Let the crucifixion end.
Thanks for the insights and replies.

Jun 16, 2010

I notice you didn't mention anything about adultery or coveting your neighbors wife.

Except where I said the rest are a manipulation of the other 4. Both are effectively lying. Like I said, very telling that you don't recognize that.

Jun 16, 2010
People lie to cover bad behaviour. If they or society don't think stealing and adultery are bad behaviour why lie about it?

To steal something you must lie about its ownership, either to yourself or to another.

To commit adultery is lying to your spouse.

The basic tenets of the ten commandments are not even relevant today. This is what happens when you follow a bronze age superstition without revising it as many other more moderate christians do.

Marjon, if your god has a problem with what I do, let him tell me, not you. Bible even states to do so.

Jun 16, 2010
The basic tenets of the ten commandments are not even relevant today.

Which ones are no longer relevant?

According to Christians, all of them.

Jun 17, 2010
Who is the great atheist leader promoting the Golden Rule?

That would be the ancient Egyptian secular laws.
An early example of the Golden Rule that reflects the Ancient Egyptian concept of Maat appears in the story of The Eloquent Peasant which is dated to the Middle Kingdom (c. 2040 - 1650 BCE): "Now this is the command: Do to the doer to cause that he do." An example from a Late Period (c. 1080 - 332 BCE) papyrus: "That which you hate to be done to you, do not do to another."

From:
5.^ "The Culture of Ancient Egypt", John Albert Wilson, p. 121, University of Chicago Press, 1956, ISBN 0-226-90152-1
6.^ "A Late Period Hieratic Wisdom Text: P. Brooklyn 47.218.135", Richard Jasnow, p. 95, University of Chicago Press, 1992, ISBN 978-0-918986-85-6

Just a tad bit before Jesus, isn't it Marjon? Funny thing is, unlike contemporary writings of Jesus, we have a copy of the Maat. Even more humorous, as the Egyprt civ grew, Maat became a goddess figure. Bringer of Law.

Jun 17, 2010
Jesus condensed the 10 Commandments into two:
""'You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.' 38 This is the greatest and first commandment. 39 And a second is like it: 'You shall love your neighbor as yourself.' 40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.""
By the way, wouldn't that be coveting my neighbor's stuff? Bad Jesus, Bad!

Jun 17, 2010
So, still no great atheist who was/is well known for selling the Golden Rule?


How about an Agnostic.

Me. I am a great Agnostic. Treat others as you would have them treat you is a fairly obvious concept. If you had to be told you aren't very moral.

Ethelred

Jun 18, 2010
What point? That you never acknowledge answers or that you you never answer question?
Who is a the great agnostic who is well known for selling the Golden Rule?
You do know that its hard to sell aphorisms don't you?

Perhaps you mean sell the Golden Mean. The Greeks sold that in temple designs.

You don't have a point on this. You seem to be laboring under the bizarre concept that no one could come up with the Golden Rule independent of the Bible. A book that seems to think its OK to murder innocent villagers and enslave both Jews and Non-Jews is not a book to learn morals from.

I am fully capable of being moral without being told that I am not supposed to keep the children of Jewish slaves as slaves as well. I kinda figured it from it not being the way I would like to be treated.

Life may not be fair but I can be.

Without religion.

For instance I wouldn't send a bear to tear 40 children apart because they teased me or others.

Ethelred

Jun 18, 2010
So, still no great atheist who was/is well known for selling the Golden Rule?

Oh, so not only does it have to come from secular reasoning, but it also has to come from a secular person? Gotta love that moving goalpost.

Marjon, there were very few examples of Atheism that are well known to the western world prior to 500BC but how about we go with Epicurus. He advocated the golden rule several hundred years before christianity was a glimmer in a desert nomad's eye. He was a proclaimed non-theist and well known for his statements to the effect.

Jun 18, 2010
You obviously don't understand the point.
Atheists can't seem to give any credit to Jesus for the Golden Rule even though He has been the most popular salesman for the concept for nearly 2000 years.
No he hasn't. He's the most popular one to you because he is well known and you're entirely ignorant of every other culture and group that professed it. Your willful ignorance does not make Jesus a better person, regardless of the fact he never existed.
Maybe this is why so many 'intellectual' atheists are so opposed to free markets
Stop right there. You're not going to start correlating stupid ideas and try to make it a case for your faith. The burden of proof is still on you. We're not going to waste time attempting to prove non-belief.
The motivation of the evangelical atheist is not promoting the Golden Rule.
The motive of the evangelical atheist is total promotion of the golden rule.

Would you prefer we do to you what Christians do to others? Ask Haiti.

Jun 18, 2010
You obviously don't understand the point
You clearly can't admit it when your demands have been met.
Atheists can't seem to give any credit to Jesus for the Golden Rule
Lie. We (including Agnostics)are making it clear to you that Jesus didn't do it first nor last.
most popular salesman
I think even Jesus would be offended by that remark. Would you buy a used religion from Jesus?
for nearly 2000 years.
He has been dead for most of that time. So 2000 years seems a just a bit hyperbolic.
You atheists
Agnostic.
what is more important, promoting the Golden Rule or attacking one of the best salesman for the Golden Rule
What surprise. A false dichotomy from a fanatic. I prefer the truth. He didn't start it and I don't need a dead Rabbi to tell me what is moral. Especially one that told a follower to steal a mule so he ride it.
You do not support the Golden Rule.
Lie. You seem to prefer the Code of the West. Do unto others before they do unto you.

Ethelred

Jun 18, 2010
I think even Jesus would be offended by that remark. Would you buy a used religion from Jesus?
Actually, Marjon, and many others, HAVE bought a used religion from Jesus. One need only know the use of the term "Age" as related to the speech and definitions of the time in which the books of the Gospel were written to understand this. Speaking of which, it's about time for a New New Testament.

OT was the Age of the Ram. NT was the Age of the Fish, I'll have to look up the next one

Jun 18, 2010
It will soon be the age of the water carrier.
You all continue to make my point. You are more opposed to religion than supportive of the Golden Rule.
A manifestation of which is respect others if you want to be respected.

Then perhaps you should respect the multitude of faiths and civilizations that came before your alleged Christ. As well as respecting the intellect of those who are bringing you demonstrable evidence for their points while you finger plug your ears and shriek uncontrollably.

Jun 18, 2010
What is 'moral'? What is the basis of your moral standard?
Do you practice being dense?

Treat others as you would like to treated but take into account the fact that not everyone thinks the same. Its not exactly difficult to come up with.
If your prime motivation is a 'moral' society, why attack those with religious faith who agree?
Why do you keep changing the subject instead of admitting that a person might have had a point?

I didn't attack you. I pointed out that you were wrong and are just being stubborn. Start learning. Stop making things up about the people you discuss things with. Quit changing the subject. Cease the blatant evasions.

Practice the Golden Rule.
The motivation of the evangelical atheist is not promoting the Golden Rule.
How do you know? Where did you find a manual for Evangelical Atheists anyway? Who, besides you, is evangelizing?

Again - I AM AGNOSTIC.

I will promote morals if I feel like it.

Ethelred

Jun 18, 2010
I have witnessed no examples here.
Aside from the fact we're trying to educate you by telling you the truth. While you lie and lie and lie to us, then make up silly questions to ignore what we're telling you. We'd prefer that you do unto us (tell the truth) as we're doing unto you( telling the truth)
What I have observed is the atheists here want to take my property, insult me and attack my faith.
Most congressmen are Christian. If you have an issue with government policy take it up with your religion. I'm willing to bet you can't name an atheist congress person or senator.
Is that what atheists want done to them?
Perhaps you should take a look at what your doing to us within this thread. Continue demonizing us, you won't like what happens over time.

Jun 18, 2010
Why do you go around picking fights with the Atheists and Agnostics?

Why don't you answer questions?

Why do you evade them?

Why do you pretend that people have not shown that Jesus wasn't first?

Why do you refuse to accept the obvious? That the Golden Rule is not the exclusive or even the original property of Christians?

Your behavior is why I posted. I pointed out that, as usual, you are evading, dodging, stumbling over your feet and ATTACKING others.

I take it then, that you do practice being dense.

Where does one take lessons?

The Cato Institute of Gold Worship?

Ethelred

Jun 18, 2010
Random, but relevant points:

1. BOTH sides in this thread have made factual errors.
2. The Golden rule (by other names, or no name at all) was thought of well before Christianity.
3. In today's western culture, the Golden rule was popularized by Jesus (or, at the very least, the Bible).
4. It's reasonable to assume even without it being popularized by Chrstianity, it would still be known in this culture in some other way by some other name.
5. The Golden rule seems obvious and self discoverable to me.
6. You don't need religion to understand the difference between right and wrong.
7. Most religions promote doing good. That has positive benefits for society.
8. Most religions (or people & societies practicing them) have gone through dark times that have severely hurt societies.
9. Not all religions are "intrinsically exclusivist". Most are.
10. Jesus did exist. What can be debated is whether he was God in human form or just a man.
continued...

Jun 18, 2010
11. Rather than arguing "my philosophy or my religion is right and yours is wrong", how about discussing the pillars they rest on. If those are debatable, what are they based on? Are /those/ debatable? Keep working down until you find something that's NOT debatable, then work your way back up, analyzing the first debatable point scientifically. If it can't be proven, then stop there and accept that you're just accepting it on "faith" and then depart on your merry ways.
12. Based on Judeo-Christian beliefs: There's no "thow shalt not lie" commandment. It's "thow shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbor". It's a /specific/ kind of lie that's wrong (according to the 10 commandments)... the kind that hurts innocent people. Telling a lie to protect the innocent is OK as one of the stories in the Bible talks about Mary Magdelen telling a lie to the Romans who came knocking on all doors looking for (I forget who) who was hiding on her roof.
continue...

Jun 18, 2010
Define your morality.

LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU.

That would be the Golden rule in action within the context of this thread and your statements thus far, Marjon.

Jun 18, 2010
(...continued part 3 or 3)
13. Adultery is NOT "telling a lie". It's entirely possible to commit adultery without telling a lie. You could do it right in front of your spouse. Telling a lie to cover up another wrong doesn't make the first wrong a lie. It means you've now committed TWO wrongs. The first wrong AND the lie. (assuming, of course, you believe that type of lie is "wrong" ;)
14. Non-religious morality does exist and is based on the what Christians have labeled "The Golden Rule". Simply put, don't hurt innocent people. If you do, by definition, that's "immoral". This is a concept well known long before Christianity. This neither proves or disproves Christianity. It's just a fact.

Last point:
15. Regardless of who's right or wrong, most everyone in this thread claims to believe or practice the golden rule, but few are actually practicing it in THIS thread! HELLO?!?!?!?! To outside observers, this is crystal clear.

Jun 18, 2010
3. In today's western culture, the Golden rule was popularized by Jesus (or, at the very least, the Bible).
That is not true. The Golden rule was popularized in Western society before the advent of western society. It is what we would call, a Universal truth. Some people need a framework within which to assimilate that manner of group beneficial activity.
5. The Golden rule seems obvious and self discoverable to me.
Again, a self evident truth.
10. Jesus did exist.
There is absolutely no proof of this outside of a collection of stories recorded well after his death and passed off as period contemporary to the illiterate within the region at that time.
What can be debated is whether he was God in human form or just a man.
No, no it can't be debated. If Jesus did exist, he was certainly not divine. Look at Mohammad, he lived, we know this. He was a well known General in the Medinian army who warred with Mecca. He developed a law disbursed by a religion. TBC

Jun 18, 2010
CONT.

That was enforced through military conquest. The difference between Islam and Christianity is the view of the founder. Christianity holds it's founder to be an altruistic man who spread a message through peaceful rhetoric (for the most part). Islam was born of a man who spread his teachings through war and violent rhetoric.

Neither man was ever divine until after their deaths where the followers, who probably never met them, spoke that their own law was the divine word of god. How was it the divine word of god? Well there were a great many laws against claiming divinity in both cultures, but, if someone who is already dead claimed such divinity how would you punish them?

While one was a brutal warrior general, the other (if he ever lived) was potentially a great philosopher of the human condition.

To grant divinity and claim a work of god is to remove the truth of any statement either man could have made. This is why religion is poison. It is based on a lie, always.

Jun 18, 2010
CSharp,
13. Adultery is NOT "telling a lie".
There's a reason why marriage ceremonies start with a "vow". You are violating that oath when you adulter in a marriage within the monogamous Christian religion, as well as within the majority of western society. Breaking that oath is lying ex pos facto.
15. Regardless of who's right or wrong, most everyone in this thread claims to believe or practice the golden rule, but few are actually practicing it in THIS thread! HELLO?!?!?!?! To outside observers, this is crystal clear.
As you may notice we're talking directly to Marjon, and not to Christians on the whole. You and I could debate this rather equitably and perhaps come to some forms of concensus, however, Marjon refuses to listen to anything that doesn't fit his world view, as such we are treating him by the exact tenets of the golden rule. This is why you and I have rather good conversations, while he and I never will.

Jun 18, 2010
What social construct would you suggest using to help people mature and understand what is right and wrong?
Oh I don't know, how about parenting? You learn right and wrong from your parents before you ever have a congent memory of a religious organization.
It does start with the family with grandparents passing on their experiences to the young, who don't listen and repeat the mistakes so they can pass them on to a generation that won't listen because teens and young adults know everything, right?
That may be the way it works in your family structure, in mine we learn to respect wisdom and attempt to avoid the mistakes of our forebearers.
But how is right and wrong defined? If your family owns slaves and you are raised that it is right and proper to own people, is that right?
Well according to the scripture of your religion it is quite alright to have slaves. You simply aren't allowed to beat them to death or cause them to go blind. Read your bible.

Jun 18, 2010
Marjon I wouldn't go too far into linking morality lessons about slavery and the bible's text, if I were you.

Marjon, HYC is correct. The Bible we grew up with does indeed seem to accept slavery as being OK.
You don't need religion to understand the difference between right and wrong.
What social construct would you suggest using to help people mature and understand what is right and wrong?

Marjon, it's been said MULTIPLE times in this thread: The golden rule. This is self evident and does not require religion to either comprehend nor to self-discover.

Jun 18, 2010
Skeptic,
13. Adultery is NOT "telling a lie".
There's a reason why marriage ceremonies start with a "vow"

Definitely true. That's makes it 2 sins: 1 is breaking the vow, the other is the adultery. If you promise not to murder someone, then you murder them, does that mean that only a lie was committed? Of course not. There are two wrongs there. Breaking the promise, and the act you did to break the promise.

This is just a logical argument. We can agree to disagree. I won't refute your further opinions on this one.
This is why you and I have rather good conversations, while he and I never will.

Yep.

Jun 18, 2010
Skeptic, I want to precede this with:

Your posts are usually the ones I look most forward to because your responses almost perfectly reflect your pseudo-name and usually make the most sense and most of your reasoning in this thread does too...

That is not true. The Golden rule was popularized in Western society before the advent of western society

Huh? That doesn't make any sense at all. In modern, western culture, it derived from Christianity:
http://en.wikiped...den_rule

But seriously, what difference does it really make? I think that's the main point you're trying to make anyway, right? Clearly, the concept existed BEFORE Christianity. But it's use in today's modern western culture is derived mostly from Judeo-Christian culture.

(continued...)

Jun 18, 2010
(...continued)

This is not a fight I have a dog in. I'm just pointing out what appears to be a pretty well accepted idea and even Wikipedia has that as well (and no, I don't consider Wikipedia to be the end-all fact checker):

"but its most common English phrasing is attributed to Jesus of Nazareth in the Biblical book of Matthew".

Anyway, I'm not going to spend any more effort on this point since it's not all that important to me. You can post a response to disagree on where current culture derives the current incarnation of the golden rule and I'm fine with that. My points are:
1. The current western incarnation of it seems to be derived from Christianity.
2. It's not important where it was actually derived. It's a minor and insignificant point.

(continue...)

Jun 18, 2010
(...continued)

10. Jesus did exist.
There is absolutely no proof of this outside of a collection of stories recorded well after his death and passed off as period contemporary to the illiterate within the region at that time.


There's plenty outside of the Bible. You can Google it as well as I can, so I won't post those here. I'll certainly grant you that it IS debatable though as there doesn't seem to be overwhelmingly solid proof and I'll certainly grant you that. But there's enough evidence that that I don't have any good reason to doubt there was a man named "Jesus" 2K years or so ago that walked around making the claim that he was the Messiah. I'm not arguing he WAS or was NOT the Messiah... just that there was someone with the name "Jesus" that made the claim... nothing more than that.

(continue...)

Jun 18, 2010
(...continued)

What can be debated is whether he was God in human form or just a man.
No, no it can't be debated.

LOL! The fact that you and Marj are debating it proves it IS debatable. :) Just because it IS debatable, doesn't mean you're not right (or vice/versa). Neither one of you can prove or disprove the existence of a God, whether Jesus was a real person or just a story (much less, if he was the Messiah). Unless there's solid proof one way or the other AND there are people debating both sides, by definition it IS "debatable". Pure logic dictates that is is debatable based on those simple facts. Most of your posts Skeptic_Heretic are usually based in hard logic and I'm usually right on with you. It appears, in a rare case for you though, that you're letting your frustration get in the way. Consider that a compliment to you because I see that the least in your posts than anyone else that posts frequently on this site.

(continue...)

Jun 18, 2010
(..continued 5/5)

Also, don't assume I'm implying that Marj ISN'T letting her emotions get in the way. :)

I snipped the rest of your post, not because I disagree (I don't really), but because it looks like you're trying to make some other argument against Christianity. I'm not here to defend Christianity (as you've seen from my posts on the "croc" article).

Your posts are almost always very rational, but I think Marj has gotten under your skin (as she does with most of us and we're all guilty of it) and you're letting your frustration of her not ceding to reason get to you a little (which, again, is rare for you.. compliment intended).

Anyway, let me back up to the 10,000 foot view:

Marj, unless you have irrefutable logic and/or facts to support the religion you and I grew up in, you're not serving yourself or the religion you and I grew up in by posting it here. You're just giving ammunition to people that have rightfully developed a distaste for it and the people who believe it.

Jun 18, 2010
Marj, unless you have irrefutable logic and/or facts to support the religion you and I grew up in, you're not serving yourself or the religion you and I grew up in by posting it here. You're just giving ammunition to people that have rightfully developed a distaste for it and the people who believe it.

Clarification:

I'm agnostic: I don't refute any particular religion, especially Christianity, since that's the one I was raised in. BUT.... I can't say for sure which religion is right (if any). My logical side keeps saying, "It doesn't seem likely that any religion is right, though I can't disprove it.", while my hard-wired-from-birth-side says, "Don't you DARE refute this religion or you'll burn in hell for eternity!" Since it's been hard-wired since birth, I don't think I will ever get further than that. So, I'm playing it safe and leaving a door open for the possibility. Hopefully, everyone here can at least understand the psychology of that! :)

Jun 18, 2010
As far as right and wrong go, I can decide that slavery is wrong in the absence of a bible telling me it's okay. My sense of right and wrong is instinctive, and I think most other peoples' is too. What this suggests to me is that one's awareness of right from wrong is a trait that has been subject to evolutionary selection pressure for as long as humans have been a social species. Those who have lacked this awareness have been more likely to be in situations where their success rate in reproduction was lower that those with such an awareness.

Well said! The reverse-religious idea is that if there's not an old book with arbitrary rules in it, then people would have no clue whatsoever what's right and wrong. It think it's abundantly clear that people can determine the difference between basic right and wrong without someone telling them "well, God said so".

(continued...)

Jun 18, 2010
(...continued)
Imagine if God told you to rape, torture, mutilate, and murder your mother... Your own sense of right and wrong would tell you to reconsider whether that was actually the voice of God or if it was your own insanity. I could not imagine anyone accepting that as OK even if it seemed like God himself were telling you to do it. Of course, an insane person isn't capable of logic anyway, so they may go ahead and do it. But certainly if you had any sanity, you'd have to question your own sanity if you heard such a command from what you believed to be from God. The point is, anyone would stop and think that it's wrong.

Morality is NOT an arbitrary list of rules. It's real rights and wrongs that are discoverable OUTSIDE of morality... and dare I say it... Some (if not all) of these rights and wrongs ARE absolute and this is from the point of view outside of the need for religion to determine rights and wrongs.

Jun 18, 2010
I'll make the point one more time(this one's for you, Mangy):

The Golden Rule IS.

The golden Rule is PURE; it is FIRST PRINCIPLE; and it is GOLD, BABY!!!

Religion IS DOGMA.

The two are NOT EQUIVALENT.

The Golden Rule IS NOT A DERIVATIVE of religion.

Religion IS NOT NECESSARY to action in accord with the Golden Rule.

From the GOLDEN RULE DERIVES all other moral or ethical principle.

Jun 18, 2010
CS:
Huh? That doesn't make any sense at all. In modern, western culture, it derived from Christianity:
http://en.wikiped...den_rule
Actually no, it wasn't. The Golden rule originates with the earliest civilizations. Since our codified knowledge originates with writing one can state that there is a possiblity that a self-evident ideal, that is universally accepted, didn't originate with any particular subset of people, it originated with human thought. Besides, the Greeks are the basis of western Civ and the golden rule was the foundation of their society.

Humans are communal animals, and if you don't think we're animals, well, that's another conversation. In order for communal animals to work together we must be able to group up. To group up automatically causes strife as we all need resources, so "moral" animals, or animals with similar sets of natural rules will survive where animals with disparate rules won't. The reason we have morality is that we ARE morality.

Jun 18, 2010
And CS,

Do you really think what Marjon does qualifies as debate? I can randomly ask inane questions and propose strawman arguments but that isn't debate, it's prosetlyzing.

A group of rather sound Christian humanitarians stood on the rubble of a rival church establishment, while there were people in that rubble dead and dying. Their statement was "God spoke here." They didn't move the rubble and save the people, they preached to the living while the dying served as an example.

That is pure evil, and that is the worst of what religion is. Marjon embodies the worst of religious evils and is completely ignorant of why it is evil. That is my contention witgh him/her/it, and that is why my comments tend to have a bit more of an edge in our converse. I don't suffer evil for long, and I don't allow evil teachings, regardless of true intent, to permeate the body of human knowledge.

Also, there isn't one source stating Jesus was a person outside of the Bible. All are forgeries. Pm

Jun 18, 2010
There is not one piece of physical evidence to support crucification event actually took place.

Jun 18, 2010
I think Marjon is unable to remove the filter of Religion. I think his/her intent is good, if misguided. Marjon's certainly not advocating crushing buildings with people inside in the name of God (unless I missed a post :)

I think Marjon would be served well to step back and ask her/himself, "How do I know MY religion is the right one?" and "How do I know ANY religion is the right one?" and "How do I know there is even a God?"

Those are VERY TOUGH questions to ask when you've been steeped in it from birth, but I think they are absolutely necessary. If *I* were God and someone expected to come into MY paradise and they couldn't give a reason other than "I blindly followed whatever I was raised in", I'd say, "Then how do you know you're right and why should I accept you here?" Just because your parents told you so, is not a good enough reason. While doing this literal soul searching, you might open your eyes to some otherwise unlikely revelations, even if they may be disturbing.

Jun 18, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 18, 2010
Conversely, atheists who attempt to attack faith with science is baseless.

This is true too, unless they're attacking something that IS provable, like the world isn't the center of the universe, the sun is spherical, the Earth revolves around the sun, etc... all things that religion used to use as central themes that science was able to disprove.

But, you're right to an extent. The existence of God can neither be proven nor disproven with science.

Marjon does deserve credit for making it clear (even if we fail to hear it sometimes) that his/her belief is based without proof.

Maybe you should step back for a moment and clarify what it is you're trying to get at, then explain in further detail. It looks like this conversation is whacking out in many unmanageable directions and assumptions on top of assumptions are making it a useless exercise.

Jun 18, 2010
"People of faith ask themselves this all the time."

"Christianity is based upon faith. Faith is belief without proof."

So why would they constantly ask themselves "where is the proof" when the one and only answer is "there is none and never will be any"?

I suggest that the last thing "people of faith" do is question their belief system.

If that were true, they would have to stand accountable for answers to questions such as:

"do you believe Jesus is really a zombie?"

"do you believe Jesus can really fly (ascend) to Heaven?"

"where is Heaven?"

Questions they either have to sound ridiculous answering affirmative to or simply throw their hands up and cop out with "faith is belief without proof! I just believe for the fun of it."

It is clear that serious thought is something zealots lack - they are content to agree to a paradigm as originally presented to them. And as long as they don't question the belief system of the herd, they will always have the herd to back them up.

Jun 18, 2010
I support a libertarian view of respecting the property rights (including one's life, liberty) of individuals. Many here do not.


What I do not support are "people" like "you" hiding behind the notion of a "freemarket"(ie, "property rights") as carte blanche to take what you want, and to hell with everyone else. You turn a blind eye, and willful ignorance to all evidence of the immorality and outright treachery of the freemarket. If the recent collapse of the global economy, and -more recently still- the BP disaster aren't enough to illustrate the inherent immorality in your precious system, then you truly do live in a hole, spewing noise from your datapoint armchair.
You suck. You suck so hard that you blow. That must be how you make all that noise.

Jun 18, 2010
No one takes anything by force in a free market. All trades are voluntary.


Like, for instance, all the freemarket gold taken from the New World? Like, for instance the diamonds mined and sold by South Africa? Like, for instance the cotton and rice grown in the pre-civil war American South? Or the sugar grown in Haiti?

Your willful ignorance and hypocrisy are boundless.

Jun 18, 2010
Like, for instance, all the freemarket gold taken from the New World? Like, for instance the diamonds mined and sold by South Africa? Like, for instance the cotton and rice grown in the pre-civil war American South? Or the sugar grown in Haiti?

Your willful ignorance and hypocrisy are boundless.


Um, all those examples you gave are NOT "free market capitalism".

The principles of free market trade are simple: You provide something of value (product or service) and people pay you for it. You buy what you want, if you can afford it and it's worth it. If the asking price is too high, you reject it. You sell something at a price you'd like to get for it. The market decides if your price is right or not by buying it or not.

It's pretty simple and it's pretty fair.

Our current economic system is a hodge-podge of free-market and socialism.

(continue...)

Jun 18, 2010
(...continued)

When it comes to acquiring natural resources is not necessarily in the scope of "free market". Free market pertains to goods or services you already own and you have the right to trade them with others who have goods or services (or the universal converter of goods and services known as "currency"). Governments generally decide who gets to take the natural resources (rightly or wrongly), then free market kicks in after that.

Free market is simply the idea that you get to charge what you want for your own goods or services and you have the right to choose to buy or not buy goods or services from others.

Greed and corrupted individuals participate in ALL economic systems. Everybody wants more and many will bend or break the rules to acquire more IN ALL ECONOMIC SYSTEMS!

Jun 18, 2010


Um, all those examples you gave are NOT "free market capitalism".


Um, do you mean to say, Csharpener, that those products were not traded in a free market? Do you fail to see the direct connection between the origin and means of production of goods and the free market? Do you wish to say that the free market does not include those origins and means?

Our current economy is most certainly not a hodge podge of free market and socialism. It is a free market system subject to regulation to (supposedly, at least) prevent the worst excesses of the free market model.

You can probably judge for yourself how well that whole deal has worked. Especially if you don't make the intellectual/ideological mistake of trying to divest the free market of the many sins that provide its basis.

Jun 18, 2010
choose selective phrases

Why waste time on the fluff?

the recent collapse of the global economy,


Has NOTHING to do with a free market and everything to do with government control of the market.

You suck. You suck so hard that you blow. That must be how you make all that noise.

Another data point.


Yes, and that datapoint armchair just keeps getting bigger, the more noise you make sucking from your hole.

Jun 18, 2010
Conversely, atheists who attempt to attack faith with science is baseless.
How about those who attack faith with logic? I've never used science to try to prove or disprove any being. I've used logic to disprove your stances on multiple occasions. God isn't illogical, neither is belief that there could be a god, as I held for quite a while. It is highly illogical to believe in a personal god that is interested in your daily affairs, especially now that we know the size and scope of the universe. It would also be illogical to state that a creator god would be "perfect" if it required the immense timelines and sheer wastefulness to come up with us.

You will not ever find a scientist talking within the realm of science who will say there is no such thing as A god. You will find the vast majority of them will say there is no particular god, and just about all of them will tell you that organized religion is ridiculous due to the dogma, not the faith.

Jun 18, 2010
For, as war is inevitable, so is human Planning and Forethought.
From time to time you and I disagree, and when we do it always leads to better understanding on both our parts.

I disagree that war is inevitable in all cases. Today, due to the relative ignorance of the species, I agree that war is inevitable, however, do you envision a time when our war with ourself will cease and we'll begin to wage war against our problems rather than in behest of our patronage?

Jun 18, 2010
I disagree that war is inevitable in all cases.

"We must continue to fight and hopefully prevail through reason and argument against what Adam Smith referred to in 1776 as the "prejudices of the public" (the economic ignorance of our fellow men) and the opposition of the "private interests" (those who wish to use the power of the state to plunder others in society).[14] Until we do, free trade will not replace and then help to prevent future wars. "
http://mises.org/daily/915


Free trade will never replace warfare, moron.
In case mangy hasn't noticed, all warfare is not the result of inequitable resource distribution.

Speaking of the inequitable distribution of resources, God spent an inordinant amount of time beating you with the stupid stick, and thereby made you the envy of everyone here. You should replace Him with your freemarket. Oh, wait- you already did, and His name is MAMMON.

MARJON=MAMMON?
Either way, stinks to High Heaven!

Jun 18, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.

Jun 18, 2010
I would say that devout religion and its views in general are at odds with nature. They would have us breed well past the carrying capacity of the earth so there can be more followers. They ignore the fact that nothing in nature can prove any god exists or had to have acted. In fact, god and religion are a whole extra step we just don't need to explain anything. God got cut down by occam's razor long ago.

Jun 18, 2010
Wow, I wonder why the freewill article (http://www.physor...15.html) hasn't recieved this much attention.

This article is of particlar interest to me because I've often wondered of what reputable sources recorded what Christians (a.k.a. revisionists) claimed happened to their Jesus, not about if it happened but what supposedly went on.

I've wondered to my self where outside the Bible could I learn about the Jesuses that have been crucified. I've learned that Buddha was Siddhartha Gautama and is very likely to have existed. Jesuses on the other hand do seem to hit a few problems when trying to validate the claims associated as evidence.

I think Bob B may have struck a cord by saying what the article implied, with his own rhetoric about how Jesus and religion being bogus, that crucifixions weren't carried out the way most Christians suggest. Guess the article also means Mel Gibson owes a few refunds.

Jun 18, 2010
Saying that you can't rule something out and therefore that same thing does or must exist is fallacious. I've also never been aware that the point of theoretical physics has anything to do with god. Scientists may be religious sure, and some may try to find evidence of god, but physics is about natual, as opposed to supernatural, phenomena.

There will always be limits to what you or I know. How is that proof of anything other than a finite brain capacity? Unexplained does not mean god did it.

Jun 19, 2010
I read this hoping, not expecting, that this time Marjon would actually engage in a reasoned debate. Without evasions or mendacity. Without putting words in peoples mouths or ignoring the hard questions and honest answers.

Perhaps even admitting to the obvious. That you don't have to be religious to treat others decently.

He won't do that despite the clear and abundant evidence presented here and in other threads.

Any time you want to ACTUALLY engage in rational discourse and honest debate I will happy to try to do such a thing with Marjon. But it is waste of time to try to be fair with someone that refuses to reciprocate.

Which in no way implies that I will not point out Marjon's frequent nonsense and errors and the ever present evasions.

In other words until Marjon engages in actual debate I will take pot shots whenever I feel like it but will not reply to him UNLESS AND UNTIL he actually begins to respond to what people REALLY SAID.

Ethelred

Jun 19, 2010
Wow, I wonder why the freewill article (http://www.physor...15.html) hasn't recieved this much attention.

Because freewill is impossible. Christians can't have it because their god has 4 attributes that prevent freewill from being possible: all-knowing, all-seeing, irrespective of time, creator of everything. Simply through foreknolwedge and responsibility for creation, there cannot be freewill. It's a simple logic problem that all of the faithful (with rare exception) fail.
Not according to some theoretical physicists.

If you require a God that has no creator himself, to create the Universe, just say the universe has no creator and you're in the exact same boat, sans god. There's no need for a creator, simply apply the same logic without one. Doesn't mean it's right, but it is probably less wrong.

Jun 19, 2010
How can you absolutely rule it out?

By not chaulking it up to god and investigating. That is the difference between you and I. I don't have a limit to where I will apply my reason while you are horribly self limiting in where you allow your curiousity to tread.

Will you at least agree that a simple science experiment can disprove your god?

Here's the experiement. God is all powerful, and states that if two people of faith hold something to be true, and pray for it from god, he shall make it so. Now I know there are many faithful reading this conversation, I encourage you all to participate. I'm going to post a score, if god is real, and you all pray for him to change it, the score must change, as states god's perfect word.

Me:1
God:0

I give myself a point because, he's god, consider it a handicap as I'm not divine. Now if in 4 days, the score remains 1 to 0 in my favor, god cannot exist as stated in the Bible. Ready? Go.

Jun 19, 2010
You said God is all powerful, why must it change? Who are you that God must prove himself to you?

Your Bible says so:

Matt 18:19 "Again I say unto you, That if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in heaven."

So it doesn't even require faith. Let's do it marjon. Do you agree that God can, and since we both request it, will prove it by changing the score? If not, then you simply don't have any faith in your God and as such don't even have faith enough to put your statements about god on the line. That's fear. You're merely afraid that I CAN and HAVE proved that your god does not exist by using a framework that is central to your religion and cannot be disputed within your logical framework.

This means I've also proven that you have doubt, and since you have doubt, your Bible states that you ARE NOT a Christian. In the words of The Doctor, "I'm sorry, I'm so sorry."

Jun 19, 2010
What is 'reasoned' debate? I see very little of that.


Of course you don't see that. You don't engage with reality in any way.

I tried. You evaded. You insisted that questions weren't answered by the simple expedient of PRETENDING that they weren't.

YOU don't reason. Of course, that is what faith IS. UNREASON. Belief despite evidence. You are ACTIVELY ignorant. Aggressively so.

So you don't see it. Even when it is pointed out multiple times. You seem to under the delusion that reality will go away if you deny it.

Quit pretending and start dealing with reality or you will never SEE attempts at reasoned debate since you don't want to see them.

Ethelred

Jun 19, 2010
Science and religion really have no quarrel. Narrowness of perception cause the conflicts due to unrealistic boundaries being set on want is allowable.
For those with both a scientific interest, and spiritual bent, the Urantia Book will both challenge the deepest intellect, and amaze by its breadth and scope.

Jun 19, 2010
And Lo! A cry is heard in the wilderness...no, wait, just the bleating of a deluded knucklehead.

Wherefor doth mangy bleat- doth thy datapoint armchair pain thee?

Jun 19, 2010
Marjon I think you are mistaking the source of hostility towards christianity. I really don't mind what anyone wants to believe. However, when those beliefs have a major impact on my life I start to care. The majority of our lawmakers at this time believe the christ fairytale, so it begins to carry weight of law. That is wrong. No right to die because god doesn't like it? It feels sickening to say this, but I really wish a long, horrible, wasting terminal illness on those who cannot show compassion because they are afraid of fucking up their bid for an afterlife. How about lack of sex education due to religious values? That is majorly hurting this country. Again, I don't care what you believe, until it is forced on me or impacting me. And that is precisely what is happening. Hence, I will try to tear down and abolish this fairytale any chance I get.

Jun 19, 2010
Also, I would put forth as examples Japan and Sweden. They are two of the most atheist countries in the world. I know at least in the case of Japan they have one of the lowest crime rates and longest life spans of any nation. How is religion a necessary component of a cohesive and moral society?

Jun 19, 2010
Just a remark after having lived for 68 years: I would have been a much better person with far fewer regrets if my parents did not send me to church for a so-called "Christian upbringing". When I was born I knew instinctively that I should do to other people as I expect them to do unto me (Marjon's "Golden Rule"). The Christian Church destroyed much of this decency in me during my youth.

In either case: Anybody who believes it is his/her duty to protect and defend his/her God against insults and disbelief, does not have any faith worth taking notice of. It is a pathetic God who cannot act in His own interest!

Jun 19, 2010
Cry us a river, mangy -oops! Careful not to flood the mangy hole! Or maybe you could just blow bubbles. Bubbles have about as much weight as your other contributions.

Jun 19, 2010
My parents told me there was a Santa Claus, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, and a god. How many of those were a lie?
Where did Mrs Cain come from?

Jun 19, 2010
i'm sure someone or the other here has brought this point up--but where is the purpose in debating an issue which is not in any way falsifiable? (existence of god and so forth) and much as i disagree with marjon, i find some of the insults directed towards him/her to be in terrible taste-it weakens the argument being presented and is superlatively immature.

Jun 19, 2010
"as if merely two Christians agreeing on whatever carnal object or purpose occurs to them obligates God to grant their wish. No, since it is tied in with the next verse it must share, also, the same application: church discipline." http://www.reveli...h-verse/
Read Mathew 18 in context.

I've read the whole book, while you haven't read a page aside from those we've produced for you.
I am attacked for being a Christian and I am not the one continuously quoting from the Bible. The atheists are doing that. Why?
Well because it's the best ammo against a "Christian".
i'm sure someone or the other here has brought this point up--but where is the purpose in debating an issue which is not in any way falsifiable?
See above, the experiment is currently running. As so far, God is falsified.

And dtxx: high five. Now watch him try to change the subject to another topic he has no idea of. Economics.

Jun 19, 2010
Or I should say, as so far, the Christian God is falsified.

A youtube user went ahead and falsified Allah using a similar methodology, which I've changed a little and implemented above. Thunderf00t is his name if you'd like to look up his vids. He's rather eloquent and a bit of a firebrand.

Jun 19, 2010
Hmm, otto I think I understand some of your unusual capitalization now. Ich spreche kein Deutsch :)

Jun 19, 2010

For me, and Marjon you may have argued this, religion is about values to live by.

For the longest time I tended to be agnostic and science ruled my thought. After going through a difficult time, I realized why many people turn to a greater being for strength: so that they may imitate Him (be better people). "Faith in God" means also belief in God's rules or morals. It is important to learn morals from Him because no man is perfect. This is similar to way that rights of individuals in the US come from God not government; the importance of this lies in the fact that those rights can never be taken away.

I believe religion and science can coexist. Being religious is not about waiting for miracles but rather about taking the mantle and asking the best out of oneself. If I were given examples of how my faith harms others or myself I would gladly give it up for pure scientific thought.

The value of tolerance, and distaste of ignorance, is not always lost on the religious.

Jun 20, 2010
Please don't bring up rights. First of all, rights are purely a construct created by human intellect. Here in the USA we get our rights from the constitution. Go to Somalia and see what rights you have.

Just as an example from christianity, how about the rights of jewish slaves not to be beaten to death or blinded? Where are their inalienable, god endowed rights that we feel we have?

I would argue that you have no rights whatsoever in the face of a deity who will throw you into eternal anguish for not doing precisely, exactly what he tells you. Rights are not conditional, or guess what... they aren't rights.

What am I missing?

Jun 20, 2010
I point out the intolerance, by those who claim they are tolerant, towards those who have faith.

Marjon: So why are you crying? Your prophet Jesus told his followers that it is going to be like this. Be happy that you are following the road and stop attacking other people who all have the inalieniable right, granted to them by God no less, to be intolerant of your views. Why are you intolerant of intolerant people when you have been advised "to turn the other cheek"?

Jun 20, 2010
That being said I agree with marjon's first posting about the 'right to insult',

If everyone has freedom of speech, everyone has the privilege of being insulted from time to time. If he didn't want to be insulted, perhaps he should've followed the golden rule.

Jun 20, 2010
These debates waste time......we would be better just to get on with it and research and create for a better life

We are here now whether god is real or not.....lets make the most of our time....with 500 billion galaxies MINIMUM why the hell do we do this to ourselves

Jun 20, 2010
We are here now whether god is real or not.....lets make the most of our time....with 500 billion galaxies MINIMUM why the hell do we do this to ourselves
Because the people with the money believe in Christ for the most part, and as such they won't spend it on research that potentially invalidates their creator myth. It's astounding that we've come this far.

Jun 20, 2010
Jesus/Crucifixion represents the fixing of the first point -zero degree -of Aries the ram (little sheep) on the cross Pisces the fish which look like the cross symbol(+)
The little sheep-Aries-was crucified on the cross-Pisces. It is the junction point of Aries and Pisces of Sidereal Zodiac. It is a celestial astrological event. The drama of crucifixion was celebrated even before Jesus Christ. I think in the Bible,there are many references to astrology. For example. Virgin Mary represents the Zodiac sign, Virgo. The polar opposite sign is Pisces, which represents compassion and self sacrifice by which Christ is known. Otherwise virgin birth itself is an impossibility. The father, Child and Holy Ghost represent the 1st sign Aries, (The Holy Ghost-the self), the 5th sign, Leo (Child), and 7th sign Sagittarius (Father) This is the trinity.

Jun 20, 2010
This is the trinity.
You should have summed it up with "and this is bullshit".

Jun 20, 2010
Belief in fantasy is extremely Useful. If people will fall for concepts like the trinity and the soul, they'll believe anything, if it is delivered with sufficient Authority.


This is a GREAT TRUTH. The theoretical physicists do the same: They believe in EVEN more impossible fantasies, like: Wave-particle duality, probability amplitudes, and complementarity: The latter "trinity" is far more BS than the trinity of Christianity. And in fact it can be proved by simple experiment and logic that it is ABSOLUTE nonsense! Even so the theoretical physicists cling to it with far more devotion than I have found religious people clinging to a concept like the Christian Trinity! I will rather believe a fundamentalist Christian than a modern theoretical physicist. At least they are FAR LESS dogmatic in their beliefs.

Jun 20, 2010
How about this:

Religion Physics

God Wave
Son Particle
Holy Spirit Probability

Who is correct?. Religion has a better chance because I can prove that physics is wrong!!

Jun 20, 2010
Oh did I forget the rothschilds? Silly me.
http://www.univer...ypotter/
-Best to entrap them as young as possible.

You also forgot the Blackmoors and the House of Gelph.

Jun 20, 2010
skeptic_heretic,

What I am saying is, this is The Trinity Christianity refers to. Or means. I don't know whether they know it or not. If it is BS i will call it so. I will not bother to post it. Unfortunately it is not.

Jun 20, 2010
Don't 'intelligent', 'rational' people advocate 'tolerance'?
Those that are not tolerant are 1)not intelligent, 2) irrational, 3) hypocrites. Or, does being anti-religion give sanction to immoral behaviour?

Actually the term tolerance is born of Christian schools of thought making their way into mainstream politics. The PC movement is YOUR movement. Not mine. I advocate the freedom of speech ideal that rails against anti-blasphemy laws and encourages derision of outdated institutions like yours, and by that I mean creationism and blind faith in lieu of evidence.
What I am saying is, this is The Trinity Christianity refers to. Or means. I don't know whether they know it or not.
No, it's complete crap. The trinity was born of the Council of Nicea trying to determine a way to rectify the discordant teachings of the various sects of Christianity. They took a raised hand vote to state that Jesus was divine in nature and part of god. This is known fact.

Jun 20, 2010
Don't 'intelligent', 'rational' people advocate 'tolerance'?

No! Should you be tolerant of a murderer, a rapist etc. There is no reason to be tolerant with wrong beliefs. Be tolerant to allow people to believe wrong ideas, but do not tolerate it when these ideas lead to murder and mayhem; as happenned in ALL religions I have come across in my life (maybe Buddhism is an exception; but I do not have any evidence in this case and would not be surprised if it also happenned in this case). Any organisation always deteriorates into sickness with time. For this resaon alone, all organisations should not be allowed a lifespan of more than 10 years.

Jun 20, 2010
Skeptic,

I don't know the real origin of Christian Trinity. May be you are right. But the crucifixion of the little sheep (or ram) on the cross really coincides with Aries and Pisces conjunction. It is not crap completely. What about Virgin Mary giving birth. It is symbolic of the birth of Jesus. Some connection with the sign Virgo. The character Jesus truly represents Pisces, which is the opposite sign of Virgo. Christ's message is Compassion and self-sacrifice. It is not the physical self. But the ego/mind. Religion makes use of symbology. If we mistake the symbol for the actual. we are in error.

Jun 20, 2010
One more thing. I still think The Concept of Trinity must have originated from Aries-Leo-Sagittarius Trinity. Because, Aries represents in astrology, the first house which denotes the Self. Leo represents 5th house of the Offspring, or child (creativity also) and the 9th house represents the father by the Sagittarius sign. Astrology dates back to time immemorial. And it is a discovery. So many people must have got these ideas from Astrology. Why Christianity prohibits the practice of astrology? What do you think?

Jun 20, 2010
@JfP
but do not tolerate it when these ideas lead to murder and mayhem; as happenned in ALL religions I have come across in my life (maybe Buddhism is an exception; but I do not have any evidence in this case and would not be surprised if it also happenned in this case).
The Tamil Buddhists were the first to employ suicide bombing to get their political point across against a counter theocracy.@Mr.E
I don't know the real origin of Christian Trinity...One more thing. I still think The Concept of Trinity must have originated from Aries-Leo-Sagittarius Trinity.
So in light of the evidence you still hold to your personal dogma.
Astrology dates back to time immemorial. And it is a discovery. So many people must have got these ideas from Astrology. Why Christianity prohibits the practice of astrology?
As I said above, the significance is thus. The sun rises in the constellation of the RAM, Moses symbol is...The Ram. Jesus is the fish, guess where the sun rises? Pisces.

Jun 20, 2010
All of these religious stories are filtered down from times, referred to as ages, where the religious iconography follows the positional rising of the sun within a constellation. Christianity prohibits astrology so they will not be completely discarded in a few decades when the sun begins rising in the symbol of Aquarius, the water bringer.

As Jesus himself said, "I will be with you until the end of the age."

All religious dogma is thinly veiled astrology and sun worship turned into stories of morality as told by people who believed the stars guided the fate of mankind.

Science has killed this practice, it's time for its adherants to educate themselves and recognize this. We're out of the Bronze age, time to think and act like it.

Jun 20, 2010
J.Krishnamurti has said that All organizations are against the individual. Osho has said that the Freedom of the individual is the death of the organization.
I like the title of the former's book 'Freedom from the known' and 'Education and the significance of life'. Osho's 'One Earth, One humanity' is also my favorite. Ekhart tolle's 'Power of NOW' and 'A new earth' are also provide answers to our problems. They have put human problems to a nicety. Just my style.

Jun 20, 2010
@HaveYou.

All very good, meaningful, legitimate questions. Unfortunately, one thing that you may depend upon is that they will not recieve any thoughtful treatment from the thing I refer to as mangy.

I know that some of you are displeased by my total rejection of mangy's position, and my seemingly unfeeling, unrelenting derision of mangy's every word.

However, it should be clear to everyone that mangy's purpose here is not to seek enlightenment; engage in spirited debate; speculate, nor give rein to the imagination after some new revelation regarding our universe is published here.

No, mangy's purpose is to derail meaningful discourse, to obfuscate, to sow discord -in short: to generate noise to drown any meaning inherent in the debate that should be possible in this forum.

Essentially -just as in the principles(religious, political, economic) mangy espouses- it is mangy's purpose here to stifle discourse, to arrest insight, to PREVENT HUMAN PROGRESS.


Jun 20, 2010
@HYC,

Well, the definition of "murder" has been pretty loose, historically, and has always been ignored when it was expedient to do so.

State and Religion are equivalent in all the ways that matter to individuals, and exist for the same purpose, which is actually supra-tribal, and that purpose is CONTROL. Sometimes that control is directed, more or less benevolent, and evolutionarily sound, but almost always it is for the purpose of accumulating wealth, and thereby, power.

In that regard, the group regulates the behavior of the individual, to ensure that the individual produces the wealth that is accumulated by the "Elite".

Religion and the "Free Market" are but two of the structures that are cynically manipulated by the Elite to push this agenda of greed, by any available means, and largely without regard to the consequences, which "we, the people" are a buffer against. And that way lies Death.

Thus, my contempt for a puppet/tool like mangy- a willing servant.

CONT

Jun 20, 2010
HYC,

Spot on. You've articulated a number of things I intended to bring up- and probably done so better than I would have, while simultaneously addressing the specific AND the general! I suppose now I can rest my outrage for a while. Excellent work!

Jun 20, 2010
Mangy!

What's the matter? Your bleats are weak, and getting weaker- barely possessed of the strength to escape the confines of the mangyhole!
Has the datapoint armchair swollen to such proportions as to stifle the bleat?
Then you'll just have to SUCK HARDER, mangy!
Mangy- SUCK HARDER!

Jun 21, 2010
Do you understand the difference between collective 'rights' and individual rights? Individuals get trampled in the rush to 'benefit mankind'.

Yes the Christian Churches have burned them at the stake and are now excommunicating and "shunning" them.

Jun 21, 2010
Marjon, of all people, actually had the gall to put forth this bit of accidental irony:
Write much, say little.
Such hypocrisy.

Ethelred

Jun 21, 2010
Marjon distorted reality with this post:
I am attacked for being a Christian


No. YOU attacked AS a Christian because someone said something, that was NOT directed at YOU, that you found offensive because it smacked of too much reality.

Ethelred

Jun 21, 2010
For those with both a scientific interest, and spiritual bent, the Urantia Book will both challenge the deepest intellect, and amaze by its breadth and scope.
Well it will challenge ones ability to not laugh themselves sick.

http://www.skepdi...tia.html
http://en.wikiped...tia_Book
The Object of Derision itself
http://www.uranti...ook/read

Choice quotes

The preuniverse manipulations of space-force and the primordial energies are the work of the Paradise Master Force Organizers; but in the superuniverse domains, when emergent energy becomes responsive to local or linear gravity, they retire in favor of the power directors of the superuniverse concerned.


Continued

Jun 21, 2010
Yet more wonderfully silly stuff from The Book of Unrantia.

Satania is not a uniform physical system, a single astronomic unit or organization. Its 619 inhabited worlds are located in over five hundred different physical systems. Only five have more than two inhabited worlds, and of these only one has four peopled planets, while there are forty-six having two inhabited worlds.


My favorite
987,000,000,000 years ago associate force organizer and then acting inspector number 811,307 of the Orvonton series, traveling out from Uversa, reported to the Ancients of Days that space conditions were favorable for the initiation of materialization phenomena in a certain sector of the, then, easterly segment of Orvonton.


Any claim of cherry picking will be laughed at. As will anyone that can consume such rubbish and pronounce it good.

Ethelred

Jun 21, 2010
Any claim of cherry picking will be laughed at. As will anyone that can consume such rubbish and pronounce it good.
It's amazing that if this book was published around say, I don't know 150 AD, it might be the very religion we would be discussing on this very page.

There's a reason why there's a Church of Elvis the Divine. Died on the John, buried, seen eating a hotdog in Nevada 3 days later....


Jun 21, 2010
Another strange Marjon post
Never heard of you before.


Nonsense. I have replied to your silliness many times. You have ignored my wisdom in all instances. Usually evading all facts.

Tesla invented radio, but Marconi received the credit.


Nonsense. Tesla recieved a PATENT for an idea and thus real credit in the USA via royalties. Marconi made it WORK and deserves credit for that.

It is the person who can make the idea stick that will be most remembered and associated with the idea.


So then, you agree that MARCONI deserves the credit for radio?

Ethelred

Jun 21, 2010
Ethel: Do you support, defend and agree with auto,


Otto has issues. A subscription in fact. However he does often have a point buried amongst the silliness. Like you he a fondness for invisible sources but at least he doesn't evade questions.

Ethelred

Jun 21, 2010
Internally, conservatives give more of themselves and their money to charity than 'liberals'.


That is counting giving money to religion. Subtract that out and the get the REAL amount given to charity.

No I don't know the answer but clearly the Before is significantly greater than the After.

In other words, as long a you include money given to pay for an invisible product that claim is based on dubious figures.

Ethelred

Jun 21, 2010

Read the book. It was written by a liberal.
And that has no affect on what he is saying. Your rebuttal of "it's in the book" is getting very tired.
Big corporations can afford the overhead to deal with govt regs keeping out the smaller, more innovative companies.
Your free market statements are also getting very tired. Big companies have the ability to copy and reproduce a small companie's technology almost overnight. How would a small computer startup function against HP in a free market, you know, where there's no such thing as patent laws?

Jun 21, 2010
Ever hear of lawsuits?
It is usually cheaper for the big company to buy the technology from the smaller company. Happens all the time.
Under what law, moron? Free Market, remember?

Jun 21, 2010
Otto,
Thanks for the link. The word Horus points towards Astrology. Horus/hour/horo came from the sanskrit Hora which is from 'Ahorathram' which is actually a 4 lettered word (not obscene)in Sanskrit. A(ho+ra)thram means day+night which is 24 hora(hours) in a day. Definitely The trinity must have come from Aries-Leo-Sag. combination. I am referring here to Sidereal Zodiac not tropical which is fallacious. I hope some one may call all this BS. so that I can stop this. Because I am not only lazy, but hard pressed for time. Thanks for reading.

Jun 21, 2010
I am referring here to Sidereal Zodiac not tropical which is fallacious. I hope some one may call all this BS. so that I can stop this.
I already have and you've failed to listen. Thank you for proving yourself to be yet another pseudoscience troll. As a Cyril Fagan follower you should be aware that Mr. Fagan often had to consume large amounts of narcotics before he engaged in any of his work, simply because a properly functional mind wouldn't be able to say what he said without shitting its pants in laughter.
You said you developed anti-cancer drugs and new rice. That not the same.
I support free market development of products that will benefit health and well being and they need to make a profit to stay in business.
So you really are retarded.

Jun 21, 2010
It is called a contract. We currently have trademark and copyright laws, but it is not required for these laws to be administered by a government.
What contract? You put a product out to market, I buy one and copy it. I have a bigger and better factory. You are out of business.

Welcome to the free market. You keep asking for a free market but you don't know what one is or how one works. THERE ARE NO LAWS OR CONTRACTUAL AUTHORITY IN A FREE MARKET. The government not only won't get involved, THEY CAN'T GET INVOLVED in a free market.

You're so stupid it's becomming difficult to continue this constant education for you. Perhaps that's why you're so dumb, your teachers jsut got sick of hearing the same stupid unrelated statements and questions over and over and over.

Jun 21, 2010
Try it.
People have been copying Coke for quite some time and they are still in business.
Because there are IP laws preventing it.
Why do continue to make false assertions?
Who is the protector of IP and manufacturing methods in a free market Marjon? If you say government, it's not a free market. Go ahead, tell me who is responsible.
Do you believe Hell exits?
If hell exists I'll be tortured by being forced to engage in conversations with you for all of eternity.
SH can't agree to the definition of a free market for example.
Uh no. You jsut don't know what a free market is. I've stated the definition multiple times now.
No one here, except for me, will agree to Mises's definition of socialism, state control of property.
Because von Mises and his opinion are neither an authority, nor relevant to the concept of socialism in a definitive mechanical view.

Jun 21, 2010
Unlike you, Marjon, I've actually read von Mises, and Marx, and Paine, and Young, and Forsythe, and Carnegie, and jsut about every other famous or infamous book on economic principle.

You want an example of government that is in line with the common and accepted definition of socialism? Technocracy. Do you know what that is? That is when the ruling class doesn't rule, they simply apply the scientific method to all forms of problem both social and economic in order to provide net benefit for all people and all classes. Beyond that everything is a flavor of capitalism, oligarcy, or theocracy.

You want to call me a socialist? Go ahead. I'd far prefer a government that can methodically reason within fields of expertise utilizing the expert mental resources of society regardless of what morons like yourself think they prefer after watching a few episodes of Beck.

But don't you worry, it'll never happen. Because as long as the church exists, the only authority you'll pay is church

Jun 21, 2010
The 'free' in free market means the buyer and seller are free from coercion in the market.
WRONG! The Free in free market means free from regulatory authority.
Your definition of a 'free market' where you sell stolen IP, won't last long.
No kidding, because there is no such thing as a free market, just like there is no such thing as anarchy.
Nothing new will be created. SW won't be supported. HW won't be supported.
Taadaa! He finally gets something correct. This is why the free market cannot succeed. Without rules there is no progress.

FYI: Von Mises definition of the free market: A free-market economy is an economy where all markets within it are unregulated by any parties other than those players in the market. This requires no coercive regulation, no coercive subsidization, no coercive government-imposed monopolistic monetary system, and no coercive governmental monopolies.

Jun 21, 2010
@HYC: Ah the beauty of having a simple statement that yields thousands upon thousands of incorrect results in proof. Very well placed obscure reference.

Jun 21, 2010
Hey, everyone-
I just came across this: a publicity photo for Mangy's "New Free Market Prosperity" tour.

http://www.joebag...-on.html

Very kind of Joe Bageant to make it available.

Jun 21, 2010
mangy is the only one here voicing any concern over the "star" ratings. Probably because mangy knows that if it were possible to award a "ZERO stars" rating, that would be the consensus rating of mangy.

Don't despair, mangy- no doubt higher ratings await at the Cato Institute- or even the Discovery Institute. !JOY!

Jun 21, 2010
It is amusing how those here are worried about their 'star' rating. It is even more amusing when only one or two people are submitting a rating.
The answer: I am not dead.

Correction, you are not dead, from the neck down. The rest of you is showing no sign of life.

Jun 21, 2010
Hahahahaha!!!! People are so funny! Science is my god, some guy sitting on a throne in heaven is my god. I think if one could understand how completly intertwined both of those belief systems really are you'd be laughing just like me. It's nice to know both sides are both wrong, yet are both completly correct. You're not ignorant for believing one or the other, but you are blind if you can only recognize one as being the whole truth. It's alright , you're not alone; most fail to recognize the ambiguity of symbols.

Jun 22, 2010
Marjon YEAs:

Read the book. It was written by a liberal


If he questions the research from the author, take it up with the author.


Notice the lack of NAMING the book or even bothering with a link. Nor even mentioning how much was given to religion.

Just an irrelevant claim that the unknown author of an unknown book was a liberal.

Yet Another Evasion

Ethelred

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more