Objective Evidence for God.

beliefnet ff.

God, god(s), and goddesses (henceforth referred to as God) is defined as an imaginary creation of a human mind or a group of human minds that has some powers over a defied group or tribe that persist essentially unchanged through several generations of the group or tribe.  These powers are mediated and interpreted by a group of specialized members of the group, priests, or infrequently priestesses (henceforth referred to as priests) who have been given the power by the group to determine from the tradition what it is that God wants for and from the group. 

God is endowed with powers, usually supernatural, to affect the lives of the defined group or tribe by enforcing moral precepts in this life or after death; protecting the tribe or group from "enemies" by granting exceptional skills or immunity to an individual or group of individuals in contact with the enemy; is normally in the form of an idealized human; is associated with certain rituals of worship which recognize the importance of God to the people; and is frequently identified as the creator of the group or of all humans.

Gods may be examined by scientific methods by observing the group rituals associated with group solidarity, moral teaching, and the protection of the group from predation, either natural, (unusual weather, e.g.) or other groups of humans.  If the rituals identify an imaginary being or group of beings that imaginary entity is by definition God.  The properties of God can be identified from the rituals defining the God. 

If the group rituals are naturally centered or human centered it can be determined by scientific observation that the group has no God.  

In short God is an imaginary entity, interpreted by priests from tradition, that determine the mores of and protects a defined group of humans. 

The objective existence of God for Catholics is rationally observed in the Mass, in particular the Credo.  The Credo describes what God is: One God, the omnipotent father, who created everything, and the Son who is one with God who came down from heaven and became a real person by the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary.  (No hanky-panky by God, just magic and apparently a little help from Joseph and/or David, and/or God's eternal sperm bank.) 

It describes what he did: Was sacrificed to expiate the sins of all men and was resurrected to once again become one God.

It tells why: so all will be resurected to enjoy eternal life. 

Then comes the hook: God will judge all, and only those baptized for the forgiveness of sin will get the goodies. 

There is nothing imaginary or unreal in that for Catholics.  God is more important for them than Blü, J'Carlin, or any other person with the possible exception of the parish priest.

Jul 20, 2015 -- 1:01PM,  wrote:

The objective existence of God for Catholics is rationally observed in the Mass, in particular the Credo. J'Carlin

"objective existence" ... "for Catholics"
Do you even understand the meanings of words you use? Rev atheist

I speak English very well. (First place in Ohio English state scholarship tests, 800 verbal SAT.  A long time ago but I have practiced consistently since.)

A mental pattern may be objectively observed by noting consistent behavioral changes in those with the pattern.  If a chimpanzee shares food with a companion who is unfairly denied a food reward by the experimenter we can objectively observe empathy and social concern on the part of the sharing chimp.  We can also objectively observe that the experimenter is an asshole.  (Even a chimp can observe that.)  When this behavior is observed consistently among Chimps we can determine objectively that Chimps have the qualities of empathy and social concern. 

All believing Catholics when they enter a holy space, will genuflect to recognize the presence of God in the space, and once again when they enter the pew for worship recognizing the presence of God in that space as well.  How can an objective observer determine that God is not there to be recognized?  Do we like the experimenter above deny them respect by claiming that they do not experience the presence of God or that the presence is a delusion?  How do you objectively observe that?  I have recognized a vague "presence" when I genuflect with a believing Catholic when I join them in worship.   I cannot tell you what that "presence" was just like Dawkins couldn't identify the presence he recognized under the God Helmet experiment.  My friend said it is God.  I am not an asshole. 

A believing Catholic also recognizes the presence of God (Jesus aspect) tangibly in the communion service.  They also spend significant time confessing their sins, and doing appropriate penance so that the forgivness of sin promised in the Credo will take place and that the Judging personna of God Jesus aspect) will listen to His merciful mother and remit the sins of the believer.  Again objective evidence of the existence of God for a believing Catholic.  Please present your objective evidence that God does not exist for these fine people.  Remember I speak English very well "objective" means not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.

God of the Credo

beliefnet

Blü:

Yes, gods don't have objective existence.

The objective existence of God for Catholics is rationally observed in the Mass, in particular the Credo.  The Credo describes what God is: One God, the omnipotent father, who created everything, and the Son who is one with God who came down from heaven and became a real person by the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary.  (No hanky-panky by God, just magic and apparently a little help from Joseph and/or David, and/or God's eternal sperm bank.) 

It describes what he did: Was sacrificed to expiate the sins of all men and was resurrected to once again become one God.

It tells why: so all will be resurected to enjoy eternal life. 

Then comes the hook: God will judge all, and only those baptized for the forgiveness of sin will get the goodies. 

There is nothing imaginary or unreal in that for Catholics.  God is more important for them than Blü, J'Carlin, or any other person with the possible exception of the parish priest.

Christian Atheists

beliefnet

YEC:  I would think almost all of the Atheist living in a free society are to one degree or another.

 It is hard to be a Christian if not a theist.  The entire dogma of Christianity is centered around groveling at the feet of God whether it is Jesus, the Trinity, or "Thy God" of Jesus.  Atheists do not grovel at anything or anybody. Nice try at the Great Commission, but abject failure. 

YEC: For a Godless society there is no moral rule.  Natural evolutionism is the rule.  Survival of the fittest.  There is no absolute law in which a standard can be erected.

In a Godless society moral rules are derived from evolutionary necessity and its corollary tribal living necessities expanded to larger societies as required.  While there is no absolute law governing morality, humanistic empathy is a firm foundation.

YEC: You are born, live and die and "puff"...it's all over.

Yep.  In the words of Forrest Church one had best live a life worth dying for.  It is all anybody has. Theist or atheist. 

YEC: In a free society the Atheist follow the moral teachings of Jesus and I might add, the bible.  They know the morals work.  They are tried and proven.   If Jesus never appeared, if the bible never existed....if our laws didn't reflect those morals, where would we be?  

Your remarks about Jesus are pretty close to the mark.  The rest of the Bible morality is either obsolete or dysfunctional in a modern society.

YEC: You said, "They're Out There, I Just Haven't Found Any Yet"...the truth is, you are one of them.

Sorry.  There are many atheist Christians, Jews, Muslims, and members of other theistic religions, that enjoy the traditions, rituals and tribal gatherings associated with the faith, but without the faith in God.  Atheists without a religion are not among them.  In general we (I include myself among them) have developed our own meaning and purpose for being alive and having to die.  But in the words of johnbigboote on the old boards it is a One Person Religion.

Jesuism 2015

Interesting that Christian atheists redirects to a rather useful article on Jesuism.  When I was looking for a title for a thread on atheistic studies of Jesus in Jan 2007 "Jesuism" showed up on Google and other search engines only as an obscure Eastern Cult, and some obscure literary references.  Jesuit was already taken and Jesusism and Jesuanism weren't on target for what I was looking for.

I have since seen it on other blogs, and of course Wiki but it always refers to the sudy of Jesus as a human not a God.  At the time I was thinking about the Christian return to Jesus focusing on the Sermon on the Mount and the Two Great Commandments as an atheist movement in Christianity, but they made an end run around atheism by returning to the personal God of the Jews "Love the Lord Thy God ..."  in effect remaining theists, but repudiating all of John and Paul.  How they warped their minds around The Christ as Jesus remains a mystery to me, but somehow they still think of themselves as Christians focusing on the teachings of Jesus. 

It doesn't matter to me as Jesus was the first radical humanist in the Judeo-Christian tradition, and "Thy God" viewed through the teachings of Jesus may eliminate most of the excesses of the Abrahamic monstrosity.

Commination

I was raised Pisco, and when Christians are fighting each other, I usually regard the Piscos/Anglicans as my team (though on occasions their choice of view makes this impossible).

I know the words of their hymns and can and do sing them at services, which these days are largely funerals.

I admire the poetry of much of the old funeral service, but they often use some other form these days.

If you're ever drunk and feeling full of energy, you might enjoy grabbing yourself a pulpit and thundering the Commination at those assembled (starting at the second large block, "Now seeing that all they are accursed ..."). Those long rolling phrases are like ocean waves heading shorewards to become breakers - very satisfying.

So I'd find it hard to deny that I was to some extent a cultural Pisco.

(But when it comes to Christmas, I'm of the Charles Dickens / Coca Cola school.)

Thanks Blü for the commination.  I had forgotten about that delight.  We used to drag that out at UU Youth gatherings complete with the amens just to remind ourselves of what we were missing. 

I had read most of Dickens before I got to High School, and frequently read aloud to my mother when I found a great passage.  Maybe why she got me an adult library card when I was 8.  I didn't associate it with either the KJB or BCP, I hadn't gotten to the KJB yet, just the parts mocked in the youth group.  
I still consider the KJB my reference bible, despite its inaccuracies, since its cultural influence is pervasive both for good and for evil and everything in between.   

Back to Jesus Christians

The back to Jesus the preacher man movement in Christianity, in essence back to the synoptic Gospels, while not blessed by the hierarchy except maybe Pope Francis, is becoming a very powerful movement within Christianity.  WWJD has become love the poor, the homeless, indeed all neighbors. The hate the sinner, er sin Christians are still powerful particularly in US politics, and in the Christian hierarchy, but even Pope Francis seems to understand that Christianity is not working and must change to survive.  They will probably keep Christ as savior and God so that all the prayers and rituals will work, but morality will revert to the Sermon on the Mount and the Beatitudes.  Salvation will no longer be by belief but by emulation of Jesus the preacher man. 
Perhaps whistling past the graveyard but Christianity must change or will end up in that graveyard.  I for one would miss Christianity.

Religious Patriarchy

beliefnet

 christine3 wrote:The assinine patriarchal religions killed the matriarchal religions off.
E.O. wrote:

Why were they able to do that?

Because the two major patriarchal violent religions who had all the violent proselytizing directives direct from God including the directive that all who believed in the wrong god must be converted or killed.  Since neither had any moral standards other than kill the infidels, they thrived for a while, at least in the parts of the world they came to dominate.  Matriarchies and other social solutions with moral standards that included respect for other humans were unable to withstand the genocidal onslaught.beliefnet
While it is necessary to your Belief System that patriarchy is a biological necessity as shown by the dominance of the patriarchal religions in the west and wherever their war based proselytizing takes them.  What you are arguing is simply that might makes right.  Except of course when might is not justified by a patriarchal god. As when those ex-seminarians say "Thanks God, but I don't need you any more to justify slaughter.  I have found a better belief system to do the job and don't need to support your patriarchy anymore."

beliefnet
I don't find anyone here is arguing for matriarchy (let's not impute arguments to others to make a bogus point) just an egalitarian social structure as before the fall when both men and women had choices.  I agree with you that "The woman made me do it" is intrinsic to the patriarchal control of women, so they won't once again find the tree of knowledge and discover the evil that is imposed on them by God and men.  This gives the men free reign to impose patriarchal God worship on all that get in the way of their avarice for land, wealth, and control.  

As you have pointed out men are stronger, can wield heavier weapons, and kill better than women, and when women are relegated to being brood mares for the cannon fodder and have no choice about whether or not their sons go to war since they are denied education and permission to speak out in the society, the advantages of patriarchy for social Darwinism are obvious.  

It worked for a while, but then God made a mistake and permitted the invention of printing so that everybody once again had access to the tree of knowledge.  Women being in charge of the children had to teach them to read, write, and figure, and therefore had to be given access to knowledge themselves.  This was the beginning of the end of patriarchy, religious or secular.  Then He really blew it big time by permitting the internet giving anybody, women, children, and minorities access to that tree of knowledge.  And at the bottom of Pandora's Box women, children and minorities found hope.  

Why I am Not a Christian J'C Version

beliefnet

I have mentioned that I consider many parts of Christian scripture to be dysfunctional for Christians and society as a whole.  Probably the most misinterpreted and misused chapter, is Romans 1:17 through 2:3.  (The chapter break is artificial). It is obviously crucial to Christian dogma as it establishes the sinful nature of Christians.  

From a marketing (proselytizing) point of view it creates the problem that Christianity provides a solution for: Salvation.  In the question the OP responded to the lives of all (Christians) are wretched, and the only redemption comes after death, (the first death) when some will be chosen for some wonderful continued existence, and others "confounded" for eternity.  (Catholic formulation.) 

In the KJV 17: For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith: as it is written, The just shall live by faith.  -- For those who don't (18-23) 24: Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts in their own hearts, to dishonor their own bodies between themselves.  1:25-2:3 is a long litany of what God gave them up to.  That is being human.  

I for one, and as I read the Synoptic Gospels Jesus agrees, have no problem with being human.   Jesus preaches to humans, exalting their humanness, with all the issues of being human.   Jesus and I part ways in loving God anyway, even though according to Paul God cursed us with humanness for not having faith.

That, in a nutshell is the problem I have with the Christian faith.  Why would any rational human even consider it?

Jesus was married.

How could anyone with any understanding of the Jewish Culture in the first century decide J.C. was a virgin?  Any normal male with a trade was married (that is 'knew") a local young woman just past puberty.  She was never mentioned any more than the sheep or oxen J.C. might have owned were mentioned.  It was something everybody had.

Paul was too ugly to have a wife, so he tried to portray Jesus as a virgin, to make himself a mirror of Jesus, but like all of the other lies he made up about Jesus there is no reason to believe this one. 

A Schizophrenic Trinity?

Thoughtful theist: God would simply be strictly identical to the plurality of the three divine persons.

Blü:  No. God would be strictly identical not onto to the plurality of the three, but simultaneously strictly identical to EACH of them.

Neither is correct.  God is a single entity with three personalities striving for dominance only one of which can be expressed at any one time.  And this all before there were serotonin antagonists to help. 

For the Jews the angry, vengeful, murderous, personality was dominant, although the priestly rule-maker tried to keep the people under control, and the storyteller Jahwist tried to make sense of it all for humans. 

For Catholics and many Christians the forgiving, empathetic and human centered personality is dominant, although he seems to have had trouble keeping the "My Way or the Highway" rule-maker under control, especially when the political pressure on the humanist became too intense and he had to suppress that personality. 

Other Christians focus on the "My Way" personality. 

It is very simple they all worship God, and the necessary personality shows up at the right time.
In other words if you want vengeance you pray to the father manifestation of the schizophrenic God; if you want mercy pray to the son manifestation; and if you want wisdom pray to the ghost manifestation. 

Probably why prayers are sung.  The music wakes up the right manifestation.  When you pray a Kyrie Eleison or an Ave Maria it alerts the son that He ought to pay attention.  When you pray a Dies Irae you alert dad that somebody needs to be terrified.   And a Psalm alerts the ghost that you need help with the interpretation. 

The Trinity as Schizophrenia

beliefnet

Thoughtful theist No, God would be strictly, numerically identical to the three taken collectively. Your interpretation is explicitly ruled out by the Athanasian creed, which I've already quoted as well as your favorite internet sources - which btw - don't support your reading at all. I'm still waiting for you to post your "data" as you called them.

Blü No. God would be strictly identical not onto to the plurality of the three, but simultaneously strictly identical to EACH of them.

Neither is correct.  God is a single entity with three personalities striving for dominance only one of which can be expressed at any one time.  And this all before there were serotonin antagonists to help. 

For the Jews the angry, vengeful, murderous, personality was dominant, although the priestly rule-maker tried to keep the people under control, and the storyteller Jahwist tried to make sense of it all for humans. 

For Catholics and many Christians the forgiving, empathetic and human centered personality is dominant, although he seems to have had trouble keeping the "My Way or the Highway" rule-maker under control, especially when the political pressure on the humanist became too intense and he had to suppress that personality. 

Other Christians focus on the "My Way" personality. 

It is very simple they all worship God, and the necessary personality shows up at the right time.

Mariology Explained.

beliefnet

Matthew 28:18 has the post-mortal Jesus say, ἐδόθη μοι πᾶσα ἐξουσία ἐν οὐρανῷ καὶ ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς - "All authority in heaven and earth has been given to me."

So that leaves Yahweh and the Ghost with no authority. Ain't no Trinity notion thar, just a sentimental retrospect for his pa and his uncle, two former board members who've now retired. Blü

Finally an explanation for the importance of Jesus and Mary in Catholicism and the de facto separation of the Trinity in the Mass.  All authority including judgment of those worthy of eternal life is thereby vested in Jesus.  And who would have more influence?  Dad who hung him on the cross or mama who took him down? 

Bible Studies.

beliefnet

I am qualified to evaluate expertise in biblical studies since I’m a Russian Orthodox seminary graduate. Knowledge of theology appears limited to that of modern evangelical Protestantism. 

I might suggest that a seminary graduate is hardly an impartial evaluator of Biblical analysis.  I suspect you would not have graduated if you didn't have a strong theological bias toward the Russian Orthodox interpretation of Scripture. 

The atheists here have a sophisticated and reasoned interpretation of the stories in the Bible regardless of our milk traditions if only to deal with the incessant proselytization we endure daily.  Certainly modern evangelical Protestantism is the most prevalent.  Other traditions are well represented as well as we try to avoid Fundagelicals when possible. Our associates are well distributed among the other Western Denominations who are not reticent about telling us why we should join them at church. 

As noted I have 8 Bibles on my shelf beside me, and have read all 8 cover to cover at some point in my life.  (Well, I skipped the begats in some of them, but I bet I have read more begats than most Christians.) When interpreting any specific passage I not only compare the eight I am familiar with, but the online comparisons as well. I am also familiar with the belief based interpretations of many of the Western traditions, including Dispensationalism,  (unfortunately) evangelical Protestantism, Catholicism, mainstream Protestantism, Judiasm, UUC and theistic UU.  The last two being the most familiar as they are the churches of choice "when the spirit moves me."

Secular, Secular Humanism and Humanism

beliefnet

I’ve seen the term “secular” used interchangeably with the terms “secular humanism” and “humanism”.

*sarcasm*   I have seen religious used interchangeably with Christian bigots, Televangelists, Bob Jones University and many other manifestations of spirituality.  So it is OK for me to say religious means Christian bigot? */sarcasm*

"Secular" has a well-defined and limited meaning as explained above, and may not involve humanism at all. Communism and Fascism and Capitalism are secular and not humanist by any stretch of the definition of humanist.  "Secular Humanism" is a well-defined organized society not to be confused with "secular humanism" which is a worldview based on the rejection of supernatural influences over human behavior and generally promoting a human centered social philosophy.  "humanism" may or may not involve God, god or gods, but is again a human centered social philosophy.

Many of my social mentors have been theistic humanists.  Indeed the only Christian churches I respect and enjoy visiting are humanist in the sense that they essentially reduce the message of Jesus to the Two Great Commandments.  Note that the First involves God and I have no problem with that.  I might argue that they are not Christian, but that is another definitional blivot.    

John B Christ

 beliefnet

So what you are saying (see christine3 below) is that it should be John B Christ rather than Jesus Christ. 

That works for me and explains why Christianity has nothing at all in it from the Gospels that isn't pseudographia.  It has always bothered me that after Paul's conversion event he never showed any interest at all in the Jesus Cult lore.  Following John the Baptist rather than Jesus makes it much clearer.  Both for the origins of the Mandean influence on Christianity, and the absolute break with the Jesus Cults.

It doesn't make me like Paul any better, but the clear separation of Christianity from Jesus makes the Gospels much more interesting and believable.  And makes Jesuism much more viable as a humanist religion totally independent from Christianity.  

John B Christ on a crutch! What a revelation!   

 christine3 wrote:  [with permission from Christine]
By now most of you know that I think at least 15% of the activities ascribed to Jesus were really John the Baptist's activities, such as accusing the Pharisees of becoming corrupt. I've read some of John's writings where he accuses the priests of living in a brokendown house, a metaphor for corruption, falling apart. Like Jesus, John was a prophet, teacher and healer; was considered a criminal and was put to death. The cross did not become a popular symbol for Christianity until the fourth century, so it is unlikely that Jesus would have been crucified on a cross. As for the rest of Jesus' persona, it is taken from Mithras and other cult godmen from the past.
If you Google Gamaliel, you can read the whole article, but I copied some interesting information, a couple of paragraphs. Paul of Tarsus is said to have been "raised at the feet of Gamaliel," to answer who influenced Paul.
Two sentences caught my eye. The first, Gamaliel says "a fish from the Jordan River: one who has learnt everything, but dodsn't know how to respond. This is a very snide remark, and I think it was said against John the Baptist, because the Jordan river is where he did all his baptizing and preaching.
The next sentence that caught my eye was where Peter and the apostles are brought before the sanhedrin and prosecuted for preaching the gospel. A gospel is an account describing the life, death, and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth. The prosecutors want Paul, Peter and the apostles to cease with this teaching as it is considered almost shameful, it is so not keeping with Jewish teaching.
It's funny, but I feel the same way about the 'resurrection' story; it just isn't true. I also feel that the bulk of the the life, death and resurrection reads like a three act play, written to attract converts. So, I am really siding with the Jews here. But my problem also comes from not knowing from the Jewish history what really went on at that time. All we have to my knowledge is Mark, which turns out to be Peter's account, and similar accounts which are near duplicates of Mark. The Jewish have no way to defend themselves other than to ask, "What story, who is Jesus?"
Perhaps Paul and Peter were initially attracted to John the Baptist, and over the ensuing 400 years from John's death, the name got changed from John to Jesus. John the Baptist's descendants are the Mandaeans, and they have an idea of a multi-leveled heaven (dimensions?) Paul says he went to the third heaven, which echoes the Mandaean belief.

A ritually impure fish: one who has memorised everything by study, but has no understanding, and is the son of poor parents

A ritually pure fish: one who has learnt and understood everything, and is the son of rich parents

A fish from the Jordan River: one who has learnt everything, but doesn't know how to respond

A fish from the Mediterranean: one who has learnt everything, and knows how to respond

In some manuscripts of Dunash ibn Tamim's tenth-century Hebrew commentary on the Sefer Yetzirah, the author identifies Gamaliel with the physician Galen. He claims to have seen an Arabic medical work translated from Hebrew entitled "The Book of Gamaliel the Prince (Nasi), called Galenos among the Greeks." ^[17] However, since Galen lived in the second century and Gamaliel died during the mid-first century, this is unlikely.

In Christian tradition[edit]

The Acts of the Apostles introduces Gamaliel as a Pharisee and celebrated doctor of the Mosaic Law in Acts 5:34–40. In the larger context (vs.17–42), Peter and the otherapostles are described as being prosecuted before the sanhedrin and senate (or elders) for continuing to preach the gospel, despite the Jewish authorities having previously prohibited it. The passage describes Gamaliel as presenting an argument against killing the apostles, reminding them about the previous revolts of Theudas and Judas of Galileewhich had collapsed quickly after the deaths of those individuals. Gamaliel's advice was accepted after his concluding argument:

"And now I say unto you, Refrain from these men, and let them alone: for if this counsel or this work be of men, it will come to nought: But if it be of God, ye cannot overthrow it; lest haply ye be found even to fight against God." —Acts 5:38–39

The Book of Acts later goes on to describe Paul the Apostle recounting that although "born in Tarsus", he was brought up in Jerusalem "at the feet of Gamaliel, [and] taught according to the perfect manner of the law of the fathers". (Acts 22:3) No details are given about which teachings Paul adopted from Gamaliel, or how much Gamaliel influenced aspects of Christianity. However, there is no other record of Gamaliel ever having taught in public,^[2] although the Talmud does describe Gamaliel as teaching a student who displayed "impudence in learning", which a few scholars identify as a possible reference to Paul.^[18] The relationship of Paul the Apostle and Judaism continues to be the subject of scholarly debate. Helmut Koester, Professor of Divinity and of Ecclesiastical History at Harvard University, is doubtful that Paul studied under this famous rabbi, arguing that there is a marked contrast in the tolerance that Gamaliel is said to have expressed about Christianity with the "murderous rage" against Christians that Paul is described as having prior to his conversion (Acts 8:1–3).^{[citation needed]}

This is from one of those interminable historical Jesus threads that can't seem to keep a historical Jesus separate from all the Christian accretions and the mythical Jesus arguments based on Mithraic Gnostic and Mandean influences.

If in fact as Christine suggests that Paul's Christ was based on John the Baptist with heavy input from Gamaliel (or even without Gamaleil) we have a clean separation between Christianity and Jesus.  It also explains the disconnect between the Gospels and Paul's Christ.  Perhaps Paul thought John the Baptist didn't have enough of a following or reputation to be believable as The Christ, and grafted Jesus' name on John the Baptist's ministry.

This is all new to me as I know nothing about John the Baptist.  As far as I am concerned he was a minor figure in the life of Jesus which has been my interest in the NT.  I am not particularly interested in the influences on Christianity, so for the moment, I will accept the revelation as best guess and let others fill in the details.

Note: Christine will be busy for a few months, so if anyone would like to pick up the connection of John the Baptist to Christianity it would be appreciated.  Lots to work on in her quote.  

Christianity is not a Force for an Ideal Society

Christianity (like most other religions) is used in two ways: to justify all the prejudices and power imbalances of society as it stands, or to call on people to transform that society towards the image of higher ideals. Doug Muder

Even ignoring the Abrahamic misogyny of treating women as breeding chattel to carry the seed of the man which alone would disqualify Christianity as a force for social good, Christianity from the time of Paul has had the ideal of exploiting the sheep and to the extent possible the larger society for the benefit of the church leaders. The lip service to the ideals of Jesus is disgusting in its hypocrisy as nowhere in Christianity can they be found to be implemented or even recommended.

Individual Christians have been able to see beyond their faith for the good of the larger society, but in nearly all cases they have been considered heretics by their faith superiors.

Just for the record Doug, I do not consider Unitarianism, Universalism, or Transcendentalism to be Christian in any respect.

The Nuns they are a changing

Tony Auth

Harry Jesus Christ Potter

The bulk of Jesus Potter Harry Christ is a well researched and readable source for the mythical (literary) underpinnings of the figure of Jesus Christ in the mythology of Christianity. Which author Derek Murphy argues should be seen as a literary myth rather than a historical preacher who walked the earth and died in a spectacular fashion. He argues convincingly that the existence of a historical Jesus destroys the mythical basis of Christianity. (Not a bad idea in this atheist's opinion. For my take on the historical Jesus see Jesuism posts on this blog.) Murphy argues that the myth that grew out of the historical mythology that is well documented in the book is the real Jesus Christ of the Christian faith not the historical Jesus.

In the summary he draws the parallel between the nascent Harry Potter cult and the development of Christianity built on the mythical underpinnings of the Christian religion. I for one would like to see the sequel where he documents the humanist mythology underlying the Harry Potter myth. Christianity is passe.

Christmas Bigotry

Christmas Wars - Beliefnet

I see Happy Holidays as anti-Jewish. Christmas is a celebration of an especially capable Jew. You know he was Jewish because [bigotry deleted] People really resent that billions of people take his ideas seriously. Jesus one way, is another articulation of one God.[Attribution deleted to protect the guilty]

Does Christian or at least one Christian's bigotry know no bounds? Trashing a whole religion to promote a parochial God. Just sick. Christians of all kinds should repudiate this post.

Note beleifnet Christian mods deleted this post. The thread is interesting though without it.

The Christian's Problem

Richard Dawkins Thread v2.0 - Beliefnet:

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men to do nothing. --Edmund Burke

As long as people apologize for the Pope, and moderate Christians apologize for Paul, simply because God appointed them, Dawkins has a valid point that moderates enable fanaticism. If when the average citizen hears 'Christian' the first thing that pops into mind is Fred Phelps, or people protesting mosques, Christians have a problem.

If on a religious site a statement of the form 'Christians are assholes of a particular kind' is censored, because only some Christians are assholes of that kind. Christians have a problem: Christians need to deal with assholes of that kind. Judging people by the labels they accept, is a natural and necessary evolutionary adaptation of humans. Labels cause wars. It is best that the label one accepts is kept clean."