Why go and think the “predominant” religion has to be the only one that matters — and other, *non*-predominant religions don’t — so if the predominant one is “bad” then you have to go bust, to hard atheism, instead of to one of those other religions? That makes no sense.

And do “far better moral standards” also include restrictions on sex? As that is important, like it or not. (remember, it is as poweful as the sword — just in the opposite direction: it begins life, while the sword ends it. Due to that, it deserves laws and rules to regulate it and sure it is used properly. IT also has all sorts of other ramifcations, too.)

Before Saul’s murderous conscience “blinded” him, *snicker!* 1st decade Christians were Jews who believed in Jesus as the promised Messiah, sent by Jehovah to “Save” THE JEWS from the bondage of Rome. The Gospel they proclaimed was the Gospel that Jesus preached through his post baptist ministry, not a “gospel” ABOUT Jesus as Proclaimed by the newly converted Paul. Sorry Ya’ll , I just felt like raving a bit. BTW I’m not a theologian, just a post-Katrina queer trying to survive in The Chocolate City. If you have anything personal to say, email me mailto:feralscream@gmail.com and leave the nice athiests here alone. Nope , not an Xtian, either, besides if you are reasonably intelligent and actually read your bible with rationality, you’ll understand what I said here. Peace. Gloria In Excelsis Paolus , anyone?? *snort!*

And example 29:

If I stand on the railroad tracks when I know a train is coming and it hits me and kills me, is it suicide?

The process? The positivist, reductionist, methodological approach of Science has been proven false? Ever?? I challenge anyone to cite a case.

“Remember, disbelief is just another firm belief.”

There is a difference between belief based on evidence and a belief in direct contradiction to evidence. Falsely equating the two is a fallacious argument (and often this is deliberate).

Let us explore your assertion of the equivalencies of beliefs:

New evidence comes to light regarding the age of the earth? Excellent! Science will GLADLY revise it’s theory to suit the evidence. Indvidual scientists MAY fail to live up to this expectation and are roundly condemned by the scientific community as a result. It is as it should be.

New evidence comes to light regarding the age of the earth? BLASPHEMY! Religious people (some of them) simply deny the evidence and exercise raw power, misinformation, outright lies and obsfucation to maintain and propogate a ‘belief’ that is demonstratedly FALSE. And rather than being condemned by their community, supposedly ‘reasonable’ Religious people shuffle along muttering ridiculous post-structuralist crap about ‘one belief is as valid as another’, thereby providing the zealots with the cover and representational authority to KEEP DOING THIS!

There is no equation to be made between these two positions.

Not that I have a strong opinion about this or anything Perish the thought…

Ye know that after two days is the feast of the passover, and the Son of man is betrayed to be crucified.

-Matthew 26:2

If anyone believes his prediction, then Jesus must have known of his upcoming crucifixion. Jesus fulfilling his own prophecy says nothing about miraculous predictions for such self-fulfilling prophecies tend to carry themselves out. But if he lived as an all powerful being, he would have the power to avert his death. But he chose not to. Instead he consciously committed himself to allow his own death. In another word– suicide. This act of self destruction, especially in light of a horrible disfigured and bleeding torso nailed to a cross hardly gives an exemplary act of the expression of life.

There’s texts and then there are texts… As a historical document, the Bible is problematical: It was written well after ‘the facts’ and by individuals who held a vested interest in the content. It was later translated, edited and assembled by others who also held a vested interest in the content and even the emphasis of that content.

Compared to a contemporary, first person source (which are few and far between and which do not particularly support ‘the facts’ as presented, it is close to worthless.

As a document capturing the culture and mythologies of a tribe on the cusp of cilivilization and (New Testament) the early activities of a religion formed on the edges of colliding civilizations (Levant, Greek, Roman etc.), it’s quite interesting. As a source for literary metaphor, allegory and imagery, it is quite powerful. As history? Not so useful…

Also, just because science has not explained something TO DATE, doesn’t mean it’s inexplicable. Plenty of things were inexplicable until they were explained by science, and I expect plenty more to come. Again, science is willing to say “I don’t know” until they do know. Religion simply fills in anything it doesn’t understand with “God did it” rather than trying to learn and understand the truth. Just because you don’t know how something happened, doesn’t mean God did it. People used to believe gods caused thunder…

And just why is it that we have to have an answer even for things for which we cannot know the answer? (Though in fact, we know a good deal about the origin of the universe and what happens to us when we die.) Making up a story gets us no closer to the truth.

Patti Smith

I’ve never understood the whole “he died for our sins” bit and whenever I ask nobody’s ever been able to give me a straight answer. Guess that’s one of those whole “blind faith” things.

Unfortunately for your point about there being “no historical record”, the Bible is as valid a historical record as any text before or since. Lots of historical “facts” are based on text only, so why not that a guy called Jesus Christ (be he son of God, prophet or simply a raving loon) was crucified?

Remember, disbelief is just another firm belief. Science has been proven wrong as often as any holy text and no matter how much you argue, nobody knows how the universe was created or what happens to us when we die.

Peace.

I am not sure why the phrase irked me as much as it did. Probably because i equate suicide with people so despondent with life they feel no other choice but to end it. It’s utter despair and misery that leads to one killing oneself, whereas Christ died a martyr for his beliefs. He may have known it was coming, or may have been willing to die for his beliefs, but to me that is different to taking your own life.

Tolkien himself was troubled by the existence in his stories of peoples (Orcs being the principal example) incapable of choosing good over evil.