Rich

Thanks sincerely for the reply Don. I guess I have at least got my foot in the door as far as demonstrating my sincerity in seeking answers.

This was a poorly constructed statement on my part. I don't believe that all were fisherman. If taken at face value (which I realize some have reason not to), they were a tax collector, a doctor, a fisherman & Mark (not sure on him). From what I understand none of them held very high places in society and so my appeal was more towards the influence they could have had.

To apply a modern day example- if a bunch of garbage collectors and janitors tried to start a movement...I don't imagine it would be too successful.

For me (and granted I am working from a presuppositional viewpoint of the existence of God and the supernatural), I have a hard time seeing how outside of it being true, it could have spread throughout the world as it has for so long. I know of no other religion that has the widespread influence throughout various diverse cultures that Christianity does. I certainly do not consider it as proof. I merely think that if the belief system was so faulty, it wouldn't propagate as it has/does.

I am not sure if I understand your question. Are you asking if I think that the money and man-power spent has contributed to ongoing belief in the resurrection?

Ron Garrett

Rich writes:
"Moral responsibility for respect for all humanity" is a notion alien to your faith and one Christians have only embraced in the face of their lost secular power. Now that they are no longer universally acknowledged to be "right", acknowledgement long forced by fire and faggot, they now want to be seen as morally admirable and they cry out for toleration.

Tolerance is not and should never be an absolute, as I am sure you must agree, since you belong to a faith that proposes:

1) universal damnation as the human starting point,

2) all manner of circumstances under a person should be executed for their behavior, like picking up sticks on the sabbath and other such heinous acts, and

3)a wrathful god the assuagement of whose ego demands his owns son's bloody death.

I don't believe I have said I hate Christians anywhere. Having been one all these years, I understand intimately how Christians delude themselves and blind themselves to the reality of what they are really worshipping, i.e. a god of love who slew the entire population of the planet save for one family and who commanded genocide and that's just the start. I don't hate Christians any more than I hate White Supremacists, gay bashers, abortion clinic bombers. Ooops. That was redundant wasn't it?

Killing babies Rich! That's what your loving god thinks about tolerance for opposing views. Kill the male babies and take the girls home for slaves and concubines. Yep, that's tolerance. Your god thinks the only good gentile is the one being used for fertilizer, slavery or sexual exploitation. No I'm not prepared to respect that. If any moral obligation entails, it is certainly not ot respect that. It's nonsense and evil and I'm not moved to be respectful toward any of it.

-DM-

I didn't know that your sincerity in seeking answers was ever in question.

-----------

I had previously asked: "What makes you think that all of the Gospel authors were "poor, uneducated fisherman"?

The information that I have (in a nutshell) is this:
1.) Matthew is anonymous. Little is known about who the author(s) might have been.
2.) Mark is anonymous. The tradition ascribing it to John Mark may or may not be correct. Whoever the primary author was, there is an apparent emendation to the text after 16.8.
3.) Luke is anonymous and the evidence pertaining to the author is inconclusive, but tradition has it that the author was the physician Luke, friend of Paul.
4.) John was likely composed primarily by a John who was perhaps a disciple of the apostle John. The fact is, however, that John is a composite work of multiple authors. [See The Literary Origin of the Gospel of John by Howard M. Teeple]

So little is actually known with any certainty about the authors, I don't think that much can be said about who the authors were or what status they held.

We are much more skeptical and much less superstitious today than were the people in the time of Jesus, yet the Mormon religions got started and is apparently flourishing even though its alleged founder was a person who claimed that he could see inside of rocks and found Golden Plates from "God" in modern times.

-----------

I had asked, "What has the survival of beliefs based on a book which is inconsistent to do with anything? (Or rather, what has it to do with?)"

It is faulty (in terms of its Holy Scriptures and its theology), that is a given insofar as I am concerned. It has propagated, that is a given. Why it has and why it should not have are simply matters for speculation. Of course one obvious factor is that Christianity is a proselytizing religion.

Likewise, Islam (which I suspect that you consider false) is also faulty insofar as I am concerned, yet it has also propagated.

Judaism has survived much longer than Christianity even though it is a nonproselytizing religion.

Thus, I don't see that there is any necessary connection between the propagation of a belief--especially a belief in the supernatural which cannot be put to the test to be proved true or false--and its validity.

-----------

I had asked, "Do you think that the literally billions of dollars and billions of man-hours spent promoting, evangelizing, and proselytizing Christianity, in general, and the truth of the Resurrection, specifically, has anything to do with the reason that the story has survived and been believed?"

Yes, the ongoing belief in the alleged Resurrection, specifically, and Christianity, in general. Considering that Christianity is a proselytizing religion and that literally billions of dollars and billions of man-hours have been spent advertising and promoting it, it is not at all surprising to me that it has propagated. In fact, the surprising part to me is that there are not more people who believe it.

--Don--

windsofchange

Rich - I know you and Donald have kind of gotten into a shouting match here, which is a shame. However, I do think the point Donald made above is an important one, and I haven't seen you address it yet. Would you mind? Thanks!

Rich

no problem...I think we moved past the shouting I just forgot about the thread...

I originally said:
to which Don replied:

True evangelism can't happen unless someone is willing to accept the message. Granted in the past, Christians committed some horrible acts in the name of proselytizing but these were not biblical or moral.

Very little outside of middle eastern culture.

Again only within a specific culture. My point was not just about survival but "has the widespread influence throughout various diverse cultures that Christianity does."

Ron Garrett

I'll keep this short so as not to drive Rich from this thread in frustration as well.

Rich says:

The historic acts oft cited as Christian evil had little if anything to do with evangelism, being mostly motivated by xenophobia, class struggle, imperialism and simple state-enforced conformity that was more politically motivated than religiously motivated. Where the faith gets the rap is that once Christianity became the Roman state religion the line between secular and political power disappeared. You are completely correct of course that these oft cited horrors were completely amoral by modern western standards.

On the other hand, if one reads the many Israelite crusade accounts of the OT wherein this smiting and that slaying were commanded by God, we would have to say events like the Crusades,the Inquisition the enslavement of and predation against New World natives, African enslavement, all of which took place under the auspices of and with the blessings of the church, fit in perfectly with the biblical teaching which was often and from a biblical poiint of view legitimately employed in support and defense of all this injustice and moral evil.

-DM-

Rich:

You seem to disregard Judaism as being a true religion on the basis that the number of adherents is relatively small (even though it is a nonproselytizing religion) and its influence not as great as that of Christianity--even though it is the backbone, so to speak of Christianity itself and has had influence which seems to far outweigh the number of adherents.

You seem also to disregard Islam as being a true religion on the basis that it hasn't sufficiently propagated outside of Middle Eastern culture and/or it hasn't had the influence that Christianity has had.

There are at least a couple of problems.

1.) The number of adherents to Islam and/or its influence may someday exceed that of Christianity. If and when it does, will that make it true?
2.) What has the number of adherents or the widespread influence of a religion necessarily to do with its truth?
3.) Did the number of adherents and the influence of the flat-earth belief make that belief true?
4.) Don't you think that the billions of dollars and billions of man-hours spent advertising, promoting, and promulgating Christianity has anything to do with its propagation and influence?

There are a number of other questions that I could ask, but those should suffice.

Keep in mind that there has to be some "lie" (for lack of a better word) that is, in fact, the biggest lie of all.

--Don--

[ August 22, 2001: Message edited by: Donald Morgan ]

windsofchange

Rich -

Thank you for responding.

The point was not how widely spread throughout the world each religion was. It was that each of the religions cited has survived for hundreds or thousands of years in spite of their flawed Scriptures.

As for thriving "only within a specific culture", I fail to see how Christianity would be an *exception* to that.

Another point: if one of the criteria for a favorable judgment of a religion is how many diverse cultures it has influenced, wouldn't Zen Buddhism be right up there in the top 5? (It did wonders for the L.A. Lakers last year! )

[ August 22, 2001: Message edited by: atheistgal ]

Rich

Agreed (wow mark this date on the calendar)...that is actually why I said proselytizing because I see a difference between that and evangelism.

Rich

let me start my reply with quoting myself:

not true...I do see it as the foundation of Christianity and in fact believe that Jews worship the same God I do

I am not making statements as to what is a true religion...I am simply suggesting that there is a reason why Christianity has spread as it has.

see statement above...if it does manage to propagate in other cultures then one would be wise to examine why it was successful

Possibly nothing, but I would say that the majority of people that have ever lived have believed in monotheism which at least on some level would seem to at least cause one to examine its truth.

Who believes it anymore and why? No one because it's been proven false! Exactly what some atheists thought would happened to religion after the age of reason...apparently it hasn't been as easy to debunk as some on this site would have you to believe.

I don't deny this fact at all, but it is not possible to force someone to convert...maybe in name but not belief...if I had a million dollars would you believe in Christianity?

Why does there have to be some lie?