Translated into over a thousand languages, yes (at least the New Testament; fewer than that have the Old Testament). But I don't see how the fact that it's frequently been translated into other languages makes it biased. Can you explain that?

If you think the present translations aren't good (although you have a lot to choose from in English!), why not learn Hebrew so you can read the OT in the original language (ok, a small amount is in Aramaic, but that language is closely related to Hebrew), and Greek so you can read the NT in the original language?

Or if you believe it's been frequently edited, you could compare the Dead Sea Scrolls (which date back to the last century before Jesus) with the other Hebrew manuscripts of the Old Testament (basically the only ones we had until 1947), and see how different they are. (Hint: not very.) Or you could look at the variant Greek manuscripts, some fragmentary pieces of which date back to a hundred years or less after Jesus--and see how different they are. You might be surprised at the lack of variation. (Yes, there are variations, like any other document that dates to before printing. But not as much as you appear to believe.)

It's true, that The Bible is remarkable in its historical accuracy. As much as we in the modern era disagree with some of the actions of the Ancient Church, they did believe that the accuracy of the Bible was more important than making it meet some political end. The modern-day Bibles we have now are remarkably accurate (more than 99% so) considering that there were thousands of years where the words could have been messed up.
I'm not saying that this is definitive proof of Christianity being true. Basically, if you're going to attack Christianity, get your facts straight first.

The English translations undertaken in the past few decades have been undertaken to make sure the translations line up with the best manuscripts that are available today. There are more extant copies of the Christian "New Testament" scriptures than there are of any other work from antiquity, but people rarely question whether Aristotle's or Plato's words were really theirs, or that the Illiad reflects what was originally written.

I'm trying hard not to believe, but I keep getting stuck on all the textual evidence that points to the fact that what we have today is 99%+ in agreement with what was appearing in the First Century (and those areas that do fall under question don't pertain to any of the key precepts of Christian teaching).

I'm still not sure why Easter is being held on April 24th this year. If there was a date when this all happened why is it not being followed?

As for the earlier remark about the biases of the Bible and interpretation. The bible was out together by stories written by many men. Men that didn't understand natural phenomenon. Men that we trust were of their right mind. Mortal men that truly had nothing better to do than write. Men that have rewritten these stories for their own benefit. Like B. Honest said, whoever was at the head of the table.

When you are a man of power, the highest mortal power, there is no one left to turn to to cast blame when something goes wrong. An unproved man in the sky was their only option. "I do this for ye so thee will see it wasn't me." Or something like that.

As a former Catholic I do believe Jesus existed, no doubt about it, but the idea of a creator in the sky watching over us who has never proven to us that the existence is there even though the world needs it now more than ever is the same as believing in Santa Claus. It makes you feel good but in the end it was just a feeling.

I believe that Jesus was the first true hippie. He spread the word of peace and love and the only thing he was teaching was how to respect your fellow man. For all we know he was a nut job but the word he was spreading has nothing to do with worshiping his floating father it has to do with being a better person. Be true to yourself and others. Treat people the way you want to be treated. Those of us in our right mind have this choice. Evil will always be there but we can control how much. Humans are very complex with billions of cells that hold us together and there is no zero defect policy in life. Some of us will be born broken.

For every question we have like, why wouldn't God just give us all a shout out to let us know he is there, we have an answer interpreted out of the Bible. God won't show himself, he will never punish again like the story of Sodom and Gomorrah. We speak different languages because of the Tower of Babble. (I apologize to all you scholars if I misspelled anything.) Instead of showing everyone he exists we are tested for our entire lives. We are told to have faith. I think if we were told that the giant eraser is coming if we don't straighten up maybe we will straighten up. Cryptic messages like natural disasters do not count. We don't control this planet, it controls us and if it wasn't for it being the perfect distance from the sun we would be just another planet. We are but a mere speck in the overall size of the universe. We are insignificant in the overall picture.

Well, I would much rather have faith in my fellow man. I would like to know that I can walk the streets without looking over my shoulder. I would like to be judged for who I am and not who you perceive me to be. I would like to see the end of wars that are fought only because of religious beliefs. I would like to see human beings that no longer need a couple thousand year old book to determine what's right and what's wrong. Instead it is greed, power, selfishness and status that rule the world. These things are what causes people to fly planes into buildings and wars fought for natural resources and economic despair. Yes I am over simplifying things because everyone else makes it too complicated.

Politics and religion both seem to have been created so man will keep fighting. These are the two entities that have caused the most death on earth. What do they fight over? Who's right and who's wrong and what you should believe in.

Here's a much better question to ask yourself to put this all in perspective. Who will get the most mention this holiday weekend, Jesus or the Easter Bunny? My bets are on the bunny.

Jumping down from my soapbox because the only thing I truly gain out of this coming holiday, I am off work this Friday.

I have a slightly different question. Matthew 12:40 says "For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of a huge fish, so the Son of Man will be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth." NIV

If Jesus died on a Friday, there would be a Friday night and a Saturday night, but not a third night, since he was resurrected on Sunday morning. Where is the missing night?

Can anyone provide a reasonable explanation?

Are you sure you've read sufficiently to make the kinds of statements you are making?

First off the Dead Sea Scrolls would not be my first choice as an origin document. I would rather the Hexaplar Septuagint and the Latin Vulgate. The Dead Sea Sea Scrolls are Gnostic and are made to be precise copies.

Second; There are more discrepancies than you seem to believe in the various versions of the Bible text. There are different versions of the Old Testament used by Jewish than the one used by Christians. The Catholic Bible contains entire books that are dueterocanonicala dn not included in the Approved King James version.

Third; speaking of the Approved King James version, you do realize that he gave instructions to the translator to make sure they translated the Bible so it supported episcopal views and the Church of England?

I'd say that's biased.

Roy, He didn't die on Friday. That's a common mistake that many people (including these) make. He was executed on Wednesday, buried Wed evening before sunset (the beginning of the Jewish day). Thursday was the Passover Sabbath. Friday the women spend buying and preparing the herbs to bury him. Saturday was the regular Sabbath. Sunday (the first day of the week) was when the women went to the tomb and found it empty.

The passover meal is typically held before the passover sabbath, not on it. The meal is one of many rituals in a whole week of celebration that culminates in the Passover Sabbath (thus the Passover meal was held before Passover Sabbath, so you could describe it either way accurately). We westerners have just ignored so much of Jewish culture that we don't know what we're talking about.

Agreed with Henry 100%...the fact that it's called the King James "VERSION" speaks volumes.

When travelling in Israel I was able to see some old testament copies that were approaching 2000 years old, along with Torah copies they claimed were 3000+ years old. Most of the documents I saw were deteriorated, illegible, and even though I do read Hebrew I could barely make out a word. In my opinion it is quite a stretch to claim that today's document is "99%" identical to the original when one cannot access the original for comparison.

To be honest, WHO CARES? Jesus was a man...only a man. He may or may not have done great things, although the religions would have you believe this. We don't even know his actual birth date. Was it the 25th of December, or sometime during the summer? Speaking of that universal crutch, religion; has anyone looked at the situation in the Middle East? It all stems from religion, most of it instigated by the Catholic Church centuries ago. Unfortunately, the Islam nation is much like an elephant. They never forget.

@ Mike Maxwell

I cannot speak for B. Honest, but I think the point being made is that being translated and retold over and over the Bible is not necessarily what it used to be. A very simple example is Cinderella written in aprox. 1812 by the Brothers Grimm. It has been translated and rewritten for a fraction of the time that the Bible has and yet the story we know as Cinderella is nothing like the original. It has been changed and edited to appeal to modern day. It's simply the 'telephone game syndrome'.

Regardless how much the Bible has been translated, everyone has a completely personal idea about it; whether you think it's fact or just a story. Lets all accept that, stop trying to generalize everything, and move on!!

Just FYI to everyone commenting on how the Bible has changed:

first, I just want to say that any time that a document is translated from one language to another, things are lost. Reading the old testament in ancient Hebrew presents a different picture then when you read a King James version of the same events. The plot is the same, but crucial elements are lost, such as when a word in Hebrew has multiple meanings/definitions that change depending on the context in which it is placed.

Secondly, with regards to the New Testament, the earliest known gospel that we have, a copy of Mark dated to approximately 50 years after Jesus' death, does not have a resurrection sequence. It is suggested by biblical scholars that the resurrection was added to Mark later, to coincide with the other gospels' descriptions.

Starting in the 19th century, textual critics have commonly asserted that Mark 16:9–20, describing some disciples' encounters with the resurrected Jesus, was a later addition to the gospel. Mark 16:8 stops at the empty tomb without further explanation. The last twelve verses are missing from the oldest manuscripts of Mark's Gospel.^[51] The style of these verses differs from the rest of Mark, suggesting they were a later addition. In a handful of manuscripts, a "short ending" is included after 16:8, but before the "long ending", and exists by itself in one of the earliest Old Latin codices, Codex Bobiensis. By the 5th century, at least four different endings have been attested. (See Mark 16 for a more comprehensive treatment of this topic.) Possibly, the Long Ending (16:9-20) started as a summary of evidence for Jesus' resurrection and the apostles' divine mission, based on other gospels.^[52] It was likely composed early in the 2nd century and incorporated into the gospel around the middle of the 2nd century.^[52]

C. Smith "Roy, He didn't die on Friday. That's a common mistake that many people (including these) make. He was executed on Wednesday"

That doesn't fit with any scenario. The article says that he had his 'last supper' on a Wednesday, and then was arrested that same night, so he may have been executed on Thursday, which would make some sense, since then he would have been buried for three days (Thursday, Friday and Saturday), and three nights (Thursday, Friday and Saturday), thus fulfilling the prophesy at Matthew 12: 40.

I cannot speak for B. Honest, but I think the point being made is that being translated and retold over and over the Bible is not necessarily what it used to be. A very simple example is Cinderella written in aprox. 1812 by the Brothers Grimm. It has been translated and rewritten for a fraction of the time that the Bible has and yet the story we know as Cinderella is nothing like the original. It has been changed and edited to appeal to modern day. It's simply the 'telephone game syndrome'.

We have three complete bibles from the fourth century. The codex Sinaiticus, the codex Alexandrinus, and the codex Vaticanius. There are very few variations from that text in Greek for 1600 years. We also have fragmentary bibles back to the early second century and a few fragments such as the Magdalene fragment, from before the fall of the temple.

In stark contrast to the uninformed opinions voiced here, the texts are remarkably consistent with each other over almost 2,000 years. Only the Torah itself has that same level of consistency. The books of the old testament, found in the caves a Qumran, which are known to be before the fall of Jerusalem in 68 AD also have this same level of consistency with the modern known texts. We have the entire book of Isiah, which was probably copied in the Qumran corpus as early as the second century BC and it is a very close match.

There is an 1869 version of the New Testament by Tischendorf that incorporates the texts of all three of the oldest complete manuscripts, along with notes on any variations.

It is? Somebody better tell all those church-goers!

The ship has already started to sink, of course, we will have those on board trying to throw buckets of water off the side to try and keep it from sinking. Good luck, I'm already on my life raft :P

Mike Maxwell:

OK, let's tell the church goers. I'm getting on the phone tree right away. First call to The Donald, then Newt, then............

lol. People have been predicting the emminent death of Christianity for 2000 years. Also from time to time doing their best to help it along with lions, fire-pits and lately a lot of beheadings and nasty stuff in the Middle East. It almost seems like a miracle Christianity is still around.

In any case I wouldn't risk real money betting on it dissappearing any time soon...

This is ridiculous. Rearranging chairs on a ship that's going down.

Religion isn't sinking, it's evolving, like any meme-organism will. You're just not clever enough to see it for what it is.

WMG-21 It's sinking in about 9 countries right now.. And this so called religion has reached the end of it's rope for 3 reasons:

1) Nobody worships Moses's Volcano God anymore..

2) Christians are now technically Pantheists without even knowing it. The fount of knowledge GOD in chapter 14 explains quite well as to why Christianity really is no Longer Christianity. It's pantheism.. The God that contains and sustains all things, is boundless, omnipresent, uncontained, unlimited, and omniscient.. There is only one thing that can represent that description.. Existence itself in it's entirety.. It's Pantheism to where existence, or the entire sum of is identical to GOD..

3) Many Christians don't even know which GOD they are worshiping.. Pantheism, Yahweh, Al Shaddai? Take your pick...

AL Shaddai is actually El Shaddai ,... sorry :)

Umm, Mark was written ce. 40 B.C.E. That's like 7 years after the death of Christ. That may be a generation for kids in today's society, but where I come from that's not even close.

Yeah, but seven years is ample time to place your own perverted twist to a story, notice I said story...that's all it is. Show me one piece of empirical evidence that God exsists and I'll throw off my Agnostic robes and do the Irish Jig.

gregg- read "God's Debris" by Scott Adams. It's free as a pdf, just google it. It's a fine read and only a little over 100 pages, so a single-sitting novel, if you will. It provides some of the best evidence for the existence of God, from an empirical standpoint, than anything else I've read-- though not in a manner you're likely to expect. I could throw it down for you in a nutshell, but the book is worth reading, even if it doesn't change your opinions. And no, it's not some Christian propaganda... I rather think most Christians would be offended by it. In fact, there's not a whole lot of religion in it. Just science couched inside a good fiction about a FEDEX (or was it UPS?) guy who delivers a package to a strange old man. It's free, and it's thought provoking. What more could you want in a book?

I think Christians get more offended when you tell them that their religion is either the worshiping of Mount Sinai, the real MT Sinai, the Volcano likely located in Jordan or Saudi Arabia, or Pantheism.. Erupting of Volcanos and the thunderous sounds, and lightnings were considered the "Voice Of God".. Hence the Roman Vulcan GOD. And this is where the term Volcano came from, and is just like how MT Sinai speaks to Mosses ect.. If you are curious I can lay this out for all of you in exodus, Psalm, the Deuteronomy, and even in the Quran.

WMD: I found God's Debris to be full of holes and inconsistencies. There was nothing in there to turn my head. And decidedly nothing "empirical".

Even Scott Adams himself said it's not meant to proselytize but rather as a thought experiment. And a good bit of the "science" has proven wrong.

Not really a book I would recommend to someone looking for empirical proof.

But, other than that, a great read. wonderful story.

Not really a book I would recommend to someone looking for empirical proof.

Trial of the Witnesses is a better read

Mark was not written n 40BCE. Almost every scholar and researcher puts it somewhere between 64-75CE, during or just after the destruction of the Temple. All 4 of the gospels contained in the new testament were written well after the death of Jesus and all 4 were the ones that Constantine chose out of the more than a hundred that were available to be included in what we now call the New Testament around 325CE

History belongs to the victors, always has and always will.

64-75CE, during or just after the destruction of the Temple.

The Magdaline Fragments clearly show that Mark was written before the War against the Jews started in 68 AD.

The Bible is a fairy tale. Nothing more, and a whole lot less. Until you see the Universe and our presence here on Earth for what it is, Nature at work, you will never see past the smoke and mirrors that religion casts upon your mind, body and soul.

Do me a favor and send me a text message from heaven when you die, or at least come back and tap me on the shoulder to let me know you made it safely to heaven. We both know you won't be able to do such a thing, because there is not heaven.

I don't text now. I seriously doubt I'll take up the practice when I'm done here.

Why do people have to disprove something that has yet to be proven in the first place? Just because a manuscript that was written many many years after Jesus died and re-edited/re-translated dozens of times says something happens doesn't mean it's evidence of anything happening. Do you believe everything that's written down?

Do you just dismiss everything that's written down? Or, do you only do that when you don't like what it says? Or, do you look into what it says yourself instead of letting other people convince you one way or the other?

Miker

Whether or not there was a historical Jesus is very much up in the air. The only mentions we have of him are from followers, all of whom wrote many years after his death, and some of whom never met him.

There is no record of Jesus in the Roman bureaucracy. There is also no archeological evidence for him either. Unlike Jefferson and DaVinci. We have their own writings, we have physical artifacts they left, we have correspondences they wrote to contemporaries, and we can find independently verified documents about them. None of this is true about Jesus. If we had letters Jesus wrote, or records of him or his crucifixion in the Roman records, that would be another story.

I believe Jesus probably did live, but to say that the evidence for this is the same as for Jefferson or DaVinci is the definition of intellectually dishonest.

Do you believe everything you read? Do you believe the Koran? What are your criteria for what writings you believe?

OK, so the metaphor with Jefferson and DaVinci was a little over the top, but there are reputable non-religious historical analyses which indicate that Jesus was a real person.

I don't believe much of what I read but I actually have done a good bit of study on the historicity of the Bible. Of course, I don't have a lifetime to devote to digging up the entire Middle East for archeological evidence or to learn Aramaic so that I can analyze the old writings myself. So, I depend on people I consider trustworthy and academically capable of making reasonable conclusions based on reasonable facts, projections, or logic. Much the way you would evaluate any historical account albeit with somewhat more distance.

As far as the Koran goes, I haven't read the whole thing so I really couldn't tell you if I "believe the Koran" or not. I most certainly believe there was a guy name Muhammed who penned most of it. What I have read of it wasn't really anything to be believed or disbelieved - most of what I've read of the Koran were rules or laws, presumably conceived by the author.

I suppose one thing you've got to ask is, Why would a bunch of different people write very consistent accounts of the same man after following him for several years? Why did they follow him? Their writings certainly don't make them sound like Jim Jones cult types. . . so I tend to rule out that possibility. There didn't seem to be any money in it for them and not much in the way of personal gain in any other respect. So, I think you owe it to yourself to ask at least that question.

Well, when you've had 2000 years to get your stories straight with each other, its easy to dupe the locals...

I'm not a follower of any particular religion, but I'm siding with Miker on this one. I think that it's very unlikely that the story of Jesus of Nazareth is completely fabricated. I think that a very influential preacher who challenged Roman authority probably lived during that period of time. Virgin birth? Not a chance. Joseph and Mary did it 9 months before he was born. Rose from the dead? Only if he wasn't truly dead when they put him in the cave (if that actually happened). Whoever this person really was and whatever actually happened, his followers believed his message strongly enough that they would suffer the horrors of the floor of the Roman Colliseum rather than forsake him. That's impressive. How accurately the accounts that we have communicate what he was really trying to say is a matter of speculation, definitely something to think about.

The only mentions we have of him are from followers, all of whom wrote many years after his death, and some of whom never met him.

"Christus" is mentioned in Steutonious book on the "Twelve Caesar's"

Jesus Christ was a man like any other. He was no more the son of God than you or I. That man may have existed and taught his philosophies to disciples who carried the stories and, to "legitimize" the teachings, made him into the son of God.

It really doesn't matter. The teachings of Jesus Christ were a new approach to decision making in a complex world and are still relevant today.

The Bible is much like a movie of today, it is based on real events in history, real people but it is edited and explained based on mans limited knowledge of the world (as in they dont know about atoms and science ect) and has a bunch of really cool special effects added in to help sell the story.

One big failure in the bible is its lack of a proper editor, with all the contradictions and obvious impossabilities it should be labeled fantasy regardless of it having mentioned actual historical events in its pages.

Anyhow after over 2k years it has to be one of the best books read, I wonder why they didnt create royalties for each time it is published.

smt123-3055206,

I'm no Christian, but I do know that the Jewish historian Josephus did make note of Jesus of Nazareth, and that he had a following. That's a far cry from claiming there's no outside record of his existance. Josephus was not a Christian.

Pirate C,

If four eyewitnesses went into a courtroom today and gave exactly the same testimony, agreeing on every little detail, the judge and most discerning jurors would surmise that the testimony was rehearsed. We all see events from our own perspective. I might notice some little detail that others wouldn't. For example, I'm much more attuned to sounds rather than sights, but my wife is just the opposite. When you have four people giving truthful testimony, you expect the accounts to vary on some of the details, but they all should be in agreement on core concepts. Take an auto accident, for example. Depending on the angle from which it is observed, one witness might say Car A was black, while another might say it was dark blue. Both those witnesses might agree that Car A had a turn signal on, but a third witness might not have seen a turn signal. They all witnessed the same accident, but each tells it from his or her own perspective. That's why the idea of little discrepancies between the writers, if anything, suggests to me that the authors were really trying to record events as they perceived them, rather than being a posthumous attempt to create a mythology. If that was the goal, I would have expected a much tighter end product, leaving less room for criticism.

I think the whole aspect of this is that the Bible was supposed to be Gods word, so based on that I would expect way more perfection in the bible then there is. Most of the contradictions in the bible are opposite aspects of each other, then you have the old testament and the new testament, the old was vengeful kill non-believers, take slaves, rape, pillage and sacrifice in my name.

The new testament Its all about love each other, ect, ect So why would God change his mind from vengful to loving, the glaring differences in the bible are a far cry from slight differences in the aspect of each person seeing things differently from each other.

Do any of you realize that saying "Jesus" did (or did not) exist is the equivalent of saying "George" did (or did not) exist? It's a fairly common name of the time and without a context could mean hundreds of people. The historicity of Jesus is in little doubt. Most scholars are OK with the belief that he existed.

As for "many years after his death", I don't think so. Mark was written ce 40 B.C.E. so that puts it at 7 years after his death. Not as "many" as has been represented here.

There are other arguments for not believing the stories in the Bible (most concerning the origin of the stories themselves rather than their subject matter). Please don't spread fallacy.

Arrgh!! I hope everyone understands the typo.

It's 40 A.D. Sorry.

Sola Gloria Dei,

Latin: Glory only to God.

The Catholic Church official proclamation has been made here in this comment section. This is how it is, there will be no discussion on the topic, we have given you the answer you seek, no further thought or seeking is required on your part. We have an official position and beyond that there is nothing that can be said.

Thank you, Sister Somebody, for performing your duty for today.

Bingo! There is no questioning allowed in the Catholic Church. Whatever the Pope and his underlings decide, that's what you get. Any questioning gets you the ancient label of heretic (even though they don't really come out and say that aloud). That's why I left that church. Too many rules (the rule book is thicker than the Bible), too many rituals, not enough spirituality. Who really cares if the Last Supper was on a Wednesday, Monday or Thursday?

Sola Gloria Dei,

Please come back and talk with us.

dman,

Let us clarify something in our mind, shall we? It is not whether or not the pronouncements of the Catholic Church (or any religious group) are correct or not that is important. The important thing is that, once you agree to any particular item of dogma, you are willing to believe whatever they say as truth.

Do you believe that Christ was the son of God? If you say yes then you must believe all they tell you. Obedience is the objective of such people. If you believe tht the last wupper was on wednesday, then you must believe all, because they already know.

There are things you think.

There are things you know.

There are things you think you know (believe).

Crud, I just made this really long comment and went on an on and on. So I just erased it.

What's he gonna do at Chris Pontius' place, playing a role for the new Jackass movie? Let me guess, he will be playing Party Boy #2?

Alan

Just because you did it in the past doesn't mean you should do it now! Discussions of the relationship between faith and science seem appropriate for a "Cosmic Log", but this article is only "Cosmic" for traditional Christians. See the problem?

then why do you read the article?

We must realize much of science and religion (while I feel are completely incompatible with one another) ARE linked through historical and tradition significance.

No one on here would, for example, rally to have the names of planets, moons, and constellations changed just because they share that of (and were inspired by) the names of gods from antiquity would they? Of course not.

So Alan, I think you in deed not only should publish articles based on religion, but I think you have a duty to.

What I would criticize within this argument, are the topics and subject matter being discussed within these parameters. There are far to many "light and fluffy" articles (such as this one) and nowhere NEAR enough regarding the social issues and attacks on science being made throughout this once great nation.

Where are the numerous articles regarding the assault of our educational systems (in regards to evolution in particular?)

Where is the outpour of rage regarding science teachers no longer needing to understand the very science they've been hired to teach? But, can now simply put forth the religious sentiment and biases they were raised with? The very fact no one seems to understand the definition of a scientific theory, or the fact that there is no "controversy" within the scientific community regarding evolution. This only highlights my position further. Why are you not putting forth a story that addresses this Alan?

Why are we not talking about our nations abysmal global rank within the sciences? A fact only highlighted by the recent news from the Tenn. legislature.

Why aren't we discussing the conservative push to spread misinformation regarding climate change and their general distrust of science in general?

I'm a touch biased I know, simply because I am so entrenched within my passion for science, but I honestly feel the degree to which our sciences are being dumbed-down within this nation, and the degree that independents want to ignore the fact that there is a scary disconnect between reality and "reality" amongst the patrons of this nation .... this is probably the single greatest threat to our country and our progress. Not that people understand evolution or climate change ... but the fact people actually think there are equally opposing arguments on both sides.

What next, the push to teach alchemy over chemistry?

What evidence can we provide people who don't seem to value evidence?

"Religion has nothing to do with science? "

What could a religious claim possibly be making about the nature of the universe, our creation, and our future .... If NOT within the purviews of science. Religions ARE making scientific claims .... just really, really bad ones.

The sad irony of course, the ones who should know better, are the ones that give the greatest latitude to this phenomenon.

We live in this pc world where we are all told every argument has equal weight, regardless of evidence or logic. Does that not frighten anyone else?

We've become so tolerant that we now tolerate intolerance.

Sad.

Alan Boyle,

Thanks for the article. I was driven to read it because I wanted to see why such a thing might matter to me. More interesting are these comments since they give me notions about the various positions folks have taken and wish to expound upon.

chad,

Yes we should tolerate intolerance. The intolerance of intolerance leads to the dogmatic suppression of thought not exactly like our own and it's called fundamentalism. Remember the bell shaped curve. Most people are in the middle and they make all the difference.

grump

I agree with you.

But you seem to be confusing the philosophical notions and parameters within "questions" and "inquiry" and not within matters of the scientific method. Science is based on the natural, observable world. Now, there are obviously many aspects to science that seem to bend this notion (which we are quickly finding through the research at CERN to name just one example), but nonetheless .... even these new and exiting attributes can be defined within our natural realm. It does no good, and furthers no argument to ascribe this within a supernatural substrate of what we can already understand and visibly explain.

Philosophical notions, questions and quests for god are a beautiful thing my friend. They in deed are ones that many secular individuals (including myself) find great joy in seeking out.

The difference is, secular individuals tend not to make up unfounded claims regarding the nature of the universe based on these experiences. I don't know about you, but I have had aesthetical moments of bliss. I have had transcendent experiences based of phenomenon that I can't explain. We all have. The difference is some of us find more beauty within that mystery ... and less beauty ascribing and defining such an experience within a 1st century framework.

The point in my previous post was that science is science. And, should be leaved as such.

In regards to the mysteries and majesties found within the concept of "god", well, I could go on for days. And, I would most likely differ from many of my atheist counterparts.

But, my point remains. My "beliefs" (or lack thereof) in god, have no barring on the science classroom. And that's a good thing.

chad,

Thanks for your reply and I agree. I would suggest that you take the next step beyond. That would be that whether there is a god or not does not matter.

You are talking like a Buddhist.

For fun, I teach English classes at the local Buddhist Monastery. The monks are from Thailand and their pronunciation is just way out there. The other day I was having a conversation with a monk from northern Thailand, way out in the sticks, in the mountains. He grew up a farm boy in the rice fields became a novice and went through the whole thing to become a monk. He has been a monk now for about 25 years. He learned English from a book. His spelling and vocabulary are fairly good. He is a country hick by our standards and saw his first computer and the internet about 5 or 6 months ago.

I asked him what the Buddhist position on Darwinian evolution was. He tilted his head and looked at me quizzically like my corgi dog does when I talk to her and she doesn't understand. He said the Buddhists have no "position" on evolution. The world just is and isn't it wonderful, he says, how scientists are learning so much about how things work!!! Well, there you go. A country farm boy from up in the mountains in the middle of nowhere has the answer. He and I had a wonderful laugh.

Is there a god, I asked? Such a thing is unknowable, he answers, and, therefore, it does not matter. He recommends that we not spend much time thinking about it and get a puppy and play with it.

These monks are a f---ing hoot!!!

chad

I quote you from above:"even these new and exiting attributes can be defined within our natural realm. It does no good, and furthers no argument to ascribe this within a supernatural substrate of what we can already understand and visibly explain."

Yes, of course. But that is what the Old Testament and all mythology is all about. It is an attempt by men and women to explain why things happen around them. Some unseen thing in the path tripped me as I walked. What was that? I didn't see it so it is an unseen force "out there". That is the way our minds work. Science is just an organized, defined way of figuring what those unseen forces might be.

Some folks think very primitively. Consciousness is a fairly recent event in human evolution.

Grump

Yes, I agree completely.

I actually find quite a lot of beauty and wisdom in Buddhism. But, I also find a great deal of beauty and wisdom in Islam, Christianity, and a variety of other religions as well.

It's one of life's greatest ironies for me. The minute someone realizes I'm an atheist, they immediately think I'm angry at the world, hate god, and have a completely closed mind in the areas of the numinous. All of which couldn't be further from the truth. Not only in my case, but most of the atheist/secular people that I know as well.

The reason I think science and religion are linked (especially in areas of debate such as this) is that I feel like religion is a part of our sciences (just not in the way most people think). Just like religion is a well-defined construct of the human condition ... it is an entity we can study, research and learn more about. Why do people believe "this" and not "that."

These are all parameters within science, built on generations of psychology, physiology, biology, evolution and socialology.

People often think I'm obsessed with religion ... but it's actually quite in reverse. I'm obsessed with the beauties of science and I feel our social propensity and gravitation towards religion can be studied and defined in the very real, realm of science.

My point is, we must first be honest with ourselves. And, we must be open and honest about what religions are. They offer no more gains within "spiritual" growth then my pet bulldog does.

In actuality, they limit the growth of the unknown. They say "we know" and they offer definitions to the indefinable. That's what is so sad.

Alan,

I completely understand. That's why I pointed out you do include said articles. My point was that the coverage seems to be incredibly lopsided when these stories are reported on and are very few and far between.

Given the urgency of the crisis, and what scientific illiteracy means to not just our nation (but our world) I just think it should be much more at the forefront of the discussion.

The main distressing fact, and the disturbing trend I see in the media is that whenever a scientist criticizes the obvious flaws of religion, they are immediately labeled a militant atheist and rallied against. This is very dangerous and disheartening.

Dee, the question of Passover dinner on a Wednesday or Thursday is not core to Christianity, but people who study all facets of human knowledge often delve into insignificant minutia for pure fun. This desire of humanity is not a reflection on Christianity as a religion. You even see this in science. Have you ever heard an hour-long scientific presentation on the variations of sedges (a plant similar to grass)? Not exactly earth shattering science, but you find PhDs who build entire careers on fairly specified research that has arguably limited value.

You are correct and in error at the same time. Don't worry--it happens to all of us. Yes, the official list of what was included in the Christian scriptures was formalized in the third century, but it was a formal acknowledgement of some lists that had been ciruculating since early in the second century. The texts that were on that list included some that were penned within decades of the life of Christ. Regardless where one stands on the supernatural claims of the Christian tradition, one must admit that the general textual evidence is very much in alignment with the original writings. Whether or not the Christian scriptures (cannon) should have been formalized in such a matter is a matter of theological debate, not an academic one.

Yep, that was one of the stupidest things America has ever done in its history. To help jews squat and take over a land that was clearly owned by someone else. It will continue to haunt us for eternity, or until the jews are removed from those ill gotten lands that truly belong to the Palestinians. For anyone to have looked at religious text to say that land belong to the jews is just ridiculous at best, no wonder those people in the middle east have a contempt for Americans.They are afraid we are going to take more of their land and hand it over to someone else, and they have all the right to be afraid and I'll go as far as saying they even have all the right to hate us for our actions.

And you wonder why I frown on all religious contexts. How dare you question my motives!

@Bob:

You wrote this:

Americans are dying and the U.S. treasury is hemmorhaging in part because George W. Bush believes a bunch of Europeans who claim to be the heirs to Moses and therefore entitled to Palestine.

The factual reality is that after centuries of Jewish people being attacked and killed mercilessly by the cult of death, destruction, and hate called "Islam"--which rose to new heights of evil when the cult joined forces with the National German Socialist Workers Party in the 1930s and 1940s--in 1948 just a short time after the end of the Second World War, Britain decided that it could no longer manage the Mandate for Palestine created at the end of the First World War by the League of Nations, and consequently Britain ceded authority to the United Nations, which then very quickly led to the division of the area into two parts and the subsequent self-declaration of the state of Israel . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Mandate_for_Palestine

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nazi_relations_with_the_Arab_world#Cooperation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel#Independence_and_first_years

So, the fact of the matter is that the creation of the state of Israel has nearly nothing to do directly with our great nation, although we continue strongly to support Israel, since it is in our best interest to do everything possible to ensure that the masters of dealing with the cult of death, destruction, and hate called "Islam" continue to refine their vast skills in this respect . . .

We are getting better at controlling, containing, and eliminating the cult of death, destruction, and hate called "Islam" and the current Muslim infestation, and most recently our current leader (President Obama) is proving to be extraordinarily skilled in dealing with the cult of death, destruction, and hate called "Islam", to the point that he recently has discovered a way to get the cult to terrorize itself, which is simply fabulous in every respect . . .

Fabulous!

And, once again, as did the League of Nations before it, the United Nations has had no option but to get involved toward the goal of introducing at least a semblance of minimally civilized behaviors into yet another area claimed arbitrarily by the the cult of death, destruction, and hate called "Islam" to be one its caliphates or nests . . .

As best as I have been able to determine, beginning sometime late last year (2010) President Obama apparently discovered the vast capabilities of the General Atomics MQ-1 Predator and MQ-9 Reaper remotely-piloted unmanned aerial vehicles and the Lockheed Martin AGM-114 Hellfire air-to-surface missile, and since then our great nation has been attacking the cult of death, destruction, and hate called "Islam" at least every 45 minutes 24x7 with this very effective anti-terrorist platform, with the attack rate increasing dramatically over the past month or so, where with good targeting this can cost as little as $3,000 per cult member to remove them permanently from the known universe, which is spectacular from the perspective of prudent accounting and financial managing principles, for sure . . .

For sure!

This patently evil nonsense has been ongoing for thousands of years, and it is quite likely that it led to what might be the most egregious instance of plagiarism in the history of civilization on this planet when in the 7th century the Qur'an was concocted as the formal set of precepts to be followed by the cult of death, destruction, and hate called "Islam" in its dealings with the Jewish people and all the people who support them and strive to behave as merely decent human beings, which in the twisted thinking of the cult of death, destruction, and hate called "Islam" causes them to be labeled as unbelievers, infidels, and kafirs . . .

Attempting to assign any authority and responsibility for this to our great nation--which has existed for less than 250 years--is simply naive at best and pretty much mind-boggling in general . . .

Mind-boggling!

Those who seek to assign blame for the apparent plight of the so-called "Palestinian" people need only to look into mirrors to identify the culprits, really . . .

Really!

When unbridled irrational hate is allowed to fester for hundreds of generations, the Darwinian laws of evolution strongly suggest that this results in irreversible changes in fundamental genetic algorithms, which in the grand scheme of everything only can be described by the word "disease", which is the primary reason that I suggest the following scientific fact:

Islam is a social disease that is spread by Muslims!™

I am glad for your faith, but I will always and forever refuse to worship a "God" that claims to be love us so much and who claims to be all merciful, but uses fear (As in fear of eternal damnation) to bring people to him.

Here is the kicker, what is the point of the bible, in the old testament God was an angry vengeful god commanding people to murder, take slaves, to rape and pillage in his name.

Then he suddenly changes his mind and become all loving, is that called puberty for immortals? So why did God change his mind?

The one thing I cannot understand is How can we all have free will when God already knows what we will do in our lives? If our names are written or not written in the book of life and God already knows the path we will follow Where is our free will?

And Satan is supposed to be the most cunning and smart and beautiful angel in heaven but he is stupid enough to rebel against god when he is very well aware of God's Power and can very well read the bible and see what the end is to be for him but he is stupid enough to go ahead with his reach for power regardless of the fact that he is aware that he will not win in the end?

Sorry I will take my Logic and sanity over following a book that falls apart under basic common sense questions and scrutiny.

Pirate: You have fallen for the fallacy that many skeptics believe. A thorough reading of the Old and New Testaments will show a consistency of character that belies the meme of Old Testament angry God, New Testament cuddly God. The Book of Jonah, the story of David, and much of the relationship of God and the Jews in general as depicted in the Old Testament create a picture of a loving merciful and strict God. Many of Jesus' statements as well as the story of Ananias and Sapphira, for example, indicate a steel and resolve within the context of love and mercy of the New Testament.

As to free will, the ability of a being not constrained by linear time to know the outcome of a person's choices does not negate the ability of that person to make those choices freely. I certainly respect your right to come to what conclusions you will about God, religion, etc., but it is profoundly ignorant or intellectually dishonest to dismiss this all as illogical and crazy.

Pirate,

Looks like you need to think on this a bit more and come to your own conclusions. Don't ask other people to tell you how it works. You are still "inside the box."

re we reading the same old Testament?
How are the following passages about a loving, merciful God? Am I missing something?

Burn Non-believers:
(Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)
(Ezekiel 21:33-37 NAB)

Rape:
(Judges 21:10-24 NLT)
(Numbers 31:7-18 NLT)

(Deuteronomy 20:10-14)
(Deuteronomy 22:28-29 NLT)
(Deuteronomy 22:23-24 NAB)
(Deuteronomy 21:10-14 NAB)
(2 Samuel 12:11-14 NAB)
(Judges 5:30 NAB)
(Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
(Zechariah 14:1-2 NAB)

Murder:
(Deuteronomy 17:12 NLT)
(Exodus 22:17 NAB)
(Leviticus 20:13 NAB)
(Leviticus 20:27 NAB)
(Exodus 21:15 NAB)
(Proverbs 20:20 NAB)
(Leviticus 20:9 NLT)
(Leviticus 20:10 NLT)

(Leviticus 21:9 NAB)
(Deuteronomy 22:20-21 NAB)
(Leviticus 24:10-16 NLT)
(Romans 1:24-32 NLT)
(Numbers 1:48-51 NLT)
(Exodus 31:12-15 NLT)
(Isaiah 14:21 NAB)
(Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)
(Hosea 9:11-16 NLT)
(Jeremiah 51:20-26)
(Leviticus 26:21-22 NLT)
(Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)
(1 Samuel 15:2-3 NAB)
(Jeremiah 15:1-4 NLT)
(Jeremiah 48:10 NAB)
(Ezekiel 35:7-9 NLT)

(Exodus 23:23 NAB)

Kill NonBelievers:
(2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

(Zechariah 13:3 NAB)

Kill entire town non believers:

(Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)
Kill followers other religions:
(Deuteronomy 13:7-12 NAB)
(Deuteronomy 17:2-5 NLT)
. (Numbers 25:1-9 NLT)

Slavery

(Leviticus 25:44-46 NLT)
(Exodus 21:2-6 NLT)
(Exodus 21:7-11 NLT)
(Exodus 21:20-21 NAB)
(Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
(1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)

Grump I have already come to MY conclusions, hense my being Agnostic.

Pirate C,

You are still playing their game.

The idea that the bible made it seem as if Earth was the center of the entire Universe has always been my basis for disbelief in its words. Now if there was really some mystical God type creature, why didn't he tell those writing the Bible about the vastness of space and why didn't he let them in on the fact that the world was not flat or that the Earth revolved around the sun. Simple things like this would have made a world of difference in my eyes, but considering this was never the case, it leads me to believe all these 'words from god' are just ideas meant to sucker people into believing in these ridiculous religious texts. And for what reason? The only thing we have ever gotten out of religion in inter-religion fighting. Ever since the first sparks of religion came into play people have been fighting each other to try and impose their religious beliefs upon everyone else.

As I have always stated: Religion is nothing but a way to retard the evolution of the human mind and spirit. Believe in it if you must, but do so at your own risk, and at the risk of never becoming 'smarter than a 5th grader'.

TruthSeeker - the bible does talk about the vastness of the heavens and does say that the earth is round and that is it hung upon nothing. Also the true religion (those who follow the bible for what it says) don't practice war as God tells us not to and Jesus was against violence. God will eventually bring peace to the earth and only the true religion will reign under the guidance of his son Jesus

Truthseeker, since you don't believe in God why did you even read the story? Just to come on and bash and make fun of those that do? Is that the "enlightened" way of the Atheist or Agnostic?

Actually, the Church never decreed that the earth was flat. Nor did it ever teach that the earth was the center of the universe. Following the ancient philosophers and scientists - and good ole empirical evidence - it did erroneously believe the Sun revolved around the earth.

@Special Sister The earth is not round, the earth is spherical. Also read the old testament God did indeed command his followers to practice war, murder, rape, slavery. What I dont understand is why God changed his mind with Jesus.

The bible is full of contradictions and obvious scientific errors. But then this is to be expected due to the time the bible was written, and the fact that man wrote it.

I dont believe the bible is Gods word if it is then God is pretty powerless, to think he could create the universe but was unable to have his words properly edited for continuity (to make sure no contradictions were created) and that it could translate with man thru time (be able to keep up with mans growing knowledge of science and the way things work)

I can't believe he created the whole universe but couldn't build a boat and had to have an old man do it. I guess that is why he wanted a carpenter for a son...

@SpecialSister

The bible does talk about the vastness of the heavens and does say that the earth is round and that is it hung upon nothing

Exactly my point! Why doesn't it?

why doesn't it what?

Right, if you followed the Jewish calendar Nisan 14 was on Sunday (April 17th) so passover would have started after sundown on Sunday. Easter is a pagan holiday filled with pagan symbols (rabbits, eggs) and was not what Jesus wanted us to celebrate when he said "keep doing this in remembrance of me" after he had the last supper with his disciples.

Actually, there are some who argue that it was not the Seder, but a meal one night before the Seder (the Christian scriptures recorded that Jesus lamented that he longed to be able to take the [Seder] meal with them). That makes more sense in the context, too, since the Seder meal was the start of the Passover Sabbath--there would have been no arrest, trial, or crucifixion on that day. The biblical account notes how steps were taken to get the body off the cross and entombed before the Passover began. That, coincidentally (?) would have placed the time of Jesus' death at approximately the same time the Jewish priests would have started slaying the Passover lambs.