Christianity: Was Jesus A Fraud?

[righturnonred]

The fact that species adapt to nature and competition obviates the need for a guiding intelligence. To state that the harmony witnessed in nature is dependent on some god like figure, is to make the same claim taht market supply and demand should depend on god like bureaucrats who can determine and manage supply and demand and market pricing.

Craig,

I'm not sure you understood my point. Let me clarify.

I didn't mean to imply that God, or other supernatural being, micromanages the systems of nature, but rather that the systems of nature, down to the sub-atomic level, possess such intricate precision and perfect harmony that I must attribute a divine intellegence to it's creation.

Science is merely the study of how God's grand mechanism works. I may even go so far as to say that economics falls into that category, seeing as how economics is a function of human behavior.

[Derek]

Derek...you are making one big mistake with your posts. You are saying that the Bible's existence proves that it is correct.

I could say the same about the Quran, the Rg Veda, The Cat in the Hat, or just about any book I wished.

Well sorry if you got that, im saying Jesus existed because there is credibility.

Muhammad i believe existed, you know why? Credibility.

Its how credible the source is. The bible is credible. I mean how can it not be? Yes its stories and parables could be false, (doubtfully in my opinion) But people have had to believe in Jesus when seeing him, then write it down.

I mean, a bunch of people don't get together and say....hey lets face death and persecution to support a guy we made up!

[Mr Farrius]

If we keep arguing about the credibility of the Bible, we are going to get nowhere. Credibility has little relevance when it comes to the Bible because the Bible is based on one's faith that it was the Word of God bestowed onto man as a daily guide to salvation and life.

The possibility that a group of people got together to make up a story and even risked their lives for their beliefs is highly unlikely. But insisting that the Bible is credible without proving why also gets us nowhere. Again I repeat, the proof lies in the visible fact of people's lives changing when they encounter Christ and the Bible.

[logical1]

The real question at hand, I would guess is not whether Jesus simply existed or not but rather what occurred during his existence. I think the debate over his existence is an unimportant debate that has no bearing on his actual significance.

The reason that there are debates like these at all is because we are not taught (as we should be) that contradictions do not exist. Things can not be what they are and what they are not at the same time in the same context. It is impossible. The laws of identity and causality govern our existence and make contradictions an impossibility.

Everything you have accepted as truth about the world around you tells you that certain things are not possible. For instance, if you come across a freight train laying on its side and someone tells you it was the result of a collision with a bicycle, you do not believe this based on what you know to be true about bicycles and trains. However, if for some reason you accept what the person has told you as factual and you integrate that into your range of knowledge, it will ultimately be a source for endless errors in judgement about all sorts of things. This continues until you reconcile the contradiction that bicycles are not capable of knocking over trains but this bicycle knocked over a train. The answer is simple as long as you know that contradictions do not exist for any reason at any time ever.

The actual metaphysical evidence of the feats described in the bible (which is really what is responsible for its significance) does not exist and has never existed. The stories conflict with the laws of identity and causality. To accept the stories, you must abandon reason and accept the contradictions.

The existence of someone named Jesus would not be a contradiction but that's not really what people need to know is it?

[Mr Farrius]

Once again, to apply what seems reasonable and "logical" to religion is futile. The very reason why people believe and have faith in a supernatural being and miraculous feats, is the very fact that this being is supernatural and can thus perform what appears to the human eye as impossible. I do not understand why the limitations in this universe based solely on human understand should dictate what is possible and what is not.

The real question at hand, I would guess is not whether Jesus simply existed or not but rather what occurred during his existence. I think the debate over his existence is an unimportant debate that has no bearing on his actual significance.

I disagree. The fact that a Messiah in actual human form came down to Earth to die for mankind is the most important element of Christianity and its beliefs. Also I do not understand what you mean in saying that what occured during his existence is the more important issue. Is not what occured during his existence innately a result and product of his actual existence? We cannot examine the impact that Jesus had on believers without arguing whether He really existed, because His existence itself was an impact.

[Elder]

Amen Mr. Farrius. To believe in any Religion by it's very nature is to believe that there is a higher power capable of doing what we deem to be impossible. In my opinion, human beings are not the best judges of what is possible and impossible.

At one point we said that it was impossible for man to fly. Of course there were still those who would try. Most of them were considered crazy. We now know better. Those early inventors and such weren't crazy, they were just a few steps on the way to where we are now, with the entire globe accessable by flight. Is it not possible that believers, who despite the evidence Christ, still believe he existed and is the source of all salvation, are just a step on the road to where God wants us to be?

Is it possible that there are a thousand things about this that we don't know? You bet it is! Is it not possible that there is a being powerful enough to come here, perform miracles, bleed and die for all mankind to save them, and then rise up? Is it not possible that he, after starting one of the most powerful religious movements in the history of mankind, would wipe his tracks so that those who believed on him would have to prove their faith? Is it at all impossible that such a being, being massively more wise and intelligent than any human being could possibly fathom, would have a plan that we, being human, would not be able to understand? Is it not possible that the contradictions make perfect sense from his almighty point of view (which we cannot comprehend, and is infinitely better than our own?) Who is to say what is logical. Could not a being with such power derail that train with a bicycle? I find that far more probable than all of existence being an accident. Far more probable than the mass needed for the big bang to just spontaneously apear. Of course, I being human, would not know if that couldn't happen. Humans are not the best judges of what is possible or impossible, a contradiction or a not. Why is it that some people can't accept the idea that we as Humans don't know everything yet!

[logical1]

If Jesus existed but was not who he is celebrated to have been and did not do what it is claimed that he did than proof of his existence proves nothing. The proof of the existence of someone named St. Nicholas does not lend itself at all to proving that he flew around the world led by magical reindeer.

Like it or not, we do not live in a chaotic universe governed by the supernatural, completely unpredictable where anything is possible and wishes and whims are granted without action. The concept of such a universe is the result of a parasitic mentality that despises rational judgement and conscious effort. It is the result of a desire of those who truly do not wish to be held accountable for their own judgement and actions. It is the result of a mentality that yearns for "forgiveness" and a sedentary existence.

The concept of such a universe is the result of beings that are more comfortable considering humanity to be a crawling mass of depraved, pathetic, incapable creatures born indebted for their own existence and redeemable only by an omniscient, omnipotent, mystical creator thus attempting to justify their own shortcomings and excuse them from exercising rational judgement about the world around them.

Men of reason choose to bravely face the universe as cognitive, capable beings willing to accept the rewards or consequences of their own effort and judgement. They recognize humans to be free at birth indebted to noone that must be allowed to exercise their own judgement and act in their own rational self interest for their own survival. They perceive their universe by their only means of perception and demonstrate the truth in their conclusions about the world around them through their achievements in science, medicine, technology etc. etc. Meanwhile, the mystical and supernatural has produced nothing tangible in the entire history of mankind. It has produced absolutely nothing in thousands of years. How many prayers is that ?

We do not live in a universe that allows us to apply abstract, manufactured explanations unrooted in reality in lieu of real understanding without paying a high price. We have been paying that price throughout history. Rather than accepting reason as the ultimate arbitrator, mankind has abandoned reason and chosen faith. When a dispute arises without reason as the guide for reconciliation, force is the only remaining arbitrator. My religion is better than your religion has never been argued successfully has it ? The final outcome of these disputes is the use of force.

However, mankind is nearing a day when courageous men like the men of science who defied supernatural doctrines centuries ago in the area of science under threat of torture and death will reject those same subjective, mystical doctrines in the areas of politics, economics and the humanities as well. Unprecedented prosperity will then finally become established in the areas of government and economics as it did in science and technology.

My guess is that there won't be as much interest in debating whether or not Jesus existed accept among those of you lacking the courage or sense to object to a notion that a bicycle can knock over a train.

The fundamental moral choice of a human being is not choosing between sin and salvation. It is choosing to think or not to think.

[Elder]

Forgive me, but any cognitive man of reason knows that for everything that he thinks he knows, there are probably 100 (and that is a huge understatement) things he doesn't know. A man who only by what his believes only his own perceptions doesn't know much. You refuse to admit that for all of mankinds wisdom in regards to the universe around them, we are a far cry from knowing everything. We have a lot of discoveries to make before we reach that point. Is it all that implausible that God would want to be subtle in his work, to let us live out our lives the way we choose, but still let us know how he would like it to be? It is not a chaotic universe because it is governed by the supernatural. Otherwise, how would anything have even come to exist? Science's view of the universe is in actuallity a lot more chaotic than Religions, do to the gaping holes in our knowledge that I am confident will be filled in the future sooner or later, and I look forward to these discoveries.

As for your comment on that mentality despising conscious effort not wishing to be accountable for ones actions, religious people know that they are responsible for keeping themselves and their families alive (heck they are usually even more responsible as far as the family is concerned!) They also believe that they are accountable for their actions to God. We actually believe there is more to life that we have to be responsible for than mere survival, but also we have to be responsible for our ethics, for our thoughts, and we are responsible to try to help those around us (a far better sentiment than simply acting in your own rational self interest for your own survival. If you would like evidence of this in Christian Doctrine, check James 1:22-27 (be ye doers of the word and not hearers only,) James 2:14-26 (faith without works is dead,) Galatians 5:13 (serve one another,) and Galatians 6:2-5 (bear one another's burdens......bear your own burden.)It is true that many Christians hide behind their faith as an excuse for immoral actions, however, they miss the point of the doctrine. Yes we believe that Christ did suffer for our sins, but that is because we know that perfection, while it is certainly worth striving for, is in the end, not quite attainable. It's what we pickup on the way that makes it worth while. Christians aren't perfect people either. Many atheists decide that if there is no God, than there is no reason to be moral, that if death is the end anyway than there is not much to live for. Are they much better off? As for the comment on the supernatural not having produced anything, decent moral behaviour (something this world desperately needs to pay attention to) is often based on religious principals. It matters not that Christ's doctrine wasn't necessarily new. The truth has always been the truth, especially when it comes to moral behaviour. It stands to reason that intelligent people figured it out before God had to spell it out for is. Christ just helped more people believe it. Having God endorse a moral code does wonders for it's popularity. Refering to the comment on force being the arbitrator, that is simply human nature. Christian Doctrine actually deplores these actions. They just further examples that Christians are still human, still imperfect, and are still going to make mistakes, even in the name of religion. The whole debate on my religion is better than your religion is a petty useless debate that Christ did warn against. For more info, there is a discussion on this forum. Please see. "Christianity, the Fractured Faith."

Christians do not believe their beliefs to be abstracted. We believe that God truly did reveal himself to the prophets of old, and truly did come forth among man. We believe in the miracles (why couldn't a more powerful being do such things?) and we believe that they still happen today. I've heard tell of miraculous healings and God talking to men today, and I'm not talking about the tabloids either. I'm not always sure if it's the real thing, but as I wasn't there, who am I to say it isn't. Perhaps God doesn't reveal himself often simply because he wants us to actually live by his laws without having him standing to remind us every minute. Perhaps he wants us to prove to him that we can have faith in him even if he isn't always right in front of us. If everytime we wanted to do something wrong, he shouted down "THOW SHALT NOT DO THAT!" there would be no point in us existing. So he did it once, so that we could choose whether to follow him or not. We also choose the consequences when we do that.

I am not at all opposed to the persuit of knowledge in society. Nowhere in the Bible do I see any ban on learning. I believe that man has a great deal to learn about the universe, and I await each discovery. I love science, and truly wish that I did know everything. Sadly, I have not the knowledge or temperment to be a scientist. I lack the patience or the focus necessary (not to mention I loathe doing any form of Math.) I do support scientists in the field of learning though. We don't know everything about the universe yet (I'm sure we are an extremely long way off from there.) Many religious people do frown upon science. In my opinion they just can't accept science as it is, imperfect. To them I say, be patient. Let the work continue. It will get better. It stands to reason that the knowledge of imperfect beings would be imperfect. To those who actually study Christian Doctrine, the Bible actually promotes the persuit of knowledge (check 1st Samuel 2:3 and 2nd Peter 1:5.) I believe that we still have a great deal to know about God. I find it difficult to believe that all the Mysteries of God have been revealed. No, the religious mind does not necessarily have to be opposed to the persuit of knowledge. Albert Einstein, one of my personal heroes and arguably the most renowned physicist of all time, was a firm believer in God and that science was about learning of him. By my logic, a closed mind that won't believe anything that it doesn't percieve or have evidence to is a huge detriment to new discoveries.

Franky, you can't conclusively prove whether Christ was the son of God or not. We just don't know enough yet. In my opinion, that's how he wanted it. He wanted us to prove ourselves, that we could be faithful and abide by his teachings without having him babying us all the way. If we absolutely knew, it would be too easy. We all choose for ourselves what we believe. Whether we believe science, religion, history, your own reasoning, or just about anything, it's your choice. All of the above have one thing in common. They aren't perfect--yet.

[Mr Farrius]

Meanwhile, the mystical and supernatural has produced nothing tangible in the entire history of mankind. It has produced absolutely nothing in thousands of years. How many prayers is that ?

Actually it has, though your definition of tangible is ambiguous. Believe it or not, miracles happened in the past, and still happen today. A terminally ill-patient with a month to live would all of a sudden mysteriously get better. A pastor in a car on the highway would to avoid an accident, suddenly swerve, his car flip over many times, and come out with merely scratch, rescue teams in disbelief. People would pray and pray, and their prayers would always be answered. Now all of this doesn't seem possible does it? Well they have happened. How do you explain this incontrovertible phenomenal occurences? The laws in this universe crafted by man does not explain any of this. A physicist, a biologist, or a theorist cannot explain any of this. How are these things possible, yet so seemingly impossible (to the human mind of course)?

There are still numerous mysteries out there, such as biological processes, physics, the galaxy around us. Mankind does not comprehend all of these things. So how can they comprehend the idea of a supernatural being who made all of the above possible? They can't. As a result, they have been forced to make assumptions based only on what they understand and have learned so far. To put it in another light, mankind cannot force themselves to realize what they themselves have not been capable to achieve. The concept of reasoning and logic applied to a supernatural existence is faulty at best because the human mind will never come to the point where they understand even secular things. Like Elder said, God most likely made it this way so there are those who believe, and those who stubbornly resist because their petty logic does not allow them to comprehend such an idea. It's actually pretty wise if you think about it. God wants true believers, not arrogant men and their intelligence.

[logical1]

It is true that man is not omniscient and (thankfully) the discoveries of the universe are most likely infinite. However, it is not only possible but essential for survival that man correctly perceive the universe through the use of his senses which are his only source of perception. Man has demonstrated the truth in the conclusions about his world which result from this perception with an endless and ever growing list of magnificent achievements. This is a tangible, demonstrable, indisputable fact.

The logic in subjective, abstract religious doctrine is blatently flawed. It is a logic that says if something is not "A" than it must be "B". When in fact it may not be either. It is a significant flaw to refuse to correctly identify what is unknown as being unknown. It is a potentially fatal flaw to use the unknown, which has not been proved, as the foundation of an endeavor such as was done in science centuries ago and is still being done today in political and economic systems of government. For instance, a chemist must correctly identify and understand the properties of the chemicals he is working with. If not, he may fall victim to the results.

I stated earlier that the mystical and supernatural (as opposed to the proven and perceivable) has produced absolutely nothing tangible in thousands of years. Mr. Farrius stated that my use of the term "tangible" was ambiguous so I will clarify what I meant. No one on earth past or present can currently or has ever been able to show a single solitary product of or produce even a shred of evidence to objectively support anything supernatural. This fact leaves the concept of mysticism and the supernatural not even worthy of the most limited consideration in any capacity. Meanwhile, the world all around you is full of the achievements of logic and man's ability to reason and the progress of technology continues along at lightning speed.

The fact that religion and mysticism is used as a foundation for human endeavor is utterly and fantastically absurd. It has impeded mankind throughout history. When examining historical periods, it is a fact that the most subjective and religious periods in history have been mankind's darkest. One period was even known as the "dark ages". Even now we see it's effects in many parts of the world. When man summons the courage to reject the subjective and break free from those who impose it, the resulting periods and achievements are astonishing as demonstrated by the Renaissance and the Industrial Revolution.

In the 21st century, in the face of extensively conclusive evidence, we still refuse to recognize the laws of identity and causality. We still have people who attribute events (few of which are even very uncommon, contrary to what you would like to think) to prayer and luck and wish and whim. They do not understand, even to this day that everything has a cause. There is a legitimate, real, objective (most often even perceivable) cause to everything that happens. How a coin lands is not luck (there is no such thing). It is the result of very real controllable forces such as trajectory and velocity. You can build a precision machine that causes a coin to land on the same side every time.

Some of us will continue to live with a muted sense of purpose and little hope of achieving a level of self esteem proper to human existence, continuing to place blame and give thanks to mystical powers for our prosperity or misfortune.

Others of us will eagerly face the universe as noble creatures, recognizing things for what they are, shaping our own existence with a passion for life and the courage to live it.

[RB]

religion is an attitude, and the sciences are what should belong to the church because it is a truth in all absolutes.

here is what i meant. that men who cannot be equal with themselves and events seek higher explanation and higher appeal to a some conscience that is greater than their own and ask questions, and hasten to solve riddles

no question we are born a loyal person and born in believes.... by what is public and what those around us is loyal to and believe

those who usually find the truth, do not need to appeal to some higher conscience but more likely to seek science on acceptance of: faith, morality, love, time, space,

things evolve and change.

our recent culture has shift to science. now we have explanation for manners of the sun, moon, stars, ocean, weather, gravity, to atom

i had admiration for all that was excellent including the gods growing up. nowdays, my admiration rest with what the eyes have seen, and that the mind is persuaded to a new insight of not only what we hear men say but also what men they do not say and an anticipated reaction.

but what i am trying to say is that how on earth i am to believe that the thoughts e.g. (curing those of all diseases) are conveyed to another while i vainly make up my mind i wanted to say it and that someone actually heard this that i have never spoken. but indeed they have heard but continue to punish the diseases to extremity. i have a better motive to believe in science. i can’t buy into the riddles that are independent of the intellect.

for those skeptics i quote:

“if we meet no gods, it is because we harbor none”

[Mr Farrius]

i had admiration for all that was excellent including the gods growing up. nowdays, my admiration rest with what the eyes have seen

i.e. ignorance.

religion is an attitude, and the sciences are what should belong to the church because it is a truth in all absolutes.

Pardon me Rb, I really do not know where you get your definition of religion from. But then again, it appears that you don't practice one, so your opinion really can't be counted. Religion is actually a lifestyle for your information, and those who actually practice one would say the same. As for your comments on "the sciences," I have stated many times already that total knowledge of science is infinite and thus cannot be considered "a truth in all absolutes." How can you trust to something that isn't fully understood? Science, is not fully understood, and never will be. Thus it cannot take total precedence over religion.

Some of us will continue to live with a muted sense of purpose and little hope of achieving a level of self esteem proper to human existence, continuing to place blame and give thanks to mystical powers for our prosperity or misfortune.

That is a slight misconception. Christians tend to thank God for prosperity because we believe anything good that can happen in this wretched world is worthy of thanks. We however, do not blame God for our misfortuntes. We do realize that we as mortal beings, have weaknesses and therefore have to appeal to God for strength. That is the very essence of religion- the need for a divine, supernatural being to guide us in our lives.

Others of us will eagerly face the universe as noble creatures, recognizing things for what they are, shaping our own existence with a passion for life and the courage to live it.

And what, if I may be allowed to ask, comes after life in your definition of it? Do you really believe that humans exist for the sake of achieving as much as possible before death? What then, is the purpose of life? To learn? To succeed? To prosper? To be educated? All gone after death. How trivial is that. That, truly is a muted sense of purpose. Why live at all, if those are purposes for living? See, this is why I cannot fathom the idea that there is no supernatural being. There is a reason for everything. The reason that humans exist is not to die without meaning.

[RB]

it would be an untruth and by far more hypocritical to pronounce a believe of god.

here is what is the truth though. that there is a decay of "lifestyle" and that there is a decay of religious practice and is attributed to the fact that most of what is written in the bible is mostly:

- speculation

- that you have indeed given power to fallen man instead of to the grace of god

- that you are neglecting to preach and practice the word of god as a lifestyle

- that you are neglecting to teach the young about lifestyle

-and now there is contempt and defection from what is faith

-and as always there is much corruption in the church

it is no wonder folks leave the church in search other styles

i.e. ignorance.

well, it is related to me that the pseudo-ignorant is a person who actually knows what "pseudo" means because it is only he that is aware that knowledge gained is just a small percentage of what is contained in ignorance.

what i meant is that it would be all righteous if we can all just agree for something less than ordinary and settle for some simple motive.

now, here’s to try and make things difficult for those who are closed-minded, and indeed why approve of anything that tampers with what is natural ignorance.

[logical1]

I really don't know how to respond to RB so I'm not going to try. Mr Farrius, life as an end in itself is exactly what I am implying. This life is all that there is. It truly is worth living if you're not brought up to believe you're a wretched being living in a wretched world biding your time until death at which point you'll be given an existence where you'll want for nothing. I would not wish such an existence on an enemy. Rational desires and the ability to satisfy them through one's own productive effort is the essence of life. The purpose of life is life. We can not objectively establish that there is anything else. It is an end in itself.

When I wrote of blaming and thanking supernatural powers for misfortune and prosperity, I was not merely speaking of Christianity but of mysticism in general. Of course Christians can't blame God for anything evil because God is incapable of doing evil.

Oh but wait, God is omnipotent meaning God is capable of doing anything meaning God is capable of doing evil. This is just one of the thousands of contradictions in not only Christian doctrine but numerous other mystic doctrines as well. Religious leaders have unsuccessfully grasped at every available straw throughout history to try to explain and defend things like that. Much to their dismay, they've ended up with no other choice but to accept the contradictions which of course do not exist.

[Craig Read]

Logical1, good posts, you are consistent. I like your words here

In the 21st century, in the face of extensively conclusive evidence, we still refuse to recognize the laws of identity and causality. We still have people who attribute events (few of which are even very uncommon, contrary to what you would like to think) to prayer and luck and wish and whim. They do not understand, even to this day that everything has a cause. There is a legitimate, real, objective (most often even perceivable) cause to everything that happens.

This is so true. There is no proof that Christ existed, but one aspect of 'his' teachings is that the here and now is worth living - if only to exact justice and rewards for good offices in the afterlife -- in other words cause and effect. Christ and other rabbis taught that 'you sow what you reap'. The problem with religion is the replacement of the here and now with supernaturality and egotistical arrogance that 'you' or 'we' are the chosen ones.

This strikes me as especially absurd in an age of science. Religion and science can and should co-mingle, but spirituality weighed down by superstition and magic does ill to everyone involved - believers, the church and society.

I support religion for the following reasons:

-it CAN teach ethical and moral behaviour

-Provides charity and education

-Provides a counter force to the State

These are practical reasons to support religion.

[Mr Farrius]

RB's claims are misguided and misinformed. I also tend to have a hard time understanding what she's trying to say, maybe it's just me.

Rational desires and the ability to satisfy them through one's own productive effort is the essence of life. The purpose of life is life. We can not objectively establish that there is anything else. It is an end in itself.

By whose definition? Aren't you in effect, objectively establishing the purpose of life yourself? It would be faulty to assume that all others possess the same principles, values, and goals as you do. Therefore, the purpose of life is different for every person and cannot be one sole thing. I have a hard time accepting that the purpose of life is for the sake of living, because that is not a purpose. You do not live, merely for the sake of doing so. Life would be utterly pointless if it was so.

Oh but wait, God is omnipotent meaning God is capable of doing anything meaning God is capable of doing evil. This is just one of the thousands of contradictions in not only Christian doctrine but numerous other mystic doctrines as well.

Honestly, logical1 I do not know how to explain this as I am no Biblical scholar, or theologian. All I have to say is that God has the power to do anything. The Bible has given many instances where God has destroyed the enemies of Israel, which might be considered evil. However, while God is capable of doing evil, it is against His very nature. The essence of God is good and holiness. In other words, it would be "contradictory."

[logical1]

Craig, ancient religious doctrines are worthy of admiration in the sense that they are man's early attempts at crafting philosophies to guide our lives. That is truly an admirable endeavor with totally good intentions but it is blatently flawed and ultimately harmful to those unable to recognize the flaws.

You stated that you support religion because it can teach moral and ethical behavior. However, by what standard are these morals and ethics established ? They most often are not established by an objective standard that lends itself to demonstrating the value of the "rules" to the person adopting them. They are generally edicts that exist with little or no logical, reasonable explanation as to their value. This leaves a large portion of mankind with a complete inability to measure the value of the "rules". Thus mankind has been plagued with irreconcileable disagreements that have lead to bloodshed around the world throughout history.

It has been a long standing misconception that you can not have a rational standard of morality based entirely on reason and logic. This of course would render ancient religious doctrines obsolete. You can do it and it in fact has already been done. Here is an example and a comparison: If asked why it is wrong to lie, a religious person might be inclined to respond "because God says so". This is in fact very ineffective in teaching morals and ethics and its ineffectiveness is evident all around us. However, if you tell the person that to lie is wrong because it is an intentional attempt to distort the facts of reality and people must rely on their accurate perception of reality for survival, it clearly demonstrates the harm in lying and the value of truth. It bases the value of not distorting the truth on the objective standard of individual rights. All "rules" can be objectively established and proven by this same standard.

It is an extension of Aristotelian logic that is as real and demonstrable as the laws that govern science. It is a far cry from "because God says so". It is the answer to the never ending political-religious "My God is better than your God" type disagreements that we find ourselves in even to this day.

Look at what type of problems this presents even for our world leaders today. The American President is unable to identify our enemy in the Middle East. He knows, as does everyone, that our enemy is Fundamentalist Islam. You nor I nor the rest of the world will ever hear him make that statement. This is because he is publically of Christian faith and has thus compromised his ability to be forthcoming in identifying the lack of value in the teachings of Fundamentalist Islam. He can not and will not ever publically present the argument "My God is better than your God" and condemn Fundamentalist Islam although it is an absolute certainty he does so in private. He must continue to tiptoe around the matter at hand instead of attacking it's philosphical roots which is absolutely necessary to correct the problem. He can not openly identify the problem and he subsequently will not be able to openly solve the problem. His faith is not judged by an objective standard so he knows he has no right to judge another faith by an objective standard. Quite a problem isn't it ?

The real problem is not merely Fundamentalist Islam however, it is subjective, abstract, mystic, supernatural, obsolete, religious doctrines of all faiths all around the world and mankind's failure to reject them and adopt an objective standard of morality that applies to the existence of all human beings in this life here on this earth.

[KrustyKidd]

Craig, I feel that ancient religious doctrines are worthy of admiration in the sense that they are man's early attempts at crafting philosophies to guide our lives. That is truly, an admirable endeavor with good intentions but flawed and ultimately harmful to those unable to recognize the flaws.

You stated that you support religion because it can teach moral and ethical behavior. However, by what standard are these morals and ethics established ? They most often are not established by an objective standard that lends itself to demonstrating the value of the "rules" to the person adopting them. They are generally edicts that exist with little or no logical, reasonable explanation as to their value. This leaves a large portion of mankind with a complete inability to measure the value of the "rules". Thus mankind has been plagued with irreconcilable disagreements that have lead to bloodshed around the world throughout history.

It has been a long standing misconception that you can not have a rational standard of morality based entirely on reason and logic which would render ancient religious doctrines obsolete. You can and it has already been done. Here is an example: If asked why it is wrong to lie, a religious person might be inclined to respond "because God says so". This is in fact very ineffective in teaching morals and ethics and its ineffectiveness is evident all around us. However, if you tell the person that to lie is wrong because it is an intentional attempt to distort the facts of reality and people must rely on their accurate perception of reality for survival, it clearly demonstrates the harm in lying and the value of truth. It bases the value of not distorting the truth on the objective standard of individual rights. All "rules" can be objectively established and proven by this same standard.

It is an extension of Aristotelian logic that is as real and demonstrable as the laws that govern science. It is a far cry from "because God says so". It is the answer to the never ending political-religious "My God is better than your God" type disagreements that we find ourselves in even to this day.

Logical, you are nearly there but are befuddled in your logic. Seriously, things are a lot simpler than you precieve them to be.

Ever hear of the "Golden rule?" Course you have. The ten commandments is merely a detailing of the same rule for those who were trying to find loopholes in it. Today we have over a hundred thousand laws in which to corner those who know they did wrong but are still trying to find ways to circumnavigate it.

Most people are good, a prisoner will hold a door open for another because it is the right thing to do. People know what they are supposed to do, religion is for two reasons; one , to scare those who don't get the golden rule into doing it. Two, to be a conduit from this world into the next for those that know the rule and wish to reaffirm their contact with God. To these people it is more than a scare tactic, it is becomming one with God. By who's ethical behavior? I imagine the person that owns the soul. All others can get stuffed. This is where humans get really human.

Look at what type of problems this presents even for our world leaders today. The American President is unable to identify our enemy in the Middle East. He knows, as does everyone, that our enemy is Fundamentalist Islam. You nor I nor the rest of the world will ever hear him make that statement. This is because he is publically of Christian faith and has thus compromised his ability to be forthcoming in identifying the lack of value in the teachings of Fundamentalist Islam. He can not and will not ever publically present the argument "My God is better than your God" and condemn Fundamentalist Islam although it is an absolute certainty he does so in private.  He must continue to tiptoe around the matter at hand instead of attacking it's philosphical roots which is absolutely necessary to correct the problem. He can not openly identify the problem and he subsequently will not be able to openly solve the problem. His faith is not judged by an objective standard so he knows he has no right to judge another faith by an objective standard. Quite a problem isn't it ?

The real problem is not merely Fundamentalist Islam however, it is subjective, abstract, mystic, supernatural, obsolete, religious doctrines of all faiths all around the world and mankind's failure to reject them and adopt an objective standard of morality that applies to the existence of all human beings in this life here on this earth.

Logical one, I know you are not dumb but seem oto have glossed over the whole issue that is going on. It ain't religion. It's the have nots VS the haves. The have nots are without hope and are victim to anybody who gives them a purpose, reason, hope. At present it is guys like OBL who preach religion. If not religion it would have been simply Anti America. The enemy is poverty and hoplessness. By building a free Iraq and letting the oil revenue be used to give the people a life is venting their valve and showing the poor of the world that it is possible for them as well. We hope that other dictators will see the writing on the wall and grant concessions of some kind. With freedom comes prosperity.

It is oppression that is the enemy, not religion. It is very easy to mix the two as you have proved. Know any religiously oppressive societies that are free?

[logical1]

Krusty, "the golden rule" is not a standard that can be objectively defined. It is subjective not objective. It is obviously "interpreted" differently by mormons and sado-masochists. Using an objective standard based on proven, demonstrable principles to govern the lives of human beings rather than conclusively flawed mystic doctrine is essential. This is not an example of my "befuddled" logic.

I am well aware of the "purpose" of religion. I am also well aware of the harm in it. I would never advocate the prohibition of it's practice. This would be in conflict with the paramount necessity of the protection of individual rights. However, it should never be used as a basis in legal or economic policy particularly when the doctrine advocates the violation of individual rights and suppresses the conditions that must exist for the progression and prosperity of mankind. The stake is far too great to be left to the "supernatural".

Try to find a religious doctrine that has a philosophical basis that is not in stark contrast to the principles of capitalism. You will be looking for a long time. However, the economic system of capitalism is the force that began the industrial revolution and continues to transform the world forever. It is ridiculous to continue to hold with doctrine that is counterproductive to the principles and systems that are directly responsible for our prosperity.

[KrustyKidd]

Krusty, "the golden rule" is not a standard that can be objectively defined.

I think it is pretty clear and simple. 'Do unto others as you would have done unto you.' Cultures all over the planet that until the seventeenth and eighteenth century had no contact with the outside world held this same common belief.

It's pretty easy as I'm sure you know. Forgive me but I just wanted to throw a cuple examples out. You don't like having your stuff stolen so go figure, it is wrong to steal. You don't want to be tortured, so it is wrong to torture. What I am trying to say is that almost all religions say this rule in one form or another. It's not the religion itself that invented it but the concience of man himself.

It is obviously "interpreted" differently by mormons and sado-masochists.

On initial glance yes. However, the sadist knows that to kill is wrong, he knows that to hurt and steal is wrong too. More than likely, he has justified these actions in some way to make them acceptable to himself whereas the Mormon was able to resist the temptation to steal and whatever. Maybe he used fear of God as a reason or maybe he was just a good guy to begin with. Who knows?

Try to find a religious doctrine that has a philosophical basis that is not in stark contrast to the principles of capitalism. You will be looking for a long time.

Religion deals with the soul, of course it's center will be far removed from capitalism. You will note however that in America it gets along quite well with capitalism. Prospering with it, using it to further it's goals of spreading it's message to the world. In turn, it gives comfort and a grounding for many of the richest people in the world. As long as they are separate that's fine with me.

[Elder]

logical1, I would love to see examples of Christian Doctrine that is counterproductive to our capitalist society. Oh, please do realize that behaviour by those who profess to be Christians is not always necessarily the same thing as Christian Doctrine. Please, crack open the Bible and show me some examples. I do however agree, that Christian Doctrine is meant for the individual, and is not always very effective with the government.

[logical1]

Elder, are you going to make me engage in a scripture debate ? EEK !! Can we discuss Cat in the Hat instead ? (just kidding) I will oblige you if you insist but surely you can see where an economic system that does not advocate "sharing with your brother" was not born out of Christian doctrine.

I have read the new testament cover to cover and I certainly didn't walk away with the impression that serving my own rational self interest on earth was a priority as opposed to "helping my brother" (a philosophy that is more consistent with communism or socialism).

[Elder]

Granted, Christianity's ideals of service and charity are not always in keeping with the American economic system. In my opinion, that's why taxes should not be raised up to force charity onto people. However, if it were done by choice, if the someone who works hard to earn their money decides on their own to help those around him or her, I see no great threat to the American economy.

It is true, that just about any time a Religion took absolute political power, they tried to force it down everyone's throat. That is not an effective or ethical way of spreading a religion anyway. However, that was not the Religion corrupting officials. That was officials exploiting religion. Religion has every place with the individual. I don't think that a religion should have a political power, but I do believe that religious people can do a great deal of good in power. I don't think that any ideal should be forced on to someone by the Government, however, there is certainly no harm done in Government officials supporting, condoning, and acting by an ideal.

Christian ideals prove themselves when applied by the individual. Serving those around does nothing but good, so long as you are willingly and voluntarily doing it, so long as you believe in it. The more you act by a principle, the more you come to realize whether it actually works or not. Being accepting and friendly to others despite their flaws, trying to understand them and not condemning them for it (Christian concept of judge not, well, at least the way I see it) certainly does no harm. You can be objective this way, seeing someone for what they are, what kind of weaknesses and strengths they might have and how they might affect you certainly can be beneficial without thinking of a person as "good" or "evil," a judgement I think best left to God. I rephrase my remark. Christian Doctrine does not have to be counterproductive to the American way if done properly by the individual, by his own choice or volition. Let people live by their own beliefs. A man often bases his moral code by what he believes in. Let people do what they believe to be right. That's what our freedoms are about isn't it?

[logical1]

You have the right idea Elder ! You and I should not be forced to contribute the product of our labor to people that we don't know or endeavours that we perhaps might oppose. We should be obliged to contribute to our own protection and security. Beyond that what we choose to contribute to should be up to each individuals own volition.

The problem lies in the fact that when a policy maker makes a decision, they are relying on some philosophical basis for the answer unless they are merely pragmatic (which often times is the case). If the philosophical standard that they utilize is Christianity for instance, they might determine that taking your money to provide for "those in need" is the "right thing to do". (It is either right or it is not, it can't be both. Elder, if it's not right, what philosophical basis are you using to make that determination ? It's not Christianity.) Policy makers take your money in the name of Democracy (which is only tyranny by majority if not based on valid principles) in order to justify the argument that it hasn't been "forced" on "the people". In fact, it has indeed been forced on those who oppose it.

This process is used by religiously inclined conservatives to impose moral standards on those who oppose those standards and is hijacked by non-religious liberals to take money for things we are opposed to. Their is no objective standard being used to reconcile these differences and so continues the never ending "battle of opinions" between liberals and conservatives. It has progressed to a nightmarish state where a Baptist minister who is vehemently opposed to abortion must make a regular involuntary contribution to the federal partial birth abortion fund. If you think that things can't get worse, ask an older Jew or a Russian. Keep in mind, pre-nazi Germany was an advanced, educated culture and was known as "the land of poets and philosophers". Religion and mystic, subjective philosophy was rampid.

One of the ongoing arguments that has been center stage in our culture has been whether or not abortion is proper. The correct argument should be whether or not we should be forced to contribute to things which we are opposed to. As long as our policy makers rely on subjective philosophies as their guide, we will continue down the road to "working for the collective" and all the horrors that go along with that kind of thinking. It is inevitable. A reversal can not occur without a philosophical reversal occuring.

Ironically, it appears that religious individuals have been and will continue to lose the most by refusing to reject their own subjective standards in the realm of government policy. It seems that adopting an objective standard based on individual rights as opposed to a subjective standard like Christianity in matters of policy is their only possible real "savior".

[logical1]

You have the right idea Elder ! You and I should not be forced to contribute the product of our labor to people that we don't know or endeavours that we perhaps might oppose. We should be obliged to contribute to our own protection and security. Beyond that what we choose to contribute to should be up to each individuals own volition.

The problem lies in the fact that when a policy maker makes a decision, they are relying on some philosophical basis for the answer unless they are merely pragmatic (which often times is the case). If the philosophical standard that they utilize is Christianity for instance, they might determine that taking your money to provide for "those in need" is the "right thing to do". (It is either right or it is not, it can't be both. Elder, if it's not right, what philosophical basis are you using to make that determination ? It's not Christianity.) Policy makers take your money in the name of Democracy (which is only tyranny by majority if not based on valid principles) in order to justify the argument that it hasn't been "forced" on "the people". In fact, it has indeed been forced on those who oppose it.

This process is used by religiously inclined conservatives to impose moral standards on those who oppose those standards and is hijacked by non-religious liberals to take money for things we are opposed to. Their is no objective standard being used to reconcile these differences and so continues the never ending "battle of opinions" between liberals and conservatives. It has progressed to a nightmarish state where a Baptist minister who is vehemently opposed to abortion must make a regular involuntary contribution to the federal partial birth abortion fund. If you think that things can't get worse, ask an older Jew or a Russian. Keep in mind, pre-nazi Germany was an advanced, educated culture and was known as "the land of poets and philosophers". Religion and mystic, subjective philosophy was rampid. A good book on this subject is "The Ominous Parallels" by Dr. Leonard Peikoff.

One of the ongoing arguments that has been center stage in our culture has been whether or not abortion is proper. The correct argument should be whether or not we should be forced to contribute to things which we are opposed to. As long as our policy makers rely on subjective philosophies as their guide, we will continue down the road to "working for the collective" and all the horrors that go along with that kind of thinking. It is inevitable. A reversal can not occur without a philosophical reversal occuring.

Ironically, it appears that religious individuals have been and will continue to lose the most by refusing to reject their own subjective standards in the realm of government policy. It seems that adopting an objective standard based on individual rights as opposed to a subjective standard like Christianity in matters of policy is their only possible real "savior".