I have often written about the sorrows of life. Buddhists start with the proposition that life is sorrow and that the only way to deal with it is to relieve oneself from the craving and attachment which are the sources of sorrow. I believe that the Buddhists have a very realistic way of looking at the world. I doubt that you can be happy if you always expect that everything will be wonderful. If you recognize that life is sorrow, you can begin to appreciate the things that lift us out of sorrow and bring us happiness and pleasure.
One of the things that brings us pleasure is the feast of Christmas. While Christmas is a religious festival, and I am a nonbeliever, nevertheless, I appreciate how much pleasure it brings us. It is celebrated at the time of the winter solstice, when nights are long and days are short. It is a time when many people feel depressed by Seasonal Affect Disorder. I’m sure that Christmas, and all of the ancient festivals that preceded it, were created to help people overcome the feelings of depression that accompany the season. Even if we don’t believe in the sacred holiday of Jesus birth, we should celebrate Christmas with all our hearts.
Moreover, there is good reason to celebrate the birthday of Jesus. He may not have been God, or the Son of God, but as depicted in the Gospels and tradition he was a beautiful person whose teachings still affect the world. How could this holy man in the tiny country of Israel have so profoundly influenced history? It has to be his teaching. Although it is difficult for mankind to follow his teachings, they give us a goal to reach. Just reading the Sermon on the Mount is enough to guarantee his place in history. I gladly celebrate his birthday on Christmas day.
I have written about how we are all born with an evolutionary tendency toward optimism. It is a genetic adaptation that is, no doubt, partially responsible for our survival as a species. Somehow, in the face of tragedy, disappointment, pain, and sorrow, we are able to hope for better things to come. Somehow in the face of old age and its accompanying disintegration and eventual death, we are able to go on living and even enjoy ourselves. You would think that we would all be profoundly depressed at our coming fate, but most people are able to go through old age without too much sorrow.
One of the reasons that we are able to face the sorrows of life and the problem of aging is because of the many pleasures in life. In another essay I wrote: “It is wonderful to enjoy the pleasure of love and sex, to feel the beauty of a lovely spring day, to appreciate great art, literature, film, and theater, to take joy in the play of young children, to take pleasure in food and drink, to dance, to sing, to laugh, and sometimes, even to cry. Bart Ehrman tells us that we should confront the evil in the world by enjoying life, and that part of that enjoyment should be the helping of other people. Perhaps that is the answer to depression.”
Opposed to all the sorrow in the world there are things that make us feel that life is sweet. Even for someone in his 70s, like me, there are things that sweeten the day and lift me up. When I get up in the morning, I go into the kitchen and make coffee. I sit by the window drinking the coffee and looking out at the bird feeders and bird house in our back yard. Drinking coffee, made the way I like it, gives me great pleasure. I don’t know why the birds make me happy, but they do. One time when Julie and I were watching a squirrel try to climb a Sheppard’s crook that held a bird feeder, and that we had greased to prevent squirrels from climbing, Julie’s daughter came in and, seeing what we were doing, said: “You two need to get a life!” Nevertheless, watching birds gather around the feeder and watching a bird go in and out of the bird house in the yard gives me a thrill.
Almost all people love beautiful weather. When you look around on the first really beautiful Spring day, you will notice that people are smiling and have a bounce in their steps. I can remember certain days at Lake George in New York when the sheer beauty of the day, the lake, and the mountains filled me with rapture. Over the period of my life, there are particular days that stand out in my mind because they were so lovely. I’m sure that evolution has given us a love of the natural things of the world. We feel connected to the earth because we come out of the earth and are an integral part of it.
For me, one of the great pleasures of life has been reading books. Even back when I read difficult, abstruse texts, I enjoyed it. I always came away with the feeling that I was learning something. I read novels and page-turners for the sheer enjoyment. I have read many of the world’s greatest books, and I feel that they have enriched my life. One thing all my reading has given me is the ability to write well. One of my greatest joys in life has been the ability to write newspaper columns. I have also written a book, though it has not been published.
I find that a compliment to my love of reading and writing is the pleasure I take in computers and the internet. The word-processing capacity of computers has made my writing much easier, faster, and better. I was thrilled the first time I was able to get on the internet and get information from around the world. E-mail has enabled me to stay in contact with my children, family, and friends wherever they might be. Each new development gives me, and most other people, great delight. Now through Skype I am able to see and talk to my children who live far away. I may not be up-to-date on all technological developments, but I can appreciate how much enjoyment they give the people who are.
I have always enjoyed looking at great art. I don’t know why, but when I am in a museum, a wonderful feeling overcomes me as I look at the brilliant creations of great artists.
I love good movies. My taste in movies may not be that of a sophisticated movie-buff, but I do get a lot of enjoyment out of certain movies, especially action movies.
I also love sports, especially football, basketball, and baseball. It is a relaxing delight to watch a sports event which takes your mind off all the worries in life. When the sports event becomes a white-knuckle thriller, it is even better. I think that the reason we root for local teams is because that heightens our enjoyment of the contest.
I get a lot of pleasure out of humor—my own and other people’s. I love to tell jokes and stories, and zing one-liners at people. I think that humor is for me, and for many people like me, a way of dealing with the hard things of life. If we can turn things around and upside-down, they are not so scary. When I was a kid, my favorite performers on television were the comedians. I loved The Colgate Comedy Hour, The Jackie Gleason Show, and Your Show of Shows with Sid Caesar. As a young man I felt that shows like Monte Python’s Flying Circus were created just for me. I have always loved shows like MASH, Cheers, and Seinfeld. Laughter is a kind of drug that releases tension.
The greatest source of pleasure in my later years has been music, especially the lovely melodies of classical artists. Lately I have been listening to more and more, and discovering beautiful pieces of which I was unaware. I have listed many of them in the profile on my blogs, and will not do so here. Needless to say, there are some compositions that can lift me out of this world. There have been times when a beautiful piece of music has brought me to tears. I am not ashamed at those tears. I also love many popular songs and have made lists of my favorites. I envy the lucky people who can sit down at a piano or pick-up a violin and play their favorite music. For them music must be a special and powerful pleasure.
Perhaps the highest form of pleasure is love. We love our parents, our brothers and sisters, our children and grandchildren and even our dearest friends. It is likely that this love is programmed into us as an evolutionary adaptation. But it is still one of great joys of life. I never thought that I would care if I had grandchildren, but when my daughter called me one day and said that she was having a baby, my whole body filled with happiness.
There is also the kind of love we feel for our lovers. Even apart from the sexual pleasures we get from these relationships, there is a powerful psychological gratification to them. When you add sex to a very good love affair, it is almost transcendental. Nature has given us sexual pleasure as a way to increase our procreation of the species. Like many of the gifts of nature, this is a marvelous one. I feel sorry for those people who go through life without ever experiencing it.
There are many other things in life that bring us happiness and pleasure. Among them are good conversation, recognition of our accomplishments, talent, success, respect, prosperity, good health, and good children. One thing that Bart Ehrman mentions is helping other people. We may not have a lot of money to donate to charity or energy to work at some charitable endeavor, but when we do something for other people it always gives us a sense of self-worth. Thus, we should consider it one of the pleasures of life, one of the best. It is good because self-worth, self-love, self-respect are some of the things that can really make our lives better. If we have them, we can face the terrors of life with confidence and courage.
We are all fighting to overcome the sorrows of life. Each day brings more news of the hardships faced by people. It can make us depressed, but we can also find pleasure if we concentrate on the things that bring us happiness. One of those things is the season of Christmas. Most people love the season of Christmas, the lovely decorations in stores and at home, the beautiful Christmas Carols, the Christmas trees, the high spirits of people, and the giving and receiving of gifts. It is a wonderful way to celebrate the birthday of a good, kind, loving, wonderful man, Jesus of Nazareth. Merry Christmas!
Wednesday, December 21, 2011
Friday, December 16, 2011
The Birth of Jesus
Now as we approach the Christmas holiday we should take a look at the true history of Jesus' birth. Scholars agree that the story of the Nativity is fictitious. This does not mean that we should not celebrate Christmas, but it does mean that there is nothing wrong with taking Christ out of Christmas. People have celebrated the winter solstice for thousands of years. Long before the birth of Jesus, people celebrated the birth of other pagan gods at the winter solstice. The winter solstice is a bleak time of year when the days are short and the nights are long. People have always needed something to pick-up their spirits at this time of year. That is the true purpose of Christmas, and the real reason why we celebrate Jesus' birth at this time of year. Here is the true story of Jesus' birth.
In the first place, the story says that Caesar ordered a census to levy taxes and that Joseph, as a descendent of David, had to travel to Bethlehem, the city of David, to register (Luke 2:1-5). This was supposed to fulfill the prophecy that the “Messiah” would be “from the house of David.” The story is inherently preposterous!
There is no evidence that Augustus Caesar ordered a worldwide census at the time of Jesus’ birth. There was a census under Quirinius, the Governor of Syria (Luke 2:2), but that occurred after the death of Caesar and years after the birth of Jesus. The late Raymond E. Brown, S.S., a Catholic priest, internationally regarded as the dean of New Testament scholars, and former Professor of Biblical Studies at Union Theological Seminary in New York, said in his magesterial "The Birth of the Messiah," “Luke’s reference to a general census of the Empire under Augustus which affected Palestine before the death of Herod the Great is almost certainly wrong.” Said Brown, “Luke begins his story with a reference to a census of the whole world ordered by Augustus, conducted by Quirinius, and affecting Joseph, a Galilean inhabitant of Nazareth, so that he had to go to his ancestral city. This supplied the occasion for the birth of of Jesus in Bethlehem....this information is dubious on every score...We have no evidence of one census under Augustus that covered the whole Empire, nor of a census requirement that people be registered in their ancestral cities.” In a census, they counted people at their place of domicile, not where they were born. They would not have required Joseph to travel to Bethlehem. The Romans cared nothing for genealogies. They would have wanted him to stay in Nazareth and be counted where he lived.
The distinguished biblical scholar, E.P. Sanders, points out that David lived 42 generations before Jesus. He asks, why would would the Romans require Joseph to register for a tax in the town (Bethlehem) of an ancestor who lived 42 generations earlier? He describes Luke’s story of the Nativity as “Fantastic!” Bart D. Ehrman asks, “Can it be possible that everyone in the empire was to return to the place their ancestors lived a thousand years earlier?”
Another mistake by the authors of the Gospels is that they place the census of Quirinius and the birth of Jesus during the Reign of Herod. Scholars know that Herod was already dead at the time of Quirinius’census. Raymond E. Brown says, “...the one and only census conducted while Quirinius was legate in Syria affected only Judea, not Galilee, and took place in A.D. 6-7, a good ten years after the death of Herod the Great.” Moreover, Caesar would not have taxed Judea while Herod was king. And, at the time of Jesus’ birth, Bethlehem would have been in an area that was exempt from taxation.
The world's most highly recognized biblical scholar, a Catholic priest named John P. Meier, notes that it would have been impossible for Mary to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem in an advanced state of pregnancy. Meier says, “Somewhere aroung 7-6 B.C. a Jew named Yeshua, a shortened form of the Hebrew Yehoshua (Joshua), was born in the hillside town of Nazareth in lower Galilee. The Infancy Narritive traditions that locate his birth in Bethlehem of Judea (traditions isolated in chap. 2 of Matthew and Luke respectively) are probably later Chriustian theological dramatizations of the belief that Jesus was the royal Davidic Messiah.”
Jesus obviously was not born in Bethlehem. He was not born on December 25 either. Nobody knows the date on which Jesus was born, but it definitely was not December 25That was the date of the birth of the Greek/Roman god Mithras. The story of Mithras is similar to the story of Jesus.
Mithras was the god of light, or the Sun, and was born of a virgin. He was identified with a bull who had to die as a sacrifice for all humanity. His worshippers believed that Mithras promised resurrection from the dead and that he ascended into heaven. The worship of Mithras included forgiveness of sin by baptism of initiates and a communion of bread and wine to commemorate Mithras’ last meal on earth.
The early fathers of the Christian Church did not know the date when Jesus had been born, so up until the fourth century AD there was no celebration of Christmas. The worship of Mithras presented a real problem for the Church fathers because of the similarities to the worship of Jesus. There were pagan festivals around the time of the winter solstice, such as the Roman feast called Saturnalia which was dedicated to the god Saturn. In around 353 AD, the church fathers decided to combat Mithraism and other pagan holidays by celebrating the birth of Jesus on Mithras’ birthday, December 25. Merry Mithramas!
In the first place, the story says that Caesar ordered a census to levy taxes and that Joseph, as a descendent of David, had to travel to Bethlehem, the city of David, to register (Luke 2:1-5). This was supposed to fulfill the prophecy that the “Messiah” would be “from the house of David.” The story is inherently preposterous!
There is no evidence that Augustus Caesar ordered a worldwide census at the time of Jesus’ birth. There was a census under Quirinius, the Governor of Syria (Luke 2:2), but that occurred after the death of Caesar and years after the birth of Jesus. The late Raymond E. Brown, S.S., a Catholic priest, internationally regarded as the dean of New Testament scholars, and former Professor of Biblical Studies at Union Theological Seminary in New York, said in his magesterial "The Birth of the Messiah," “Luke’s reference to a general census of the Empire under Augustus which affected Palestine before the death of Herod the Great is almost certainly wrong.” Said Brown, “Luke begins his story with a reference to a census of the whole world ordered by Augustus, conducted by Quirinius, and affecting Joseph, a Galilean inhabitant of Nazareth, so that he had to go to his ancestral city. This supplied the occasion for the birth of of Jesus in Bethlehem....this information is dubious on every score...We have no evidence of one census under Augustus that covered the whole Empire, nor of a census requirement that people be registered in their ancestral cities.” In a census, they counted people at their place of domicile, not where they were born. They would not have required Joseph to travel to Bethlehem. The Romans cared nothing for genealogies. They would have wanted him to stay in Nazareth and be counted where he lived.
The distinguished biblical scholar, E.P. Sanders, points out that David lived 42 generations before Jesus. He asks, why would would the Romans require Joseph to register for a tax in the town (Bethlehem) of an ancestor who lived 42 generations earlier? He describes Luke’s story of the Nativity as “Fantastic!” Bart D. Ehrman asks, “Can it be possible that everyone in the empire was to return to the place their ancestors lived a thousand years earlier?”
Another mistake by the authors of the Gospels is that they place the census of Quirinius and the birth of Jesus during the Reign of Herod. Scholars know that Herod was already dead at the time of Quirinius’census. Raymond E. Brown says, “...the one and only census conducted while Quirinius was legate in Syria affected only Judea, not Galilee, and took place in A.D. 6-7, a good ten years after the death of Herod the Great.” Moreover, Caesar would not have taxed Judea while Herod was king. And, at the time of Jesus’ birth, Bethlehem would have been in an area that was exempt from taxation.
The world's most highly recognized biblical scholar, a Catholic priest named John P. Meier, notes that it would have been impossible for Mary to travel from Nazareth to Bethlehem in an advanced state of pregnancy. Meier says, “Somewhere aroung 7-6 B.C. a Jew named Yeshua, a shortened form of the Hebrew Yehoshua (Joshua), was born in the hillside town of Nazareth in lower Galilee. The Infancy Narritive traditions that locate his birth in Bethlehem of Judea (traditions isolated in chap. 2 of Matthew and Luke respectively) are probably later Chriustian theological dramatizations of the belief that Jesus was the royal Davidic Messiah.”
Jesus obviously was not born in Bethlehem. He was not born on December 25 either. Nobody knows the date on which Jesus was born, but it definitely was not December 25That was the date of the birth of the Greek/Roman god Mithras. The story of Mithras is similar to the story of Jesus.
Mithras was the god of light, or the Sun, and was born of a virgin. He was identified with a bull who had to die as a sacrifice for all humanity. His worshippers believed that Mithras promised resurrection from the dead and that he ascended into heaven. The worship of Mithras included forgiveness of sin by baptism of initiates and a communion of bread and wine to commemorate Mithras’ last meal on earth.
The early fathers of the Christian Church did not know the date when Jesus had been born, so up until the fourth century AD there was no celebration of Christmas. The worship of Mithras presented a real problem for the Church fathers because of the similarities to the worship of Jesus. There were pagan festivals around the time of the winter solstice, such as the Roman feast called Saturnalia which was dedicated to the god Saturn. In around 353 AD, the church fathers decided to combat Mithraism and other pagan holidays by celebrating the birth of Jesus on Mithras’ birthday, December 25. Merry Mithramas!
Saturday, December 3, 2011
Born In The Wrong Century
Sometimes I feel like I was born in the wrong century. I am an atheist who has spent his life studying religion and theology, and has written a book entitled “The Case Against God, A Lawyer Examines the Evidence” (Which is available on Kindle), and yet I do not fully understand why so many people believe in God. I realize that there are millions of atheists like me, and that there are probably millions of people who share most of my beliefs. I know that the number of atheists continues to grow around the world, but I am still puzzled by the prevalence of religion in our society. Why is this so?
I recognize that we all think that we are correct in our opinions and beliefs. People who believe in God are often quite certain that nonbelievers are terribly mistaken or downright evil. Atheists think that believers are terribly mistaken or downright stupid. How can we be sure that we are right?
I recently listened to several televangelists on T.V. On the same day I also listened to the channel that broadcasts the thinking of the Catholic Church. The Catholic channel was quite moderate and thoughtful, but it was nevertheless focused on this being whom I believe to be mythical—God. I find that most people with whom I speak believe in some kind of God, even if not in one of the organized religions. The televangelists, unlike the Catholics, speak to the ignorance of their listeners. Their silver-tongued orators appeal to their listeners’ emotions, prejudices, and hates. But their message is not substantively different from the message of the quiet thoughtful priests and laymen of the Catholic channel. It is that there is a God who created, controls, and continues life on Earth and in heaven. It is that we should love and worship that God because he is all loving and good. The thing that amazes me is not that the yokel televangelists believe in God and spread their ignorance around the world, but that moderate and intelligent priests and philosophers like the speakers on the Catholic channel hold a set of beliefs about God that is as absurd as the beliefs of the rednecks.
On the same day I also listened to the PBS science show, NOVA, and heard a discussion of the possibility of a multi-universe or “Multiverse” by the physicist and writer, Brian Greene. Green postulated that there may be an infinite number of universes out there, which would mean that statistically speaking, there would probably be a universe exactly like ours with everything the same as in this universe, including our galaxy, solar system, planet, humans, and an identical reproduction of each of us. This gives rise to the question of whether, if I were to die, I would continue to live in another universe, and therefore be immortal. I have never believed in life after death, but I recognize that the idea is not forbidden by the laws of physics. This does not, however, change my core belief that there is no life after death.
For most of the people in the world there is no philosophical postulate like the one by Brian Greene. They simply feel that after we die our soul goes to heaven and lives eternally in heaven with great glory and happiness. I know that there is no basis for such thinking, and I am absolutely certain that it is wrong. I am also quite certain that death means the end of all life, memory, thinking, feeling, everything. I am firmly convinced that even if the Multiverse concept is correct, this life of mine, this brain, this body, this mind and memory, this being, will, for all intents and purposes, cease to exist. Even if an exact reproduction of me were to exist in a different universe, and even if that being continued to exist long after I am dead, I am certain that I would not experience that life or know about it.
My perplexity about the beliefs of others is that I do not understand how they can go on believing in God or anything supernatural without having even a scintilla of evidence to support such beliefs. After I lost all belief in God, I became able to see the many absurdities that surround religion, absurdities that I had previously taken for granted, like belief in the sacredness of holy water or the usefulness of blessing the throats on the feast of St. Blaise. I took for granted that God was situated in the sanctuary of the Catholic Church, and that you had to genuflect each time you walked in front of it. I took for granted that a priest on the alter had the power to change ordinary bread and wine into the actual body and blood of Christ—and that for some reason, the most important thing you could ever do was eat Christ’s body and blood.
I recognize that I am simply one person who insists that his atheism is correct, but I also recognize that my ideas are supported by many brilliant people. Most of the world’s leading scientists do not believe in God. Most of the highly intellectual thinkers in the world are atheists. Thus, I am not alone. I’m sure that most of those scientists have the same problem I have understanding why so many people believe in and worship a non-existent being.
It is amazing to me that people pray to God for help of some kind or other. There has never been any evidence that God answers prayers. People pray to God for health, but there is not a single case that anyone’s health was ever helped by the hand of God. People point to the Bible as evidence that God has performed miracles, but study of the Bible reveals that it is simply a book of myths with practically no historical value (See my book, “The Case Against God”). There is no evidence of any kind that God or anybody else ever performed miracles.
If millions of people around the world agree with me, why do I feel that I was born in the wrong century? Perhaps it is because I am mystified by the fact that so many other people continue to believe in God and in all the accessories of religion. I would think that it is self-evident that there is no God. I would think that all of the things surrounding religion are so absurd that uneducated, simple, even stupid people would recognize the facts. But as I watch television, I see intelligent priests and laymen seriously discussing concepts like prayers for the poor souls in Purgatory, prayers to the saints, devotion to the Virgin Mary, and the healing powers of places like Fatima and Lourdes. To me, such talk is incredibly stupid, yet the people who engage in it do not seem like stupid people.
I am not surprised by the hillbilly televangelists roaring out against sin in their southern drawls, but I am simply amazed to see priests of the Catholic Church draped in elaborate vestments, carrying out ancient rites in gigantic cathedrals, surrounded by golden statues, crucifixes, chalices, and other sacred items of priceless metals. It is as if God would want to be worshipped with an elaborate and dazzling display of finery.
A friend of mine said that one day there will be no churches and that places like St. Peter’s Basilica will be museums. I am sure that he is right, but I still wonder why it is not like that today.
I recognize that we all think that we are correct in our opinions and beliefs. People who believe in God are often quite certain that nonbelievers are terribly mistaken or downright evil. Atheists think that believers are terribly mistaken or downright stupid. How can we be sure that we are right?
I recently listened to several televangelists on T.V. On the same day I also listened to the channel that broadcasts the thinking of the Catholic Church. The Catholic channel was quite moderate and thoughtful, but it was nevertheless focused on this being whom I believe to be mythical—God. I find that most people with whom I speak believe in some kind of God, even if not in one of the organized religions. The televangelists, unlike the Catholics, speak to the ignorance of their listeners. Their silver-tongued orators appeal to their listeners’ emotions, prejudices, and hates. But their message is not substantively different from the message of the quiet thoughtful priests and laymen of the Catholic channel. It is that there is a God who created, controls, and continues life on Earth and in heaven. It is that we should love and worship that God because he is all loving and good. The thing that amazes me is not that the yokel televangelists believe in God and spread their ignorance around the world, but that moderate and intelligent priests and philosophers like the speakers on the Catholic channel hold a set of beliefs about God that is as absurd as the beliefs of the rednecks.
On the same day I also listened to the PBS science show, NOVA, and heard a discussion of the possibility of a multi-universe or “Multiverse” by the physicist and writer, Brian Greene. Green postulated that there may be an infinite number of universes out there, which would mean that statistically speaking, there would probably be a universe exactly like ours with everything the same as in this universe, including our galaxy, solar system, planet, humans, and an identical reproduction of each of us. This gives rise to the question of whether, if I were to die, I would continue to live in another universe, and therefore be immortal. I have never believed in life after death, but I recognize that the idea is not forbidden by the laws of physics. This does not, however, change my core belief that there is no life after death.
For most of the people in the world there is no philosophical postulate like the one by Brian Greene. They simply feel that after we die our soul goes to heaven and lives eternally in heaven with great glory and happiness. I know that there is no basis for such thinking, and I am absolutely certain that it is wrong. I am also quite certain that death means the end of all life, memory, thinking, feeling, everything. I am firmly convinced that even if the Multiverse concept is correct, this life of mine, this brain, this body, this mind and memory, this being, will, for all intents and purposes, cease to exist. Even if an exact reproduction of me were to exist in a different universe, and even if that being continued to exist long after I am dead, I am certain that I would not experience that life or know about it.
My perplexity about the beliefs of others is that I do not understand how they can go on believing in God or anything supernatural without having even a scintilla of evidence to support such beliefs. After I lost all belief in God, I became able to see the many absurdities that surround religion, absurdities that I had previously taken for granted, like belief in the sacredness of holy water or the usefulness of blessing the throats on the feast of St. Blaise. I took for granted that God was situated in the sanctuary of the Catholic Church, and that you had to genuflect each time you walked in front of it. I took for granted that a priest on the alter had the power to change ordinary bread and wine into the actual body and blood of Christ—and that for some reason, the most important thing you could ever do was eat Christ’s body and blood.
I recognize that I am simply one person who insists that his atheism is correct, but I also recognize that my ideas are supported by many brilliant people. Most of the world’s leading scientists do not believe in God. Most of the highly intellectual thinkers in the world are atheists. Thus, I am not alone. I’m sure that most of those scientists have the same problem I have understanding why so many people believe in and worship a non-existent being.
It is amazing to me that people pray to God for help of some kind or other. There has never been any evidence that God answers prayers. People pray to God for health, but there is not a single case that anyone’s health was ever helped by the hand of God. People point to the Bible as evidence that God has performed miracles, but study of the Bible reveals that it is simply a book of myths with practically no historical value (See my book, “The Case Against God”). There is no evidence of any kind that God or anybody else ever performed miracles.
If millions of people around the world agree with me, why do I feel that I was born in the wrong century? Perhaps it is because I am mystified by the fact that so many other people continue to believe in God and in all the accessories of religion. I would think that it is self-evident that there is no God. I would think that all of the things surrounding religion are so absurd that uneducated, simple, even stupid people would recognize the facts. But as I watch television, I see intelligent priests and laymen seriously discussing concepts like prayers for the poor souls in Purgatory, prayers to the saints, devotion to the Virgin Mary, and the healing powers of places like Fatima and Lourdes. To me, such talk is incredibly stupid, yet the people who engage in it do not seem like stupid people.
I am not surprised by the hillbilly televangelists roaring out against sin in their southern drawls, but I am simply amazed to see priests of the Catholic Church draped in elaborate vestments, carrying out ancient rites in gigantic cathedrals, surrounded by golden statues, crucifixes, chalices, and other sacred items of priceless metals. It is as if God would want to be worshipped with an elaborate and dazzling display of finery.
A friend of mine said that one day there will be no churches and that places like St. Peter’s Basilica will be museums. I am sure that he is right, but I still wonder why it is not like that today.
Sunday, July 3, 2011
Depression
I have long suspected that depression might be the most realistic way of feeling. I have written about the many sorrows, tragedies, and horrors of life, and have often wondered why depression is classified as a mental illness. Illness is something that is not normal. Depression should be considered a normal way of feeling, thinking, and behaving. Anybody who takes a hard look at life realizes that as we age, if we don’t die young, we go through a long period of physical, and often mental, disintegration. In old age we become more and more reliant upon doctors, surgeries, treatments, therapies, medications, and hospitals. In the end, we die, often in great pain and agony. Some of us may think that there is life after death, but that is most unlikely.
Even if we are especially blessed with a life full of riches, good health, respect from the community, and fine children, we still have to go through the degeneration of old age and the ultimate insult of death.
When we look around us we see a world overflowing with misery. I have written about the massive amount of tragedy in the world resulting from poverty, disease, starvation, war, accidents, natural disasters, lack of clothing and shelter, mental illness, pain, addiction, sexual abuse, crime, envy, cruelty, sadism, dishonesty, deceit, disloyalty, treachery, infidelity, political tyranny, bigotry, ignorance, and many other causes of sorrow. Nobody goes through life without experiencing some of these evils. Yet most of us find that life is sweet, and we have a desire to go on living and not to die. One would think that it would be quite natural to want to commit suicide, but that is looked upon as a horrible thing. Why?
In an article by Tali Sharot in the June 6, 2011, issue of Time Magazine entitled: “The Optimism Bias,” the author, a cognitive scientist, finds that we are all genetically programmed with optimism. She says that without a neural mechanism generating optimism, all humans would be mildly depressed. In other words, even though the events of life should make us depressed, we tend to look for a silver lining because of an evolutionary adaptation of our brain which makes us optimistic even in the face of horror and tragedy. This is a tremendously important finding about human nature. It is actually this genetic tendency toward optimism that keeps the human species alive. Without it we might all commit suicide.
Tali Sharot’s finding helps explain the existence of religion in our world. A number of cognitive scientists, including Scott Atran, Pascal Boyer, and David Sloan Wilson, claim that religion is an evolutionary adaptation. Humans go on believing in gods, heavens, paradises, and life after death, despite the complete absence of evidence for their existence. I assume that such beliefs help to relieve us of the crushing grief surrounding the death of a loved one. They help us to deal with the dismal prospect of our own death. In the usual religious funeral services, the pastor will assure the relatives that the deceased “is in a better place.” Most people are unable to deal with the likelihood that such beliefs are overly optimistic and unwarranted.
One of the most terrible tragedies that can occur to a family is the death of a young child. While such a death destroys the life of some parents and siblings, others are somehow able to deal with it. They may be comforted by the belief that the child went to heaven and is living a life of wonder and beauty in the presence of God. If such people were able to critically examine such beliefs I think they would wind-up in deep despair. They would realize that there is no rational basis for such beliefs. The genetically built-in predisposition toward optimism enables such persons to get around the enormous grief of death and to go on living.
Despite this neural predilection for optimism, millions of people in America and around the world are depressed. The use of antidepressant medicine is widespread. Some critics claim that we use far too many antidepressants. I don’t agree. If the sorrows of the world are as prevalent as I think, it is surprising that there are not more people on such medications. Even depressed people want to go on living and do try to find happiness. The genetic predisposition toward optimism makes them eager to find some good even in bad situations. Nobody wants to be unhappy.
Our gene for optimism might help explain many of the ways we seek to find pleasure. Today I was listening to some beautiful music. It made me feel wonderful--as have so many beautiful pieces of music. Perhaps music is one of our ways of coping with the sadness of life. During times of depression and sorrow I have often turned to music. One piece that has soothed me is the slow movement of Beethoven’s Emperor Concerto. While I do not believe in God, I remember the line in the movie Amadeus where Salieri looks at the scores of Mozart and complains that somehow this must be the voice of God. There are times in great music when it almost seems that the beauty comes from something supernatural.
It is a good thing that we are blessed with a gene that veils the sorrows of life. It enables us to go on living, and sometimes to feel great bliss in the midst of all the bad things of life. It is wonderful to enjoy the pleasure of love and sex, to feel the beauty of a lovely spring day, to appreciate great art, literature, film, and theater, to take joy in the play of young children, to take pleasure in food and drink, to dance, to sing, to laugh, and sometimes, even to cry. Bart Ehrman tells us that we should confront the evil in the world by enjoying life, and that part of that enjoyment should be the helping of other people. Perhaps that is the answer to depression.
Even if we are especially blessed with a life full of riches, good health, respect from the community, and fine children, we still have to go through the degeneration of old age and the ultimate insult of death.
When we look around us we see a world overflowing with misery. I have written about the massive amount of tragedy in the world resulting from poverty, disease, starvation, war, accidents, natural disasters, lack of clothing and shelter, mental illness, pain, addiction, sexual abuse, crime, envy, cruelty, sadism, dishonesty, deceit, disloyalty, treachery, infidelity, political tyranny, bigotry, ignorance, and many other causes of sorrow. Nobody goes through life without experiencing some of these evils. Yet most of us find that life is sweet, and we have a desire to go on living and not to die. One would think that it would be quite natural to want to commit suicide, but that is looked upon as a horrible thing. Why?
In an article by Tali Sharot in the June 6, 2011, issue of Time Magazine entitled: “The Optimism Bias,” the author, a cognitive scientist, finds that we are all genetically programmed with optimism. She says that without a neural mechanism generating optimism, all humans would be mildly depressed. In other words, even though the events of life should make us depressed, we tend to look for a silver lining because of an evolutionary adaptation of our brain which makes us optimistic even in the face of horror and tragedy. This is a tremendously important finding about human nature. It is actually this genetic tendency toward optimism that keeps the human species alive. Without it we might all commit suicide.
Tali Sharot’s finding helps explain the existence of religion in our world. A number of cognitive scientists, including Scott Atran, Pascal Boyer, and David Sloan Wilson, claim that religion is an evolutionary adaptation. Humans go on believing in gods, heavens, paradises, and life after death, despite the complete absence of evidence for their existence. I assume that such beliefs help to relieve us of the crushing grief surrounding the death of a loved one. They help us to deal with the dismal prospect of our own death. In the usual religious funeral services, the pastor will assure the relatives that the deceased “is in a better place.” Most people are unable to deal with the likelihood that such beliefs are overly optimistic and unwarranted.
One of the most terrible tragedies that can occur to a family is the death of a young child. While such a death destroys the life of some parents and siblings, others are somehow able to deal with it. They may be comforted by the belief that the child went to heaven and is living a life of wonder and beauty in the presence of God. If such people were able to critically examine such beliefs I think they would wind-up in deep despair. They would realize that there is no rational basis for such beliefs. The genetically built-in predisposition toward optimism enables such persons to get around the enormous grief of death and to go on living.
Despite this neural predilection for optimism, millions of people in America and around the world are depressed. The use of antidepressant medicine is widespread. Some critics claim that we use far too many antidepressants. I don’t agree. If the sorrows of the world are as prevalent as I think, it is surprising that there are not more people on such medications. Even depressed people want to go on living and do try to find happiness. The genetic predisposition toward optimism makes them eager to find some good even in bad situations. Nobody wants to be unhappy.
Our gene for optimism might help explain many of the ways we seek to find pleasure. Today I was listening to some beautiful music. It made me feel wonderful--as have so many beautiful pieces of music. Perhaps music is one of our ways of coping with the sadness of life. During times of depression and sorrow I have often turned to music. One piece that has soothed me is the slow movement of Beethoven’s Emperor Concerto. While I do not believe in God, I remember the line in the movie Amadeus where Salieri looks at the scores of Mozart and complains that somehow this must be the voice of God. There are times in great music when it almost seems that the beauty comes from something supernatural.
It is a good thing that we are blessed with a gene that veils the sorrows of life. It enables us to go on living, and sometimes to feel great bliss in the midst of all the bad things of life. It is wonderful to enjoy the pleasure of love and sex, to feel the beauty of a lovely spring day, to appreciate great art, literature, film, and theater, to take joy in the play of young children, to take pleasure in food and drink, to dance, to sing, to laugh, and sometimes, even to cry. Bart Ehrman tells us that we should confront the evil in the world by enjoying life, and that part of that enjoyment should be the helping of other people. Perhaps that is the answer to depression.
Sunday, May 8, 2011
WHY DO CATHOLICS GO ON BELIEVING?
When I was a young boy I wanted to be a Catholic Priest. It seemed like a sure way to gain prestige and honor throughout one’s life. I went into the Catholic Seminary, but while I was there it occurred to me that there may be no such thing as God and that I may be wasting my life. I left the seminary and began a lifelong search for the truth about God. Ultimately, I concluded that there is no such thing as God, and that all teaching about him is an illusion.
Today, as I drive by Catholic Churches on Sunday the parking lots are filled with cars. It is plain to see that millions of Americans still believe in the Church and still go to weekly mass. It astonishes me to think that with all of the scandals and errors of the Church, there are still a lot of people who want to believe that this is the true religion.
People do not seem to be bothered by the silliness of a Pope strolling around magnificent cathedrals clad in lustrous medieval vestments and wearing a fabulous medieval crown. They are not turned off by the absurdity of a Pope claiming to be infallible on matters of faith and morals. They are not in the least bothered by the claim that Catholic priests can turn bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus.
Catholics go on believing even when their rational faculties are attacked by the most bizarre claims of the Church. When the Shroud of Turin was exposed as a Thirteenth Century forgery, believers refused to accept the evidence and continued to venerate the cloth. When the James Ossuary was proven to be a fraud, believers continued to insist that it was the receptacle of the bones of James, the brother of Jesus.
Catholics who study history seem unfazed by the many atrocities and abominations committed by the Catholic Church in the name of God. They hear about the Crusades and their slaughter of innocent Jews and Moslems. They read about Medici Popes with their rampaging greed and lust. They read about the Inquisition and its sheer horror. They read about the expulsion of Jews from Spain in the 1400s and the Church’s confinement of Rome’s Jews to a place called the Ghetto. They learn of Pope Pius XII’s failure to speak out against the Nazi terror and the aid given by Catholic priests to escaping Nazis who were being sought after World War II for crimes against humanity.
When the Catholic Church forbade the use of contraceptives, millions of Catholics went on attending mass while continuing to use the forbidden birth control devices and pills. When it was revealed that thousands of Catholic priests had practiced child molestation on tens of thousands of victims over several decades and that the hierarchy had protected the priests and failed to enforce the laws against this abomination, Catholics simply continued to attend mass in the dioceses where such priests and bishops fester.
Catholics have a powerful need to believe in their Church even in the face of the worst scandals and happenings. In my book, "The Case Against God: A Lawyer Examines the Evidence" (now available on Kindle), I discuss the reasons why people go on believing in God despite the absence of evidence for his existence. This need to believe in God makes them able to believe in the Catholic Church with all of its disgrace, dishonor, and scandal. Catholics are taught that the Church is more than just the popes and clergy. It is the body of Christ, and therefore even when a bad priest (say a pedophile) says mass, he is capable of turning bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus.
As I noted in a previous blog, the “sacrifice” of the mass is actually a reprise of a bloody and disgusting lynching and murder of Jesus as a human sacrifice to propitiate a loving God on account of humanity’s sins. The whole basis of the mass is an affront to human intelligence.
Somewhere in my youth, after leaving the seminary, I began to realize these things and stopped considering myself a Catholic. I don’t fully understand why most thinking Catholics do not do likewise.
Today, as I drive by Catholic Churches on Sunday the parking lots are filled with cars. It is plain to see that millions of Americans still believe in the Church and still go to weekly mass. It astonishes me to think that with all of the scandals and errors of the Church, there are still a lot of people who want to believe that this is the true religion.
People do not seem to be bothered by the silliness of a Pope strolling around magnificent cathedrals clad in lustrous medieval vestments and wearing a fabulous medieval crown. They are not turned off by the absurdity of a Pope claiming to be infallible on matters of faith and morals. They are not in the least bothered by the claim that Catholic priests can turn bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus.
Catholics go on believing even when their rational faculties are attacked by the most bizarre claims of the Church. When the Shroud of Turin was exposed as a Thirteenth Century forgery, believers refused to accept the evidence and continued to venerate the cloth. When the James Ossuary was proven to be a fraud, believers continued to insist that it was the receptacle of the bones of James, the brother of Jesus.
Catholics who study history seem unfazed by the many atrocities and abominations committed by the Catholic Church in the name of God. They hear about the Crusades and their slaughter of innocent Jews and Moslems. They read about Medici Popes with their rampaging greed and lust. They read about the Inquisition and its sheer horror. They read about the expulsion of Jews from Spain in the 1400s and the Church’s confinement of Rome’s Jews to a place called the Ghetto. They learn of Pope Pius XII’s failure to speak out against the Nazi terror and the aid given by Catholic priests to escaping Nazis who were being sought after World War II for crimes against humanity.
When the Catholic Church forbade the use of contraceptives, millions of Catholics went on attending mass while continuing to use the forbidden birth control devices and pills. When it was revealed that thousands of Catholic priests had practiced child molestation on tens of thousands of victims over several decades and that the hierarchy had protected the priests and failed to enforce the laws against this abomination, Catholics simply continued to attend mass in the dioceses where such priests and bishops fester.
Catholics have a powerful need to believe in their Church even in the face of the worst scandals and happenings. In my book, "The Case Against God: A Lawyer Examines the Evidence" (now available on Kindle), I discuss the reasons why people go on believing in God despite the absence of evidence for his existence. This need to believe in God makes them able to believe in the Catholic Church with all of its disgrace, dishonor, and scandal. Catholics are taught that the Church is more than just the popes and clergy. It is the body of Christ, and therefore even when a bad priest (say a pedophile) says mass, he is capable of turning bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus.
As I noted in a previous blog, the “sacrifice” of the mass is actually a reprise of a bloody and disgusting lynching and murder of Jesus as a human sacrifice to propitiate a loving God on account of humanity’s sins. The whole basis of the mass is an affront to human intelligence.
Somewhere in my youth, after leaving the seminary, I began to realize these things and stopped considering myself a Catholic. I don’t fully understand why most thinking Catholics do not do likewise.
Friday, May 6, 2011
THE CIVIL WAR
The primary cause of the Civil War was slavery. This is clear from the pronouncements of all the leaders of that time. Lincoln made it emphatically clear in his Second Inaugural Address when he said: “One-eighth of the whole population were colored slaves, not distributed generally over the Union, but localized in the southern part of it. These slaves constituted a peculiar and powerful interest. All knew that this interest was somehow the cause of the war.” The arguments made today by right-wing apologists for the Southern cause are spurious at best.
What is not fully understood is the reason why slavery was so important a ground for conflict between the North and the South. It was not simply racial bigotry that caused the South to so fervently support the institution of slavery. It was money and greed. Slaves were considered property, and a very large percentage of the wealth of southern planters was tied-up in slaves. To the southerners, abolition of slavery meant abolition of much of their fortune. In addition, refusal of the government to allow the expansion of slavery to the western part of the country meant a stark restriction on where and to whom slave holders could sell their slaves. Lincoln said: “To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.”
The powerful hatred between North and South was generated by the fear in the South that the North planned to take away a very large part of southern treasure. For this, the southerners were willing to fight to the death.
It is immaterial that many of the common southern soldiers did not own slaves. Like everyone today who wishes to become more affluent, they looked upon slavery as a way to gain riches, and considered the institution of slavery to be a proper capitalist endeavor.
Even the southern slave holders knew that slavery was wrong. They clung to it because of its importance to their economy. They could not simply free their slaves without giving-up much of their wealth. Those few who did free their slaves showed a lot of courage and humanity.
Slavery was, after all, a gigantic horror. In my mind it is second only to the Nazi Holocaust in evil. Regardless of whether slave traders and slave owners thought that Black people were inferior, they knew that they were human beings and not just animals. Many felt deep pangs of conscience at the exploitation of their fellow men, and some people, like the Englishman Wilberforce and the American William Lloyd Garrison, could not tolerate such evil.
The legacy of slavery today is a divided America. It is not just divided between whites and blacks. It is divided between rich and poor, northerners and southerners, liberals and conservatives. It is no coincidence that the most conservative parts of America are in the South where slavery was prevalent, or that the most liberal areas are in the North where abolitionism prevailed. The legacy of racial intolerance which once belonged to southern Democrats called “Dixiecrats,” now belongs to southern racists called Republicans or Tea Partiers. They continue to recite all of the old slogans and canards of states’ rights, smaller government, and freedom from governmental interference, but what they really want is the right to continue their discrimination against and mistreatment of African Americans. They deeply resent the fact that some of their tax dollars are spent to aid poor Black people, and that the government is the main enforcer of the civil rights of Blacks.
What is not fully understood is the reason why slavery was so important a ground for conflict between the North and the South. It was not simply racial bigotry that caused the South to so fervently support the institution of slavery. It was money and greed. Slaves were considered property, and a very large percentage of the wealth of southern planters was tied-up in slaves. To the southerners, abolition of slavery meant abolition of much of their fortune. In addition, refusal of the government to allow the expansion of slavery to the western part of the country meant a stark restriction on where and to whom slave holders could sell their slaves. Lincoln said: “To strengthen, perpetuate, and extend this interest was the object for which the insurgents would rend the Union even by war, while the Government claimed no right to do more than to restrict the territorial enlargement of it.”
The powerful hatred between North and South was generated by the fear in the South that the North planned to take away a very large part of southern treasure. For this, the southerners were willing to fight to the death.
It is immaterial that many of the common southern soldiers did not own slaves. Like everyone today who wishes to become more affluent, they looked upon slavery as a way to gain riches, and considered the institution of slavery to be a proper capitalist endeavor.
Even the southern slave holders knew that slavery was wrong. They clung to it because of its importance to their economy. They could not simply free their slaves without giving-up much of their wealth. Those few who did free their slaves showed a lot of courage and humanity.
Slavery was, after all, a gigantic horror. In my mind it is second only to the Nazi Holocaust in evil. Regardless of whether slave traders and slave owners thought that Black people were inferior, they knew that they were human beings and not just animals. Many felt deep pangs of conscience at the exploitation of their fellow men, and some people, like the Englishman Wilberforce and the American William Lloyd Garrison, could not tolerate such evil.
The legacy of slavery today is a divided America. It is not just divided between whites and blacks. It is divided between rich and poor, northerners and southerners, liberals and conservatives. It is no coincidence that the most conservative parts of America are in the South where slavery was prevalent, or that the most liberal areas are in the North where abolitionism prevailed. The legacy of racial intolerance which once belonged to southern Democrats called “Dixiecrats,” now belongs to southern racists called Republicans or Tea Partiers. They continue to recite all of the old slogans and canards of states’ rights, smaller government, and freedom from governmental interference, but what they really want is the right to continue their discrimination against and mistreatment of African Americans. They deeply resent the fact that some of their tax dollars are spent to aid poor Black people, and that the government is the main enforcer of the civil rights of Blacks.
Sunday, April 24, 2011
Easter
It is Christian doctrine that Jesus died as a sacrifice for man. The idea is that “Original Sin” was committed by Adam and Eve, and that the stain of that sin was upon every human being born thereafter. Thus, even though subsequent humans did not commit the original sin, they were guilty of it as well as other sins. Christ came to save man from original sin and all other sin, and to provide a means for man to achieve everlasting life in heaven. In order to save man, Christ had to perform a sacrifice. Jesus was God, so he performed a sacrifice to himself. The sacrifice was a human sacrifice of the most bestial and agonizing kind, a painfully slow death by suffocation on a cross.
One has to wonder why this omnipotent, all-loving, almighty God couldn’t have simply forgiven all men of sin without this orgy of torment? Why did he have to be the scapegoat for all human beings and go through this horrendous nightmare of torture in order to provide salvation? The answer is that the writers of the Bible lived in a benighted and barbaric time when this was thought to be the right way for the gods to behave.
I confess, I simply do not understand how rational people living today can accept such nonsense as a fundamental part of their religion.
The resurrection of Jesus from the dead has been called the basis for all Christianity. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:13-14: “But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.” The celebration of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead is the most important date on the Catholics’ liturgical calendar. It is also the concoction of Paul and other writers who came long after Jesus died.
Scholars use various methods of textual criticism, including language and style, to determine if text is authentic or was added to the original gospel at a later time. There are many things on which they agree. Scholars agree that Jesus did not predict his own resurrection from the dead or his second coming. The quotations in the Bible in which he makes such a prediction (e.g. Mark 8:31) are considered to be later additions.
Moreover, the accounts of Jesus’ resurrection are so contradictory and improbable that the whole story has to be dismissed as fiction. Matthew says that the day following Jesus crucifixion Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to the tomb (Matt 28:2), but Mark says that the two Marys and Salome went (Mark 16:1). Luke writes that Mary Magdalene went with Mary the mother of James, Joanna, and other women (Luke 24:10). Matthew says that the stone was removed by an angel at the time the women arrived at Jesus’ tomb (Matt. 28:2), but Mark and Luke say it had already been removed (Mark 16:2-4, Luke 24:1-2). Matthew says that when the women arrived, the angel was outside the tomb (Matt 28:2), but Mark says the angel was inside the tomb (Mark 16:5) and Luke says there were two men inside the tomb (Luke 24:4).
In Matthew the two women rush from the tomb to tell the disciples (Matt 28:8-9), but Mark says that they said nothing to anyone (Mark 16:8). Luke says that they reported the story to the disciples (Luke 24:9-11). John tells a very different story from the others (John 20:1-18). Later post-resurrection stories are also in conflict (compare Matt 28:16-20 with Luke 24:13-53, and John 20:19).
The first Gospel written was the Gospel of Mark. Scholars can tell that the whole story of the resurrection of Jesus in Mark was added to the Gospel by somebody else long after the original version was written. Originally, the Gospel of Mark ended at Chapter 16:8. That is the part where the women find the empty tomb and are told by a “young man” that Jesus has risen. The part of the Gospel after that, in which Jesus appears to various people, was added by later writers who wanted to supply authenticity to the myth of Jesus’ resurrection. As Professor Bart D. Ehrman of the University of North Carolina says: “These verses [Mark 16:9-20] are absent from our two oldest and best manuscripts of Mark’s Gospel, along with other important witnesses; the transition between this passage and the one preceding it is hard to understand….and there are a large number of words and phrases in the passage that are not found elsewhere in Mark.”141
If you consider the fact that the Gospels of Mathew and Luke were based on the gospel of Mark, then it becomes clear that the Gospels’ story of Jesus’ resurrection is pure myth that was made-up long after the Gospels were written. The earliest Christian scriptures were the Epistles of Paul, yet Paul does not give any details about Jesus’ resurrection other than referring to it (See Rom. 6:5, 1 Cor. 15:13).
The early Christians observed Jesus’ resurrection from the dead as a Passover celebration. Thus, in Asia Minor and other places, it was not celebrated on a Sunday. It was celebrated on whatever day the Passover occurred. Around 154 AD the Christians in Rome began celebrating it on Sunday because Sunday was the Christians’ day of worship. When Rome became the seat of the Pope, the Church made Sunday the official day for the celebration of the resurrection. The day was later named “Easter” after Eostre, the Saxon goddess whose feast was celebrated at the Spring equinox.142
The idea of resurrection by a god did not begin with Jesus. Lots of gods arose from the dead in ancient times. Among them are Mithra, Attis, Dionysus, Osiris, Tammuz, Ishtar, Adonis, Persephone, Semele, Heracles (or Herakles), and Melqart. Some claim Buddah was resurrected from the dead.
When my daughter was 5 years old I asked her if she believed in Jesus. She said yes. I asked if she believed that Jesus was God. She said yes. I asked her if she believed that Jesus was crucified. She said yes. I then asked her if she believed that Jesus rose again from the dead. She said: "No way!"
One has to wonder why this omnipotent, all-loving, almighty God couldn’t have simply forgiven all men of sin without this orgy of torment? Why did he have to be the scapegoat for all human beings and go through this horrendous nightmare of torture in order to provide salvation? The answer is that the writers of the Bible lived in a benighted and barbaric time when this was thought to be the right way for the gods to behave.
I confess, I simply do not understand how rational people living today can accept such nonsense as a fundamental part of their religion.
The resurrection of Jesus from the dead has been called the basis for all Christianity. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:13-14: “But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain.” The celebration of Jesus’ resurrection from the dead is the most important date on the Catholics’ liturgical calendar. It is also the concoction of Paul and other writers who came long after Jesus died.
Scholars use various methods of textual criticism, including language and style, to determine if text is authentic or was added to the original gospel at a later time. There are many things on which they agree. Scholars agree that Jesus did not predict his own resurrection from the dead or his second coming. The quotations in the Bible in which he makes such a prediction (e.g. Mark 8:31) are considered to be later additions.
Moreover, the accounts of Jesus’ resurrection are so contradictory and improbable that the whole story has to be dismissed as fiction. Matthew says that the day following Jesus crucifixion Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to the tomb (Matt 28:2), but Mark says that the two Marys and Salome went (Mark 16:1). Luke writes that Mary Magdalene went with Mary the mother of James, Joanna, and other women (Luke 24:10). Matthew says that the stone was removed by an angel at the time the women arrived at Jesus’ tomb (Matt. 28:2), but Mark and Luke say it had already been removed (Mark 16:2-4, Luke 24:1-2). Matthew says that when the women arrived, the angel was outside the tomb (Matt 28:2), but Mark says the angel was inside the tomb (Mark 16:5) and Luke says there were two men inside the tomb (Luke 24:4).
In Matthew the two women rush from the tomb to tell the disciples (Matt 28:8-9), but Mark says that they said nothing to anyone (Mark 16:8). Luke says that they reported the story to the disciples (Luke 24:9-11). John tells a very different story from the others (John 20:1-18). Later post-resurrection stories are also in conflict (compare Matt 28:16-20 with Luke 24:13-53, and John 20:19).
The first Gospel written was the Gospel of Mark. Scholars can tell that the whole story of the resurrection of Jesus in Mark was added to the Gospel by somebody else long after the original version was written. Originally, the Gospel of Mark ended at Chapter 16:8. That is the part where the women find the empty tomb and are told by a “young man” that Jesus has risen. The part of the Gospel after that, in which Jesus appears to various people, was added by later writers who wanted to supply authenticity to the myth of Jesus’ resurrection. As Professor Bart D. Ehrman of the University of North Carolina says: “These verses [Mark 16:9-20] are absent from our two oldest and best manuscripts of Mark’s Gospel, along with other important witnesses; the transition between this passage and the one preceding it is hard to understand….and there are a large number of words and phrases in the passage that are not found elsewhere in Mark.”141
If you consider the fact that the Gospels of Mathew and Luke were based on the gospel of Mark, then it becomes clear that the Gospels’ story of Jesus’ resurrection is pure myth that was made-up long after the Gospels were written. The earliest Christian scriptures were the Epistles of Paul, yet Paul does not give any details about Jesus’ resurrection other than referring to it (See Rom. 6:5, 1 Cor. 15:13).
The early Christians observed Jesus’ resurrection from the dead as a Passover celebration. Thus, in Asia Minor and other places, it was not celebrated on a Sunday. It was celebrated on whatever day the Passover occurred. Around 154 AD the Christians in Rome began celebrating it on Sunday because Sunday was the Christians’ day of worship. When Rome became the seat of the Pope, the Church made Sunday the official day for the celebration of the resurrection. The day was later named “Easter” after Eostre, the Saxon goddess whose feast was celebrated at the Spring equinox.142
The idea of resurrection by a god did not begin with Jesus. Lots of gods arose from the dead in ancient times. Among them are Mithra, Attis, Dionysus, Osiris, Tammuz, Ishtar, Adonis, Persephone, Semele, Heracles (or Herakles), and Melqart. Some claim Buddah was resurrected from the dead.
When my daughter was 5 years old I asked her if she believed in Jesus. She said yes. I asked if she believed that Jesus was God. She said yes. I asked her if she believed that Jesus was crucified. She said yes. I then asked her if she believed that Jesus rose again from the dead. She said: "No way!"
Tuesday, April 12, 2011
The Mass and Human Sacrifice
As a young boy I wanted to become a Catholic Priest. This is probably because back then priests were revered and shown a great deal of respect. I suppose that as the third son of four I didn’t feel that I got enough respect. I went to Mass every morning before school. I would frequently serve as an alter boy and would listen to the priests intone the litergy in Latin. Today, there are many Catholics who want to go back to the Latin Mass. For them, the Mass has lost much of its aura. I think that they really believe that God speaks in Latin and that therefore he prefers to be worshipped in Latin. They do not want to know what is being said at the Mass. They want it to be a mystery.
At the Mass the priest would speak in Latin and the alter boys would respond in Latin. Most alter boys did not know what they were saying. They were given the responses on cards in phonetic form so that they did not even know how the actual Latin phrases were spelled.
The idea of the mass was that it was a re-creation of the Last Supper, and that in the Mass the priest would somehow transform mere bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus. It was to be understood that although the bread and wine continued to look and taste like bread and wine, they had actually been changed into Christ’s body and blood. So we were not just eating some spiritual thing in rememberance of Jesus, but an actual human body. For some reason, this was considered to be a powerfully holy thing to do. I now know that the idea for it came from the Greeks who honored their Gods by holding “agapes” in which they would merge with the gods by eating something that represented the body and blood of the gods.
The central belief of Christianity is that Jesus was a human sacrifice for mankind. Somehow, Christians have accepted this teaching from an ancient, barbaric time, and still believe it today. They believe that Man committed something called “Original Sin” and that the only way he could achieve salvation from original and other sins was by means of a human sacrifice. They believe that the almighty and eternal God, who is merciful, loving, and forgiving, could be appeased only by this hideous and grisly torture and lynching of a human being. Because an ordinary human sacrifice would not be sufficient, the Son of God had to come down to Earth to be the sacrificial victim. He had to be scourged, driven to Golgatha under the weight of the cross, nailed to the cross, pierced with a spear, and slowly suffocated until he bled to death. Crucifixion was one of the most horrible forms of execution ever devised. To this day Christians pray before crucifixes which show Jesus writhing on the cross.
So the Mass is actually a re-creation of a human sacrifice. It is referred to as the “Sacrifice of the Mass.” The priest wears ornate vestments, each part of which has some mystical significence. When he touches the bread,or the chalice holding the wine, he does so with only certain fingures. At High Mass he intones ancient chants and swings a censor with burning incense. I presume that the purpose of this is to send sweet odors up to God who apparently has a nose and a sense of smell. I have not researched the origin of incense, but it may have something to do with covering-up the odor of burning human flesh.
At some masses and other celebrations the bread is displayed in a Monstrance, which is an elaborate golden receptical for the body of Christ. It is intended to inspire awe and reverence. All Catholics kneel before the monstrance and genuflect whenever they pass before the sacristy holding the bread and wine. This is obviously taken from the ancient practice of kneeling before kings and rulers. In the Catholic religion, Jesus is referred to as the “King of Kings.”
As a boy I was deeply impressed by the Mass. Now, when I see it I wonder how people could believe in such superstition. The Mass seems like an ancient rite which one would expect to have disappeared centuries ago.
At the Mass the priest would speak in Latin and the alter boys would respond in Latin. Most alter boys did not know what they were saying. They were given the responses on cards in phonetic form so that they did not even know how the actual Latin phrases were spelled.
The idea of the mass was that it was a re-creation of the Last Supper, and that in the Mass the priest would somehow transform mere bread and wine into the body and blood of Jesus. It was to be understood that although the bread and wine continued to look and taste like bread and wine, they had actually been changed into Christ’s body and blood. So we were not just eating some spiritual thing in rememberance of Jesus, but an actual human body. For some reason, this was considered to be a powerfully holy thing to do. I now know that the idea for it came from the Greeks who honored their Gods by holding “agapes” in which they would merge with the gods by eating something that represented the body and blood of the gods.
The central belief of Christianity is that Jesus was a human sacrifice for mankind. Somehow, Christians have accepted this teaching from an ancient, barbaric time, and still believe it today. They believe that Man committed something called “Original Sin” and that the only way he could achieve salvation from original and other sins was by means of a human sacrifice. They believe that the almighty and eternal God, who is merciful, loving, and forgiving, could be appeased only by this hideous and grisly torture and lynching of a human being. Because an ordinary human sacrifice would not be sufficient, the Son of God had to come down to Earth to be the sacrificial victim. He had to be scourged, driven to Golgatha under the weight of the cross, nailed to the cross, pierced with a spear, and slowly suffocated until he bled to death. Crucifixion was one of the most horrible forms of execution ever devised. To this day Christians pray before crucifixes which show Jesus writhing on the cross.
So the Mass is actually a re-creation of a human sacrifice. It is referred to as the “Sacrifice of the Mass.” The priest wears ornate vestments, each part of which has some mystical significence. When he touches the bread,or the chalice holding the wine, he does so with only certain fingures. At High Mass he intones ancient chants and swings a censor with burning incense. I presume that the purpose of this is to send sweet odors up to God who apparently has a nose and a sense of smell. I have not researched the origin of incense, but it may have something to do with covering-up the odor of burning human flesh.
At some masses and other celebrations the bread is displayed in a Monstrance, which is an elaborate golden receptical for the body of Christ. It is intended to inspire awe and reverence. All Catholics kneel before the monstrance and genuflect whenever they pass before the sacristy holding the bread and wine. This is obviously taken from the ancient practice of kneeling before kings and rulers. In the Catholic religion, Jesus is referred to as the “King of Kings.”
As a boy I was deeply impressed by the Mass. Now, when I see it I wonder how people could believe in such superstition. The Mass seems like an ancient rite which one would expect to have disappeared centuries ago.
Tuesday, March 29, 2011
Why Some People Believe In God
For many people there is another psychological need. It is the need to bolster their own self-respect. Many of these are the people in lower economic, cultural, social, and intellectual classes. These people live sad and desperate lives. They envy and resent the more fortunate people of the world. They do not get enough respect and they feel looked-down-upon by others. For these people, there is a need to believe that they are as good as if not better than others. They need to believe that they are among the elect few who practice the correct religion, and that however lucky other people may seem, those others are condemned to religious error on earth and to hell upon death. These people need to believe that somehow in the afterlife God will level the playing field and that they are not condemned for all eternity to being poor, backward, inferior, or ignorant. They need to believe that in eternal life there will be no aristocrats and peasants, no intellectuals and simple minds.
Scott Atran says: “In Britain and the United States, the highest measures of religious commitment and the most radical forms of traditional religious affiliation (Pentecostal, Baptist, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists etc.) are registered among the most marginal or underprivileged social groups, especially minorities and persons at the bottom of the socioeconomic totem pole.”
If you listen to the preachers of the resentful people of the world you will hear the frequent admonition that as long as they accept Jesus or some other deity as their god and savior, they are better than anybody else. Sometimes their preachers stoke their anger towards the more fortunate. People like Jimmy Swaggert were able to touch a nerve when they inveighed against those others. He would get his congregation into a lather of hatred and condemnation. He appealed to the common psychological phenomenon by which people elevate their own feelings of self-worth by denouncing others.
Scott Atran says: “In Britain and the United States, the highest measures of religious commitment and the most radical forms of traditional religious affiliation (Pentecostal, Baptist, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists etc.) are registered among the most marginal or underprivileged social groups, especially minorities and persons at the bottom of the socioeconomic totem pole.”
If you listen to the preachers of the resentful people of the world you will hear the frequent admonition that as long as they accept Jesus or some other deity as their god and savior, they are better than anybody else. Sometimes their preachers stoke their anger towards the more fortunate. People like Jimmy Swaggert were able to touch a nerve when they inveighed against those others. He would get his congregation into a lather of hatred and condemnation. He appealed to the common psychological phenomenon by which people elevate their own feelings of self-worth by denouncing others.
Why Some People Believe In God--Social Class
For many people there is a psychological need. It is the need to bolster one’s self-respect. Many of these are the people in lower economic, cultural, social, and intellectual classes. These people live sad and desperate lives. They envy and resent the more fortunate people of the world. They do not get enough respect and they feel looked-down-upon by others. For these people, there is a need to believe that they are as good as if not better than others. They need to believe that they are among the elect few who practice the correct religion, and that however lucky other people may seem, those others are condemned to religious error on earth and to hell upon death. These people need to believe that somehow in the afterlife God will level the playing field and that they are not condemned for all eternity to being poor, backward, inferior, or ignorant. They need to believe that in eternal life there will be no aristocrats and peasants, no intellectuals and simple minds.
Scott Atran says: “In Britain and the United States, the highest measures of religious commitment and the most radical forms of traditional religious affiliation (Pentecostal, Baptist, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists etc.) are registered among the most marginal or underprivileged social groups, especially minorities and persons at the bottom of the socioeconomic totem pole.”
If you listen to the preachers of the resentful people of the world you will hear the frequent admonition that as long as they accept Jesus or some other deity as their god and savior, they are better than anybody else. Sometimes their preachers stoke their anger towards the more fortunate. People like Jimmy Swaggert were able to touch a nerve when they inveighed against those others. He would get his congregation into a lather of hatred and condemnation. He appealed to the common psychological phenomenon by which people elevate their own feelings of self-worth by denouncing others.
If life upon this earth is difficult, and if through no fault of your own you are despised by others, it is psychologically uplifting to believe that there is a better world to come in which you will be treated equally with, if not better than, all others. The converse of this is that it can be quite depressing to think that this world is all there is and that when you die you will not go to heaven but will simply die. Nevertheless, one has to ask, if there really was a God, why would he make certain people and certain races subject to so much opression and discrimination? Isn't it more realistic to believe that there is no God and that one's fate is not determined by God, but rather, by arbitrary circumstances over which we have little control.
Scott Atran says: “In Britain and the United States, the highest measures of religious commitment and the most radical forms of traditional religious affiliation (Pentecostal, Baptist, Jehovah’s Witnesses, Seventh-Day Adventists etc.) are registered among the most marginal or underprivileged social groups, especially minorities and persons at the bottom of the socioeconomic totem pole.”
If you listen to the preachers of the resentful people of the world you will hear the frequent admonition that as long as they accept Jesus or some other deity as their god and savior, they are better than anybody else. Sometimes their preachers stoke their anger towards the more fortunate. People like Jimmy Swaggert were able to touch a nerve when they inveighed against those others. He would get his congregation into a lather of hatred and condemnation. He appealed to the common psychological phenomenon by which people elevate their own feelings of self-worth by denouncing others.
If life upon this earth is difficult, and if through no fault of your own you are despised by others, it is psychologically uplifting to believe that there is a better world to come in which you will be treated equally with, if not better than, all others. The converse of this is that it can be quite depressing to think that this world is all there is and that when you die you will not go to heaven but will simply die. Nevertheless, one has to ask, if there really was a God, why would he make certain people and certain races subject to so much opression and discrimination? Isn't it more realistic to believe that there is no God and that one's fate is not determined by God, but rather, by arbitrary circumstances over which we have little control.
John E. LeMoult Book, The Case Against God
My book, The Case Against God: A Lawyer Examines the Evidence, under my name John E. LeMoult, has now been published by Amazon on Kindle. This means that anybody owning a Kindle or a device with Kindle applications such as iPad, iPhone, PC phone, Mac phone, Blackberry, Android phone, and Windows 7 phone can buy my book for $5.00. The book is a discussion about whether God exists from the point of view of a nonbeliever. In it I have explored The Old Testament, The New Testament, and the teachings of and about Jesus. I have researched all of the leading biblical and theological experts and I present the facts found by them. I also discuss the arguments of philosophers for the existence of God, the dispute between science and religion, the so-called “Intelligent Design” theory, the problem of evil, and the question of why so many people believe in God. Even if you don’t agree with my views about God, I hope that if you have a Kindle-type device, you will get the book and read it. Whether or not you agree, it is very informative and will greatly increase your knowledge of the Bible and religion.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)