In years of discussion about the role of religion, I find it particularly depressing that the Bible™, not God™ or Jesus™, is what is to be defended by the religious. The ideas of mercy, of duty, of sacrifice for another - these are lost in squabbles over why Bible™ authors meant a "Flood" really occurred, why Jesus™ didn't marry and a million other apologies as to how something in the Bible™ could have occurred, with the help of warp drive and magic.

This is a sickness: a phobia about life itself, with its endless supply of things to learn, many of them unpleasant and most unsupportive of a "special" place for us. The religious argued against Galileo in his day and Evolution today because of some wholly manufactured idea that they would be diminished by new discoveries.

Emulate Jesus™, or even a modern interpretation of him? Oh, heck no, not a chance. Not while anybody doubts a syllable of the Bible™ - represented here with the ™ to represent a brand to be protected, not something to be seriously considered with respect to the real world.

Why can't folks just let people experience the magic of mythology? Spiritual truths aren't necessarily the same as historical ones.

As long as they aren't imposing it on you. Obviously, when they do that, one has the right to defend oneself.

But seriously, it's like the question in "The Life of Pi"... which is the better story?

Christianity has more to do with Paul (PR man extraordinaire) than Jesus. Paul (who never met Jesus) took a man who was executed for preaching with out a license and created a religion.
The only thing preventing that from happening with a David Koresh is video/photo records. There are still Elvis sightings..............

Another anti-religion post.

Yawwwn.

We get it Amy. You hate religion and religious people.

Pretty soon I'm expecting to see pictures of people entering church on Sunday like you do with A-holes who are rude to you in public.

For the record, I don't believe in "God" either but I don't ridicule/denigrate people who do.

I don't find this particular post denigrating; I think it's an interesting discussion. A few years ago, I started reading a book about the "true" authors of the gospels, who they might have been, and how their circumstances would have influenced their perspectives and writings... but I have the attention span of a fruit fly, so I only got through a chapter or two before I had to return the book.

Anyway, biblical history, and the history of religion in general, is fascinating, whether or not you subscribe to whatever religion it is. Favorite college course ever: Foundations of Christianity, taught by Dr. Makowski, at Southwest Texas. (It was a history class, not a theology class.)

>Another anti-religion post. Yawwwn.

Sean, if you're boared, maybe you should go read another blog... Or write a comment so interesting that this very post is redeemed. (That one wasn't it.)

We'll be watching, niblets! Let 'er rip!

> For the record, I don't believe
> in "God" either but I don't
> ridicule/denigrate people who do.

Well, you're missing out on a lot of good times!

"And if it develops doctrines that bring us closer to moral truth, like universal love, that is encouraging. I think you see it in all three religions"

How could Amy Alkon, the Scarlet Scourge of Islam, type in those sentences with a straight face? Anyone with even the slightest knowledge of Islam knows that there is no such thing as universal love in the Koran, or anywhere in orthodox Islamic doctrine to this day. That whopper alone puts a huge dent in Robert Wright's credibility as a serious scholar of religion.

"I think he was your typical apocalyptic Jewish preacher...And he had the biases that you'd expect a Jewish apocalyptic preacher to have"

If JC was just another Jewish priest, then why did all the other Jewish priests demand that he be crucified? It wasn't just for preaching without a license. Jesus blatantly defied Jewish law & tradition so many times. You'll recall that he did not share the biases of the Pharisees who demanded that the woman they accused of sin be stoned to death as God's law said she must be. Did Christ not consort with & heal prostitutes, menstruating women, & others deemed outcasts by Jewish law? And how could a man who shared all of those ugly biases against non-Jews have ever preached the story of the Good Samaritan?

"Love your neighbor as yourself."

"And who is my neighbor?"

In reply, Jesus said "A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, when he fell into the hands of robbers. They stripped him of his clothes, beat him and went away, leaving him half dead with no clothes. A priest happened to be going down the same road, and when he saw the man, he passed by on the other side. So too , a Levite, when he came to the place and saw him, he passed by on the other side. But a Samaritan, as he traveled, came to where the man was, and when he saw him, he took pity on him. He went to him and bandaged his wounds...Then he put the man on his own donkey, took him to an inn, and looked after him...Which of these 3 do you think was a neighbor to the man who fell into the hands of robbers?"

"The one who took mercy on him."

"Go and do likewise."

Is that no clear enough? And isn't it kind of obvious why any Jewish priest who heard this story being told would be infuriated?

The Bible is a target-rich environment, but Wright's pronouncements on Jesus have about the same authority as Jimmy Swaggart's.

"Not clear enough" You get the idea...

The evidence-free belief in god causes numerous deaths and other problems, and has throughout history.

No, the actions of people cause numerous deaths and other problems. If they didn't have God to motivate them, they'd choose Allah, Zeus, Zoroaster, or the voices speaking to them through the toaster.

And, chances are, those people who are motivated to do good in the name of God or religion, would also do good in the name of another religion, another god, or just because the toaster told them to.

If you're going to blame religion (or God) for the bad things done in its name, you've also got to give credit for the good things done in its name: charities, hospitals, orphanges, clinics, soup kitchens, and the little things people do for one another every day because somebody put "do unto others" in the Bible.

This will seem dispiriting to some people to hear that Jesus wasn't the great guy we thought he was.

It's only dispiriting to non-Christians, because Christians don't base their beliefs about Jesus on the assumption that Christianity is false.

The evidence-free belief in god causes numerous deaths and other problems, and has throughout history.

There's no such thing as evidence-free belief in God. The word "evidence" is so weak that mere existence qualifies.

In years of discussion about the role of religion, I find it particularly depressing that the Bible™, not God™ or Jesus™, is what is to be defended by the religious.

Me too. The fact is, the Bible doesn't have to be 100% correct for Christianity to be true. Sometimes I wonder if the doctrine of inerrancy of scripture is a Satanic attempt to divide and distract Christians.

At least I'm not in a town where I can't buy wine on certain days, thanks to the fundies. (Amy)

I am. Sucks.

Amy, do you think religion is evolved? At least socially. What do you make of George Washington's and Alexis de Tocqueville's view of religion in a democratic polity? By contrast, what about Madison? Have you thought about it this way?

I'm not religious, and I'm with Madison. Religion is no different than any other political faction. The Constitution depends on a large number of factions to protect our freedoms. Religion seems to assist this by the multiplicity of denominations.

Have you studied American thinkers regarding religion? Or even considered the views of Enlightenment thinkers like Diderot, maybe in Rameau's Nephew?

Seriously, is it legitimate for me to criticize your views from this angle - the political angle - without disagreeing with your position on the literal truth of religion? I'd really appreciate a response.

So these two Popes go into a bar.

"How could Amy Alkon, the Scarlet Scourge of Islam, type in those sentences with a straight face?"

She didn't. She was posting a quote.

Scarlet Scourge. That's like when the Soviet media called Margaret Thatcher "Iron Lady." Maybe it was intended as an insult, but it was kept as a compliment. I suggest "Scarlet Scourge" go on a book jacket.

These aren't really new ideas. Karen Armstrong wrote a book called The History of God evaluating the major monotheistic religions, their origins, links, and associations. It is a very interesting read. Sound like Robert Wright just ripped her idea off.

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

In it, Ms. Armstrong mentions that Jesus referred to himself as the Son of Man, not the Son of God, and that he was likely a Pharisee, which contrary to how it was portrayed in Christianity, was just a rabbinical school of thought.

-Julie

Amy- the ad next to this blogpost is jesus2020.com, with a 4 question quiz. the irony drips like maple syrup!

"the Scarlet Scourge" -- I rather like that.

Can't comment in any substantial way right now -- at this conference and needing to whore my column.

Julie, that's a good book. I also liked The Trancendental Temptation.

"I rather like that"

I thought it would tickle your fancy!

And I know those weren't your words about universal love in all 3 Abrahamic religions. I was just pointing out that if Wright can come up with mush like that, then you should have known that all of his other assertions should be viewed with skepticism. We're not talking about miracles here. It's one thing to debunk walking on water & rising from the dead. Convincing people (Christians or not) that the plain & simple record of Christ's life as recorded in the gospels is all wrong requires some really convincing evidence. I don't see it here. Too many people seeking to bury the New Testament Jesus have come up with their own pseudoJesus who's less believable than the one in the gospels.

While I can't go into a big religious debate now, I must point out that Wright ignores one disgtinguishing fact about Jesus in the Bible: the Resurrection. This in itself distinguishes him from other "Jewish apopcalyptic preachers."

Julie, that's a good book. I also liked The Trancendental Temptation.

That looks interesting. I might see where I can pick it up. I'm reading through the sample on Amazon right now. Is it a polemic against religion or an attempt at an objective evaluation?

-Julie

Jesus was a populist lay preacher. The Romans decided it was best to execute him before he got too popular. He indeed referred to himself as the Son of Man, a term found in the book of Daniel.

Much of what we know as Christianity emerged from the mind of Saul/Paul, the son of a rabbi and tentmaker from what is now Turkey. The greatest PR man of all time. It was Paul who decided that Jesus was the Jewish Messiah and a manifestation of God. Paul then added slices of Jewish theology of his day, and dropped the Jewish law, especially circumcision. The result was a new religion, which Paul and others took to the entire Roman Empire.

This religion caught on because it appealed to women, by exalting feminine virtues. Wives and mothers were the first to convert, after which they reared their children in the new religion. The rest is history...

At the end of the day, what emerged from this? The Jewish scriptures became part of the mental heritage of all humans: Genesis, Isaiah (which contains some of the greatest poetry ever), Ecclesiastes, the Psalms.

Genesis says that the universe began and then gradually became more complicated. The most astounding religious fact of our time is that contemporary science richly concurs with this scenario. The creationists are picking a fight with modern science, when they should see it as giving unwitting powerful supporter to their cause.

"The creationists are picking a fight with modern science, when they should see it as giving unwitting powerful supporter to their cause."

Most christians concur with modern science. Creationists are relatively rare. Really, who's to say what a "day" is to God, anyway?

"It's one thing to debunk walking on water & rising from the dead. Convincing people (Christians or not) that the plain & simple record of Christ's life as recorded in the gospels is all wrong requires some really convincing evidence. I don't see it here."

Have you seen the movie "Lars and the real girl?"
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0805564/

In case you did not, it is about a lonely man who wanted an unconditional love from a girl. He decided to buy a blow up love doll, Bianca, who will always love him and love him just the way he is just like Jesus. And the entire his family and town decided to go along with this. They treated this love doll as a real human being and the entire town mourned when she died and performed the funeral just like when Jesus died.

We all play along here. You do not need evidence and I am not looking for one. I don't have the nerve to tell my mother that she will never see her dead husband again after she died. So, I play along and we all do.

The below is the conversation between Lars and his sister in law, Karin, Emily Mortimer, she is really hot!!!!! I am sorry, I lost my track here. Anyway, the conversation below from the movie brings the best humanity out of mankind.

Lars Lindstrom: You don't care.
Karin: We don't care? We do care!
Lars Lindstrom: No you don't.
Karin: That is just not true! God! Every person in this town bends over backward to make Bianca feel at home. Why do you think she has so many places to go and so much to do? Huh? Huh? Because of you! Because - all these people - love you! We push her wheelchair. We drive her to work. We drive her home. We wash her. We dress her. We get her up, and put her to bed. We carry her. And she is not petite, Lars. Bianca is a big, big girl! None of this is easy - for any of us - but we do it... Oh! We do it for you! So don't you dare tell me how we don't care.
[walks into house and slams door

"Convincing people (Christians or not) that the plain & simple record of Christ's life as recorded in the gospels is all wrong requires some really convincing evidence."

But who decided that it was "all right" - and how?

Nazareth was a burial ground, forbidden for human habitation when Christ is to have lived. "Nazarite" doesn't mean "lived in Nazareth" - that was mistaken by KJV authors.

Why do you think that the Bible™ should get a pass, and be considered "correct"?

I don't. Any conclusive evidence to the contrary from the historical record, like you've pointed out, is great. I approach this like the "who was the real Shakespeare?" controversy. The onus is on those who believe that a nobody, a mere commoner, like William Shakespeare could not possibly have written all those wonderful plays to come up with convincing historical evidence for their case. Just about all of the alternative Shakespeare scenarios I've heard are much less plausible to me than the idea that Shakespeare was in fact Shakespeare.

The pressure to belong to a religion and to prosper has become such a big requirement to gain some respect in certain asian society that any meek nonbeliever individualist who is unable to conform and who do not believe in any god would be more comfortable going to a church that put more emphasis on discussing and questioniong of the validity of the stories from the Bible rather than one that preach dogmatically from the Bible.

Because Martin has posted in a way that suggests that the fallacy, "begging the question", is not understood, I think I have to clarify here.

The burden of proof is on the affiant. In the case of Shakespeare, that means the issue actually starts with showing that Shakespeare was the author of any particular work credited to him.

In the case of the Bible™, it means showing that any event in it happened with corroboration from some record outside the Bible™. Attempts to do this fail in several noteworthy ways, such as with the "Flood" - which left no record anywhere, and includes damning details such as an insistence that eight people gathered all the animals on Earth and tended them for a time while a billion cubic miles of water came and went. Another case is a "geneology" for Jesus™ which differs by 14 generations, matrilineal vs. patrilineal.

Copernicus, Einstein, & Wagner were right and the conventional wisdom was wrong, but until irrefutable evidence was presented in favor of the heliocentric solar system, relativity, & continental drift, no one was obliged to accept their theories as truth. Until the "who was the real Shakespeare" crowd presents irrefutable evidence that Edward de Vere or some mysterious Lord X was indeed the real Shakespeare, no one needs to accept their claims. This is so even when there is no absolutely conclusive evidence that William Shakespeare actually wrote all his plays. Demonstrating that the conventional wisdom is wrong is an entirely different matter from proving that YOUR version of history is right.

Everyone is free to dismiss the entire Bible as fable. But assertions made about the truth regarding historical figures like Jesus require evidence, and merit the same degree of skepticism & scrutiny as the plausible claims made about him in the gospels.

"But assertions made about the truth regarding historical figures like Jesus require evidence, and merit the same degree of skepticism & scrutiny as the plausible claims made about him in the gospels."

Here is one. When Jesus was baptized by John, he was thirty years old. We know the every single details of his life after that until he died.

Can you tell me what happened to his life from his birth until he was thirty years old? We know the every single details about his birth. Yet, we know nothing about him from that point until he was baptized by John.

My guess is that no one paid attention to him until he was thirty years old. Once his religion became a force to reckon with, people fabricated his holy birth to match his messiah status. We have no idea what he did after his birth for thirty years because no one really knows what happened. Yes, conveniently we know all of the details about his birth.

That does not make sense to me.

... the "Flood" - which left no record anywhere, and includes damning details such as an insistence that eight people gathered all the animals on Earth and tended them for a time while a billion cubic miles of water came and went.

Just think about how many subsequent lives would have been saved had Noah smacked just one mosquito.

Wait, I thought we knew that when he was 12 or so he went to the temple and Mary couldn't find him and he was chatting with the Rabbis.

That's between 12 and 30.

It was in the picture book the Jehovah's Witnesses gave me. (Maybe it was the Mormons?) So it must be true!

Jehovas Witnesses show up at 6 in the morning and mormons ask you to convert and be baptized withing 10 minutes of meeting you

So which were they?