Brilliant Defense of ... Wait, what?

I was invited to view a video by someone calling themselves Chosen Rebel which was proffered on his blog by the below title.

Calling this video a "Brilliant Defense of the Historicity of the Gospels" only displays your lack of familiarity with the Gospels, their content, their history, and their origins. The apologists in this video had a very bad case of tunnel vision. Dr. Williams was it? Anyway, there are much better explanations for the points the good Dr. brought up. And these explanations don't need an hour at a podium evincing historical contortions, nor displaying the mental gyrations evident in the afore mentioned video, Lecture with Dr. Peter Williams.

The following is a response to the claims and arguments put forward in that video.

Originally, every word in the Gospels came from scripture. Period. It is called midrash, but the Gospels themselves are orated stories (from, say, a podium) as generated from that midrash technique. In fact, there is strong evidence that The Gospel According to St. Mark was adapted from a play narrative for a Jewish Graeco-Roman audience (eg. Triumphal March 15:15-19). The Gospels were motivated by the platonic descending-ascending theological explanations expressed by those with a need for a new covenant. This Son of Man theology accorded by the platonic Anointed Savior sects as was communicated by apostolic writers (similar to the likes of Paul/Saul et al.) through the Epistles to the congregations of the Jewish Diaspora, who were dispersed around Europe and Asia Minor from the onset of the Roman conquest and occupation. The Gospels are post hoc prophetic narratives as humanized and historicized from Jewish anointed savior sect's theological explanations of imagined platonic (spirit world) representation at the right hand of Yahweh, that is, his begotten son. That's it.

The oppressed of the Diaspora needed a new mythical hero, so like all religions in such straights, it accommodated them with a spiritual emanation and spiritual mediator for a new covenant with Yahweh whose wrath the Sons of Man (Man being the Fathers) felt they did not deserve, for the old covenant was with, and broken by, the fathers. Only, they had to stay within there sacred writings, the scriptures, when looking for prophecies that would foretell the coming of such a savior. For Yahweh would have had to have known that this would be the case, right? Actually, it's more than likely that for the concept to be generally excepted the Torah, Mosaic Law, and Jewish histories would have to be respected in just such a way.

The reason the names statistically correlate (besides the obvious fact that the main place to find names for such a study now would be from extant documents, most of which are primarily religious text of the time) with the names in the Gospels is because the Diaspora got their names from the same place the Gospels got theirs, OT scripture, or more specifically the Greek Septuagint. This also explains the Sycamore tree, sycomore (Latin) in 8 verses of the KJV, 7 of which are in the OT. This explanation continues to clarify why the cultural centers, villages, and place names are used in the Gospels but relative distances and directions are absurdly misrepresented. Such cases as the pigs of Gadarene running more than 11 kilometers to the water, or the itinerary of this Jesus character taking a tact equivalent to Pensacola to Atlanta by way of Tampa, on foot. The absurdity of the nativity narrative in Luke in which a woman, and the subject of a different Ruler, is dragged across to 2 provinces on the back of an ass on the eve of the birth of her baby—to do what? To be counted in a city they are not from to pay taxes for which there is no historical evidence were ever called for—no! It is for the same reason every word of the Gospels were written. To be post hoc prophecy fulfillment of the scripture, to bring about an apocalyptic revenge against, and purging of, the usurpers and occupiers of the homeland of Yahweh. The Gospels even admit as much in many places.

Such as, John 19:36, "For these things were done, that the scripture should be fulfilled, ..." . Or, there is the revenge angle,

Luke 21:22
"For these be the days of vengeance, that all things which are written may be fulfilled." How about a verse that ties the descending-ascending platonic (spirit world) anointed savior theology with OT writings and epistolary expressions thereof (see: Hebrews 1:5 and many others) to the Gospel post hoc fulfillment of scripture:

Acts 13:33
"God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus again; as it is also written in the second psalm, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee."

Yet, by far the best evidence for the scriptural origins of most, if not all, of the details of the Gospels is in the last words of this mythical Jesus character's narrated life, in Matthew 27:46 the words, "Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?" or "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" Which is contradictory to the narrative that claims he was sent to be sacrificed and is made to say he knew it. But more to the point, it is, in fact, a quote from the first verse of Psalm 22. If there were ever a time for someone to be original, I am sure the words from the dying breath of an illiterate carpenter would rank very high on a very short list of examples. No, of course, this never happened.

I hope this puts those of you with the predisposition off the habit of believing mythology as fact, and misjudging others as incompetent for not sharing in those delusions. Thanks.

How Do You See Modern Religion?

What is modern religion, really?

Should it not be obvious to civilized minds that someone who thinks that it is permissible to repress a woman's right to choose in a very difficult matter concerning her own body; that it is feminism which is somehow one of the greatest threats to society; that affirmative action is a worse form of racism than the heinous atrocities instituted by the papal bulls of  June 18, 1452 by Pope Nicholas V, (Dum Diversas) which is credited with ushering in the West African slave trade, the papal bull written January 8, 1455 by Pope Nicholas V (Romanus Pontifex) giving  King Afonso V a monopoly on the slave trade and furthering those atrocities to include indigenous peoples of many other regions then there is the papal bull issued by Pope Alexander VI on May 4, 1493, (Inter caetera) extending those previous sanctions to include the indigenous peoples of the Americas, because they "were not under the protection of God"; that homosexuality is something other than a natural occurrence caused by inherited genes of a living organism which is as uncompromising as any biological drive (ie. to alleviate hunger, thirst, loneliness, pain, or suffering etc.) including heterosexuality, therefore eliminating it as a choice of any kind; that everything public should be turned over to oligarchies (eg. privatized, ie. corporatism, libertarianism), that is, corporate kingdoms, would be perfectly fine with submission to an unsubstantiated supernatural dictator as an adherent of an oligarchical patriarchy, and would be thrilled if everyone on Earth was forced into submission under such an oppressive tyranny.

What is modern religion?

It is a political organization that makes it easy to hide repressive ideologies behind pseudo-morality. It is an authoritarian organization that makes it simple to hide tyranny behind tradition, fear and conservatism behind iron age mythology, and replaces the minds and views of the many behind the unsubstantiated opinion of the few or the one. It is a community organization in which populism pacifies those who haven't apprehended the ramifications of having faith in the words of for-profit prophets and makes it easy to replace ignorance with happiness so as to forget what it is that's causing their cognitive dissonance and confusion. It is missions of inculcation and institutionalization hiding behind words like salvation. It is a for-profit industry thinly veiled behind charity. It is the power of a mob through control of thought, opinion and limited education.

What is modern religion? It is an institution that candy-coats the submission to tyranny.

The Insanity of Christian Inanity

    It is quite common to be blown over by the undaunted absurdity in the claims made by the adherents to faith-based institutions of superstitious iron-age politicians. But, rarely do I get such a clear cut example of the angst from which the religiose are belabored in their attempt to deny science, especially evolution. This interlocutor on twitter was just such a case.

8am 05-21-11

Now, all I asked for was the evidence he had for his claimed deity. But, his first sentence out of the gate is a obfuscation of his own feelings. I don't think any Christian is happy that their chosen deity can't be proven —quite the contrary. Why else would they spend millennia making up pseudoscience in the pursuit of just such an end. They wish, more than anything, that their deity would make himself known in the most horrendous fashion. More on this in a bit. No, this is a lie to cover up the fact that my interlocutor is suffering from cognitive dissonance from the fact that he has yet to find any evidence for his chosen deity.

First of all, he is lying to himself, and secondly, he lies to all he confronts, because he wishes more than anything that the entity that would validate his claim to ideological supremacy was in evidence somewhere—hell, anywhere. Only, all he sees is the evidence against such supernatural claims and propositions. Also, the faith he writes of is that of denial, denial in the face of overwhelming evidence. This is evidenced in the very next sentence. Christian doctrine does, in fact, claim to know the origins of everything as evinced in creationism. Many people have been tortured to death for even supposing a different scenario. Complete and utter denial.

8am 05-21-11

In citizen Cain's second proffering is so very much more than just the example of a denial of science I mentioned earlier. There is also the judgement of evolutionists, that we "just don't want to submit to a good God." There are more than a couple of things about this statement that I find glaringly offensive to my intelligence. Not the least of which is the fact that an evolutionist can be the scientist that works in a field relating to, or requiring the data from, the findings of evolutionary biology, genetics, anatomy, medicine, physiology, behavioral science, etc. etc.; or an evolutionist can be someone that accepts the overwhelming evidence of the phylogenetic trees from many different disciplines, embryology, zoology, the fossil record, comparative anatomy, genetics, and animal husbandry that natural selection is the motive force of evolution.  The sciences of evolution are merely after the facts, there is no conspiracy to falsify our understanding of nature—this is what religion does as a means to manipulate public opinion so as to garner power, wealth and control of thought.

Then there is the assertion that said evolutionist doesn't "want" ... hold it right there. How does this citizen claim to know what anyone "wants?" Absurd! Why wouldn't someone want to live forever in Cain's simplistic, even childish, understanding of an eternity in what would eventually become eternal prostration, eternal worship, and illogical eternal boredom to ad adsurdum? Who wouldn't want that? 

The claim of a "good god" shows that my interlocutor doesn't know anything about the religion under the banner of which he claims superior knowledge of the natural world, even more than scientists that have actually done the work to get the education, the research to get the facts of the matter, to only then submit their findings for public scrutiny by peers in their respective fields. No! Citizen Cain obviously doesn't realize that his religion's god, Yahweh Sabaoth (Yahweh, God of armies), was concocted as a god of war, a god of revenge. But, am I being fair in placing the responsibility of citizen Cain's misunderstanding of his chosen deity squarely upon his shoulders? Besides religion, in what other spectrum of life are we not expected to vet our sources or pay the consequences of our mistake? No! The good god that Cain insists evolutionists do not want to submit, is a god that answers to Cain's own imaginings. This is, in fact, Cain's own god. His personal creation from his own mind. And as such only good by Cain's own standards. I bet this god even hates all the same people that Cain hates. Cain's god is the god to which he wants all evolutionists to submit. How is that for arrogance. But, submit is the word he used, and a key word it is.

See, this is the point about blind faith in a divine authority. Be it represented by, interpreted by, or propounded by an all too earthly human, we are to take it on faith that this figurehead of divine authority, this imaginer of a personal deity, to whom we are to submit in all credulity, forsaking our intellect, our experience, our reason and rationale is the person on earth who has imagined the one true god, as if such a thing could even logically exist. Do you see what is happening? We are being asked to submit to an imaginary concoction of Cain's own making, Cain's own opinion, and Cain's own views, in effect, we are required to submit to Citizen Cain. This is the submission that faith requires. Without evidence of an actual deity, we are required to submit to the misrepresentation of the Christian deity. We are to suspend our rational faculties of disbelief and submit in blind faith. But, most importantly, we are to submit.

After declaring that we should submit, his first assertion about "all the evidence for evolution [he] has seen" seems quite timid. Only, how am I to have any idea what, if any, evidence for evolution he has seen. Though, Evolutionary Theory is supported by many, many facts and literally tons of evidence. Not to mention it has been belabored by every bewildered theologian, every pious pundit, every misinformed school magistrate, and Sunday school teacher, as well as, the scientific community at large and is still the strongest theory in the sciences. For example, Tiktaalik was found in exactly the spot where the evolutionary data predicted. All the phylogenetic trees agree. If they didn't agree, evolution would be falsified. Medicines work. Why else would medicines be tested on (not that I agreed with the practice) animals if we're not all anatomically similar? No! The evidence for evolution is overwhelming, so much so, that it is in the face of this evidence that denial must be maintained for faith, the submission of one's intellect, to hold any sway.

8am 05-21-11

The denial in this particular statement is profuse with self-deception. First, no one has "seen it all" (the previous statement was qualified as to the amount that he had seen). How can someone "think they know?" One either has a considered stance or knowledge of the fact, but not both. The fact of the matter is that evolution is supported by many facts that can be known. Now evolution is verifiable everyday by the discipline of animal husbandry, the manipulation of varieties of breeds. Darwin determined that there were natural motivators of phylogenesis similar to human intervention and manipulation of gene pools. So, my arrogant interlocutor must have something in mind, maybe Macroevolution, it's usually a favorite of the "AiG" crowd. Only, we have plenty of evidence for that as well. The vestigial limbs of whales; the laryngeal nerve in all mammals, most notably giraffes; and the location of parasitic genes across phyla that acts as a fingerprint of the animals ancestry are all very strong evidence for macroevolution. Strong evidence of evolution is what we know we have.

8am 05-21-11

It is only through the denial of the evidence that this statement can be made, especially the oxymoron in the hashtag. But at this point I would like to bring the date at the bottom of all these clips to your attention. It is the date of the famed rapture of 2011 as professed by one Harold Camping. This is, to my mind, the only assertion evincing more arrogance than that of citizen Cain. Some may think rapture theology is merely an epitome of Christian doctrine. I think it is the supreme example of the political revenge innate in all the monotheistic faiths. Especially, as expressed in recent Christian conceptualizations, while not forgetting its origin in Hebrew mythology.

What started out as a nationalistic revolution against an occupying force in Asia Minor and the Near East of the 1st century BCE. Where a people were hoping for an Anointed Savior to solicit a new contract with their deity and relieve them of their Roman interlopers through a vengeful overpowering via supernatural entities billowing through the clouds on chariots of fire, has become revenge against descent from the orthodox beliefs. Christians revel in the idea of watching everyone who disagrees with their unsubstantiated claims suffering in a lake of fire. Yet, even more disturbing than this is the fact that rapture theology is based on poor reading comprehension as best as I can tell. But, I will save that for another entry. For what I would term an exposé on rapture theology see: Rosa Rubicondior: What Does Rapture Theology Say About Christians? 

Note:
Originally, I thought it might be best to cover the identity of citizen Cain, to show some compassion for the ignorant, but then I thought better. Shouldn't people be held to account for their views, falsehoods, and claims?

In Response to Christian Criticism

I seem to have started a running gun fight with Christians at the Wall Street Journal over what is basically a book advertisement blogged in connection to this past Easter. The entry is the typical Lee Strobel spongy assertions based on absolutely no evidence, and, of course, none is provided, nor forthcoming. If one wishes to read all of my comments on that blog text search Beachbum on the threads page, as they are all entered under my name. But I could not get this particular comment to load so I have put it here for those interested. I have also included the comment from William Munney (unaltered, as would be expected) in which my comment is a response.


From William Munney:
1:21 am May 8, 2011

“If people believed as I do, maybe we could finally have peace on Earth. Religions have had thousands of years, thousands of blood-soaked, hate-filled years. Let’s give reason and rationality a chance; superstitions have had theirs and failed miserably.”

Right BB, because atheists and other “rational” people of that kind never hate anyone, right? Apparently you have either not seen or have turned a blind eye to the real hatred(having an opinion opposite to yours is not hatred, much to liberal’s chagrin), in the form of anti-Christian hatred from people who hate you(or try to intimidate you, or discriminate against you, or kill you) just because you believe in Jesus. Just as Jesus said would happen. Why don’t you rally against the real bigots?.

“for as Einstein said, genius is limited, but ignorance is infinite.” Indeed. And maybe you should take a cue from him. Einstein also said: “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”

If you have such faith in your atheism, why do you come here to try and persuade others to abandon God, whom you think is nonsense? Just be confident in your religion(which is what atheism is). Your “god” doesn’t ask you to spread it’s gospel to “non-believers” – as Jesus did for Christians – and there is no hope for salvation in your religion, thus no reason to “help” others reach salvation, so why do you come here to try “to pervert the right ways of the Lord”, “oh child of the devil “?

And My Response:

I am truly sorry that you and many like you have been inculcated into the "suffering Christian" mythology. As you put it, "...anti-Christian hatred ... try to intimidate ... discriminate against ... or kill you ... just because you believe in Jesus." This is, in fact, Christian propaganda.

Have Christians been persecuted as a result of their adherence to their particular dogmas and doctrines? Of course, mostly by other Christian sects. Have Christians gone to war over the belief in a particular god or prophet? Again, yes! Only, it was with every other institution of superstitious claims known throughout history, and they persecuted as harshly (even more so, that's why Christianity disseminated) as they were persecuted. Worst of all, Christians have persecuted their own, based on claims of supernatural authority, ie. God(s) commanded it, eg. the Bible says (Exodus 22:18) we should not suffer a witch, (or Sodomites, or Amalekites, ect. ect.) to live.

You see, first and foremost, religions, all religions, are tools of politics and have been since their inception. This is not to say all governments, as should be the case in the US, but it is manipulation through fear, segregation through in-group vs. out-group (ie. racism, nationalism, denominationalism, Christian Supremacy, etc.), as well as most of the other baser emotions such as xenophobia, homophobia, etc. Also, thought control so that, "it doesn't matter what the evidence shows via science, history, anthropology, archaeology, palaeontology, etc.; the (pseudo) facts are as this Evangelist, Politician, Mormon, Creationist, Capitalist, Libertarian, Corporatist, etc., etc., purports," is something other than totally [insert expletive here] laughable. 

Politicians have known for millennia that nothing turns a group into an easily manipulated mob (for fun and profit) like claims of persecution from those belonging to an out-group. (By using fictitious claims of persecution about the Roman Emperor Nero, a Roman Church of some 3 centuries hence was able to simultaneously get Romans to denounce their Roman-ness and embrace Catholicism; thereby, converting Roman citizens into Roman Catholics in short order.) They've also known, for almost as long, that similar claims have worked preemptively to justifying the implementation of policies that lead to atrocities whether those claims are fabricated, exaggerated, or merely elaborated, for the mob mentality is nothing, if not, frenzied impetuousness amplified to the point of mindless violence. Yes, the persecuted Christian is a fabrication.

But, to answer your question: "Why don’t [I] rally against the real bigots?" Considering that a bigot is a person with strong and prejudiced views who will not listen to opinions differing from their own, I can only conclude that—I am, all of them.

From my point of view, a person's opinions should be held up to the light of verifiable knowledge and weighed in the free market of ideas against the evidence and the facts gleaned therefrom. That's what I like about logical thought, it strives to eliminate opinion from the conclusion by putting a high value on evidence. This actually puts a twist on an idiom that is currently circulating in the zeitgeist that "a person is entitled to his own opinion, but he is not entitled to his own facts." In my view a person is entitled to their opinion, or belief, if they can substantially support it with facts based on evidence. Furthermore, because people act on their opinions in ways that affect us all, ie. the political, commercial, environmental, as well as public arena, those opinions, those beliefs, should be scrutinized, debated, in the free market of ideas by people with respect for evidence. Else, a self-proclaimed prophet that believes he can claim several pre-teen and teenaged girls would be free (from jail) to do as he pleased, or maybe, like Mohammad, become the mythological basis for a world religion. Or, how about misquoting famous figures out of context to gain authoritative appeal?

Your quoting of Albert Einstein is nothing short of an appeal to authority made worse by your misapprehension of its meaning as to be, in some way, referring to one of the Abrahamic religions. It was not.

It is from, Science, Philosophy and Religion: A Symposium, published by the Conference on Science, Philosophy and Religion in Their Relation to the Democratic Way of Life, Inc., New York, 1941

And I quote, in part:

"Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up. But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion. To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason. I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith. The situation may be expressed by an image: science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." — Albert Einstein

So it is that many religiose misinterpret Einstein's famous statement suggesting that Einstein was evincing respect for religious credulity. Science without religion is lame, merely because "science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding. This source of feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion." Whereas religion without science is blind because religion has no access to the truth—it was, as Einstein expressed it—nothing other than the "source of feeling" this aspiration toward something greater than itself cannot be generated via the scientific method that is gleaned from the same sphere as religious aspirations. A purely human motivation in my view that when combined with an educated faith in the concept that the natural parameters we currently understand through evidentiary means can very easily be projected over space and time that is currently understood to be exactly like the here and now. This statement both removes any claim to truth from religions, and at the same time, imbues the human psyche with both the origins of higher aspirations, and the foresight to discern and understand truth of our universe.

Nowhere is this sentiment more succinct than in this statement: "It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."—Albert Einstein

You have obviously garnered your misapprehension of atheism from those of a biased bent on the subject. Understanding that there isn't any evidence supporting anything supernatural, let alone a personal deity, is not even remotely religious. Alas, I understand that your comments are an attempt to elevate your belief system by equating atheism with it; do you not see the logical absurdity? Do you not see that religions have used this same method, either purposefully or unconsciously, with everything that has always been human, natural, even culturally innate? You write of salvation as though it was something "out there" something that is attained from a religion; it is not. Humanity is the guardian of its own authority, creator of its own morality and it has always been so. We are the guardians of our universe. I have no lord, no master and neither should you.

As one with an atheistic view and the education that supports it, I understand that the characters portrayed through the Abrahamic religions, which is how you most likely understand them, are, in reality, literary constructs, which have only survived due to their political usefulness. So, in addition to stopping the manipulation of you by way of your emotions and opinions, through evidentiarily unsupported claims, known as religious dogmas, which I addressed above, there is but one reason why I am here: to help others!

In the spirit of Thomas Jefferson, I am attempting to free our priest-ridden civil government  from the lowest grade of ignorance of which religious leaders will always avail themselves for their own purposes. Thanks.

EOB

Now, if you're not interested in my previous comments, I can understand as I am honestly over-it myself. But, I would recommend reading some of them as I didn't bother responding to the absolutely moronic cracks. Hopefully, they have been, and will be, educational.

Thanks