An interesting graphic about Easter (Dial-up warning large)

[intaglio]

Via Ex-Christian.Net - Infographic: Taking Easter Seriously

Note that as a PNG image the + and - and * keys on the number pad will resize the image for clarity



Sorry for the hotlink but this would not copy at a good size from my web photo album

Link to Jericho Brisance - the source of the graphic. Please note that the artist asks "As always, I look to improve the accuracy of my work wherever possible. Please reply with any factual errors found, and I will correct appropriately. Thanks."

[struggle4progress]

1. It was certainly clear by the middle of the 2nd century that distinct and conflicting traditions

had been recorded in writing, and there is some known early history of attempts at reconciling the different accounts

So to tabulate the conflicts seems to me a not-so-very-edgy act, as it has a history stretching back nearly two thousand years

Moreover, such ancient efforts at reconciliation finally entered the standard canon in at most a quite limited manner -- which rather suggests the early Christian community held, over-all, the view that the obvious conflicts were inessential to more primary meanings of the texts

This lack of concern for absolute consistency may pose a problem to Biblical literalists, especially if they should happen to interpret "faith" as meaning that we should "believe" the texts provide a word-for-word accurate account of what happened. Some people do, apparently, interpret "faith" and "belief" in that fashion

There are other ways to understand what "faith" or "belief" might mean, and accordingly there are ways to read these old texts, other than as word-for-word accurate historical accounts. The fact -- that the early Christian communities ultimately remained somewhat indifferent to the historical record -- might indicate they were not much interested in the problems they would later cause the Biblical literalists, and so it seems to me plausible that the early notions of "faith" or "belief" involved something different than the accepting of certain accounts as word-for-word accurate

[intaglio]

2. You are aware of the conflicts

And you have formed your opinions or beliefs knowing this.

But - most default Christians do not know that the traditional accounts of Easter are problematic, to say the least! Knowing that the Gospels are contradictory in respect of this event (the single most significant element in the tale of the Christ) means that large portions of the Gospel accounts have to be discarded as unreliable. This leaves only tradition and hope as the foundations of faith in the Resurrection.

BTW I do disagree with the designer of this graphic in one respect and that is the earliest copies of the Gospel of Mark contain no mention of the Resurrection - only the interment. The last verses seem to have been added later by someone who wrote in a different style to "Mark" (whoever he really was)

[struggle4progress]

3. Anyone who has actually read the texts in the last 1900 years is aware of the conflicts.

In particular, the Church Fathers in the second century, who were already citing then the now-standard four gospels as canonical, were aware of the conflicts. And in the Good Friday service at my church yesterday, some of those conflicts were immediately in evidence, in the variety of readings of extracts from several gospels

The early Church did not propagate on the basis of claims to superior historical knowledge: Paul's epistles, which predate the gospels, contain almost nothing resembling any Jesus-biography. Neither did the early Church spread because of its literary skills: reading later, Augustine of Hippo, who taught rhetoric, found himself unpleasantly shocked by the clumsy style of Mark's text. And, in fact, Mark does not even seem to be a competent scholar of Hebrew scripture either, beginning immediately with a quote cobbled together from various sources and then mis-attributed. That is, the early Church may have exhibited neither literary talent, historical skills, nor any impressive knowledge of scripture: it was about something else

[intaglio]

4. I will now have to spend a long post pointing out the utter deception included in your words.

How many people even now actually read the texts?

Literacy was fairly high in the Roman Empire but was still probably less than 20% of the population, a figure which seems to have declined as the Republican theory gave way to Emperor worship. Additionally, until Constantine established Christianity as one of the religions of the Roman Empire the bulk of the population could not have cared less about a minor cult of bully boys and thugs who were in the service of local oligarchs.

After Constantine's error literacy declined dramatically. The temple libraries were sacked and the "Holy" Bible was restricted to the very few hierophants trusted with its care. It is very likely that before the mid 15th century the number of people who had actually read the Bible were less than 1% of the population, and all bar 1 or 2 had a vested interest in not pointing out conflicts you imply - wrongly - as being commonly known. Your pitiful selection of St Augustine of Hippo shows that excuses based on the imagined flaws of the writers (rather than the subject) were rife. One other factor about this is that your hero seems to have been unaware that several versions of Mark finish the book at the interment and not mention the resurrection, indeed the text of those last 12 verses is stylistically different from the rest of the chapter and does not follow naturally from the text it has been pegged onto.

Continuing with the pre-1450s look at the price of books, books cost (in some cases literally) a kings ransom. Additionally libraries were restricted to horrifically tiny clerical communities. There is even indication in the copyists errors found in monastic manuscripts that some of that select collection of monks were unable to read. Outside these communities there were vanishing few literate persons and of those only nobles might have had access to "Holy" writ; scriveners and reeves were clerically trained but outside holy orders did not have access to the holy text.

Let us look at the insignificant community of persons who could critically analyse the single founding text of Christianity. Some of those raised these objections in public and do you know what they were called? Heretics and so subject to the heretics fate. Please do not deliberately misunderstand by pointing out there were internal disputes, these were not public but even so the lives of those disputing orthodoxy hung by a thread.

This disposes of 2/3 of your deliberate deception about the past 1900 years.

Now let us move into the era following the European use of movable type.

For 400 years at least the literate population steadily climbed but probably remained a minority until the 18th C (and I am being generous). During this time the conflicts within the texts led to the formation of new sects and cults but members of these new groupings had to adhere to the new revelations, and discarding all of the problems that these ill written Gospel caused.

A few people did start to question the authenticity of the Gospels; notably Spinoza and Jefferson; but the availability of their thoughts and observation were very limited. In practice it is only with the advent of mass, rapid communication that the more reasonable doctrines of Deism, Humanism, atheism and Agnosticism have managed to be more widely disseminated.

Now to your foolish anecdote.

Could you give 2 seconds thought as to why no-one stood up and asked the priest or minister to explain what you seem to regard as readily apparent conflicts? What you ignore is the tunnel vision that affects those who read and listen to holy scripture; what happens is that comparison is not made between different passages, they are considered singly and conflicts are ignored because the leader of the group does not ask for critical thought. All that is expected of believers is uncritical acceptance.

[cleanhippie]

5. And BOOM goes the dynamite!

Well done, man. Well done.

[rug]

6. Sigh,

How many people even now actually read the texts?

Countless. To suggest they are off in a corner, dusty and ignored, is ludicrous at best. To suggest that the graphic presents any new information is simply stupid. That is a far more charitable phrase than the one you used, "deliberate deception".

The balance of your post is an odd admixture of random fact and conspiracy of hierophants, monks and "herestics" that I haven't seen outside other graphics, from Jack Chick Publications.



https://www.chick.com/reading/tracts/0074/0074_01.asp

https://www.chick.com/reading/books/157/157_07a.asp

[intaglio]

7. What do you mean by countless?

Do you consider that Jack Chick has read the Gospels in a manner that leads him to admit they are flawed and contradictory? What of the multitude of Southern Baptists, Lutherans, Methodists, 7th Day Adventists, Plymouth Brethren, Jehovah's Witnesses, Mennonites, Episcopalians, Pentacostals, Catholics read the bible in a way to compare texts? A vanishingly small number of them do so and most of those then ask their Minister help them out of the difficulty. This is why seminarians study Biblical Apologetics.

Most people, religious or atheist, accept authority, they do not compare texts, they do not question.

Oh and where in my post do you see conspiracy theory? Please do not be mislead by the correct usage of hierophant nor by the fact that church hierarchies (you don't object to that word do you?) quite deliberately, by the use of silence, obfuscation and flawed logic, conceal from their flocks the doubts that their own academics have about the veracity of the Gospel texts. This is not conspiracy it is just standard operating procedure for authoritarian faiths. Oh, and I have forgotten the other tactic used by ministers and Church Authorities "I think you need to pray for guidance,"

Do you think that most ministers point out the fact that only Luke says such and such or that Matthew contradicts that account? Of course they do not for one of the purposes of a minister is to decrease any confusion a worshiper might feel - not foster such confusion.

[rug]

8. Here:

until Constantine established Christianity as one of the religions of the Roman Empire the bulk of the population could not have cared less about a minor cult of bully boys and thugs who were in the service of local oligarchs.

The temple libraries were sacked and the "Holy" Bible was restricted to the very few hierophants trusted with its care.

It is very likely that before the mid 15th century the number of people who had actually read the Bible were less than 1% of the population, and all bar 1 or 2 had a vested interest in not pointing out conflicts you imply - wrongly - as being commonly known.

libraries were restricted to horrifically tiny clerical communities.

There is even indication in the copyists errors found in monastic manuscripts that some of that select collection of monks were unable to read.

only nobles might have had access to "Holy" writ

scriveners and reeves were clerically trained but outside holy orders did not have access to the holy text.

During this time the conflicts within the texts led to the formation of new sects and cults but members of these new groupings had to adhere to the new revelations, and discarding all of the problems that these ill written Gospel caused.

And your capstone,

What you ignore is the tunnel vision that affects those who read and listen to holy scripture; what happens is that comparison is not made between different passages, they are considered singly and conflicts are ignored because the leader of the group does not ask for critical thought. All that is expected of believers is uncritical acceptance.

This is pure Jack Chick, absent his citations.

[intaglio]

9. OH FFS, please take your fake outrage to someone who cares about your views

Early Christians were bully boys and thugs. I have pointed out before the razing of the Temple of Diana in Ephesus and that was not the only one; to this you can add the Christian mob that murdered Hypatia as part of an ongoing political dispute in Alexandria. Then there were the temples of Asclepius that were razed - and these functioned as hospitals. Remember also that Constantine used these mobs to control his Empire.

Next, where do you get off on thinking that literacy was commonplace prior to the mid 15th Century? It wasn't. Books were for the wealthy, you know the 1%. Except that the percentage of readers was much smaller as many, perhaps a majority, of these nabobs could not read. Monastics, Clerics and students were a tiny percentage of the population as the vast bulk of the population were agricultural labourers. Even in monasteries the majority of the occupants were lay members not instructed in their letters.

Libraries were restricted to tiny clerical communities. There were no public libraries. Even the very few nobles with access to books and who could read would claim "libraries" of fewer than 20 books. Books were expensive, books took a long time to produce - even without illumination, books were fragile; parchment and papyrus was so expensive that it was common practice for books deemed unworthy by the masters of scriptoria to have the text scrubbed from their pages and written over. That is what leads to current scholars having to study palimpsests to try and recover works of real worth to us.

I did note that some (few) copyists may not have been able to read so why take exception? Word blindness is not a modern phenomenon and the ability to copy without interpretation would be quite a valuable skill as fewer interpretation mistakes would be made. However there are different errors that creep in caused by such a disability due to letter shapes. This is why it is suspected that some few copyists could not read.

As I observed BOOKS WERE EXPENSIVE only the very wealthy could afford them and only the wealthy who could read could study them. Books were considered royal gifts and even something as simple as a book of Hours would have had barely 75 leaves and could have taken over a year to produce. BTW border decoration and illumination served the same purpose as church painting and carving - guides for the non-literate.

Why do you think that lay scriveners and reeves would have had access to Holy written documents - Holy Writ? They were not wealthy, they could not have afforded it, most worked for lay authorities without access to such books.

In respect of the Europe post movable type, I would consider that you look at the Lutheran views of the Bible and contrast them to the Calvinist and the Catholic. The Calvinists and the Lutherans could point to their copies of the Bible to support their views precisely because of the lack of coherence in the biblical narrative.

Finally why do you find it objectionable that I identified a weakness in the way people look, and listen to, scripture. One day go out and talk to people who have just listened to a sermon or lesson and ask them what the speaker actually said. Most will know the subject; but I suspect a bare majority will remember the biblical text involved and only a tiny minority will recall the arguments made in support of the sermon or lesson. When was the last time you heard anyone stand up in a service and say that the text chosen is contradicted by another text from another Gospel, or even when have you ever heard anyone approach the minister after the service to question such contradictions?

To continue in this vein what was the subject of the last sermon you heard and what chapter and verse was used?

[rug]

10. What outrage? Recycled drivel doesn't warrant outrage.

And now you're simply repeating yourself, without citations.

But to answer your question, the sermon was based on MT 21:1-11; IS 50:4-7; PS 22; PHIL 2:6-11; MT 26:14-27; and the Nicene Creed. The subject was the Crucifixion.

[intaglio]

16. Congratulations! Now go and ask the other congregants what their memory of the event was

Interestingly did you ask the Preacher why he based his sermon upon Matthew when there are other sources?

And why he included OT sources for this quintessential NT event?

You might also want to question why the minister included verses from the Phillipians a letter (supposedly) by a man who had never met Christ and did not witness the supposed Crucifixion. Oh and the passage used is called the kenosis passage and may actually be a quotation from a hymn. There is also some doubt as to the authenticity of this epistle; the ever useful Catholic Encyclopedia lists these although eventually poo-pooing them.

[rug]

22. This is where your bias overwhelms your reason and knowledge.

For one thing, those Scriptures were from the Lectionary, the daily scripture readings that are read at every Catholic Mass around the world, every day. It always include the Old Testament and the themes between the Old and New are common. Read them yourself:

http://www.usccb.org/bible/readings/041314.cfm

The homily, or sermon, is rooted in those daily readings.

The Lectionary is a three year cycle. Anyone who attends daily Mass will hear virtually the entire Bible.

Say what you want about the RCC, its scholarship on the Bible is unparalleled, the result of centuries of work. To suggest it's the result of a cabal of hierophants is laughable. I'll take counsel on kenosis from there rather than from an internet post that weaves unattributed crackpot scholarship with an agenda.

And no, I didn't walk up to the other parishioners and question them on the homily; I'm not a busybody. I didn't gnaw on their ankles either. That's not what I was there for.

I did turn to my neighbors and gave the Sign of Peace. When I left I wished them a Happy Easter. To you, I do the same. Peace.

[struggle4progress]

55. I may have to go ask my church council if we could add ankle-biting to the service somewhere!

It's non-traditional, of course, but it might be an innovative way to attract a certain group of people who don't usually attend!

[okasha]

57. The Lectionary is also used by the Episcopal Church

and several other denominations. Psalm 22 is paired with Matthew's gospel because it's the psalm Jesus recites from the cross in its crucifiction narrative. (MT 27:46.)

[struggle4progress]

13. Well, that sure set you off, didn't it? I suspect there's a simple explanation, too:

you share with Biblical literalists the view that Christianity stands or falls, according to whether or not its texts can be regarded as straight-forward historical accounts, absolutely free of any error whatsoever -- so upon finding any conflict in the texts, you conclude the entire body of teachings falls entirely and permanently into ruin

You are certainly free to adopt that view -- but it doesn't seem any more interesting to me than the views of the Biblical literalists, and I find no reason to think that everyone else should also adopt that same view, simply because you find it compelling

It is, of course, somewhat surprising to see you fly off the handle, at the straight-forward observation that for about two thousand years people have been noticing various apparent inconsistencies in the Christian texts -- and especially surprising is the degree to which you feel obliged to personalize the discussion

[intaglio]

15. No, I was brought up a High Anglican

Served as boat boy and so on. I was also luck enough to have been brought up in a time when Religious Knowledge was a subject at school. I was also luck in that my family brought me out from this paternalist environment

Biblical literalism,
A ridiculous basis for faith because the Bible cannot be trusted. Varying texts, varying translations, varying interpretations.

Alternatives:
1) A hierarchy (literal sense used) where a few men judge what is the real "meaning" of the Word is and, speaking ex Cathedra, inform the unwashed masses of their decision. This usually resolves into a dictatorship or a gerontocracy. Examples - the Papacy and the Elders of the Jehovah's Witnesses

2) A near anarchy where every individual decides on the real meaning of the Bible for him or herself. This might be better termed disorganised religion in which individual feelings outweigh any dogma and falls victim to the fact that such feelings can be toxic. I actually find the few tolerable Christian faiths falling into this bracket - such as UUs and Quakers as well as some of the extremely intolerable ones such as Westborough BC.

Anyway no matter what flavour of faith the problem for Christianity (and similarly for Islam and Judaism) the edifice rests upon 2 shaky foundations the Word, brought to Christianity by the Bible, and Tradition; there are no other sources for Christian faith.

[struggle4progress]

48. I thought a bit about whether I could apply your standard to other areas of my life

I think you may be proposing an unworkable standard

I trained as a mathematician. There are actually quite a number of very famous, well-regarded, and influential papers that are riddled with errors. A famous example is the paper in which Turing introduces what is now called the Turing machine and proves that universal Turing machines exist: some of his proofs are sloppy -- one simply finds the errors, carefully thinks through the matter for oneself, and concludes that the author, though sloppy in proof, has accurately stated a true theorem and has set forth how the matter can be shown. Some excellent mathematicians have been very careless in the proofs of various important theorems they have discovered -- as exhibited in jokes such as He has never stated an incorrect theorem and has never given a correct proof. Simply discarding a text, even when one finds it riddled with errors, is not always the standard here. Nevertheless, mathematics in practice is not governed by your next two alternatives. There is no hierarchy that speaks ex Cathedra. I expect most mathematicians think that, given the appropriate knowledge and enough time, we can determine by examining a text whether or not something is actually real mathematics -- but that does not mean everyone is individually free to decide on the validity of the mathematics

[intaglio]

56. The simple response is that mathematical proofs can be examined and tested

New processes and techniques can be applied to the old theorems to see if their conclusions were correct.

You can try applying new techniques and insights to the foundations and theology of any religion but there is no rigor in that process; it is not as if you can inspect religion in the same manner that you can inspect Aristotles works. Aristotles works are objective but biblical writings are subjective; the way in which they are written, the way in which they were amended, the orthodoxy and world view of the original copyist, and finally the prejudices of the collectors and editors of the text.

Examine any part of the Bible and you find dreadful errors.

For the Old Testament the history can be shown to be false even for supposedly essential foundational events such as Exodus or the concept that Abraham was the ancestor of all the Jews . Inspirational stories cannot stand as History or even as allegorical moral tales - consider the Creation, Jonah, Job and Noah. The ethical teachings (such as what we call the 10 Commandments) are either the common currency of all ethical systems or theocratic flim-flam.

The New Testament is just as bad. The Gospels recount the birth of Jesus and his Crucifixion but these events are not coherent tales even within single gospels and the Gospels contradict each other. The Gospels and for that matter the Epistles are ahistorical; the most famous example is of course the non-existent census at the time of the Nativity but the account of the Trials of Jesus would have flouted sacred Jewish Law in 3 ways (at night? on the Sabbath?? at Passover???) as well as Roman practice. Consider the journeys of Paul, map them out and you will see that Paul, his companion, a centurion and several guards zigzagged all over Asia Minor, Greece and the Mediterranean before the centurion delivered a minor criminal to Rome for trial; I'm sorry but at the time of Paul the new religion was just not that important.

Then there are the epistles which Ehrmann rightly terms forgeries, epistles purporting to be by Paul or Peter or James but which show considerable evidence of being composed as late as the end of the 2 CE.

Look at the parables. Many have been found to have been composed much earlier than the time of Jesus but even at face value most contain dreadful lessons. The Parable of the Sower casts an appalling light on God's ability as a husbandman of both the Word and the people. The Parable of the Talents where the servant who does what the Master commands and keeps the money safe is punished whereas the risk takers are rewarded considering this follows the Parable of the Virgins where the risk takers are punished the message seems to be horribly mixed.

With this in mind check the Beatitudes, where the persecuted and the poor in spirit get the Kingdom of Heaven whilst the Meek just get the Earth.

With all of these problems how much would it take before you might that the Bible is worthless as both a foundation for faith and or morality?

[struggle4progress]

59. The point of my reply #48 to your #15 was to disagree with your apparent claim in #15

that if a text (or a body of texts) is not absolutely free from any error or inconsistency, then we must either (1) accept a body of authoritative appointees to determine the truth or falsity of the text or else (2) accept that the text have no definite meaning beyond what anyone determines that meaning to be for oneself

I suspect this is not a generally valid claim, as illustrated using the idea of a mathematical text. But there is nothing remarkable about mathematics in this regard: many other texts (or collections of texts) could be used to make the same point. A historical text might be inconsistent with other texts, or even inconsistent in places with it, without losing all interest. In philosophical texts, what might appear a gross inconsistency to one reader might not trouble another reader in the least. When political texts are examined, one might find all manner of idea, some of which seem ridiculous and some of which seem obviously true. A similar remark applies to collections of news stories about a particular event: the story can be wrong in some respects and yet contain useful information. In such cases, we do not have a body of authoritative appointees to determine the truth or falsity, and yet it is not clear that no definite meaning can be attached, beyond what anyone determines that meaning to be for oneself

I referred to mathematics merely because I am familiar with some materials there that provide examples. A text can contain gross errors and still remain useful and important, even if later readers must approach it in ways rather different than the author's original intent. Saccheri, in the early 18th century, published a "proof" that Euclid's parallel postulate followed from Euclid's other postulates. His method involved denying the parallel postulate and seeking a contradiction: in fact, he never found a real contradiction but only convinced himself that he had found one. According to your approach, we should dismiss Saccheri completely, as his work contains towards the end some real bullshit. But the standard approach is rather different: Saccheri today is still read today, and he is celebrated for having obtained some of the first theorems of non-Euclidean geometry -- a geometry he never believed even existed

[intaglio]

63. Oh, yes, agreed

but the problem is when the texts are so riddled with, conflicts, inconsistencies, incongruities and outright falsehoods that they cannot be taken seriously without completely suspending disbelief.

Now, if something is touted as fiction I am very happy to suspend that disbelief for the duration of my reading, but I do not let that suspension continue after I have closed the covers. But that is the exact, polar opposite of what I am supposed to do when I read the Bible; in that case I am supposed to let that horribly flawed text guide my beliefs for the rest of my life. Imagine trying to use Neuromancer as the basis for computer science or the Lensman books as a guide to ethics, human relationships, physics and biology!

Imagine accepting Aristotle or Pythagoras or Euclid as the sole guides to the uses and study of mathematics; what if medical professionals were told to use the methods and surviving words of Galen or Paracelsus as the sole basis for treatment? Yet people do try to use the Bible (or other holy books) as histories or ethical guides or therapy for mental distress or (sadly) treatment for physical ills.

If I raise my doubts about the Bible and the tales therein then I am told to accept the guidance of a local wise man who has studied this book and whose livelihood depends upon the beliefs others hold, beliefs that are derived from that dubious book. If doubts continue or I find actual historical falsehoods then I can be referred up the chain of authority or told to study exegeses which derive their authenticity from assuming the book they are explaining is true or from prior authorities whose eminence is based upon a supposed holiness because they have served the hierarchy that touts the doubtful book as holy writ.

How far down this rabbit hole of arguments from authority, circular reasoning and appeals to popularity am I supposed to go? Early in my life I tried this but my sense of the ridiculous kept getting in the way. Now I just close the cover on the fiction and seek to be ethical based upon human reason and empathy, I find comfort from sharing my fears, joy from the surprises and wonders of the everyday. Life is more or less difficult for all people but religion and the words contained in Holy Writ are not the answer to those difficulties.

[Warren Stupidity]

24. Sometimes the best policy after a serious

Public flailing like you just went through is to quietly abandon the thread. On the other hand, going on the offensive by attacking the person who just took apart your argument as being over emotional is an amusing spectacle of hole digging. Please do carry on.

[struggle4progress]

41. You are free to ask the site Administrators to start an Internet Etiquette group if you wish

Perhaps a number of DUers would be interested in discussing your ideas about what does, or does not, constitute appropriate posting etiquette

I understand Emily Post's great-great-grandson has ventured into this exciting field

[Warren Stupidity]

42. It isn't a question of eitiquette.

But I suspect you understand that.

[Goblinmonger]

25. So how do you draw the line?

If the text is not to be taken literally (which I'm fine with), then there is no basis to believe that Jesus existed or is the son of God. Those two things are nowhere other than the Bible. I see it as it is. A collection marginally good writings. Some of them tell a good story and some of them really suck. That's fine. But when it is the basis of a religion, then you need to be arguing for at least some level of literal interpretation. And when it is the ONLY source for the existence and divinity of Jesus, then you need an even higher level of literal interpretation. So, fine, keep arguing that it shouldn't be taken literally. I wish more people had your approach. But, I would argue, that provides an even less compelling argument for Biblical based religions to be given the respect you seem to think they should have.

[AtheistCrusader]

11. Yet, every devout christian I point out the inconsistencies to

has never seen them, and is totally aghast.

Imagine that.


I don't disbelieve you when you say 'anyone who has actually read the texts in the last 1900 years is aware'.

[struggle4progress]

14. You're free to speak to whomsoever you like, and nothing prevents you from characterizing

those, to whom you speak, in any manner you choose

I, meanwhile, could suspect your choice of conversational companions might be somewhat limited or that your labeling of them might largely reflect your own preconceptions

[AtheistCrusader]

88. When people say they are christians, I tend to accept that at face value.

I can't really dip them in anything like a litmus test to verify, after all.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

27. I've always loved "Ubi Caritas." Beautiful.

[goldent]

12. I'd be more suspicious is there was close agreement between the gospels

These inconsistencies don't seem that significant given the circumstances. A youtube video would be able to clear this all up, but I haven't been able to find one.

[Brettongarcia]

17. Inconsistencies in Easter are found not just in texts; but in the church liturgical calendar too

April 20, 2014 Easter

Today is Easter Sunday. This is perhaps the most holy and certain day in Christianity, we are sometimes told; it is the day that Jesus resurrected from the dead. It is this resurrection that, we are told, is the main guarantee of our own afterlife and holiness. But … what calendar day is it, exactly? When we ask this, we get a series of changing, shifting answers.

When I was a child, I was told that Easter and the resurrection were absolutely true and holy and certain. And yet by the age of 7 or so, I am already scowling in my Easter picture, posing with my old stuffed Easter bunny. From the time the age of 7 or so, I was aware that Easter seemed to come on a different day, almost every single year. Most of the other holidays came on the same day every year; but for some reason, the date of Easter kept shifting, changing. Nothing seems really fixed here. So how could this be the right date for the resurrection?

What was the problem with Easter? The first problem was that 1) different churches have different ideas about when the date of Easter is. But the big problem was this: 2) even within any given church, the dates change from year to year, more than 30 times. You have to look on a calendar to find out when the churches say Easter is, on any given year. Because the date changes from year to year. From anywhere from March 22, to April 25. Based on some odd calculations from the lunar calendar, golden numbers, and other strange things, the date of the resurrection is either on March 22. Or 23. Or 24. Or 25; 26; 27; 28; 29; 30; 31. Or April 1. Or 2. Or 3. Or 4; 5; 6; 7; 8; 9; 10; 11; 12; 13; 14; 15; 16; 17; 18; 19; 20; 21; 22; 23; or 24.

So in most churches, Easter is celebrated from year to year, on any one of 34 different days. Yet surely Jesus was resurrected on just one day; not on 30 different days. Lots of these days have to be wrong, in other words.

So what should we say about Easter? About this most certain and holy day in the Christian calendar? Is there really anything absolutely holy and fixed here, after all? Some scholars admit that the day of our church celebrations are not too accurate. Admitting in effect that all our churches are wrong here. So scholars next try to suggest a fixed date for Jesus' resurrection. But even here, among scholars, there are uncertainties. And in any case, whatever date scholars settle on, conflicts with at least 33 of the 34 different dates chosen by churches for their celebrations.

So what SHOULD we say about Easter, and about Christianity? We should say that oddly enough, one of the very holiest things in the Christian calendar, seems to be constantly shifting, sliding around. It all seems to be quite, quite slippery in point of fact. To be constantly coiling around. And changing direction constantly.

Like a snake.

[John1956PA]

33. In the year 2038, Easter will fall on April 25.

The latest date on which the holiday can fall.

[Brettongarcia]

37. Thanks for correction! Would that be the Orthodox date?

[John1956PA]

38. April 25 is the latest date on which Easter can fall in the Roman Catholic and Protestant religions.

Easter will fall on April 25, 2038. The time after that on which Easter will fall on that latest date will be on April 25, 2190.

[struggle4progress]

40. Your notion that one day can be reliably identified, year after year, ignores astronomical realities

There are multiple possible astronomical definitions for "year," none of them constant and all inconsistent with each other. There are similarly multiple possible astronomical definitions for "day." And if one picks some astronomical definitions of "day" and "year," the "year" turns out not to be a whole number of "days." The situation is worse if one wants to incorporate the moon into the scheme also

[Brettongarcia]

44. Which is to say that our present day Christianity has excuses for not being entirely accurate?

Or finally is there really no excuse at all, for a religion that claims to be holy and perfect?

Probably it's mostly because of 1) the Lunar calendar. But even that astronomical data is 2) tweaked by "golden" numbers to get the Christian dates. All 3) that adding to historical uncertainty. And the 4) input from Vernal Equinox, pagan myths.

Christianity is quite uncertain here. And finally if Christianity is uncertain about this core moment, the resurrection itself, then likely it is quite uncertain in quite a bit of the rest of it.

Relating to this: in my recent internet arguments for Mythicism vs. Historicism, I took the position that likely say, the Bible overall is at best about 49% historically accurate. Finally the case for any Historical Jesus at all was so weak, that is better to call Jesus at most "legendary," or even "mythical," rather than historically real.

[struggle4progress]

53. Since Christianity originated as a Jewish sect, in a small Roman colony,

and since the sect largely centered around the crucifixion of Jesus of Narazeth by Romans, immediately before the major Jewish holiday of Passover, it is perhaps unsurprising that this event has been traditionally remembered on a day roughly related to the calculation of Passover according to Jewish lunisolar calendar, rather than on a set fixed by the conquerers' Julian calendar. That is simply the history of the movable feast

[Warren Stupidity]

47. Well actually it would be pretty simple to figure out when pesach was that year.

And from that extrapolate the correct date for the alleged events.

Or, just follow the rules for deciding when Passover happens.

[struggle4progress]

49. The date for Easter is derived from the date for Passover, which is tied to the beginning of spring,

Last edited Sun Apr 20, 2014, 05:11 PM - Edit history (2)

which itself was traditionally determined by a combination of several indicators, including the first sliver of new moon after the vernal equinox, and other indicators of spring (such as barley ripening). Unlike the (almost) solar Julian calendar, the Jewish calendar incorporates lunar features, so requires more interpolation than a leap day here and there, which is why the moon was not used entirely alone. Passover is approximately the first full moon after the vernal equinox, tying together a lunar calendar to the beginning of spring. The recipe for Easter (approximately "first Sunday after first full moon on or after vernal equinox&quot clearly shows its Passover roots. The matter is slightly complicated by the fact that computational conventions gloss over various astronomical irregularities

Here are the dates for the next decade, showing that Easter is usually just a few days after Passover:

year: Gregorian Easter -- Passover
2014: 20 April -- 15 April
2015: 5 April -- 4 April
2016: 27 March -- 23 April
2017: 16 April -- 11 April
2018: 1 April -- 31 March
2019: 21 April -- 20 April
2020: 12 April -- 9 April
2021: 4 April -- 28 March
2022: 17 April -- 16 April
2023: 9 April -- 6 April
2024: 31 March -- 23 April

ON EDIT: What's going on in 2024? Well, the vernal equinox that year is 20 March. The next full moon on or after the vernal equinox is Monday 25 March, so Easter is the following Sunday 31 March. But the first sliver of a new moon after the vernal equinox is around 9 April and passover starts fourteen days after that

[Brettongarcia]

83. Easter is linked only "roughly" to Passover. And too divorced from any actual date of Jesus' death.

1) Easter is linked only roughly to Passover. So it is not so very accurate in that sense.

2) Then too the Passover luni-solar calendar is itself misleading for most people. Since it is out of sync with the more accurate, widely-used solar calendar. Note for example that using the inexact Passover calendar, the date slides like a black snake, anywhere. Anywhere from, by your own count, March 31, to April 20. And ultimately March 22 to April 25.

So using the luni-solar Passover calendar, most ordinary people don't get an adequate sense of the time of year, our far more accepted solar year. Indeed, the luni-solar gives the implication, for most, that Easter happened on 34 different days.

So WHEN IS it? What was the a) actual date of Jesus' crucifixion? And b) the first celebration thereof? It is possible by some complicated math to discover it perhaps, some would say. But for the common person, the day of God's execution is buried under a dozen layers of confusion. Over and over we are given dates that in fact, are out of sync with the more accepted and more precise solar standard.

This dating system therefore, clearly is a bad one. One that confuses ordinary people far more than it helps. Though an attorney or scientist can perhaps figure out the time in our solar year, most ordinary people are thrown in a vast bog of confusion, by the current method of dating Easter.

The problem in large part is the inherently misleading nature of the Lunar Calendar. Which is why it was eventually replaced by the Solar Calendar; which was far, far more accepted by rational and scientific people.

[struggle4progress]

84. Easter is very often the Sunday after Passover. The main source of difference, IIRC,

is that in determination of the Passover date, one seeks first for the sliver of new moon and then for the full moon, whereas in determination of the Easter date, one simply seeks the full moon

I suspect this would have been clear to anyone who read my prior post and examined the dates and explanation there

[Brettongarcia]

87. You do of course known that the Lunar Calendar was rejected by science in favor of the Solar?

[struggle4progress]

91. I do so eagerly await your explanation of the scientific basis for our twelve months, including

their names and lengths, as well as the origins of the Julian calendrical reform and also of the Gregorian reform, with particular reference to the careful scientific discussions of the relative merits of solar calendars and lunisolar calendars motivating the adoptions of the Julian and Gregorian calendars and their spread throughout the West

[Brettongarcia]

92. All of which finally allowed 12 nominal "moonths";but out of snyc with the actual moon cycles

All subordinated to the Solar Calendar. Which was finally regarded as the most accurate and useful timeline for us to use. Rather than the lunar (or "lunatic&quot calendar; which seemed hopelessly clumsy. Creating countless problems; like 34 different days for Easter.

Which is the reason why the current largely lunar Easter chronology was rejected by every sane person; but not by religion.

The bottom line - and my major point, before everyone here wanted lengthy explanations - being that rational people long ago adopted the better Solar model. Leaving Religion with a more lunar model; and leaving it as usual, hopelessly antiquated, contradictory, and confused.

Religion, Easter, retained the totally unsatisfactory Lunar model. But the rest of humanity moved on to something better. In this case to the prevailing solar calendar. Which is credited as one of the major conceptual advances in all of formal History.

Leaving Easter looking a little unstable, even Lunatic, to say the least.

[struggle4progress]

93. So you were unable to support your claim in #87 regarding the great scientific importance

of the choice of calendar

Perhaps that is unsurprising, insofar as the definition of the year has seemed so unimportant to the scientific community that there is not even any definition of the year in the International System of units

[Brettongarcia]

94. Though most of science, history, use the modern calendar. Perhaps because the question is settled.

Posted with a computer date of Apr 24, 2014.

Though in fact? Older histories of science and history often explicitly and specifically credit the discovery and use of the solar calendar as one of the - even the most - important foundations of these disciplines.

Because it at last made a reasonably consistent and natural chronology measuring stick available. As opposed to, explicitly, the lunar calendar still evident in Easter datings.

[goldent]

58. This reminds me of the Queen's Birthday.

The Queen's Official Birthday is the selected day on which the birthday of the monarch of the Commonwealth realms (currently Queen Elizabeth II) is officially celebrated in those countries. The date varies as adopted by each Commonwealth country, but is generally around the end of May to the start of June, to coincide with a high probability of fine weather in the Northern Hemisphere for outdoor ceremonies.

Is there more than one Queen making the rounds? Was she REALLY born? Has anyone seen her birth certificate (long form)?

The various dates for Easter are even more mysterious. Sure, the Resurrection and other Bible stories are a little hard to believe. But you can't tell me that no-one looked at their wall calendar (featuring Men of Judea) and didn't note the date. You know "Hey, Jesus rose from the dead on April 19, that is my nephew Donald's birthday!"

[okasha]

60. Blather.

Easter is celebrated on the first Sunday following the first full moon after the spring equinox. It's so dated to coincide roughly with Passover, which figures prominently in the crucifixion narratives. All you need to calculate the date is a calendar with lunar phases.

[Brettongarcia]

64. Here's your 1st problem: it's said to be the day Jesus rose. But we are given 30+ different days.

Your 2nd problem: not true. It is not strictly astronomical, but also modified by "golden numbers."

[okasha]

68. Here"s your problem.

This is another subject, one among many, about which you know nothing. Easter is not said to be the calendar day on which Jesus rose, but the day on which his rising is celebrated. The church set the formula at the Council of Nicea to coincide roughly with Passover.

[Brettongarcia]

71. Your problem: Easter Day is often PRESENTED AS the day Christ rose.

That's wrong of course for many reasons.

One reason that we are discussing here is that 1) the New Testament is inconsistent on the date, itself.

The other is 2) the problem I am adding to that here: people - including ministers, priests - often misstate this day as coinciding with an actual date of resurrection.

Another problem? 3) Since it's based largely (not completely), on the lunar calendar, this important date ... is not stable. But is constantly shifting around. Which raises some practical problems. Divorcing the date for example from its origin in early harvest/spring harvest festivals, relating to the Vernal Equinox.

Then finally of course, the ever-shifting example of the Easter date is one example of 4) - 400) all the hundreds of OTHER problems we are noting here with Christianity in general; and its ever-shifting "facts" and assertions.

[struggle4progress]

69. The so-called "golden numbers" are astronomical in origin, arising from the so-called Metonic cycle

The mean sidereal year (that is, the average number of days from vernal equinox to vernal equinox) is about 365.242 days; the mean synodic month (that is, the average number of days from full moon to full moon) is about 29.530 days

The continued fraction expansion of 365242/29530 is (12; 2, 1, 2, 2, 31, 1, 23); dropping the 31 and subsequent terms (since 31 is large compared to the prior fractional terms and therefore will not affect the value much] leads to the continued fraction (12;2,1,2,2), which evaluates to 235/19

So 19 sidereal years contain almost exactly 235 synodic months

You can (if you like) check that the difference 365242/29530 - 235/19 is not even one part in ten thousand, so the approximation is really quite good

So we can make a circular table with 19 entries, showing (say) the phase of the moon on the vernal equinox in 19 successive years, and we can (with very good results) re-use the table again and again, year after year, to predict the phase of the moon on the vernal equinox, making only a very small error each time

The "golden number" of a year is just the number from 1 to 19 telling where the year sits in the Metonic cycle and therefore telling us which of our 19 different table entries to use to predict the phase of the moon on the vernal equinox

And these "golden numbers" occur in an entirely predictable sequence: if the "golden number" for the prior year was a number n < 19, the "golden number" for the current year is n + 1; but if the "golden number" for the prior year was 19, the "golden number" for the current year is 1

[Brettongarcia]

72. All that exact Math - in service of a Biblical account which often contradicts itself.

Looks like religion is trying to LOOK as exact as math. But it's all resting on a foundation of sand.

And a misleading Lunar Calendar, among other things. Which as opposed to the Solar, divorces this major event from any adequate notion of a standard time scale from year to year. And divorces it all somewhat from the seasonal, Spring festivals that were the origin.

[struggle4progress]

75. Oh, dear. A moment ago, you were objecting that

that the calculation of Easter involved "golden numbers" you regard as non-astronomical. I pointed out that your view here was wrong, since the "golden numbers" are based on the Metonic cycle -- which is simply the interesting observation that 235 lunar cycles coincide almost exactly with 19 solar cycles

Now you want to object that this is much exact math in service of religion. Again, your view is wrong:

The Metonic cycle is a purely astronomical observation, and very little math would be needed to discover it: one needs merely, year after year, to accurately observe and record the phase of the moon at a definite well-identified time in the solar year (such as the vernal equinox) and then study the records to see that phase repeats with a nineteen year cycle. Rather than trying to convince you of this fact by observing and posting here, year after year for many years, the apparent phase of the moon on the vernal equinox, I shortcut that lengthy process by using currently accepted values of the mean sidereal year and the mean synodic month (these values themselves being derived from many observations and modern astronomical theory) together with the theory of continued fractions to derive for you the Metonic cycle and to indicate just how very accurate it is

Knowledge of the Metonic cycle would, of course, be useful to those using a luni-solar calendar -- and luni-solar calendars haven't been uncommon in history, being found not only among the ancient Hebrews but also among the Babylonians and ancient Chinese. You seem to believe that a luni-solar calendar is ridiculous, but perhaps it might be quite useful in some circumstances. We have evidence of folk-belief in Europe that the tides were related to phase of the moon, in a remark by Galileo that poor elderly Kepler had lost his mind and had become interested in the superstitious belief that the tides were somehow influenced by the moon. It is quite plausible that ordinary people living near the oceans (and thus sailors as well) rediscovered this fact again and again throughout history, whether or not smart sophisticated people believed them. The Metonic cycle remains useful today for the calculation of tide-tables.

[Brettongarcia]

81. Oh dear! You think astronomy is quite unrelated to math?

The calculation of Easter involves golden numbers ... and many other odd calculations.

Like 1) when did the Bible say Easter was? There seem to be conflicts

And 2) then there are odd choices of solar vs. lunar dates. An awkward or to most obscure reconciliation between lunar vs. solar months. Your Metonymic cycle?

But in any case 3) "golden" as your numbers are, for some reason, the Orthodox church simply ... chooses different numbers. And comes up with a different date.

4) Given the precision of astronomy, science (cf. religion), likely we could backtrack from present dates to some original date. If that date was clearly known from the Bible itself.

In the meantime though, and in lack of any solidity from religious sources? 5) We see the date for Easter shifting quite out of any obvious (cf. metonic) sync with any fixed or solar scale. Easter drifting all over the map from year to year. Easter now occurs from any day from March 22 to April 25.

Though we might be able to determine some fixed date for the crucifixion, the day we celebrate all this drifts and coils and shifts direction from year to year; confusing nearly everyone. While drifting out of any obvious sync or identity, with all-important landmarks; like the Vernal Equinox.

Only a relatively sophisticated astronomical science can even begin to clarify this. Leaving the vast majority of everyday preachers lost in confusion. And with conflicting dates, that bear no obvious relationship to our more transparent solar calendar.

A few might make it all out. But most of the people are soon lost. Not a good thing for a religion.

(PS: didn't you yourself claim in post 40 that it was all too complex to reliably identify any original Easter? I'll have to re-read #40)

[struggle4progress]

85. We are not astrologers, and no magic would be expected by celebrating Easter on "the right day"

(whatever you might think "the right day" would be): the day is a commemorative feast day, and the major difference in date between the eastern and western celebrations results from the Gregorian calendrical reform, adopted for ecclesial purposes in the western (but not in the eastern) church

[Brettongarcia]

86. So we have no real idea when the resurrection occured;or dozens of conflicting dates for celebration

No unanimity; suggesting no very certain accuracy. Suggesting we might abandon the conflicting traditions you seem to support.

One source of confusion: for centuries the west - including our astronomers - has regarded the solar calendar is far more useful than the lunar one. I suggest we follow that. The Passover model is soli-lunar; too much lunar.

If we go more strictly with the Solar? Then suddenly we see this fest against a more reliable, modern, standard scale. Which then in turn? Clearly suggests links with the Vernal Equinox, say.

Further suggesting this was always about the coming of spring. Which in turn links Christianity to earlier spring rebirth, fertility, harvest rituals.

Much can be learned, trying to reconstruct the possible original date; and then viewing it in more familiar Solar Calendar framework. Rather than the Lunar month.

[cbayer]

18. This guy seems obsessed. What's up with that?

[Brettongarcia]

19. When you begin adding up the facts, and first suspect someone is lying to you....

You can get a little preoccupied, trying to nail it down.

But apologists for Christianity are far, far more occupied, obsessed - millions of books worth; billions of sermons in millions of churches - with trying to prove their case is right.

[cbayer]

20. Those obsessed with trying to prove or disprove

the specific tenets of religious beliefs are just spinning their wheels, imo.

The billions of sermons in millions of churches today are not about trying to prove their case, by the way. They are about celebrating a specific religious belief and tradition.

I guess if I, like this guy, was once a believer that has become a non-believer, walking away from it would make the most sense for me.

But that's just me. He obviously feels the need to concretely justify why he did so.

Hope it works out for him.

[Brettongarcia]

21. Many atheists here HAVE supported just walking away from it. But others are concerned about lies.

Many sermons celebrate the faith. But about half, in my experience, were "apologetics"; attempts to defend the faith from objections.

We see apologetics in the Bible itself. The Book of Job for example addresses a major challenge to the faith: how could a good God, who often promised many wonderful things to believers, allow a good believer to suffer horribly? This suggest tht the faith is simply false. To defend against this, the Book of Job entertains a couple of apologetics arguments by Job's friends.

Job's God though, seems to try to stop the questioning finally: he just tells everyone to shut up. Who are they to question the maker of the universe he says.

But it seems worth openly looking into problems. If the faith is false, then many might be hurt by following untruths, after all. Someone who is convinced wrongly that God has healed him of his diabetes, for example, might stop taking his insulin ... and die. There are similar cases to this reported in the press in fact. In a recent case, if memory serves, the daughter of the Copeland ministers, decided to speak against vaccination on such religious grounds - and caused a small epidemic in her congregation. http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2013/08/23/texas-measles-outbreak/2693945/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/emilywillingham/2013/08/24/measles-outbreak-traces-to-vaccine-refusing-megachurch/

So some atheists continue to note possible problems in religion - for the sake of others. To save them from potentially fatal lies.

[cbayer]

23. About half are apologetics?

Well, in my experience, it's been about 1%. I'm not sure this is any data that would support either of our anecdotal experiences.

Nothing wrong with "apologetics" for either side, I guess. I just don't think any of them are ever really going to win the debate.

While a stupid person might think they were cured of something despite clear evidence to the contrary (which would be readily available in the example you give), it would be rare indeed.

The vaccination debates are primarily based on concerns about them causing other illnesses and about being controlled by the state. Though some hold religious objections as well, these are uncommon and not held by the major religious groups.

This whole idea about "saving" people has an oddly familiar ring to it.

[Brettongarcia]

26. But in my examples, it is about physically saving physical lives finally

Far more sermons and homilies are apologetics than you might think, said a recent scholar.

For example the billion sermons stressing "faith." This was a response to a basic problem with Judeo Christianity: it often promised God would bring us many physical benefits, "bread" and "water" and even "riches"; but did not always deliver them in a timely way. As in the case of Job. This seemed to tell us that a major part of Christianity and its promises, were false.

So there developed the idea of "faith": God they said was just temporarily withholding his promised benefits. To "test your faith."

The whole stress on "spirituality" is also an apologetic for the lack of actual physical miracles. This apologetic tries to tell us that if God doesn't give us real, actual, physical bread out of thin air, that is because physical things are unimportant; God chooses to give us spiritual things instead.

So all those sermons on Faith and Spirit, are actually clever attempts to cover up, whitewash, topspin, a major failure in Christianity.

[cbayer]

28. Saving is saving.

All evangelists feel that their reasons for trying to "save" others are justified.

Teaching people about the scientific basis for certain things is a good cause. Trying to convince them that they need to convert or de-convert, not so much.

You don't believe? So what. You see major failure in christianity? So what.

You trying to convince others of those things is no different than them trying to convince you.

[Brettongarcia]

29. Odd for someone associated with the medical profession to denigrate "saving" physical lives

Note that I'm providing examples here of how some Christianity is literally, physically fatal, or damaging. Like the Ms. Copeland case; linked to a megachurch that broadcasts nationwide on TV.

The Copeland case moreover, was not just about state control. It was 1) disseminated from a church; and 2) based not only on occasional church resistance to states; but also 3) on a conviction that faith-healing is more effective than medicine.

That set of note, religious beliefs - which can be found to some degree among MANY evangelist denominations - turned out to literally result in dozens of people getting a potentially serious disease.

[cbayer]

30. Not at all odd for someone in the medical community to

respect and work with other people's religious beliefs.

If those beliefs interfere with a person be treated for something in particular, that would be one thing. But it would be grossly unethical to try to de-convert people.

Christianity is not literally, physically fatal. While there may be a specific belief that presents a challenge when it come to medicine, that is rare.

The measles example you bring up was very problematic. In the end, the church reversed it's position completely. That is what often happens when people are given the facts. It is not necessary to convince them that their religion is fatal.

Unless, of course, you are on a mission to de-convert (save) them.

[Brettongarcia]

31. Another example of a Christian belief being physically fatal: denying medically-advised abortion

Lawyers are currently addressing a case - in Ireland? - where a woman who needed an abortion to save her life - was denied that abortion by an Irish Catholic hospital; nuns. As I recall this woman might have lived; but suffered some problems from this. There are apparently some other cases out there, not yet fully developed, where the woman died.

What do physicians do in such cases? In such cases, physicians may perform an operation that is not called an "abortion"; a C&C? Removal of a "cyst," etc..

Other examples of medical beliefs that may be physically damaging, and even fatal, in the press? Churches that do not allow blood transfusions.

Other examples? Countless.

Here's one: "Two Children Died When Mother Refused to Treat them With Medicine";http://time.com/8750/faith-healing-parents-jailed-after-second-childs-death/

[cbayer]

32. Yes, there are examples and those kinds of laws should be

challenged. That's a church/state separation issue.

Hospitals in this country that do not perform abortions for religious reasons have protocols in place to assure that women whose lives are in danger are taken care of. That did not occur in this case in Ireland.

The outcome was tragic, but the whole system is now reassessing their protocols.

There is one major denomination that prohibits blood transfusions. Again, in this country there are protocols to address that.

There are lots of examples of lots of things that merit attention. Some of them are religiously based. Some of them are culturally based. Some of them are dietary based. Some of them have to do with pet ownership.

They are countless. Eliminating religion, culture, certain diets and pet ownership is not the solution to these problems.

[Brettongarcia]

34. In my findings elsewhere, fatalities from religion are actually HUGE; enough to ban it

In religious-motivated wars for example.

Even spirituality has a physically crippling side. The "spiritual" neglect of physical necessities also undercuts our physical lives too. Even according to the Bible itself (James 2.14-26).

Yes, there are other reasons for wars and other deaths, than religion. But at least most of them do not claim to be "perfect" or "holy." Related to this, religion is more insidious; its physically deadly side is far more hidden. And therefore, more deadly.

How many expected disease and death to come from the very people, priests, who presented themselves as the most holy persons of all?

[cbayer]

35. Oh, really? Could you provide a link for those "findings"?

As usual, you have taken your argument to an extreme that you can't even begin to support.

In all my days, I have never heard anyone make the claim that the fatalities attributed to religion are HUGE and justify banning of religion.

How about lives saved? Have you factored that into your "findings"?

To be clear, the bible passage you quote is all about how faith is of little value if not accompanied by deeds. It is not at all about what you say.

IMHO, you begin to become completely undone at this point in a discussion and start wholly unsubstantiated claims and take things completely out of context.

Perhaps you should consider walking away at this point.

[Brettongarcia]

36. It is well known that religion is a major cause of WARS, first of all.

In 1) the current Middle East for example. The 2) historical Crusades. Then 3) most of the 17th century was occupied by wars largely motivated by Protestant/Catholic conflict. Like the 40 Years War, 1618-48. The recent 4) Rwanda and/or other African genocides/wars of c. 1994, where one million were killed in 100 days, were in part over religious differences.

Next, for writings on how even spirituality itself causes us to neglect physical, material needs to a physically crippling degree? See Dr. Woodbridge Goodman, vol. 6 of ... http://woodbridgegoodman.wordpress.com/ Among other things, the author argues that James 2.14-26 told us that a religion that only gives us words, or kind sentiments or spirits, but that does not do "deeds" that take care of our physical needs, leaves us starving to death. So that spiritual religion especially becomes physically crippling and fatal.

Should I stop talking? One of the main instruments of religion is psychological Denial/suppression of bad news regarding your religion. Inviting those who point these things out to leave, would be another. Executing those who challenge your religion, or call it destructive, is another.

In fact? This is a big enough subject that it well, fully deserves a separate post to discuss it. Anyone who wants to is welcome to borrow one or more of my links. To start a potentially major opinion post. On the physically crippling and fatal side of religion.

[struggle4progress]

39. Let's test your hypothesis: which US conflicts since 1776 do you regard as caused by religion?

[Brettongarcia]

43. That's not really a test; that's probably your best contrary example.

And so let me say: religion does not seem predominant in your own cherry picked example. However?

Even here, we might say that

1) First if you allow it ? Even the Revolutionary War to 1783; most Americans came to America for religious freedom. Most Protestants. In part they fought against the Anglican Church of England.

2) Even the Civil War was to some extent between different ideas of Christianity; and the Bible's two different positions on slavery. Should we follow "Slaves, obey your masters," as the South often said. Or some other part favored by the North. Fundamentalists vs. northern liberal denominations that abhorred slavery on largely religious grounds.

Then 3) even the Spanish American war and Mexican war were to some extent, a (then-) largely Protestant north vs. Catholic South.

4) WW II? Christian America vs. Nazis and non-Christian, Japanese Shinto.

5) Against Korean communists/atheists. On religious grounds in part.

Then 6) Vietnam: Christian American vs. atheism Communism, to some extent.

And so as for lesser conflicts, like here on DU? Clearly religion-based.

7) Iraq and the War on Terror was mostly against Islamic countries.

8) Afghanistan likewise

In the later wars America was liberal enough to try to, out loud, minimize the religious element. But many critics called Iraq and Afghanistan "The New Crusades."

Your cherry-picked example is a tough one. America of course, was perhaps one of the most liberal nations on earth in the select timeframe you chose. And one of the more tolerant religiously. But even there, religion seems to have played some role.

Particularly though? Religion was cited in the wars against Communist atheists. Ironically. And so of course, as for the source of a lesser conflict, right here on the DU "Religion" section? A verbal war between Religion vs. Atheism continues.

[LeftishBrit]

46. First of all, how can one 'ban' religion?

The Soviet Union and China have tried to, with all the powers that a dictatorship has, and with singularly little success.

Secondly, religion is not something that one supports because it does good, or opposes because it does harm. It's something (indeed many possible things) that one believes to be true, or doesn't believe to be true. I don't believe any religion to be true, partly because of the contradictions raised in the OP. But just as I cannot force myself to believe in religion even if I were convinced that it would be beneficial to me or to others if I did, religious people cannot force themselves to become atheists even if they were convinced that religion did harm.

For example, I do believe the law of gravity to be true. On many occasions, like when I broke my ankle last year, I might have thought that life would be better if the law of gravity weren't true. But that does not change my belief in its validity! Same with my atheism; and no doubt, with many religious people's beliefs.

Certainly people can and do use religion as a tool to do good or harm, and I think that how it's used should be addressed separately from its factual truth or otherwise.

[Brettongarcia]

51. Why either/or? Why not BOTH?

You raise a good point. Still at times religion is as religion DOES. Even Christianity itself knows that at times: "By their fruits," works, signs, deeds, you shall know them (Mat. 7?).

Much of the Bible allows that religious people can be evaluated by their physical accomplishments; the wonders they promised. And so, I think you can simply prove that many traditional religious promises were false; and therefore, amount to say, legal fraud.

For example? Much of Christianity promised us "all" and "whatever" we "ask"; including huge physical miracles (John 14.12 ff). But it's easy to prove that promise was false. And as we know from Contract Law; often when someone promises something, but does not deliver, others are damaged. And can sue for damages, etc.. Violation of contract (or "covenant&quot .

As we also know from Contract Law, people moreover, are damaged when things promised or prophesied, do not come true or "come to pass" (Deut. 18.20 ff). Suppose for example, a contractor agrees to finish the concrete foundation for your building by April 4, but has not finished it by that date? Then all the other contractors lined up to do the next stage - ironwork, walls/masonry, mechanicals, etc. - are left waiting, unemployed for a time. They are financially damaged by false promises.

It is even easy to think of cases where people are even physically damaged, and even killed, when someone does not make good on their promises/prophesies. When a promised miracle cure does not come true, and so forth.

So religion might be first of all simply, sued. For nonperformance of contract or "covenant." And Fraud.

By the way, it remains to see just how strongly religion will come back in Russia and China. Partial parties are currently quoting a large revival there. But?

[AlbertCat]

61. trying to prove or disprove the specific tenets of religious beliefs are just spinning their wheels

So true... mainly because theology is useless and religion is mainly made up guesses from the stone age. The myths and stories are fun and lovely, just like the Iliad and Ramayana, and would be enjoyed like we do fairytales and just-so stories....


.... if religions would stop trying to legitimize their undeserved.... or rather obsolete... authority.

[cbayer]

66. Oh, my, here we go again.

Theology is useless to you and you view religion as made up guesses and fairytales.

Cool. That's your POV. Doesn't make it true.

It should have no authority over your life, particularly if the live in the US, and there are ways to challenge it when it intrudes.

[LeftishBrit]

45. Wow, I'm amazed this post is generating such emotion

Personally, one main reason why I'm an atheist IS because of all these differences and contradictions, even within Christianity, let alone between all the different faiths. I see nothing to convince me that one version is truer than the others.

Some other people may see the contradictions, but their faith transcends them. Great. However, I see nothing wrong with pointing out why some of us find it hard to believe any one version of religion, and therefore in my case, any version of religion.

[cbayer]

50. The emotion generated has little to do with the post itself.

More to do with a philosophical debate in which one person is arguing for the outlawing of religion, lol.

I don't see any need to be convinced that one version of religion is truer than any other. It is what it is for each individual.

I like the elephant and the blind men analogy.

[AlbertCat]

62. I don't see any need to be convinced that one version of religion is truer than any other.

Yeah.... well unfortunately history is full of assholes who DO.

I don't see any need to be convinced that one religion is truer than any other.... since they're all made up anyway.

But again..... more religionists do than don't.

Reality's a bitch.

[cbayer]

67. History is full of assholes who have done all kinds of things.

You going to let that spoil your day?

Your continuing to state that they are all made up is really no different than those who claim they have the real answer. You work just as hard as they do at trying to convince others that your version is truer than any other.

[Brettongarcia]

65. Ms. cbayer? Ms. cbayer has 129,000 posts on Democratic Underground as of April 20, 2014

You seem to currently feel that atheists are "obsessed" with religion. But there is evidence that religion is itself an obsession. Churches have gone on for almost 2,000 years. Today there are about, literally, probably more than 1,000,000 churches worldwide. Delivering sermons once a week or so; almost a half million sermons a year. To literally billions of people. Obsessively repeating the same ideas, the same liturgical formulas and prayers, over and over and over and over.

Some psychologists or others have suggested that many elements of religion are therefore "obsessive compulsive." Particularly saying lots of "Hail Marys," or "Our Fathers." Or counting too many rosary beads. The Bible itself speaks against "long" or "many" prayers.

Indeed, it may be that ALL our religions have some kind of psychological problem in them. Dr. Pierre, of the UCLA Med. School, reminded us that Freud himself said that all religion is a delusion (Dr. Pierre, Journ. Psych. Prac., 2001). Hundreds of scholarly articles have noted that schizophrenia, specifically, often contains "religious delusions." As we noted at length on a DU post on "Religion=Delusion."

More moderately? We might say that separate religions each have only a fragment of the truth. Or only part of a larger reality. But I would add: holding on to just that that fragment, I suggest, fragments the mind. In a way that Psychology might soon be able to measure.

[cbayer]

70. What? You have post count envy or something?

[Brettongarcia]

73. This is to suggest that Ms cbayer is a very major presence in the DU Religion section

Happy Easter

[cbayer]

74. Yes, I am, but my post count is primarily a reflection

of my years as having functioned as a moderator on this site.

Happy Easter back to you.

[Warren Stupidity]

80. Hmm... moderating appears to account for around 4 posts per day.

member: 3942 days
130,051 posts

av. posts per day: 32

last 90 days: 2537
av. post per day: 28

[Benton D Struckcheon]

54. All of these stories exist as ways to celebrate a holiday.

We no longer have, in many cases, any idea why Greek myths exist, i.e., which holiday they were meant to celebrate. So they just wind up being stories to us. But to the Greeks, they were specific tales told on specific days relating to what was being commemorated on that day.
Same here. The Resurrection stories are there to back up what the celebration of Easter is all about. Ditto for Christmas, and Pentecost, and so on down the line.
Even secular historians didn't really write their stuff to be accurate back then. They wrote it to glorify some king or military hero, or war that they won, and so on. Trying to figure out what's true, and if it's true, the sequence in which things actually happened, is tough work once you get past a few hundred years. The folks writing that stuff down or, more likely, telling those tales around a high fire in winter, simply didn't have much concern for accuracy, and if you berated them for not being accurate, first they would have looked at you like you had two heads, and if you continued to insist to the point where the glory of the king or hero was starting to look shaky, send you off to the nearest hanging tree/wooden stake/whatever.
History to folks back then didn't mean anything like what it means to us. Even today we recognize that the winners get to write the history. It's absurd to the point of ridiculous to insist on accuracy in a religious text that's 2000 years old. For folks who aren't Christians, what you can take away is that there was likely a guy who aroused some opposition from the powers-that-be at that time, and who got irritated enough at him and his actions to crucify him as a criminal. He appears to have been strictly Jewish. Somewhere along the way, the message got universalized so that non-Jews could join. From there, it took off. That's all she wrote.

[MFM008]

76. When I was in police work

In class they did an experiment we didn't know was coming. Someone rushed into class for just about one minute or so dressed in a mask yelling. Afterward we were to describe what we saw. In a class of 30 many saw and heard something different. Some memories were more complete that others....some were like what just happened?
Some things can be answered by common sense. Why was the stone rolled away? If it hadn't been, the Romans would have assumed nothing happened, until the women went in IF they were allowed in. Why did they go? Wasn't it custom for Jews to anoint the body? Jesus's body was so hastily entered because of the Sabbath it hadn't been attended to. Also remember how the bible and its contents have been altered over the centuries....books removed...etc. I think its easy to throw out a bunch of speculation, questions, accusations, but thats what faith is all about.

[MFM008]

77. PS

I remember in my militant atheist phase 30 years ago I was always angry in religious discussions, everyone else was a moron...over the years things happened, my views moderated, until I pulled to cautious believer.
Believe me I still loathe the evangelical preachers and money beggars but I cant PROVE despite contradictions this didn't happen either. I don't go to a church, I can read..collage grad and all that, but ill be 56 this year and Ive been amazed to find out I don't know everything.

[cbayer]

79. Well, big welcome to the Religion group, MFM008!

[cbayer]

78. Great story.

I really believe that there are times when reality can not be deemed absolute because it is entirely interpreted by perception.

I think this is particularly true when it comes to things like spiritual/religious experiences or those that involve a high level of emotion, as you describe.

[intaglio]

82. Jewish law does not allow interment on the Sabbath;

Jewish law did not allow rabbinical courts to meet at night; Jewish law did not allow rabbinical courts to meet during the period of the Passover, Jewish law did not allow military units to operate at Passover. Jewish law did not mandate crucifixion - Joshua/Jesus/Yeshua should have been stoned.

Roman law did not allow interference in local religious disputes, Roman Law did not allow Roman units to serve local religious authorities, Roman Law did not mandate crucifixion except in cases of slave escape and rebellion. Throwing off high cliffs and strangulation were the usual capital punishments whilst enslavement and committal to an arena were preferred because money could be made from the punishment.

Mark (written 60 - 70 CE), Matthew and Luke (both written 70 -90 CE) say, specifically, that Joshua/Jesus/Yeshua was found guilty and condemned by the Sanhedrin. At that point there was no need for crucifixion - he should have been taken straight out and stoned, the Romans would not have stopped it they would have just clapped. These all of these errors go beyond a simple dispute of witnesses, they are errors of fact.

John (written 90 - 100 CE) does not mention any trial by the Jewish authorities but as this account was written some 70 0r 80 years after the event it is unlikely that he saw any eyewitness to any of these events. Note; some elements of John, but not his account of the death, appear to copy an early version of a "Signs Gospel," (50 - 70 CE).

The earliest elements of the New Testament appear to be some of the Pauline Epistles (based on internal dating evidence). These include 1 Thessalonians which makes no mention of crucifixion, only saying the Jews killed the Saviour, similarly Philipians has no mention of crucifixion, nor does Philemon nor Colossians

Galatians does mention crucifixion but only in the symbolic sense of extreme suffering (2:20) continuing in the metaphorical sense in 3:2 that Christ publicly suffers. The symbolic sense is repeated in 5:24. Another metaphor shows up in 6:14 where the world is crucified. The first mention of Christ being crucified appears in 1 Corinthians Chapter 1:13 and 23 notably verse 23 seems to show that both the Jews and the Greeks regarded the Crucifixion as a fantasy. In Chapter 2 the symbolic sense of this crucifixion is back. You have to wait for 2 Corinthians 13:4 which is another symbolic crucifixion because the Christ was weak. Next time is Romans 6:6, symbolic implying that death is everyones crucifixion.

Now I don't know about you, but but for me the failure of the earliest Biblical texts (written 50 - 60 CE) to mention a physical execution castes the doubt upon the reality of that execution. Remember these were written by the man who founded Christianity and who did, supposedly, speak to eye witnesses.

______________________________________________________________

Notes

On Crucifixion; Romans did not check for life signs, victims were left up until they started to rot and carrion birds started their recycling work. Roman soldiers did not allow local religious practice to interfere with this as the purpose of crucifixion was to provide a widely visible, long lasting public example. If Roman soldiers wanted to speed the dying they did not give drugs they broke the legs of the victim although I suppose a particularly generous soldier might create a sucking wound to speed suffocation - but that would rather spoil the conflicting cries that Joshua/Jesus/Yeshua is reported to have made.

About military force: before anyone starts disputing my use of the term military unit consider that the term used in the KJV is a "band" and is a direct translation of the term "cohors". A cohors or cohort was a large force as was a band in the time of King James. The Romans classified cohorts as a specific size (cohors peditata officially 480 men but more usually 420 - 450, cohors alaria/tumultuaria had 300 - 800 men though they were hired paid on the basis of being 400 men, cohors equitata 300 - 400 men with attached cavalry); this type of classification was used by all nations in the Mediterranean. Essentially the arresting force was supposedly in battalion strength for 12 guys and a rabbi.

[cbayer]

89. When I first read your subject line, I thought it said "internet".

[intaglio]

90. Umm, given that certain extremist Rebbes have issued bans on the internet

as well as bans on smartphones because they are always linked to sinful sites, you're probably right.