n40: Quickly,
1) You must not have met many Hare Krishna devotees.
2) There are currently 940 million Catholics at large worldwide compared to 840 million Muslims. This isn't likely to change by much over the next couple of months. Even then there are over 200 million other followers of seperate Christian ideologies to consider.
3) Stern is living in denial.
4) Spawn doesn't suck (Remember it's for kids and they seem to love it, I probably would too if I was six).
5) "Southern Baptists" beat their wives as much as all other folk.

Jamie: You don't like the idea of trying to convert kids at an early age, but if the "other side" is going to do it you will too? I may be wrong but that doesn't seem to have the interests of the kids at heart.

If it's wrong then both of you doing it won't balance it out, it'll just make it twice as bad. ("Okay the Christians and atheists are after the kids, when are we going to start pushing our Hindu/Buddhist/Muslim/etc. beliefs?") Remeber you can't condemn it if you're willing to do it yourself.



[This message has been edited by Gwyn Boudreau (edited 10-11-1999).]

Leaving aside the mad rantings of Sam the Fundamentalist, I'd like to correct a statement made here about the Catholic Faith:

Nick: the whole thing about going to Hell if you're not a catholic is not stupid. If your point is to complain about the exclusionary nature of religion, well, that sort of comes with the territory. I don't know of any religion, except Buddhism and that's more a philosophy than a religion (I think), that is not exclusionary. Ultimately, you're either in or out.

I'd say that the Catholic Faith is remarkably open and ready to take you in compared to other religions -- you can literally convert, confess and receive sacraments minutes before croaking. I mean, Jeffrey Dahmer (if sincere) could have been saved.

This is not true of the Muslim and Jewish faiths whose conversions processes are far more rigorous, who don't let you off the hook as easily, and which are just about as exclusionary or more as the Catholic Faith.

I could also talk about the process of intercession (going through various Saints or the Virgin Mary) which is somewhat unique to the Catholic Faith, and which makes it a remarkably "user friendly" religion.

The Christian backlash in America is because of nuts like Sam who call themselves Christians but are anything but.

There's no Christian backlash in Europe, because our nuts tend to be of a different variety.

Returning to Jesse Ventura: I, personally, am not offended by his comments about organized religion. To begin with, the (Roman Catholic) Church is a bureaucracy which certainly deserves criticism. That has nothing to do with Faith itself.

To use an analogy, if Jesse Ventura had criticized organized holidays (like Club Med or Princess Cruise packages), I wouldn't take it as an indictment of holidays, tropical beaches and/or going on a boat.

I'd rather have a politician who speaks his mind than the mealy-mouthed platitudes of the current leading candidates, who are all too afraid of saying anything that will alienate the (so called) Christian nuts.

JM

One of the chief problems with religion as a whole is the "Us against them" mentality. Look at the posters above and you see all sorts of references to some cosmic contest, where the side with the most souls wins. Sam and his football game references, the debate over whether my little boy will be forever traumatized by learning the story of Noah which I bought at the discount store, the 'count the catholics and muslims' game, even the "Lions 2, Christians )" comment.

Religion, when it is formalized, preaches intolerance of anything different. We is good, them is bad has been the creed of just about every organized faith since the dawn of time, when two cavemen sitting at a campfire saw another caveman at a different fire and promptly bashed him with a rock. Published doctrines preach tolerance and good deeds, but only if the recipient is JUST LIKE YOU.

Incidentally, I once did a research paper on the historical figure of Jesus Christ, the man not the icon. Among the many interesting tidbits:

Jesus never ONCE referred to himself as any sort of 'son of God', and according to his own teachings would have found the very idea to be repugnant. The entire God's Kid plan was a construct of the fledgling Christians as much as forty years after his death, led by Paul and some others.

Jesus also was frequently on record as reviling not only rich people, but organized religion as evil. Hmm, Jesus, Jesse...could it be...Nahhh.

And finally, this tidbit got me death threats by the virulently Catholic classmates I shared air with: The famous Sermon on the Mount, wherein Jesus proclaims the 'poor in spirit' were truly blessed, was actually a doctored version of the true sermon. As I said, Jesus hated the rich, and the original statement was more a political diatribe condemning them. "Blessed are the POOR" was the way it went, and proceeded to blast any man who held money. Apropos, since Jesus himself was a member of the unwashed poor.
However, as the Catholic faith grew over the following centuries, they became quite wealthy as an organization and had trouble reconciling this wealth with the teachings of their messiah. So, according to historical reference, the church altered the wording to read "poor in SPIRIT" theorizing that a guy could be stinking rich that way and still be blessed, yada yada yada...

I found that bit truly funny, and still do. Opinions? Anyone?

------------------
I must have a prodigious quantity of mind; it takes me as much as a week to make it up.- Twain

Donovan: If you think that religions are divisive, wait until the Yankees play the Mets in the series.

------------------
"I love him like a brother. David Greenglas." -- Woody Allen - Crimes & Misdemeanors

[This is a reply to Donovans above post and has no relevance to the rest of the thread whatsoever. Ignore as you please.]

Donovan: Back in they heydays of my mispent journalistic education I did some papers of my own on the subject of "The Historical Jesus" and came across many of the same details as you have. The most important I thought was the divurgence between the Messianists (those who believed Jesus was a more politicaly significant figure, whose coming would lead to a freedom from centuries of oppression) and the Christians (who professed that he was the living son of God and that his arrival heralded the end of the world at which only the repentant would be saved). As you've said the idea that he should be looked upon as a God would have been repugnant to most Jewish people of the time who despised the Roman practice of idolising their Emperors. But most telling is that the Christian movement (far smaller in size than that of the Messianists), led by Paul a man who was unfailingly critical of Jesus during the latter's life, only began to spread after the massacre of Jerusalem and the raising of the temple in AD. 68, when both the Messianists and the Zealots (who had rebeled in the wake of Herods death) where practically eradicated by the Roman legions under Titus.

The widespread growth of Christianity didn't really begin though until the time of Constantine who made it the official religion of the Roman Empire, even though at the time it was only the fifth largest in size. Some say this was done in return for an omen he had received prior to an important battle. Others say it was to honour his English mother, who was herself a Christian. Constantine, though, didn't convert until his deathbed, after a fairly typical life of murder, butchery and debauchery. (Setting a good precedent for the upcoming papacy)

Did you ever come across the reports by the Roman Historian Justinius on the warrant issued for the arrest of Jesus which described him as a slightly hunch-backed, short, balding man, with very dark olive skin, hook nose and long straggly beard? It certainly seems a lot more realistic than the common post-Rennaisance image.

[This message has been edited by Gwyn Boudreau (edited 10-11-1999).]

I just want to go see Sam Catalino's lecture series on the "sci-fi" unreality of plate tectonics, which I'm sure he'll be delivering to residents of Northridge and San Francisco CA, Kobe Japan, Turkey, and Taiwan, as well as various locales in the former Soviet Union and China. I'm really interested to hear his well-researched, literate, persuasive, rigorously backed-up arguments (with corresponding references, corroborating hard evidence and source material extensively footnoted, no doubt) which sweepingly invalidate the last 40 years of meticulous earth-science investigation and geological discovery. I have friends who are geological researchers, and they are eagerly awaiting Mr. Catalino's revelations.

Mind you, plate tectonics is only a theory, not a proven truth. However, there's an awful lot of evidence that's been accumulated that supports it... including direct measurements of the distances between land masses on earth using satellites and lasers, to a precision of less than one centimeter (that's half an inch, or the width of your pinky to all the Luddites). Of course, if you don't believe in anything that science investigates, that's fine... but if you listen to the radio, own a television, drive a car -- and POST NOTES ON THE INTERNET!!! -- you're blithely ignoring that science works. It's sure made your life better, whether you believe in it or not.

Oh sorry, for those unfamiliar with the theory of plate tectonics, it proposes that the land masses of the earth are carried on huge "rafts" of solid rock that float on a molten, fluid mantle -- hot, liquid rock called magma (which when spit out of volcanoes is called lava) -- and that these plates move around very slowly. The interaction along the edges of these plates is purported to cause earthquakes and volcanic activity, as well as the building of mountains and the spreading of the ocean floors.

Meanwhile, using standard Judeo-Christian/Biblical doctrine, if we posit that the above-mentioned places were punished for sinful activity with strong earthquakes, I have to wonder... I'm in Northridge fairly often, it's a fairly quiet suburban area of the Valley, with parks and schools and restaurants and a Cal State campus... very normal. The Bud brewery is up in Chatsworth, and the porn industry is concentrated in Van Nuys... as far as sin goes one would think God would have sent the quake against those other places. Perhaps it was a warning. The mind of God is not for me to know. I'm a little worried that He's so (a) vengeful and (b) inconsistent, tho. I kinda think a loving creator would be a bit less temperamental and have fewer human foibles (such as the need to impose authority, which is a psychological problem).

Okay, Turkey has a lot of Muslims, so I can see that I guess, but there's a lot of Christians there too. Kobe, they're all pretty much Buddhists. I guess Taiwan too -- or maybe it's because they're not Communists?

Gee, God sure makes it tough to figure him out. I think I'll stick with rational explanations that display internal consistency supported by methodical research and demonstrable evidence. As opposed to attributing everything that happens to a being with ultimate creative power and infinite love, who happens to be less emotionally stable and predictable than any of my ex-girlfriends.

For the record, I do believe in God, but my belief has nothing to do with the "truthful evidence" of the Bible (or indeed any organized religion), which to me is pretty much third person hearsay. I find my evidence for His (or Her) existence displayed in the way the universe displays such remarkable consistency and incredible subtlety and grandeur at all levels, the details of which are for some reason omitted from Holy Scripture. Hmm. Wonder why.

------------------
Jeff Zugale
Pagan City Comics
www.pagancity.com

Donovan: There are efforts to reconcile, shall we say, the historic Jesus with the religious one. While not an expert on the subject, I believe there's enough contradicting information and areas of uncertainty to leave room for various interpetations on some of the points you raise.

Ultimately, as I believe that science and catholicism can (and ought to) cohabit, I also feel that history and catholicism can cohabit as well.

The historical Jesus you describe does not particularly offend my catholic sensiblities -- again, it's the narrow-minded, literal Christian nuts that are likley to throw stones at you. Ah, where is the Inquisition when we need it! :-)

I am in the process of writing a heavily-documented, very scientific book on the Miracles of Lourdes (that has required many interviews, trips, research, etc) and during this, I have while our understanding of God's means are often imperfect or incomplete, nothing he does violate the Laws of Nature. It is entirely up to us to see the signs. And Jeff, no, I don't think God makes it particularly difficult.

JM

Jamie,

Sure, there are Christian comic books out there, but the vast, vast majority of them are only available through Christian bookstores. I live in San Francisco and spend about 50% of my expendable income on books, so I frequent a lot of bookstores; I cannot remember a single instance where I saw Christian comic books in the religion section. For the most part, the only comics bookstores stock are graphic novels from Marvel, DC, and Dark Horse and these are usually stocked in the Sci-Fi area. (With the exception of the mall book stores, which stock new issues of Marvel and DC.)

Also, I've never seen a religious comic book, of any sort, in a comic book shop. Most of the Christian comics listed in Previews are done by individuals who are not affiliated with a church or religious organization; the "hard core" religious comics are geared exclusively toward Christian outlets. Also, most of those comics (the hard-core variety) are not designed to "convert" kids, but to help them reaffirm their faith in God, or to teach them how to resond to specific life situations. There is a distinct difference between the two.

------------------
My graphic novel Abel is available from Slave Labor Graphics. Check it out at http://www.slavelabor.com

Jeff, articulate and thoughtful argument regarding plate tectonics, but you know it'll be of no avail, right?

To those who continue to insist on agnosticism being the default position, I posted this over at tcj.com, but I thought it applicable here, as well:

"I really don't see what's so attractive about agnosticism. If someone makes an assertion, you should expect them to prove that assertion by evidence, or minimally for there to be the possibility of proving said assertion. I would contend theist religions have certainly not provided any evidence for their claims, and there isn't any possibility of their assertions ever being proven. Consequently, the rational choice is atheism. The alternative is the Kierkegaardian leap of faith (a nonrational, but obviously valid for some, option). Agnosticism for any assertion is equivalent to giving credence to any claim, no matter how outlandish, while not conceding the value of the leap. Since most people don't do this with nonreligious claims (e.g., I saw a man flying [or there was an advanced city of Atlantis existing over 10,000 years ago with the power of flight]), why accept it for a religious one?"

To not expect some evidence for what is a clearly a supernatural claim invites the complete dismissal of all rationality. An agnostic who gives equal credence to any assertion X, no matter how outlandish, and the skepticism towards the truth of X is being irrational. If you wish to argue against this -- rather than simply stating that agnosticism is the default position in matters of reasoning -- then you need to argue against the following example which I provided earlier.

(1) There is a purring, flying platypus.

(2) There is no purring, flying platypus.

Using agnosticism as the default in reasoning requires one to give these assertions a 50/50 possibility. I'm not willing to do that, thus I'm an a-'purring, flying platypus'-ist (that almost came out naughty). Using the same argument regarding the assertion 'there is a god', I'm also an atheist, not an agnostic. (Note: a- is a Greek-derived prefix meaning 'not' or 'without', not 'anti' for the etymologically obsessed among you.)

[This message has been edited by Charles Reece (edited 10-11-1999).]

The 50/50 split your present is misleading. An atheist is someone who is 100% rock-solid convinced there is no God or Higher power of any sort. An agnostic on the other hand might be 99.99999% convinced of this but is willing to say hey, what do I know, maybe I'm wrong, I dont have all the answers.

Agnosticism is simply saying we cant know 100% either way because as humans we are inherently fallible. Rather than not taking a stand, it is much more the attitude of always maintaining an open mind.