The Jesus Seminar and inclusion of conservative Christian scholars

The Jesus seminar invited ALL scholars to participate INCLUDING CONSERVATIVE SCHOLARS.

I quote john Dominic Crossan in this interview "We asked ANYONE who was interested in the New Testament involving Jesus" & "If literalists or fundamentalists wanted to come there and defend their position they could. They would not be ostracised in anyway. They may be voted down."

So much for the diatribe by conservatives that conservative scholars were never invited!



The cartoon exposes the double standards that Christians have. On one hand a moral couple who are atheist are shunned because of their lack of Christian belief but on the other hand a murdering rapist of 21 women is considered a Christian brother and warmly welcomed merely because he is a Christian.  The cartoon destroys all sense of Christian "justice" as, according to Christian doctrine, the murdering rapist receives no punishment whatsoever as he is now a Christian but the moral atheist couple will burn in hell forever. One could easily swap the atheist couple for a homosexual couple. The same applies.

It would be really nice if Christians someday began treating the atheists, Muslims and homosexuals exactly the same as murdering rapist of 21 women who converts to Christianity. However, most Christians have an unspoke arpartheid and favour the murdering rapist of 21 women who has converted over any nonbeliever.


Jesus & the woman caught in adultery - Purity Version

From Patti Hornback Mobley


What would the Bible be like if God valued purity more than people? Consider how a well-known story might have ended:

The scribes and Pharisees brought to Jesus a woman who had been caught in adultery. Throwing her at his feet, they said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. In the law, Moses commanded us to stone such a woman. What do you say?"

Jesus said to them, "...The law is clear. We'll have to kill her."

And saying that, he picked up a rock and threw it at her, striking her in the head.

The scribes and Pharisees joined in with great enthusiasm, throwing stones at the woman until she was dead.

Then Jesus turned to them and said, "Let she who is with sin be stoned."

And the scribes and Pharisees marveled at his devotion to purity.


The infinite One God and the finite bible

Some Christians  assume that God wrote a book. They assume that God somehow gave the bible writers the words to say either by inspiration or by direct dictation. They assume that the bible is "God's Word" though the bible never calls the whole of the bible "God's Word". They assume that the bible is "God's manual" and has everything that you need to know for life.  They look over the fact that the gospel of mark has sevceral endings by several different authors over different time periods. What is the one and only true ending to Mark's gospel? Couldn't God make up his mind about it?

They also assume that bible is a coherent whole book. The bible is like a library - a series of books written by different people at different times. Every book has also been edited so we don't have any original author's words. It is a nice sourcebook of what people believed about God and their experiences of God but you don't necessarily understand God by trying to emulate other people's experience of God and neglecting to have your own or by following their methods which may not be suitable to yourself. All the people who wrote the bible are the same as you or I. They have the same direct access to God and hear God in exactly the same way.

Furthermore the bible is a finite book and God is infinte. It is silly to think that a infinite God can be fully explained in a finite book. There must be other truths of the infinite God outside the finite book.  The bible is not the final word on anything.  For example, science tells us far more about "creation" than the bible does.


Homophobia is a DICTIONARY term with a definite meaning and not the meaning that homophobes ascribe to it. It includes:

homosexuals / homosexuality.

1. Fear of OR CONTEMPT for lesbians and gay men.
2. Behavior based on such a feeling.

homo·phobe n.
homo·phobic adj.

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition copyright ©2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company. Updated in 2009. Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

(Psychology) INTENSE HATRED or fear of homosexuals or homosexuality
[from homo(sexual) + -phobia]

homophobe n
homophobic adj
Collins English Dictionary – Complete and Unabridged © HarperCollins Publishers 1991, 1994, 1998, 2000, 2003

fear of or APPREHENSION about homosexuality.
See also: Homosexuality
-Ologies & -Isms. Copyright 2008 The Gale Group, Inc. All rights reserved.

Noun 1. homophobia - PREJUDICE AGAINST against (fear or dislike of) homosexual people and homosexuality

Based on WordNet 3.0, Farlex clipart collection. © 2003-2008 Princeton University, Farlex Inc.

ho·mo·pho·bia definition
Function: n
: irrational fear of, AVERSION TO, or DISCRIMINATION AGAINST homosexuality or homosexuals

Merriam-Webster's Medical Dictionary, © 2007 Merriam-Webster, Inc.


an extreme and irrational AVERSION to homosexuality and homosexual people.
1 ( noun ) homophobia PREJUDICE against ( fear or DISLIKE OF) homosexual people and homosexuality


• HOMOPHOBIC (adjective)
The adjective HOMOPHOBIC has 1 sense:

1. PREJUDICED against homosexual people

1.[adjective] PREJUDICED against homosexual people

PREJUDICED against homosexual people

noun fear of homosexuality, expressed in a range of ways from DISCRIMINATION in the workplace to USING DEMEANING LANGUAGE and HOSTILE BEHAVIOUR


[mass noun]

an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people.


Etymology and usage


Psychologist George Weinberg introduced the first scholarly use of the concept homophobia in his 1972 book Society and the Healthy Homosexual,[9] published one year before the American Psychiatric Association voted to remove homosexuality from its list of mental disorders.[10] Weinberg's "term became an important tool for gay and lesbian activists, advocates, and their allies."[11] He describes the concept as:

a phobia about homosexuals….It was a fear of homosexuals which seemed to be associated with a fear of contagion, a fear of reducing the things one fought for—home and family. It was a religious fear and it had led to great brutality as fear always does.[11]

Conceptualizing prejudice against gay and lesbian people as a social problem worthy of scholarly attention was not a new concept, but Weinberg was the first to give the problem a name.[11]

The construction of the word is comparable to xenophobia, a much older term referring to individual or cultural hostility to foreigners or outsiders. However it fails to make sense etymologically, as the Greek 'homo' means 'the same', so, literally, 'homophobia' means a fear of things that are the same.[11] The word homophobia was also used early in the twentieth century, albeit rarely. It then had the meaning of "fear or hatred of the male sex or humankind." In this use, the word derived from the Latin root homo (Latin, "man" or "human") with the Greek ending -phobia ("fear").[12]

Despite its general shortcomings etymologically, the word can be used to describe the fear of a heterosexual that they will be approached romantically by someone of the same sex. It also can describe the apparently fear-based reactions of recoiling from unintentional close contact with another male or of being in close proximity to other males in certain situations such as while in the restroom. These are typically fear-based reactions, but the fear is usually that of the societal stigma of being labelled homosexual. However a disinterested third party might view these reactions and simply conclude that the person displaying the reaction is afraid of others of the same sex, hence, homophobic.

The word first appeared in print in an article written for the American Screw tabloid, May 23, 1969 edition, using the word to refer to straight men's fear that others might think they are gay.[11] A possible etymological precursor was homoerotophobia, coined by Wainwright Churchill in Homosexual Behavior Among Males in 1967.

The first time it was formally used in its modern sense in the press was not until 1981 when The Times reported a General Synod vote where they refused to condemn homosexuality.[13]



Man-made bibles are not Dictionaries, nor are they psychiatic manuals or the pronouncements of associations of psychiatrists and psychologists..

In December of 1998, the Board of Trustees issued a position statement that the American Psychiatric Association opposes any psychiatric treatment, such as "reparative" or conversion therapy, which is based upon the assumption that homosexuality per se is a mental disorder or based upon the a priori assumption that a patient should change his/her sexual homosexual orientation (Appendix 1). In doing so, the APA joined many other professional organizations that either oppose or are critical of "reparative" therapies, including the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Medical Association, the American Psychological Association, The American Counseling Association, and the National Association of Social Workers (1).

theories which rationalize the conduct of "reparative" and conversion therapies. Firstly, they are at odds with the scientific position of the American Psychiatric Association which has maintained, since 1973, that homosexuality per se, is not a mental disorder. The theories of "reparative" therapists define homosexuality as either a developmental arrest, a severe form of psychopathology, or some combination of both (10-15). In recent years, noted practitioners of "reparative" therapy have openly integrated older psychoanalytic theories that pathologize homosexuality with traditional religious beliefs condemning homosexuality (16,17,18).

The earliest scientific criticisms of the early theories and religious beliefs informing "reparative" or conversion therapies came primarily from sexology researchers (19-27). Later, criticisms emerged from psychoanalytic sources as well (28-39). There has also been an increasing body of religious thought arguing against traditional, biblical interpretations that condemn homosexuality and which underlie religious types of "reparative" therapy (40-46).

"Since 1975, the American Psychological Association has called on psychologists to take the lead in removing the stigma of mental illness that has long been associated with lesbian, gay, and bisexual orientations. The discipline of psychology is concerned with the well-being of people and groups and therefore with threats to that well-being. The prejudice and discrimination that people who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual regularly experience have been shown to have negative psychological effects. This information is designed to provide accurate information for those who want to better understand sexual orientation and the impact of prejudice and discrimination on those who identify as lesbian, gay, or bisexual."


It is a very simple matter of human rights just the same as allowing women clergy (for which bible verses were ignored) and the elimination of racism and slavery (which the Old and New Testaments both condone and for which bible verses were ignored).  Only Christians make the matter complex by their addiction to bible verses.

Same-sex marriage has been legal in the Netherlands since 1 April 2001.

On July 20, 2005, Canada legalized same-sex marriage nationwide with the enactment of the Civil Marriage Act which provided a gender-neutral marriage definition.

Same-sex marriage in Spain has been legal since July 3, 2005.

Since 2001, ten countries have begun allowing same-sex couples to marry nationwide: Argentina, Belgium, Canada, Iceland, the Netherlands, Norway, Portugal, Spain, South Africa, and Sweden. Same-sex marriages are also performed and recognized in Mexico City and parts of the United States. Some jurisdictions that do not perform same-sex marriages recognize same-sex marriages performed elsewhere: Israel, the Caribbean countries of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, parts of the United States, and all states of Mexico.
Nor is it a MINORITY that wants same sex marriage.  It is Christian homophobes who are the minority.


A Galaxy research poll released today, ahead of a rally against same-sex marriage in Canberra convened by religious groups including the Australian Christian Lobby, found that 53% of Australians who identify as Christians support same-sex marriage, while 41% oppose. 67% of non-Christians support it.

Who are the main group of people opposing homosexual marriage? Christians. Christians also opposed the abolition of slavery, equal rights for coloured people and the ordination of women clergy - and used bible verses fo their opposition. Christians have a history of denying people their basic human rights.



From "The Hypnotic World of Paul Kenna" (Faber & Faber; London: 1993) *[...] my additional comments.


The key to identifying trance states is in the fixation of attention, either internally or externally. p. 13

Here are some of the most popular misconceptions ... 'Hypnosis is in some way anti-Christian or the work of the devil.' -According to the New Catholic Encyclopedia, the Catholic church (the largest Christian organisation in the world) feels that "Hypnotism is licit if used for licit purposes.' pp 22-23

Visually I make my first inductions rapid, asking subjects to fall ... backwards (see photograph) *[Looks like "being slain in the spirit"] p.75

An altered state can be induced through the repetition of a word - a popular practice in many of the eastern religions *[and charismatic / pentecostal churches] The word for this is mantra, meaning 'thought' in Sanskrit. The repetition can be of any sound, movement or picture. When something is done or said for the first time it, the conscious mind processes and reality-tests it, but if it is repeated the reality-testing become unnecessary and the stimulus moves out of your conscious awareness and is monitored by the unconscious. ... After initial repetition the mantra is monitored by, and implanted into, the unconscious through the bombardment of repetition. Remember the golden rule, 'You always get more out what you focus on.' That focus can be conscious or unconscious. So by continually focusing upon the mantra you get whatever the mantra means to you. p. 131

Another very hypnotic experience is going to church. There is the cross to fixate upon, and then the repetition of prayers and closing your eyes *[and singing Jesus Jingles over and over again ... and repetitive praise slogans like "Praise the Lord! Glory to God! Bless the Lord! Amen! Jesus, Jesus, Jesus!"], and in some cases the personal magnetism of the priest or vicar can carry you away. Many of the American TV evangelists are really effective hypnotists. Listen to the content of what they are saying. 'Close your eyes and let the Lord come into your life' is very similar in structure as my telling hypnotic subjects on the stage to close their eyes and let relaxation come into their bodies. pp 204-205

... today's spiritual groups and cults. During a meditation session *[aka church service], which is a consciousness-altering process, a cult member may receive suggestions that mould him or her to the cult's doctrine. Disruption of eating and sleeping patterns, restricted contact with the outside world, repetition, forced attention and hyperventilation are disorientation tactics which alter awareness and reduce a person's critical faculties. Then irrational beliefs can be implanted, such as 'The outside world is the area of falsehoods' or, 'The cult is made of chosen people who have to save the world.' many of today's cults practise mind control in a social context. Individuals are immersed in a social environment where they must let go of their old identity and assume the new one of the group. The process can take place within a few hours and then a few days later will be established. The fundamental essence of mind control is to encourage dependence, conformity and devotion and discourage individuality and personal freedom *[IOW what church is all about] p.209



Dear True Christian

Kissy kissy! Now you pucker up and greet me with a kiss. (Romans 6:16; 1 Corinthians 16:20; 2 Corinthians 13:12; I Thessalonians 5:26; 1 Peter 5:14.)

I am refreshed and challenged by your unique point of view. You make silence a wonderful thing to look forward to. However I took exception to your recent scribble

It was:
[X] backmasked with Satanic messages
[X] Pagan
[X] New Age
[X] unChristian
[X] Secular Humanist
[X] written in King James English
[X] written in tongues and did not include the interpretation

Your attention is drawn to the fact that:
[X] You flamed the Archbishop of Canterbury
[X] You flamed the Pope
[X] You flamed God
[X] You contradicted Jesus
[X] You contradicted yourself several times
[X] You mindlessly chanted the Pente Mantra several times
[X] You repeatedly assumed unwarranted spiritual, moral or intellectual superiority

It is recommended that you:
[X] Buy an indulgence from me.
[X] Send me a triple tithe.
[X] Do penance.
[X] Devote your life to missionary work in Iraq and Afghanistan.
[X] Start up a Christian Clown Ministry


[X] Jesus said in Matthew 5:42, "Give to him that asketh thee, and from him that would borrow of thee turn not thou away." May I have your house and car and may I borrow your most prized possession?
[X] Can I have your car after the Rapture?
[X] Have you ever sinned by eating rabbit, pork, shellfish (Leviticus 11:4, 7, 10)?
[X] Have you ever sinned by wearing clothes made of two types of material (Leviticus 19:19; Deuteronomy 22:11)?
[X] Have you ever sinned by cutting your hair (Leviticus 19:27)?
[X] Were you in the special class at school?
[X] Are you from the shallow end of the gene pool?
[X] Do you want fries with that?

Please save this message and review it occasionally to determine your progress toward being:

[X] a tolerable Trew Kristyun
[X] a fully-functional human being
[X] integrated into humanity
[X] re-integrated into the wild

If what you don't know can't hurt you, you're practically invulnerable.

Thank you for taking the time to read this flame form.

Remember: Always carry your Trew Kristyun Poop Stick - Deuteronomy 23:12 -13 "You are to have a place outside the camp where you can go when you need to relieve yourselves. Carry a stick as a part of your equipment,
so when you have a bowel movement you can dig a hole and cover it up."


Finding Missing Children the Christian Way

As I write, police are looking for the body of Daniel Morcombe, a 13-year-old Australian boy who was the victim of a presumed abduction from the Sunshine Coast, Queensland, on 7 December 2003.

Why has no-one thought of the Christian method of finding missing children?

Millions of Christians world-wide claim to have a "personal relationship" with Jesus and speak with him daily. If that is true why can't they ask Jesus where the missing children are?  "Jesus loves the little children, all the children of the world ... all are precious in his sight"  Jesus should be eager to tell Christians where the missing children are.

Or are all current Christians not true Christians because Jesus refuses to speak to them on this matter?

Or maybe the relationship they have with Jesus isn't all that personal after all.


God has a wonderful plan for your life ...

Think about it.

No, REALLY think about it.


See http://wiggidygirl.blogspo​​atistics.html

"No religion” (which includes atheists, agnostics, humanists and secularists) in 2006 are 127.5% of 2001 numbers. And Christianity in 2006 is 99.4% of 2001 numbers. ... Overall, non-religious affiliation as a percentage of total population has increased by 3.19% Overall, religious affiliation as a percentage of total population has fallen by 4.61%"

Of the roughly 64% identifying as Christian in 2006, the largest proportions were either Roman Catholic (25.8%) or Anglican (18.7%), with the third largest group being the 5.7% affiliated with the Uniting Church in Australia. Baptists account for 2.5% of the total Christian population. The National Church Life Survey found about 8.8% of the Australian population attended a church in one of the covered denominations in a given week in 2001. That means that 91.2% of the population didn't attend church. I'm looking forward to the new survey September - November 2011. I predict that numbers will have again fallen.


It's like mourning. This is about the death of my god Jesus.  It is an absolutely dreadful and frightening experience and dark night of the soul yet it is what is needed in order to grow. I am now finally able to tell clergy - what you are telling me is absolute bullshit with no valid basis - and not be afraid of being sent to hell for criticising "God's anointed" clergy.

In dialogue with Chris Gillespie (CG) .....

CG: One comment made to Mark  ... was asking him why he waited 36 years before deciding that the wheels had fallen off, both the Jesus-as-divinity who answers prayer concept, and the Christian Community paradigm.

Without wishing to put words in his mouth, I would guess that in that respect, his story shares much with most of us who are (at the very least) among the ex-churched: You keep hoping that you'll either discover the magic formula which will make God talk to and interact with (or even LOOK at) you, as most of your contemporaries claim that He does for them... OR that you'll discover what the "blockage" is to Him doing so. The fault cannot be with Him, and you'd better not suggest that there's anything wrong with the Church... that'd be slanging off at Jesus' Betrothed... not a good look.

Equally, one is STRONGLY discouraged from questioning the whole Neo-Testamentary postulate. One is told that God is sovereign, love, omni-you-name-it, and therefore infallible... yet hates sin. You are told that there is something you are doing wrong, or something right that you are not doing (even if that something is receiving the baptism of the H.S. or anulling the ongoing generational curses because your Great-Grand-Aunt went to a fortune teller, or "believing the promises" - the fault MUST lie with you, because God... etc.

Ah, and you might be told that you are called to walk by faith, rather by sight, and that God is testing you, hiding behind a rock (like the absent bridegroom and his virgins) to see if you will be faithful in licking His feet, even when you have no feelings... that you'd better hope He'll find you doing what you were supposed to when He returns... etc etc - and you feel trapped in this omni-view prison thing that we have discussed in the past... and you are AFRAID that you will fail the celestial test when all the time you were only one metre from the finish line. THAT is a big motivator, that combination of fear and guilt.

So you BELIEVE this crap, you self-flaggelate a little more, get up earlier to read the Bible, pray harder, try fasting, do your devotional, ask (again) for the H.S. Baptism, "repent" (again) for that miserable, wretched, misguided woman your Great Grand Aunt... and hope thereby you can press the "reboot" button on your spiritual PC. You BELIEVE, I say, that the Christians around you are really doing as well as they claim (because they are Christians - why would they lie to you?) - and you so DO NOT want to be the effing black sheep, the ONLY one who doubts, and to whom Jesus does not talk as a man with his friend over the morning coffee.

So I see it as a badge of honour, those (like Mark perhaps) who kept trying for so long - it often speaks not so much of willful blindness... but of genuine humility that assumes that oneself is the one with the problem. Who wants to be a megalomaniac?

I think it was Confucious who said that "When the pupil is ready, the maestro will appear" - and so we have different people waking up at different stages in their Christian/church life and saying, "EFFING HELL: The Emperor is effing NAKED, and no-one is going to ever convince me otherwise ever again!"

And so it is... that we keep trying... different denominations, different spiritual exercises, deeper repentances, different ways to woo God... until we mature enough in GENUINE spirituality to admit that this buggy does NOT have wheels/ this horse has DIED under me - it's time to move on. ...

It is a bit like mourning - everyone does it differently, and takes different amounts of time to pass through each stage. Some need to revisit. No-one can hurry anyone else, and ACCEPTING dialogue is almost invariably helpful to keep one moving and avoid stagnation. ...

I think -nay, I am convinced- that the same holds true for the poorest aspects of religion - the abuse,the manipulation, the abuse of authority. It may not be "simple" to physically leave "the church" (local or universal) - the absence is like the bloodied and tender hole left by an extracted tooth, which the tongue keeps returning to "worry". ....

MUCH more difficult tho, is the task of removing pieces of "software" that the uninstalled "church" has left behind cluttering up your mental/spiritual registry. Again - just as pieces of an unwanted and uninstalled program can keep throwing other woftware off untill you do a deep registry clean... so can bits and pieces of "church" cause other software to behave in peculiar ways for many years... anger, paranoias, aggresivity, compulsivity around certain subjects - all are indicators of a "virus" that an inadequate church/religion experience has left behind. You have to have been there to understand - these trojans rarely activate till you have made a serious attempt to leave.

ME: Indeed it is a perpetual look for the promised Holy Grail or Philsosopher's Stone. You are repeatedly told that the reason that you don't get t is because of your unholy practices and thoughts. You are always to blame and are a beggar at the gates of clergy who know the secret password.

You are supposed to be "born again" and a "new creature" because you know the Shibboleth and have believed the promises and walk the walk ... however nothing ever changes except the depth of your slavery.
I always found prayer so incredibly boring and unsatisfactory. Read everything I could get my hands on concerning the problem and it was all the same bullshit. " Monologues with Jesus" may be the title of a future album I do.


The Promo is "Accept Jesus into your heart and get the free gift of salvation. The End."

When you accept the Promo you get lumbered with the "Sales Add Ons"

- Join the church to sing Jesus Jingle muzak and listen to a Sermoan each week.
- Join Bible Study
- Join Prayer meetings
- Join your "club" ... Men's Meeting or Women's meeting depending on your gender (homosexuals and transgendered Christians not welcome)
- attend all regularly
- listen to the sermoan and obey ... or else
- pray regularly
- read your bible regularly
- pay your tithes
- pay your offerings
- pay your love gifts
- volunteer for unpaid work at the church
- evangelise others
- don't attend other churches, they aren't spiritual like we are
- don't associate with your former friends and family if they are not Trew Kristyuns
- don't participate in art works that are not sanctioned by this church ... bans may be applicable on certain books, films, music, dance ... check with the pastor
- never disagree with your pastor, elders, deacons, or any member of a ministry team ... they are infallible
- vote for conservative Right-wing politicians because the Left is satanic, of the devil, demonic, nonChristian, antiChristian, secular humanist, evilooshunist
- etc etc etc etc

Yawn .......


Are God and Jesus hiding?

50 Renowned Academics Speaking About God

It is obvious that these intelligent people cannot find God in the universe. God is definitely not blatant and obvious. God appears to be hiding. It may be that God can only be found by subjective methodology but then that limits knowledge of God to only those who are trained in that method. Nor is God easily found in bible verses when the bible verses are not interpreted in the same way by all people. God has not made his "Word" very clear or obvious and has not taken the time to make sure that there were unedited eyewitness reports in the bible that could not be refuted by anyone. The gospels are a very poor record of God if Jesus is God.

Now, if God cannot be found by educated people then the possibility is either:
1.- God does not exist
2.- We are looking for God in the wrong places
3.- We are looking for a wrong type of God

I do not think that God exists like we exist. All proofs of God's existence fail. However, God MUST exist for Christians as Jesus existed and is supposedly still an existent person. Christians also MUST have a personal God for Jesus is a person. So ALL Christian search for God is limited by this notion. As 2000 years of searching for a personal God has dismally failed - and the results are horrendously worse for trying to find Jesus currently in the universe - it is about time to look elsewhere at what God might be. That means ditching Jesus as God.


Jesus and the Easter Bunny

The Holy Gospel of the Easter Rabbit
Jeshua Cottontail - Proof that the Easter Bunny lives. All you have to do is believe ... just like you do with Jesus.

It is utterly appropriate to link the current existence of Jesus and the Easter Bunny together. Both are related to ideas about resurrection. Some humans think that both exist and are alive now.  One could make the argument that the Easter Bunny (just like Jesus) is an historical subject, and indirectly through the rabbit spirit a post-bunny subject that can be accessed through mystical experience, chocolate eggs, and particularly through face to face meeting that is supported by love. This can be verified and falsified in exactly the same way as Jesus - subjective arguments with unprovable premises.

Observational evidence is indispensable for knowledge of an observable historic Jesus of Nazareth (not your invisible mythical Christ of faith). If, as Christians claim, Jesus is alive, where is he so we can observe him? Or is the historic Jesus is not alive like other humans? Or can't the historic Jesus currently be observed as he has magically turned into the mythical Christ of faith? How did he do that miracle? Theological pixie dust! Done through special pleading for Jesus - "He's there but he's hiding!" Special pleading is a form of spurious argumentation introducing favorable details and / or excluding unfavorable details by alleging a need to apply additional considerations without proper criticism of these considerations themselves. It cites something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption. It is a double standard often used by Christians in relation to Jesus.  Jesus is special.  However, the Easter Bunny may also be special.

Science is the very best method we have for understanding observable items. The human Jesus of Nazareh (not the mythical invisible Christ of faith) was an observable item in first century Palestine. Therefore science is the very best method we have for understanding the human Jesus of Nazareth.

Unfortunatley Jesus was never observed by a scientist with current knowledge at that time.  All that we have now to look at the historic Jesus is history which uses a narrative to examine and analyse the sequence of events and to investigate objectively the patterns of cause and effect that determine events dealing with Jesus.

We have no primary evidence for Jesus nor eyewitness accounts only dubious third hand testimony or worse contained in the gospels. (Paul never met the historic Jesus.). So Christian objective claims about Jesus being God and being alive now must be treated as merely subjective opinion on the same level as children's belief in the Easter Bunny.

The invisible mythical Christ of faith is supposedly what Jesus turned into through magic pixie dust that cannot be verified or falsified. We have no scientific or historical evidence to support that Jesus is indeed now the invisible Christ of faith. All we have is the subject opinion found through theology and based upon dubious bible verses.

How then can Chrisians continue in the hypocrisy of preaching this subjective opinion as objective fact in creeds, dogmas, sermons, evangelisation, etc?


God's Footprint

In Christianity God is viewed as an existent being. God has to be that way for Christians if Jesus is God. If we "live and move and have our being" in God then the universe is God's footprint as we have our existence in the universe. We can empirically study that footprint. The footprint doesn't lead to a personal Jesus. It leads to impersonal space / time matter and energy. It is not science that is wrong, it is our notion of God. Theology does not inform science but science should inform theology.

When theology informed science the the sun supposedly rotated around the Earth. We now know that to be incorrect. We now know that there is no being out there in the universe who is God - including Jesus. If god Jesus literally ascended from a mountain top then even travelling at the speed of light he is still within the Milky Way. If he has already gone to "heaven" and is seated next to an existing God who is a being on a real throne then logically "heaven" is in the Milky Way. Where? Now if you think all that is nonsense as we are talking about an "spiritual" realm then HOW does one prove that spiritual realm exists? Is it on the same level as the mythical Narnia or Atlantis? Both have books and oral traditions that say they are real. C S Lewis' "The Chronicles of Narnia" states that Narnia is real. Plato stated in "Timaeus and Critias" that Atlantis was real. Is something real just because it is handed down by oral tradtion or quoted in a book? If not, then how is the Christian oral tradition and bible book any different? One can never prove a negative so one can't really prove that there is no Narnia or Atlantis. Should we then believe in both? Why or why not?

All items to believed by faith alone are on extremely shakey ground


Why don't I allow comments on this blog?

Why don't I allow comments on this blog?

Easy. The reason is the hate-filled bile one has to put up with from rabid Christians who think that you cannot express any opinion different to theirs.  They want to have all opposing opinions banned or censored.  I'm not willing to play their silly games.

from James Barr "Fundamentalism" (SCM Press:1977)

The real and fatal cost of fundamentalist doctrine and ideology, as a system of life, is not its inner logical inconsistency, but rather its personal cost: it can be sustained as a viable way of life only at the cost of unchurching and rejecting, as persons, a thinkers or scholars, as Christians, all those who question the validity of the conservative option. The presence of the questioner breaks down the unnatural symbiosis of conflicting elements which makes up the total ideology of fundamentalists. We can thus understand why 'liberals' and other non-conservative persons have not only to be disbelieved, discredited and overcome in argument; they have, still more, to be eliminated from the scene altogether. The fundamentalist policy is to not listen to the non-conservative arguments and then reject them: it is that the non-conservative argument should not be heard at all. Fundamentalism as an ideological option is profoundly threatened by the presence of people who do not believe in it, who do not share it, who question it. pp. 314-315

Accordingly, where it comes about that fundamentalistshave the power, it must be expected that they will use that power to silence those of contrary opinion.  They will seek to eliminate from structures of church and education persons who are not sufficientlyconservative.  The history of fundamentalism shows this clearly. Like other conservative movements, it has sought not merely the means to witness, to state its own position, but control, the power to silence or to remove from positions of responsibility any persons who did not conform. p. 316


Jean-Paul Sartre & God

Quoting from Sartre in Simone de Beauvoir's 'Adieux: A Farewell to Sartre' (Translated by Patrick O'Brian; Penguin; London:1984) p 436 - 443 ... interviews with Sartre just before his death

[DB = De Beauvoir S = Sartre]

DB: Among these friends were there any who tried to persuade you - I don't say convert you - but to persuade you of God's existence?

S: No, never. .....

DB: There was a time when you knew some Christians very intimately, and that was in then prison camp. Indeed your best friend was a priest.

S: Yes, most of the people I mixed with there were priests. But at that time, in the prison camp, they represented the only intellectuals I knew. ....They were intellectuals, people who thought about the same things as I did. Not always as I thought, but even so reflecting upon the same things was a bond. ... The Abbe Leroy told me quite spontaneously that he would not accept a place in Heaven if I were turned away. ...

DB: And when you wrote Being and Nothingness did you vindicate or try to vindicate your disbelief in God philosophically?

S: Yes, of course, it had to be vindicated. I tried to show that God would have to be the "in-itself for itself," that is, an infinite in-itself inhabited by an infinite for-itself, and that this notion of "in-itself for-itself" was it self contradictory and could not constitute a proof of God's existence. ... In Being and Nothingness I set out reasons for my denial of God's existence that were not actually the real reasons. The real reasons were much more direct and childish - since I was only twelve - than theses on the impossibility of this reason or that for God's existence. ... Even if one does not believe in God, there are elements of the idea of God that remain in us and that cause us to see the world with some divine aspects. ... I don't see myself as so much dust that has appeared in the world, but as being that was expected, prefigured, called forth. in short, as a being that could, it seems, come only from a creator; and this idea of a creating hand that created me refers me back to God. ...

DB: Apart from the feeling of not being here by chance, are here other fields in which there are traces of God? In the moral field, for example?

S: Yes. In the moral field I've retained one single thing to do with the existence of God, and this is Good and Evil as absolutes. ...

DB: Or as Dostoievsky says, "If God does not exist, everything is allowed." You don't think that, do you?

S: In one way I clearly see what he means, and abstractly it's true; but in another I clearly see that killing a man is wrong. .... I look upon the absolute as a product of the relative, then opposite of then usual view. ... it is certain that the notions of absolute Good and Evil arose from the catechism I was taught. ... That's what I mean. I think the objects I see here do indeed exist apart from me. It's not my consciousness that makes them exist. They don't exist for the sake of my consciousness and merely for that; they don't exist for the sake of the consciousness of mankind and merely for that. They exist without consciousness in the first place. ....

DB: When a man like Merleau-Ponty ... said he believed in God, or when your friends the priests, the Jesuits, said that they believed in God? On the whole what do you think the fact of stating that he believes in God represents the way a man leads his life?

S: ... At present .. there is no intuition of the divine. I think that nowadays the notion of God is already dated. .... They have a vision of the world that belongs to a past age. ...


Sartre's above proof of God's non-existence also requires a thorough knowledge of philosophical terms that most Christians have no idea about. Sartre wrote in French and so as English speakers and reader we only have a very poor translation to work with. Namely:

"Being is. Being is in-itself. Being is what is is." Being includes both Being-in-itself and Being-for-itself, but the latter is a nihilation of the former. As contrasted with Existence, Being is all-embracing and objective rather than individual and subjective.

"Being-for-itself" is the nihilation of Being-in-itself; consciousness conceived as a lack of Being, a desire for Being, a relation to Being. By bringing Nothingness into the world the For-itself can stand out from Being and judge other beings by knowing what it is not. Each For-itself is the nihilation of a particular being. It is the human way of Being which is fluid and open to possibilities and imagination.

"Being-in-itself" is non-conscious Being. It is the Being of the phenomenon and overflows the knowledge which we have of it. It is a plenitude, a fixed and complete being, and strictly speaking we can say of it only that it is. It has no relation to itself or to anything else.