Nice. Are they quoting Lennon on purpose?

Without religion all we'd have would be the atheist atrocities committed by the Chinese, the Cambodians, Russians, and the Nazis. The lack of a god doesn't give people any less reason to kill eachother.

That's true, Maya. To a point. Except that no one is killed in the name of atheism. Not every atrocity in the world has been perpetrated because of religion, but many have. None, however, have been perpetrated BECAUSE OF atheism.

As Steven Weinberg said, "With or without [religion], you'd have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, it takes religion."

Nazism was not a rational, scientific, humanist philosophy. It was dogma. Just because Hitler's dogma had no particular god does not mean that the Holocaust was perpetrated in the name of atheism.

Dogmatic hatred relies on the existence of an Other. Whether that Other is Jews, or Christians, or heathens, or redheads, or Republicans, or women, is inconsequential. If you can convince enough people to hate and fear the Other, there needs not be any reason behind it.

The very idea of an "atheist atrocity" is absurd. As though everyone who rejects your fantasy is responsible for the actions of every other person who also does so. There are infinite groups of people we can divide ourselves into. There are infinite Others. I may as well blame you for all the Non-Jain atrocities, since you are not a Jain, which makes you part of the group that includes all non-Jains. You may not realize it, but you and your non-Jain cohorts are respsonsible for every single murder that has ever occurred in the history of humanity. How do you live with yourself?

Sorry, maya. I read the "Posted by:" tag incorrectly. This should have been directed toward Micklewhite.

It's fine. Nicely said, by the way.

Few would hold that without religion no atrocity will be inflicted by humans. Abolishing a belief system that is immune to reason merely removes one of the justifications for the irrational and arbitrary exclusion and vilification of any particular group. Organized religion simply gets its fair share of blame as the most pervasive and successful forms of beliefs that claim absolute immunity from reason. Stalin was not an atheist innovator. He merely replaced the words "God" and "Heaven" with "Father Stalin" and "the Communist Party" (notice the patriarchal symbolism similar to some of the world religions - possibly a coincidence or simply a reiteration of tried and true by a misogynistic ruler). However, he had no qualms restoring to his religious competitors some of their former authority in order to mobilize the demoralized populace during WWII. Fortunately, the system was in its final throes of death by the time I went through its lower levels. However, I still remember performing of a patriotic song about crushing the enemy of the people that was hammered into us in the 1st grade music class. Mind that me performing any other song not dealing with the subject of loyalty to the party would've resulted in ridicule instead of a standing ovation (It's sad, but true, I never possessed a "heavenly voice").

Nobody has ever been able to name one Atheist who killed in the name of Atheism. Throughout history the largest slaughters have been committed by Christians. There's Hitler (Catholic), Stalin (Russian Orthodox), Taiping Rebellion (started by a guy who thought he was Jesus' brother), the Popes, George W. Bush, etc. You have nuts killing themselves because of a religious belief there's an UFO behind a comet, Jim Jones, the Inquisition, and Islamic jihad.

Considering the non-religious are supposed to be the ones without morals we have a pretty good track record. If we see a bunch of astronomers going on a killing spree because of a lack of a god then the fundies might have something. But there is no record of an Atheist killing in the name of Atheism, only stupid bible thumpers spreading lies about Atheists like Micklewhite has done.

Micklewhite, Christianity played a key role in causing the Jewish Holocaust, not atheism. < <

The Nazis were Christians, took power in largely Protestant areas adn were inspired by the teachings of Christian Social Party as well as the anti-Jewish writings of Martin Luther, the German who led the Protestant movement. Do read Martin's work on "The Jews and their lies" from 1543 where he adcoated the utter destruction of the Jewish people. The Nazis followed his teachings and even quoted them as a basis for the Final Solution i.e. Jewish Holocaust.

The Jewish Holocaust is the culmination of hundreds of years of Chrstian prosecution and ethnic cleansing of the Jews since the 4th AD. Only in 1965 did the Church renounce the eternal curse on the Jews for the killing of Christ.

And only in 1994 did the Luteran Church rejected Martin Luther's anti-semite teachings.

Micklewhite, Christianity played a key role in causing the Jewish Holocaust, not atheism. < <

The Nazis were Christians, took power in largely Protestant areas adn were inspired by the teachings of Christian Social Party as well as the anti-Jewish writings of Martin Luther, the German who led the Protestant movement. Do read Martin's work on "The Jews and their lies" from 1543 where he adcoated the utter destruction of the Jewish people. The Nazis followed his teachings and even quoted them as a basis for the Final Solution i.e. Jewish Holocaust.

The Jewish Holocaust is the culmination of hundreds of years of Chrstian prosecution and ethnic cleansing of the Jews since the 4th AD. Only in 1965 did the Church renounce the eternal curse on the Jews for the killing of Christ.

=========

Communism arose in Christian countries as a response to Western democracy and Christianity. Communism is as much a religion as anything else. Here are my points for making this case. < <

1) Communist doctrine rejected monotheism, pantheism, and polytheism, but had many supernatural beliefs. e.g. Lysenkoism

2) Communist doctrine rejected the supernatural, but did embrace a dogmatic belief system that was not subject to criticism, e.g. Mao's "Little Red Book" of quotations.

Those are the basic points. This is the key point that I want to make.

The problem with fascism and communism is not because of no belief or that they are too critical of religion. The problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the extent of allowing no dissent and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Or for that matter charismatic religious leaders i.e. Ted Haggard.

The genocidal activities of Communism did not happen when human beings reject religious dogma.

They happened because they are the result of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.

In retrospect, it clear that atheism is not Communism. At the very basis, atheism is not a political philosophy nor does it instruct people on what they do or else...< <

Norm, what have we told you about posting pornography material on this site? ;)

Imagine an impossibility.

Imagine, perhaps, that there is a God.

If I may interject with my own opinion, I suggest every atheist take a good look at the definition of agnostic before comitting themselves to a label.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/agnostic

To use a bad analogy, consider bigfoot. I would be insane to say that, I know as a matter of fact, based on my faith, that bigfoot exists. After all, fact and faith present an inherint condradiction. However, although no EVIDENCE exists that bigfoot exists, this does not mean that he does NOT exist. It is quite possible that a sasquach will one day roam from the forests of Oregon into Portland. Until it happens, the best EVIDENCE we have against bigfoot is that it hasn't happened yet, and that a humanoid primate native to North America is extremely unlikely, given our current understanding of biology (which changes every day).

Being that bigfoot is a hard matter to debate, being that most pro-bigfoot evidence is offered by total lunatics, I suggest you consider the real-world example of the giant squid.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Giant_squid#Timeline

For those not into Wikipedia, the short story is this: for hundreds of years sailors described seeing a giant squid out at sea, while landlubber called them crazy. Then, one day, a giant squid washed ashore.

What makes America great is our First Amendment, specifically our right to believe, or not believe, to read, or not to read whatever we choose.

Thank you for your consideration.

Zap

(conservative Libertarian, OGM fan and reader)

Zap

Check out this entry on agnosticism.

http://onegoodmove.org/1gm/1gmarchive/2006/10/agnosticism.html

Zap, that's an interesting turn of phrase.

What does being a conservative Libertarian entail? On values? Or form of governance?

Pardon my ignorance but my first impression at seeing this phrase is that it's an oxymoron : P

Micklewhite: You're concentrating on the least important aspect here, the belief in a god. Dawkins' overall point is to take steps to eliminate all irrational thought. This includes religion, nationalism, racism, etc.

The ultimate goal here to create a society where anybody can criticize any idea freely and out in the open (as long as it's legitimate criticism and not trolling) without fear and have all parties debate solely on the merits of the ideas and not on emotion, upholding an arbitrary belief, saying certain things are off topic because it's the word of god, are beliefs held by whatever famous person, or an enormous number of people, etc.

The examples you gave are exact opposites to that kind of worldview.

Zap,

It's entirely possible (and quite common) to be both an atheist and agnostic. To be agnostic is to hold that something, typically whether God exists, is in principle unknowable by humans. I think most atheists you'll find would agree with that statement, but that doesn't make them less atheistic. To be an atheist is to believe in no god, and typically to behave in accordance with that belief. It is not a claim to know there is no god. I've never met an atheist who said they knew there was no god -- most, when pressed, wouldn't even say they knew their dog existed, or something equally seemingly apparent.

This point has been raised before on this blog by a few people other than me -- it's nothing all that new. Though it is a common misconception that agnosticism and atheism are mutually exclusive, and that atheism entails a profession of knowledge of the nonexistence of a god.

kes: I just recently found a site called Political Compass, and it brings forth the theory that economic conservative/liberal opinon and social libertarian/authoritarian opinion are mutually independant. My guess is that Zaphod2016 is an economic conservative yet a social libertarian.

As for the actual article: I surf the 'net instead of watching TV so I can avoid ads like the above, no matter what they're for. I'm disappointed that one is here as its own entry.

Nicely said, everyone (in your responses to Micklewhite). I'm glad to see the "atheist == hitler" myth debunked here so eloquently.

I would add only one thing. One thing religious people consistently ignore is the fact that the healthiest societies today are predominantly atheist, right now. Sweden, for example. They are not dogmatically forced to be atheist like with religions/hitler/stalin/etc. They are predominantly freethinkers by choice.

Increased atheism won't solve all our problems, but it will probably help solve a lot of them. :)

Kes, plenty of people are conservative libertarians. Libertarianism is essentially a belief in minimizing the role of government, a belief traditionally held by many conservatives. These days, the parties cut across libertarianism, with Republicans generally favoring deregulation of corporations, fewer social services, lower taxes, etc., while Democrats generally favor other libertarian things like the right to abortion, freedom of speech, the separation of church and state, etc., while favoring government support of social services, and regulation of corporations.

I would assume, by Zap's self-description, that his most important political positions have to do with economic libertarianism. But I don't mean to speak for him, that's just what "conservative libertarian" says to me...

James, thanks for the comment. It may be that I'm using the word "libertarian" somewhat incorrectly, conflating it with "conservative".

Zap,

As Dawkins has said (and written) numerous times, there are infinite ideas about which we are technically agnostic, but about which we can be functionally agnostic.

Some things are simply unknowable (at least as far as we know), like the thoughts that occur in other people's heads. I can never know what you see when you look at a stop sign. It might look exactly like what it looks like to me, or it might look completely different, because your brain is wired in an entirely different way that interprets reality in a way that makes sense to you, but would be utterly incomprehensible to me. But I can operate on the assumption that we both see the same thing when we look at a stop sign.

Technically, I am agnostic about your perception of the world, but I can make certain assumptions based on what I know for sure and functionally I can treat certain things about your perception of the world as true or false.

Dawkins posits a similar situation, which you may be familiar with, called the Celestial Teapot.

God is not impossible, just highly improbable, and there is no reason to believe in God, any more than there is a reason to believe in another fantastical character about whom there exists no proof of existence or non-existence.

It's okay to not know things. That's how we learn.

Great conversation all. To respond in turn:

Norm: great link. I would place myself at 51% on the 'ole Dawkins Agnosto-Meter.

Kes: funny enough, I once said the exact same thing to a liberal Liberatarian friend of mine, in reverse. Consider Barry Goldwater's stance on civil rights for a better example of my views:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barrygoldwater#Centristandlibertarianviews

Simply stated, I am socially liberal (pro-gay rights, pro-abortion rights, pro-drug legalization). I find the NSA, Gonzalez, Cheney and W absolutley horrifying, and eagerly await the day they all pass into the "ash heap of history".

Where we may disagree: I oppose socialism, such as social security or socialized healthcare (although I accept that I am fighting a losing battle on that issue).

However, I think it is interesting that classic Liberal and classic Conservative seem to meet in the middle at some form of moderate Libertarianism. Of course, the balance between freedom and personal responsibility is imperfect at best, and so the debate of Government's role (How big is too big?) rages on. My personal belief is that personal freedom trumps all else, and I accept that this view requires an equally extreme view of personal responsibilty (as soon as I infringe on society, society must infringe back on me).

Colin: I agree with you 100%, aitheism and agnosticism are complimentary ideals, not necessary in oposition. I think any serious-minded person retains some degree of agnosticism. In my opinion, die-hard aitheists who "know" that God does not exist are often as irrational as those who "know" God does exist- it is a belief in either case.

Alex wrote: God is not impossible, just highly improbable [ephasis mine]. When I read that, I smiled, and Douglas Adams and the HHGTTG were both fresh in my mind. Clearly, both I and Dawkins are big fans of Adams' work. More fascinating to me is current quantum theory, which shows that absurd concepts such as an "improbability drive" may in fact be closer to the truth than the author ever realized.

To anyone still reading my rambling nonsense: I myself do not define God as a thing, so much as a force. To me the remaining debate is this: did conciousness arise from biology, or (as suggested by Deepak Chopra) did biology arise to express some pre-existing conciousness?

James:

I missed your post, which hit the nail on the head. It is none of my business what you smoke, who you hump or what you believe. I just hate watching Government waste trillions of dollars while people continue to starve, children remain uneducated and quality of life stagnates for millions of Americans. If I thought for a moment that more socialism would solve these issues, I would happily accept a higher level of taxation without a second thought.

James, Colin and Zap, thank you all for responding with your valuable insights.

Then even though I'm conservative, I'm also a Liberatarian in the sense that I am totally against a Big Brother government, which is what you have in US right now. I'm also for minimising the role of government in everyday life. And I'm also all for the social aspects of libertarian.

Btw, conservative values do not include oppressing minorities and most especially the rights and freedoms of women. For the latter, you have my mum to thank for she sacrificed her happiness for the good of the family and I will always honour a woman's right to choose. < <

So I guess that makes me a conservative libertarian as well.

Zap, in support of the sentiments in your last post, a recent study showed that most Americans are willing to pay higher taxes for better health insurance. < <

http://www.crooksandliars.com/2007/03/05/most-americans-support-guaranteed-health-care-even-if-it-means-gasp-higher-taxes/

I had the most interesting unexpected conversation with my family on the weekend. We were having brunch talking about the Iraqi War and Jesus' supposed tomb and my uncle turns to me and says "Do you believe in god?" I thought for second whether I should be wishy washy and decided instead to say "Actually, no, I don't."

Sorry the rest was cut off....my Uncle replied: "Actually, I dont either" and then my mother piped in and said "yeah, me neither."

Mickle White Man:

"without religion all we'd have is..."

Without Cancer all we'd have is malaria, schistomiasis, influenza, warts, guinea worms, tapeworms, flesh-eating strep, staph, c. dificilis, heartburn, a.i.d.s., tuberculosis, gambling addiction, bulimia, herpes, ...

A cure for Cancer is no Pan-acea...therefore it is..

Worthless? What?

The lack of Cancer never gave people any less reason to trip and fall and break a bone or have a heart attack. So? And? That is screwy reasoning. Fool yourself, Mickle White Man.

Anyway Proto-Nazism started as a movement to revive the ancient German Gods, ever hear of Bayreuth? Check out the pseudo-Zarathustran Iranian insignia on the Nazi uniforms [Even the Hackenkreuz (swastika) is a profoundly religious symbol (more dynamic than the static Cross)], don't forget their Arche-typical "Aryan" Christ, their non-semitic Levites (Monica, Moses,..) , their anciently majestic Things, with candles (not German "Dings," bitte), their rallies, Munich, religiosity on steroids. Mega-churchs before the crystal cathedral.

As for Stalin's war on Science, his Republican-style Lysyenko-ism, his Cult of Personality, these are more akin to what we call religious fundamentalism than many actual "religions", such as buddhism. Mao too.

And all the Ils that plague mankind (2 so far).

Because we can't fix it all at once we shouldn't fix anything?

One step at a time, please.

By the way, how 'bout those Aztecs? Ten-thousand a day, just like Charlemagne in Saxonland.

Shamans are the root of, not all, but enough evil to not be ignored. Charles Manson is blameworthy, not Heinlein's Stranger, or L.'s Helter Skelter.

Don't confuse Lennon with Lenin.

A City on a Hill for a Fool on a Hill:

Fool who fools himself only !

one evil axis, if you are going to deride people for faulty logic, you should probably make an attempt to keep to logically fair statements yourself. I think it is slovenly logic to hijack the examples of Mao and Stalin, two totalitarian leaders of questionable religiosity, and call them examples of religion gone bad simply because their cult of personality apes certain patterns of religions.

Personally I believe that a larger problem than religion is humanity's tendancy toward blind obedience to a cause or person. And please don't even attempt to argue this can be ascribed wholly to religion; it cannot.

I've often thought Dawkins' focus on religion is a bit off in the sense that it should be more broadly applied to any ideology that's taken on faith, rather than facts. This would then include (of course) all religions, but also Stalinism, Nazism and Americanism (ie, "we're the best country in the world, ra, ra") for that matter.

^ In response to your comment on applying the concept more broadly, may I suggest this article which deals with what you are talking about.

Enjoy

Personally I believe that a larger problem than religion is humanity's tendancy toward blind obedience to a cause or person. And please don't even attempt to argue this can be ascribed wholly to religion; it cannot.

Agreed. I think Atheism and anti-religidiocy is simply more visible because it is more specific and participatory than "don't be blindly obedient".

It is kind of a David vs. Goliath sort of deal, and it invites people to pick a side (this isn't necessarily a good thing, but it sells).

In other words, Dawkins et al. have made Atheism a catchy brand for selling Reason, but it is somewhat watered down for the masses.

An added idea to my previous post, Religion is also special in that the blind obedience is to an invisible and nonexistent benefactor. And while Religion is easily manipulated by wannabe rulers and despots, its persistence is best attributed to memetics.

Some (Dawkins, probably) would argue that not only does this make Religion particularly interesting, it makes it particularly dangerous to humanity.

Oh, and interesting article you linked there, Erick. Thanks for posting it.

Hi Erick, that's a good article. Here's one that you may like.

From the section of origin of belief, it is said that "Very little evidence has yet appeared about how belief arose in humans."

Here's new evidence.

Scientist Finds the Beginnings of Morality in Primate Behavior March 20, 2007 By NICHOLAS WADE

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/20/science/20moral.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=slogin

Some animals are surprisingly sensitive to the plight of others. Chimpanzees, who cannot swim, have drowned in zoo moats trying to save others. Given the chance to get food by pulling a chain that would also deliver an electric shock to a companion, rhesus monkeys will starve themselves for several days.

Biologists argue that these and other social behaviors are the precursors of human morality. They further believe that if morality grew out of behavioral rules shaped by evolution, it is for biologists, not philosophers or theologians, to say what these rules are...

... Last year Marc Hauser, an evolutionary biologist at Harvard, proposed in his book “Moral Minds” that the brain has a genetically shaped mechanism for acquiring moral rules, a universal moral grammar similar to the neural machinery for learning language.

In another recent book, “Primates and Philosophers,” the primatologist Frans de Waal defends against philosopher critics his view that the roots of morality can be seen in the social behavior of monkeys and apes...

=============

This is a very important piece of evidence for Dawkins' claims that religion or morality was socially evolved.

I will be closely following the research of the philosophers and biologists who are names here.

=============

Catsby, I disagree with your comments on one evil axis.

Let me borrow your own words.

"I think it is slovenly logic to hijack the examples of Mao and Stalin, two totalitarian leaders of questionable ATHIEST LEANINGS, and call them examples of atheism gone bad simply because their cult of NON-BELIEF personality apes certain patterns of ATHIESM."

Micklewhite made this fraudlent observation in his first post here, second one from the top of the thread.

> one evil axis is merely calling attention to the fact that Nazism, Maoism and Communism have more religious underpinnings as compared to atheist undercurrents.

I have made the same points myself at this thread on March 19, 2007 10:30 PM.

Atheism is not Nazism or Communism in that it does not expose any form of government or personality cults, which are traits shared by religions such as Christianity.

If you want to debate further on this, you are free to do so, just as any one of us are free to debate from the other side of the fence.

Excellent article kes! Yes, if you discover new information regarding these subjects please share the wealth. :)

Hi Erick, you're welcome.

Do consider subscribing to www.sciencenow.org

They have daily updates on the latest research and white papers on all scientific topics and some new stuff on evolution that are not featured on any blog that I've been to.

Here's a recent example.

High on Speciation By John Simpson ScienceNOW Daily News 15 March 2007

http://sciencenow.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/2007/315/2?etoc

It seems like a no-brainer: To find out where most new species arise, see where most of them live. Take the tropics, home of more than half the known organisms on the planet. For nearly a century, researchers have assumed that new species are constantly popping up here, while speciation is far more stagnant at Earth's relatively deserted poles. But a new study claims the opposite: Species evolve much more readily at higher latitudes. It's just that the new arrivals die off so fast that most of them never get counted...

There were also 2 recent editorials on evolution and Darwin.

A Toast to Evolvability and Its Promise of Surprise

6 Mar 07 By NATALIE ANGIER

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/06/science/06angi.html?th&emc=th

...“The standard Darwinian view always sounds like a better theory for making improvements than for making inventions,” said Dr. Marc W. Kirschner, a professor of systems biology at Harvard Medical School. If incremental, additive genetic changes were responsible for all the boggling biodiversity we see around us, he said, how can it be that humans have hardly more genes than a microscopic nematode, and that many of those genes are nearly identical in roundworms and humans besides?

In their recently published book, “The Plausibility of Life,” Dr. Kirschner and Dr. John C. Gerhart of the University of California, Berkeley, offer a fresh look at the origins of novelty. They argue that many of the basic components and systems of the body possess the quality of what they call “evolvability” — that is, the components can be altered without wreaking havoc on the parts and systems that connect to them, and can even produce a reasonably functional organ or body part in their modified configuration. For example, if a genetic mutation ends up lengthening a limb bone, said Dr. Kirschner, the other parts that attach to and interact with that bone needn’t also be genetically altered in order to yield a perfectly serviceable limb. The nerves, muscles, blood vessels, ligaments and skin are all inherently plastic and adaptable enough to stretch and accommodate the longer bone during embryogenesis and thus, as a team, develop into a notably, even globally, transformed limb with just a single mutation at its base. And if, with that lengthened leg, the lucky recipient gets a jump on its competitors, well, g’day to you, baby kangaroo.

Dr. Kirschner also observes that cells and bodies are extremely modular, and parts can be moved around with ease. A relatively simple molecular switch that in one setting allows a cell to respond to sugar can, in a different context, help guide the maturation of a nerve cell. In each case, the activation of the switch initiates a tumbling cascade of complex events with a very distinctive outcome, yet the switch itself is just your basic on-off protein device. By all appearances, evolution has flipped and shuffled and retrofitted and duct-taped together a comparatively small set of starter parts to build a dazzling variety of botanic and bestial bodies...

=============

> This was featured in onegoodmove but surprisingly no one wanted to discuss the experiment on non-believers.

Darwin’s God March 4, 2007 By ROBIN MARANTZ HENIG

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/magazine/04evolution.t.html?th&emc=th

God has always been a puzzle for Scott Atran. When he was 10 years old, he scrawled a plaintive message on the wall of his bedroom in Baltimore. “God exists,” he wrote in black and orange paint, “or if he doesn’t, we’re in trouble.” Atran has been struggling with questions about religion ever since — why he himself no longer believes in God and why so many other people, everywhere in the world, apparently do.

...Atran, who is 55, is an anthropologist at the National Center for Scientific Research in Paris, with joint appointments at the University of Michigan and the John Jay College of Criminal Justice in New York. His research interests include cognitive science and evolutionary biology, and sometimes he presents students with a wooden box that he pretends is an African relic. “If you have negative sentiments toward religion,” he tells them, “the box will destroy whatever you put inside it.” Many of his students say they doubt the existence of God, but in this demonstration they act as if they believe in something. Put your pencil into the magic box, he tells them, and the nonbelievers do so blithely. Put in your driver’s license, he says, and most do, but only after significant hesitation. And when he tells them to put in their hands, few will.

If they don’t believe in God, what exactly are they afraid of? ...

> Do read on if you are interested in the “God of the gaps” view of religion.

I will quote the writer of the article in the following:

The presumption was that as science was able to answer more questions about the natural world, God would be invoked to answer fewer, and religion would eventually recede. Research about the evolution of religion suggests otherwise. No matter how much science can explain, it seems, the real gap that God fills is an emptiness that our big-brained mental architecture interprets as a yearning for the supernatural. The drive to satisfy that yearning, according to both adaptationists and byproduct theorists, might be an inevitable and eternal part of what Atran calls the tragedy of human cognition.

Btw, Atran was already doing research on why humans might have evolved to be religious, something few people were doing back in the ’80s.

Dawkins is only the latest advocate for an evolutionary impulse for a belief in God.

Sorry for not making this clear.

Atran takes the opposite view of Dawkins who claims that “Religious behavior may be a misfiring, an unfortunate byproduct of an underlying psychological propensity which in other circumstances is, or once was, useful,”

Great, Catsby.

Khmer- rougism, Mao-, Stalinism, etc. are not religions, per se, granted, BUT, they are akin in that true believing followers mass together in mindless movements of awesome consequence.

Be that as it may, my larger point was that one evil -ism at a time may be all we can deal with.

I am isolationist. Even New York City is far from my concerns. But here, and now, religion, in a most pernicious form is playing havoc with my country.

The Head of the Feds is an elected-or-non-elected retarded monkey who curls up his tail inside his suit during presidential debates: Incurious George yawns at Katrina and Global warming but shows intense curiosity about the interests of the Mega-churched, the Not-to-be-Left-Behinds, the Have-mores (because God WANTED them to have more, of course).

He believes that those on top are on top because GOD is in charge, and GOD wants it that way.

Those "on top" are on top of me. Here. Now. In this place, this time. I have no beef with anyone in Korea, Iran, Old or New Europe, Panama. Grenada, Viet-Nam, Okinawa, Philippines, Cuba, Djibouti, ....

..Israelites, Babylonians, Philistines, Canaanites, Moabites...

Moabites? Come to think those damn Jeeps are a problem in Moab.

Moab, Utah.

And Lake Powell, Glen Canyon, Damn the Dam! Bring back the canyon.

When are the Monkey Wrench Gangs going to get hip to Improvised Devices?

MWGs with WMDs?

I like it.

But back to religion. Maybe if so many fools didn't expect a miracle they would come back down to Earth.

After all was said and done, Religiosity went out of fashion in the British Empire when they woke up after the party to find the Sun setting on it.

The Divine Emperor of Japan brought down very real, actual, nuclear bombs upon His True Believers. The Japanese woke up, rubbed their eyes. The most ardent Nazis, lost Faith, and gained... Reality.

We can too. Here, Now.

We are not Chosen.

To rule over the Earth.

In God's name.

To bring it on.

What ever "it" is (Armageddon, maybe?).

Let's loose the religion before it loses us, making us the world's next big losers in the process.

One evil -ism at a time.

I vote fundamentalism.

At Home.

And for the next evil -ism, when that's done?

Shamanism, shamefully, even closer to home.

"Without religion all we'd have would be the atheist atrocities committed by the Chinese, the Cambodians, Russians, and the Nazis. The lack of a god doesn't give people any less reason to kill eachother." yes it does. No one kills in the name of atheist. nazism and the other ideologies you had in mind were the symbol for which killing was made, just like religion.

Kes, you distorted my argument out of context. I'm not making any assertions about atheism in that post.

Now, do you really debate my logic in questioning the validity of using seemingly irreligious people to launch an argument against religion?

Now here's an interesting thought. If, as some of what kes posted would suggest, religion is the by-product of evolutionary psychology gone haywire, who is to say it can be dispensed with, even if that was what we all wanted? If it's hardwired into us we may be stuck with it, for better or for worse.

In any case, since religion tends to be something people hold in the same realm as their political leanings, one must realize that neither rhetoric nor empirical proof of its vices will change it. In my opinion we must combat the use of religion as a tool for control and absolutism. It is probably unwise as well as ethically troublesome to crusade against religion as a whole, since such a pursuit would stray into the realm of absolutism- the very thing it would seek to root out.

Catsby, I did not distort your argument beyond pointing out that your argument can apply to Christians who "hijack the examples of Mao and Stalin" and and call them examples of atheism gone bad.

I have articulated my points against your position clearly.

And please don't just quote Dawkins.

Atran has studied religion as an evolutionary process decades before Dawkins started.

And I differ him to his expertise as sumed up here:

No matter how much science can explain, it seems, the real gap that God fills is an emptiness that our big-brained mental architecture interprets as a yearning for the supernatural. The drive to satisfy that yearning, according to both adaptationists and byproduct theorists, might be an inevitable and eternal part of what Atran calls the tragedy of human cognition.

Dawkins was off-base when he claimed that religion was "an unfortunate byproduct of an underlying psychological propensity which in other circumstances is, or once was, useful,”

>>Any student of ancient or military history will tell you that religion, especially fundamentalist movements, is one of the most effective means for mass mobilisation of people and resources in the past. And the present for that matter.

Just take a look and you can see that most, if not all, cultures and past civilisations boast of leaders who are divine, semi-divine or who were appointed by the Gods or were their heirs.

Without such a status, their people would be far less likely to obey their edicts such as mobilising for war or for mass construction projects like pyramids, the Great of China etc.

It is far easier to disobey a mere mortal or man as compared to the prospect of defying a godl-ike being.

Besides, religion serves a useful purpose in uniting the people of a far flung nation or empire by fostering loyalth and identity to a common ruler, government or even cult of personality.

It's a lot more cheaper than garrisoning every town and every hamlet with your troops to make sure people obey.

With that in mind, do consider the fact that Lord was a word never used in the original Bible and that Christ never claimed that he was a Lord or used the word as such.

As an English word from feudal times, the English translation “Lord” refers specifically to a male European land baron.

Thus the use of the term “Lord” may be due to the wish of the scribes and clergy to let Christian followers know that God and Jesus, who is their Lord, expect their full loyalty.

And it worked. They performed admirably their expected task as a flock of sheep at the beck and call of their shephard.

Catsby, I did not distort your argument beyond pointing out that your argument can apply to Christians who "hijack the examples of Mao and Stalin" and and call them examples of atheism gone bad.

That doesn't disprove what I said. It merely says that Christians use the same fallacious argument one evil axis was. That hardly makes it admissible.

Also, I didn't quote Dawkins.

And you seem to think I'm arguing against atheism somehow. I'm not. The only aspect of it I take issue with is the camp that seems to think "getting rid of" religion would be plausible and/or prudent.

If, as some of what kes posted would suggest, religion is the by-product of evolutionary psychology gone haywire, who is to say it can be dispensed with, even if that was what we all wanted? If it's hardwired into us we may be stuck with it, for better or for worse.

Are we programmed for faith? What difference does it make?

Harris v. Sullivan debate:

Dear Andrew -

Many thanks for your latest essay. I've got too much to say, so permit me to jump right in:

You write that "we are evolutionarily programmed for faith." While this claim seems debatable, let's just accept it as a given. What can we conclude from this? We certainly can't conclude that any specific religious doctrine is true (or likely to be true). Nor can we say that religious faith is desirable in the 21st century, or even compatible with our long-term survival as a species. Here is your quotation from Justin Barrett, with a few, minor edits:

"[Viking] theology teaches that people were crafted by [Odin] to [rape and pillage]. Why wouldn't [Odin], then, design us in such a way as to find [raping and pillaging] quite natural?

We probably do have a genetic proclivity for raping and pillaging. Clearly, rape is an excellent strategy for getting one's genes into the next generation, and a wide variety of species engage in it (orangutans are notorious; they've even raped humans.) But who is going to argue for the moral legitimacy of rape based on the fact that it has paid evolutionary dividends? The fact that we have a biological tendency to attribute agency to forces in nature does not suggest that it is wise (or moral) to nurture this disposition.

I am personally sick of the atheism vs theological debate so frequently posted on this site! I, and I suspect most of the readers are too. I am firmly in the atheist camp and have been for virtually my whole life. We are pulling ourselves down to their mired level of intelligence to engage in debating over the issue. We will never convince them to come around to our point of view. Some old southern proverb that Ross Perot once quoted involved the flawed wisdom of wrestling with a pig. "It only gets you covered with mud and it annoys the pig." Grow up!! Hearing learned scholars, like Dawkins, engaging in debate with creationists is comparable to hearing the team in-charge of the Apollo moon landing engaging in a debate with representatives of the flat earth society on the shape of the world. Stop wasting our brain power on this rubbish. We're certainly not going to bring them around to our point of view and they are certainly wrong. The proponderence of irrefutable scientific evidence supports this. You either believe science or you don't. This is not one of the great debates about the ethicacy of slavery in the USA at the time of the civil war. The two schools of thought are not even close. Science has a preponderance of evidence to support it's claims and we, as educated (and actual scientists in my case) are cheepening ourselves by pretending that this is an open issue that may be resolved through discussion. Do you really think that somebody is going to talk you into believing in creationism/intelligent design???? Switch it around; do you really think you are going to be able to talk a "fundi" into believing in natural selection and evolution? I know a lot of atheists grew up in torment by having to reject a theistic belief system that never made any sense and makes even less and less as they got older. Growing up trying to avoid having an 'innate' belief in God shoved down our throats could be compared to child abuse. Still, would a formerly abused child (now an adult)really gain any closure and healing if they went back and beat up their now aged and weak former parent/abuser? No. Let's grow up and move past this and let the bible thumpers rot in their ignorance. It might take another 2000 years but what we know is true today will gradually filter down. Making confrontation now only presents us as a lightening rod.

I’ve enjoyed reading your comments! I agree with those comments of religion’s responsibility for all the bloodshed down through the century’s. It’s really eye-opening to research the crusades of the middle ages and their responsibility of tens of thousands of deaths of those who didn’t believe the way they did. A far cry from what Jesus taught. He didn’t teach hate and killing. He said at John 13:34, 35 “I am giving you a new commandment, that you love one another; just as I have loved you, that you also love one another. By this all will know that you are my disciples, if you have love among yourselves.”—John 13:34, 35. During Jesus’ earthly ministry, he tried to persuade the people to the truth but if they choose not to accept it, he merely went his way to talk to others.

There so many different religions in the world, Christian and non-Christian, each has a slightly different take on what truth is. Why do we have so many different religions if Jesus taught only one truth and one means of salvation? Eph 4:5 tells us there is one God, one faith, one baptism. If you believe that Jesus taught the truth when on earth then you must agree that all religions are not approved by God since many of the things taught and practiced by Christendom are in direct opposition to what Jesus taught.

How did we get to this place that Richard Dawkins wrote about where so many evil things are being done in the name of religion?

The Scriptures foretold a great apostasy, or falling away from the true faith. At Matt 13:24-30, 36-43 Jesus’ parable of the symbolic weeds, that is, counterfeit Christians, would try to choke out the symbolic wheat, or true Christians, those anointed with God’s spirit. The parable reveals that the spread of false Christianity, promoted by God’s archenemy, the Devil, was about to begin. This took place after the death of Christ’s faithful apostles. (Matt 13:24-30, 36-43; 2 Thess 2: 6-8) As foretold by the apostles, many counterfeit Christians wormed their way into the fold. (Acts 20:29, 30; 1 Tim 4:1-3; 2 Tim 2:16-18; 2 Pet 2:1-3)

In the early 4th century, the pagan Roman emperor Constantine used the apostate ‘Christian’ religion to cement his disintegrating empire. To this end, he granted religious freedom and transferred some of the privileges of the Pagan Society to be won for the church. He convened the Council of Nicaea in 325 C.E., where the Nicene Creed spelling out the Trinity doctrine was adopted. With the alliance of religion and political power sealed by Roman emperor Constantine, Christendom lost her high moral level and accepted many practices and philosophies from Paganism, such as “the cult of Mary”, the adoration of the Saints and the concept of the trinity.

In the parable, Jesus said to let both the wheat and the weeds grow together until the harvest. Then he will tell the reapers to collect the weeds and burn them up and to gather the wheat into his storehouse. According to this parable, false religion will meet its end during the 'harvest’. He went on to say in verse 39 that the harvest is the end of the world. Most people agree that we are now living during the harvest.

It’s not religion that’s responsible for all the bad things that’s being done in the name of God. It’s FALSE religion! The good news of God’s kingdom (as mankind’s only hope for salvation) is being preached in all the inhabited earth for the purpose of a witness to all the nations, and then the end will come. Matt. 24:14

Do you know of any religion that practices what Jesus taught? That has love among themselves and for their neighbor? Why not talk to them the next time they call at your door. Invite them in and allow them to share the ‘good news of God’s kingdom with you! If you just can’t wait, contact the local Kingdom Hall of Jehovah’s Witnesses. Someone will be happy to share the grand hope of the Bible with you, free of charge.

Rape is an act of abuse against another individual. Religion is a set of personal convictions. Rape is always a hurtful and destructive act. Can you categorically say the same thing about religion? Do you really want to jump on the bandwagon with that inflammitory comparison?

More specious comparisons made to incite moral indignation, instead of leading a line of thought to an objective, reasonable conclusion.

By the way, Erick, I should point out that even if we're going to use that counterargument, which I find loathsome, it does not nullify my statement; have we managed to eradicate rape? Will we ever? Probably not. It goes without saying we are obligated to try, as we are obligated to fight the abuse and manipulation of religion.

(Now I'm done with that comparison. Say you "win" on that point if you want. I find using rape as a rhetorical device callous and disgusting.)

Overall I think it's reactionary and foolish for people to respond to destructive facets of religion by agitating for an end to all religion. Because in the process they just become another sect trying to ram a set of principles down peoples' throats.

Barbara, your comments on Emperor Constantine i.e "the pagan Roman emperor Constantine used the apostate ‘Christian’ religion to cement his disintegrating empire." The Pope also did the same thing i.e. calling for the Crusade to rally support and power to the previously powerless office of the Pope.

Hi Catsby, I'm glad that you agree that this reasoning is inadmissable when used by Christians: "your argument can apply to Christians who "hijack the examples of Mao and Stalin" and and call them examples of atheism gone bad."

> > However, Christians are far more likely to use this reasoning to attack atheism as compared to the other way around.

So why just mention that it's wrong when atheists use it? You certainly did not mention the propsentity of Christians to use this approacvh to critique atheism.

Second, you did quote Dawkins when you stated that "If, as some of what kes posted would suggest, religion is the by-product of evolutionary psychology gone haywire.." The by-product angle is a direct quote from Dawkins.

==========

> > Erick makes a good point in that if we are created by an Intelligent Designer with all sorts of impulses such as the propensity or need to worship, it certainly applies to the Designer programming unto us the ability to hate, commit violence and evil.

Hence, I find it odd why Catsby can say that: "By the way, Erick, I should point out that even if we're going to use that counterargument, which I find loathsome..." Why loathsome? Didn't Christians claim we were made in God's image?

That does mean that God is responsible for all the good things and bad things of human beings if he was our Creator.

Or is it that hidden Christian bias that atrribute all the good in man to God and blame all the evil on the dastardly nature of man? Shaky and wishful reasoning isn't it?

> > Good discussion, people!

I couldn’t agree with you more Kes. The first Crusade began around 1096 C.E. Many historians list eight major ones. They were accompanied by massacres and cruelty committed in the name of God and Christ. The last major Crusade began 174 years later, in 1270.

The declared motive for the Crusades was to take Jerusalem and the so-called holy sepulcher from the Muslims. But the causes ran deeper. An important factor that led to the Crusades was the turbulent political, economic, and religious climate that prevailed in Europe.

At the top of the social hierarchy were numerous feudal barons. These professional warlords wanted to take advantage of the political vacuum created by the breakup of Charlemagne’s empire and conquer new estates. The church of Rome was also experiencing a period of turmoil. In 1054 it lost control of the Eastern Church. In addition, many of the clergy were being accused of immorality and of meddling in politics.

In this climate the First Crusade was called by Pope Urban II. In his eyes military action to re-conquer Jerusalem and Palestine would serve several purposes. It would consolidate the unity of Western Christendom and reaffirm the primacy of the Roman Church. It would provide a vent for perpetual disputes among the upper classes. In exchange for religious and, above all, economic benefits, these would put their military expertise to work for a “noble” cause, becoming the armed wing of the church.

The Crusades and their failure should have taught that economic greed and desire for political prominence can lead to fanaticism and massacre. But the lesson has been ignored. The evidence lies in the many conflicts that have continued to stain many parts of our planet with blood. In these, religion often serves as a front for abominations.

Amazingly, even today little has changed. “Fighting and dying under religious flags go on with a violent persistence,” Time magazine reported. “Protestants and Roman Catholics in Ulster trade killings in a kind of perpetual motion of futility. Arabs and Israelis stand tensely at borders of territorial, cultural and religious dispute.” Furthermore, ethnic and religious differences have been responsible for horrible massacres in the former republics of Yugoslavia, as well as in Asian lands.

Incredibly, professed Christians often go to war against members of their own faith. Thus, Catholics kill Catholics, protestants kill protestants on battlefields. Catholic historian E. I. Watkin acknowledged: “Painful as the admission must be, we cannot in the interest of a false edification or dishonest loyalty deny or ignore the historical fact that Bishops have consistently supported all wars waged by the government of their country. I do not know in fact of a single instance in which a national hierarchy has condemned as unjust any war . . . Whatever the official theory, in practice ‘my country always right’ has been the maxim followed in wartime by Catholic Bishops.”

Yet, that is not the maxim of Catholics only. An editorial in the Sun of Vancouver, Canada, noted: “Protestantism in no way can claim to escape these forces of nationalistic divisiveness. It is a weakness of perhaps all organized religion that the church follows the flag . . . What war was ever fought in which God wasn’t claimed to be on each side?”

DOES THIS MEAN THAT ALL RELIGION IS WRONG? NO! But we must distinguish between true religion and false religion.

The Bible foretold these things would happen. Note the Apostle Paul’s warning at Acts 20:29, 30: “I know that after my going away oppressive wolves will enter in among you and will not treat the flock with tenderness, and from among you yourselves men will rise and speak twisted things to draw away the disciples after themselves.” He also said: “For there will be a period of time when they will not put up with the healthful teaching, but, in accord with their own desires, they will accumulate teachers for themselves to have their ears tickled; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, whereas they will be turned aside to false stories.” (2 Tim. 4:3, 4)

Jesus warned that not all professing to be Christians would actually follow his course: “It is unavoidable that causes for stumbling should come. Nevertheless, woe to the one through whom they come!” (Luke 17:1) The Apostle Peter warned: “However, there also came to be false prophets among the people, as there will also be false teachers among you. These very ones will quietly bring in destructive sects and will disown even the owner that bought them, bringing speedy destruction upon themselves. Furthermore, many will follow their acts of loose conduct, and on account of these the way of the truth will be spoken of abusively.” (2 Pet. 2:1, 2; 2 Thess. 2:7)

Not for much longer though. Jehovah has set a day in which He purposes to judge the inhabited earth in righteousness by a man whom He has appointed, and He has furnished a guarantee to all men in that He has resurrected him from the dead”. (Acts 17:31) Very soon now the spirit that fostered the Crusades and that continues to foster modern-day “holy” wars will pass away along with all false religion and the whole system subject to the domination of Satan.—Psalm 46:8, 9; 1 John 5:19; Revelation 18:4, 5, 24.

Kes,

You can legitimately find the word ‘Lord’ in the Bible used as a title. When you see it in all caps (LORD), it is being used to replace the personal name of Jehovah.

The divine name Jehovah, Tetragrammaton form (YHWH), occurs almost 7,000 times in the Hebrew Scriptures. Descriptive titles as “God,” “Sovereign Lord,” “Creator,” “Father,” “the Almighty,” and “the Most High,” his personality and attributes—who and what he is—are fully summed up and expressed only in this personal name, Jehovah—Ps 83:18.

At some point a superstitious idea arose among the Jews that it was wrong even to pronounce the divine name (represented by the Tetragrammaton). Just what basis was originally assigned for discontinuing the use of the name is not definitely known. Some hold that the name was viewed as being too sacred for imperfect lips to speak. Yet the Hebrew Scriptures themselves give no evidence that any of God’s true servants ever felt any hesitancy about pronouncing his name. Non-Biblical Hebrew documents, such as the so-called Lachish Letters, show the name was used in regular correspondence in Palestine during the latter part of the seventh century B.C.E. This practice led to the divine name Jehovah being removed from the scriptures almost entirely. Some translations have correctly removed the title ‘LORD’ and replaced it with the divine name Jehovah.

While Jesus Christ was on earth, persons besides his disciples called him “Lord,” or “Sir.” (Mt 8:2; Joh 4:11) In these cases the designation was primarily a title of respect or courtesy. However, to his apostles Jesus showed that calling him “Lord” involved more than this. “You address me; ‘Teacher,’ and, ‘Lord,’ and you speak rightly, for I am such.” (Joh 13:13) As his disciples, these apostles were his learners, or pupils. Thus he was their Lord, or Master.

His title Lord, especially took on greater significance after Jesus’ death and resurrection. By means of his sacrificial death, he purchased his followers, this making him their Owner. (Joh 15:13, 14; 1Co 7:23; 2Pe 2:1; Jude 4; Re 5:9, 10) He was also their King and Bridegroom to whom they were subject as their Lord. (Ac 17:7; Eph 5:22-27; compare Joh 3:28, 29; 2Co 11:2; Re 21:9-14.)

As Jesus himself said: “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will.”—Mt 7:21. Jehovah God also granted immortality to his faithful Son. "Jehovah said to my Lord: Sit at my right hand, until I place your enemies as a stool for your feet.” [Psalm 110:1] Therefore let all the house of Israel know for a certainty that God made him both Lord and Christ, this Jesus whom you impaled.”—Acts 1:12 to 2:36. Although many men have ruled as kings or lords, only Jesus Christ, the “King of kings and Lord of lords,” has immortality.—1Ti 6:14-16; Re 19:16.

What Jesus DIDN'T claim to be was equal to his father, Jehovah. Jesus knew that he was not equal to his Father but in every way was in a subordinate position. He knew that he was a beloved Son who had deep love for his Father. That is why, time and again, Jesus made statements such as the following: “The Son cannot do a single thing of his own initiative, but only what he beholds the Father doing.” (John 5:19) “I have come down from heaven to do, not my will, but the will of him that sent me.” (John 6:38) “What I teach is not mine, but belongs to him that sent me.” (John 7:16) “I know him [God], because I am a representative from him, and that One sent me forth.” (John 7:29) The one who does the sending is the superior. The one who is sent is the lesser, the servant. God is the sender. Jesus is the one who is sent. They are not the same. As Jesus expressed it: “A slave is not greater than his master, nor is one that is sent forth greater than the one that sent him.”—John 13:16.

Hi Barbara, thanks for the comments. Here are my replies.

I'm afraid that you are wrong about the use of the word "Lord" in the Bible.

There are many linguistic inaccuracies in the Bible, which may distort its meaning entirely.

With that in mind, do consider the fact that Lord [an English word] was a word never used in the original Bible and that Christ never claimed that he was a Lord or used the word as such.

As an English word from feudal times, the English translation “Lord” refers specifically to a male European land baron.

=============

Whereas the Greek word “kurios” had a range of meanings, from a title of respect, to a title of leadership, to a name for the sacred, the English translation “Lord” refers specifically to a male European land baron.

=============

Here's another example.

The word Christ is a Greek-derived title meaning “Anointed One”. At his time, Jesus was known as Jesus of Nazareth. Note that this Jesus, the brother of James, may not necessarily be Jesus Christ.

Note that Christian accounts were readily available while centuries of inquiry have turned up no authentic contemporaneous Roman documents related to a historical Jesus Christ.

==============

2] Jesus Walked on Ice not water 6 Apr 2006 Water, Researchers Say

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/05/AR2006040501709_pf.html

3] The parable of Jesus and the prostitute and the crowd wasn’t originally in the Gospels' oldest manuscripts for the Bible don’t have the story. It seemed to be added by scribes hundreds of years later perhaps as a margin of the manuscript to illustrate Jesus’ goodwill.

==========

The Bible is filled with contradictions and inaccuracies and the problem is compounded by the fact that despite the 5000 + manuscripts we have for the Bible, no two is alike with hundreds of thousands of differences in these manuscripts. As the original are lost, people have open license to put their interpretations into the text. The bible is copied by human scribes and written by human authors with different views, perspectives during the 300 years between death of Jesus and Constantine.

Even the disciples contradict or oppose one another on many points.

So it's best not to take the Bible too literally or believe in it too much.

==========

The Bible foretold these things would happen. If it did, why do Christians still let them happen, rather than avoid such violence and bloodshed? Such comments are a bit hard to distinguish from retrospective hindset and hindset is always 60/60.

Let me probe this more closely.

Did Jesus made any mention that Christians the the Church would go all out to prosecute Jews because they were his killers?

The first Crusade witnessed the killing of the Jewish towns and settlements in the Rhineland (part of present day Germany) en route to the Middle East.

Martin Luther, the German who started the Protestant movement and modern Christianity, were rabidly anti-semite and wrote many writings advocating their eradication. His teachings found willing converts in the Nazis which led to the Jewish Holocaust.

Did Jesus foretell that his willingness to be martyred indirectly by the Jews would lead to an all out witch hunt against his own people i.e. the Jews whom he was sent to save?

Funny that Jesus did not try to save them, even in his writings to future generations.

If the Bible is prescient about the future, why did it not warn Christians against committing violence and bloodshed in the name of religion?

Take the example of the Crusades. The Crusaders were going against the tenets of the Bible. While the Pope was politically motivated in pushing for the Crusades, his greatest failures of the people involved i.e. Crusaders and their leaders occurred on the moral and spiritual side.

They were wrongly motivated by a desire to rescue from infidel hands things and places which were thought to have a sacred value.

Moreover, it was thought that by revering these things via pilgrimages to such places such as Jerusalem, special spiritual benefits could be obtained. The New Testament teaches no such things.

As a matter of fact, it teaches the very opposite. Inordinate veneration and pursuit of physical objects is idolatry (Eph. 5:5; I Cor. 10:14; I Jn. 5:2). Never were relics, images, or holy places involved in the devotion of early Christians.

They were devoted to Christ, not to things, and were never promised any special rewards for pilgrimages or the veneration of relics. Christ Himself dismissed the idea of holy places when He said men would worship the Father in spirit and truth, not in Jerusalem (Jn. 4:1924).

They were wrong in their very character because they were attended with terrible cruelty. Members of the First Crusade massacred Jews in the Rhineland and provoked bloody reprisals in Hungary. When Jerusalem was finally captured, they ruthlessly slaughtered the inhabitants. By the moral standards of the New Testament the Crusades were a despicable disgrace (Matt. 5:7,43-48; Jas. 2:13).

The Pope and his Crusaders were also wrong per se, for the New Testament teaches with the utmost clarity that the weapons used, and the wars waged, in the interests of Christ's kingdom - are not to be of a physical nature (Jn. 18:36; II Cor. 10:3,4; Eph. 6:10-18).

That means Christians are not allowed to engage in a Holy war on Earth. They can’t use weapons or anything that can be used as one with a physical nature.

Sorry for the typo:

Barbara Hawkins said: "The Bible foretold these things would happen..." If it did, why do Christians still let them happen, rather than avoid such violence and bloodshed? Such comments are a bit hard to distinguish from retrospective hindset and hindset is always 60/60.

re; kelly higgins, who is "sick" of theo-/atheo- debate,

do fundamentalists really (really really in their heart of hearts) believe what they claim to?

psychological experiments on prejudice, stereotypes, "racism," and such catch people in generalizations and unconscious assumptions that they don't think they have.

someone should run some tests on these guys, and for good measure, do polygraphs, brain-imaging, who knows what to catch them out in their supposed "beliefs".

kids play socially intelligent pretend games on the playground, who says adults can't role-play/game-play?

they just do it better, maybe?

(e.g.: excruciatingly honest introspection reveals that I believe in the Stones, and really have no faith in the Beatles after all. I never knew.)

Kes, Per your statement that if we are created by an intellignet designer with all sorts of impulses such as the propensity or need to worship, it certainly applies to the Designer programming into us the ability to hate and commit violent acts or evil.

We do have free will, that's true. Otherwise, it would have been impossible for the first man to sin, disobey God. Examination of the causes of evil focuses attention on our first human parents. God created them perfect and put them in paradise surroundings. If they had obeyed God, they would never have got sick or died. They could have enjoyed perfect human life forever. Suffering and evil deeds were not part of God's purpose for mankind. God did make it clear to man, however, that continued enjoyment of what He ahd given them depended on obedience. They chose to go their own way, to set their own standards of good and bad. Sin led to death. It was as sinners that Adam and Eve produced children, and they could not pass on to their children what they no longer had. All were born in sin, with inclinations toward wrongdoing. Because everyone on earth today was born in sin, all of us experience suffering in various ways. Gen.2:16,17,; 3:1-6. Gen.8:21; Romans 5:12.

Satan and his demons also share responsibility. The bible discloses that much suffering is because of the influence of wicked spirits. The Bible identifies Satan as the god of this world. 1John 5:19 says: "The whold world is lying in the power of the wicked one." and Revelation 12:9 tells us: "The one called Devil and Satan...is misleading the entire inhabited earth. The suffering for which so many people blame God does not come from him at all. Rev.12:12; Acts10:38. But some say: If God is all powerful why doesn't he put a stop to all the suffering. Let me illustrate. Imagine that a teacher is telling his students how to solve a difficult problem. A clever but rebellious student claim that the teacher's way of solving the problem is wrong. Implying that the teacher is not capable, this rebel insists that he knows a much better way to solve the problem. Some students think that he is right, and they also become rebellious. What should the teacher do? If he throws the rebels out of the class, what will be the effect on the other students? Will thy not believe that their frllow student and those who joined him are right? All the other students in the class might lose respect for the teacher, thinking that he is afraid of being proved wrong. but suppose that the teacher allows the rebel to show the class how he would solve the problem. God has done something similar to what the teacher does. Remember that the rebels in Eden were not the only ones involved. Millions of angels and eventually all intelligent creation would be affected. (Job 38:7; Daniel 7:10). So what has God done? He has allowed Satan to show how he would rule mankind. God has also allowed humans to govern themselves under Satan's guidance. The teacher knows that the rebel and the students on his side are wrong. But he also knows that allowing them the opportunity to try to prove their point will benefit the whole class. When the rebels fail, all honest students will see that the teacher is the only one qualified to lead the class. They will understand why the teacher thereafter removes any rebels from the class. Similarly, Jehovah knows that all honest hearted humans and angels will benefit from seeing that Satan and his fellow rebels have failed and that humans cannot govern them selves. It's just as Jeremiah 10:23 says: "It does not belong to man to direct his own step.

God created them perfect and put them in paradise surroundings. If they had obeyed God, they would never have got sick or died.

If they would have been perfect, they wouldn't have sinned in the first place.

Unless you have a different definition of perfecion?

perfection*

Vera said: "Kes, Per your statement that if we are created by an intellignet designer with all sorts of impulses such as the propensity or need to worship, it certainly applies to the Designer programming into us the ability to hate and commit violent acts or evil.

We do have free will, that's true. Otherwise, it would have been impossible for the first man to sin, disobey God.... " Vera, I'm glad you agree on my point. Unfortunately, I can't agree with your premise. There are some issues.

First human ancestors? Are you assuming that we all came from Adam and Eve?

You are aware that the fossil record is quite in showing that different type of humanoids exist in almost the same time frame.

So is Adam the Peking Man? Or Eve the Java Woman?

Since when does the Church believe in free will?

I've made it clear in my earlier post that the Church CENSORED and BANNED Christian writings that contradict the 4 Biblical Gospels that became the Bible.

This meant the Church is against an alternative interpretation of Jesus's message.

It was funny when so-called 'heretics' who embraced Thomas' Gnostic ideas were also drawn to the Biblical Gospel of John. They could read [John] as poetry, with a wide range of interpretation. If you can read it that way, you can find things in it that Christians have found in it for hundreds of years: mysticism, poetry.

This exercise in free will threatens the cohesiveness of a rather fragile Church in its early days, which can ill afford dissention among its ranks.

It's precisely for that reason that one of the second-century church fathers, Irenaeus, said, "The Gospel of John is all right, but you have to read it my way."

His way meant Jesus alone offers access to salvation and that believing in him is the only way to truth, and that not believing is a sure path to damnation.

That's based on Jesus' statement in John 14:6: "No one comes to the father but by me."

That directly contradicts Thomas' gospel who suggest that Jesus taught something quite different, which is that everyone, in fact all being, came from that divine source and that we can access that divinity on our own. Thomas writes, "Within a person of light, there is light."

In the totality of the accepted Christian canon, there are passages that do indicate there's a spark of the divine in everyone. There's "The kingdom of God is within you" in Luke, as you mention in the book, or Paul's "your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit."

However, this humanistic interpretation was interruped some time around A.D. 180 when Bishop Irenaeus of Lyons denounced all gospels but Matthew, Mark, Luke and John as heretical, "an abyss of madness and of blasphemy."

=====

It's thus hard to believe that Christians and Christianity believe in free will when they willingly abide by an arbitrary censorship of their knowledge of Christian writings without any question or dissention once the Church fathers made their decision.

It is also a Christian failing to condemn us all as born sinners even if we are still babes, regardless of race or religion.

What is especially troubling is that we still blame Satan and his demons for our sins, even after we accept the premise that God has programmed both the propensity for doing good and evil in us. If we do evil, it is a design of God's as much as when do good.

Will we remain prey to the degrading notion that evil lies without rather than within us?

Or that our sins or evils may be the result of an outside entity, rather than as a consequence of our indulgence into our baser instincts and needs such as greed?

=====

Barbara and Vera, I think it's high time that you put down the masculine interpretation of Christianity.

Do spend time reading the Thunder Perfect Mind, which is a Gnostic Christian poem in the voice of a feminine divine power.

After reading it, then you decide whether it is as heretical as the Church Fathers claim.

I'm sure that you two value free will in practise as much as free will in principle, correct?

If you are trendy and idenitfy with yoga and meditation, do read the Gnostic Christian text called Allogenos.

This is an ancient meditation text which is not specifically Christian. But Christian monks liked it for the same reason monks today read Buddhist texts about meditation.

Don't just quote from the 4 Bibiblical Gospels.

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are only a small selection of gospels from among the dozens that circulated among early Christian groups.

The Gnostic Christian texts or writings number in 50.

Don't you feel it odd that a non-believer like me can read much on Christianity than a believer like you?

How can you convert me if I know more about the message of Jesus than you or your pastor or for that matter, any Evangelical Christian leader in America?

Let's talk as equals once you catch up on your Christian homework.

No offense intended. Just sincere in my wish for a discussion on substance, rather than superficial, pre-censored quotes from the Bible which is a collection on minority views on Christianity.

Kes, I couldn’t respond any better than did the Apostle Paul at 1 Corinthians 1:18-29: 3:18-21.

For you behold his calling of you, brothers, that not many wise in a fleshly way were called, not many powerful, not many noble; but God chose the foolish things of the world, that he might put the wise men to shame, and God chose the weak things of the world, that he might put the strong things to shame; and God chose the ignoble things of the world and the things looked down upon, the things that are not, that he might bring to nothing the things that are, in order that no flesh might boast in the sight of God. . . . If anyone among you thinks he is wise in this system of things, let him become a fool, that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God; for it is written: 'He catches the wise in their own craftiness.' And again: 'Jehovah knows that the reasonings of the wise men are futile.' Hence let no one be boasting in men." (1 Cor. 1:18-29; 3:18-21)

What you fail to appreciate is that intelligence has absolutely nothing to do with it. Jehovah is NOT looking for intelligence. The most intelligent man is as nothing in comparison to the creator of man. No, what Jehovah IS looking for first of all, is the right heart condition, the right mental disposition, one of humility, sincerity and mildness. (Ps 25:9). We have no greater example of humility than Christ Jesus himself. As a perfect man when on earth I’m sure his intelligence was greater than even yours but he was always lowly of mind. On the last night of his earthly life, he washed the feet of his disciples as a lesson in humility and willingness to serve one another in the humblest way. (John 13:1-16; Luke 22:24-27)

As a perfect man when on earth I’m sure his intelligence was greater than even yours but he was always lowly of mind.

This idea that Jesus is the architype of perfection is a falsehood that is perpetuated in nearly every church and every household and is a falsehood that is rarely examined by those who would rather cite chapter and verse than think.

Perfect man?

Get real!

There have been many Schizophrenic (often homosexual) "Messiahs" in the Jewish tradition.

Before, and especially after Jesus.

They almost always end the same. Rejected by those in the know (Jews), treated like any other lunatic by the benighted Authorities (usually executed). I believe there were at leat 3 or 4 in the Ottoman Empire alone.

Barbara, you are missing the point. Kes is not trying to say he is better, smarter, wiser, or more intelligent than you. He certainly knows more about the history of Christianity. And indeed, trying to get the point across that if more Christians actually knew their history, they would be more likely to not be so blind in their faith.

Also, he is not trying to come to Christ through intelligence, as you imply. In fact, as far as I can tell he is not trying to come to Christ at all. So your argument is not even valid.

I hope I'm not crossing any lines here. And I'm certainly not trying to speak for anyone (especially not the very well educated and articulate Kes:-). Just expressing my observations.

Perfect man?

Get real!

There have been many Schizophrenic (often homosexual) "Messiahs" in the Jewish tradition.

Before, and especially after Jesus.

They almost always end the same. Rejected by those in the know (Jews), treated like any other lunatic by the benighted Authorities (usually executed). I believe there were at leat 3 or 4 in the Ottoman Empire alone.

one evil axis, you write:"There have been many Schizophrenic (often homosexual) "Messiahs" in the Jewish tradition."

i assume you're talking about the various "false messiahs" (is there any other kind?), which include jesus. you could probably make a case that they were all schizo, esp. jesus. but homosexual? could you provide some examples of this?

i know i present myself as the big "expert" on jewish tradition here, but what i don't know far outweighs what i do know, and i'm really curious.

On the last night of his earthly life, he washed the feet of his disciples as a lesson in humility and willingness to serve one another in the humblest way.

Or he just had a foot fetish.

Since most of you posting seem to not believe in God and therefore don’t believe in the Bible, I invite you to consider this:

How could you go about determining whether there is a maker and ruler of the universe, a Supreme Being, as one dictionary defines ‘God’? Reason indicates that if there is a maker of the universe, there should be indications of its beginning, also evidence of design and order. I invite you to consider what biologist has found about life and what has been learned about our universe by physicists and astronomers using telescopes and space probes.

How did life on earth originate?

In an effort to produce life in a laboratory and thus explain how it began, chemist have sent sparks through mixtures of special gases. One result has been some amino acids. Those amino acids though were not living. Further, they were not the result of mere accident; they were produced by trained scientists under controlled conditions in modern laboratories. There are more than 200 natural amino acids, yet only a special 20 in the proteins of living things. Even if some amino acids could result from lightning, who selected just the right 20 found in living matter? And how were they guided into the exact sequence necessary in protein? Research analyst Dr. J.F. Coppedge calculated that ‘the probability of just one protein molecule resulting from a chance arrangement of amino acids is 1 in 10287.’ (That’s a figure with 287 zeros after it.) Additionally, he points out that, not one, but ‘a minimum of 239 protein molecules are required for the smallest theoretical form of life.’ Do you think that such evidence points to life as resulting from blind chance, or is it from intelligent design?

Consider also another type of laboratory experiment that has been publicized in newspapers as “creating life.” With complex equipment scientists have taken a virus produced by a living organism and separated the components. Later they have taken these components and reunited them into a virus. However, biologist Rene Dubos explains in the Encyclopedia Britannica that it is really a mistake to call this feat “creating life.” Neither these scientists nor others have been able to make new life from inanimate material. Rather than suggesting that life comes from chance, this experiment showed that “all the biological machinery” needed for life “had to be provided by preexisting life.”

Even if scientists could produce living protein from inanimate batter, it would simply confirm that preexisting intelligent life was needed as a directing force. Obviously, humans were not here to begin life on earth. Yet life was created, including human life. Who is responsible? Bible writers long ago came to a conclusion that merits serious consideration. One said: “The breath of the Almighty gave me life.” (Job33:4)

Another look at your body will help you to reason further on this.

Life in your body is made up of about 100,000,000,000,000 tiny cells. The cell is the basic component of every living thing on earth. The more carefully it is studied, the more complex it is seen to be.

Each of your body cells can be likened to a microscopic walled city. The cell contains parts that are like power plants to generate energy. “Factories” in the cell make proteins as well as hormones for shipment to other parts of the body. There is a complex network of channels to transport chemicals into the cell and out of it. “Sentries” stand guard to control what is brought in and to battle invaders. The key to all of this is the nucleus. It directs all cell activities and contains the genetic blueprints. Some of the cell parts are so tiny that their details cannot be clearly seen even with a 200,000 power electron microscope. What can explain such amazing complexity and organization on each of your 100,000,000,000,000 tiny cells?

At one time you were a single fertilized cell in your mother’s womb. That cell divided to become two cells, then four, and so on. Later, some of those cells became muscle tissue. Others formed your eyes, bones and heart. How was it that the cells formed each of your body parts at the right time and location? Why, for example, did cells develop into ears where they belonged, and not on your knee or your arm? In every cell you have tens of thousands of genes and the vital DNA, which tells the cell how to function and reproduce. It is said that the DNA in each cell contains enough information to fill an encyclopedia of 1,000 volumes. It determined the color of you hair, how fast you grew and countless other details about you. All of that was ‘written down’ in the DNA of one cell in your mother’s womb.

In the light of even these few points about the cell, one might ask: Since our parent did not consciously prepare the incredible genetic blueprint or the cell, who did? Can it reasonably be accounted for without an intelligent Designer?

Of all your organs, probably the most amazing is one that you will never see; your brain. It is made up of some 10,000,000,000 nerve cells. Each of these cells may have thousands of connections with other nerve cells. The total number of connections is beyond imagination! You have stored in your brain hundreds of millions of facts and images, but it is not merely a storehouse of facts. With it you can learn how to tie a knot, to speak a foreign language, to bake bread or to whistle. You can imagine what your vacation will be like or how a juicy fruit will taste. You can analyze and create. You can also plan, appreciate, love and relate your thoughts to the past, present and future. The One who designed the brain obviously has wisdom far greater than that of any human. Scientists admit: “How these functions are carried out by this magnificently patterned, orderly and fantastically complex piece of machinery is quite obscure…human beings may never solve all the separate individual puzzles the brain presents.” (Scientific American)

In reflecting on whether there is a Creator who is the Supreme Being, do not overlook the rest of you body. Your eyes; they are more precise and adaptable than any camera. Your ears; they are able to detect a variety of sounds and to give you a sense of direction and balance. Your heart; a magnificent pump with capabilities that the best engineers have not been able to duplicate. Your tongue, digestive system and hands, to name more. An engineer hired to design and build a large computer reasoned: “If my computer required a designer, how much more so did that complex physio-chemical-biological machine which is my human body which is but an extremely minute part of the well-nigh infinite cosmos?”

Some 3,000 years ago a man names Elihu said: “Look up at the sky and then consider.” Have you done that on a clear, dark night? Only about 5,000 stars can be detected with the unaided eye. Our Milky Way galaxy, however, contains more that 100,000,000,000 stars. And how many galaxies are there? Astronomers say that there are thousands of millions, not of stars, but of galaxies, each with its billions of stars! How small humans are in relation to all of this! Where did it all come from? Scientists have discovered that the galaxies seem to be flying away from a central point. The theory of many astronomers is that thousands of millions of years ago, a tremendous explosion, a “big bang” started energy and matter spreading out to form the universe as we know it. Their theory does NOT explain what caused that to occur. But it does have an interesting implication. That there WAS a beginning point, a moment when the universe was born.

“Today one can feel the scientific world tremble at the accumulating evidence for a ‘big bang’ origin of the universe. It raises the question of what came before, and scientists’ most fundamental faith is shaken by being brought face to face with their inability to answer ultimate questions.” (The Wall Street Journal)

For persons who do not believe in God, there are puzzling questions: What or who put matter into the universe? Was the universe created out of nothing? Since matter is considered a form of energy, what is the source of the energy?

Dr. Robert Jastrow, director of NASA’s Goddard Institute for Space Studies, observed: “In the face of such evidence, the idea that there is a God who created the universe is as scientifically plausible as many other ideas.”

Well-informed persons in every generation have concluded that there must be an intelligent First Cause, a creator who is the Supreme Being. The Bible expresses how they felt, when it says: “The heavens are declaring the glory of God; and of the work of his hands the expanse is telling.” (Ps 19:1)

Even if you have concluded that God does not exist, what we have considered about life, ourselves and the universe should help to explain why many thinking persons are convinced there is a God. One who can answer our questions; why are we here? Why does wickedness abound? What does the future hold? How can we find happiness?

One who can answer our questions; why are we here? Why does wickedness abound? What does the future hold? How can we find happiness?

Could you list "His" answers to those questions. Please be as specific as you can.

jonathan becker, I too am as far from an expert as one can be, but I believe Sabbatai Sevi, or Shebbetai Tzvi and of his followers must be the ones I am thinking of. I don't know if these were openly gay, or are so in revisionist scholar ship, or what not. There were others beyond the Ottoman lands, of a schizophrenic "type," light build, sensitive, otherworldly, as a rule. I believe Jesus himself was said to be a muscular, construction worker type though.

I believe many muslim Sufis also engaged in gay, unconventional, and "deviant" ways also. I'll say nothing (more)of Medicine Men, Witch Doctors, etc. here,

[But I assure you they be as far from "perfect" as people can be. They would be locked up in either prisons or hospitals, were they ordinary people. But they are exceptions, rule givers, not rule followers, "as a rule".]

The important point, to me, is that Jesus, whether He Himself was gay, partly gay, not at all gay, whatever, He was unambiguously against family values.

He preached abandonment of family, work, worldly things in preparation for the coming World-end. He was totally non-conformist, unconventional, socially "dangerous" to conservatives and Powers-that-be.

The most parsimonious assumptions about Abraham, Moses, Mohammmed, Joan of Arc, any who "hear voices", is that they are shizo-ISH at the very least.

One who can answer our questions; why are we here? Why does wickedness abound? What does the future hold? How can we find happiness?

Could you list "His" answers to those questions. Please be as specific as you can.

WHY ARE WE HERE?

The Bible reveals that God is “the Former of the earth and the Maker of it,” the Bible also calls Him “the One who firmly established it, who did not create it simply for nothing, who formed it even to be inhabited.” (Isaiah 45:18) Jehovah prepared the earth to be inhabited by humans, who were to look after the earth and all the creatures on it. (Genesis 1:28; Isaiah 45:18) Jehovah put the first man in a paradise called the garden of Eden, with the prospect of living forever. (1 Timothy 6:17; Genesis 2:8, 9, 16, 17)

WHY DOES WICKEDNESS ABOUND and WHY HAS GOD ALLOWED IT?

Why has God permitted such wickedness until our day? There are a number of reasons, but to understand those reasons properly we need to examine the issues raised at the time of the FIRST rebellion. You may be familiar with the account of this in the Bible book of Genesis. (Gen 3:15) Let’s consider the real meaning of these events.

Briefly, this is what occurred: Jehovah told man that his life depended upon obedience to his Creator, and that disobedience would result in death. (Genesis 2:17) Satan contradicted this clear statement. He told Adam’s wife that the human pair could disobey and still, “You positively will not die.” He further claimed that such disobedience would actually improve matters for them, causing their eyes to be opened, and that they would “be like God, knowing good and bad.” (Genesis 3:4, 5) What was involved in this rebellious action of Satan?

A number of issues or vital questions were raised. First, Satan called into question the truthfulness of God. In effect, he called God a liar, and that with regard to a matter of life and death. Second, he questioned man’s dependence on his Creator for continued life and happiness. He claimed that neither man’s life nor his ability to govern his affairs with success depended upon obedience to Jehovah. He argued that man could act independently of his Creator and be like God, deciding for himself what is right or wrong, good or bad. Third, by arguing against God’s stated law, he in effect claimed that God’s way of ruling is wrong and not for the good of his creatures and in this way he even challenged God’s right to rule.

But Satan’s action raised still another question. At Job 1:6-11 it is shown that Satan called into question the faithfulness and loyalty to Jehovah God of all creatures. In so many words, Satan made the claim that those who serve God do so, not because they love God and his righteous rule, but only for selfish reasons, such as the material blessings God gives them. He claimed that, if such reasons were taken away, then even a man like Job would turn away from God. (Job 2:4, 5) Satan’s rebellion in the Garden of Eden called into question the loyalty of all God’s creatures in heaven and on earth. If put to the test, would they prove their love for their heavenly Father and show that they preferred his rule to that of any other?

God’s way of settling the issue.

You will note that Satan did not raise any question as to God’s strength. He did not challenge Jehovah to use his might to destroy him as an opposer. But he did challenge God’s right to rule and the rightness of his way of ruling. Also, he questioned the loyalty of God’s creatures. So it was a moral issue that had to be settled. Satan’s false charges against God may be illustrated, to a certain extent, in a human way. Suppose a man having a large family is accused by one of his neighbors of many false things about the way he manages his household. Suppose the neighbor also says that the family members have no real love for their father but only stay with him to obtain the food and material things he gives them. How might the father of the family answer such charges? If he simply used violence against the accuser, this would not answer the charges. Instead, it might suggest that they were true. But what a fine answer it would be if he permitted his own family to be his witnesses to show that their father was indeed a just and loving family head and that they were happy to live with him because they loved him! He would be completely vindicated. Proverbs 27:11; Isaiah 43:10)

This illustrates in certain respects what God has done. Moreover, he has allowed sufficient time, now almost 6,000 years, for the issue to be settled beyond all doubt. He has allowed this time, not only to permit his faithful creatures to prove their devotion to him and his rule, but also to demonstrate that any other kind of rule results only in bad. (Proverbs 1:30-33; Isaiah 59:4, 8)

By rebelling against Jehovah God, Satan set himself up as a rival ruler. And by taking the course Satan recommended, the first human pair declared themselves independent of Jehovah’s rule and came under Satan’s control. (Genesis 3:6; Romans 6:16) By God’s letting both Satan and man go to the limit in their efforts to act and rule independently of their Creator, their total failure to produce good government, with real benefits for all mankind, would be made evident beyond all future denial.

What have the results shown?

The Bible shows that Satan has made use of the time to build up an organization in heaven and earth over which he rules. The extent of his control of the earth is indicated by the fact that he could offer Jesus all the kingdoms of the world in exchange for Jesus’ worship. (Matthew 4:8, 9) That is why Satan is called “the ruler of this world.” (John 16:11) What has this meant for mankind, and what has been the result of man’s course of independence from God and his rule? History testifies that it has brought thousands of years of pain, suffering and death. The record of history and the dreadful state of affairs in the world today are proof that man has not succeeded in governing without God. Man has tried all kinds of government, but he still lacks security and enduring happiness. As Ecclesiastes 8:9 says, “man has dominated man to his injury.”

God’s long permission of wickedness has proved beyond doubt that man’s attempt to rule themselves independent of God’ is a miserable failure. (Psalm 127:1) The inspired Bible writer Jeremiah rightly said: “I well know, O Jehovah, that to earthling man his way does not belong. It does not belong to man who is walking even to direct his step. Correct me, O Jehovah.” Jeremiah 10:23, 24; Proverbs 16:25)

Satan’s influence over earth’s affairs has brought disunity, wickedness and death, and his rule has been by means of deceit, force and selfishness. He has proved himself unfit to be the ruler of anything. So Jehovah is now fully justified in destroying this debased rebel along with all who have shared in his wicked deeds. (Romans 16:20)

HOW CAN WE FIND HAPPINESS?

Jesus acknowledged this fundamental urge, saying: “Happy are those conscious of their spiritual need,” or those who recognize and respond to their spiritual hunger. (Matt. 5:3) By accepting God’s moral standards we are helped to avoid problems, but doing so goes beyond that. We actually need a reasonable, consistent set of values. God’s Word fills that need perfectly. And God’s standards are harmonious with our inherent sense of conscience. So, as we comply with them we feel better, more comfortable, more at peace. (Ps. 1:1-4; Job 5:17; Rom. 2:14, 15)

In addition, the hope we have for the future contributes largely to our happiness now.

WHAT DOES THE FUTURE HOLD?

Jehovah has permitted wickedness until our day in order to settle all the issues raised by Satan. But he will not permit wickedness to continue indefinitely. He has set a definite time when he will bring it to an end. The Bible writer Daniel referred to this long ago when he wrote: “The end is yet for the time appointed.” (Daniel 11:27)

In the near future when God’s Kingdom under His king Christ Jesus takes control over the earth Sickness, old age, and death will no longer exist. “At that time the eyes of the blind ones will be opened, and the very ears of the deaf ones will be unstopped. At that time the lame one will climb up just as a stag does, and the tongue of the speechless one will cry out in gladness.” (Isaiah 35:5, 6) “God himself will be with (mankind). And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away.” (Revelation 21:3, 4) With all obstacles to peace and happiness removed, God promises that . . .

“The righteous themselves will possess the earth, and they will reside forever upon it.” (Psalm 37:10, 11, 29) Living forever, humans will then be able to realize their full potential. Endless opportunities to learn and be creative will open up before mankind. Peaceful and satisfying relationships with all our fellow humans will prevail earth wide.

Crime, violence, and wickedness will be gone forever. “Evildoers themselves will be cut off . . . Just a little while longer, and the wicked one will be no more . . . He will not be. But the meek ones themselves will possess the earth.” (Psalm 37:9-11) “As regards the wicked, they will be cut off from the very earth; and as for the treacherous, they will be torn away from it.” (Proverbs 2:22)

Peace will prevail earth wide. “He (God) is making wars to cease to the extremity of the earth. The bow he breaks apart and does cut the spear in pieces.” (Psalm 46:9) “The righteous one will sprout, and the abundance of peace until the moon is no more.”(Psalm 72:7)

Housing will be secure and work satisfying. “They will certainly build houses and have occupancy . . .They will not build and someone else have occupancy; they will not plant and someone else do the eating. For like the days of a tree will the days of my people be; and the work of their own hands my chosen ones will use to the full. They will not toil for nothing, nor will they bring to birth for disturbance.” (Isaiah 65:21-23)

Healthful food will be available in abundance. “There will come to be plenty of grain on the earth; on the top of the mountains there will be an overflow.” (Psalm 72:16) “The earth itself will certainly give its produce; God, our God, will bless us.” (Psalm 67:6)

He told me he never said any of those things.

ok your crazy. man should WANT to be nice to one another because. why just because we are human. we are not forced to be mean to one another. we think of ourselves more instead. in the military they teach you differently. with no religion doesnt mean we would all be athiests. just means we wouldnt waste time in chapels. we wouldnt have terrorist that are pissed off at us. we wouldnt have issues over scientific advances on earth.

i havent even read this damn book yet but i cant wait.

DNA, you the Dipod!

I mean,

DAN, you the homo sapiens.