T-Nation Atheists

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
41

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
The apes that can communicate is a good point. But did we teach them too or did they do it on their own? Because those are certainly two different scenarios.[/quote]

There’s definitely teaching involved, from what I can tell.
I wanted to use it as an example that animals can do many things that they don’t necessarily need to do to survive,
so that when survival becomes trivial, much of these activities of ‘higher development’ are really not that far out of their reach.

A really interesting test would be to see if several of these animals could/would communicate with each other (after being taught) and if anything develops from there.

42

[quote]Dandalex wrote:

So what is the point again, is this like a video game? Like the Sims? Or then is he but a pathetic twurp who just needs a little love, like people who have cats or dogs?
[/quote]

Hey you jerk I have cats!

I find the question of free will incredibly fascinating, whether discussed from a biological standpoint or theological one (even though I’m not religious).

I found reading St. Augustine’s attempted reconciliations for perceived contradictions within theology much more interesting than the bible itself.

For example, if God is omnipotent and omniscient, then it would seem that he already knows how he will judge our existence before he even creates us, so how can he claim to bestow on us the gift of free will? If God has prior knowledge of all our actions and their outcomes, what is the point of our creation?

43

My god, a godless thread! Thank god!

The foreword isn’t really a powerful call to agnostic arms. But what the hell!

Mentioning the power of the “soul” in an atheistic thread is sassy.
How did you know that animals stand below us, have no morale or know they won’t die?

Don’t get me wrong: I don’t give a damn about “my dog knows exactly what I mean” and stuff. It’s just obvious to me that evolution shows itself in really small steps. What do I mean with that?

For example, primitive protozoa are certainly dumb as shit. They are billions of years old and to feel superiour as a human being is easy.
Now for mammals.

Chimpanzees and other apes can learn complex languages like ASL. They produce neologisms, according to their needs and feelings. Dolphins give themselves names and even nicknames. They communicate complex information and certainly have, like many mammals, a sense of morality, which is shown in numerous and interesting experiments.

To feel superiour to them is only possible if someone is not properly informed. For someone who is uneducated and has a limited viewpoint, for example medieval Joe, animals serve only as bystanders. They seem to have a function in the complicated divine plan, but in most religions they either

a) serve as food
or
b) play a role in a systematic survey of the world.

Beneath are cockroaches, they are numerous and ugly. They seem to live on dirt and excrements. Then come the rodents. Nearly as numerous, but smarter and bigger. This goes on until on the top of the pyrymid -BAM- stands Homo S.S.

So, if you look with uneducated eyes, soulless animals can really fit well into a religious system and act as a proof for god. (“Silly boy!Do you think an ant has a soul? We, humans have a soul. We are built in his divine image and that is what separates us from them. Next time, you’d better listen to the reverend’s words!”)

Today we know about evolution. And it’s obvious why the clergy is so fearful of it. It’s one of the most powerful instruments of education.
If you grasp the basics of it, you understand that there is only place for one animal “to shape the world according to his will” (Don’t know the exact english translation of this bible text passage).

Evolution takes a lot of time. One can assume easily that two races of equal intelligence would compete at a very early stage. There is no place for multiple, equally cunning omnivores.

So you see that it’s not fate or a divine plan that seperates us from animals but some evolutionary luck that brought us to the top of the food chain.

Regarding the carpenter:

“Jesus could not have possibly been just a “good guy.” He claimed to be God! So it stands to reason that either he was: a)God, or b)a liar and a great deceiver of many!”

HAHAHA! So, according to you, because b) is not right, he can only be Mr. Gawd.

He could also be
c) a schizophrenic
d) a cunning, sexhungry sectarian
e) just misunderstood (I suggest the documentary “Life of Brian”)
f) a combination of the above
g) a nice guy whose teachings have been
inflated through propaganda and myth.
h) completely made up
i) an alien
j) an asshole
k) an former long-term unemployed gifted agitator, who realized that being some kind of a prophet can really help to fill your stomach
.
.

Now seriously.
Jesus was a fundamental jew who only cared for the afterlife. He didn’t particularly enjoyed the presence of nonjews (to put it nicely) and speaking of itself as “son of god” was a normality in his sect. He certainly wasn’t crucified for proclaiming that. And he certainly wasn’t crucified.

Also, the whole story about the tomb is stupid. The real carcass of jesus was buried in some dungpile, according to the customs. They didn’t allow low class accused to be buried decently.
I know that some of the hardcore christians will howl in outrage and jump to the keyboard, 'cause the “truth” was so and so.
Relax.

You’re speaking of some shady old tome.
The really really funny part is. They ALWAYS tell you about how precise and historically correct the bible is.

So because some text passages are indeed correct, you assume that the entire rest is above reproach?

Peopple have always been extemely prone to superstition and rumours. Probably everyone knows dozens of stories how even trustworthy friends have -often unconciously- tinkered with facts and truth a bit.

In the first half of the 20th century, people were fooled with propaganda which was laughable from today’s point of view.

In ancient rome, they sometimes used mirror inverted texts as secret code. Today, a six year old would probably find that out.

So you tell me if this Jesus would help people simply by giving them hope or spiritual guidiance, his deeds would not be greatly exaggerated? If you persist on the bible being a book of facts, I cannot help but laugh in your face.

Also, great evidence about afterlife?

“There is a growing body of evidence out there to consider when contemplating the existence of the afterlife. Near Death Experiences, “Angel Speaking,” and the like are becoming more openly discussed than ever.”

Growing? People have ALWAYS talked about this, they are TOTALLY fascinated by the thought of a possible afterlife, even more in the ancient times. If you don’t believe me, take a look at the pyramids or the chinese terracotta army.
The sad truth: With today’s scientific methodology, it would really be easy to prove that there’s something like astral projection, angels et al.

There hasn’t been one reliable record of that.
I’m sorry.

44

I have two roles pertinent to this thread:

  1. I am an agnostic/athiest (I was a very firm believer til I was 19).

  2. I am a cognitive scientist (neurolinguistics).

On the agnostic note, I have fundamentally no problem with religion trying to order the universe. Nietsche himself says that you have to have some amount of self-deception to maintain sanity, he just suggests you take control of the self-deception/fantasy.

I have a problem when someone tells me it has to be what they think, bc that just misses the mark for me. This is a breakdown in common values.

Rebutting the McDowell carpenter bit, I ask, “What is Jesus is being misrepresented?”. I believe that he probably existed, but why do I have to subscribe to your highly post-edited version of the facts? Internal inconsistencies such as: Jesus has two different lineages in different synoptic gospels; two different incommensurable groups visiting Jesus’s tomb in different gospels suggests that it isn’t THE set of facts, since it isn’t even ONE set of facts. (Look it up for yourself if you don’t believe me).

This, and other such things, were pointed out to me by Ken’s Guide to the Bible, which a friend gave me to rebut the Carpenter book. I’ve read both, and Ken’s guide is more coherent, and was actually what disillusioned me finally from Xianity (5+ years ago…)

On the neuroscience front, my only advice: IF IT SOUNDS VAGUE OR FANTASTIC, DON’T BELIEVE IT WITHOUT DIRECT EVIDENCE . There are so many neuroscientific myths prevelent in our culture, such as WE ONLY USE 10% OF OUR BRAIN (not only incredibly vague (what do they mean by 10%? Capacity, tissue, power? but its also demonstrably false, bc the brains is pretty well charted spatially, if not functionally, and it will all light up in fMRI doing some thing or another).

45

by the way, not to offthread, but lots of animals communicate, including apes, ants, birds, dolphins, etc…but only humans have been demonstrated to have language.

Not that anyone said it, but the Newport Ape so-called “sign language” studies are really bad. It looks like, though, that all different kinds of animals do different, really interesting kinds of cognition, which look like really simular to different parts of human cognition.

sorry, I’m a linguistics/neuroscience dork.

46

[quote]zarathus wrote:
by the way, not to offthread, but lots of animals communicate, including apes, ants, birds, dolphins, etc…but only humans have been demonstrated to have language.

Not that anyone said it, but the Newport Ape so-called “sign language” studies are really bad. It looks like, though, that all different kinds of animals do different, really interesting kinds of cognition, which look like really simular to different parts of human cognition.

sorry, I’m a linguistics/neuroscience dork.[/quote]

Good to hear from a linguistics/neuroscience dork!
What’s your thoughts on the ability of other animals to learn (i.e. be taught) language?

47

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
My god, a godless thread! Thank god!

The foreword isn’t really a powerful call to agnostic arms. But what the hell!

Mentioning the power of the “soul” in an atheistic thread is sassy.
How did you know that animals stand below us, have no morale or know they won’t die?

Don’t get me wrong: I don’t give a damn about “my dog knows exactly what I mean” and stuff. It’s just obvious to me that evolution shows itself in really small steps. What do I mean with that?

For example, primitive protozoa are certainly dumb as shit. They are billions of years old and to feel superiour as a human being is easy.
Now for mammals.

Chimpanzees and other apes can learn complex languages like ASL. They produce neologisms, according to their needs and feelings. Dolphins give themselves names and even nicknames. They communicate complex information and certainly have, like many mammals, a sense of morality, which is shown in numerous and interesting experiments.

To feel superiour to them is only possible if someone is not properly informed. For someone who is uneducated and has a limited viewpoint, for example medieval Joe, animals serve only as bystanders. They seem to have a function in the complicated divine plan, but in most religions they either

a) serve as food
or
b) play a role in a systematic survey of the world.

Beneath are cockroaches, they are numerous and ugly. They seem to live on dirt and excrements. Then come the rodents. Nearly as numerous, but smarter and bigger. This goes on until on the top of the pyrymid -BAM- stands Homo S.S.

So, if you look with uneducated eyes, soulless animals can really fit well into a religious system and act as a proof for god. (“Silly boy!Do you think an ant has a soul? We, humans have a soul. We are built in his divine image and that is what separates us from them. Next time, you’d better listen to the reverend’s words!”)

Today we know about evolution. And it’s obvious why the clergy is so fearful of it. It’s one of the most powerful instruments of education.
If you grasp the basics of it, you understand that there is only place for one animal “to shape the world according to his will” (Don’t know the exact english translation of this bible text passage).

Evolution takes a lot of time. One can assume easily that two races of equal intelligence would compete at a very early stage. There is no place for multiple, equally cunning omnivores.

So you see that it’s not fate or a divine plan that seperates us from animals but some evolutionary luck that brought us to the top of the food chain.

Regarding the carpenter:

“Jesus could not have possibly been just a “good guy.” He claimed to be God! So it stands to reason that either he was: a)God, or b)a liar and a great deceiver of many!”

HAHAHA! So, according to you, because b) is not right, he can only be Mr. Gawd.

He could also be
c) a schizophrenic
d) a cunning, sexhungry sectarian
e) just misunderstood (I suggest the documentary “Life of Brian”)
f) a combination of the above
g) a nice guy whose teachings have been
inflated through propaganda and myth.
h) completely made up
i) an alien
j) an asshole
k) an former long-term unemployed gifted agitator, who realized that being some kind of a prophet can really help to fill your stomach
.
.

Now seriously.
Jesus was a fundamental jew who only cared for the afterlife. He didn’t particularly enjoyed the presence of nonjews (to put it nicely) and speaking of itself as “son of god” was a normality in his sect. He certainly wasn’t crucified for proclaiming that. And he certainly wasn’t crucified.

Also, the whole story about the tomb is stupid. The real carcass of jesus was buried in some dungpile, according to the customs. They didn’t allow low class accused to be buried decently.
I know that some of the hardcore christians will howl in outrage and jump to the keyboard, 'cause the “truth” was so and so.
Relax.

You’re speaking of some shady old tome.
The really really funny part is. They ALWAYS tell you about how precise and historically correct the bible is.

So because some text passages are indeed correct, you assume that the entire rest is above reproach?

Peopple have always been extemely prone to superstition and rumours. Probably everyone knows dozens of stories how even trustworthy friends have -often unconciously- tinkered with facts and truth a bit.

In the first half of the 20th century, people were fooled with propaganda which was laughable from today’s point of view.

In ancient rome, they sometimes used mirror inverted texts as secret code. Today, a six year old would probably find that out.

So you tell me if this Jesus would help people simply by giving them hope or spiritual guidiance, his deeds would not be greatly exaggerated? If you persist on the bible being a book of facts, I cannot help but laugh in your face.

Also, great evidence about afterlife?

“There is a growing body of evidence out there to consider when contemplating the existence of the afterlife. Near Death Experiences, “Angel Speaking,” and the like are becoming more openly discussed than ever.”

Growing? People have ALWAYS talked about this, they are TOTALLY fascinated by the thought of a possible afterlife, even more in the ancient times. If you don’t believe me, take a look at the pyramids or the chinese terracotta army.
The sad truth: With today’s scientific methodology, it would really be easy to prove that there’s something like astral projection, angels et al.

There hasn’t been one reliable record of that.
I’m sorry.
[/quote]

Interesting post.

I don’t believe the Bible was all correct. However, for your assertions about Jesus, what are your sources?

48

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:
I have looked into eastern religions a little bit. They seem the deepest, as its more about inner peace than worrying about what some child molesting priest thinks of you (I’m Catholic, and I think the events are horrifying that the Church covers up. Everyone of those motherfuckers should be put to death as far as I’m concerned.)

There are still tattered shreds of Catholicism holding on to me. Maybe its just the hope that this fucked up world isn’t all there is. But I tell you, I haven’t found enough reasons to believe in God, and alot more that have made me wonder.[/quote]

Irish,

I too am babtized a Catholic and will probably always feel a connection to the Catholic church.

However.

I wholeheatedly agree with you on what goes on w/r/t the fucked up priests molesting kids. I’ve got some pretty strong feelings on what I would personally do to them as well. (Ving Rames talking about getting midevel on their asses comes to mind pretty quick).

I believe more than ever that there is a god and that this world, with all of it’s joy and suffering, serves a purpose somehow. As I’ve stated before, Buddhism has taken a much larger role in my religious interests lately.

I like how it really concentrates on peace of self, tranquility, doing no harm to other living things, and knowing others by knowing youself.

Honestly though, I think that all the worlds religions are just pieces of the puzzle. Buddhism though, as far as I know, hasn’t invaded countries in the name of Buddhism or tried to convert by force. Like I said, I could be wrong. But I don’t think this has ever happened like it has with other religions.

Maybe my reasonong is off here, but isn’t not believing in god a belief system unto itself?

49

[quote]ZEB wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
How about agnostic? Or those that think philisophically about whether or not God exists?

I think pure atheists are very few and far between.

Interesting comment my friend.

I worked in a nursing home once and I never once saw a dying atheist.

Odd huh?[/quote]

No not odd at all. It helps prove my opinion that most people resort to religion out of the fear of death.

For hundreds of years churches tell you that if you don’t worship god you will burn in hell for eternity. Kind of like a schoolyard bully demanding luch money in return for not beating you up. Christians have been extorted for so long. Just think aboout it, you have to believe in god or you burn in hell but there is no evidence of his existence. I repeat, the perfect scam.

I enjoy watching christian television for the humor and just yesterday this chump named John Hagee flat out told his church crowd that if they gave his church money that they would be rewarded in the kingdom of heaven.

50

Yeah, I agree. But I also think its ridiculous that the popular opinion is that there are only two choices: god or not. I think there should be an infinite number of possible belief systems, so this battle line being drawn between “believers” and “non-believers” is arbitrary and insulting to our intelligence. I am a “believer.”

I believe that we live in an incredibly fascinating universe governed by physical laws, and that we have the potential to discover those laws and use that knowledge to better ourselves.

This is the way I look at it: if you take a person and let him (or her of course) live his life with no contact with other humans, he could reproduce all of mathematics, physics etc (given that he had unlimited time and resources).

But, he is not going to independently come to the conclusion that the universe was created by a god, and that he is expected to live his life according to said god’s whims, etc. So, I would argue that religion is simply a social phenomenon because without other people telling you “this is how it is,” then you would never just come to the conclusion that there is a god and the universe is structured as he sees fit.

You might, however (if you were really incredibly intelligent), realize that a Flying Spaghetti Monster created the universe, and dress like a pirate…

51

Regarding near death experiences (NDE’s): a group placed a TV monitor on a high pedistal facing the ceiling. It was done in an ICU/surgery ward. It would display an image unknown to the staff on hand, but known to those conducting the study. None of the people who claimed to have NDE’s in that ward could correctly name what was showing on the screen. Just to make ya wonder.

Also, the 21 grams thing has yet to be reproduced as far as I know.

I would say I am agnostic. I don’t claim to have all the answers (or even most of them). I just heavily doubt there is a single all powerful being who really gives a crap about wht’s going on down here. I’ve yet to see any reason to believe that.

I am intruiged by religions, in a cultural/anthropological kind of way. I just read some good articles on the evolutionary reasons why religions came to be, and why those who believe in the supernatural may have some advantages. Interesting stuff.

Another odd thing, I took a religion quiz on QuizFarm. Said I was mostly agnostic, follwed closely by equal parts Buddhism and Satanism, then Paganism. The rest were small amounts. Bizarre, huh?

52

Oh, if anyone is curious about that quiz, here’s the URL:

http://quizfarm.com/test.php?q_id=10907

I don’t think it necessarily means much, but it’s entertaining.

53

Continuing the discussion about supernatural occurences, UFO’s, etc.

I highly suggest “The Demon-Haunted World” by Carl Sagan. He talks about the psychological sources of possessions, UFO sightings, and out-of-body experiences. Great stuff.

In fact, I recommend anything by Sagan…

54

Most people here are in one of two camps when it comes to evaluation of religion.
They either hold it in the highest of regards, or they feel it is dangerous.

Religion is indeed very very powerful.

Imagine you were a king/queen in ancient times. Religion is then one of your greatest assets. You would need it…

to unite your lands and to link them culturally
to have a legitimate (divine) mandate to rule
to have a simple cause to conquer distant lands
to motivate your people to endure certain absurd hardships, like building a tomb of titanic proportions
to keep the lower classes at bay since it’s their divine destiny to eat mud throughout their entire life.

etc. etc.

Face it, religion was essential.
But today…?

A war just for profit seems very not cool. In the past you could easily justify it but now you’ll face demonstrators.

Scientific methodology dares now to explain the power behind things. Lightning is no longer god’s wrath. But what is best- we can tap this power of science to operate moden machinery.
No one is supposed to be better, all men are equal, there is no caste system, aristocrats have no right for special treatment because they were born on a different bedsheet.

All of this development is a good thing, I believe we can all agree with that.

On the other hand:
To force a certain belief upon your citzens and is totally out of line. That seems great. But a society with mixed values can face difficulties.
Can we live with a society which knows no moral bounds, no “higher” gage?

For example: How can we face the muslims who believe they have moral high grounds?
If we were like them, we would simply Nuke 'em. But instead, we believe it would barbarous to do so.

Now things get complicated. I’m really curious how things will be in thirty years.

The main dilemma is: How can you justify anything morally without god?
There’s no god, and man can always be wrong.

I really envy those pious sheep. Although their system of belief is absolutely hilarious, at least they have something they can stick to.

Oh christ, believe me, my values are as rock hard as yours, but I have no “sacred authority”. Others can judge me, reject me, laugh at me freely, since I’m not god’s son.
How am I supposed to tell my children what is right.

I’m free but freedom feels sometimes like being naked. Without a burden, without protecion.
I will die and there will be only dust.
I can always be wrong.
I’m alone.

Am I?

No- I simply know I am not among god and the stars. I’m here on earth. I have to cope with that and arrange myself with that. I shall build not a kingdom of heaven but a land of the free. I will try to be just and kind, for HUMAN’S SAKE. I shall learn that while he is not the highest creature under god, he is my own brother.

God IS dead.
It was necessary to invent him.
Which we did.
Not too long ago, it was necessary to live without him.
So we killed him.
We must learn to live with that.

55

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
I have looked into eastern religions a little bit. They seem the deepest, as its more about inner peace than worrying about what some child molesting priest thinks of you (I’m Catholic, and I think the events are horrifying that the Church covers up. Everyone of those motherfuckers should be put to death as far as I’m concerned.)

There are still tattered shreds of Catholicism holding on to me. Maybe its just the hope that this fucked up world isn’t all there is. But I tell you, I haven’t found enough reasons to believe in God, and alot more that have made me wonder.

Irish,

I too am babtized a Catholic and will probably always feel a connection to the Catholic church.

However.

I wholeheatedly agree with you on what goes on w/r/t the fucked up priests molesting kids. I’ve got some pretty strong feelings on what I would personally do to them as well. (Ving Rames talking about getting midevel on their asses comes to mind pretty quick).

I believe more than ever that there is a god and that this world, with all of it’s joy and suffering, serves a purpose somehow. As I’ve stated before, Buddhism has taken a much larger role in my religious interests lately.

I like how it really concentrates on peace of self, tranquility, doing no harm to other living things, and knowing others by knowing youself.

Honestly though, I think that all the worlds religions are just pieces of the puzzle. Buddhism though, as far as I know, hasn’t invaded countries in the name of Buddhism or tried to convert by force. Like I said, I could be wrong. But I don’t think this has ever happened like it has with other religions.

Maybe my reasonong is off here, but isn’t not believing in god a belief system unto itself?
[/quote]

Good post.

I don’t believe in Christianity, or the church, but I do believe that there is something bigger than us somewhere. Whether that something is inside us or around us, or somewhere we can’t fathom, I believe that it is there.

I do believe that most people are more concerned with their big screen TV than their own spiritual health. No wonder the world is going to shit.

56

Good responses all!

Schwartzfahler:

It’s a well-thought out point you make against the “other” possibilities of Jesus’ identity. I don’t agree that these other options you listed are any different from my option b), but I think we both entirely agree that it comes down to faith in biblical writings. And I completely agree with you that they are indeed flawed. The question is how badly.

I would have to disagree with you in regards to your assertion that technology has advanced to the point of measuring “angels,” as there is no direct way to measure a non-physical entity, one devoid of matter and energy.

In regards to the body of evidence, I refer to the discussion and sharing of spiritual experiences, not opinions and conjectures as you refer to them. And I have no doubt that there are ways to discredit each and every spiritual idea or experience ever.

You can talk neurology all day long to discredit NDE’s, or the schizophrenic nature of those claiming communication with the other “realm.” I’m sure you and many others will disagree, but the sheer volume of people claiming events and communication outside our comprehension suggests that they have merit.

For example, if you find 1 person sharing their experiences of what happened to them after their physical death, how they left their body and went to other physical locations, and then saw events happening that were later verified… you could discredit that person as being a liar, heretic, neural enigma, or whatever.

But what if you found 100,000 people claiming such a story? Could you discredit all of them as being liars, or not really being able to validate what they saw in the afterlife? I think there’s power in the sheer numbers.

Just my opinion… what do you think?

57

[quote]ToShinDo wrote:
Regarding near death experiences (NDE’s): a group placed a TV monitor on a high pedistal facing the ceiling. It was done in an ICU/surgery ward. It would display an image unknown to the staff on hand, but known to those conducting the study. None of the people who claimed to have NDE’s in that ward could correctly name what was showing on the screen. Just to make ya wonder.

Also, the 21 grams thing has yet to be reproduced as far as I know.

I would say I am agnostic. I don’t claim to have all the answers (or even most of them). I just heavily doubt there is a single all powerful being who really gives a crap about wht’s going on down here. I’ve yet to see any reason to believe that.

I am intruiged by religions, in a cultural/anthropological kind of way. I just read some good articles on the evolutionary reasons why religions came to be, and why those who believe in the supernatural may have some advantages. Interesting stuff.

Another odd thing, I took a religion quiz on QuizFarm. Said I was mostly agnostic, follwed closely by equal parts Buddhism and Satanism, then Paganism. The rest were small amounts. Bizarre, huh?[/quote]

FYI - I went through 77 min of CPR, defib etc…no lights, no tunnel, no angels, no trumpets, no nothing. Not exactly a scientfic study - just my 2 cents.

Great discussion BTW.

58

[quote]CHF wrote:

FYI - I went through 77 min of CPR, defib etc…no lights, no tunnel, no angels, no trumpets, no nothing. Not exactly a scientfic study - just my 2 cents.

Great discussion BTW.

[/quote]

Maybe you’re going to Hell…

Glad to see you made it back, unless…unless…Oh my GOD, he’s coming through the computer…

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOO OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO… arrrrghhhggghhh…

Fade to black, roll creepy horror movie.

59

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

Interesting post.

I don’t believe the Bible was all correct. However, for your assertions about Jesus, what are your sources?[/quote]

When I lived from Mc Job salary in a difficult time of my life, one of my few luxuries was to visit the public library.
I always found history awfully intriguing.
And I always tried to inform myself from both sides.
I have virtually no internet sources I regularly visit. I don’t find them very trustworthy. Also, they tend to be somewhat extreme.

As for some of the facts about Jesus life I mentioned, they are not even questionable. But bible followers can simply point out that guards can be bribed, jesus disinterest with nonjews (“to cast pearls before swine”)is just misinterpretation of 2000year old texts and crucifixation - now here comes the onion- is misunderstood.
You see, the cross is THE brand par excellence.
It’s symbolic meaning ( the most painful and humilating torture, the three nails, to take the cross, etc.) is such an important and powerful icon it just doesn’t matter that enemies of Rome died
at the stake inthat period.
Also, they say that the greek word “stauro?” from the bible (meaning beam, timber or stake) could just mean that he was nailed to a stake -(nailed TO the stake my ass!)

But they ARE right that it doesn’t really matter.

Because the essence of it is kinda beautiful.
You shall love your neighbor as yourself
That’s great stuff!
It doesn’t matter if it’s not what Mr. J. has preached, to me and to them priests.

60

[quote]Hamster wrote:

Jesus could not have possibly been just a “good guy.” He claimed to be God! So it stands to reason that either he was: a)God, or b)a liar and a great deceiver of many!

This idea of him being somewhere imbetween is hogwash. The only other viable options are that he didn’t exist at all (and thus the New Testament is pure fiction), or that what he said and claimed was misrepresented in the Bible.

Just a thought.

The light in the tunnel is one example, and is as old as American History. A different form of language, one that is more “intuitive” and not spoken is another. Yet another is the freedom movement inherent to not having the burden of physical form.

[/quote]

Actually, there are other options in the case of Jesus. He could have been a) God, b) a liar or c) a good man with good ideas who genuinely beleived what he said, but was mentally unstable in some way. Who knows? But there certainly are not just two options.

As far as near-death experiences are concerned: Ketamine. Ketamine was first developed with the intention of using it in the place of morphine in battlefield medicine. However, it has the unique property of giving very vivid “light in tunnel” hallucinations just as you said to those put under with it. It is now used primarily in Veterinary medicine for that reason. (to my knowledge).

-Fireplug