Gary Eickmeier wrote:

bv_schornak wrote:

chip wrote:

Midjis wrote:

"Jerry T" wrote:


you are cool, but i don give much on religion bull****
the problem is that you connect religios bull**** with facts
namely, christianity is the prove for the nonexistence of god
jesus asked god about a sign three times,
being forty days in the desert - there been only satan (nature),
no god at all

then he went in the forest, away from the disciples, obvioulsy
being tired preacing bull****, he need and asked for a sign
from god, but no god

then finally near death on the cross he asked again, but no
sign, nothing, maybe he met him passing overthere


Interesting that you appear to be trying to oppose the Christian
belief
in God's existence but are doing so by citing the Biblical account of
what Jesus said and did. If you do not believe that God made Himself
known to Jesus even according to the Bible, then what leads you to the
conclusion that Jesus ever went into the desert, that he ever
preached,
or was executed, or that he ever even existed?


its writen in the book by four guys, its not about beliefs


Are you sure about that? Didn't you forget the Gospel of Thomas, part of
the Nag Hammadi codices? It is assumed to be the famous "Gospel Q" where
all other Gospels are based upon (see e.g. Pagels, "The Gnostic Gospels"
or http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/q.html).

For the Nag Hamadi codices see http://www.nag-hammadi.com/gospel.html,
there is an English translation available.

(Note: There are two Gospels of Thomas, the Infancy Gospel of Thomas and
the Sayings Gospel of Thomas - the first is about Jesus' childhood while
the second is a collection of Jesus' sayings.)

About the "authenticity" of the Gospels we know today:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secret_Gospel_of_Mark
http://reluctant-messenger.com/gospel-magdalene.htm


Need to read "Who Wrote the New Testament - The Making of the
Christian Myth" by Burton Mack.

Gary Eickmeier


Is there an on-line version? It's an interesting topic. If you read
the "Ante Nicene Fathers" http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/, you will
get a good impression how selection and corrections of the original
Gospels (all hearsay, written down one or two generations after the
crucifixion) led to what is known as "New Testament" today...


Greetings from Augsburg

Bernhard Schornak

bv_schornak wrote:

Is there an on-line version? It's an interesting topic. If you read
the "Ante Nicene Fathers" http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/, you will
get a good impression how selection and corrections of the original
Gospels (all hearsay, written down one or two generations after the
crucifixion) led to what is known as "New Testament" today...

I don't know of an on-line condensed version, but you can whistle the
book up in Amazon.com and read a sample of it, usually the first few pages.

The book is a very learned attempt to chronicle the early years after
the crucifiction and relate how the Jesus cult became the Christ myth,
and how the new testament developed from this mythology. Much too
complex to relate in a few sentences, but that's the idea. You can
witness the same sociology in the modern era with the Mormons. An angel
appears to Joseph Smith and gives him a golden tablet with the Book of
Mormon on it. Eventually an entire cult and religion are formed from
this mythology.

Gary Eickmeier

bv_schornak wrote:

Few chances to get it here in Germany. It's not published any longer,
so I'll look for a used copy. Reading some critical peer-reviews, the
storyline (allegedly) isn't always based on historical facts. To make
my own comments - I have to read the book, first.

Mythology and "blind faith" are products of a one-sided, insufficient
education. In this point I completely agree with [Hammond]'s ideas of
something like a "BGD". However, I would call this thing "educational
deficit" because it doesn't only depend on intelligence. Faith is our
replacement for knowledge, an alternative way to explain events we're
not able to grasp. Science as it is practised nowadays (the "knowing"
and the "dumb") has the potential to turn into Mythology. If we can't
pass the available knowledge in a way everyone is able to understand,
the "knowing" will become our new high priests. While the "dumb" pray
whatever those "chosen ones" may preach...

Mack views the religious movements as a sociological phenomenon, which I
think is absolutely correct. You can see the effect of sociological
forces in today's society. If you live in an area (as I do) that is so
Christian that everyone asks you which church you attend when they meet
you, you feel the need to just "go along." We have most of us been
raised in a religious atmosphere, because it was thought good to be
religious, respectful of religion, and that being a "person of faith"
was a good thing.

So if you stop for a moment and reflect on the preposterous beliefs of
your parents and community, you dare not voice your doubts too publicly,
because you want to remain a member of the group. This is a very strong
force, easily led by certain people with strong personalities, and hard
to fight. If you say a word of doubt, you are branded an atheist, a
weird creature not deserving the grace of God. You may even be subject
to conversion and surrounded by prayer.

Christianity is the result of these strong social forces, combined with
mythmaking of the highest order, with the noblest of intentions. The
book tells the tale, I think fairly accurately, even with the scimpy
information available to us today. It should be available, and is a new
book, not used only.

It's really hard to imagine a world without religion, because ordinary
people need something to hang on to. Intellectual curiosity and honesty
just don't hack it. The best we can probably hope for is to give them
our love and respect, as long as their beliefs remain harmless. When
they start blowing things up, we need to do something, but pitting one
religion against the other is not the answer. Might also want to read
"The End of Faith" by Sam Harris (http://www.samharris.org/).

I am prattling on, but just getting some thoughts off my chest. Also
easier to have an intelligent discussion here than on the Christianity
groups.

Gary Eickmeier

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

bv_schornak wrote:

Is there an on-line version? It's an interesting topic. If you read
the "Ante Nicene Fathers" http://www.ccel.org/fathers2/, you will
get a good impression how selection and corrections of the original
Gospels (all hearsay, written down one or two generations after the
crucifixion) led to what is known as "New Testament" today...


I don't know of an on-line condensed version, but you can whistle the
book up in Amazon.com and read a sample of it, usually the first few
pages.

The book is a very learned attempt to chronicle the early years after
the crucifiction and relate how the Jesus cult became the Christ myth,
and how the new testament developed from this mythology. Much too
complex to relate in a few sentences, but that's the idea. You can
witness the same sociology in the modern era with the Mormons. An
angel appears to Joseph Smith and gives him a golden tablet with the
Book of Mormon on it. Eventually an entire cult and religion are
formed from this mythology.

Gary Eickmeier


Few chances to get it here in Germany. It's not published any longer,
so I'll look for a used copy. Reading some critical peer-reviews, the
storyline (allegedly) isn't always based on historical facts. To make
my own comments - I have to read the book, first.

Mythology and "blind faith" are products of a one-sided, insufficient
education. In this point I completely agree with [Hammond]'s ideas of
something like a "BGD". However, I would call this thing "educational
deficit" because it doesn't only depend on intelligence. Faith is our
replacement for knowledge, an alternative way to explain events we're
not able to grasp. Science as it is practised nowadays (the "knowing"
and the "dumb") has the potential to turn into Mythology. If we can't
pass the available knowledge in a way everyone is able to understand,
the "knowing" will become our new high priests. While the "dumb" pray
whatever those "chosen ones" may preach...


Greetings from Augsburg

Bernhard Schornak

Gary Eickmeier wrote:

Mack views the religious movements as a sociological phenomenon, which
I think is absolutely correct. You can see the effect of sociological
forces in today's society. If you live in an area (as I do) that is so
Christian that everyone asks you which church you attend when they
meet you, you feel the need to just "go along." We have most of us
been raised in a religious atmosphere, because it was thought good to
be religious, respectful of religion, and that being a "person of
faith" was a good thing.


Comparable to what I experienced in my childhood in a rural environment.
Later on, we moved to a larger city where religion wasn't that important
for the people. The recent trend in Germany is that more and more people
"unsubscribe" from both, Roman Catholic and Protestant Church. Meanwhile
we have about 30 % who don't "belong" to any church (which does not tell
us they are Atheists, but they neither are members of a Church).

So if you stop for a moment and reflect on the preposterous beliefs of
your parents and community, you dare not voice your doubts too
publicly, because you want to remain a member of the group. This is a
very strong force, easily led by certain people with strong
personalities, and hard to fight. If you say a word of doubt, you are
branded an atheist, a weird creature not deserving the grace of God.
You may even be subject to conversion and surrounded by prayer.


Sounds like what we had here in the Middle Ages - frightening to imagine
this could happen again. It's a very subtle form of brainwashing people,
even a very strong person has very few chances to resist such methods in
the long run. It's like the destruction and reconstruction of one's per-
sonality as e.g. practised by freemason circles.

Christianity is the result of these strong social forces, combined
with mythmaking of the highest order, with the noblest of intentions.
The book tells the tale, I think fairly accurately, even with the
scimpy information available to us today. It should be available, and
is a new book, not used only.


Amazon says it's not printed anymore and all copies are sold out. I will
try to order a used copy (according to Amazon about 10 Euro).

It's really hard to imagine a world without religion, because ordinary
people need something to hang on to. Intellectual curiosity and
honesty just don't hack it. The best we can probably hope for is to
give them our love and respect, as long as their beliefs remain
harmless. When they start blowing things up, we need to do something,
but pitting one religion against the other is not the answer. Might
also want to read "The End of Faith" by Sam Harris
(http://www.samharris.org/).


There is a huge difference between personal belief and organized belief,
aka religion. Personal belief is something to respect (as long as it re-
spects all others). Organized belief always is an instrument to get con-
trol over other people. The purpose is defined by the impossibility that
two people on this planet think exactly the same in all regards. There's
always a difference in our thinking, even identical twins do not develop
identical thoughts. If more than one person believes in one and the same
set of (unproven) spiritual (meta-physical) assertions, then one of them
managed to convince (baptize) all others of her/his thoughts. That's the
point where the evil begins - adopted thoughts of others don't match our
way of thinking, so we start to interprete them. Interpreting them leads
to results which are out of the frame of the original "message". This is
the reason why the Crusades or the burning of witches were "sold" as the
"will of God" - even if they are a contradiction of the basic beliefs of
Christianity and Jesus' teachings.

There is no reason in our thinking and acting if we haven't learned what
reason is. Most people's thinking depends on strict sets of rules, with-
out them they are helpless. The way out is independent thinking, but the
ones who have control are afraid of people who are able to develop their
own thoughts. Independence and control are mutually exclusive. All these
mechanisms are based on our animal instincts. It's very hard to "defeat"
them...

I am prattling on, but just getting some thoughts off my chest. Also
easier to have an intelligent discussion here than on the Christianity
groups.

Gary Eickmeier


It is interesting to exchange these thoughts. I think it's less annoying
for the reader than the ramblings of the incredible [Hammond]. At least,
there's some scientific content in our postings...


Greetings from Augsburg

Bernhard Schornak

"bv_schornak" wrote in message
...

It is interesting to exchange these thoughts. I think it's less annoying
for the reader than the ramblings of the incredible [Hammond]. At least,
there's some scientific content in our postings...


I think its a lot less annoying. This is turning into a fascinating thread.

Thank you both for an interesting debate.