Thursday, November 30, 2006

Paul and argument from silence.

In all the Epistles of Paul, there is not one word about Christ's virgin birth. The apostle is absolutely ignorant of the marvellous manner in which Jesus is said to have come into the world. For this silence, there can be only one honest explanation -- the story of the virgin birth had not yet been invented when Paul wrote. A large portion of the Gospels is devoted to accounts of the miracles Christ is said to have wrought. But you will look in vain through the thirteen Epistles of Paul for the slightest hint that Christ ever performed any miracles. Is it conceivable that Paul was acquainted with the miracles of Christ -- that he knew that Christ had cleansed the leprous, cast out devils that could talk, restored sight to the blind and speech to the dumb, and even raised the dead -- is it conceivable that Paul was aware of these wonderful things and yet failed to write a single line about them? Again, the only solution is that the accounts of the miracles wrought by Jesus had not yet been invented when Paul's Epistles were written.

Not only is Paul silent about the virgin birth and the miracles of Jesus, he is without the slightest knowledge of the teaching of Jesus. The Christ of the Gospels preached a famous sermon on a mountain: Paul knows nothing of it. Christ delivered a prayer now recited by the Christian world: Paul never heard of it. Christ taught in parables: Paul is utterly unacquainted with any of them. Is not this astonishing? Paul, the greatest writer of early Christianity, the man who did more than any other to establish the Christian religion in the world -- that is, if the Epistles may be trusted -- is absolutely ignorant of the teaching of Christ. In all of his thirteen Epistles he does not quote a single saying of Jesus.

Paul was a missionary. He was out for converts. Is it thinkable that if the teachings of Christ had been known to him, he would not have made use of them in his propaganda? Can you believe that a Christian missionary would go to China and labor for many years to win converts to the religion of Christ, and never once mention the Sermon on the Mount, never whisper a word about the Lord's Prayer, never tell the story of one of the parables, and remain as silent as the grave about the precepts of his master? What have the churches been teaching throughout the Christian centuries if not these very things? Are not the churches of to-day continually preaching about the virgin birth, the miracles, the parables, and the precepts of Jesus? And o not these features constitute Christianity? Is there any life of Christ, apart from these things? Why, then, does Paul know nothing of them? There is but one answer. The virgin-born, miracle-working, preaching Christ was unknown to the world in Paul's day. That is to say, he had not yet been invented!

The Christ of Paul and the Jesus of the Gospels are two entirely different beings. The Christ of Paul is little more than an idea. He has no life story. He was not followed by the multitude. He performed no miracles. He did no preaching. The Christ Paul knew was the Christ he was in a vision while on his way to Damascus -- an apparition, a phantom, not a living, human being, who preached and worked among men. This vision-Christ, this ghostly word, was afterwards brought to the earth by those who wrote the Gospels. He was given a Holy Ghost for a father and a virgin for a mother. He was made to preach, to perform astounding miracles, to die a violent death though innocent, and to rise in triumph from the grave and ascend again to heaven. Such is the Christ of the New Testament -- first a spirit, and later a miraculously born, miracle working man, who is master of death and whom death cannot subdue.

Saturday, November 11, 2006

A reason I left the Christian Faith.

Man made God in his own image. If you look and read the bible from that perspective, it makes a lot more sense by itself. Now take the concept of God. Each and every one of us thinks about God, and those thoughts are not compatible with each other in all cases. And where the compatibilities are different is apparent in the diversity of Church flavor whether it be in denominations or non-denominations. So no one person could ever think about the one true God, even if you identify it as the Being who gave moses the tablets, there really isn't much more to be said. There is no real definition, and even when we try to reason God, it becomes unreasonable. And all of this in me, creates cognitive dissidence.
I cannot live healthily with a belief that does not fit real world solutions. A belief where if I have faith that the Stove really isn't hot when I touch it while it is on, and you get burned, I have to re-evaluate my faith.

Sunday, November 05, 2006

Ten Commandments

I wanted to put the revised 10 up on my site:

Do not do to others what you would not want them to do to you.

In all things, strive to cause no harm.

Treat your fellow human beings, your fellow living things, and the world in general with love, honesty, faithfulness and respect.

Do not overlook evil or shrink from administering justice, but always be ready to forgive wrongdoing freely admitted and honestly regretted.

Live life with a sense of joy and wonder.

Always seek to be learning something new.

Test all things; always check your ideas against the facts, and be ready to discard even a cherished belief if it does not conform to them.

Never seek to censor or cut yourself off from dissent; always respect the right of others to disagree with you.

Form independent opinions on the basis of your own reason and experience; do not allow yourself to be led blindly by others.

Question everything.

Friday, November 03, 2006

Jeez don't let other people do your thinking!

A fundy friend spoke with me today about if God is light, could he swallow a blackhole where light can't escape.

I was thinking about that for a bit, and I have to say reason it out for yourself.
God is light is a metaphor anyway right, doesn't it mean God is the way, or truth, or good moral values. Well even if the God of the Bible doesn't have good moral values, the concept of God that I would think about would have to have good morals. So for one, the God of the Bible is out I MEAN OUT. Just read the Bible, what a load of crap!

Besides don't we today see the Bible pick and choose our way through it, and so on anyway. I mean"Letter to a Christian Nation" by Sam Harris makes the Biblical God as NULL an no brainer.
Look at the New Testament and how the authors expect us to keep slaves. "Don't beat your slaves so as to knock out their teeth or eyes." I mean if you did that, you may as well as kill IT. No use is a slave without teeth or eyes.

The other thing I wanted to say is that light is so fragile, that why would you say "God is Light". That is worse than saying God is wind. I mean wind has substance. Look at Katrina!

Oh by the way, Katrina was a Natural disaster. Happens all the time on this planet. God ain't got nothing to do with killing women and children. (Well that is what happened when Katrina hit.)

Whether God exists or NOT doesnt' matter to me. I look inward for moral guidance. Most just do what their Rabbi says. You know, like those Muslim doohickies.

Regards all,