Comments

This lady is a nut job. Completely and utterly insane. Here's more proof:

"On July 23, 2008, Kern was stopped by security guards in the Oklahoma State Capitol when she tried bringing a loaded gun into the building. The gun was a .380 caliber semiautomatic handgun. Kern had a permit for the gun and claimed she brought it into the building by accident. It was later confirmed that a second incident in which Kern made it into the building with a gun occurred in June 2008. Kern was not charged for either incident." - Wikipedia

I'm not so much interested in defending Sally Kern in all things. It's clear she's said some ill-advised things, and people jump all over those things b/c they sound bad.
But of course, after her YouTube thing, there were attempts to silence her, and that's totally uncalled-for. Hopefully Smith would allow for her to continue to have free speech. Many of his liberal friends don't allow for that.

Smith shows his ignorance of numerous studies of the American homosexual population - there are VAST differences between the avg life expectancy of homosexuals and that of heterosexuals. It is a significantly lower life expectancy for homosexuals, and not just b/c of HIV. The homosexual lifestyle tends to be more violent and more disease-ridden, which is what one would expect if (to put it delicately) fecal and sexual secretory matter were regularly introduced into the bloodstream over a long period of time.

Smith said:
-Is this God’s way of telling us that he wants to see more hot girl-on-girl action?

It is impossible to take statements like this seriously.

-a 2006 study conducted by Vanderbilt scholar Gary Jensen shows a strong correlation between homicide and dualistic belief (i.e., belief in both a god and a devil)?

one wonders whether the survey differentiated between the held beliefs prior to the crime, or beliefs held once the criminal is in prison. Prison ministries, thankfully, are effective and helpful to many, but they can skew these kinds of results.
And of course, it might be Kern's position that homosexual acts be illegal (it wouldn't be mine), but the more widely-held position is that marriage not be changed to include homosexual marriage, and that PUBLIC homosexual acts be illegal.

-Jesus’s historical existence has no more relevance to the evaluation of his moral teachings than the historical existence of Socrates does on the legitimacy of the Socratic method.

Agreed, 100%. But the attacks on the Christian conception of Jesus are multi-pronged. One gets the sense that Smith takes approximately the least-kind position on his interview with Kern as he could.
Smith has not yet told anyone how he knows, as an apparent non-monotheist, what is moral and what is immoral. That would be immensely helpful.

-if one wants to justify their homophobia through belief that God at one point torched a city full of Sodomites, the historicity of the Bible takes on a new significance.

As is plain to see, Smith just assumes a certain moral view and runs actions through it that he apparently doesn't like. He's not built any foundation, however, for these kinds of judgment calls.

-The Gospel of Mark, the oldest gospel mentioning Jesus, dates, charitably, to 40 years after Jesus’s alleged death

1) "Alleged death"? Even the Jesus Seminar, the fringe group of radical leftist theologians and scholars, allows NO, ZERO question about the fact that Jesus did die on the Cross.
2) Mark is quite a bit more recent than 40 yrs after His death and resurrection. Even if it were 40 yrs after, however, 40 yrs is not nearly enough time for significant legendary embellishment.
3) There are other biblical references to Christ, His death, and His resurrection that are much earlier than that. 1 Corinithians, for example, which in chapter 15 describes those things and the witnesses in some detail.

-George Washington, Geoffrey Chaucer and William Shakespeare, on the other hand, have all left extensive contemporaneous documentation.

"Contemporaneous" - the Gospels are contemporaneous, written and sourced from eyewitnesses. Christ is mentioned by contemporary non-Christian writers, and by the Apostle Paul. That's contemporary. Smith could've easily checked this out before writing his column.

-I’ll keep an eye out.

Challenge evolution in one of your classes and you might see what she means.

I find it interesting that you make reference to "the Bible’s Old Testament god" as if he we any different from the God of the New Testament. I also find it extremely absurd that you would suggest that Christianity is dualistic! Dualism is not "belief in both a god and a devil." Dualism is the belief that there are two coeternal principles in conflict with each other (such as good and evil). Christianity is fundamentally opposed to dualism! Only God is eternal and he is the creator. Satan is a creature, and hence had a beginning and is finite in power and knowledge, etc. To suggest that Christianity is dualistic is to either greatly misunderstand Christian metaphysics or to misunderstand dualism (I will admit that there is a third option: to redefine Christian metaphysics as Open Theists do, but I am referring to Biblical, historical, orthodox Christianity).

You are correct that Jesus' existence or lack thereof does not affect his moral teaching - unless his moral teaching is based upon who he is. Also, if you take Jesus' teaching as a whole (rather than his 'moral teaching') it must be bound to him having existed (and furthermore, his eternality).

I am constantly amazed at how often one who says that homosexuality is a sin is accused of 'homophobia.' Thinking a thing wrong, even thinking it a danger and wanting to act against it, does not constitute a phobia. I could just as easily accuse many of having a phobia of carbon emissions, but it would only detract from discussion.

In your statement about Sodom, you misunderstand Christianity in two ways. First, the historicity of the Bible is not important only for proving specific moral cases. It is important because God has acted in space and time and is redeeming a people for himself. Secondly, the account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorra is not the sole passage Christians turn to when disputing homosexuality (for example, see Romans 1).

Now, regarding the Gospel accounts you put Mark as the oldest. I suspect you do this on the basis of Markan priority; which, while widely held, is hardly proven. I would also like to know on what basis you find this dating to be 'charitable.' But what I find worse by far is the implication that the Gospels are in some way suspect due to them being written after the death of Christ.

Rep. Kern makes two mistakes. First she uses non-secular weapons on a secular battlefield. Second, apparently, is that she thinks to do so is necessary. In truth the homosexuality political argument is riddled with, linguistic gimmickry, deceptive definitions, concepts and blatant falsehoods. In short everything needed to defeat the homosexual intellectual argument is available using the scientific method, which has always proven to be the movement most affective opponent.
It isn’t surprising that there are no cases of AIDS transmission through female homosexual behavior since there is virtually none through heterosexual vaginal intercourse. The myth of heterosexual transmission was a political creation to relieve the homosexual community of the just deserved stigma as the primary source of the AIDS epidemic through their wholesale practice of anal sodomy. If the Black community now has the highest rate of AIDS infection it is because they have high rates of anal sodomy. A higher percentage of black males engage in homosexual activity than white males. e.g. Magic Johnson.

Great article. The lady is nuts. It's concerning to have her in a position of power.

Rhology said, "But of course, after her YouTube thing, there were attempts to silence her, and that's totally uncalled-for. Hopefully Smith would allow for her to continue to have free speech. Many of his liberal friends don't allow for that."

ironically, she, herself does not believe in freedom of speech. she says, during her interview, "I do think that our courts today have expanded free speech beyond what our founding fathers intended. I don't think they ever intended things like pornography. Burning the flag, or perhaps even doing something like this professor's done. I don't think they intended that." funny, that.

Rhology said, "Smith has not yet told anyone how he knows, as an apparent non-monotheist, what is moral and what is immoral. That would be immensely helpful."

Smith, like all homo sapiens and so very many other species on the planet would necessarily get their sense of "morality" as humans like to call it, from altruism. treating others as we would like to be treated not only is not an ethical commandment originating from Yeshua (aka "Jesus"), as this was offered by Confucius in his Analects some six centuries before, but can be found in the actions of many of our fellow denizens.

Rhology said, ""Contemporaneous" - the Gospels are contemporaneous, written and sourced from eyewitnesses. Christ is mentioned by contemporary non-Christian writers, and by the Apostle Paul. That's contemporary. Smith could've easily checked this out before writing his column."

clearly, this is something that Rhology should have checked out before writing his response. there are NO contemporary writings of Yeshua. there are NO references to the supposed "Great Darkness" or the zombie saints returning from the grave or the earthquake that supposedly shook open the tomb or the Murder of the Innocents by Herod or the Star of Bethlehem, etc. not one drop of ink is spent on ANY of these easily noticeable events by a single scribe, priest, astronomer, or historian during the lifetime of Yeshua.

further, there is no reason to believe that the accepted gospels were written by their prescribed authors beyond Christian tradition. while it can be claimed that their authorship must lie between this and that time, the fact is, their names were GIVEN to them by Father Irenaeus in the END of the SECOND century. cf "Against All Heresies" 3.11.8. it is a shame Rhology is not privy to this basic information or his criticism might otherwise be coherent.

as far as legendary embellishment, there were legends about many people WHILE they were alive so the idea that the myths of Yeshua had no time to develop is wishful thinking. people even saw ELVIS, for goodness' sake, after his death. how hard is it to think that 2,000 years ago, people would imagine the same think about THEIR flavour of idol? come on.

Rhology said, "Challenge evolution in one of your classes and you might see what she means."

Joe Six-pack should "challenge evolution"? someone with nearly no working knowledge of biological evolution and the scientific understanding and theory of biological evolution should do WHAT exactly? pretend to have decades of scholarly work under their belt? done actual peer-reviewed clinical trials in the field? cross-referenced genetics, zoology, archaeology, and every relevant multi-disciplinary field of science, to make sure that those evil evolutionary biologists are not pulling our leg? biologists, mind you, in EVERY country AROUND the WORLD who AGREE with this pesky "theory"? good grief.

tell me, is heliocentrism argued in your classes? how about plate techtonics? these are scientific theories, as well, which only rely on indirect evidences. why no great uprising against these theories being taught in schools?

I don't have any particular problem with evolution, but I wonder if Martini's criteria for criticising the Bible is as rigorous for criticising evolution. Does he know Greek and Aramaic? Has he read all the ancient texts? Has he studied ancient Biblical commentators as well as all of the vaired modern opinions? Does he understand the oral nature of the culture in which the Epistles were written. Or did he find his criticisms on a website that is devoted to refuting Christianity.

I've read things that make my high school biology class (which I took two years ago) seem hopelessly outdated (See: "Survival of the Sickest," an excellent book). In forty years, we'll probably see the modern conception of evolution as childish nonsense. These discussions of evolution and the historical evidence for Christ strike me as consisting of fools striking each other in the dark.

And anyway, the claim that there is not enough evidence to prove Christ's existence seems childish to me in light of the fact of a movement (Christianity) that has flourished for two thousand years based primarily on the belief that Christ was a fact. If Christianity is a lie, it is the single most successful lie in the history of the world.

Buddha was a moral teacher. Muhammed was a moral teacher. But Jesus was Christ. I must heartily disagree that Jesus' historical existence is irrelevant. If Jesus did not exist, Christianity is emptied of all meaning. People remember the Golden Rule and His concern for the poor, but they seem to forget the teaching most primary to His life: "Leave everything you have and come follow me." That statement must be a puzzle to those who push Jesus the moral teacher idea. How can you give to the poor if you've given everything to follow a myth?

Evidence does exist that Christ was real. In light of that fact, and more importantly everything that comes after, it rings hollow to my ears that there is not enough evidence. No such lie could last so long, and in the hands of someone who read an anti-Christian book or website, it is an absurdity to claim that one could. To paraphrase G.K. Chesterton, Jesus was either deceitful, crazy, or God. But more pertinent to this conversation, Jesus was.

Chestertonian said, "I don't have any particular problem with evolution, but I wonder if Martini's criteria for criticising the Bible is as rigorous for criticising evolution. Does he know Greek and Aramaic? Has he read all the ancient texts? ... Or did he find his criticisms on a website that is devoted to refuting Christianity."

have CHRISTIANS completed this laundry list before deciding they are going to follow this religion and this one particular flavour of god -- Yahweh -- of the dozens the Hebrews worshiped and the thousands human beings HAVE worshiped with the same fervour and sincerity? i doubt it. apparently, your criteria for having an informed opinion on Christianity only applies to those 2/3 or the world or so who do NOT buy into it? that is a pity.

Chestertonian said, "I've read things that make my high school biology class (which I took two years ago) seem hopelessly outdated (See: "Survival of the Sickest," an excellent book). In forty years, we'll probably see the modern conception of evolution as childish nonsense. These discussions of evolution and the historical evidence for Christ strike me as consisting of fools striking each other in the dark."

so when it comes to believing in Christianity, we can accept any old authority -- or no authority but that of a translated and transliterated text written thousands of years ago -- but with evolutionary biology, even the BEST and most EXPERIENCED authorities OF TODAY do not count one iota? i would say your comment on fools striking each other seems hardly fitting given your idea of what authority you will accept and what you will not.

Chestertonian said, "And anyway, the claim that there is not enough evidence to prove Christ's existence seems childish to me in light of the fact of a movement (Christianity) that has flourished for two thousand years based primarily on the belief that Christ was a fact. If Christianity is a lie, it is the single most successful lie in the history of the world."

this sort of "evidence" is very much not. Osiris, Isis, and Horus were worshiped for longer than Christianity and it died out. whether there are zero worshipers remaining or a world FULL of worshipers, it lends no veracity to the myth being true or false. the Ad Populum fallacy plays quite a big part in this.

further, it has nothing to do with being "the single most successful lie" as it does with people simply being wrong as they HAVE been wrong about the other thousands of gods they worshiped. was Prometheus crucified on the Caucasus mountains for centuries until Herakles -- meaning "Glory of Hera" -- released him? why did the ancients write and repeat this myth? because that is what they believe happened. the same is true of Yeshua -- meaning "Savation of Yahweh" -- and the only reason we do not call it a myth in polite conversation is because there are still Christians about who would get offended. c'est la vie.

Chestertonian said, "Buddha was a moral teacher. Muhammed was a moral teacher. But Jesus was Christ."

so sayeth CHRISTIANS but not the Jews. coincidence? of all the expected things their Christ was SUPPOSED to do, he did none of them. Paul had his "vision" and it told him -- this man from a family of Roman tentmakers who grew up in Tarsus which was a hotspot for Greco-Roman mystery religions -- to spread this "mystery of the Christ" to the Gentiles. really? Yeshua supposedly said he had come ONLY for the Lost Sheep of Israel. this supposed ex-rabbi who had never even MET the earthly Yeshua but, instead, preached this SPIRITUAL SAVIOUR, was spreading HIS message to the "swine". funny, that sort of 180-degree turn in theology, eh?

Chestertonian said, "I must heartily disagree that Jesus' historical existence is irrelevant. If Jesus did not exist, Christianity is emptied of all meaning."

exactly. that is why whomever the Greco-Roman epic later named The Gospel According to Mark is forever lost in history if he existed at all. his message was NOT revolutionary as any historian will tell you. he preached the Pharisee message of the Hillelites (yes, i DID study) and was killed for it as so many Yeshuas were. it was a VERY popular name, as a matter of fact.

Chestertonian said, "People remember the Golden Rule and His concern for the poor, but they seem to forget the teaching most primary to His life: "Leave everything you have and come follow me." That statement must be a puzzle to those who push Jesus the moral teacher idea. How can you give to the poor if you've given everything to follow a myth?"

no one likes to call their religion a myth. the ancients did not worship Aesclepius because it was a myth. they ACTUALLY BELIEVED in his prescriptions for healing and followed them. they BELIEVED he had existed at one time. how else would their temples be working? Yeshua taught nothing new and novel that cannot be found in Eastern religions well before he would have been in diapers.

Chestertonian said, "Evidence does exist that Christ was real. In light of that fact, and more importantly everything that comes after, it rings hollow to my ears that there is not enough evidence."

uh, okay. should we just accept that and move on? there IS NO such evidence. nothing written about his miracles or the miracles that supposedly occurred before, during, or immediately following his lifetime. he no more existed than Perseus. he no more was betrayed by a loved one who hung themselves than Herakles. he no more gave us morality than did Zagreus. he no more ascended to heaven than did Romulus. he no more is the gateway between this life and the next than Zalmoxis. these myths are older than he would have been and they smell just as musty and unbelievable.

Chetertonian said,"No such lie could last so long, and in the hands of someone who read an anti-Christian book or website, it is an absurdity to claim that one could."

why do you think that it is a lie? did the Sibylline Oracles lie? why would the Egyptians spend so much time building pyramids for their god kings or filling with "lying" hieroglyphics if they did not SINCERELY believe it to be true? the same can be said, again, about Christians, Muslims, Hindus, etc. they BELIEVE it to be true but this lends nothing to the truth behind the theology. i can believe anything i want but that hardly necessitates it be true. people have believed that ALL SORTS of things were true when they were not. why are you so afraid to be wrong when humankind has been so wrong in the past? there is nothing shameful about just being wrong.

Chestertonian said, "To paraphrase G.K. Chesterton, Jesus was either deceitful, crazy, or God. But more pertinent to this conversation, Jesus was."

or he was a legendary figure of a Roman epic which based itself on mystery religions of the time like so many others. claiming that he necessarily existed makes no more sense than saying the same about any legendary figure from Atum to Zeus. remember: your decision to believe Yeshua ben Yusef of Nazareth existed is based on your wishful thinking and not on hard contemporary evidence.

Was Jesus a real historical character? There is no reliable evidence for it - it's all hearsay, recorded (at best) decades later. It's very clear that Xian scholars over many centuries have tampered with historical documents to augment the authenticity of the story, e.g. Josephus' Testimonium Flavianum. http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm

Was he a combination of earlier myths? Most probably. The Jesus story borrows many components from earlier myths. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Chris...

So, the most likely explanation for Jesus and the bible is plain and simple plagiarism. It's a whopper of a fairy tale that has been fooling the credulous for centuries and Kerns is a prime example of how stupid it can make some people.

Sally Kerns is a scary and dangerous person to have in any position of authority. Nicely written article, Zac - hopefully it'll wake up a few voters in time for her attempt at re-election.

Oh please Chestertonian, you've got to have a better argument for Jesus' historical existence than "we'd be living the greatest lie in history." There is no conclusive historical evidence that Jesus existed (unlike Mohammad, the Buddha, Laozi, or Confucius) and it's possible that he's just a conglomeration of multiple would-be-messiahs of the era. Of course, this doesn't really invalidate the religion - Jesus is still useful as a symbol - but the onus is on the Christian to verify his existence.

And BrianCBiggs, you're clearly just an apologist for fundamentalist Christianity so nobody is taking you seriously. But really, I can accuse you of homophobia because you're basing your bigotry of homosexuals on a false and pseudoscientific platform buttressed by a book elaborating moral codes a couple thousand years old. It's embarrassing.

Martini said: "i doubt it. apparently, your criteria for having an informed opinion on Christianity only applies to those 2/3 or the world or so who do NOT buy into it?"
Ditto with the 1/3 of Americans who don't believe in evolution. You're proving my point. I'm saying it's stupid to argue about these things because none of us are informed.

Martini, for all of your knowledge of Pagan cults and your supposed knowledge of the origins of Christianity, you really understand very little. The fact that you consider Christianity unoriginal is a fair indication of just how one sided your education has been. Regardless of the truth of Christianity, only one completely ignorant of it could consider it unoriginal.

For example, the concept of "person" is of Christian origin. The Greek form, "prosopon," was a term in the theatre before it was adopted by Christians to assist in comprehending the nature of a triune god. Heck, the concept of the "Trinity" is yet another example of Christian originality.

Then there is the synthesis between Hebrew monotheism and Greek philosophy's concept of the logos, which is somewhat unique, if I'm not mistaken.

You also ignore the fact that Christianity is the thing that ended most of the cults you mention. I find it absurd to consider the thing that ended so many other religions and spread so rapidly in that environment could be the same as those religions.

Another of your statements that I find silly: you claim rightly that there were many false messiahs and "Yeshuas" running around. You admit the turmoil of the times, and then insist on conclusive documentation of our Christ. Is it really so surprising that such documentation does not exist, especially given the common belief that Christ was coming back SOON. There is a letter to an ESTABLISHED Christian community a mere twenty years after Christ's death. Some skepticism might be justifiable, but your dogmatic assertion that he didn't exist is simply groundless.

I'm not at all afraid of being wrong, I have doubts from time to time, but to do so is human. Only bigots never consider that they may be wrong.

martini said:

-ironically, she, herself does not believe in freedom of speech.

The difference is that she doesn't think (and she's right) that the Founding Fathers didn't have pron or flag-burning in mind when they wrote the 1st Am. Did they have in mind that it would be OK to silence a govt official for speaking on her religious beliefs in a private capacity to a private gathering?

-necessarily get their sense of "morality" as humans like to call it, from altruism.

1) Not all get their morality from altruism.
2) This doesn't tell us why one OUGHT TO have altruism as the basis for morality. All it says is that you assume that altruism is best, and so you go with it. But what is the basis for it?

-there are NO contemporary writings of Yeshua.

Martini dismisses the Gospel eyewitness accts without argument.

-zombie saints

Martini doesn't know what he's talking about. When God revives people, they're ALIVE, not 'undead'. He needs to give a reason for imposing his worldview on the Scriptural text, rather than taking the intended sense from the author.

-not one drop of ink is spent on ANY of these easily noticeable events

He means, besides the Gospel accts, which he summarily dismisses. That's not the action of a truth-seeker.

-there is no reason to believe that the accepted gospels were written by their prescribed authors beyond Christian tradition.

Martini has apparently no idea of the depth and breadth of New Testament scholarship. Sad. His exposure is apparently limited to reading Dawkins and Hitchens books. Even John Dominic Crossan would be helpful for him (and that's hard to say about most people).

-their names were GIVEN to them by Father Irenaeus in the END of the SECOND century.

1) Which doesn't mean the names are wrong.
2) As if Christians base the authority of the Gospels on being 100% sure of the identities of the authors.
3) It was common practice in the early churches to circulate these manuscripts with "Kata ____" (according to ____) appended to the top. Their identities are far surer than most any other ancient document, but I don't see Martini arguing that we can't know the author of ANY ancient document.

-there were legends about many people WHILE they were alive so the idea that the myths of Yeshua

While there were yet hundreds of people alive who claimed to have seen the risen Christ? They didn't say ANYthing? The legendary embellishment was able to claim enough followers that they defeated the orthodox camp?

-Joe Six-pack should "challenge evolution"?

Yes, b/c it's easily defeated. More people need to exercise their flabby brains and think about stuff like this.

-pretend to have decades of scholarly work under their belt?

Rather, I propose they attack the presuppositions underpining evolution, but other areas of attack are open as well. I have no specialised training and have uncovered quite a few pathetically weak spots of the hypothesis.

-cross-referenced genetics, archaeology, "every relevant multi-disciplinary field"

As if evolution has much necessary connection with these. Martini needs to make an argument.

-zoology

When a hypothesis is wrong, jettison it. Otherwise, you're not doing science anymore.

-in EVERY country AROUND the WORLD who AGREE with this pesky "theory"?

Just like the consensus on geocentrism back in the day? Where is Martini's sense of scientific progress? Apparently, it extends as far as his preferences, and that's not worthy of a thinking person's respect.

-is heliocentrism argued in your classes? Plate tectonics?

No. But the arguments against those are not nearly as strong as those against evolution.

Chestertonian said, "Ditto with the 1/3 of Americans who don't believe in evolution. You're proving my point. I'm saying it's stupid to argue about these things because none of us are informed."

there is a MASSIVE difference between vacuous religious beliefs and scientific "beliefs". that you do not seem to note a difference is disturbing, to say the lease.

Chestertonian said, "Martini, for all of your knowledge of Pagan cults and your supposed knowledge of the origins of Christianity, you really understand very little. The fact that you consider Christianity unoriginal is a fair indication of just how one sided your education has been. Regardless of the truth of Christianity, only one completely ignorant of it could consider it unoriginal."

the story of Yeshua is simply not original. nothing you can do to wipe away the past, though Christians surely did try once they were in power. a virgin birth? son of a god? (eg, Perseus) never heard of that one before, Chestertonian? magical healing abilities? nope. nothing new there. try Aesclepius. a resurrection after death? heard it before a-plenty. how about an ascension into the heavens? yep. see Herakles. even being worshiped as a god AND as the son of a god was recorded about Romulus by Livy CENTURIES before Yeshua supposedly came along. betrayal by someone close to them who then HUNG themselves? sure thing. again, Herakles. oh, and the "dead for three days"? original? no way. Inanna was hung on a hook in the Sumerian religion LONG before Yeshua could have been in diapers.

so when you say the legends surrounding Yeshua are "original", i have to ask: what do you mean by original?

Chestertonian said, "For example, the concept of "person" is of Christian origin. The Greek form, "prosopon," was a term in the theatre before it was adopted by Christians to assist in comprehending the nature of a triune god. Heck, the concept of the "Trinity" is yet another example of Christian originality."

try Hinduisum. Brahma, Shiva, and Vishnu are separate gods but still what they call the Trimurti or forms of the one Supreme Reality. their beliefs are recorded WAY before Christianity.

Chestertonian said, "Then there is the synthesis between Hebrew monotheism and Greek philosophy's concept of the logos, which is somewhat unique, if I'm not mistaken."

this is because the Hellenized Jews were integrating Greco-Roman beliefs into their own culture and religion. cf Philo of Alexandria. he was a perfect example of a Hellenized Jewish philosopher doing just that.

Chestertonian said, "You also ignore the fact that Christianity is the thing that ended most of the cults you mention. I find it absurd to consider the thing that ended so many other religions and spread so rapidly in that environment could be the same as those religions."

Eek. Not a good thing to bring up. The amount of destruction done by Christians once they had come into power in the fourth century is, Chestertonian, LEGION. cf Vlasis Rassias. You can find an unbelievable, though documented, laundry list of these abominable acts on-line. Love thy Neighbor Christianity WIPED OUT these other religions! They destroyed everything and everyone that was NOT Christian. We are lucky to have anything at all left to pick through.

Chestertonian said, "Another of your statements that I find silly: you claim rightly that there were many false messiahs and "Yeshuas" running around. You admit the turmoil of the times, and then insist on conclusive documentation of our Christ. Is it really so surprising that such documentation does not exist, especially given the common belief that Christ was coming back SOON. There is a letter to an ESTABLISHED Christian community a mere twenty years after Christ's death. Some skepticism might be justifiable, but your dogmatic assertion that he didn't exist is simply groundless."

So say you, I guess, but the fact stand that there are MANY events surrounding his life which would NOT have been overlooked by contemporary historians, astrologers, and priests. The fact that there were CHRISTIANS several decades after the supposed events in questions lends nothing to the veracity of their having actually BEEN a flesh-and-blood Yeshua ben Yusef of Nazareth. why do YOU think it does?

Josephus recorded IN DETAIL the rights and wrongs of Herod. Yet, there is no recording of his slaughter of the infants "in and around Bethlehem". The so-called "Star of Bethlehem" does not make it into a single astronomical work of the time. Neither of these epic miracles of feeding THOUSANDS of people make it into a single priestly work. The supposed court proceedings of Yeshua are definitively fictional. There is no recording of Pilate ever releasing a prisoner nor is the form of "blasphemy" by Yeshua valid. The earthquake also lacks a single drop of ink by historians and the rising of dead people makes not one splash in the news of the time or any time thereafter outside of the Gospel of Matthew.

These are an awful lot of coincidences but they sit perfectly well under the title "legend" as so many before it do.

Chestertonian said, "I'm not at all afraid of being wrong, I have doubts from time to time, but to do so is human. Only bigots never consider that they may be wrong."

That is all we can ever hope for. Can you truly live out your life without the belief that the events of Chrsitianity turn out to be false? That some archaeological find or another shows beyond reasonable doubt that Paul was preaching a mystery religion -- "the mystery of the Christ" -- and only a SPIRITUAL saviour?

Rhology said, "The difference is that she doesn't think (and she's right) that the Founding Fathers didn't have pron or flag-burning in mind when they wrote the 1st Am. Did they have in mind that it would be OK to silence a govt official for speaking on her religious beliefs in a private capacity to a private gathering?"

Did they have semi-auto machine guns in mind when they wrote the Second Amendment? I can argue, based on your argument, that it does not. Would you, then, agree?

The bottom line, Rhology, is that ALL of the tax dollars from people of ALL religions and NO religious belief are being used to go toward condoning and, in the case of the "faith-based initiative", PROMOTING religion. She wants to make it okay to use religious views as viable and correct answers on SCIENCE TESTS. News flash: there was no world-wide flood. Any relevant scientific field of study has shown this -- much to the chagrin of the CHRISTIANS who first discovered this fact. Things like that simply cannot be handwaved away when it comes to education in our country. I assume you are American.

Rhology said, "1) Not all get their morality from altruism.
2) This doesn't tell us why one OUGHT TO have altruism as the basis for morality. All it says is that you assume that altruism is best, and so you go with it. But what is the basis for it?"

Yes, we necessarily do. whether we listen to it is up to us since we are not robots, programmed by evolutionary adaptation, but 10 people can succeed where one person cannot. Helping one another leads to continued living -- of which I am most certainly a fan. The "basis" for altruism is successful reproduction, the cornerstone of evolutionary biology!

Altruism "works" because it is successful and because it applies to everyone at any time or place. That makes it a universal morality.

Rhology said, "Martini dismisses the Gospel eyewitness accts without argument."

These were not written by eyewitnesses. Being kind, we give them several DECADES after the supposed death of Yeshua. We also assume that a perfectly good ORAL tradition somehow without explanation needed to become a WRITTEN tradition. We have no autographs. We have no originals. We have no chain-of-evidence for even the bits and pieces we DO have from over a century later! THAT is considered "eyewitness"? Good gravy, that is little more than a straw to grasp at if it is anything at all.

Rhology said, "Martini doesn't know what he's talking about. When God revives people, they're ALIVE, not 'undead'. He needs to give a reason for imposing his worldview on the Scriptural text, rather than taking the intended sense from the author."

No, I said that no one cared one iota about these people rising from the dead enough to write it down? Even in the gospels, only ONE of them bothered to note it. That means either it is fictional OR this sort of thing happened enough that no one thought it extraordinary. It is a lose-lose from the Christian viewpoint.

Rhology said, "He means, besides the Gospel accts, which he summarily dismisses. That's not the action of a truth-seeker."

Did Herakles rescue Prometheus from the Caucasus mountains? It is recorded so your position is one of truth unless falsified. In history, we look for contemporary INDEPENDENT accounts of events. The more far-fetched, the more evidence we would necessarily want. For completely and wholly naturally impossible events, we MUST SURELY, Rhology, ask for more than just ONE ACCOUNT! Your credulous nature may be fine with such events from a SINGLE Gospel of an UNKNOWN author (they WERE named in the end of the second century) but my nature is not.

Rhology said, "Martini has apparently no idea of the depth and breadth of New Testament scholarship. Sad. His exposure is apparently limited to reading Dawkins and Hitchens books. Even John Dominic Crossan would be helpful for him (and that's hard to say about most people)."

I am quite aware of the scholarship on both sides of the fence including FF Bruce, Robert Price, Metzger, and a slew of others including Jewish scholarship such as Herzog and Finkelstein. A laundry list of names does not make my position any more true but neither does it validate empty groundless claims like yours. The fact stands, gentle reader, that New Testament scholarship is no more secure about who wrote Matthew than anyone has EVER been besides, perhaps, the original author. There are no certain dates for composition -- even into the second century -- and given the amount of forgery and redaction that took place WHICH WE KNOW OF, to say that these works are a reliable source for ANYTHING is a helluva mouthful.

Rhology said, "1) Which doesn't mean the names are wrong."

Nor can it possibly mean it is correct.

Rhology said, "2) As if Christians base the authority of the Gospels on being 100% sure of the identities of the authors."

If they were not written in the order that Irenaeus suggests (and no scholar believes Matthew was first!) then the rationale for naming them also falters.

Rhology said, "3) It was common practice in the early churches to circulate these manuscripts with "Kata ____" (according to ____) appended to the top. Their identities are far surer than most any other ancient document, but I don't see Martini arguing that we can't know the author of ANY ancient document."

It was a RARE thing to see MSS without SOMETHING regarding the author. Note the beginning of Luke in comparison to what you just said: many have taken in hand to set forth in order a declaration of those things which are most surely believed among us. Given what you just said, it would imply that there MANY different flavours of gospels floating around.

Rhology said, "While there were yet hundreds of people alive who claimed to have seen the risen Christ? They didn't say ANYthing? The legendary embellishment was able to claim enough followers that they defeated the orthodox camp?"

Please bring forth the writings of these hundreds of people. If you are trotting out the line in II Cor regarding "five-hundred brethren", you will have to excuse my disagreement. I could easily say that I and five hundred friends saw a space ship. Without their testimony, it yields not a lick of evidence.

Rhology said regarding challenging evolution, "Yes, b/c it's easily defeated. More people need to exercise their flabby brains and think about stuff like this."

Then why does it have continuing corroboration through various different scientific fields to back it up? You seem to think that a mechanic should be able to put a crown on your tooth. Sure, one can read up on the topic but would you trust someone untrained in a field to get serious results? That sounds absurd to me but you must have some sort of reason to suggest this?

Rhology said, "Rather, I propose they attack the presuppositions underpining evolution, but other areas of attack are open as well. I have no specialised training and have uncovered quite a few pathetically weak spots of the hypothesis."

... which you coincidentally neglected to mention in your response. What presuppositions are unreasonable? Why do you think that you can understand evolutionary biology enough to argue with professionals who are HIGHLY trained in this field? Would you argue astrophysics in this manner, as well?

Rhology said, "As if evolution has much necessary connection with these. Martini needs to make an argument."

Endogenous retroviral insertions are the genetic markers passed on from mother to child. We share several of these with ALL OTHER PRIMATES in the EXACT SAME LOCATIONS. The further back we go on the tree of life, the more markers we have with our brethren.

The homology and morphology of something like a vampire bat skeleton compared to our own versus that of birds is evidence of a common ancestry.

Archaeology is also a snapshot of some of the species alive at various times. Species X always comes after species W in the strata. Species Y never comes before species X. These indirect evidences imply that older species either died off or continued to adapt to changing environs until their progeny became the later species.

We can even see speciation events in short-lived species like drospophilia. These events are well-recorded and hardly require any work on your part to review.

My question, Rhology, is this: would ANY amount of evidence convince you or are you so dead-set on your Christian interpretation of life, the universe, and everything, that your mind is an inescapable hall of mirrors? What evidnece WOULD convince you?

Rhology said, "Just like the consensus on geocentrism back in the day? Where is Martini's sense of scientific progress? Apparently, it extends as far as his preferences, and that's not worthy of a thinking person's respect."

Scientific inquiry is the only tool we have. If these multi-disciplinary fields all support evolution and the scientific theory of evolution, then that is what stands in science. Consensus of a scientific theory is NOT the same as an informal anecdotal hypothesis such as geocentrism. Without the proper tools, how could they have known? Biologists, zoologists, geneticists, archaeologists, etc, ALL have confirmed in varying degrees that the scientific theory of evolution accurately describes how life has come to be on our planet. It is not a consensus of people giving mere opinion. If you had any understanding of peer-reviewed scientific studies, you would know this is true.

Rhology said, "No. But the arguments against those are not nearly as strong as those against evolution."

again, you conveniently left out your "arguments" in the response. ;^)