Saturday, 9 June 2012

Confirm your unsubscription from 'Secular Café'

To confirm that you no longer wish to receive updates from 'Secular Café', please click on the following link:

http://blogtrottr.com/unsubscribe/confirm/b7Ff50/4CyWHj


If you weren't expecting to receive this email, then simply ignore it and we'll go away.

Secular Café: If you accept this as universal morality, you will reject God.

Secular Café
Discuss atheism, religious apologetics, separation of church & state, theology, comparative religion and scripture.
If you accept this as universal morality, you will reject God.
Jun 9th 2012, 13:06

If you accept this as universal morality, you will reject God.

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

God does not follow the first rule at all.

The bible says that Jesus "was crucified from the foundations of the Earth," that is to say, God planned to crucify Jesus as atonement for sin before he even created human beings or sin.

This shows that what many thinks is our number one moral value was completely ignored by God.

Is God immoral or has man gotten morality wrong?

If God was right, then are we to believe that fathers are to bury their children instead of the way people think in that children should bury their parents?

John 6:44
"No one can come to me unless the Father who sent me draws him."

On earth as it is in heaven.

If you had God's power to set the conditions for atonement, would you step up yourself or would you send your child to die?

Regards
DL

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Friday, 8 June 2012

Secular Café: Are there differences between the atheists who left religion and those who were never religious?

Secular Café
Discuss atheism, religious apologetics, separation of church & state, theology, comparative religion and scripture.
Are there differences between the atheists who left religion and those who were never religious?
Jun 8th 2012, 21:27

Everyone is different of course, with different temperaments, but in the course of my years on discussion boards like this one, I think I recognise a few tendencies, to which there will of course be exceptions.

For a start with, I suspect that the so called 'post atheists', who in broad terms seem to think that atheists should just STFU about religion, tend to come predominantly from the 'never weres'

Secondly, I further suspect that those most scathing about belief, in the sense that they tend to be very outspoken, to the point and often beyond the point of rudeness, also tend to be skewed towards the never weres.

Thirdly, I think that those to whom arguing against religion is most important, but at the same time tend to focus on attacking the beliefs rather than the believer, tend to come from those who used to be religious themselves.

Or perhaps I'm seeing tendencies that aren't really there, but just reflect my own position:dunno:

Comments?

David

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Secular Café: Religious bullies

Secular Café
Discuss atheism, religious apologetics, separation of church & state, theology, comparative religion and scripture.
Religious bullies
Jun 8th 2012, 17:05

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/richar...b_1564043.html

Quote:

There is nothing wrong with people proclaiming their faith publicly; the problem is when they seek to impose it on everyone else. When Jesus said, "Judge not, that you be not judged" (Matthew 7:1), He was talking to bullies and hypocrites. Martin Luther King, Jr. used his faith to liberate people, not to bash or demonize them; that is the difference between him and the radical religious right, who have gone from attacking him to co-opting him.

People are not sheep. God gave us human brains, and we have the responsibility to honor that gift by thinking for ourselves. In any case, we have intellectual freedom in this country, and our civil government is based on the Constitution, not on the Bible. The bullies' repeated groundless assertions to the contrary do not change this.

Jesus articulated the separation of church and state when He said, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's; and to God the things that are God's" (Matthew 22:21). He also said, "My kingdom is not of this world" (John 18:36). If the bullies used their scripture as a source of reflection instead of as a weapon against others, they would realize that Jesus would be horrified at what they do in His name.

The use of religion to justify prejudice or as a means of controlling others is not acceptable in a diverse and free society. Sloganeering about "religious freedom" to force your dogma on everyone else is an insult to intelligence. Your religious freedom does not entitle you to deny others access to health care or to interfere with their health care decisions. It does not entitle you to disfavor faiths or families or ethnic groups of which you disapprove.

We refuse to let preachers of hate off the hook when others act on their inflammatory words and attack or kill LGBT people. Violence, harassment, and sexual assault are not funny, nor are they inevitable rites of passage. They are not acceptable either in school or prison or within a relationship. Your advancement does not require putting your boot on someone else's neck.

The dispute between pro-gay and anti-gay forces is not symmetric. LGBT-rights activists do not seek to deny anyone equal protection of the law, as our opponents do. We object to the false symmetry portrayed by many in the media. Bullies who are prevented from bullying do not thereby become victims. The radical religious right's claim of victimhood is not a mere disagreement; it is a lie...

...The tide is turning against those who call themselves "pro-family" while attacking families they don't like. We are committed to being part of that tide and urge others to do likewise. Much is at stake for us, for those we love, and for our country.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Secular Café: Ron Jeremy goes to church

Secular Café
Discuss atheism, religious apologetics, separation of church & state, theology, comparative religion and scripture.
Ron Jeremy goes to church
Jun 8th 2012, 12:10

http://www.10news.com/news/31166024/...ml?hpt=us_bn10

Quote:

Miles McPherson, the pastor of The Rock Church, said Jeremy will be a guest at five services on Sunday.

Every week, about 12,000 people fill the pews of the church to hear McPherson's message. Now, McPherson hopes his followers will open their hearts and minds for this unlikely church guest, who he believes is perfect.

"We started a series called 'Exposed' about five weeks ago talking about what is exposed in our heart when we judge people," he said.

The professional football player turned pastor says most of society would turn their backs on people like Jeremy.

"He's not a Christian, he's living a sinful life in people's eyes and his lifestyle is contrary to the Bible but still, we're obligated to love him," said McPherson.

The words "Jesus Loves Porn Stars" is splashed on a colorful promotional poster for Sunday's unusual guest. McPherson hopes the sermon will encourage people to look at themselves in the mirror.

"One out of every two guys watch pornography and one out of every six women… so there's pornography in church every week, we just don't talk about it," he said.
Now, that's a church service I just might attend, if I lived in San Diego!

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Thursday, 7 June 2012

Secular Café: Being Born Again is actually a Brain Disorder

Secular Café
Discuss atheism, religious apologetics, separation of church & state, theology, comparative religion and scripture.
Being Born Again is actually a Brain Disorder
Jun 7th 2012, 16:51

As I tend to think most religion/theological beliefs are. :evil:

Quote:

Being 'Born-Again' Linked to More Brain Atrophy: Study


WEDNESDAY, May 25 (HealthDay News) -- Older adults who say they've had a life-changing religious experience are more likely to have a greater decrease in size of the hippocampus, the part of the brain critical to learning and memory, new research finds.

According to the study, people who said they were a "born-again" Protestant or Catholic, or conversely, those who had no religious affiliation, had more hippocampal shrinkage (or "atrophy") compared to people who identified themselves as Protestants, but not born-again.

The study is published online in PLoS ONE.

As people age, a certain amount of brain atrophy is expected. Shrinkage of the hippocampus is also associated with depression, dementia and Alzheimer's disease.

In the study, researchers asked 268 people aged 58 to 84 about their religious affiliation, spiritual practices and life-changing religious experiences. Over the course of two to eight years, changes to the hippocampus were monitored using MRI scans.

The researchers suggested that stress over holding religious beliefs that fall outside of the mainstream may help explain the findings.

"One interpretation of our finding -- that members of majority religious groups seem to have less atrophy compared with minority religious groups -- is that when you feel your beliefs and values are somewhat at odds with those of society as a whole, it may contribute to long-term stress that could have implications for the brain," Amy Owen, lead author of the study and a research associate at Duke University Medical Center, said in a Duke news release.

The study authors also suggested that life-changing religious experiences could challenge a person's established religious beliefs, triggering stress.

....
http://www.philly.com/philly/health/132456883.html

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Wednesday, 6 June 2012

Secular Café: Legendary Fail: People are on Welfare Because They Don't Read the Bible

Secular Café
Discuss atheism, religious apologetics, separation of church & state, theology, comparative religion and scripture.
Legendary Fail: People are on Welfare Because They Don't Read the Bible
Jun 7th 2012, 03:09

link


Quote:

People are on welfare for many different reasons. Most people are on welfare because they lost their jobs and need benefits to care for their families until they can find new work. Others are sick or disabled and are therefore unable to work. These are reasonable explanations for why people need welfare. But religious conservatives are inventing a new reason to explain why people are on welfare.

According to right-wing preacher and activist David Barton, people are on welfare because they don’t read the Bible.

David Barton is a conservative minister from Texas. He is the founder of Wallbuilders, an organization that seeks to destroy the separation of church and state to achieve its ultimate goal of turning America into a Christian state ruled by Biblical law. During his radio program called ‘Wallbuilders Live,’ Barton claimed that people are on welfare because they don’t read the Bible.





“Wouldn’t it be interesting to do a study between those that are on welfare and see how much and how often they read the Bible,” Barton wondered. “You know, if Booker T. Washington is right that Christianity and reading the Bible increases your desires and therefore your ability for hard work; if we take that as an axiom, does that mean that the people who are getting government assistance spend nearly no time in the Bible, therefore have no desire, and therefore no ability for hard work? I could go a lot of places with this. I would love to see this proven out in some kind of sociological study, but it makes perfect sense.”

There are two problems with Barton’s claim. First, Bible belt and the more religious/conservative states have been revealed as the real welfare states. On average, for every $1.00 that blue states receive, red states take $1.16. That may not sound like a lot but that adds up to millions more in federal aid going to conservative states.

If we take a look at the list of the top states that take federal dollars, 16 of the top twenty states are conservative leaning.

1. New Mexico: $2.03
2. Mississippi: $2.02
3. Alaska: $1.84
4. Louisiana: $1.78
5. West Virginia: $1.76
6. North Dakota: $1.68
7. Alabama: $1.66
8. South Dakota: $1.53
9. Kentucky: $1.51
10. Virginia: $1.51
11. Montana: $1.47
12. Hawaii: $1.44
13. Maine: $1.41
14. Arkansas: $1.41
15. Oklahoma: $1.36
16. South Carolina: $1.35
17. Missouri: $1.32
18. Maryland: $1.30
19. Tennessee: $1.27
20. Idaho: $1.21

As it turns out, the big liberal states that conservatives have come to despise actually take little federal aid.

40. Massachusetts: $0.82
42. New York: $0.79
43. California: $0.78

So the real welfare queens are in fact, conservatives.

The second problem with Barton’s claim is that a recent Gallup Poll found that Republicans are more religious than Democrats.

So either conservatives don’t read the Bible or they do read it and collect welfare at the same time. The evidence presented suggests that Bible-toting conservatives need welfare more than less religious people living in liberal states.

Regardless of who gets more welfare, those who get it most certainly need it. People just don’t go on welfare to get a free ride. In order to receive welfare benefits, a person has to qualify for them. Whether it be food stamps or Medicaid or housing assistance or energy assistance or unemployment benefits, welfare programs clearly help those in need. According to statistics, most welfare recipients are white adults and are on welfare less than two years at a time. That means the majority of Americans see welfare as temporary assistance.

Obviously, Barton’s claim is seriously flawed. Of course, I wouldn’t expect him or any other conservative for that matter to believe the facts.
:bang:



Note: full article quoted but the addictinginfo site is fine with that.

Quote:

Here are the copyright rules, regarding the reuse of content from this site;

You are free:
•to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work
•to Remix — to adapt the work


Under the following conditions:
•Attribution — You must attribute the work in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the work).
•Noncommercial — You may not use this work for commercial purposes.


With the understanding that:
•Waiver — Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder.
•Public Domain — Where the work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.
•Other Rights — In no way are any of the following rights affected by the license: ◦Your fair dealing or fair use rights, or other applicable copyright exceptions and limitations;
◦The author’s moral rights;
◦Rights other persons may have either in the work itself or in how the work is used, such aspublicity or privacy rights.

•Notice — For any reuse or distribution, you must make clear to others the license terms of this work. The best way to do this is with a link to this web page.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Secular Café: Twenty supposed atheist-stumpers

Secular Café
Discuss atheism, religious apologetics, separation of church & state, theology, comparative religion and scripture.
Twenty supposed atheist-stumpers
Jun 7th 2012, 02:48

20 Questions | Richard Carrier Blogs takes on
God's Advocate • 20 questions atheists struggle to answer
from Christian Medical Comment: Twenty questions atheists struggle to answer

Here they are:
1. What caused the universe to exist?
2. What explains the fine tuning of the universe?
3. Why is the universe rational?
4. How did DNA and amino acids arise?
5. Where did the genetic code come from?
6. How do irreducibly complex enzyme chains evolve?
7. How do we account for the origin of 116 distinct language families?
8. Why did cities suddenly appear all over the world between 3,000 and 1,000 BC?
9. How is independent thought possible in a world ruled by chance and necessity?
10. How do we account for self-awareness?
11. How is free will possible in a material universe?
12. How do we account for conscience?
13. On what basis can we make moral judgements?
14. Why does suffering matter?
15. Why do human beings matter?
16. Why care about justice?
17. How do we account for the almost universal belief in the supernatural?
18. How do we know the supernatural does not exist?
19. How can we know if there is conscious existence after death?
20. What accounts for the empty tomb, resurrection appearances and growth of the church?

Does anyone want to take a swipe at them? Some of them are almost too easy.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Secular Café: Send in the Nuns

Secular Café
Discuss atheism, religious apologetics, separation of church & state, theology, comparative religion and scripture.
Send in the Nuns
Jun 6th 2012, 12:09

Okay, I admit that I stole that title line from an old Mel Brooks film, but it just seemed to fit. Regardless of whether you would like to see all religion die out or are just hoping it will become more liberal and less harmful, you might like what these nuns are doing. They certainly have my respect.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/06/06/us...es.html?ref=us


Quote:

In a spirited retort to the Vatican, a group of Roman Catholic nuns is planning a bus trip across nine states this month, stopping at homeless shelters, food pantries, schools and health care facilities run by nuns to highlight their work with the nation's poor and disenfranchised.

Quote:

The sisters plan to use the tour also to protest cuts in programs for the poor and working families in the federal budget that was passed by the House of Representatives and proposed by Representative Paul D. Ryan, a Wisconsin Republican who cited his Catholic faith to justify the cuts.

"We're doing this because these are life issues," said Sister Simone Campbell, executive director of Network, a liberal social justice lobby in Washington. "And by lifting up the work of Catholic sisters, we will demonstrate the very programs and services that will be decimated by the House budget."

The bus tour is to begin on June 18 in Iowa and end on July 2 in Virginia. The dates overlap with the "Fortnight for Freedom," events announced by Catholic bishops to rally opposition to what they see as the Obama administration's violations of religious freedom. The bishops object in particular to a mandate in the health care overhaul to require religiously affiliated hospitals and universities to offer their employees coverage for birth control in their insurance plans.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Secular Café: RCC losing support in Ireland

Secular Café
Discuss atheism, religious apologetics, separation of church & state, theology, comparative religion and scripture.
RCC losing support in Ireland
Jun 6th 2012, 12:39

http://www.irishcentral.com/news/Cat...157178905.html

Quote:

The Irish people have given up on the basic principles of Catholicism according to a new survey.

The latest Irish Times/Ipsos MRBI opinion poll shows that the majority of Catholics in Ireland no longer attend Mass.

The survey also says that significant numbers 'do not believe' in key elements of the church's teachings.

The poll results have been published by the newspaper to coincide with the 50th Eucharistic Congress of the Catholic Church in Dublin this week.
But never mind; the church is still sitting on billions' worth of property.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...317368627.html

Quote:

The assets owned by the State's 26 dioceses and 160-plus congregations and other distinct Catholic organisations have been accumulated over more than two centuries of providing religious, educational, health and other services to a once devout populace.

The property is held in trust by an array of organisations that now share similar challenges arising from declining and ageing memberships.

Many congregations of nuns, brothers and priests have property portfolios running into tens and hundreds of millions of euro, with average ages for their memberships well past the normal age of retirement.

Most have put in place lay structures through which they hope the assets will continue to be used for faith-linked purposes when the congregations themselves have all but withered away. They have done this while seeking to ensure they retain sufficient resources to look after the welfare of their members, many of whom need nursing care...

...Damages and redress to victims of abuse at the hands of religious, whether diocesan priests or members of the independent congregations, is an issue that could have bankrupted some congregations were it not for the indemnity scheme granted by the State in 2002.

After the landmark 1999 States of Fear documentaries by the late Mary Raftery, the State set up the Residential Institutions Redress Board. The government entered into an indemnity agreement with 18 congregations whereby they would contribute €128 million in cash, property and counselling services, with the State picking up the rest of the redress costs.

However, the costs have proved to be much greater than were earlier envisaged. The latest estimate from the Department of Education is that the redress costs will be about €1.5 billion.

In the wake of the 2009 Ryan report, the government asked the congregations to increase their contribution to half of the estimated final cost, but to date the amount being offered is well short of that. The congregations have offered a further €350 million – about €270 million short of what the Government believes they should pay.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Tuesday, 5 June 2012

Secular Café: Does Religious Liberty Equal Freedom to Discriminate?

Secular Café
Discuss atheism, religious apologetics, separation of church & state, theology, comparative religion and scripture.
Does Religious Liberty Equal Freedom to Discriminate?
Jun 5th 2012, 18:25

Quote:

Does Religious Liberty Equal Freedom to Discriminate?
Posted: 05/29/2012 3:27 pm

I happened to leave the country on the day that President Obama made his historical statement that he was in favor of same-sex marriage. I had expected his statement to ruffle feathers from those who found such partnerships difficult to reconcile with their religious beliefs, but I arrived back to find that the resulting outcry was completely counter-intuitive.

I had expected that some people might condemn him for a flawed morality. Instead, I found that the offensive was based on the argument that his defense of same-sex marriage represented an attack on religious liberty.

Maybe it is just because when visiting other developed countries it is sometimes easy to forget how it is possible that religious discussion can permeate politics as deeply as it does in the U.S., but nevertheless it seemed unfathomable to me that the president's statement that we should grant some additional rights to some individuals represented an attack on the liberty of others.

After all his statement was about the right to marry, which is a secular legal issue. Even if the state were to recognize same-sex marriages, churches, mosques or synagogues or other places of worship would not be required to hold wedding ceremonies within them or sanction such marriages because the no legal standing is attributed to such ceremonies or sanctions. Where is the attack on liberty?

Soon after that it turned out that many Catholic organizations raised an outcry when Katherine Sebelius, the Health and Human Services Secretary and a practicing Catholic, was invited to speak at the Georgetown University graduation ceremony. Many senior officials, including the Cardinal of Washington wanted the invitation revoked simply because Sebelius fought to get insurance coverage for women using contraceptives.

And this week, the Virginia House killed the appointment of a qualified judicial nominee... because he is gay!

All of these developments suggest that the banner of 'religious liberty' is effectively more akin to the 'right to discriminate.' For the state to treat organized religious groups differently than it does other organizations implies special rights for these groups to behave differently than others. But this requires such religious groups to determine who is in the "in' group, and who is in the 'out' group, and because religious doctrine guides moral behavior, it provides an opportunity for members of the group to condemn the behavior of those not in the group.
.....
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/lawren...b_1553678.html

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Secular Café: Jesus was a doomsday cult leader

Secular Café
Discuss atheism, religious apologetics, separation of church & state, theology, comparative religion and scripture.
Jesus was a doomsday cult leader
Jun 5th 2012, 17:07

Intro

In a previous thread, I made a case for why Jesus was a cult leader (Cult leader Jesus). In this thread, I go into detail concerning the specific type of cult that Jesus founded: a doomsday cult.

It sounds like an insult, but it is actually another way of expressing the theory that has been predominant among secular New Testament historians for the most part of a hundred years, though they don't use that phrase. The missionary Albert Schweitzer instead used the phrase, "apocalyptic prophet," meaning that Jesus believed that the world order was going to come to a disastrous end very shortly, within Jesus' own generation at the latest, and God would establish a new kingdom to rule to the world from on top of the rubble.

Surprisingly, the historical evidence for this theory is featured prominently throughout the New Testament canon, and we do not need to read between the lines nor use our imaginations to see it.

John the Baptist

The source of the apocalypticism of Jesus can be inferred from a study of the historical attestations of John the Baptist. The gospels of Mark and Matthew claim that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist, and all of the canonical gospels betray some embarrassment concerning the baptism (see this post). Why would Jesus be baptized by John the Baptist if Jesus was the spiritual authority over John? Plausibly, because Jesus really was baptized by John. If Jesus was baptized by John, then it was probably because Jesus was a disciple of John. This hypothesis is strongly reinforced by Jesus himself, according to Matthew 11:11, saying, "Truly I tell you, among those born of women no one has arisen greater than John the Baptist..."

What kind of leader was John the Baptist? There are two historical sources concerning John the Baptist: the Christian gospels and Josephus. According to the earliest Christian gospel, Q, John the Baptist believed in an imminent doomsday. John is quoted:
"Even now the axe is lying at the root of the trees; every tree therefore that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire." (Matthew 3:10 and Luke 3:9)
Does this mean John the Baptist was a doomsday cult leader? Not necessarily, because our second source, Josephus, does NOT explicitly claim that John the Baptist was an apocalypticist. However, Josephus tells a narrative of John the Baptist that would be expected if John were genuinely a doomsday cult leader: John gains a large following, Herod fears an uprising and puts John to death, and the followers of John attribute the downfall of Herod to the execution (see Josephus on John the Baptist).

It is concluded, therefore, that the mentor of Jesus was probably a doomsday cult leader. This makes the claim that Jesus was likewise a doomsday cult leader considerably more plausible. Onto Jesus!

Mark

Mark 9:1 reads:
"And he said to them, 'Truly I tell you, there are some standing here who will not taste death until they see that the kingdom of God has come with power.'"
Mark 13:30 reads:
"Truly I tell you, this generation will not pass away until all these things have taken place."
Jesus is being quoted, and he seems to be saying the same thing in two different ways: the deadline is right around the next corner. Despite this, the traditional apologies for these passages is that a "generation" is actually a very long period of time, and "the kingdom of God has come with power" refers to the transfiguration of Jesus. But both passages are in the context of apocalyptic prophecies. For example, in Mark 13 Jesus predicts:
"When you hear of wars and rumours of wars, do not be alarmed; this must take place, but the end is still to come. For nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom; there will be earthquakes in various places; there will be famines. This is but the beginning of the birth pangs."
Paul

The earliest Christian writings are the epistles authentically written by the Apostle Paul, and his letters are in a similar spirit of imminent apocalypticism.

1 Thessalonians 4:13-18 reads:
"But we do not want you to be uninformed, brothers and sisters, about those who have died, so that you may not grieve as others do who have no hope. For since we believe that Jesus died and rose again, even so, through Jesus, God will bring with him those who have died. For this we declare to you by the word of the Lord, that we who are alive, who are left until the coming of the Lord, will by no means precede those who have died. For the Lord himself, with a cry of command, with the archangel’s call and with the sound of God’s trumpet, will descend from heaven, and the dead in Christ will rise first. Then we who are alive, who are left, will be caught up in the clouds together with them to meet the Lord in the air; and so we will be with the Lord for ever. Therefore encourage one another with these words."
This was written two decades after the death of Jesus, and it makes sense only if it is meant to encourage "we who are alive" who may otherwise be discouraged with the thought that the Christians who have died would miss out on the heavenly kingdom.

1 Corinthians 7:29 reads:
"I mean, brothers and sisters, the appointed time has grown short; from now on, let even those who have wives be as though they had none..."
After the deadline

All of the earliest works of the Christian canon are apocalyptic, often betraying imminent apocalypticism. However, the later Christian writings, from 90 CE and onward, change their sermons. They instead have explicit excuses for the earlier doomsdayism. Such passages include John 21:20-23, Gospel of Thomas 113 and 2 Peter 3:3-8.

John 21:20-23 reads:
"Peter turned and saw the disciple whom Jesus loved following them; he was the one who had reclined next to Jesus at the supper and had said, ‘Lord, who is it that is going to betray you?’ When Peter saw him, he said to Jesus, ‘Lord, what about him?’ Jesus said to him, ‘If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you? Follow me!’ So the rumour spread in the community that this disciple would not die. Yet Jesus did not say to him that he would not die, but, ‘If it is my will that he remain until I come, what is that to you?’"
In other words, the doomsday deadline was really just a silly misunderstanding by the disciples.

Gospel of Thomas 113 reads:
His disciples said to him, "When will the kingdom come?"

"It will not come by watching for it. It will not be said, 'Look, here!' or 'Look, there!' Rather, the Father's kingdom is spread out upon the earth, and people don't see it."
In other words, this Jesus is correcting a common misconception about the coming kingdom, a misconception that the disciples supposedly held. The kingdom won't be observably physical--it will be spiritual or metaphorical.

2 Peter 3:3-10 is the most blatantly apologetic. Pretending to be written by the Apostle Peter, it reads:
First of all you must understand this, that in the last days scoffers will come, scoffing and indulging their own lusts and saying, ‘Where is the promise of his coming? For ever since our ancestors died, all things continue as they were from the beginning of creation!’ They deliberately ignore this fact, that by the word of God heavens existed long ago and an earth was formed out of water and by means of water, through which the world of that time was deluged with water and perished. But by the same word the present heavens and earth have been reserved for fire, being kept until the day of judgement and destruction of the godless.

But do not ignore this one fact, beloved, that with the Lord one day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like one day. The Lord is not slow about his promise, as some think of slowness, but is patient with you, not wanting any to perish, but all to come to repentance. But the day of the Lord will come like a thief, and then the heavens will pass away with a loud noise, and the elements will be dissolved with fire, and the earth and everything that is done on it will be disclosed.
In other words, the scoffers will mock Christians by pointing out that the doomsday has failed its deadline, because their ancestors at the time of Jesus were long dead, but God apparently does not have the same interpretation of the given itinerary as the scoffers.

Conclusion

The doomsday cult leader model of the historical Jesus is most directly expected from the most relevant evidence. Not only that, but it is plausible: The Jewish Essenes (the authors of the Dead Sea Scrolls 100 years before Jesus) likewise believed in an imminent doomsday.

The greatest weakness of this model of the historical Jesus is that it does not fit our wishful thinking for who Jesus was. Whereas other historical Jesuses conveniently affirm the social opinions of modern scholars, authors and readers, the doomsday cult leader Jesus is hopelessly divorced from our prejudices. He was a man of a very different time and place.

And, though the subsequent churches have relegated the apocalypticism to lesser importance, Christian doomsday prophets and Biblical analysts over 2000 years have since predicted that Jesus will return VERY SOON, often nailing down the date. William Miller in the 19th century indirectly founded several major Christian denominations following his fumbled prediction, the "Great Disappointment."

How disappointing that the world didn't end! It is a disappointment that has recurred in the Christian tradition since the time of Jesus.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Secular Café: Is the RCC destroying itself?

Secular Café
Discuss atheism, religious apologetics, separation of church & state, theology, comparative religion and scripture.
Is the RCC destroying itself?
Jun 5th 2012, 07:31

Personally, I think what follows is wishful thinking. The RCC has managed to survive scandal after scandal and yet still the faithful flock to it.

I got this via email. I'm not sure that the writer wants his name publicised at the moment, so I am putting it here as an anonymous contribution


Quote:

The advantage is ours. The Catholic Church has never been more weak and vulnerable than it is right now. Ever in its entire history. If we seize the moment we can do much to finally and fully expose the Roman Church for the perfidious criminal dictatorship that it has been for the last two thousand years, and destroy much of the hold it still has over so many. And hopefully reduce the Vatican from a sovereign nation to church property in Rome.

As you presumably know, under the authority of Benedict the Vatican has arrested the Pope's butler – the Pope's BUTLER for deities' sake -- on charges that it is he who has been leaking documents that over the last few months been exposing the highest ranks of the Holy See as shady underhanded conspirators and conniving rivals so corrupt that JP Morgan announced it will no longer deal with the long notorious Vatican Bank on suspicions of nefarious money laundering (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/n...ntroversy.html, http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...-account.html; that's after the Eurobanking system seized tens of millions of VB funds on similar suspicions, http://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/22/wo...22vatican.html). And there is the Mexico drug cartel story (www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-latin-america-17445872). The butler affair has hit the international media big time, it made all the major US network news broadcasts Saturday evening and is becoming regular fare, which it will be years to come. Making the Dan Brown novels look tame by comparison, it's the story that will keep on giving forever.

Meanwhile in her best selling memoir Anna Quindlen announced she has at long last left the church. Meanwhile E. J. Dionne Jr goes on about how he is sticking with Rome despite the superb Washington Post ad requesting all decent Catholics abandon the institution – and with the controversy and attention garnered by the ad let's drop how such ads don't work.

And please, I beg of you all. As a person who has been researching this for years – I have read every damn NY Times, Wall St J and Washington Post article on the jaw dropping links between the Popes, the Vatican Bank, the Mob and other assorted criminal elements – please understand that the pedophile and related sex scandals as bad as they are trivial compared what the scoundrels at Rome have been up to.

The Mother Church is now in extreme danger, far more than it was when the pedophile scandal started to really break out in 2001 after simmering for decades. That's because the sex scandals do not threaten the core legal status of the Vatican/Holy See the way this disaster does. There is now an inside man who knows a lot of the goods and is threatening to spill the beans. The Pope hopes to try this man inside the Vatican where he can control the flow of information, and then turn him over to Italian authorities for imprisonment for turning Papal papers over to the press. Whether Paolo Gabrielle is a truly decent man trying to do the right thing, or is part of one of the competing power factions in the Vatican, he is a whistleblower, the man who once out of the Vatican can tell the media whatever he wants to. Being a legally narrow subject the sex scandals never provided the political and legal mechanisms for destroying the nation-church. This much broader situation provides the means. This at a time when western Christianity is weaker than ever (as I explained in the article I just sent this link to most of you [http://www.scienceandreligiontoday.c...nse-of-theism], sorry for all the emails I've sent some of you as events suddenly pile up).

Just as the tipping point for the press to feel free to really go over the Catholic Church over the cover up of priests buggering kids came in 2001, in 2012 the press is finally going to feel free to chase down Rome for its financial crimes. After all, the Butler did it! It's just too juicy for them not to play for all its worth. And it is the sort of thing that promises to strip the last of the aura of legitimacy from the damn church. What we need to do is do all we can on an emergency basis to help the process play out. Of course the Holy See is going to do all it can to downplay the Vatileaks and try to minimize the fallout, and much of the mainstream will be tempted to go along and continue the idea that the church is a moral force – a discussion of how the Holy See is trying to make the whistle blowing an act against god and the trial of the butler may be held in secret is at http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...stigation.html. We need to abort that. And that requires getting ahead of the game and being the first to set the bar high when it comes to the ground rules for the future investigation of the criminal Vatican mob. Here's how.

Separately and/or jointly the atheist-secular organizations need to this week if at all possible release declarations along the lines of the following (this is a quick, rough draft) –

-- Demand that the Pope cease persecuting the butler and any other whistleblowers, and immediately release him if he remains detained. (According to the Fundamental Law of Vatican City State 2000 "The Supreme Pontiff, Sovereign of Vatican City State, has the fullness of legislative, executive and judicial powers," he can do whatever he pleases.) Gabrielle has committed no actual crime, he is a classic whistleblower. Any trials secret or otherwise held within the dictatorial Vatican are automatically invalid and to be opposed as violating human rights. If any trials are held they must be through the Italian courts.

-- Demand that outside legal authorities investigate what the butler knows, and request that Paolo and others cooperate.

-- Demand full exposure, in particular that the Vatican abandon its chronic self serving secrecy and immediately open the files of the super secretive Vatican Bank and the Vatican itself to investigation by international law organizations and a neutral commission, as well as journalists and historians.

-- Demand that at least one of the following occur: that the currently lawless and untouchable Vatican surrender its sovereign status and become like all other churches -- simple property and personnel subject to the laws of the country within they reside; or that the international community pressure and if necessary by legal force compel the Vatican to surrender to Italian sovereignty (including a photograph of Mussolini posing with the Pope upon the signing of the 1929 accord that made the Vatican independent would help).

-- Demand that the Vatican Bank be disassembled – no church needs a bank.

-- Propose that nations and international courts issue warrants for the arrest of the Pope, making him a prisoner of the Vatican at least as long as it retains sovereignty.

-- Insist that mere resignation of the current Pope in favor of an alleged reformer and other similar moves is entirely insufficient, that the Vatican must be stripped of its national status.

-- Reinsist that all decent Catholcis abandon the church because its core doctrine requires that it be remain a dictatorship that will always be corrupt (and explain why this is true because of the direct link to Jesus and Peter, and that absolute power corrupts absolutely).

-- Back up these demands with the abundant documentation of decades of links between the Holy See and criminal elements, as well as its support for Fascism.


If the atheosecular community does not act very fast to set the bar high, the mainstream community and press will go along with the usual suggestions for mild reforms, including perhaps the resignation of Benedict, leaving the church little touched and ready for the further corruption a national dictatorship will invariably slip into.

As good as they were, the Freedom From Religion Foundation ads did not adequately explain why the Catholic Church cannot ever be reformed, and it focused on the sex scandals when far worse has been going on. This is an opportunity to fill in the gaps.

The need for documentation of the case against the church cannot be overemphasized. The lack of knowledge among atheists about the illicit activities of the church is itself an outrageous scandal. There is no excuse for all informed atheists to not know about Michelle (St. Peter's Banker) Sindona (aka The Shark & Godfather Banker, poisoned by cyanide after being convicted for murder after pouring ill gotten cash into the Vatican Bank by collapsing legitimate banks), Roberto (God's Banker) Calvi (murdered by hanging after being convicted for crimes that John Paul II then shelled out 200 million to buy off the creditors), Paul (the Gorilla) Marcinkus (who JP2 protected from arrest by US & Italian authorities for collaborating with Sindona and Calvi), and Martin Frankel (who conspired with top Vatican authorities to defraud US insurance companies leading to a RICO suit by six state insurance commissioners for 600 million dollars against the Holy See that I'll bet none of you has ever read, do so at www.thememoryhole.org/states-v-vatican). When I gave a talk at NYC Atheists a few weeks ago only a couple of folks in the audience knew about these crooks. It is imperative to make the public aware of how Paul 6, John Paul 2 and perhaps Benedict 16 have been involved in criminal activities.

Being a leading researcher on this fascinating subject in which truth is far stranger than anything Dan Brown cooked up, I have written a draft book (have submitted the proposal) and pertinent extracts are listed below. Based on articles in mainstream newspapers and periodicals, it is necessary for you all to read the text – aside from being most entertaining you cannot know how to address the press and media about the church unless you know the material. If you wish to show the material to the press of course direct them to me to respond to any queries.

If it is at all possible full page ads in the NY Times and/or WashPost need to be run. Perhaps via a coalition of groups to spread out the cost. As much as the expense is, failing to do so will be penny wise and pound foolish because it will miss a historical opportunity that may not come again. Such ads, and other notices, can include links to the documentation.

Another item to be considered is a petition including leading critics of the church, as well as all those who are concerned about the situation.
See also this thread http://www.secularcafe.org/showthread.php?t=19900

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Monday, 4 June 2012

Secular Café: Holy Candy, Batman!

Secular Café
Discuss atheism, religious apologetics, separation of church & state, theology, comparative religion and scripture.
Holy Candy, Batman!
Jun 4th 2012, 22:11



Hey, maybe the Catholic Church will consider dumping those flavorless crackers, and substitute Jesus' Blood jellybeans instead?

:D

Story

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Sunday, 3 June 2012

Secular Café: Theism and secular countries

Secular Café
Discuss atheism, religious apologetics, separation of church & state, theology, comparative religion and scripture.
Theism and secular countries
Jun 3rd 2012, 08:03

Folks,

I'm wondering just how different the experience of theism is in secular countries, such as UK and France, from countries with very strong religious vibes, such as the US or Saudi Arabia?

It may be that, as a Brit, theism doesn't hold the threat for me that it does for someone living in the bible belt. Over here, we don't expect the Church of England to come knocking on our doors, and the few cultish ones like Mormons or the like are seen mostly as harmless kooks. However, watching a documentary called "Wrong eyed Jesus" about the Southern US states, it was a very different vibe. No question, atheism would be about as popular as communism down there and elicit the same response.

So question - Do you think your feelings about theism/atheism are effected by the vibe of the country you live in?

Alex.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Saturday, 2 June 2012

Secular Café: God smites snake-fondling pastor

Secular Café
Discuss atheism, religious apologetics, separation of church & state, theology, comparative religion and scripture.
God smites snake-fondling pastor
Jun 2nd 2012, 14:07

http://www.secularnewsdaily.com/2012...+News+Daily%29

What a moron.....

Quote:

Surely, that's the only explanation when a Pentacostal pastor, whose Pentacostal pastor father died from a snake bite received during a service, dies from a snake bite received during a service. Right?

Or maybe he was just another fool like his father, playing with poisonous animals and finally ticking the wrong one off.
Mack Wolford, a flamboyant Pentecostal pastor from West Virginia whose serpent-handling talents were profiled last November in The Washington Post Magazine , hoped the outdoor service he had planned for Sunday at an isolated state park would be a "homecoming like the old days," full of folks speaking in tongues, handling snakes and having a "great time." But it was not the sort of homecoming he foresaw.

Instead, Wolford, who turned 44 the previous day, was bitten by a rattlesnake he owned for years. He died late Sunday.
Wolford, like many before (and probably after) him, cited Mark 16:17-18 as the reason for their practice: "And these signs will follow those who believe: in My name they will cast out demons; they will speak with new tongues; they will take up serpents; and if they drink anything deadly, it will by no means hurt them; they will lay their hands on the sick, and they will recover."

It is interesting here to note that Wolford was known for handling snakes, not for drinking Drano cocktails or for successful faith healing. Why don't snake handlers drink Drano?
they were gathered at this evangelistic hootenanny of Christian praise and worship. About 30 minutes into the service, his sister said, Wolford passed a yellow timber rattlesnake to a church member and his mother.

"He laid it on the ground," she said, "and he sat down next to the snake, and it bit him on the thigh."

. . .

The festivities came to a halt shortly thereafter, and Wolford was taken back to a relative's house in Bluefield to recover, as he always had when suffering from previous snake bites.
Previous snake bites? Why yes. He'd been bitten more than once, apparently by copperheads. They may or may not have injected a significant amount of venom. Apparently, those bites (and the death of his father from a snake bite when Wolford was 15) weren't much of a learning experience for Wolford, as he continued to take ridiculous risks.

Wolford, like his father, died over the course of about 10.5 hours, in excruciating agony, without medical treatment until it was too late. But he had lots of help:
By late afternoon, it was clear that this time was different, and desperate messages began flying about on Facebook, asking for prayer.
We know how effective prayer can be!

Wolford died at about 11 pm Saturday night. Had he sought medical treatment early on, he would likely have recovered. Instead, he put his faith in religious fantasies, and died a slow, agonizing death.

Will his congregation learn from his error?

They didn't learn from his father's.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions

Secular Café: Atheist Numbers?

Secular Café
Discuss atheism, religious apologetics, separation of church & state, theology, comparative religion and scripture.
Atheist Numbers?
Jun 2nd 2012, 10:55

A question really, not a comment.

In the USA how many are atheists - meaning signed up to the concept that there is not and never has been a supreme being except as invented by men?

Reason for asking:

Following up a sequence of wiki articles on Wahabism (of all things!) I came across a reference to Nietzsche and his remark that "God is dead" - in a book called The Gay Science (now there's a name to play with). Going further I came across the term as a religious movement in America and thence to the statement:

That American fundamentalism was not a reaction to Darwin but to the growth of Atheism.

Now I am not concerned with that as an historical statement (immediate thought - it's wrong: but then - err, wait a minute...) as with statistics. My impression was that "christian" fundamentalism started in the late nineteenth century and had grown to be a major force in US life: whereas atheism - as opposed to indifference - was a relatively small movement which had generated hatred and/or distrust out of proportion to its numbers.

So I'm curious. How many? Either as a number or a percentage.

You are receiving this email because you subscribed to this feed at blogtrottr.com.

If you no longer wish to receive these emails, you can unsubscribe from this feed, or manage all your subscriptions