Christianity is.....
Posted on: March 12, 2010 - 8:52am
Offline
Christianity is.....
.....polytheism.
The Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; which came first?
- Login to post comments
Navigation
The Rational Response Squad is a group of atheist activists who impact society by changing the way we view god belief. This site is a haven for those who are pushing back against the norm, and a place for believers of gods to have their beliefs exposed as false should they want to try their hand at confronting us.
Buy any item on AMAZON, and we'll use the small commission to help improve critical thinking. Buy a Laptop -- Apple
Offline Copyright Rational Response Squad 2006-2021.
The Holy Spirit. That's how Mary became pregnant, isn't it?
Satan seems to be a more likely candidate to qualify, some relgious types as polytheist. I believe by definition polytheism is based upon belief and not worship. There are plently of believers who elevate Satan to diety like status.
Satan: chief spirit of evil and adversary of God; tempter of mankind; master of Hell
Your mind will answer most questions if you learn to relax and wait for the answer. - William S. Burroughs
I think, from the greek god of the Underworld (Hades?)
Of course Christianity is polytheism. But you wont convince Catholics or non-Catholics as such. Non-Catholics have always tried, falsely to distance themselves from Catholics. But what neither gang wants to face is that they are both a splinter group of the Hebrews, who can be traced back to the polytheism of the Mesopotamian region prior.
Islam and Christianity are nothing but copycats of the Hebrews, But what Jews don't want to admit, and what will cause all three to gang up on skeptics is this simple denial humanity loves to suffer from. It is a simple shell game humans play in their own mind when something sounds good. But for them to start something new they have to observe something older. None of these gangs want to admit that they were spun from something prior.
The solution to all this sky daddy garbage is quite simple.
1. A magical being with no brain really exists and wants us to make a blood bath in his honor?
2. Or, humans are too damned insecure with their own finality that making up stories and competing with prior stories, to placate their own emotions because of fear, is far more important?
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
The anthropomorphic nature of the man's god-projection would suggest that the father came first. He was then followed by a son, jesus, according to my mother but a bloke called michael, according to local theist Dave Henson.
The holy ghost is probably just a way to create a being to take ownership of oxytocin rushes and acts of spontaneous kindness - the sorts of things human beings are not allowed to be involved with unless bathed in the blood of the lamb.
I think the whole trinity thing is macabre, coming from a faith that insists there is only one god. It's an example of the ambiguity of the original doctrine forcing the brains of 'sensible' theists into total submission.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
The 'sensible' theists do a little research and discover that the Platonic trinity is bullshit.
Christianity is a dark shadow of its former self just as Paul said it would be at 2 Timothy 4:3-4. For the life of me I can't remember the word for people who believe that there is only one God above all but acknowledge other gods. That is what I am and what the early Jews and Christians were. I can't remember the word. Anyone?
Greeks?
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Henotheist! Greeks! I mean, really! Apparently I'm an henotheist! Doesn't that sound like fun?!
Let me say it out loud to myself . . . HENOTHEIST! My doesn't that sound important!
lol
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
I don't care if all of today's Christians practiced the beliefs of the very first early Christians. Paul is part of a book of myth and book of hearsay full of bullshit magical claims.
"I told you they wouldn't believe me" Is a scare tactic and appeal to emotion. There are no martyrs in reality, just delusional people who think they are special.
The bible is a book of tribal myth just like all the other holy books of history.
Virgins don't get knocked up via ghost sperm and human flesh doesn't survive rigor morits. Christianity can change 1,000 times more in the future and still wouldn't change the facts of science.
Paul is merely part of a book of writing of popular religious belief at the time but doesn't make the Christian god real anymore than the sun was a thinking being because the Egyptians believed it was for 3,000 years.
Superman and Batman movies are popular and people are great at selling them, but no one in their right mind literally believes in them.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
You know what, Brian, I have heard many of the regular posters here and atheists everywhere say these sorts of things and I have also heard them say over and over again that the burden of proof is upon those making claims, so I'm going to ask you to prove all of the claims you just made.
No one has ever proved a single deity, a single miracle, a single ghost, a single person rising from actual medium term death. Paul writes about seeing god on the road to Damascus. What are you telling us, that in 5000 years when the legions of Paul Muad'Dib coming barrelling through saying a sandworm did it, that it will be true because there are 4 or 5 books in the series? Alleged eye witness to supernatural events otherwise never proved does not count when applying the historical method. Brian has nothing to prove because in the history of observation no such things have ever been observed. Point us to the experiments that prove these things, that are not contained in the religious books the claimed events seek to sanctify.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
It would make sense... as Zeus seemed to be the primary inspiration for the Abrahamic God. Coincidentally (or not?) Socrates' and Aristotle's writings were reformatted into use as inspiration for the Bible.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
The 'father'... Christianity and Judaism are incredibly daddy-centric.
“A meritocratic society is one in which inequalities of wealth and social position solely reflect the unequal distribution of merit or skills amongst human beings, or are based upon factors beyond human control, for example luck or chance. Such a society is socially just because individuals are judged not by their gender, the colour of their skin or their religion, but according to their talents and willingness to work, or on what Martin Luther King called 'the content of their character'. By extension, social equality is unjust because it treats unequal individuals equally.” "Political Ideologies" by Andrew Heywood (2003)
where do you get that idea? more than likely yahweh, like allah, was initially the patriarch of a levantine pantheon, perhaps borrowed from the shasu people of midian. also, the hebrew bible calls god "el" numerous times, which we know was an ancient canaanite god, who first appears in writings dating from 2300 BCE. all of this comes well before any significant contact between the jewish people and their hellenistic conquerors. while the later jewish philosophers like philo of alexandria and maimonides, as well as the compilers of the talmud, were unquestionably influenced by hellenistic ideas, particularly neoplatonism and aristotelianism, we can definitely rule out hellenistic influence on both ancient yahwism and the hebrew bible.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
you could also mean "monolater." monolatry is positive belief in many gods while exhalting only one as worthy of worship, while henotheism is worshipping only one god while staying neutral on the possibility of the existence of other gods that it may be proper for other peoples to worship. the ancient greeks as a whole cannot be considered either henotheistic or monolatrous. in fact, as far as we know the ancient greeks never used the term. it was coined by max muller in the 19th century.
as for the ancient israelites, at least before the time of second isaiah, i would say it's more proper to call them monolaters than henotheists. i see no evidence, however, that the earliest christians--unless we count the gnostics, who were really only a christian gloss on an earlier tradition and not dependent on christianity per se--were anything other than strict monotheists. in fact, if the earliest christians had been present at nicea, to me it seems obvious that they would have come down firmly on the side of arius. that is, once they had gotten over their amazement that the world hadn't ended already.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Here I make no claims and yet the Atheistextremist calls on me, once again, to prove that which is in opposition of the claims being made by someone else. If Brian had simply said I believe these things to be true there would be no proof necessary, but he didn't. He stated his belief as fact. That is religion. If Maud'dib or the God Emperor Leto had a religious following in reality making claims as Moses and Jesus did, we wouldn't have the archaeological and historical evidence to give weight to the supernatural.
Actually I would be neither of those, it was a joke. I believe, as did the ancient Israelites and early Christians, that anything can be a god. It simply means mighty or venerated. To acknowledge something or someone as a god doesn't imply anything other than that, including worship. So, when Jehovah said to Moses that he would be a god to Aaron and Pharaoh that didn't change the theistic model or labeling (which is ridiculous anyway) of "Judaism." That is, more accurately the Jewish beliefs of Moses day or the Hebrew / Aramaic Scripture. When Jesus was prophetically called El Gibbohr (Mighty God) that didn't negate Jehovah having the exclusive application of El Shaddai (God Almighty). El, of course, being the Hebrew word for god, literally meaning "Mighty or Strong One." I believe that when you get to the practicality of it the labels become pretentious, inaccurate and ridiculous. Leave it to academia.
I suppose if they had to choose they would have definitely sided with Arius, who believed ‘the Son of God was a creature, made from nothing; that there was a time when he had no existence; that he was capable of his own free will of right and wrong,’ and that, ‘were he in the truest sense a son, he must have come after the Father, therefore the time obviously was when he was not, and hence he was a finite being' but I actually doubt that they would have taken any real interest in the politicization of Christianity. As for their amazement at the world not having ended by then, here is my thoughts on What The Bible Says About The End Of The World
You're kidding me?
And if you were on a Muslim site full of Muslims claiming that Allah was real, you'd shift the burden of proof on them. And they in turn would shift the burden of proof on you and say the same thing you are doing to me here now.
Your problem is, beyond labels, reality is not measured on personal whims, but replication and falsification. You rightfully reject Thor and Isis and Vishnu, and I would laugh in your face if you said, "It must be true by default since I cant prove it isn't"
I also can't prove that invisible pink unicorns don't exist since no human knows everything an hasn't been in every nook and cranny of the universe.
How much time do you spend pondering the existence of Superman? I don't spend my time pondering Superman anymore than you spend your time pondering Thor or Allah . But life is a bitch in the sense that there are morons who still believe in Ouija boards.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
First of all, if there are fanatics in the world who believe in the sorts of things that you are talking about I wouldn't waste a minute of my time considering it, let alone protesting it. In other words, one of my criticisms of the idiodic notion of atheism is that they doth protest too much. Secondly, they are always on about proof as if it ware the cornerstone to infinite wisdom when in fact they are selective at best and more likely just full of shit. Bottom line - I wouldn't be on a Superman forum making stupid claims I couldn't back up.
And yet you can't even support your interpretation of Genesis as the correct one. You'll also have to forgive us Atheists for demanding proof for a claim. Something to do with rationality and all.
"The Chaplain had mastered, in a moment of divine intuition, the handy technique of protective rationalization and he was exhilarated by his discovery. It was miraculous. It was almost no trick at all, he saw, to turn vice into virtue and slander into truth, impotence into abstinence, arrogance into humility, plunder into philanthropy, thievery into honor, blasphemy into wisdom, brutality into patriotism, and sadism into justice. Anybody could do it; it required no brains at all. Just no Character."
"He...had gone down in flames...on the seventh day, while God was resting"
"You have no respect for excessive authority or obsolete traditions. You should be taken outside and shot!"
You like far to many people of all labels miss the point.
When there are several competing naked assertions what do humans do to filter out the bias and crap to get to the facts? The stupid and intellectually lazy thing to do is say, "Since I don't know everything it must be possible".
No one does that in reality. To do so would be absurd. It would mean that every claim ever made in human history is true by default. THAT IS STUPID AND ABSURD.
SO how do humans cut through the crap and avoid the bias?
They come up with a system of objective testing and falsification independent of personal bias.
Just like you SHOULD rightfully reject the Ancient Egyptian claim that the sun was a thinking being. WHY? Because we now know that the sun is a burning ball of gas and DOES NOT resemble remotely a neuron or thinking human brain.
The modern monotheistic claims of god/s have even less evidence. Their fans don't even have a physical object to point at. It is an invisible brain with magical super powers.
Since we have people claiming Allah/Jesus/Yahweh/Vishnu, MY QUESTION TO YOU, is not about people's rights to believe what they want. MY QUESTION TO YOU WOULD BE
HOW, since you have all these naked assertions being thrown out there, do we filter out the bias and crap to get to the facts?
I would say since there is absolutely NO evidence for any kind of invisible brain, it is as worthy of consideration as the Egyptian sun god.
So unless you can come up with a universal test that is repeatable and testable and falsifiable, I'd say you, or anyone have even less than the Egyptians did. They were wrong too, but at least they were pointing at a real object.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
christian values at there finest. im assuming u are christian.
Whatever goes upon two legs is an enemy.
Whatever goes upon four legs, or has wings, is a friend.
No animal shall wear clothes.
No animal shall sleep in a bed.
No animal shall drink alcohol.
No animal shall kill any other animal.
All animals are equal.
You know, I thought he had a valid point. The only evidence you have stated is the bible. The bible says this and that and blah, blah, blah......
You never shut up, never say anything.
What over evidence other than the bible do you have for the existence of god/s/dess?
-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.
"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken
"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.
You usually do better than this, David.
Not that I expect you to have an answer. The last theist I asked about this very point said, "Well I would ask you to pray about it". Oddly, I did not convert on the spot.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Heeeyyy, Tapey, you are paying attention! Am I a Christian? Depends on how you would define Christian, I suppose.
The guy is simply preaching to the choir. No evidence or logic is needed. Don't give me that atheist evidence bullshit, especially when what we are talking about . . . no matter what the subject is . . . is the Bible. If some doofus on his soapbox is preaching to the choir, whether that doofus is a believer or a devout atheist, and he says something stupid about the Bible they better know what they are talking about when I come along.
In Brain's little sermon he made some pretty specific allegations which are nothing more than uninformed opinion.
An answer to what?! What point?
Brian's post. Summary: When an objective observer is faced with multiple theistic claims, all mutually contradictory with no physical evidence, how can the observer tell which is superior? The added difficulty is that religions typically use the same justifications. Everything you claim, a Muslim could claim as well (and usually does).
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Really? I'm not exactly sure of what you mean by mutually contradictory with no physical evidence, perhaps you could give some specific examples?
I will respond to what I think you might mean in the meantime.
The Quran is absent of miracles or any proof that Muhammad was a prophet sent by God. This is in stark contrast to Moses and Jesus. (Compare Exodus chapter 4 and John 7:31; 10:37-38; 14:11 with Suras 2:118; 10:38; 11:13; 6:109 / Ali. Unlike Moses and Jesus, Muhammad had no supernatural proofs.
Moslems will claim that he did perform miracles, for example that he split the moon. They use Sura 54:1 as proof. The text doesn't state that Muhammad split the moon.
Some insist that Muhammad performed many miracles and these were recorded in the Alhadith or Hadis, which is Muhammadan tradition systematized in the 3rd century of the Muhammadan era. There are actually about a half million of these traditions that have been handed down.
However, it should be noted that these traditions, which contradict the written word, the Quran, which plainly states "We refrain from sending Signs, only because men of former years treated them as false." (Sura 17:59, Ali) much the same as the traditions of Judaism and so called Christianity are contrary to their written word.
The written word is always far more reliable and testable than oral tradition.
This illustrates the point well. You are saying they are wrong and you are right. They would say the same thing. For evidence, you both quote your holy books while pointing out flaws in the other's books.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Well, I think that is a good thing, don't you? Though, actually the point was more that Islam, Judaism and Christianity all have oral traditions which are contrary to each of their respective books. Consider these books as evidence of the culture from which they came much like an archaeological expedition without so much speculation as to what this pottery shard and that broken femur might represent. What you, as a skeptic, instead seem to constantly be looking for is some cultural reaction to a different one of long ago and how these traditions that sprung from that effect you much later seem to have to live with in this culture and that seems pretty silly to me, as far as your methodology and what you seem to want to establish goes; I would think you are trying to achieve an end to those cultural influences but rather than examine them and offer criticism of the influence itself you, like the believer, find yourself clinging dogedly to those very unreliable oral traditions. You are argueing the later mythology when you need a more scientific approach.
No. I am asking for what a scientific approach would be to discern which contradictory religion is accurate. Right now they all convince by appeal to emotion and circular arguments referencing their own holy books. The Bible is right because it says so. The Koran is perfect because it says so.
So how would you suggest an objective observer compare the truth claims of one religion against another?
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
No I don't shut up, but I do find it laughable that for someone who has no evidence for their magical invisible super brain with magical super powers to try to poke fun of me with "blah blah blah blah blah" quite amusing.
Human history is full of people like you "blah blah blah blah Horus......blah blah blah blah Marduke ........blah blah blah blah Apollo........blah blah blah blah Yahweh......blah blah blah blah Jesus.......blah blah blah blah Allah.
If one thing rings true sadly about our species is it's underwhelming ability to allow credulity to override scrutiny and reason. You are merely one in current pop culture. Thank you for your pathetic attempt at humor Charley Brown's teacher. Thanks for the laugh.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
God did it and the bible says so. You and I merely are distracted by pesky things like science. Science doesn't answer everything, didn't you know? It is ok to believe in science but when in doubt just stick a magical invisible disembodied super brain with super powers in where science lacks answers and then default to their ancient myth. And I am quite sure he has the "correct" translation, even though written by goat herders thousands of years before modern knowledge, that will allow us to have our brains fall out so that we can be gang members in his club.
God did it and that is all you need to know my friend.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers."Obama
Check out my poetry here on Rational Responders Like my poetry thread on Facebook under Brian James Rational Poet, @Brianrrs37 on Twitter and my blog at www.brianjamesrationalpoet.blog
Paul, or even if the guy was an historical figure. The fact he is claimed to have visited some actual towns does not mean he spoke with the lord almighty while day-tripping in Syria. Claiming the historical accuracies of the bible prove its magical accuracies is a flawed assumption. It's like saying Harry Potter is true because there's a London.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
You accept miracles you have never seen, witnessed by people you've never met and recorded by nobody knows who.
"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck
I wouldn't. You should evaluate each on their own merits. An exhaustive comparison of the two would be somewhat pointless, don't you think. In reading through verious threads here, all of which I don't have time to respond to, I can safely say that I pretty much agree with the notion that has been expressed to that effect. Just because one is true doesn't mean the other must not be. I hardly think that your objective as an atheist is to determine which one is less bullshit than the other, is it? You assume they both are and marvel at one being chosen over the other? Who was it that said atheism is only one less god than you (the believer in one or the other) has?
I wouldn't consider myself as possessing enough knowledge to carefully examine Islam as to whether it is historically or "scientifically" integral beyond what my own position would require.
In 1961 there was a very limited amount of evidence outside the Bible that Pontius Pilate existed outside the Bible so many dismissed the Bible's account of Jesus before Pilate as fiction. Then there was a discovery that changed that. The same for Lysanias (Luke 3:1) Sargius Paulus (Acts 13:7) and the second Census of Quirinius (a big one for skeptics). You just don't see that sort of thing with the Quran.
[Laughs] Now you're getting it!
I don't expect an answer for this, but your response might be interesting given you attitude for the last couple days, so I have a question for you specifically. How would you explain the prophecy of Cyrus? Specifically, now, not prophecy in general, but that specific one.
Watch this, everyone.
You are correct, but only because none have given any kind of evidence to support themselves that stands on its own.
One of the things that I like to know is why theists believe. Most of the theists I know personally were born into their religion, and have not spent that much time analyzing what they believe and why...they can't give answers beyond Sunday school crap. Many others have some sort of dramatic emotional experience that caused them to seek faith, and they usually find whatever faith is nearest at hand. Some marry into a different faith and adopt the dominant partners religion. Etc.
But what most of them have in common is they don't actually have a 'good' reason to believe, even though they typically think their religion is the best and only true religion. To me, if a theist is going to claim their religion is "True" and someone else's religion is "False" then they need something that doesn't boil down to, "because my culture says so" or "because I got dumped by my wife and found a Mormon bible at a hotel".
So I'm always looking for a good theistic response to the question, and I've never heard one. Hell, I would like to be immortal as much as the next guy, but unless someone can show there is actually a good reason to buy their brand of theism I don't feel I have much choice.
So anyway, when a person feels religious they tend to latch on to whatever dogma is closest. I think I read where you tend to lean towards JW, and that happened to be what you first studied in depth.
So yea. Unless a theist can show me why their belief can be objectively analyzed I am not going to buy any of it. I was raised in a culture steeped in religion, and without an objective methodology there is no way to discern what is true and what is false.
And since I've been looking for quite a while, I now operate under the assumption that it is all false, since that is the only answer that makes any sense....and like you said about, 'studying them on their own merits' I don't see any merits of theism that have not been duplicated by secular culture. I already know what is culturally right and wrong, and our society has moved past the Bible, incorporating the good and ignoring the bad (for the most part).
Anyway, I'm tired, so that might not make much sense. If it doesn't, I'll try again this evening.
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Most informed atheists that I have come across . . . well, actually, the one informed atheist I have come across labor under the incorrect notion that there was only one census taken while Publius Sulpicius was governor of Syria, at about 6 C.E. The one that sparked a rebellion by Judas the Galilean and the Zealots? (Acts 5:37) That was the second, actually. Inscriptions found at and near Antioch reveals that some years earlier Quirinius served as the emperor's legate in Syria. As the Dictionnaire du Nouveau Testament in Crampon's French Bible (1939 ed., p. 360) says: "The scholarly researches of Zumpt (Commentat. epigraph., II, 86-104; De Syria romana provincia, 97-98) and of Mommsen (Res gestae divi Augusti) place beyond doubt that Quirinius was twice governor of Syria."
In 1764 an inspription called the Lapis Tiburtinus was found which concurs.
To this day, an informed skeptic of the Bible will conclude that the Bible is incorrect at Luke 2:1-7 and so Jesus couldn't have been born when the Bible says he was and therefor probably not born at all, even though there is ample evidence in agreement with the Bible and against the atheist propaganda. This not at all unusual.
It makes perfect sense to me. From what I have personally observed I would say that you can stop looking at religion. No religion has remained true even to itself, whether it was based upon true teachings or not makes no difference. It is human nature more than anything, it isn't just "religion," consider charitable organizations as well. They start off as something well intended but have to evolve into something altogether different and currupted. The Red Cross comes to mind. They show up at disasters with some blankets and probe the globe for blood like vampires for photo opportunity to pay the people at the top whos job it is to figure out how to make more money.
Forget about organized religion and concentrate on the alleged inspiration behind them. Whatever you are looking for you will find there and that is up to you, but if you are really looking for truth no matter what the conclusion, which I really doubt that you are, you will find that as well.
Not without good reason. That is the important part the atheist missed.
File non-organized religion under the same basket. I have not seen anything that is not explainable in a secular way. To me, religion makes sense if it is a 'real' thing, down here on earth. Once supernatural stuff gets into it the whole thing just turns into a quagmire.
Believe me, I've looked. I went through a period of time where I was desperate to find a theistic meaning in my life...it never turned up. The world makes sense to me from an atheistic point of view. It doesn't make any sense under the lens of a theistic worldview, or at least no worldview that matters in real life.
After I dealt with my fear of death and learned about secular morality I lost the need for a god. I don't even know what I would be searching for...my life has meaning and purpose, morality makes sense, good and evil make sense, I am resigned to having a limited life, I am content with not knowing what existed before the big bang, and I've never seen any evidence personally or otherwise that would indicate my life would be any better, happier or more fulfilled if I managed to convince myself of a particular god (which would undoubtedly be a god I was culturally familiar with).
*shrug*
Everything makes more sense now that I've stopped believing.
Did any of these censuses require people to travel to their "own towns" like in Luke?
well, perhaps brian isn't equipped to answer this, but i am. if by "prophecy of cyrus," you're referring to isaiah 45, then the general consensus among bible scholars who hold no religious preconceptions is that this passage is from second isaiah, which was probably composed in the sixth century BCE at the earliest. as i recall from my readings, even a monk like thomas merton had no problem with this redaction criticism.
as i'm sure you know, david, the earliest manuscripts we have of isaiah as we know it are from qumran and in the septuagint, both of which date from the second century BCE. the author of sirach seems to have been familiar with second isaiah as well, and he also wrote in the second century. so until we find a manuscript of isaiah 40-66, or at least a reference to it, that predates the sixth century BCE, i'm afraid the cyrus oracle is unimpressive when it comes to making supernatural claims.
"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson
Explain, please?
The "Luke" story has Joseph traveling with his pregnant wife from their home town of Nazareth to Joseph's "own town" of Bethlehem because he is of the house of David. Supposedly they do this because they have to register for the census there. It makes absolutely zero sense for the Romans to make people travel to the "own town" of some ancestor who has been dead for 1000 years when they can just count and tax people where they happen to live. Since you seemed to know some stuff about these censuses I ask: are there actually censuses where the Romans really required people to travel like that? If there were, it would make the Luke story much less preposterous.