Maybe it's just me but are you getting sick of being told you don't need your democratic freedoms?

Firstly I have no respect for, or support terrorism in any way. However that does not translate into being willing to give up any freedom in order to prevent a terrorist attack. Throughout the Western world at the moment governments are busy undermining the basis of democracy in the name of preventing terrorism.

I have found this trend alarming in the extreme. I have been raised to believe that democratic goverment whilst never perfect was the best form of goverment for protecting freedom. It seems pointless to protect freedom by taking freedom away, once you do that you don't have democracy anymore.

Not so long ago a Danish newspaper portayed in a cartoon a major religious figure in none too reverend a light. Around the world this caused great consternation in certain nations. So much so that they now want a UN bill to create an offence called showing contempt for religion.

Why is it I can call our Prime Minister an idiot and his party a bunch of hopeless morons who could not run a three legged race; and that is fine , just a political opinion. If I call a religious leader an arrogant fool, being led by blind prejudice then I am stirring up religious hatred. Why are religious views so protected?

We all know that once the religion card is played all rationality goes out the window. Ever tried to discuss abortion with a Christian fundamentalist? It goes like this:
"I guess the key issue is when does life begin."
"God says it's wrong."
"Under what circumstances is it wrong, and why."
"Always wrong, God says so in his book."

No discussion, no reason, no common ground and we are just supposed to accept this as OK. Well I don't. By all means hold your own opinion, but if it can't be discussed, debated or reasoned with then it needs to be rejected not as belief but as uninformed prejudice.

The one thing I can say about religions, some of them deserve contempt because they are wrong. The Koran and Bible contradict each other only one can be true, although both can be false. If I claimed I had a miracle cure for cancer and wanted to sell it to the public and I could not prove its effectiveness I would not be allowed to. No matter how often I said "It's what I believe. God told me it's right in his book."

We are accepting all sorts of garbage in public and private lives based on religion and no one is prepared to say STOP! Enough prove it or go away.

This is a discussion starter for the next Sea of Faith meeting.

The Problems caused by religion:

1) The opposition and resistance to science

2) The undemocratic control/distortion of democracy

3) Legislation of morality

4) Sexual discrimination against women and homosexuals

5) Control and manipulation of education

6) Advocacy of censorship

7) Abuse of children

8) Psychological problems

9) Failure to pay taxes

10) Destruction of the environment

Stole this from here: http://www.ex-christian.net/index.php?showtopic=6762&hl=

Written by All Gods Fail

Great summary of the bible though.

Once upon a time, many, many thousands of years ago, an obscure little tribe in a desert was created by a supreme being, after this being created the world and everything in it (except for the rest of the people on earth who weren’t members of this tribe – or maybe He created them too. It doesn’t really matter).

These original people disobeyed their god because a snake tricked them into it. Really.
So instead of being eternal, now they were eventually going to die.
After a lot of heavy stuff happens (including this god destroying the world except for a few favorite people), eventually this god gives the tribe a bunch of mystifying laws to follow because they kept sinning all the time.

So the tribe tries to faithfully follow the laws and otherwise do whatever their god demands of them, which often relates to killing other people and taking their land and possessions.
In general, however, the tribe doesn’t do such a good job of following the laws, so the god decides to try something new.

He reveals hell, which is a place of eternal torture for everyone who sins against him. He didn’t create it – it was there all along but nobody really understood it. Also, the devil is now recognized in the same way – he was here all along to destroy mankind, but the tribe didn’t really recognize him as such. In fact, the devil runs hell and punishes those who sin against god – which is the devil’s way to rebel against god. Seriously.

As it turns out, god doesn’t want us to fall into the devil’s clutches for eternity, but he can’t do much about it because no one seems capable of obeying the laws except for a few special people.

So he splits himself into 3 parts (which he always was, but again nobody understood that) and one of those parts is a human being, who is born by spiritual conception and becomes a carpenter who has miraculous powers. However, the human part of god is really a cunning way to save the tribe from the laws the god gave them that the devil uses to put people in hell (plus, the laws now apply to everyone in the world, not just the tribe he created). Since this god demands blood sacrifices for disobeying his laws, he has his human part unjustly executed and sends himself to hell for a few days, then comes back to life.

The tribe he created more or less rejects him, and doesn’t believe he really is their god.

His human part returns to Earth for a little while, then goes back to the sky (or outer space, or some other dimension) where the rest of god lives. But before he does, he gathers a bunch of his followers and tells them to go out and teach everybody about this new deal god made so people can escape hell and spend eternity after they die in a wonderful place instead.

And the new deal is…well, it’s hard to explain exactly. They have to believe the carpenter is god, repent, be born anew, and follow his laws without believing they have to, because laws alone don’t get people into this after-life paradise.

Except they sort of do…you have to obey them, but if you break them the carpenter will forgive you if you’re really sorry. Unless you keep breaking them. But the main thing is accepting the carpenter as god and spreading his word to everyone.
But you still have to be careful you don’t break too many laws, because then you’ll wind up in hell…but if you believe god forgives you, you won’t.

At any rate, don’t break the big rules, the 10 important ones that god originally gave the desert tribe. That will send you to hell for sure. Probably. Unless you repent. Or unless the carpenter-god’s blood sacrifice covers it, but don’t take the blood for granted. It doesn’t cover everything.

Anyway, just go to church a lot and don’t break the laws.
Except the ones that pertain only to the original tribe, because they don’t matter, like eating unclean foods and stoning witches.

Or maybe you should stone witches, but don’t avoid shellfish. But the main thing is to go to church a lot and spread the carpenter’s words. And don’t break his laws, which were both fulfilled and nullified by the carpenter’s sacrifice.

But don’t break the laws, unless you repent afterwards and really try not to break them again. Except for shellfish, which isn’t that important, etc., etc., etc.

I am on the horns of a dilemma. I no longer believe that there is actually a God out there. The bible is a book of mythology that has had great impact on our culture, it certainly is not divine. Given all this I still consider myself a Christian. I sometimes wonder why.

It's not that I have any residual belief about the supernatural, I don't. I also am not in any doubt about where I stand on theology. Being a Christian has always been how I have defined myself, thought about myself and related to the world. It seems like too big a step just to call myself an atheist.

Perhaps deep down I still feel some attachment to the ideas of the faith and a slim hope like many others that somehow that will be enough. At times the dissonance I feel is extreme almost to the point of anguish. At other times though it does not seem to matter at all.

I had thought I was nearing the end of a spiritual journey, getting closer to some sort of closure. Maybe that's not the case??

I guess for me one of the hardest things about withdrawing from church has been the loss of that sense of belonging to a group. You are a part of a larger whole in the church. There is purpose, the sense of a shared goal and common bond. It's not all positive of course, but on the whole it provides a sense of reassurance that you don't get anywhere else.

The biggest positive has been stepping away from the bubble of the fundie mindset. It really was like my brain was in a bubble. I thought a certain way, looked at the world in that same way. I could reject other peoples ideas without having to even consider them on there merits. Stepping outside opened up the whole world and gave a very powerful feeling of being in the same world as everyone else. A sense of all people sharing a common experience of life.

I will have to consider other positives and negatives.

 
 

Early Dates for Gospels

In a conversation the other day it was suggested to me that my views of the Gospels was somewhat dated. I have always felt that the gospels were written after 70CE. That is Mark first around 70CE and Luke and Matthew following the destruction of Jerusalem. John coming much later possibly into the second century. I feel that the sacking of Jerusalem was one of the trigger events for the writing of the gospels. Clearly the huge time gap would cast doubt on the reliability of the texts themselves and the accuracy of the accounts. Certainly I have never felt that the gospels themselves were eye witness accounts rather that they drew upon oral and earlier written sources (maybe).

If we allow for all Gospels to be written before the end of the first century and for the synoptics, before 70CE how does this change my view of the early church. TN Wright has actually called this disagreement over dating one of the big nonevents of biblical scholarship. The dates of the books don't effect whether or not they are reliable accounts.

Firstly we know for a fact that legends about individuals spread rapidly even whilst a person is alive. Look at the exploits of Jesse James, Wyatt Earp, Pablo Escobar, Osama Bib Laden etc. We know many of the stories circulated are not true could not be so, yet the stories circulate and the legends grow in an age where instant communication is possible. So is it possible that stories about Jesus could be exaggerated and grow even a short time after his death, while eye witnesses were alive, yes it is.

Does this solve the problem of the identity of the Gospel writers or address the accuracy of the earliest texts, of course not. Why do I seem so hostile? The picture of the first century that has come down to us has been deliberately obscured. We now know that there were many gospels and many conflicting beliefs held by early Christians. We also know that once it had gained state recognition the "orthodox" (ie the strongest group) systematically destroyed all of their opponents writings and the opponents themselves. So do I trust the early church records, not a chance. At best what we have is a deliberately structured record that seeks to deny us the knowledge of the existence of any other views.

If we add to this a world of superstition in which miraculous events were an everyday occurrence and where an illiterate worker may never travel more than a few kilometers from where they born. Because it is in the poorly traveled uneducated classes that Christianity began. The more educated and traveled were not among the earliest Christians. Does it prove anything? No, but it does suggest that all is not rosy.

The real challenge is to paint a clearer picture of the church in the first century.