An Imperfect God

Where's god's perfection if he admits to mistakes? Genesis 6:6 clearly states he "regretted that he had made human beings".  The god of the bible is a deity created by man, in the image of man, not unlike hundreds of other mythological deities made up in the same Iron Age era. Claiming that there is only one true god is a rejection of religion's documented history, particularly because 1) there is not a shred of evidence any of these mythological gods ever existed. (It's what secular history teaches us.) And 2) it's just a small slice of the much larger picture of religion's ages-long evolution from polytheism to monotheism.* 

In light of this, claiming the superiority of one god over hundreds of others is nothing but a fool's errand. More so, even the historical inaccuracies of the bible lend credence to the very questionable origins of the Abrahamic religions.

From Wikipedia:

Quasi-monotheistic claims of the existence of a universal deity date to the Late Bronze Age, with Akhenaten's Great Hymn to the Aten from the 14th century BCE.

In the Iron-Age South Asian Vedic period, a possible inclination towards monotheism emerged. The Rigveda exhibits notions of monism of the Brahman, particularly in the comparatively late tenth book, which is dated to the early Iron Age, e.g. in the Nasadiya Sukta. Later, ancient Hindu theology was monist, but was not strictly monotheistic in worship because it still maintained the existence of many gods, who were envisioned as aspects of one supreme God, Brahman.

More recently, Karen Armstrong and other authors have returned to the idea of an evolutionary progression beginning with animism, which developed into polytheism, which developed into henotheism, which developed into monolatry, which developed into true monotheism

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monotheism)

* In its early stages, the Israelite religion was derived from the Canaanite religions of the Bronze Age; by the Iron Age, it had become distinct from other Canaanite religions as it shed polytheism for monolatry. The monolatrist nature of Yahwism was further developed in the period following the Babylonian captivity, eventually emerging as a firm religious movement of monotheism.

(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abrahamic_religions)

Another pertinent reference: https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lists_of_deities

The Mythic Jesus: Let’s Get Our Facts Right

1,700 words

Intro:
I’m an atheist. To me, there is a thorough lack of evidence for the existence of an Abrahamic God as described in the scriptures of the Christian faith. There is also a lack of consensus amongst biblical scholars as to the accuracy and veracity of these writings, which is enough for me to remain an unbeliever. It’s all myth, allegory, and an attempt to literalize a book written and edited by a church wanting to control the uneducated with the Fear of God. And his chosen priesthood, of course.

That said, there is “fake news” out there asserted by many who state that the explanations for god and Jesus are rooted in Egyptian mythology; that Jesus himself is just a plagiarized version of a multitude of these gods, particularly Horus. This is primarily based on the writings of Gerald Massey, a self-taught Egyptologist, and made popular in the movie Zeitgeist.

I’m not arguing that Jesus actually existed—but what I am doing is disclosing the facts behind falsehoods that make atheists and agnostics look bad. My point here is to disregard these sources of misinformation if we want to appear credible.

The source of this theory: *
Where did the idea of the mythic Christ originate? Much of it began in the writings of two amateur Egyptologists named Godfrey Higgins (1772-1833) and Gerald Massey (1829-1907). Both wrote extensively on the idea of the mythic Christ. They claimed one parallel after another between the Bible and pagan mythology, making it appear as if the biblical writers borrowed stories wholesale from ancient tales. Almost all scholars today recognize that this approach is fundamentally flawed. For nearly all of the supposed parallels these two men discovered, scholars today say without hesitation that no genetic connection exists between the Bible and the myths these two men examined.

Neither Higgins nor Massey was a scholar or academic, and both were self-taught religious enthusiasts. More importantly, neither is remembered in the history of scholarship today. Writers such as Dorothy Murdock—a vocal proponent of the Christ myth theory—laments that these supposed intellectual titans have been forgotten. She heaps effusive praise upon Massey in particular (2009, pp. 13-26), calling him a “pioneer.” In truth, neither one of them had any ideas worth remembering. They are virtually unknown in modern Egyptology.

In all of the cases of his “crucified saviours,” unlike Jesus, none were actually crucified, and none of them died in behalf of the salvation of others. Indeed, some of them never died.

Adonis	Adonis dies when he is gored by a bull on a hunting trip.
Attis	In a moment of madness, Attis commits suicide by emasculating himself.
Baal	The text is unclear, but it appears Baal is slain in personal battle with Mot, the Canaanite god of death.
Bacchus	Bacchus is the Roman equivalent of Dionysus, whose body is almost completely devoured by the Titans, who leave only his heart.
Balder	In the Norse myths, Balder is invincible to all known objects, except for mistletoe. One of the gods’ pastimes is throwing objects at Balder, who cannot be harmed. Loki crafts a magical spear from this plant and tricks the god Hodur into throwing it at Balder, killing him.
Beddru	Supposedly a Japanese figure. Either Graves had a bad source, or he simply invented the name, as no figure with this name exists in Far Eastern literature. It may be that he meant to say “Beddou,” who is a Japanese figure some have equated with the Buddha. Regardless, there is no record of the crucifixion of this individual, if he even existed in any of the literature.
Devatat	This is uncertain, but appears to be the name of the Buddha in some places in the Far East. The literature states that the Buddha died at 80 of a natural illness, though some say he was poisoned. Either way, he never died on a cross, and Buddhism has no need of a personal savior, anyway.
Dionysus	The Greek god of wine and the grapevine had a tough childhood. When an infant, the Titans devour his body, leaving only his heart behind. He is later reborn.
Hercules	Hercules dies when he is burned alive on a funeral pyre.
Hermes	Hermes never dies in the Greek myths.
Horus	Horus never dies in the Egyptian myths.
Krishna	Krishna is mortally wounded when a hunter accidentally shoots him in the heel with an arrow.
Mithras	Mithras does not die in the Persian myths.
Orpheus	In one account, Orpheus is torn apart by Maenads, the female followers of Dionysus, for failing to honor their master. In other accounts he either commits suicide or is struck by one of Zeus’ lightning bolts.
Osiris	Osiris is killed when his brother Seth drowns him in the Nile. Seth later recovers the body and dismembers it.
Tammuz	Originally called Dumuzi by the Sumerians, Tammuz is taken to the underworld when his lover, Inanna, is given a deal where she can be released if she finds a substitute. She is enraged that Tammuz is not mourning her death, so she chooses him to take her place in the realm of the dead. There is no mention of crucifixion.
Thor	Thor dies in Ragnarok, the final battle that will end the world, when he is bitten by a giant serpent.
Zoroaster	According to one ancient source, Zoroaster was murdered while at an altar.

Massey cites numerous other parallels of Jesus actually being a plagiarized Horus without any indication of the original references in the Egyptian texts. The following few milestones in the bible’s writings of Jesus’ life show how wrong he was...

Jesus’ Birth:
He (Massey) states Horus was born on December 25th of the virgin Isis-Meri. His birth was accompanied by a star in the east, which in turn, three kings followed to locate and adorn the new-born saviour. At the age of 12, he was a prodigal child teacher, and at the age of 30 he was baptized by a figure known as Anup and thus began his ministry. Horus had 12 disciples he traveled about with, performing miracles such as healing the sick and walking on water. After being betrayed by Typhon, Horus was crucified, buried for 3 days, and thus, resurrected.'

According to the Egyptian legend, Horus' father was Osiris and his mother was Isis (but there is nothing to connect this name with Mary / Meri). Osiris was killed by his brother Set who wanted his throne. Isis briefly brought Osiris back to life by use of a spell that she learned from her father. This spell gave her time to become pregnant by Osiris before he again died and she later gave birth to Horus. Horus then killed Set. The combination of Osiris and Horus became linked in Egyptian mythology with the idea of death and rebirth. As in all pagan religions, there was a connection with the seasons (winter = death, spring = rebirth) and with the sun setting and rising. In the Egyptian myth it became associated with the flooding and retreating of the Nile and thus with the new harvest each year in the Nile valley.

According to this myth Isis was not a virgin, there is no link to the name Mary, however there is a death and rebirth story in line with the nature gods of paganism and fertility rituals. While this may be of interest in understanding the ancient religions of the world it has absolutely no bearing on the events recorded in the Bible. Horus was supposedly born during the month of Khoiak (Oct/Nov), and not on December 25th, a fact that does not make any difference to the claim that both Horus and Jesus were born at the same time since the Bible never says that Jesus was born on December 25th!

When stories detailing the birth of Horus are examined, there is no star or three kings who come to visit him. Trying to link this to Christianity fails in any event as the account of Christ's birth in Matthew has magi (wise men, not kings) coming to Jesus with their actual number not being stated.

Jesus’ Baptism:
He states that Horus was "baptized" by Anup and started a "ministry." The only accounts remotely related to Horus and water are the stories told of Osiris (his father who is sometimes combined in ancient accounts with Horus to form one individual) whose body was cut up into 14 pieces by his enemy, Set, and scattered throughout the earth. Isis supposedly found each part of the body and after having Osiris float in the Nile; he came back to life or became the lord of the underworld, depending on which account is read. 

Jesus’ Death & Resurrection:
The claims of Horus being buried for three days and resurrected are not to be found in any ancient Egyptian texts either. Some accounts have Osiris being brought back to life by Isis and going to be the lord of the underworld. But, there is no mention of a burial for three days and no mention of his physically coming out of a grave in the same physical body he went in with and never dying again. In addition, there is certainly no account of Horus dying for others as Jesus did.

Conclusion:
There you have it—a sound rebuttal to the misleading theory of a mythic Christ borne of previously conceived gods of ancient lore. This article is not to be taken as evidence of the Christ story being real, or even true, (a debate for another time) but rather to educate and therefore disarm Christians’ accusations of atheists using flawed and erroneous information when “attacking” Christianity. 

Go ahead and check the accuracy of this research as I have: it doesn’t take much snooping around online to confirm the various god’s lack of paralleled lives when compared to Jesus. The first rule of debating is to use accurate and true data, not unfounded stories.  

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

* With thanks to Dewayne Bryant, Ph.D. for the original full length article found at https://www.apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=10&article=973 which was heavily borrowed from and edited here for brevity.

Sarah Salviander’s Reasons for Converting to Christianity: A Response

Jim Hutchison

1,918 words

Introduction

An email came across my computer earlier today from something called the “Atheist Republic”, an on-line web based community of atheists who support and educate like-minded people.  The headline read “Christian Astrophysicist Has 5 Reasons She’s No Longer an Atheist”. This undoubtedly caught my attention, as the usual pattern is the opposite - that as we become more educated, particularly in the sciences, the less likely we are to believe in anything that has no evidence or backing by the scientific method.

Admittedly,  my bias in this area had me pre-judging her reasons and motives for such a paradigm shift, but being a truth seeker with an open mind, I was very curious to find out how and why she “flipped” from one end of the spectrum to the other. My pursuit of truth and meaning keeps me on my toes, as my beliefs are from a constant evaluation of the latest and most accurate facts and evidence. Facts and evidence divorced from any emotional need to feel comforted by any kind of non-truth.  I’d rather believe in the right things for the right reasons and be miserable, than the wrong things for the wrong reasons just for the sake of feeling all cozy and comfy.  There’s nothing more sacred than the truth.

The email was actually a link to a video blog with two participants from Atheist Republic who discussed her five reasons for turning from atheism to Christianity.  Their treatment didn’t go deep enough for me, so I delved into her writings, testimonies, and various articles on her web sites (references below), and have come away with what I think is a good understanding of her reasons and motivations.  I’ll touch on each one, and add my own comments. Her reasons are:

1 – Genesis is consistent with science

2 – The legal-historical case for Jesus is strong

3 – Christianity is the source of things I cherish

4 – Christianity is the best explanation for evil

5 – Christianity gives me meaning and hope

There’s two groupings in these reasons: her facts as she describes them, and personal reasons.

Her Facts

Statements 1 & 2 are claims of fact.  Let’s deal with the fist one, as this is the most contentious between scientists and creationists.  Firstly, it is important for the claimant to define their position; i.e.: are they claiming the bible to be literal, or allegorical? It’s a very important distinction, in that the allegory stance could conceivably be shoe-horned into a natural explanation of the origins of the universe, earth, and humans, although the order of events in the bible still contradict modern science’s knowledge of our origins thanks to generations of geological, botanical, anthropological, and cosmological study.  But it suits many people who have a prejudiced belief in the god of the bible.

The second option is belief in a literal 6 day creation, which is a huge problem for the most fundamental and simple laws of science and physics.  Reconciling a literal take of the first two books of the bible with modern science requires such denial of facts that it requires them to be thrown away and dismissed as man-made foolishness; the result of man worshipping his own intellect and holding it above god’s authority.  (Their words, not mine.)  It is patently obvious that to believe this, one must possess such strong prejudice and favouritism towards belief in the god of the bible, that all else is nothing in comparison. It’s called confirmation bias, and anyone possessing it will dismiss and explain away (usually quite poorly) any and all evidence to the contrary.  The most silly one I’ve ever heard is “Well, it’s a mystery. Who can know the mind of god?”

Ms. Salviander’s interpretation of the bible is to take it literally.

“How can someone with such education have strong favouritism for something so easily disproven?” you may ask.  The answer is actually in items 3 to 5, but I’ll get to that after I address point 2.

“The legal-historical case for Jesus is strong”.  No need to spill a lot of ink (...pixels?) on this one, as the historical basis for Jesus’ existence is muddied with enough doubt thanks to the geo-politics of second and third century Christianity that even biblical scholars don’t agree on.  There are well articulated arguments on both sides - that Christ was a real character, and his followers started a massive following with enough inertia that Constantine had to declare Christianity the official religion in the 3rd century.  The flip side of this story (again, argued well by scholars) explains his existence as a contrivance of religious clerics for the purpose of controlling the masses through fear of hell.

There is a palpable lack of any history of Jesus’ life, especially considering the apparent impact he had on his contemporaries.  No Roman writings, or otherwise. The only “proof” of his existence outside of the bible are the writings of a historian named Josephus, who wasn’t born until after Jesus death. His references to Jesus are strongly suspected to be identifiable additions after his death.  More fodder for the theory of Jesus’  life being non-factual.

So with substantial evidence on both sides of the debate, the claim of item #2 isn’t so iron-clad.

Items 3 to 5: Personal and Emotional

These next points clearly indicate the absence of scientific critical thinking; they are founded purely on the emotional need to feel coddled and safe.

“Christianity is the source of things I cherish.”   Someone please explain to me how the foundation of this statement in any way justifies converting to Christianity other than a need for emotional security and comfort.  Put another way, it seems her psychological requirements trump fact, evidence, and truth.  She says so herself in not so many words.

“Christianity is the best explanation for evil.”  People can be so sickened by man’s inhumanity to man that they disassociate the action from the person, and blame an external entity for such behaviour.  He’s called “the Devil”, and if I were him and god really existed, I’d be complaining about all this unwarranted accusation.  I jest of course, but people are quite capable of evil all on their own.  It’s easy to see as an outsider that when we and/or those we love experience incredible harm, there’s a need for an explanation; a focal point for our anger and sense of injustice.  But, shit happens, and sometimes so randomly, that finding an explanation is futile.  That irks us, so we invent “evil” as its own force and entity.

All that said, there’s an interesting verse in the old testament that was quoted in the Atheist Republic’s v-blog:

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things. Isaiah 45:7, KJV.

Christians seems to miss this one... if blame for evil is to be placed anywhere, it’s on the god they say created everything from scratch.  So technically, Ms. Salviander is correct in that her belief indeed explains evil.  Perhaps not the way she thought, but I can’t put words in her mouth.

“Christianity gives me meaning and hope.”  Nice for her, but again, these are emotional - albeit legitimate - needs we all have and share as humans.  Logically though, she is putting the cart before the horse by believing in something for its selfish benefit, rather than basing a belief on its merits alone.  It’s just like Fox Mulder’s poster on his office wall in the TV series “The X-Files”.  It’s an illustration of an out-of-focus UFO, with the words “I Want To Believe”.  This is blatant confirmation bias, where evidence is filtered for the sole purpose of supporting a predisposed and foregone conclusion.  The absolute opposite of the laws of logic and science.  Discovery of facts and evidence are meant to formulate and support a postulate with eventual confirmation of a theory - which then becomes established as scientific fact.  Like I said, item #5 is just the opposite.

Ms. Salviander’s Testimony

In her own words, Ms. Salviader’s eventual conversion is hallmarked by feelings and emotions, often precipitated by loss and pain.  You know where I’m going with this... Like any and all such conversions, they stem from the experience of needing meaning, explanations for things science can’t articulate, and the comfort of finally relinquishing the fate of your own life into the hands of god.  It’s a huge relief (ask me how I know), and the resulting sense of “finally coming home” is nothing more than adult thumb-sucking.

Three quotes from her web site:

(Following her daughter’s death:)

“I finally had a clear vision of our little girl in the loving arms of her heavenly Father, and it was then that I had peace. I reflected that, after all these trials in one year, my husband and I were not only closer to each other, but also felt closer to God. My faith was real.”

“I walking across that beautiful La Jolla campus. I stopped in my tracks when it hit me—I believed in God! I was so happy; it was like a weight had been lifted from my heart. I realized that most of the pain I’d experienced in my life was of my own making, but that God had used it to make me wiser and more compassionate. It was a great relief to discover that there was a reason for suffering, and that it was because God was loving and just. God could not be perfectly just unless I—just like everyone else—was made to suffer for the bad things I’d done.”

“[But] the only way we are free is if the universe and everything in it was created, not by some unconscious mechanism, but by a personal being—the God of the Bible. The only way our lives are unique, purposeful, and eternal is if a loving God created us.”

Please visit her web site to see that none of these quotes are taken out of context, and you may gain a better understanding and explanation of her beliefs.  Most of it is based on a couple concepts.  1) The big bang is proof that Genesis is correct, in that the universe had a beginning, therefore it had to be created (quite a stretch, I know), and... 2) The first days of creation are accurately described as such because it was GOD watching the clock, not us... the expanding universe bent time enough to equate billions of years to 6 days.

All interesting theory if you’re trying to shoe-horn facts into a bias that is rife with preconceived ideas, concepts, and conclusions.

Conclusion

So yes, my initial take on her 5 reasons proved true after careful examination.  Scientists of her ilk (and I’ve known some personally) use Aristotelian logic, but with unfounded assertions and highly theoretical associations between "facts".  One example being how the stretching of time due to universal expansion explains the literal 6 day creation story.  Additionally, what’s not explained is the messed up order of creation; that the earth existed before stars were created.  I didn’t find an explanation for that one, though I’m sure the creationists find some way...

So, the current world view I adhere to has been undergirded by yet another poor attempt at using the bible to explain everything by a mindset firmly grounded in god-belief.  Justification for this belief is so full of logical fallacies, that someone seeking truth outside themselves, free of bias and need for comfort, can only conclude that Christianity (well, all three Abrahamic religions really), base their foundation on centuries old fables, fiction, and regurgitated legends written by (perhaps) well-meaning authors trying to understand the age old archetypical search for meaning and purpose.

~~~~~~~~~~

Quotes and research from:

• https://jamesbishopblog.com/2015/05/23/former-atheist-astrophysicist-sarah-salviander-explains-her-journey-to-christianity/
• https://sarahsalviander.com/
• https://sixdayscience.com/
• http://evangelicalfocus.com/science/881/Sarah_Salviander_The_journey_of_an_atheist_astrophysicist_who_became_a_Christian

What Happens if you REALLY follow the bible?

Sam Harris once again shreds the idea that the bible/god/christianity is all about love and peace. If we really took the bible seriously and lived by it, we'd all have slaves, beat our children, and stone our new wife if we found out she wasn't a virgin... give it a quick listen...

If you have ten minutes, watch this video. It's the best I've heard from Sam Harris so far and it gives bible believers a run for their money. So much so, that one has to be in absolute denial to dismiss the points he makes.  I literally could not be more direct and succinct in showing the folly of believing in the god of the bible...

In light of recent news about hurricane Sandy, I thought this would be a good conversation starter ...but there's not a lot more to say than what's in the graphic above. It's hard to argue with pure logic, isn't it?

Perhaps there are Christian apologists who would suggest a fourth option; that God is standing by, waiting for this clock he wound up 6,000 years ago to come to it's fruition. But the gymnastics required to back that up would fill a book, and would require the use of a book that is full of contradictions. Christianity is supposed to be so simple that a child can understand it, so bzzzzt!  Religion fails yet again.