The Human Heart as Brain in Christian Thinking

The Jarvik 7 Artificial Heart
(Could Jesus Live Here?)

Several years ago I debated a Christian apologist over the fact that the Biblical writers had no idea of what the human brain was.



My point was that, if the Bible was correct, than the first artificial heart recipients Barney Clark and Robert Schrader (who died on these machines) would have been "unable to have asked Jesus into their hearts" since they had no hearts “for him to live in” and thus ended up in Hell. This Christian apologist said this was "ridiculous" and was very adamant that the term "heart" in the Bible was used as a purely symbolic term and "they knew fully well that it was not the place of emotions and thought". Of course, I strongly disagreed and reaffirmed that what the Bible said about the heart / Kardia is exactly what it meant! Thus, such a statement by Jesus is typical of the entire New Testament: “For out of the heart come forth evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, sexual sins, thefts, false testimony, and blasphemies.” (Matt. 15:19)

Moreover, if this very important word is merely a symbolic term in the New Testament, then how are we to know whether other important terms such a Resurrection, Heaven, Hell, Virgin Birth and the many more important doctrinal terms themselves are not also simply symbolic terms when use in theology?

Put in a historical perspective, this concept of the heart would be expected of any ancient Near Eastern culture whose understanding of human anatomy was hardly a scientific fact. Most ancient cultures felt the heart was the seat of emotions because it reacted via its heart rate depending on the emotional state of the person...thus a person was claimed to think and feel emotions with his or her heart ( Compare Hebrew “LBB“ with Akkadian “libbu” / “seru“) .

The Biblical tradition is filled with claims of organs used as the seat of emotions drawn from her neighbors. The Hebrew Bible understands the liver, bowels and heart as emotional seats for mental states which was latter defined in the New Testament (under Hellenistic / Greek influence) as the heart being the emotional center. This concept was symbolized over a thousand years earlier by the ancient Egyptians who, in the process of mummification of their pharaoh god for eternal life, the priests would save all the major internal organs in urns (including the heart) and removed the brain through the nasal cavity and threw it away as totally useless.

For two thousand years the Church has continue this erroneous concept about the heart. Gospel tracts tell the "sinner" that his heart is corrupt and that "only Jesus can heal a sinful heart" and all people "must give their hearts to Jesus". In the last days all humanity will stand before God and be judged on the thought and intents of the heart.

Catholic icons of both the Virgin Mary and Jesus often show each with a sacred (often wounded) heart shaped much like the symbol we would see on Valentine cards or love letters. While watching new's reports from the Vatican on the death watch of Pope John Paul II, a major news reporter stated that: "This heart that loved his Church and the world so much is now starting to fail." After his death, a cardinal stated that John Paul II's body would be interned in the grotto under St. Peter's Basilica, but this Polish pope's heart would be removed (cut out) from his body and sent back to his native Poland for burial to show his love for his native country.

With respect to the above (and as my summation), as long as Christianity pushes theology (which is of itself a very flawed reasoning system drawn from a pre-scientific ancient world view) as the dogmatic bases for the truth, then any modern society is doomed to have its scientific advances hobbled to an anachronistic mythical religious past.

Why I Don't Believe the Resurrection Happened.

Skepticism of the Resurrection
There are two chief reasons I do not believe that the resurrection happened in history. First of all, because I believe that supernatural/miraculous claims require supernatural/miraculous forms of evidence to support them. The second reason is because the only supposed evidence that we do have, the canonical New Testament resurrection narratives are errant. Let me explain my two reasons here in greater detail. But, before doing so, I must explain what I mean by natural and the "supernatural" as well as the logical axiom that I operate under, that "supernatural" claims require "supernatural" forms of evidence.

On Dealing With Apostates Like Us: An Update

Sometimes I update entries in the archives. I did so recently on the offensive riposete used by many Christians in dealing with apostates like us. Link.

Faith in Action

I was born in Manila and my mother used to regale me with stories about the local Filipino rituals of self-flagellation and crucifixion. At the time I was convinced it was all part of the Roman church's incorrigible barbarism. Obviously over time my ideas about most things have changed.

Protestantism left me, but my revulsion at self-flagellation and crucifixion in the modern era hasn't altered at all. So when I read stories like this one, it does make me cringe, no less so for the pictures.

I'm sure that there are no evangelicals and extremely few Roman Catholics and Orthodox who would support this practice. Yet it shows what happens when faith goes bad. These are people who I see as extremely misguided, even from a Christian point of view. Yet I imagine many good protestant missionaries (like my parents) have tried to convince people out of this ritual and we see they have not had much success. I also feel the Roman Catholic church should do more than "frown" on the practice. They should denounce it and excommunicate anyone who participates in it, just like they would if they married an atheist.

"What Evidence is There Against the Existence of God?"

Dr. William Lane Craig asks this question in his debates. Let me attempt to answer it.

In the first place, what is the evidence against the existence of fairies or unicorns? If by looking and not seeing any isn’t considered evidence against their existence, then I don’t know what is required here. Let Dr. Craig first provide evidence against the existence of fairies or unicorns and I’ll provide evidence against the existence of God. Someone cannot provide evidence against the existence of an non-entity, since if it doesn't exist then it cannot leave any traces of its non-existence for us to examine. Think about this.

Now I do happen to think there is evidence against the existence of the Christian God, since that God depends upon the revelation found within the pages of the canonized writings in the Bible. There is the empirical evidence of intense undeserved suffering in the world which cannot be explained by a perfectly good omnipotent creator; there is archaeological evidence against the Biblical stories of the world-wide flood, the Exodus and the conquest stories in the Bible; there is geological evidence showing the earth has existed for 5 billion years; there is biological evidence showing one species evolved into the next one which disconfirms there was ever a time when there was no death in the Garden of Eden; there is psychological evidence that no wrathful God could exist given the fact that we believe and behave as we do based upon early childhood experiences; there is neurological evidence in that strokes and seizes disconfirm the notion of a soul; there is historical evidence against the believability of the virgin birth story, Satan, hell and the bodily resurrection of Jesus from the dead too. Christians will try to dispute this evidence and/or try to show it doesn't amount to much. I vehemently disagree, but it is evidence, plenty of it. And there is more I haven't mentioned. The evidence is against the God we find in the Bible, period.

When Leaving Jesus Means Losing Your Family

Valerie Tarico wrote on this topic for The Huffington Post.

An Awareness Test Reveals Our Differences.

Don't read what I write below until you've viewed the video above. Even though reading what I wrote probably won't affect the viewing of the video, do what it says first. After you do scroll down for my comments...





























We see things we're looking for and we neglect to see that which we aren't looking for. WE ALL DO THIS! ALL OF US! That's why magicians fool us. Unless we know better we are all easily fooled by the sleight of hand. That's also why I have stressed over and over again that we must justify the way we see things. I have done so here.

It won't do for Christians to merely claim that I am in the same boat, for I have justified why I see things differently. Christians need to show me why I am wrong and then provide a better explanation for why they see things differently.

Q.E.D.

Historical Reliability

We hear constantly from apologists that multiple attestation of miraculous events makes those events more likely than not. We hear constantly from apologists that if several sources report the same miracle story, than that makes the miracle all the more likely. Yet few, if any apologists worship Serapis, and almost none view the Emperor Vespasian with anything like the reverence due to him if their theory of history is right.

A recent article in New Testament Studies (54 (1). 2008. 1-17) by Eric Eve discusses the story of the Emperor Vespasian healing a blind man with his spittle and contrasts it to the similar healing of the man from Bethsaida in the gospel of Mark.

Here is Tacitus on this healing:

One of the common people of Alexandria, well-known for his blindness, threw himself at the Emperor's knees, and implored him with groans to heal his infirmity. This he did by the advice of the God Serapis, whom this nation, devoted as it is to many superstitions, worships more than any other divinity. He begged Vespasian that he would deign to moisten his cheeks and eye-balls with his spittle. Another with a diseased hand, at the counsel of the same God, prayed that the limb might feel the print of a Cæsar's foot. At first Vespasian ridiculed and repulsed them. They persisted; and he, though on the one hand he feared the scandal of a fruitless attempt, yet, on the other, was induced by the entreaties of the men and by the language of his flatterers to hope for success. At last he ordered that the opinion of physicians should be taken, as to whether such blindness and infirmity were within the reach of human skill. They discussed the matter from different points of view. "In the one case," they said, "the faculty of sight was not wholly destroyed, and might return, if the obstacles were removed; in the other case, the limb, which had fallen into a diseased condition might be restored, if a healing influence were applied; such, perhaps, might be the pleasure of the Gods, and the Emperor might be chosen to be the minister of the divine will; at any rate, all the glory of a successful remedy would be Cæsar's, while the ridicule of failure would fall on the sufferers." And so Vespasian, supposing that all things were possible to his good fortune, and that nothing was any longer past belief, with a joyful countenance, amid the intense expectation of the multitude of bystanders, accomplished what was required. The hand was instantly restored to its use, and the light of day again shone upon the blind. Persons actually present attest both facts, even now when nothing is to be gained by falsehood.

Now this is clearly eyewitness testimony of the sort that we must regard as reliable if we are to use the historical method of the apologists. In addition, the story is multiply attested albeit with slight and theologically insignificant changes in detail as we see in this passage from Suetonius:

Vespasian as yet lacked prestige and a certain divinity, so to speak, since he was an unexpected and still new-made emperor; but these also were given him. A man of the people who was blind, and another who was lame, came to him together as he sat on the tribunal, begging for the help for their disorders which Serapis had promised in a dream; for the god declared that Vespasian would restore the eyes, if he would spit upon them, and give strength to the leg, if he would deign to touch it with his heel. Though he had hardly any faith that this could possibly succeed, and therefore shrank even from making the attempt, he was at last prevailed upon by his friends and tried both things in public before a large crowd; and with success. At this same time, by the direction of certain soothsayers, some vases of antique workmanship were dug up in a consecrated spot at Tegea in Arcadia and on them was an image very like Vespasian.

Remember that Tacitus and Suetonius are considered the verifiers of the existence of the historical Jesus by most apologists. They are used repeatedly as texts to show the veracity of the gospel accounts. I am curious what stance apologists such as Dr. William Lane Craig would make of this multiply attested account of a miracle based on eyewitness testimony. If this is not considered to be a miracle, on what basis do we make that judgment? And if it is considered a miracle, why is there no St. Vespasian?

Sam Harris: Religions are Failed Sciences

Thanks to Atheist Okie for this.

Publishers Weekly Ad March 2008

It's nice to know Prometheus Books advertised my book with their only NY Times bestseller to date...

No, I don't know when it'll come out, but I can't wait.

Baby Bible Bashers. Child Abuse?

Invitation for Comment: Where did they go?

Mankind has gotten better and better at astronomy over the past three centuries. We now have stunning images of vast spaces of the visible universe. Yet we probably see less than 5% of the matter that exists. One thing nobody has ever seen with a telescope is anything that looks like heaven.

The Bible, on the other hand, clearly shows us a heaven that is close to us, reachable by proximity to the clouds. God brings people up to him through the clouds, acts from within clouds, and is afraid of people who get too close to the clouds.

The first proximity event I'd like to bring up is the story of the tower of Babel. This is a tower being built by Nimrod, who the Bible doesn't accuse of wickedness or evil. Since it usually has no problem doing that, we can presume that Nimrod wasn't wicked or evil. Nimrod gets his people together and decides to build a tower (I imagine a ziggurat) out of bricks. Here I'll quote:

And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

And the LORD came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.

And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.

This story suggests that Yahweh was concerned that people would invade heaven if they built a tall enough building, so he made it harder for them to communicate. His concern is obviously that the tower, if large enough could reach the divine realm that sits just above the clouds, and the tower would be a bridge to this, and much more permanent than just a ladder.

The next story I'll mention is of Elijah being taken to heaven. Elijah dries up a river, crosses on dry land across it with Elisha, "And it came to pass, as they still went on, and talked, that, behold, there appeared a chariot of fire, and horses of fire, which parted them both asunder; and Elijah went up by a whirlwind into heaven.

It's a good thing everything was made of fire. The temperature at 12,000 feet is usually below freezing. At 30000 feet it's below -35 C usually. But of course the deeper question is where Elijah went after he left the stratosphere. There's no oxygen to breathe at that point, and Elijah seemed to be a normal man getting into a normal chariot of fire, with normal horses made of fire. If Elijah never changed -- where is he now?

Apologists may say that God miracled Elijah to heaven. I can't disprove it. He obviously miracled him the the flaming horses. But why send the horses and chariot in the first place except to show off if you are gonna have to miracle him off well before 15000 feet. It seems illogical.

Finally we get to Jesus. Now again, it's quite clear that at his ascension he had a human body. That's why someone could bloody up their fingers by sticking them in his wounds. Yet again, he goes up into the sky. Where'd he go? Is heaven a place? If it is -- what direction is it? If it's not a place, why go up into the sky to get there?

As many of us know from personal experience and all of know from multiple measurements at multiple times, the sky is a pretty forbidding place. It's really really cold and it's hard to breathe. It's really the last place I'd want to ascend to unprotected.

The simplest explanation for all these is the obvious one. These are legends, not to be taken any more seriously than Odysseus and the Sirens, or Orpheus and Eurydice. It solves all the textual difficulties, and removes the burden of explanation of the mind of God. Atheists have been sternly warned by Dr. William Lane Craig not to do this, as it is the height of arrogance.

I invite comment from apologists who think they can explain this without guessing at the mind of God. If this task can't be done -- it does seem that John was well within the rights apologists hold for themselves when doing exegesis when he made his argument from the scope of the universe.

Stroke Induced Spirituality

Neuroscientist Jill Bolte Taylor had a stroke which allowed her to study the brain from the inside out. In this 20 min talk she describes how she was able to call for help and the feelings of spirituality that came over her as the left side of her brain was malfunctioning.

More links of interest:
from epilepsy.com
Famous religious figures with symptoms of epilepsy.
They include St. Paul, Joan of Arc and Soren Kierkegaard

From ScienceDaily
Out of body experience induced in the lab

From Debunking Christianity
Reasonable Doubt About The Soul

Kiss Hank's Ass

A humorous yet helpful popular piece by James Huger.

Here's the link to the video version.

HT: One

A Historical Kodak Moment!

Based on the Gospel of Mark 16:18: "They shall pick up serpents, and drink any deadly poison, it shall not hurt them."

Pictured here is the exact second a Bible Believer finds out that the Bible is not true.

However, due to the size of the Timber Rattle Snake striking so close to his brain, he probably did not live to tell about it!

Historical Contingency and Belief

It seems to me that the most critical historical moment for the religion we know as Christianity was an episode in Rome in 4th century CE. After the breakup of the dominate model of the empire created by Diocletian, the tetrarchy, there was a war among the generals in charge of the various Roman armies. The critical event was the invasion of Italy and attack on Rome by the emperor Constantine.

It is important to understand that Maxentius, the opponent of Constantine for the sole leadership of the empire, had already withstood two sieges inside Rome by other rivals for the control of the empire. He had a numerical advantage in troops and most observers believed Maxentius would stay within the walls of Rome and wait out his third siege. The decision to fight a pitched battle outside the walls of Rome decisively changed the equation and was riskier for Maxentius than choosing to withstand a siege.

What led him to mount an attack rather than wait is entirely speculative, but something did. The battle of the Milvian Bridge was decided decisively when a bridge created by Maxentius' engineers failed while his army was making a tactical retreat. Maxentius was on the bridge and was drowned.

With his drowning, Constantine won the control of the western empire. Constantine then issued the Edict of Milan along with the eastern leader, Licinius, ending all persecution of Christians. He then fought several wars with Licinius, until Licinus finally surrendered and was then executed.

If you believe Christianity is a divine religion, rather than focusing on the death of a poor man on a cross in Palestine in the first century -- you should be focusing instead on this sequence of events. For if God intervened to resurrect Jesus, it would have all been wasted if Maxentius hadn't drowned, or if Licinius had defeated Constantine. Thus, the Christian must believe that God is intimately involved in each action that takes place on earth. God must have planned for Constantine and his family to take over the Roman Empire. He must have chosen to have Maxentius' army lose and Constantine's to be victorious.

You must also believe that God caused the early demise of Julian the apostate, as he had re-instituted the various pagan cults as the favored religions of the empire. You must also believe that God kept the armies of the Moors from defeating the French. You must also believe that God kept the Turks and Mongols from defeating the Holy Roman Empire. You must believe that God has continuously kept Christianity in a special spot, but for 2000 years has yet to get more than a plurality of humans to accept his word.

This sets up a nearly infinite recursion that really seems to me to lead to either panentheism or atheism. I'm curious what both sides have to say about the problem of historical contingency. I believe that it is simply logically impossible to believe in a Christian God and not believe that he causes virtually every act on earth (panentheism), which would leave you with something like Spinoza's God. Yet of course the God of Christianity can't be such a God, since there are so many things on earth that are so awful, that Christians can't imagine a good God to have caused them.

To highlight this, look at the actions of Constantine's family.

Virtually all of them either were killed, or became emperor. To believe Christianity is divine you must believe that all of those executions were being ordained by God, for if they had not happened, Christianity might never have taken hold.

The alternative, I supposed, is to argue that God did NOT act to kill of rivals to the Roman dominate, and that Christianity triumphed because of its success in the marketplace of ideas. I leave that argument to be fleshed out by those who take it seriously. I do not.

The Origins of Christianity Explained!

I just finished reading Bart Ehrman's book, Jesus: An Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium. I don't know why it took me so long to get around to it, but it is awesome! In my opinion this is the best explanation for the origins of Christianity in print. If you also want to understand the rest of Erhman's writings this is the book that puts it all together. I've added this book to the the Debunking Christianity Challenge, which, if you haven't yet taken, I highly recommend that you do.

DC Evolution Smackdown

The phenomenon of evolution denialism here at DC seems to serve as an analogy of evolution itself. From time to time, an evolution denialist will arrive on the scene here at DC. Various members here will proceed to apply some very stringent selective pressure against such views. They fall out of favor and disappear from the conversation, and the selective pressure abates, allowing them to eventually spring up again and start the cycle again. Recent comments from two theists here (jamie steele and john murphy) indicate that its time for the periodical Cloroxing of the idea pool.

Evolution is both a collection of facts and one of the most thoroughly supported scientific theories known to man. The world is MUCH more than 6000 years old. There was no global flood 4000 years ago. The universe was not formed as described in the Genesis story (either one of them). Wanna fight about it?

Here are the ground rules:

1.) As we are talking about science, the only valid "way of knowing" is empiricism. Sorry; deal with it.
2.) If you have an argument to make, don't just link to the Answers in Genesis site (or the talkorigins site) you lifted it from; post it here in enough detail to defend.
3.) If you wish to cite facts that are beyond what the average college undergraduate would know, you should cite the peer reviewed publications. As evolution, Big Bang, and archaeological history dating back considerably more than 6000 years IS undergraduate-level knowledge, the initiative of attack is granted to the denialists.
4.) If you wish to claim that evolution violates the Second Law of Thermodynamics, you must be able to correctly state the Second Law of Thermodynamics, and if you get it wrong I get to hand out a cyber-noogie.

My hope is to relegate all of the typical denialist claims here for debunking so other debates can continue underailed by this stuff. So jamie, john, and other closet creationists lurking here, put up or shut up.

Bart D. Ehrman is My Hero!

After reading a few of his books, with more on the backburner, I just want to declare that Dr. Ehrman is my intellectual hero!

No one else has written so prolifically in arguing against Christianity. He publishes scholarly works with Oxford University Press, and popular ones through HarperCollins (bypassing the normal atheist publishers). He understands that which he argues against and does so respectably. Click on his Curriculum Vitae link at his homepage and look at the range of his publications and books in preparation. Maybe you'll agree with me that his assault on Christianity is probably the most sustained attack by any one skeptic in history. It's surely the most significant attack in today's world. While there are others I admire, when it comes to debunking Christianity, Ehrman stands above us all.

Jesus Failed to Return as Promised

The first account of Jesus' prediction of his return is stated by Mark in chapter 13. Let's take a cursory glance and open it up for discussion...

1 And as he came out of the temple, one of his disciples said to him, “Look, Teacher, what wonderful stones and what wonderful buildings!” 2 And Jesus said to him, “Do you see these great buildings? There will not be left here one stone upon another, that will not be thrown down.”

3 And as he sat on the Mount of Olives opposite the temple, Peter and James and John and Andrew asked him privately, 4 “Tell us, when will this be, and what will be the sign when these things are all to be accomplished?”

According to Edward Adams in The Stars Will Fall From Heaven, these are two separate questions conjoined by the word καὶ, "and" (p. 140). The second question is a clear allusion to Daniel 12:6-7 as translated in the LXX (Mark: ταῦτα συντελεῖσθαι πάντα; cf. Daniel 12:7 συντελεσθήσεται πάντα ταῦτα), where Daniel is talking about the end of all things and the resurrection of the righteous and unrighteous (see 12:1-3).

5 And Jesus began to say to them, “Take heed that no one leads you astray. 6 Many will come in my name, saying, ‘I am he!’ and they will lead many astray. 7 And when you hear of wars and rumors of wars, do not be alarmed; this must take place, but the end is not yet. 8 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.

9 “But take heed to yourselves; for they will deliver you up to councils; and you will be beaten in synagogues; and you will stand before governors and kings for my sake, to bear testimony before them. 10 And the gospel must first be preached to all nations. 11 And when they bring you to trial and deliver you up, do not be anxious beforehand what you are to say; but say whatever is given you in that hour, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit. 12 And brother will deliver up brother to death, and the father his child, and children will rise against parents and have them put to death; 13 and you will be hated by all for my name’s sake. But he who endures to the end will be saved.

14 “But when you see the desolating sacrilege (RSV; NASB, "abomination of desolation;" NIV, "the abomination that causes desolation") set up where it ought not to be (let the reader understand), then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains; 15 let him who is on the housetop not go down, nor enter his house, to take anything away; 16 and let him who is in the field not turn back to take his mantle. 17 And alas for those who are with child and for those who give suck in those days! 18 Pray that it may not happen in winter. 19 For in those days there will be such tribulation as has not been from the beginning of the creation which God created until now, and never will be. 20 And if the Lord had not shortened the days, no human being would be saved; but for the sake of the elect, whom he chose, he shortened the days. 21 And then if any one says to you, ‘Look, here is the Christ!’ or ‘Look, there he is!’ do not believe it. 22 False Christs and false prophets will arise and show signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect. 23 But take heed; I have told you all things beforehand.

In these verses Edward Adams argues that Jesus has answered the first question about the destruction of the temple and what his followers should do when they see these things.

24 “But in those days, after that tribulation, the sun will be darkened, and the moon will not give its light, 25 and the stars will be falling from heaven, and the powers in the heavens will be shaken. 26 And then they will see the Son of man coming (ἐρχόμενον) in clouds with great power and glory. 27 And then he will send out the angels, and gather his elect from the four winds, from the ends of the earth to the ends of heaven.

The events previously described (vss. 5-23) are distinguished from the ones that follow in this chapter. Edward Adams says "there is no indication of a temporal gap between the close of the tribulation and what is about to be described. What takes place 'after that tribulation' can only be the eschatological climax" (Adams, p. 146). The Greek word translated "coming" (ἐρχόμενον) in reference to Jesus can also mean "going." But this is clearly an allusion to Daniel 7:13, and Zechariah 14:5, so it fits better in the context to be translated as "coming." Adams also documents that this apocalyptic language was taken quite literally by the ancient people of that day when predicting the end of all things. They literally believed the sun and moon will be darkened, and that the stars will fall from the sky at the end of times.

28 “From the fig tree learn its lesson: as soon as its branch becomes tender and puts forth its leaves, you know that summer is near. 29 So also, when you see these things taking place, you know that he is near, at the very gates. 30 Truly, I say to you, this generation will not pass away before all these things take place. 31 Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away.

About verse 30, Adams writes, "It is virtually certain that 'this generation' means the generation living at the time of utterance. The time frame in this verse is thus the lifetime of Jesus' own contemporaries." (p. 164). Verse 31 is related to the whole discourse for even though "creation will be dissolved; Jesus word's will endure" (Adams p. 162). D. Sims as quoted by Adams: "A more clear expression of the end of the present cosmic order would be difficult to find" (p. 162).

32 “But of that day or that hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. 33 Take heed, watch; for you do not know when the time will come. 34 It is like a man going on a journey, when he leaves home and puts his servants in charge, each with his work, and commands the doorkeeper to be on the watch. 35 Watch therefore—for you do not know when the master of the house will come, in the evening, or at midnight, or at cockcrow, or in the morning— 36 lest he come suddenly and find you asleep. 37 And what I say to you I say to all: Watch.”

While Mark's Jesus says this will happen in his generation, he also says no one knows what specific day or hour.

The point is that Jesus did not return as promised in his generation, period. Forget all the talk about not knowing the day nor the hour. We were told he was to return in his generation, and that generation has come and gone.

Hitchens on Why He Doesn't Accept Christianity

Thanks to Ryan Atkinson on My Space for this.

Christopher Hitchens: "I'm Absolutely Convinced That The Main Source of Hatred in the World is Religion."

Thanks to Dave at ex-christian.net for this. He also said:

The reason I am posting this video here is because I would like to point out that Hitchens does not advocate hating Christians, Muslims, or other religious people. It is religion itself that he says should be hated.

I think that hating individuals because they are infected with religious delusion is just as bigoted as hating people who are infected with a disease, or who are ignorant, or who are mistaken about something. I left Christianity when I figured out I had been duped by an ancient, well supported, propaganda campaign machine. I was angry about it. I felt deceived and cheated. But feeling anger, in my mind, is not hatred. When Christians try to evangelize me, I frequently feel irritated. Irritation, however, is also not hatred.

Although I may hate what religion can do to a thinking mind, it is the parasitic meme that I despise, not the parasite's host.

Know What and Why You Believe

"The unexamined life is not worth living." Quote attributed to Socrates. Continuing education is very important to understanding who we are, the world around us, avoiding fraud and improving successful outcomes in life. Here are a list of relevant University and Teaching Company Audio courses suitable for your personal MP3 player that I recommend in the categories of Pre-history, History, Psychology, and Philosophy.

This is not an exhaustive list, but its a start in the right direction to examining what and why we believe. The list contains links to commercial sites, Free university lectures from Berkeley, and the rest are to Torrent sites. Downloading from torrent sites involves some risk from malicious programs and legal concerns. Use your best judgement. Purchase what you can.

First one needs to know who they are.

* Psychology 1: General Psychology UC Berkeley, Free, UC Berkeley
* TTC - Biology and Behavior, under $50.00
* TTC - John Searle Philosophy of Mind, Torrent archive available
* TTC - Consciousness and Its Implications, under $20.00

Then, one should know where they came from.

* TTC - Human Prehistory and the First Civilizations, audio under 200.00, books under 50.00
* History 4A The Ancient Mediterranean World, UC Berkeley, Free UC Berkeley
* TTC - Ancient Near Eastern Mythology Torrent, Archive Torrent available for Download

Then one should examine the origins of their belief from both sides of the fence.

* TTC - The Historical Jesus, under 130.00, book in the panel on the right
* TTC - Christianity, audio under 90.00, book under $20.00

Then one should comapare Secular and Religious Values to see how they match up.

* TTC - The Quest for Meaning, audio $130.00

One Butt and Two Asses for Jesus

The gospel writers played fast and loose with the writings of the Old Testament Prophets in order to cobble together a narrative for Jesus the Messiah.

It has long been noted that the authors of the gospels were dependent upon scattered verses in the Old Testament as inspiration for their story. For instance virtually the entire passion narrative of Mark's gospel is cobbled together from OT verses, and virtually nothing appears within it which doesn't have an OT source antecedent. Christians have historically insisted that the close relation between the narrative and the OT texts was due to a direct fulfillment of prophetic expectation which proves that Jesus was the predicted Messiah. The problem comes when one examines the OT verses used and notices that they were wrenched out of their context by the gospel writers.

Sometimes, the use of the OT texts by the gospel writers results in absurdity. One example which clearly shows that the incident related in a gospel was based upon an OT text rather than an actual event is the story of Jesus making his not so triumphal entry into Jerusalem. Let us look at the OT test and see what the gospel writers did with it.

Our text for the day comes from Zechariah 9:9

"Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Zion.
See, your king comes to you righteous,
and having salvation,
humble and riding on an ass,
on a colt, the foal of a ass."

In its context, the whole of Zechariah's message deriving ostensibly from his exile in Persia is that the temple will be rebuilt in Jerusalem by Zerubbabel, God will return his presence, He will protect his people, and He will destroy the enemies who surround them. Zechariah was heavily used by the gospel writers as source inspiration. Coincidentally, the second temple High Priest mentioned in Zechariah is named Joshua (Jesus) Zech 3:1. The figure in the verse above comes in the context of God portrayed as the divine warrior. Whether or not this verse has Messianic import is not the point of this study, but it will be noted that it is an apocalyptic statement which results in the establishment of the second temple and the Judean rule over all the earth. It is most definitely not a prophecy of a simple ride into Jerusalem with the inaguration of a spiritual kingdom.

This verse is written in poetry. The Hebraic form which is common throughout the prophets and the Psalms is known as the doublet. The doublet can be recognized when a statement in the primary portion of the verse is followed by a second line which modifies it. For instance, if we created a modern verse in the Hebraic doublet form, we might say:

"To the East I will travel,
and to the sunrise I run."

As a doublet, the meaning is:

"I am going East,
That is to say, toward the sunrise.

The Zechariah text is stating in two doublets,

"The king is righteous,
That is to say, he has salvation.

He is humbly riding on an ass,
That is to say, on a colt, the foal of an ass."

Now let us see what the author of Matthew's gospel does with this. He writes:

"Jesus sent two disciples, sayint unto them, Go into the village that is over against you, and straightway you shall find an ass tied, and a colt with her: loose them, and bring them unto me. And if anyone say anything unto you, you shall say, The Lord has need of them; and immediately he will send them. now this is come to pass, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken through the prophet saying,

Tell you daughter of Zion, Behold your king comes unto you, meek and riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an ass.

And the disciples went, and did as Jesus told them, and brought the ass and the colt, and put on them their garments, and he sat thereon." Matt: 21:2-7

Matthew, not understanding Hebraic poetry and the use of the modifying doublet turned Zechariah's ass into two animals, an ass and a foal. Then he had the disciples rig up an ersatz saddle and had Jesus ride on both at once.

One can almost imagine the conversation between Jesus and the disciples which Matthew didn't record:

Jesus: Hey, great work guys. Those asses are just what I need to ride into town.

Peter: But master, why do you need two?

Jesus: I'm not sure, but the prophet said I have to ride both of them.

Peter: Maybe it's so you have a spare in case one breaks down.

Jesus: No more backtalk Peter. Just rig up some way for me to ride them.

Peter: But master, we have two asses and you only have one butt. How are we going to pull this off?

Jesus: Maybe we can tie them together real tight and I can get half my butt onto both asses.

Peter: Have you given any thought as to how silly this will look when artists in future centuries try to paint this scene?

Satire aside, it is obvious that Matthew constructed this absurdity first from Mark, who got it right originally and understood that only one animal was intended in Zechariah. But Matthew wanted to be sure the fulfillment matched that which he thought the text intended, so he added an extra ass. Why? Because he didn't understand the form of the text which was his narrative launching pad.

On Believing What the Bible Says...

When it comes to Christians who quote the Bible here at DC, to us it's like quoting from Homer!

When it comes to using the reported miracles in the Bible to defend that the Bible is God's word, Christians operate by a double standard. Christians themselves follow the scientific mindset when it comes to pretty much everything else. They rely on science every single day.

Christian, you yourself are skeptical about most miraculous claims, and you use the prevailing modern scientific mindset to reject them. If you had heard of Balaam's tale in the ancient world you would not believe his tale unless you personally heard his ass speak! [Assuming he was a real person with a tale to tell in the first place].

Just think about how that tale got into the Bible in the first place. Someone had to believe him who then included it. But why should he? All he had to go on was what Balaam said. He didn't hear his ass speak!

You'll say the tale is true because God told someone in a vision(?) to include it, but why should anyone but the person who saw such a vision believe that God actually spoke to him? And aren't visions subjective? Don't you know of Pentecostals who claim God spoke to them too? Even other Pentecostals don't believe every claim of this sort from others within their group, and most other Christians probably deny most or all of them. So again, why believe the Bible, and why quote from it to people like us who need these questions answered first? It's just silly to us.