Does God cause evil?

[DanieltheDragon]

Does God cause evil?

Some assert that God causes no evil. Is there cause to believe this is true. Can this position be supported. Is the character described in the bible incapable of evil?

I would assert that a position that claims God created everything would make him the original cause of evil. That God cannot escape being the cause of evil since he created any and all situations in which evil would arise.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 210 by William]

It's very clear that God does not involve Himself in any way with the events of the physical world. What is not clear is how this differs in any way from a God who does not exist.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 207 by Tired of the Nonsense]

You seem to be arguing that because some Christians behaved badly, that means all Christians automatically behave badly, share the same bad views. And that is stereotyping and a totally bogus argument. It would be akin to saying all science is bad because scientists have done brutal experiments, faked results, come to wrong conclusions, etc. If you come right down to it, not all Nazi material is bad. Their rocket research was way beyond ours, so that we whitewashed a number of leading Nazi scientists and turned them lose in our space program. They used to nickname old Werner von Braun, a former SS officer, "the Nazi," at NASA. Yes, the Bible is subject to more than one interpretation. Big deal, so what? Over the centuries, nature has been subject to more than one interpretation as well. So do you want to throw out all science as nonsense?
I'm not a Mormon, so why bring up Mormonism?

You say you're not into metaphysics, then turn around and say you don't believe in anything paranormal, supernatural, etc. Well, you are then following the metaphysics of naturalism. So yes, you are into metaphysics.

You listed a number of objections to the resurrection. OK, fine. They do have some degree of merit. But they are still speculations, solid as they may seem. You presented no conclusive counter evidence, just possibilities. The Jews said it was a hoax. OK, possibly it was, but on the other hand, many have been accused of hoaxes and then later venerated. Just because someone says its a hoax doesn't necessarily mean it is so. Also, it is generally accepted in modern biblical studies that none of the gospel writers claim to be eyewitnesses or write as eyewitnesses.

You said corpses just don't up and disappear. That requires some metaphysical qualifiers. I view reality as dynamic, ever-changing. So where is the past, the snows of yesteryear? Where is your body of you as a ten-year-old right now? That sure seems to have up and vanished. Where is yesterday? That sure has up and vanished. Even a corpse will eventually and vanish. The resurrected body of Christ is assumed to be something transformed. And that is exactly what happens to our bodies, when they up and disappear moment to moment. In addition, I vie the universe as a complex organism; and a complex organism always has a brain, and a brain always has a memory. So if I think of God as the brain of teh universe, then I think of God as having a vastly superior, unlimited memory, one that contains al of the past, right down to the smallest detail. And I see nothing weird about God sharing this memory with us. And I believe that's what happened when the resurrected Christ reappeared. So, bottom line: It all depends on your metaphysic.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 212 by hoghead1]

You seem to be arguing that because some Christians behaved badly, that means all Christians automatically behave badly, share the same bad views. And that is stereotyping and a totally bogus argument.

No, I am not suggesting that all Christians are guilty of behaving badly. I am, however, suggesting that all religions are dangerous because they perpetuate a make believe view of reality, and give rise to violent passions which result in conflict and in hideous actions which are justified as being necessary in the name of God/gods. So let's look at a few historical examples of Christians "behaving badly."


Wikipedia
Albigensian Crusade
The Albigensian Crusade or Cathar Crusade (1209–1229) was a 20-year military campaign initiated by Pope Innocent III to eliminate Catharism in Languedoc, in the south of France. The Crusade was prosecuted primarily by the French crown and promptly took on a political flavour, resulting in not only a significant reduction in the number of practising Cathars, but also a realignment of the County of Toulouse, bringing it into the sphere of the French crown and diminishing the distinct regional culture and high level of influence of the Counts of Barcelona.

The Albigensian Crusade also had a role in the creation and institutionalization of both the Dominican Order and the medieval inquisition.

Initial success 1209 to 1215
By mid-1209, around 10,000 crusaders had gathered in Lyon before marching south.[22] In June, Raymond of Toulouse, recognizing the disaster at hand, finally promised to act against the Cathars, and his excommunication was lifted.[23] The crusaders turned towards Montpellier and the lands of Raymond-Roger de Trencavel, aiming for the Cathar communities around Albi and Carcassonne. Like Raymond of Toulouse, Raymond-Roger sought an accommodation with the crusaders, but he was refused a meeting and raced back to Carcassonne to prepare his defences.

Massacre at Béziers
The crusaders captured the small village of Servian and then headed for Béziers, arriving on 21 July 1209. Under the command of the papal legate, Arnaud-Amaury,[25] they started to besiege the city, calling on the Catholics within to come out, and demanding that the Cathars surrender.[26] Both groups refused. The city fell the following day when an abortive sortie was pursued back through the open gates. The entire population was slaughtered and the city burned to the ground. Contemporary sources give estimates of the number of dead ranging between 15,000 and 20,000. The latter figure appears in Arnaud-Amaury's report to the pope. The news of the disaster quickly spread and afterwards many settlements surrendered without a fight.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albigensian_Crusade

Wikipedia
Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius.
"Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius." was allegedly spoken by Papal legate and Cistercian abbot Arnaud Amalric prior to the massacre at Béziers, the first major military action of the Albigensian Crusade. A direct translation of the Latin phrase would be "Kill them. For the Lord knows those that are His own." Less formal English translations have given rise to variants such as "Kill them all; let God sort them out." Other sources give the quotation as "Neca eos omnes. Deus suos agnoscet."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caedite_e ... _sunt_eius.

Wikipedia
Waldensians
The Waldensians (also known variously as Waldenses (/wɔ�lˈdɛnsi�z, wɒl-/), Vallenses, Valdesi or Vaudois) are a Christian movement founded by Peter Waldo circa 1173.

The movement originated in the late twelfth century as the Poor Men of Lyons, a band organized by Peter Waldo, a wealthy merchant who gave away his property around 1173, preaching apostolic poverty as the way to perfection. Waldensian teachings quickly came into conflict with the Catholic Church. By 1215, the Waldensians were declared heretical and subject to intense persecution; the group was nearly annihilated in the seventeenth century and were confronted with organized and generalized discrimination in the centuries that followed.

Massacre of the Waldensians of Mérindol in 1545
Outside the Piedmont, the Waldenses joined the local Protestant churches in Bohemia, France, and Germany. After they came out of seclusion and reports were made of sedition on their part, French King Francis I issued on 1 January 1545 the "Arrêt de Mérindol", and assembled an army against the Waldensians of Provence. The leaders in the 1545 massacres were Jean Maynier d'Oppède, First President of the parlement of Provence, and the military commander Antoine Escalin des Aimars who was returning from the Italian Wars with 2,000 veterans, the Bandes de Piémont. Deaths in the Massacre of Mérindol ranged from hundreds to thousands, depending on the estimates, and several villages were devastated.

The Duke's forces did not simply slaughter the inhabitants. They are reported to have unleashed an unprovoked campaign of looting, rape, torture, and murder. According to one report by a Peter Liegé:

Little children were torn from the arms of their mothers, clasped by their tiny feet, and their heads dashed against the rocks; or were held between two soldiers and their quivering limbs torn up by main force. Their mangled bodies were then thrown on the highways or fields, to be devoured by beasts. The sick and the aged were burned alive in their dwellings. Some had their hands and arms and legs lopped off, and fire applied to the severed parts to staunch the bleeding and prolong their suffering. Some were flayed alive, some were roasted alive, some disemboweled; or tied to trees in their own orchards, and their hearts cut out. Some were horribly mutilated, and of others the brains were boiled and eaten by these cannibals. Some were fastened down into the furrows of their own fields, and ploughed into the soil as men plough manure into it. Others were buried alive. Fathers were marched to death with the heads of their sons suspended round their necks. Parents were compelled to look on while their children were first outraged [raped], then massacred, before being themselves permitted to die.



Now, compare what history indicates actually occurred, and the Jesuit oath which was once required to be taken by any Jesuit seeking higher office in the order.

JESUIT Extreme Oath of Induction
as recorded in the Journals of the 62D Congress, 3d Session of the U.S.
(House Calendar No. 397. Report No. 1523)
Congressional Record---House, 15 Feb. 1913, pp3215-3216


I_______________ , now in the presence of Almighty God, the blessed Virgin Mary, the blessed St. John the Baptist, the Holy Apostles, St. Peter and St. Paul, and all the saints, sacred host of Heaven, and to you, my Ghostly Father, the superior general of the Society of Jesus, founded by St. Ignatius Loyoly, in the pontification of Paul the III, and continued to the present, do by the womb of the Virgin, the matrix of God, and the rod of Jesus Christ, declare and swear that His Holiness, the Pope, is Christ's vice regent and is the true and only head of the Catholic or Universal Church throughout the earth; and that by the virtue of the keys of binding and loosing given His Holiness by my Saviour, Jesus Christ, he hath power to depose heretical kings, princes, States, Commonwealths, and Governments and they may be safely destroyed. Therefore to the utmost of my power I will defend this doctrine and His Holiness's right and custom against all usurpers of the heretical or Protestant authority whatever, especially the Lutheran Church of Germany, Holland, Denmark, Sweden and Norway, and the now pretended authority and Church's of England and Scotland, and the branches of same now established in Ireland and on the continent of America and elsewhere and all adherents in regard that they may be usurped and heretical, opposing the sacred Mother Church of Rome. I do now denounce and disown any allegiance as due to any heretical king, prince or State, named Protestant or Liberal, or obedience to any of their laws, magistrates or officers. I do further declare that the doctrine of the Churches of England and Scotland of the Calvinists, Huguenots, and others of the name of Protestants or Masons to be damnable, and they themselves to be damned who will not forsake the same. I do further declare that I will help, assist, and advise all or any of His Holiness's agents, in any place where I should be, in Switzerland, Germany, Holland, Ireland or America, or in any other kingdom or territory I shall come to, and do my utmost to extirpate the heretical Protestant or Masonic doctrines and to destroy all their pretended powers, legal or otherwise. I do further promise and declare that, notwithstanding I am dispensed with to assume any religion heretical for the propagation of the Mother Church's interest; to keep secret and private all her agents counsels from time to time, as they intrust me, and not divulge, directly or indirectly, by word, writing or circumstances whatever, but to execute all that should be proposed, given in charge, or discovered unto me by you, my Ghostly Father, or any of this sacred order. I do further promise and declare that I will have no opinion or will of my own or any mental reservation whatever, even as a corpse or cadaver (perinde ac cadaver), but will unhesitatingly obey each and every command that I may receive from my superiors in the militia of the Pope and of Jesus Christ. That I will go to any part of the world whithersoever I may be sent, to the frozen regions north, jungles of India, to the centers of civilization of Europe, or to the wild haunts of the barbarous savages of America without murmuring or repining, and will be submissive in all things whatsoever is communicated to me. I do further promise and declare that I will, when opportunity presents, make and wage relentless war, secretly and openly, against all heretics, Protestants and Masons, as I am directed to do, to extirpate them from the face of the whole earth; and that I will spare neither age, sex or condition, and that will hang, burn, waste, boil, flay, strangle, and bury alive these infamous heretics; rip up the stomachs and wombs of their women, and crush their infant's heads against the walls in order to annihilate their execrable race. That when the same cannot be done openly I will secretly use the poisonous cup, the strangulation cord, the steel of the poniard, or the leaden bullet, regardless of the honor, rank, dignity or authority of the persons, whatever may be their condition in life, either public or private, as I at any time may be directed so to do by any agents of the Pope or Superior of the Brotherhood of the Holy Father of the Society of Jesus. In confirmation of which I hereby dedicate my life, soul, and all corporal powers, and with the dagger which I now receive I will subscribe my name written in my blood in testimony thereof; and should I prove false or weaken in my determination may my brethren and fellow soldiers of the militia of the Pope cut off my hands and feet and my throat from ear to ear, my belly opened and sulphur burned therein with all the punishment that can be inflicted upon me on earth and my soul shall be tortured by demons in eternal hell forever. That I will in voting always vote for a Knight of Columbus in preference to a Protestant, especially a Mason, and that I will leave my party so to do; that if two Catholics are on the ticket I will satisfy myself which is the better supporter of Mother Church and vote accordingly. That I will not deal with or employ a Protestant if in my power to deal with or employ a Catholic. That I will place Catholic girls in Protestant families that a weekly report may be made of the inner movements of the heretics. That I will provide myself with arms and ammunition that I may be in readiness when the word is passed, or I am commanded to defend the church either as an individual or with the militia of the Pope. All of which I,_______________, do swear by the blessed Trinity and blessed sacrament which I am now to receive to perform and on part to keep this my oath. In testimony hereof, I take this most holy and blessed sacrament of the Eucharist and witness the same further with my name written with the point of this dagger dipped in my own blood and seal in the face of this holy sacrament.

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/ha ... uction.htm

When I claimed that Christians have committed hideous acts, I actually meant that Christians have committed hideous acts. Acts far above and beyond simply "behaving badly." Other religious have committed hideous acts as well, this is true. ALL religious are dangerous, because religions engender the sort of brutal passions in people that causes them to act in ways they never would have acted without their make believe view of reality. Very few believers have any real understanding of the terrible pain and suffering religions have engendered over the centuries. In a world of nuclear weapons, we humans need to put this ancient superstitious nonsense behind us before it is too late.

Christians have been taught from birth that Christianity is a religion of peace and love, and that it is necessary to be a Christian to have any concept of good. In actual practice however, Christianity has demonstrated it's ability to be responsible for the most hideous of actions by it's followers.

It would be akin to saying all science is bad because scientists have done brutal experiments, faked results, come to wrong conclusions, etc. If you come right down to it, not all Nazi material is bad. Their rocket research was way beyond ours, so that we whitewashed a number of leading Nazi scientists and turned them lose in our space program. They used to nickname old Werner von Braun, a former SS officer, "the Nazi," at NASA. Yes, the Bible is subject to more than one interpretation. Big deal, so what? Over the centuries, nature has been subject to more than one interpretation as well. So do you want to throw out all science as nonsense?

Equating modern science with the Nazism is really grasping at straws. Even you must see that.

I'm not a Mormon, so why bring up Mormonism?

You have repeatedly made the claim that no Christian could "get away" with making things up, or making outrageous unsubstantiated claims. Christianity is BASED on outrageous unsubstantiated claims. Mormons claims are an example of outrageous claims piled on top of earlier outrageous claims. And through it all the faithful swallow it down because that is what they have been programmed from birth to do. .

You say you're not into metaphysics, then turn around and say you don't believe in anything paranormal, supernatural, etc. Well, you are then following the metaphysics of naturalism. So yes, you are into metaphysics.

Metaphysics contends that there are deeper mysteries that can be understood through appeals to reason and philosophy. But you see, science is not based on a philosophy. Science is based entirely on physical evidence which can be ascertained through empirical observation and experimentation. We never could have "reasoned" or reached an understanding of quantum mechanics through philosophical means. Hard research was required.

As Stephen Hawking put it: "Why are we here? Where do we come from? Traditionally, these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead." Stephen Hawking
http://www.age-of-the-sage.org/stephen_ ... _dead.html

And I agree with Stephen Hawking. Philosophy is dead in the sense that it is largely no longer needed in the way that it was utilized in the past. Throughout the ages philosophy has been the mechanism used in an attempt to explain the apparently unexplainable when no other hard and fast answers were available. And it served it purpose in it's day. But as with religion, those days are over. The answers to how things work ARE now largely available to us you see, and more information is being discovered at an astounding rate. More and more we now have actual factual answers to the questions concerning how existence works. Questions such as what the purpose of existence has no actual factual answer to discover because the question is a philosophical one which does not apply to the physical universe and as a result any possible answers can ultimately only be esoteric in nature. Purpose in life is essentially an individual opinion, varying from one individuals needs to another individuals needs. Trying to give life some great cosmic religious meaning has only resulted in tens of thousands of different religious beliefs and differing opinions on the meaning to life. All questions are fair questions. What is unfair is the expectation that the universe possesses hard and fast answers to all of our ruminations.

So when I indicate that everything happens for entirely natural reasons, I mean that strictly as a matter of what is observed to be true.

You listed a number of objections to the resurrection. OK, fine. They do have some degree of merit. But they are still speculations, solid as they may seem. You presented no conclusive counter evidence, just possibilities. The Jews said it was a hoax. OK, possibly it was, but on the other hand, many have been accused of hoaxes and then later venerated. Just because someone says its a hoax doesn't necessarily mean it is so. Also, it is generally accepted in modern biblical studies that none of the gospel writers claim to be eyewitnesses or write as eyewitnesses.

Speculation is reaching the conclusion that something contrary to all observation, experience and common sense must have occurred because someone has claimed that it has. A corpse returning to life and flying away goes beyond contradicting physical laws, and climbs all the way up to silly. But I can give you a step by step explanation for the way the story of the empty tomb and the risen Jesus may well have actually played out, based entirely on the information provided in the NT, if you wish. I can even give a pretty fair estimation of where the body of Jesus may have actually ended up. It's necessarily a very long and detailed explanation, so if you are unwilling to give it a read then don't ask, and I won't bother. At least for now. We seem to he heading in that direction anyway, however.

Most Christians would argue that Gospels Matthew and John were written by the apostles Matthew and John who were eyewitnesses. But you are correct, there is no real evidence that any of the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses. All four Gospels were written anonymously, and the names that have been associated with them are traditional, although there is actually some historical evidence that the author of Gospel Mark was actually an individual named Mark who served as a translator for Peter.

You said corpses just don't up and disappear. That requires some metaphysical qualifiers.

No I did not! Missing bodies are fairly common. Let me put it this way. Suppose you were a police detective assigned to investigate an empty grave and a missing corpse. Would your first conclusion be that the corpse came back to life and wandered off? Or would your first conclusion be that some living agent was responsible? And of course the answer is obvious. No metaphysical qualifier is needed.

What I have said is that a corpse coming back to life and subsequently flying away is unrealistic to the point of being silly.

I view reality as dynamic, ever-changing. So where is the past, the snows of yesteryear?

Reality is whatever it is. What is changeable is our worldview.

Where is your body of you as a ten-year-old right now? That sure seems to have up and vanished.

Every particle of my body from the time I was conceived until this very moment have existed in other different forms at least since the beginning of the universe. Every particle of my body will continue to exist in other forms after I pass away.

Even a corpse will eventually and vanish. The resurrected body of Christ is assumed to be something transformed.

Christians have proclaimed this to be true. It is nothing more than an empty claim however. There is no reason to suppose that the corpse of Jesus did not go through the same stages of decay as any other corpse would. The Jews did not practice preservation of bodies.

In addition, I vie the universe as a complex organism; and a complex organism always has a brain, and a brain always has a memory. So if I think of God as the brain of teh universe, then I think of God as having a vastly superior, unlimited memory, one that contains al of the past, right down to the smallest detail. And I see nothing weird about God sharing this memory with us. And I believe that's what happened when the resurrected Christ reappeared. So, bottom line: It all depends on your metaphysic.

You have every right to view the universe any way you choose. What you don't have is physical evidence to support your personal views.

[William]

[Replying to post 211 by Tired of the Nonsense]

It is clear to you perhaps, for whatever reasons you have. But it is not clear to me that such is the case, for reasons I have well enough explained.

[William]

[Replying to post 213 by Tired of the Nonsense]

I am, however, suggesting that all religions are dangerous because they perpetuate a make believe view of reality, and give rise to violent passions which result in conflict and in hideous actions which are justified as being necessary in the name of God/gods.

The questions I would ask anyone who has such a world view is;

Q: Do you see other sectors of human organisation in the same light as you see religion?

Q: What do you think of passions which are not in any obvious way 'violent' but are nonetheless dangerous?

Q: Do you dedicate your time in life to pursuing ALL variations of human corruption with equal passion, or is this directed only at the religious?

hoghead1 wrote:

It would be akin to saying all science is bad because scientists have done brutal experiments, faked results, come to wrong conclusions, etc. If you come right down to it, not all Nazi material is bad. Their rocket research was way beyond ours, so that we whitewashed a number of leading Nazi scientists and turned them lose in our space program. They used to nickname old Werner von Braun, a former SS officer, "the Nazi," at NASA. Yes, the Bible is subject to more than one interpretation. Big deal, so what? Over the centuries, nature has been subject to more than one interpretation as well. So do you want to throw out all science as nonsense?

Your {hand-waving} reply;

Equating modern science with the Nazism is really grasping at straws. Even you must see that.

1: What hogehead said is relevant. If it were not for the sparing of the scientists who were part of the NAZI political organisation and who gave their support to that party, then both Russia and America would not be where they are now. History would have been different.

2: Your hand-waving reply is hypocritical on the heels of your comments about so-called 'Christians' who did atrocities in the name of GOD.

In all fairness, equating modern Christianity with the actions of people obviously deranged and calling themselves Christians, hundreds of years ago, must also be 'grasping at straws' by your own spoken logic. Even you should be able to see that, yes?

Your stance on all things religious - especially 'Christian' is misshapen as it does not acknowledge the part that Christianity has played in the past, in order that we all are afforded with this window of opportunity to have what we now have access to and use it more wisely than the ancients - because we know so much better...at least in theory.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 215 by William]

1: What hogehead said is relevant. If it were not for the sparing of the scientists who were part of the NAZI political organisation and who gave their support to that party, then both Russia and America would not be where they are now. History would have been different.

I don't see how it is possible to accuse anyone of being "sparing" of any Nazi scientist who committed crimes against humanity. Those who were caught were tried and either executed or imprisoned.

2: Your hand-waving reply is hypocritical on the heels of your comments about so-called 'Christians' who did atrocities in the name of GOD.

A long and very bloody war was fought to bring the Nazi's down. I hardly consider that "hand waving" by anyone. Certain Nazi scientists, like Von Braun, went on to help the United States develop it's missile program after the war rather than being tried for war crimes. But there was no accusation that Von Braun conducted experiments on anyone.

In all fairness, equating modern Christianity with the actions of people obviously deranged and calling themselves Christians, hundreds of years ago, must also be 'grasping at straws' by your own spoken logic. Even you should be able to see that, yes?

The examples I provided were not some few "deranged" Christians. What occurred were concerted and coordinated efforts done by armies of thousands operating under the expressed authority of the Pope.

Your stance on all things religious - especially 'Christian' is misshapen as it does not acknowledge the part that Christianity has played in the past, in order that we all are afforded with this window of opportunity to have what we now have access to and use it more wisely than the ancients - because we know so much better...at least in theory.

The Nazi's repaired the broken infrastructure of Germany, put an end to runaway inflation, and brought stability to a country that had been teetering on the brink of total collapse after the first world war. And yet no one is lining up to sing their praises. Because their excesses vastly overshadow everything else.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 213 by Tired of the Nonsense]

You say you aren't claiming all Christians behave badly, then you say all religious are dangerous. That is a contradiction. Also it stereotypes all religions.

I am well aware of all those historical example you cite of Christians behaving badly, and then some. That's just basic Church History 101 stuff. Adds nothing new. Tell me something I don't already know. And I could add on a long list of scientists behaving badly and Americans behaving badly way back when, all basic History 101 stuff. My point is that's then, this is now. Today, it is very different. Science is not dominated by Ptolemy, the South no longer has slaves, and theology is not all dominated by 16th-century Calvinists, either. Your posts focus too much on living in the past and so are way out of date.

If you have issues with Mormons, then you should that those up with them, or go to the sub forums here that is devoted to a discussion of Mormonism. I'm not Mormon, the majority of Christians aren't either;so, frankly speaking, I don't care a hoot about Mormonism at present.

When I speak about not getting away with anything, I am talking about the reflective side, the scholarly side of Christianity. Many fail to recognize there is a huge town-gown gulf in theology. Many assume that it's all alike, that what a seemingly unreflective laity thinks is the same thing in academia. Big mistake. The real world of biblical and theological scholarship is light years away from the laity. It has different rules, goals, and often reaches conclusions quite different from what laity would expect. That's the world I live in, and no, you just can't get away with anything you want, unless of course you are big enough to pull it off, make a solid case. The problem I have with our posts is that you completely ignored this side of contemporary Christendom. That was very obvious in your comment that most Christians believe that Matthew and John wrote the Gospels. In modern biblical studies, it is generally accepted that the gospels were not written by any of the apostles and were originally anonymous.

What Hawking says and what the reality of the situation actually is are two very different things. No, philosophy is not dead, definitely not. If Hawking thinks he and science have all the answers, he is in for a rude awakening. His remark, as some of his others, is pure propaganda. Matter of fact, science is rooted in philosophy, in the empirical tradition. As I have pointed out in many previous posts, many scientific concepts are not testable scientifically. Causality is one prime example. And there is no way to verify the verification principle.

You claimed you could prove the resurrection was all a hoax. Well, where is your hard evidence it was all a big conspiracy? You have the body of Christ, you have interviewed everyone, etc.? You are simply engaging in speculation, which is all anyone can do here, one way or the other. It is all a leap of faith. So if you are going to fault others for going on faith, the same applies to you.

Your comments about the detective and the particles continuing to exist, etc., are not relevant at all to the point I was making. However, I don't have time to go into a detailed accounts of process metaphysics here, so I'll postpone a further discussion at present.
Your closing remark also was off the mark. If our views of reality are continually changing, then yes, reality is continually changing. Certainly "our views" are part of reality. Also saying that "reality is what you make of it" also applies to you as well. And then one could simply say you are doing nothing but presenting a view of reality that you made up to suit your tastes, nothing more.

[hoghead1]

[Replying to post 216 by Tired of the Nonsense]

Yes, the were spared. Operation Paperclip whitewashed about 150 Nazi scientists, at least one of which was guilty of medical experimentation in the camps. He was set to work for us in biological warfare. That is well documented. Von Braun was in the same situation as Speer, who went to jail. Well, we didn't need Speer, so the hell with him. If Von Braun hadn't been needed, and as he was SS, he'd have gone to jail. It is also well documented that the CIA used ex-Gestapo during the Cold War. However, all this is getting way off topic.

In your zeal to denounce Christianity, you failed to point out church opposition to Hitler. You forgot to mention about Bonhoeffer, for example, the theologian who was hung on a meat hook by the Nazis. But again, we're getting off topic.

[William]

[Replying to post 216 by Tired of the Nonsense]

I don't see how it is possible to accuse anyone of being "sparing" of any Nazi scientist who committed crimes against humanity. Those who were caught were tried and either executed or imprisoned.

They supported something which was creating crimes against humanity.
It is easy enough to understand that when it comes to science, some sins can be overlooked in the pursuit of knowledge and tech-knowledge. Russia, America and Britain divided up the spoils and created the next exciting step in conquest through warfare - it was called the cold war. Such a great way to siphon extreme amounts of cash off the masses and use these against the same! And you can sit there and accept such propaganda as acceptable whilst fervently condemning religion?

A long and very bloody war was fought to bring the Nazi's down. I hardly consider that "hand waving" by anyone. Certain Nazi scientists, like Von Braun, went on to help the United States develop it's missile program after the war rather than being tried for war crimes. But there was no accusation that Von Braun conducted experiments on anyone.

Justification as it suits. The greater need outweighs the lesser. And what do we have as a result? Great stockpiles of weapons, filthy rich investors and unnoticed crimes against humanity in the form of disparity, which is how less evil than the evil you point at and condemn?

The examples I provided were not some few "deranged" Christians. What occurred were concerted and coordinated efforts done by armies of thousands operating under the expressed authority of the Pope.

Nonetheless, my point remains relevant. In all fairness, equating modern Christianity with the actions of people obviously deranged and calling themselves Christians, hundreds of years ago, must also be 'grasping at straws' by your own spoken logic.

The Nazi's repaired the broken infrastructure of Germany, put an end to runaway inflation, and brought stability to a country that had been teetering on the brink of total collapse after the first world war. And yet no one is lining up to sing their praises. Because their excesses vastly overshadow everything else.

Broken infrastructure, runaway inflation, stability to a country through Marshall law, all brought about though something they also brought upon themselves and didn't learn from that, but tried to repeat it with even more insanity. Politics.

Your reasoning is no more reasonable than those you fiercely condemn for being 'Christians'.

The questions I would ask anyone who has such a world view is;

Q: Do you see other sectors of human organisation in the same light as you see religion?

Q: What do you think of passions which are not in any obvious way 'violent' but are nonetheless dangerous?

Q: Do you dedicate your time in life to pursuing ALL variations of human corruption with equal passion, or is this directed only at the religious?

[Tired of the Nonsense]

[Replying to post 217 by hoghead1]

You say you aren't claiming all Christians behave badly, then you say all religious are dangerous. That is a contradiction. Also it stereotypes all religions.

I am not attempting to stereotype religion. I am saying plainly that religion causes the sort of dangerous passions that allows people to declare themselves justified in comitting hideous acts of violence. Actions which they would not otherwise have ever considered justified in committing. All of it based on superstition and make believe.

Are you familiar with the witch trials period in Europe? Over the course of the fifteenth to the eighteenth centuries, tens of thousands of women and girls were brutally tortured and killed. Whole areas of France and Germany were nearly completely denuded of women. All because of foolish religious superstitious insanity.

Wikipedia
Witch Hunts
A witch-hunt is a search for people labelled "witches" or evidence of witchcraft, often involving moral panic[1] or mass hysteria.[2] The classical period of witchhunts in Early Modern Europe and Colonial North America falls into the Early Modern period or about 1450 to 1750, spanning the upheavals of the Reformation and the Thirty Years' War, resulting in an estimated 35,000 to 100,000 executions. Including illegal and summary executions estimate 200,000 or more witches were tortured, burnt or hanged in Western World from 1500 until around 1800.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witch-hunt

I am well aware of all those historical example you cite of Christians behaving badly, and then some. That's just basic Church History 101 stuff. Adds nothing new. Tell me something I don't already know. And I could add on a long list of scientists behaving badly and Americans behaving badly way back when, all basic History 101 stuff. My point is that's then, this is now. Today, it is very different. Science is not dominated by Ptolemy, the South no longer has slaves, and theology is not all dominated by 16th-century Calvinists, either. Your posts focus too much on living in the past and so are way out of date.

But Christians don't act on these sorts of perversions of their beliefs any longer, you say?

ABC News
2001

Yates: I'm Saving My Kids From Hell

One month after Andrea Yates drowned her five children in a bathtub, the Houston mother sat with a defense psychiatrist and offered her own accounting of that tragic day.

"Did you want to hurt the children?" Dr. Lucy Puryear asked in a videotaped session.

But even in her confused state, Yates was clear about her motivation — killing her children was an attempt to save them from going to hell.

Puryear: "What did you think would happen to the children when they were killed? What did you think would happen?"

Yates: "In their innocence, they'd go to heaven."

Puryear: "They'd go to heaven?"

Yates: "Yeah."
http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/story?id=130284&page=1

Andrea Yates was declared insane and placed in a mental institution. But in fact Andrea Yates knew exactly what she was doing and why she thought she needed to do it. Andrea Yates was weak minded individual who was acting on her lifetime of religious indoctrination. What Andrea Yates did made perfect sense within her make believe view of reality.

The point is that people continue to believe in ancient ignorant superstitious nonsense, and as a result take ancient ignorant superstitious action. We cannot rid the world of ancient superstitious nonsense by continuing to promote and practice forms of ancient superstitious nonsense.

INDEPENDENT
2 March, 2016
Gang burns seven people to death over witchcraft claims in Malawi
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world ... 07296.html

Religion is the perpetuation of foolish superstitious ignorance. Foolish superstitious ignorance has been responsible for horrendous acts of violence and mass murder since before the dawn of recorded history. That is a "stereotype" based on thousands of years of physical actions and the historical record.

If you have issues with Mormons, then you should that those up with them, or go to the sub forums here that is devoted to a discussion of Mormonism. I'm not Mormon, the majority of Christians aren't either;so, frankly speaking, I don't care a hoot about Mormonism at present.

Obviously being no fan of religious foolishness, I am no fan of Mormonism myself. Your point was that Christians would somehow "not let" other Christians make false or frivolous claims about Christianity. Mormonism by itself exposes the absurdity of that claim.

When I speak about not getting away with anything, I am talking about the reflective side, the scholarly side of Christianity. Many fail to recognize there is a huge town-gown gulf in theology. Many assume that it's all alike, that what a seemingly unreflective laity thinks is the same thing in academia. Big mistake. The real world of biblical and theological scholarship is light years away from the laity. It has different rules, goals, and often reaches conclusions quite different from what laity would expect. That's the world I live in, and no, you just can't get away with anything you want, unless of course you are big enough to pull it off, make a solid case. The problem I have with our posts is that you completely ignored this side of contemporary Christendom. That was very obvious in your comment that most Christians believe that Matthew and John wrote the Gospels. In modern biblical studies, it is generally accepted that the gospels were not written by any of the apostles and were originally anonymous.

There are more than 40,000 different Christian denominations, and millions of different Christians beliefs. Christian theologians have been entirely ineffectual at constructing a universal and unifying Christian doctrine throughout centuries of trying. The bottom line is, ancient superstitious nonsense in, ancient superstitious nonsense out. Currently the modern world is slowly becoming less susceptible to subscribing to ancient superstitious nonsense.

What Hawking says and what the reality of the situation actually is are two very different things. No, philosophy is not dead, definitely not. If Hawking thinks he and science have all the answers, he is in for a rude awakening. His remark, as some of his others, is pure propaganda. Matter of fact, science is rooted in philosophy, in the empirical tradition. As I have pointed out in many previous posts, many scientific concepts are not testable scientifically. Causality is one prime example. And there is no way to verify the verification principle.

Individuals will of course continue to attempt to use philosophy for the foreseeable future to justify the conclusions that they wish to reach. But that has always been the flaw of philosophy. It will take you to exactly wherever it is that you wish to go. So of course in that sense philosophy is not dead. Hawking's point is that philosophy is no longer relevant to discovering the truth. Because now we have science, and science is predicated on following the physical evidence wherever that evidence leads, without any predisposition for wishing it to lead to a particular conclusion.

Believers like to maintain that such and such has never been proven. Like the "theory" of evolution, which many Christian are now claiming is not only untrue, but which even science is now largely rejecting. And this is simply blatant self deception. The concept of what has or can be proven revolves around the concept of "proof." If taken to the extreme it is impossible to "prove" that this discussion is actually occurring, or that any portion of our perception of existence is valid. For example it is a intrinsic part of Hindu belief and philosophy that the existence that we suppose to be valid reality is nothing but an illusion; a cosmic dream. The cosmic dreamer Brahma sleeps on a lotus blossom dreaming the dream we perceive as existence. And as in any dream we think what we are experiencing is real. But it's only an illusion. Philosophy can produce any number of seemingly perceptive conclusions. But what do they actually have to do with the apparent reality that we physically exist in?

You are at this moment sitting at a computer having conversations with people all over the world that you will never meet. The fact that your computer actually works is as close to undeniable truth and reality as you can ever get. And it is based on scientific discoveries that were uncovered one step at a time, with no predisposition to know that these discoveries would one day lead to that computer you are sitting at, or all of the rest of the technological marvels of the modern world. All of that is based on the concept of science and quantum mechanics, and by NOT accepting that everything is an illusion. Because conclusions reached philosophically are ultimately meaningless. Conclusions based on hard physical evidence PRODUCE.

You claimed you could prove the resurrection was all a hoax. Well, where is your hard evidence it was all a big conspiracy? You have the body of Christ, you have interviewed everyone, etc.? You are simply engaging in speculation, which is all anyone can do here, one way or the other. It is all a leap of faith. So if you are going to fault others for going on faith, the same applies to you.

There is no "evidence" that Jesus even existed. Stories of the events of his life are entirely derived from documents which were produced by Christian believers decades after the time they indicate that Jesus lived and was executed. Jesus created no historical notice whatsoever while he was still alive. And left no record written in his own hand. So the only "evidence" that anyone has to go on must necessarily be derived from the letters and accounts written by Christian believers years after the events they indicate were supposed to have occurred. The various books of the NT are not newspaper style "just the facts" accounts. They were consciously spun to convince the reader of a very specific conclusion. And yet they are all we have to go on, such as they are.

So I am forced to make my case based entirely on the events as described in the NT. As a result I am unable to positively assert exactly what, if any, connection these conclusions may have to actual factual historical events at all. But based on what the NT is telling us, they fit the fact the story which is at hand and make perfect sense. They simply exclude the necessity of a any supernatural assumptions and leave us with perfectly natural conclusions.

So what does the NT indicate occurred?

TAKEN DIRECTLY FROM ACTS AND THE GOSPELS THEMSELVES, HERE IS A CHRONOLOGY OF EVENTS LEADING UP TO THE EMPTY TOMB WHICH PROVIDES A COMPLETELY NATURAL EXPLANATION FOR THE ORIGINS OF THE MYTH OF THE RESURRECTED JESUS. NO FLYING REANIMATED CORPSES ARE REQUIRED.


***

John 19:
[31] The Jews therefore, because it was the preparation, that the bodies should not remain upon the cross on the sabbath day, (for that sabbath day was an high day,) besought Pilate that their legs might be broken, and that they might be taken away.
[32] Then came the soldiers, and brake the legs of the first, and of the other which was crucified with him.
[33] But when they came to Jesus, and saw that he was dead already, they brake not his legs:

When was Jesus executed? ON THE DAY OF PREPARATION. In other words, on Friday, the day before the Sabbath which was also Passover that year.

Matthew 27:
[46] And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani? that is to say, My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?
[47] Some of them that stood there, when they heard that, said, This man calleth for Elias.
[48] And straightway one of them ran, and took a spunge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink.
[49] The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him.
[50] Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost.

What time did Jesus die? Sometime in the NINTH HOUR, on the day of preparation. Nine hours after sunrise. Approximately 3:00 PM. And what happened next?

Luke 23:
[50] And, behold, there was a man named Joseph, a counseller; and he was a good man, and a just:
[51] (The same had not consented to the counsel and deed of them;) he was of Arimathaea, a city of the Jews: who also himself waited for the kingdom of God.
[52] This man went unto Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus.
[53] And he took it down, and wrapped it in linen, and laid it in a sepulchre that was hewn in stone, wherein never man before was lain.

John 19:
[38] And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.
[39] And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.
[40] Then took they the body of Jesus, and wound it in linen clothes with the spices, as the manner of the Jews is to bury.
[41] Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid.
[42] There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.

All four Gospels are consistent in claiming that Joseph of Arimathea who was a disciple of Jesus received permission from Pilate to take possession of the body of Jesus. So who had possession of the body of Jesus. His disciples!
The disciples of Jesus were in fact the last individuals to be in clear possession of the body of Jesus, based on the information provided in the NT.

And so after receiving permission from Pilate to take possession of the body of Jesus the disciples took the body to Joseph's brand new tomb, because it was "nigh at hand" to the place where Jesus was executed.

Understand the nature of such rock cut tombs. They were common among the rich, but they were never intended to be the burial site for a single person. These were constructed as family tombs, intended to house the remains of entire generations of family members. Only Joseph, his wife, his sons and their the wives would be expected to be interred in such a family crypt. Jesus was not family. Jesus had his OWN family, some 65 or so miles to the north east of Jerusalem in Galilee.

Now, notice that according to John the corpse of Jesus was prepared exceedingly well, coated in 100 pounds of myrrh and aloes. Myrrh is the resin derived from the Commiphora tree. It is naturally insect repellent and has an extremely sweet and pungent smell. Mixed with aloe it forms a natural resin paste. Coating the body of Jesus with such a mixture might have served to retard the process of decay for a few days, but it was not a long term preservative. Such an expensive process would have served no purpose at all if the body had been intended to have been left to the natural process of decay in Joseph's tomb. Coating the body in this manner MAKES PERFECT SENSE HOWEVER, if the intention was to take the body on a journey of a few days.

Because, you see, Joseph never intended his new family tomb to be the final resting place for the body of Jesus. Nor were any funeral rites done there. Joseph's tomb was simply used as a convent private place to wash and prepare the body because it was his property and it was conveniently close to the place of execution.

John19:
[41] Now in the place where he was crucified there was a garden; and in the garden a new sepulchre, wherein was never man yet laid.
[42] There laid they Jesus therefore because of the Jews' preparation day; for the sepulchre was nigh at hand.

Matt.27
[60] And laid it in his own new tomb, which he had hewn out in the rock: and he rolled a great stone to the door of the sepulchre, and departed.

Gospel Matthew gives few details of the preparation itself. Notice however that there is no mention of any funeral rites. When the preparation of the body was completed, they left closing the door (great stone) behind them.

Moving on to the following day.

Matt. 27:
[62] Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,
[63] Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
[64] Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.
[65] Pilate said unto them, Ye have a watch: go your way, make it as sure as ye can.
[66] So they went, and made the sepulchre sure, sealing the stone, and setting a watch.

When did the priests go to Pilate and request a guard at the tomb? Sometime THE NEXT DAY. That would be on Saturday, the holy day. And so the priests went out to the closed tomb, sealed it with seals consisting of cords and wax or clay embossed with an official seal, and then set a guard. But they did not open it to inspect it for the body of Jesus, due to the nature of the day and the prohibition of their own laws. Their actions according to Matthew 27:66 tell us SPECIFICALLY that they were uncertain if the body was still inside. If the priests had known for a certainty that the body was still in the tomb, no seals would have been needed. Posting the guard would have been enough. Being unsure if the body was inside necessitated the placement of official seals, to insure that whatever the condition inside the tomb was, it would remain exactly in that condition until the priests could come back and inspect the tomb for the body. And the earliest that could be accomplished would be the next morning... SUNDAY MORNING. Placing seals on the tomb insured against the possibility of the guards taking a bribe and allowing the body to be taken, since the priests had no way of knowing if the body was actually still inside the tomb in the first place. If it was known to a certainly by the priests and the guard, no seal would have been necessary. Since the priests DID set seals, then clearly they were unsure if the body was inside. And since the tomb proved to be empty the next morning, then OBVIOUSLY the tomb was empty when the priests took possession of it on Saturday, just as they were afraid it might be. Concluding that the corpse came back to life and left on it's own is pretty FAR FROM OBVIOUS!

So who had ACTUALLY taken the body of Jesus? Well, WHO WERE THE LAST ONES WITH IT?

John 19:
[38] And after this Joseph of Arimathaea, being a disciple of Jesus, but secretly for fear of the Jews, besought Pilate that he might take away the body of Jesus: and Pilate gave him leave. He came therefore, and took the body of Jesus.
[39] And there came also Nicodemus, which at the first came to Jesus by night, and brought a mixture of myrrh and aloes, about an hundred pound weight.

And the answer would be that HIS DISCIPLES got permission from the Roman governor to take possession of the body of Jesus and were therefore the last ones to be clearly in control of it. We last read of the body of Jesus, in the tomb, being prepared by his followers. Heavily wrapped with ONE HUNDRED POUNDS of aromatic spices mixed into the wrappings. If they had been intending to take the body on a journey of many days, they could hardly have prepared it any better.

And where DID the followers of Jesus journey following his execution?

Matthew 28:
[16] "Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them."

They journeyed to the dead man's home region, Galilee. A three or four day journey by foot with an animal drawn cart (downhill I might add) to the plain of Galilee north east of Jerusalem. Presumably the mountain in question would be 1886 foot high Mt. Tabor, which dominates the southern plain of Galilee, and is traditionally believed by Christians to be the site of the Transfiguration. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mt_Tabor

Mountain caves were commonly used as burial sites. And we know that the apostles, at least, journeyed back to the dead man's home region right after his death. The dead man's mother also disappears from the story during this period. She is at the crucifixion, but NOT at the empty tomb on Sunday morning. Where do we next pick her up? WITH THE DISCIPLES SOME SIX WEEKS LATER, NEWLY RETURNED FROM GALILEE. (Acts 1:12-14).

So what conclusion can be reached from these NT claims? First and most important, that the tomb was discovered to be empty, not because the corpse came back to life and wandered away, but because the priests had secured AN EMPTY TOMB. And it was empty because the followers of Jesus had already moved the body. Moved it where? Where did the apostles go immediately after the crucifixion? GALILEE! The dead man's home. They almost certainly were responsible for moving the body of Jesus back to his home and his family to be laid in it's final resting place with other family members. That would have been the obvious way for the followers to have best honored their dead friend.

Keep in mind that on that Passover weekend Jerusalem was filled with pilgrims for the celebration of the holy day. One million, according to Josephus. That number is almost certainly a vast overestimate, but even a quarter of that number would have been a huge amount of people, moving around inside and outside of the city. With the body of Jesus loaded into an animal drawn cart, and how ELSE would it have been transported, once the group traveling with the body had mixed in with the throngs of people, they were essentially gone. When Joseph and Nicodemus, and any other of the followers of Jesus who might have been secretly involved, had finished prepping the body they simply packed up and left, loading the heavily wrapped body into the same cart they would have used to transport the body to the tomb from Calvary in the first place. At which point the body of Jesus, concealed in a cart, disappeared out into the throngs of pilgrims. Joseph closed the tomb behind when the task was finished to keep the unwanted out of his pristine new tomb.

But what of the hundreds of eyewitness accounts of the risen Jesus? The fact is THEY DON'T EXIST!!! Far from hundreds of eyewitnesses attesting to the appearances of Jesus after his death that Christians proclaim exist we have in fact only five sources for the story of the risen Jesus: Gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, as well as Acts, written by the author of Gospel Luke, and Paul's account in 1 Corinthians. These are the five sources for the "hundreds of eyewitnesses" to the resurrected Jesus. There are NO OTHER ACCOUNTS! Except of course for the dozens of so called apocryphal documents produced at the time, which even the most ardent Christian theologian recognize to be nothing more than flights of fiction and fantasy.

Paul records in 1 Corinthians 15:6 that the resurrected Jesus was witnessed by "above 500" of his followers on one particular occasion. Paul was NOT HIMSELF present at this "event" however, and no testimonies by the "above 500" themselves exist, or have ever been known to exist. Paul was not himself a witness to any part of the Gospel accounts. Including the rumor of post execution appearances spread by the early disciples of Jesus. Paul did not convert to Christianity until some years after the execution of Jesus, never met Jesus personally, and was not a personal witness to any of the events detailed in the Gospels.

According to Acts 9, while on the road to Damascus, some years AFTER the crucifixion of Jesus, Paul became sick and disoriented. In fact he had symptoms consistent with heat stroke and dehydration, or possibly dysentery which also produces dehydration. At any rate Paul had to be helped into the city by his traveling companions who then left him at the home of a Christian man to be cared for. Sick and delirious, unable to eat or drink for three days, Paul believed after his recovery that during his illness he had experienced a vision of Jesus, who had been executed some years earlier. This experience proved to be life changing for Paul and after his recovery Paul became a confirmed Christian. So we are left to conclude either that Paul, in his delirium, and while being tended to and prayed over by a Christian, hallucinated a vision of Jesus. Or, that Paul actually MET WITH AND TALKED WITH A DEAD MAN. The question is of course, which of these two possibilities is the more likely? And the answer is as unavoidable as it is obvious, it just doesn't happen to be the one that Christians prefer.

And so Paul, who was not himself present for any of the Gospel accounts of the risen Jesus, has provided A STORY of 500 eyewitnesses to the risen Jesus in 1 Corinthians. And yet we have no such testimony from the supposed eyewitnesses themselves. The same may be said for the various "witnesses" recorded in the Gospels. And significantly, 1 Corinthians, which was written by Paul circa 55 AD., represents the VERY EARLIEST MENTION HISTORICALLY OF THE RISEN JESUS EVER! Jesus was executed, according to the time frame established by the Gospels, circa 30 AD. In other words THE VERY FIRST mention of the risen Jesus does not occur until some QUARTER OF A CENTURY AFTER HIS DEATH. And then is recorded by an individual who clearly was not present at the time. Rather than dozens or hundreds of eyewitnesses to the resurrected Jesus, no information one way or the other was produced concerning Jesus at all, by anyone, for the first quarter of a century after he was supposed to have been executed. And specifically, there are no eyewitness accounts of a resurrected dead man AT ALL at the time it was supposed to have occurred. What we do have, years later, are records of what early Christians like Paul had come to believe and were in the process of telling. Stories like this one in Matthew, written anonymously decades after Jesus was executed.

Matt. 27:
[52] And the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
[53] And came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.


This fantastic story is corroborated by NO OTHER ACCOUNT, either in scripture or in Jewish historical accounts. So how did these stories of the risen Jesus originate? Well, what did the priests tell Pilate that they were afraid the followers of Jesus intended to do?

Matt. 27:
[62] Now the next day, that followed the day of the preparation, the chief priests and Pharisees came together unto Pilate,
[63] Saying, Sir, we remember that that deceiver said, while he was yet alive, After three days I will rise again.
[64] Command therefore that the sepulchre be made sure until the third day, lest his disciples come by night, and steal him away, and say unto the people, He is risen from the dead: so the last error shall be worse than the first.

WHICH IS EXACTLY WHAT OCCURRED. The tomb proved to be empty! Some six weeks after the crucifixion (Acts 1:3, 1:12) the disciples returned from Galilee, along with Mary the mother of Jesus (Acts 1:14), to Jerusalem. And now they began to proclaim the risen Jesus. But only after, according to the disciples, the risen Jesus flew up into the clouds and disappeared (Acts 1:9). Who saw the risen Jesus? The disciples, according to the disciples. Who saw Jesus fly away up into the clouds? The disciples, according to the disciples. What were the priests afraid that the disciples intended to do? Spread a rumor that Jesus had arisen from the dead. What did the disciples do? Six weeks after the crucifixion and upon their return from Galilee they began to spread the rumor that Jesus had arisen from the dead. In all probability these three verses in Matthew explain EVERYTHING.

So, in all honesty which is the more likely? That a group of friends quietly took their dead friend, along with the dead man's mother, back to the dead man's family home for burial, and then returned a few weeks later to begin spreading the preposterous rumor that the dead man had returned to life, appeared only to them, and then ultimately flew away? Or is it more likely that the dead man ACTUALLY DID return to life and ultimately actually flew away? In reality is a missing corpse more likely to be the result of actions taken by the living, or is it more likely to be the result of actions taken by the corpse? IN ALL HONESTY!!!

What I am strongly suggesting to you is that the origins of Christianity were the result of human contrivance. Just exactly in the same manner as every other religion that has ever existed.

Your comments about the detective and the particles continuing to exist, etc., are not relevant at all to the point I was making. However, I don't have time to go into a detailed accounts of process metaphysics here, so I'll postpone a further discussion at present.

My comments are relevant to the real world, however.

Your closing remark also was off the mark. If our views of reality are continually changing, then yes, reality is continually changing. Certainly "our views" are part of reality. Also saying that "reality is what you make of it" also applies to you as well. And then one could simply say you are doing nothing but presenting a view of reality that you made up to suit your tastes, nothing more.

NO! Reality is what it is, and has always been what it is. It is the way that we perceive it that is constantly changing.

Yes, the were spared. Operation Paperclip whitewashed about 150 Nazi scientists, at least one of which was guilty of medical experimentation in the camps. He was set to work for us in biological warfare. That is well documented. Von Braun was in the same situation as Speer, who went to jail. Well, we didn't need Speer, so the hell with him. If Von Braun hadn't been needed, and as he was SS, he'd have gone to jail. It is also well documented that the CIA used ex-Gestapo during the Cold War. However, all this is getting way off topic.

In your zeal to denounce Christianity, you failed to point out church opposition to Hitler. You forgot to mention about Bonhoeffer, for example, the theologian who was hung on a meat hook by the Nazis. But again, we're getting off topic.

Hitler was a Christian who spoke of God frequently in his speeches. Hitler was raised Catholic, and never renounced his Christian beliefs.

But being no fan of the Nazi's myself I am going to resist being drawn into an attempt to in any way defend them, since as you have pointed out, it is entirely off topic. I am no fan of Islam either. But we are discussing Christianity's failings at the moment.