In yesterday’s post or link, Superman was leading in the battle of the heroes. This quote from Ingersoll is a good addition to the debate
“Why should we place Christ at the top and summit of the human race? Was he kinder, more forgiving, more self-sacrificing than Buddha? Was he wiser, did he meet death with more perfect calmness, than Socrates? Was he more patient, more charitable, than Epictetus? Was he a greater philosopher, a deeper thinker, than Epicurus? In what respect was he the superior of Zoroaster? Was he gentler than Lao-tsze, more universal than Confucius? Were his ideas of human rights and duties superior to those of Zeno? Did he express grander truths than Cicero? Was his mind subtler than Spinoza’s? Was his brain equal to Kepler’s or Newton’s? Was he grander in death – a sublimer martyr than Bruno? Was he in intelligence, in the force and beauty of expression, in breadth and scope of thought, in wealth of illustration, in aptness of comparison, in knowledge of the human brain and heart, of all passions, hopes and fears, the equal of Shakespeare, the greatest of the human race?”Col Robert Green Ingersoll, About the bible
it would be better to destroy every other book ever written, and just save the first three verses of GenesisWilliam Jennings Bryan
If Jennings was granted his wish, what would become of Paul? Of the talking donkey? Of the fall of man? Of the Abrahamic land grab and all those fancy stories told in the bible? Does it mean that only the first three verses are indisputable and the rest being noise?
If there is a contradiction between a definitive [Koranic] text and conjectural science, then the scientific theory is refutedA speaker at the First International Conference on Scientific Miracles of the Koran and Sunnah
think about this for a moment. you are doing research and then you check your results against the Koran and they contradict the text of the Koran. You don’t even have to publish your findings. They are refuted for all time.
All quotes are from J Rauch’s Kindly Inquisitors: The New Attacks on Free Thought
It is Monday, Easter is around the corner and maybe it is time for some sermons. I have been rereading Okot p’Bitek’s Artist the Ruler: Essays on Art, Culture and Values which I highly recommend, if you can find it that is. He quotes Eric Mascall who wrote
It has been emphasised that Christianity is historical in a sense in which no other religion is, for it stands or falls by certain events which are alleged to have taken place during a particular period of forty eight hours in Palestine nearly 2000 years ago.Eric Mascall, inaugural lecture
Okot continues to say after this that all sorts of strange things happened during these few hours
- how for one do you interpret Peter’s so called denial? Why should a rugged fishermen deny his friend
- did Jesus ever claim to be king?
- who were the other thieves who were hanged on either side of the Christ?
- when some fellow, Joseph of Arimateus took Jesus’ body, was he really dead?
Elsewhere, he quotes from Rene Fullop-Miller’s Lenin and Gandhi
It is truly sickening….God creating: is this not the worst type of self reviling? Everyone who occupies himself with the construction of a god, or merely agrees with it, prostitutes himself in the worst way, for he occupies himself, not with activity, but with self contemplation and self reflection, and tries thereby to deify his most unclean, most stupid and most servile features or pettiness.Lenin in response to Alexei Maximovich’s god-seeking
Have a pleasant Monday, will you.
A man/ woman is their own work!
by Julien Offray de La Mettrie is one those books I recommend you read during your December break. He writes somewhere
I do not mean to call in question the existence of a supreme being; on the contrary it seems to me that the greatest degree of probability is in favor of this belief. But since the existence of this being goes no further than that of any other toward proving the need of worship, it is a theoretic truth with very little practical value. Therefore, since we may say, after such long experience, that religion does not imply exact honesty, we are authorized by the same reasons to think that atheism does not exclude it.
Let us not lose ourselves in the infinite, for we are not made to have the least idea thereof, and are absolutely unable to get back to the origin of things. Besides it does not matter for our peace of mind, whether matter be eternal or have been created, whether there be or be not a God. How foolish to torment ourselves so much about things which we can not know, and which would not make us any happier even were we to gain knowledge about them!
[..]It follows that the study of nature can make only unbelievers; and the way of thinking of all its more successful investigators proves this.”
and to end this post, he says about the soul
The soul is therefore but an empty word, of which no one has any idea, and which an enlightened man should use only to signify the part in us that thinks. Given the least principle of motion, animated bodies will have all that is necessary for moving, feeling, thinking, repenting, or in a word for conducting themselves in the physical realm, and in the moral realm which depends upon it.
Of the justice of men who are capable of fashioning and worshipping an unjust divinity; nor on their humanity, so long as they incorporate inhuman motives in their most sacred dogma; nor their reasonableness, while they rigorously decline to accept reason as a test of truthMorley
I am sure Barry would disagree and I would too. There are many times humans have acted better than their gods. The Christians at least have stopped using the rake to discover who believes correctly and are no longer stoning their neighbours for having the wrong interpretation of religion.
But on the whole, if one worships a cruel overlord, it is not far fetched to imagine their capacity for cruelty. Look at the Muslims chopping heads in the name of God or it name of the profit?
To be fair to religionists, it can be said any ideology believed in that admits no error and is taken as absolute truth is likely to be intolerant of divergent opinion and can easily lead to inhumane and cruel acts.
Happy Monday everyone.
Those who read this blog religiously have, I am sure, read the questions of Zapata. I am not going to re-post them here. No, the questions we have are more interesting, but before the questions something we might all agree with.
Everything for which we love and venerate the man Jesus becomes a bitter and absurd mockery when attributed to the Lord ChristJames Thomson, Satires and Profanities
Now the questions
- he went about doing good; if God, why did he not do all good at once?
- he cured many sick; if god why did he not give the whole world health?
- he associated with publicans and sinners; if god, why did he make publicans and sinners at all?
- he preached the kingdom of heaven; if god, why did he not bring the kingdom with him and make all mankind fit for it?
- he loved the poor, he taught the ignorant; if god, why did he let any remain poor and ignorant?
- he died for love of mankind; if god, why did he not restore mankind to himself without dying? and what great thing was it to seem to die for three days?
- he sent apostles to preach salvation to all men; if god, why did he not reveal it at once to all men, and so reveal it that doubt had been impossible?
- he lived an example of holiness to us all; if god, how can our humanity imitate deity
- why did he ever let the world get evil?
I hope to hear your responses and have a great week everyone.