Zac Smith/The Daily
Monday, October 6, 2008
For an ordinary citizen like me, drawing hasty and poorly-thought-out
conclusions from statistics would be stupid. However, for someone who
governs others based on her views, this deficiency in understanding is
dangerous.
In this aspect, Rep. Sally Kern, R-Oklahoma City — who is up for
re-election in November — is dangerous.
I met with Kern in September to speak with the woman who has famously
spoken out against a number of social issues during her tenure in the
Oklahoma House of Representatives.
For example, Kern has long been a critic of the teaching of evolution
in schools and even introduced a bill earlier this year that would
have made it illegal for teachers to penalize students for expressing
creationist views in science tests. The bill was vetoed.
Evolution, as any first-year biology student will tell you, is the
process by which the genetic composition of a population alters,
generation-by-generation.
Kern defined evolution to me as "the process of wanting to create
something or have something be perfect. Get rid of that which is not
healthy and strong."
Kern told me she associates the acceptance of evolution with Adolf
Hitler, despite the fact that, under the Nazis, libraries were
specifically instructed not to stock works promoting "the false
scientific enlightenment of primitive Darwinism."
Whichever side of the issue you stand on, it's clear Kern has no idea
what she's talking about.
Kern's most notorious hobbyhorse is undoubtedly homosexuality. Earlier
this year, a surreptitiously-made recording of her was leaked onto
YouTube, in which she derided homosexuality as a "cancer."
Anyone can say something foolish off-the-cuff if they don't realize
someone's taking note, but Kern later defended the absolute truth of
her remarks.
Whether or not you support gay marriage, it's undeniable that Kern's
statements further illustrate her failure to grasp reality.
In her leaked YouTube speech, Kern claims "studies show no society
that has totally embraced homosexuality has lasted for more than, you
know, a few decades."
I'd be interested to see the data collected by these studies and to
see how they account for cultures like the ancient Chinese, who seem
to have been positively blasé about the phenomenon of homosexuality.
Nearly every emperor of China's Han Dynasty is recorded as having had
male lovers, and that line alone persisted for 426 years, somehow
managing to escape the fire and brimstone of the Bible's Old Testament
god.
Another statement made by Kern in her YouTube speech, and on many
other occasions, is that homosexuality has "deadly consequences"
because it is linked to higher incidences of illness and of feeling
"discouraged."
One wonders exactly what other disease statistics would imply the
demographics they apply to.
For example, the majority of AIDS infections in the U.S. is currently
taking place in the black population. Does this make being black
inherently unhealthy?
And what about the fact that there has never been a single confirmed
instance of a woman contracting HIV through lesbian sex?
Is this God's way of telling us that he wants to see more hot
girl-on-girl action?
Or, to draw a more relevant comparison, what about the fact that a
2006 study conducted by Vanderbilt scholar Gary Jensen shows a strong
correlation between homicide and dualistic belief (i.e., belief in
both a god and a devil)?
Would the correct response to this information be an attempt to
legislate dualistic beliefs out of existence? Of course not.
In campaigning, Kern has made much of her Christian pedigree, even
claiming that God directly instructed her to run for office and to
become a "cultural warrior."
It quickly becomes apparent, though, that her views on the Bible are
as misinformed as her views on biology.
"There's more proof to verify the Bible than there is George
Washington, Chaucer and Shakespeare," Kern told me.
"The actual time that Jesus existed until when people started writing
and talking about him is just not a whole lot of years.
And the actual time people start talking about Shakespeare and Chaucer
and the things that we find about them is a lot farther years apart."
Obviously, Jesus's historical existence has no more relevance to the
evaluation of his moral teachings than the historical existence of
Socrates does on the legitimacy of the Socratic method.
However, if one wants to justify their homophobia through belief that
God at one point torched a city full of Sodomites, the historicity of
the Bible takes on a new significance.
Kern's claims about Biblical history are so wrong I almost don't know
how to rebut them.
The Gospel of Mark, the oldest gospel mentioning Jesus, dates,
charitably, to 40 years after Jesus's alleged death. George
Washington, Geoffrey Chaucer and William Shakespeare, on the other
hand, have all left extensive contemporaneous documentation.
When I met with Kern, her sincerity in these statements was undeniable.
These are no sound bites deployed to cynically manipulate evangelical
voters; Kern really believes these fantasies.
Kern's actions and statements as a state representative reflect on us
all, even if you are not a Republican, a conservative or a Christian.
When my meeting with Kern concluded, she warned me that, when I
returned to OU, I would find that 90 percent of my professors were
anti-Christian.
"Not anti-religious. Anti-Christian."
I'll keep an eye out.
Zac Smith is a University College sophomore. His column appears every
other Monday.
Comments
This lady is a nut job. Completely and utterly insane. Here's more proof:
"On July 23, 2008, Kern was stopped by security guards in the Oklahoma
State Capitol when she tried bringing a loaded gun into the building.
The gun was a .380 caliber semiautomatic handgun. Kern had a permit
for the gun and claimed she brought it into the building by accident.
It was later confirmed that a second incident in which Kern made it
into the building with a gun occurred in June 2008. Kern was not
charged for either incident." - Wikipedia
Posted by anonymous / acsooner on October 6, 2008 at 9:30 a.m.
I'm not so much interested in defending Sally Kern in all things. It's
clear she's said some ill-advised things, and people jump all over
those things b/c they sound bad.
But of course, after her YouTube thing, there were attempts to silence
her, and that's totally uncalled-for. Hopefully Smith would allow for
her to continue to have free speech. Many of his liberal friends don't
allow for that.
Smith shows his ignorance of numerous studies of the American
homosexual population - there are VAST differences between the avg
life expectancy of homosexuals and that of heterosexuals. It is a
significantly lower life expectancy for homosexuals, and not just b/c
of HIV. The homosexual lifestyle tends to be more violent and more
disease-ridden, which is what one would expect if (to put it
delicately) fecal and sexual secretory matter were regularly
introduced into the bloodstream over a long period of time.
Smith said:
-Is this God's way of telling us that he wants to see more hot
girl-on-girl action?
It is impossible to take statements like this seriously.
-a 2006 study conducted by Vanderbilt scholar Gary Jensen shows a
strong correlation between homicide and dualistic belief (i.e., belief
in both a god and a devil)?
one wonders whether the survey differentiated between the held beliefs
prior to the crime, or beliefs held once the criminal is in prison.
Prison ministries, thankfully, are effective and helpful to many, but
they can skew these kinds of results.
And of course, it might be Kern's position that homosexual acts be
illegal (it wouldn't be mine), but the more widely-held position is
that marriage not be changed to include homosexual marriage, and that
PUBLIC homosexual acts be illegal.
-Jesus's historical existence has no more relevance to the evaluation
of his moral teachings than the historical existence of Socrates does
on the legitimacy of the Socratic method.
Agreed, 100%. But the attacks on the Christian conception of Jesus are
multi-pronged. One gets the sense that Smith takes approximately the
least-kind position on his interview with Kern as he could.
Smith has not yet told anyone how he knows, as an apparent
non-monotheist, what is moral and what is immoral. That would be
immensely helpful.
Posted by anonymous / Rhology on October 6, 2008 at 10:21 a.m.
-if one wants to justify their homophobia through belief that God at
one point torched a city full of Sodomites, the historicity of the
Bible takes on a new significance.
As is plain to see, Smith just assumes a certain moral view and runs
actions through it that he apparently doesn't like. He's not built any
foundation, however, for these kinds of judgment calls.
-The Gospel of Mark, the oldest gospel mentioning Jesus, dates,
charitably, to 40 years after Jesus's alleged death
1) "Alleged death"? Even the Jesus Seminar, the fringe group of
radical leftist theologians and scholars, allows NO, ZERO question
about the fact that Jesus did die on the Cross.
2) Mark is quite a bit more recent than 40 yrs after His death and
resurrection. Even if it were 40 yrs after, however, 40 yrs is not
nearly enough time for significant legendary embellishment.
3) There are other biblical references to Christ, His death, and His
resurrection that are much earlier than that. 1 Corinithians, for
example, which in chapter 15 describes those things and the witnesses
in some detail.
-George Washington, Geoffrey Chaucer and William Shakespeare, on the
other hand, have all left extensive contemporaneous documentation.
"Contemporaneous" - the Gospels are contemporaneous, written and
sourced from eyewitnesses. Christ is mentioned by contemporary
non-Christian writers, and by the Apostle Paul. That's contemporary.
Smith could've easily checked this out before writing his column.
-I'll keep an eye out.
Challenge evolution in one of your classes and you might see what she means.
Posted by anonymous / Rhology on October 6, 2008 at 10:21 a.m.
I find it interesting that you make reference to "the Bible's Old
Testament god" as if he we any different from the God of the New
Testament. I also find it extremely absurd that you would suggest that
Christianity is dualistic! Dualism is not "belief in both a god and a
devil." Dualism is the belief that there are two coeternal principles
in conflict with each other (such as good and evil). Christianity is
fundamentally opposed to dualism! Only God is eternal and he is the
creator. Satan is a creature, and hence had a beginning and is finite
in power and knowledge, etc. To suggest that Christianity is dualistic
is to either greatly misunderstand Christian metaphysics or to
misunderstand dualism (I will admit that there is a third option: to
redefine Christian metaphysics as Open Theists do, but I am referring
to Biblical, historical, orthodox Christianity).
You are correct that Jesus' existence or lack thereof does not affect
his moral teaching - unless his moral teaching is based upon who he
is. Also, if you take Jesus' teaching as a whole (rather than his
'moral teaching') it must be bound to him having existed (and
furthermore, his eternality).
I am constantly amazed at how often one who says that homosexuality is
a sin is accused of 'homophobia.' Thinking a thing wrong, even
thinking it a danger and wanting to act against it, does not
constitute a phobia. I could just as easily accuse many of having a
phobia of carbon emissions, but it would only detract from discussion.
In your statement about Sodom, you misunderstand Christianity in two
ways. First, the historicity of the Bible is not important only for
proving specific moral cases. It is important because God has acted in
space and time and is redeeming a people for himself. Secondly, the
account of the destruction of Sodom and Gomorra is not the sole
passage Christians turn to when disputing homosexuality (for example,
see Romans 1).
Now, regarding the Gospel accounts you put Mark as the oldest. I
suspect you do this on the basis of Markan priority; which, while
widely held, is hardly proven. I would also like to know on what basis
you find this dating to be 'charitable.' But what I find worse by far
is the implication that the Gospels are in some way suspect due to
them being written after the death of Christ.
Posted by anonymous / BrianCBiggs on October 6, 2008 at 11:13 a.m.
Rep. Kern makes two mistakes. First she uses non-secular weapons on a
secular battlefield. Second, apparently, is that she thinks to do so
is necessary. In truth the homosexuality political argument is riddled
with, linguistic gimmickry, deceptive definitions, concepts and
blatant falsehoods. In short everything needed to defeat the
homosexual intellectual argument is available using the scientific
method, which has always proven to be the movement most affective
opponent.
It isn't surprising that there are no cases of AIDS transmission
through female homosexual behavior since there is virtually none
through heterosexual vaginal intercourse. The myth of heterosexual
transmission was a political creation to relieve the homosexual
community of the just deserved stigma as the primary source of the
AIDS epidemic through their wholesale practice of anal sodomy. If the
Black community now has the highest rate of AIDS infection it is
because they have high rates of anal sodomy. A higher percentage of
black males engage in homosexual activity than white males. e.g. Magic
Johnson.
Posted by anonymous / mustafa on October 6, 2008 at 12:21 p.m.
Great article. The lady is nuts. It's concerning to have her in a
position of power.
Posted by anonymous / TheJuke77 on October 6, 2008 at 12:44 p.m.
Rhology said, "But of course, after her YouTube thing, there were
attempts to silence her, and that's totally uncalled-for. Hopefully
Smith would allow for her to continue to have free speech. Many of his
liberal friends don't allow for that."
ironically, she, herself does not believe in freedom of speech. she
says, during her interview, "I do think that our courts today have
expanded free speech beyond what our founding fathers intended. I
don't think they ever intended things like pornography. Burning the
flag, or perhaps even doing something like this professor's done. I
don't think they intended that." funny, that.
Rhology said, "Smith has not yet told anyone how he knows, as an
apparent non-monotheist, what is moral and what is immoral. That would
be immensely helpful."
Smith, like all homo sapiens and so very many other species on the
planet would necessarily get their sense of "morality" as humans like
to call it, from altruism. treating others as we would like to be
treated not only is not an ethical commandment originating from Yeshua
(aka "Jesus"), as this was offered by Confucius in his Analects some
six centuries before, but can be found in the actions of many of our
fellow denizens.
Rhology said, ""Contemporaneous" - the Gospels are contemporaneous,
written and sourced from eyewitnesses. Christ is mentioned by
contemporary non-Christian writers, and by the Apostle Paul. That's
contemporary. Smith could've easily checked this out before writing
his column."
clearly, this is something that Rhology should have checked out before
writing his response. there are NO contemporary writings of Yeshua.
there are NO references to the supposed "Great Darkness" or the zombie
saints returning from the grave or the earthquake that supposedly
shook open the tomb or the Murder of the Innocents by Herod or the
Star of Bethlehem, etc. not one drop of ink is spent on ANY of these
easily noticeable events by a single scribe, priest, astronomer, or
historian during the lifetime of Yeshua.
further, there is no reason to believe that the accepted gospels were
written by their prescribed authors beyond Christian tradition. while
it can be claimed that their authorship must lie between this and that
time, the fact is, their names were GIVEN to them by Father Irenaeus
in the END of the SECOND century. cf "Against All Heresies" 3.11.8. it
is a shame Rhology is not privy to this basic information or his
criticism might otherwise be coherent.
as far as legendary embellishment, there were legends about many
people WHILE they were alive so the idea that the myths of Yeshua had
no time to develop is wishful thinking. people even saw ELVIS, for
goodness' sake, after his death. how hard is it to think that 2,000
years ago, people would imagine the same think about THEIR flavour of
idol? come on.
Posted by anonymous / martini on October 6, 2008 at 1:04 p.m.
Rhology said, "Challenge evolution in one of your classes and you
might see what she means."
Joe Six-pack should "challenge evolution"? someone with nearly no
working knowledge of biological evolution and the scientific
understanding and theory of biological evolution should do WHAT
exactly? pretend to have decades of scholarly work under their belt?
done actual peer-reviewed clinical trials in the field?
cross-referenced genetics, zoology, archaeology, and every relevant
multi-disciplinary field of science, to make sure that those evil
evolutionary biologists are not pulling our leg? biologists, mind you,
in EVERY country AROUND the WORLD who AGREE with this pesky "theory"?
good grief.
tell me, is heliocentrism argued in your classes? how about plate
techtonics? these are scientific theories, as well, which only rely on
indirect evidences. why no great uprising against these theories being
taught in schools?
Posted by anonymous / martini on October 6, 2008 at 1:04 p.m.
I don't have any particular problem with evolution, but I wonder if
Martini's criteria for criticising the Bible is as rigorous for
criticising evolution. Does he know Greek and Aramaic? Has he read all
the ancient texts? Has he studied ancient Biblical commentators as
well as all of the vaired modern opinions? Does he understand the oral
nature of the culture in which the Epistles were written. Or did he
find his criticisms on a website that is devoted to refuting
Christianity.
I've read things that make my high school biology class (which I took
two years ago) seem hopelessly outdated (See: "Survival of the
Sickest," an excellent book). In forty years, we'll probably see the
modern conception of evolution as childish nonsense. These discussions
of evolution and the historical evidence for Christ strike me as
consisting of fools striking each other in the dark.
And anyway, the claim that there is not enough evidence to prove
Christ's existence seems childish to me in light of the fact of a
movement (Christianity) that has flourished for two thousand years
based primarily on the belief that Christ was a fact. If Christianity
is a lie, it is the single most successful lie in the history of the
world.
Buddha was a moral teacher. Muhammed was a moral teacher. But Jesus
was Christ. I must heartily disagree that Jesus' historical existence
is irrelevant. If Jesus did not exist, Christianity is emptied of all
meaning. People remember the Golden Rule and His concern for the poor,
but they seem to forget the teaching most primary to His life: "Leave
everything you have and come follow me." That statement must be a
puzzle to those who push Jesus the moral teacher idea. How can you
give to the poor if you've given everything to follow a myth?
Evidence does exist that Christ was real. In light of that fact, and
more importantly everything that comes after, it rings hollow to my
ears that there is not enough evidence. No such lie could last so
long, and in the hands of someone who read an anti-Christian book or
website, it is an absurdity to claim that one could. To paraphrase
G.K. Chesterton, Jesus was either deceitful, crazy, or God. But more
pertinent to this conversation, Jesus was.
Posted by anonymous / Chestertonian on October 6, 2008 at 2:01 p.m.
Chestertonian said, "I don't have any particular problem with
evolution, but I wonder if Martini's criteria for criticising the
Bible is as rigorous for criticising evolution. Does he know Greek and
Aramaic? Has he read all the ancient texts? ... Or did he find his
criticisms on a website that is devoted to refuting Christianity."
have CHRISTIANS completed this laundry list before deciding they are
going to follow this religion and this one particular flavour of god
-- Yahweh -- of the dozens the Hebrews worshiped and the thousands
human beings HAVE worshiped with the same fervour and sincerity? i
doubt it. apparently, your criteria for having an informed opinion on
Christianity only applies to those 2/3 or the world or so who do NOT
buy into it? that is a pity.
Chestertonian said, "I've read things that make my high school biology
class (which I took two years ago) seem hopelessly outdated (See:
"Survival of the Sickest," an excellent book). In forty years, we'll
probably see the modern conception of evolution as childish nonsense.
These discussions of evolution and the historical evidence for Christ
strike me as consisting of fools striking each other in the dark."
so when it comes to believing in Christianity, we can accept any old
authority -- or no authority but that of a translated and
transliterated text written thousands of years ago -- but with
evolutionary biology, even the BEST and most EXPERIENCED authorities
OF TODAY do not count one iota? i would say your comment on fools
striking each other seems hardly fitting given your idea of what
authority you will accept and what you will not.
Chestertonian said, "And anyway, the claim that there is not enough
evidence to prove Christ's existence seems childish to me in light of
the fact of a movement (Christianity) that has flourished for two
thousand years based primarily on the belief that Christ was a fact.
If Christianity is a lie, it is the single most successful lie in the
history of the world."
this sort of "evidence" is very much not. Osiris, Isis, and Horus were
worshiped for longer than Christianity and it died out. whether there
are zero worshipers remaining or a world FULL of worshipers, it lends
no veracity to the myth being true or false. the Ad Populum fallacy
plays quite a big part in this.
further, it has nothing to do with being "the single most successful
lie" as it does with people simply being wrong as they HAVE been wrong
about the other thousands of gods they worshiped. was Prometheus
crucified on the Caucasus mountains for centuries until Herakles --
meaning "Glory of Hera" -- released him? why did the ancients write
and repeat this myth? because that is what they believe happened. the
same is true of Yeshua -- meaning "Savation of Yahweh" -- and the only
reason we do not call it a myth in polite conversation is because
there are still Christians about who would get offended. c'est la vie.
Posted by anonymous / martini on October 7, 2008 at 10:57 a.m.
Chestertonian said, "Buddha was a moral teacher. Muhammed was a moral
teacher. But Jesus was Christ."
so sayeth CHRISTIANS but not the Jews. coincidence? of all the
expected things their Christ was SUPPOSED to do, he did none of them.
Paul had his "vision" and it told him -- this man from a family of
Roman tentmakers who grew up in Tarsus which was a hotspot for
Greco-Roman mystery religions -- to spread this "mystery of the
Christ" to the Gentiles. really? Yeshua supposedly said he had come
ONLY for the Lost Sheep of Israel. this supposed ex-rabbi who had
never even MET the earthly Yeshua but, instead, preached this
SPIRITUAL SAVIOUR, was spreading HIS message to the "swine". funny,
that sort of 180-degree turn in theology, eh?
Chestertonian said, "I must heartily disagree that Jesus' historical
existence is irrelevant. If Jesus did not exist, Christianity is
emptied of all meaning."
exactly. that is why whomever the Greco-Roman epic later named The
Gospel According to Mark is forever lost in history if he existed at
all. his message was NOT revolutionary as any historian will tell you.
he preached the Pharisee message of the Hillelites (yes, i DID study)
and was killed for it as so many Yeshuas were. it was a VERY popular
name, as a matter of fact.
Chestertonian said, "People remember the Golden Rule and His concern
for the poor, but they seem to forget the teaching most primary to His
life: "Leave everything you have and come follow me." That statement
must be a puzzle to those who push Jesus the moral teacher idea. How
can you give to the poor if you've given everything to follow a myth?"
no one likes to call their religion a myth. the ancients did not
worship Aesclepius because it was a myth. they ACTUALLY BELIEVED in
his prescriptions for healing and followed them. they BELIEVED he had
existed at one time. how else would their temples be working? Yeshua
taught nothing new and novel that cannot be found in Eastern religions
well before he would have been in diapers.
Posted by anonymous / martini on October 7, 2008 at 10:57 a.m.
Chestertonian said, "Evidence does exist that Christ was real. In
light of that fact, and more importantly everything that comes after,
it rings hollow to my ears that there is not enough evidence."
uh, okay. should we just accept that and move on? there IS NO such
evidence. nothing written about his miracles or the miracles that
supposedly occurred before, during, or immediately following his
lifetime. he no more existed than Perseus. he no more was betrayed by
a loved one who hung themselves than Herakles. he no more gave us
morality than did Zagreus. he no more ascended to heaven than did
Romulus. he no more is the gateway between this life and the next than
Zalmoxis. these myths are older than he would have been and they smell
just as musty and unbelievable.
Chetertonian said,"No such lie could last so long, and in the hands of
someone who read an anti-Christian book or website, it is an absurdity
to claim that one could."
why do you think that it is a lie? did the Sibylline Oracles lie? why
would the Egyptians spend so much time building pyramids for their god
kings or filling with "lying" hieroglyphics if they did not SINCERELY
believe it to be true? the same can be said, again, about Christians,
Muslims, Hindus, etc. they BELIEVE it to be true but this lends
nothing to the truth behind the theology. i can believe anything i
want but that hardly necessitates it be true. people have believed
that ALL SORTS of things were true when they were not. why are you so
afraid to be wrong when humankind has been so wrong in the past? there
is nothing shameful about just being wrong.
Chestertonian said, "To paraphrase G.K. Chesterton, Jesus was either
deceitful, crazy, or God. But more pertinent to this conversation,
Jesus was."
or he was a legendary figure of a Roman epic which based itself on
mystery religions of the time like so many others. claiming that he
necessarily existed makes no more sense than saying the same about any
legendary figure from Atum to Zeus. remember: your decision to believe
Yeshua ben Yusef of Nazareth existed is based on your wishful thinking
and not on hard contemporary evidence.
Posted by anonymous / martini on October 7, 2008 at 10:57 a.m.
Was Jesus a real historical character? There is no reliable evidence
for it - it's all hearsay, recorded (at best) decades later. It's very
clear that Xian scholars over many centuries have tampered with
historical documents to augment the authenticity of the story, e.g.
Josephus' Testimonium Flavianum. http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
Was he a combination of earlier myths? Most probably. The Jesus story
borrows many components from earlier myths.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_Chris...
So, the most likely explanation for Jesus and the bible is plain and
simple plagiarism. It's a whopper of a fairy tale that has been
fooling the credulous for centuries and Kerns is a prime example of
how stupid it can make some people.
Sally Kerns is a scary and dangerous person to have in any position of
authority. Nicely written article, Zac - hopefully it'll wake up a few
voters in time for her attempt at re-election.
Posted by anonymous / MA on October 7, 2008 at 1:32 p.m.
Oh please Chestertonian, you've got to have a better argument for
Jesus' historical existence than "we'd be living the greatest lie in
history." There is no conclusive historical evidence that Jesus
existed (unlike Mohammad, the Buddha, Laozi, or Confucius) and it's
possible that he's just a conglomeration of multiple would-be-messiahs
of the era. Of course, this doesn't really invalidate the religion -
Jesus is still useful as a symbol - but the onus is on the Christian
to verify his existence.
And BrianCBiggs, you're clearly just an apologist for fundamentalist
Christianity so nobody is taking you seriously. But really, I can
accuse you of homophobia because you're basing your bigotry of
homosexuals on a false and pseudoscientific platform buttressed by a
book elaborating moral codes a couple thousand years old. It's
embarrassing.
Posted by anonymous / JJanowiak on October 7, 2008 at 7:40 p.m.
Martini said: "i doubt it. apparently, your criteria for having an
informed opinion on Christianity only applies to those 2/3 or the
world or so who do NOT buy into it?"
Ditto with the 1/3 of Americans who don't believe in evolution. You're
proving my point. I'm saying it's stupid to argue about these things
because none of us are informed.
Martini, for all of your knowledge of Pagan cults and your supposed
knowledge of the origins of Christianity, you really understand very
little. The fact that you consider Christianity unoriginal is a fair
indication of just how one sided your education has been. Regardless
of the truth of Christianity, only one completely ignorant of it could
consider it unoriginal.
For example, the concept of "person" is of Christian origin. The Greek
form, "prosopon," was a term in the theatre before it was adopted by
Christians to assist in comprehending the nature of a triune god.
Heck, the concept of the "Trinity" is yet another example of Christian
originality.
Then there is the synthesis between Hebrew monotheism and Greek
philosophy's concept of the logos, which is somewhat unique, if I'm
not mistaken.
You also ignore the fact that Christianity is the thing that ended
most of the cults you mention. I find it absurd to consider the thing
that ended so many other religions and spread so rapidly in that
environment could be the same as those religions.
Another of your statements that I find silly: you claim rightly that
there were many false messiahs and "Yeshuas" running around. You admit
the turmoil of the times, and then insist on conclusive documentation
of our Christ. Is it really so surprising that such documentation does
not exist, especially given the common belief that Christ was coming
back SOON. There is a letter to an ESTABLISHED Christian community a
mere twenty years after Christ's death. Some skepticism might be
justifiable, but your dogmatic assertion that he didn't exist is
simply groundless.
I'm not at all afraid of being wrong, I have doubts from time to time,
but to do so is human. Only bigots never consider that they may be
wrong.
Posted by anonymous / Chestertonian on October 10, 2008 at 9:35 p.m.
--
nathan day 817-602-2081 www.nathanday.org
http://nday72.googlepages.com/nathandayresume
No comments:
Post a Comment