First, a little context for this quote. It appeared in the thread about proof of creationism. The quote was posted in the middle of a discussion about whether or not Jesus existed. Some said that we don't even have proof that Jesus existed. I argued the contrary, detailing some of the secular, ancient historians who believed that he existed, and I gave a short argument for the historical reliability of the New Testament. Part of my argument was about the reliability of the geography and topography of the New Testament writers. The quote above is a response to my argument.

As for the Greek stories of Zeus and Hercules, yes actual places are mentioned at times, but not to lend historical credibility to anything involving those deities. If you look at Greek religion, they (like many other civilizations) were not primarily concerned with whether or not these gods in these stories had ever actually done the things ascribed to them in space, time, and history. Now, they believed in Zeus and the rest of the pantheon, but they did not build their religion around whether or not the exploits of Zeus really happened. They looked at these stories like fables of some sort. So, you don't find stories of Greek deities that are like the gospels in that no one wrote down, "In the year of king/governor/ruler so-and-so Zeus showed up and did this-and-that.." There is no claim to historicity here. Places are usually mentioned in these stories not to place the stories in space, time, and history, but as sacred sites that were frequented by religious devotees.

When I talked about the New Testament writers documenting places, I didn't just mean say the gospels are automatically true just b/c someone wrote down that something happened in Jersusalem or Samaria or some other place. Their mention of these places, combined with their attempts to place the events in the flow of secular history (i.e., Luke's "..during the reign of Tiberius.." in ch 3 of his gospel), combined with their accurate descriptions of these places adds up to the fact that 1) they were attempting to communicate something historical; 2) that their record of geographical locations fits what we now know about them. And this second point is really important when you're talking about pre-70 AD Palestine, b/c the Romans obliterated so many things in their razing of the temple. This means that the gospel writers had very accurate knowledge of pre-70 AD Jerusalem that could have only come from either reliable witnesses (whom Luke and Mark relied on) or first-hand knowledge (John and Matthew).

Actually, I think this is from the Infancy Gospel of Thomas. The instance you mention takes place during Jesus's childhood. It's been a while since I read it, but I think he just got mad at the kid (y'know how kids are!), and then he struck him dead in some way (forgot how).

As far as the church making stuff up to make him nicer, I don't know about this. It seems to me that if they wanted to clean up Jesus' image they would've omitted a lot of stuff in the gospels. Stuff they could've cut out to clean up his image:
* The story you mentioned about the woman touching his cloak. She has some strange menstrual disease, & she was therefore ritually impure. After she touches Jesus to get healed, he commends her for her faith in front of everyone. For Jews, Jesus should have been ritually impure himself after being touched by such a woman. Also, they would've omitted his contact with lepers (ritual impurity again) and Samaritans.

* Jesus's fury in the temple. This did not win him any friends, and it doesn't make him or his movement look good.

* Jesus's heated conflict with the Jewish religious leaders. Once again, this is not the kind of stuff you write down to make your messiah look good (especially when you consider that all the gospel writers were Jewish and that the Christianity was primarily a Jewish movement at its beginning.

There's other stuff to mention as well, but if the church wanted to clean up Jesus's image, they could've (and should've) omitted a lot of stuff that we have in the gospels.

And about Jesus's control of his power at the time the woman in the crowd touched him (Mark ch 5), could you elaborate on how does point to a possible lack of control?

...and you...like this guy?

how could you not? one less punk kid in the world

My fault, Seraphina. The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is not an authoritative document by any standards. No one uses it as a reliable source for anything other than to figure out how gnostics purposefully distorted the true Jesus. The incident of Jesus killing kid (among other idiotic things in this so-called "gospel") reveal a Jesus that is alien to the New Testament portrait of him.

And the new testament protrayal of him is also utterly alien to God's apparant will....in fact, much of what Jesus preached utterly contradicted God - "eye for an eye" goes to "turn the other cheek", so to speak. In fact, what Jesus preached was so utterly unlike God's rather tyranical regime, it's difficult to image they had anything to do with each other.

However, that aside....you claim the bible is accurate, because it uses historical places, names, dates etc, though it lacks any evidence whatsoever. Why then should the Gospel of Thomas not be valid for the same reasons?

Or is it just because it "makes him look bad"?

The Infancy Gospel of Thomas is not taken seriously neither by Christian or non-Christian scholars. Among other things, it was composed so late (mid- to late-second century) that's it's little use when it comes to figuring out who Jesus was. Actually, it's a gnostic document, so the author is not too keen on issues of historicity; gnostic doctrine gets very anti-historical because they didn't really glom on to the notion of any deity or spiritual being entangling him/her/itself in the material world. If you read the other gnostic document attributed to Thomas--the gospel of Thomas--you'll note that it contains absolutely no historical references at all. It's all sayings. This is b/c the gnostics sought to de-historicize Jesus as much as possible. B/c gnostic spirituality is rooted in a dichotomy between the spiritual and the material, historicity is not all that important to them. The very nature of gnostic doctrine precludes historicity simply b/c they were not very concerned with it.

Additionally, the gnostic Jesus is out of step with the Jesus of the gospels. And I speak here of the gospels not as divinely-inspired documents (wh/ I know you would take exception with) but as the best historical documents we've got telling us anything about Jesus. Whether people agree with the theology or not, all scholars are compelled to start with the gospels. As I've said before, invalidating them simply b/c the authors were Christians with a vested interest in writing them is a false starting point b/c all people record history b/c of some passion about that wh/ they write. And discounting the validity of their testimony simply b/c they record miraculous events has little (if anything) to do with historical methodology; that is a philosophical concern.

It's because of a philosophical concern that I feel inclined to discount them I veiw the "miracles" that Jesus is said to perform as a lie - nothing more, nothing less.

Although the dead sea scrolls have established some of them as a mistranslation (the fish and the loaves story for example, which had nothing to do with making so little food spread among many people, but just basically meant "spreading foot to the people") that certainly doesn't account for all of them.

When I believe a source has lied about something, it has somewhat far reaching consequences for the validity of the rest of the source

However, I suppose the subject of the topic isn't to prove or disprove whether the bible is the most widely believed work of fiction in history, but rather to decide, unless I'm mistaken, whether or not Jesus existed?

If that is the case, I believe he did. However, I believe the church has greatly exagerated what he was, did, and claimed to be.

Oh how well you know me I believe Jesus lived, in the same context I believe Osama Bin Ladin lives; I believe both of them to be religiously crazed lunatics.

If you read the arguments I posted I did mention that the gnostic documents to which you are referring don't meet historical criterion for authenticity. Not just some Christian critierion, but universal criterion. I did not merely say, "Oh! This is not consistent with MY Jesus, therefore it cannot be true!" Your critique has nothing to do with my argument.

If you look at the way ancient people recorded history, most historical records of people's lives were written post death! Remember, they were not like us when it came to who they deemed worthy of having something written about them. B/c writing was not the primary mode of communication (b/c the technology wasn't widespread yet), people only wrote about someone whose impact had been very great. Additionally, they usually wrote about them AFTER they died, b/c then you'd be able to get a healthy perspective on their entire life and the impact of that life (very different from our speed- and information-addicted culture!). By the by, Tacitus wrote about Jesus in AD 120, which is hardly "200 years later." When you complain that there's no hot-off-the-presses material written about Jesus while he was alive, please know that most people were written about "post death" in the ancient world. Their mindset and technology necessitated as much. Your complaint has nothing to do with the truthfulness of the New Testament as much as it does with an assumption that these folks (and NOT just the Christians) should've thought and acted as we do.

You accuse me of assuming that a document is not true simply b/c it presents a portrait of Jesus that is different from the Jesus I follow. However, you seem to believe that a document is suspicious or false if it in some way verifies the Jesus of the New Testament! If you would, please explain how documents were falsified/edited to fit the New Testament testimony.

Crestus was a popular name, but it doesn't mean that we've got the wrong guy. Look at the context in which that quote appears. If it's not referring to the Christ of the New Testament, then who are we talking about? And the fact that there are three extra-biblical texts that mention Jesus is great when you consider that ancient folks didn't write as much as we do! Please show why the texts in question do not hold up to scrutiny.

What is this "evidence" to which you are referring? If it's any of the gnostic gospels could you please apply the same scrutiny to them as you do to the New Testament, and let's see if they stand up. Peace to you, Stellar.

One assumes that having control of your powers would mean that you decide when and how they are unleashed. It would seem, however, the powers in Jesus released themselves when they felt the sick woman. Jesus knew that the power had activated, but he didn't know for who. He had to search out the person that had been healed, indicating that it was not a case of himself intentionaly healing the woman.

Bathory,

This is exactly my point. When historical research is done, there is great merit attached to incidental testimony. The fact that these ancient historians (most of whom had no love for Christians at all) incidentally mentioned events involving Jesus or the early Christians means that they were not trying to further a Christian agenda. In fact, Pliny the younger mentions Christians in his correspondence with the Roman emperor Trajan. Here, Pliny and Trajan are trying to hammer out the extent to which Pliny should punish or not punish Christians. Pliny mention many things about Christian practice and the teachings of Jesus. Pliny wrote this in AD 112. He would have been in position to say whether or not Jesus actually existed, being that less than a century has past, and being that Pliny has access to all the Roman documentation about Jesus. I will admit, Pliny does not say, "Yes, Jesus existed, and he looked like this or did that.." Pliny takes Jesus' existence for granted.

But Tacitus does write of Jesus (he calls him "Chrestus") in his Annals circa AD 115. In speaking about Nero's persecution of Christians, he traces the Christian movement back to this Chrestus, who was crucified under the orders of Pontius Pilate during the reign of Tiberius. Furthermore, he writes that the Jesus movement had been stopped temporarily b/c of Chrestus' death, but that the movement broke out again soon thereafter in Judea (which is where the boys and girls pick up the ball after Jesus' ascension in Acts 1-2). This fits the New Testament description of Jesus' death; the ruling parties at the time of his death; the initial effect that Jesus' death had on the movement; the breaking out of the movement in Judea. Writing in AD 115, Tacitus has access to good accounts of who Jesus was.

There's some other stuff too, but hopefully this sufficiently illustrates my point. Incidental testimony, especially by the persecutors/detractors of Christians, is of great weight as evidence for Jesus' existence.

everything i can find about him says that he still doesn't directly mention the existence of Christ but is doing nothing more than describing Christians. I must remind you, a description of Christians is not evidence of Christ.

well heres the excerpt from Tacitus, hardly evidence of Christ.

Sera,

I am deeply honoured..lol
I will never ever wash my forehead again!

Lottie

Not one genius in the scientific field has ever come up with anything to support these revelations. And you would think that after this amount of time and with all the technological and scientific advancements in our world, someone, somewhere would have that proof. For the person with rational thought without proof there is nothing.

Okay so where is this evidence?? I do not see it splattered around the news or the tabloid newspapers. Never have done. Its not a proven fact therefore as I have said before I cannot justify any so called evidence. Hard facts is what I want.

You know when I went to church the only feeling I had was this stomach clenching nausea in knowing that I was in a room full of people being preached to and believing in something that does not exist in the scientific world. Well not at the moment.
And I get the under currents as I have done over the other posts of this preachiness. my stomach has that same feeling all over again and you know what I would say to these tongues but I won't...

And what word would that be that God backed up? Proof please. I am not on here to damn you all. I think that if thats what you want to believe in then thats great. What I am saying as I said before that without proof and I do not mean from some philosophical book, there is nothing.

No, no there isn't Evolution is the theory that's so widely accepted because it makes good sense. It's based on factors that we have actually observed in nature.

We know natural selection takes place.

We know characteristics are passed on from parent to child.

We know characteristics will be more and more expressed throughout generations if the environment expresses favouritism towards them.

Evolution is a logical, fact based arguement There's certainly more common sense and logic in it that there is in relgion....a great deal more. At the end of the day, every arguement that makes claim to be "evidence" for creationism has already been widely rebuked. Creationists have yet to come up with even a speck of evidence that cannot be otherwise explained while they themselves, being incapable of explaining our evidence, dance around and hide from it.

WHEN!?...I'm getting rather tired and frustrated with this endless dribble too. I've heard so many claims of "proof" of God's existance and his divine will, yet not once have I seen anything offered. He's still a character in a book.

Why don't you produce some of this startling evidence of God "backing up his word"? Why don't you tell us when he made it clear to everyone, one and all, that he exists? Why don't you explain to us where he is now, as he seemed to suddenly disappear about the same time human beings found out enough about the world that they didn't think lightning, forest fires and earthquakes were the work of a divine being being angry.

I've tried to understand your arguement...really I have...but I still stand absolutely amazed that you're so utterly convinced by the testimony of people who could only explain the weather let alone their existance by creating fictional deities, as the truth over what modern wisdom and investigation is teaching us. If anyone's not bothing to look at the evidence, it's certainly not us

I did a quick search on this man, I came up with this:

It does not say anywhere on his Bio that he studied science or is a scientist of any sorts. He studied Theology. I say good for him for taking the time to carefully study 'verse by verse exposition of the bible.' However why would you recommend me reading this book knowing that I coming from a scientific background? No disrespect to you but for me I do not want to read a book that is an attempt to piece together a story with no actual facts to date.

I can't really be bothered reposting them...but if you read through the creation vs Evolution thread, you'll find rather a few examples of speciation Who, exactly, are you to claim it's "scientifically impossible", when evolution is the very theory that scientific investigation and thought has promoted?

If speciation was not viable, then I don't think it would be so widely accepted by the scientific community Creationists can claim otherwise, but since they are neither scientists, nor researchers, I'll take their opinions on the matter with a pinch of salf; much of the creationist arguement actually demonstrates a fundamental ignorance of the principles of evolution.

Being a biology student, currenty studying genetics, I beg to differ Have you never even heard of a mutation? It is the natural variation within our genes that gives rise to natural selection, and there are any number of chance processes that can occur not only during the forming of a zygote cell, but also in mitosis, that can lead to gigantic differences in the cell make up that the origonal coding did not allow for.

On the giraffes - many millions of years ago, the creature that would eventualyl spawn giraffe's were horse like, grazing animals. However, as the variety of mammalian species on the planet greatly increased over the course of a few hundred thousand years, competition for food began to grow somewhat fierce. Ground level vegetation didn't last very long, as every animal in the region could easily reach them...so, our horse like creature turned to the higher foliage.

Obviously, this would benefit those among them with longer necks...the longer your neck, the higher you could reach, and the less you had to compete with not only other species, but your own as well. Therefore, over the course of generations, these specimens with long necks were able to reach their food, and those with shorter necks were likely to starve and, obviously, not survive to reproduce.

So what does this mean?

It means that the creature's with longer necks survived, and passed on the very genes that gave them this characteristic to the next generation; and in the next generation, even longer necks would be advantagous, as the entire species was seeing an overall increase with all the short necked versions leaving no offspring.

You can see, I trust, where this is going? Nature selected for the animal's necks to get longer as a means of eliminating competition. Those that were able to cope with the changing niche survived to pass on their genes (thus leading to greater expression of the characteristic in the next generation), and those that did not were not able to survive to pass on their less suitable genes.

The giraffe is a classic example, that just about everyone knows

On the tails - this comment demonstrates nothing but your absolute ignorance of either evolution, or genetics. Of course puppies aren't born without tails....what you're thinking of is the theory before evolution, that went along the lines that the giraffe, in an effort to reach higher food, consciously stretched its neck, and for some miraculous reason, its offspring would have longer necks....this has nothing to do with genetics, and it's actually the theory that evolution proved wrong and replaced. They are far from the same thing.

If you're going to try and argue against something, I suggest you learn what it is. Maybe you should "pick up a book"

Rubbish. It actually makes very sound and logical sense that organisms would evolve with characteristics that allowed them to survive in their environmental niche. As a niche changes, characteristics that allow an organism to survive there are expressed, as those without the characteristic do not survive to pass on their genes....there is no "leap of faith", it's a very simple concept to grasp, and I fear for you that you're unable to understand it.

This doesn't even make sense, and I'm wondering if you're even thinking about your arguement anymore. ANY change in an organism is new information The fact that my eyes are a different colour from the first homo sapiens means a mutation caused new information. The fact that Darwin's finches, though sharing a common ancestor, have vast differences in shape and size in accordance to what food was available on the islands in which they settled shows that new information was added to account for these changes.

Do you even understand the concept of a "change" in the genetic information? If the information is changing, then by definitation it is changing into something new. And it's evolution you accuse of having no common sense, really

All that you've proven is that you have an amazing lack of understanding of what you're talking about

Tacitus' mention of Christ here is not proof? Sure, he's referencing Jesus in the midst of talking about Christians, but so what? He places Jesus and his movement in a specific time period and place. If this is not a reference to Jesus in history, I don't know what is. It compels me to ask: What kind of evidence would you accept?

Please show me in history, with the use of any historical document you can muster, when Paul persecuted the Jewish people. And the fact that Paul once persecuted Christians and then converted to Christianity (knowing that such a move would cause him to be persecuted) does cause us to ask: Why did he convert to begin with? The Damascus road event does explain it very well. And how did Paul take Christianity on a "wild tangent"?

The eventual length reached was a result of competition between each other, as well as other species Even if they reached a height whereby they could eliminate competition from other mammals, that would still leave specimins with a shorter neck in a situation of competition with longer necked specimens; they would still die out, and the gene would continue to be increasingly expressed; effectivly, the species DID die out, to be replaced by modern giraffes, which were far more suited for the environment that the original.

And you just skipped over my whole post You're reaching now, please stop it.

you aren't reading it in its context, he isn't recording the existence of Jesus, he is recording what Christians believe in. He is simply describing Christianity. I'm not saying Jesus didn't exist, i'm simply saying that there is still a question of doubt over his existence.

Oh this is getting tedious....

The point isn't that foliage was "hard to reach", it's that having access to higher up the tree eliminated competition. Most mammals are rather small...giraffes, horses and the like are unusually large, and need a far larger diet than a shew or something the size of a cat or dog (I trust, of course, you're not going to dispute this point?)

For small animals, resources are comparitavely plentiful, and they feel the effects of inter species competition far less...large animals, however, need a plentiful supply per individual, and competition with smaller, faster breeding animals, eating the very same food sources, would lead to the ultimate conclusion of competative exclusion.

Going to higher ground, so to speak, wasn't the option nature selected for because it was the only food available It was selected for because the specimens that were large enough to reach it, and thus not have to compete with other herbivores, were the ones that survived to pass on the genes that allowed them to do so.

It's not a matter of "oh, the species would die out before they had long necks"...this, again, demonstrates your lack of understanding of evolution. This characteristic would eliminate competition from other species very quickly...their only competition at this stage would be other members of their kind and, again, those with longer necks would be at the advantage, and would continue to eat, and breed, while those with shorter necks starved.

It's an amazingly simply concept. Please keep up.

But I also know that the more and more a creature's phenotype adapts to its surroundings, the further and further it will be removed from the origonal specimen. After several million years of diverging over and over into many different niches, the gradual expression of different characteristics would lead to say...something that started out as a cat, having vast genetic differences to something that started out as the same creature, but adapted to a different niche; the moment two animals are no longer genetically capable of breeding together to create fertile offspring, they are no longer the same species.

Millions of years of different mutations to make an organism more suitable to an environment make this possibility quite feasible indeed.

And you, dare I say, are neither The longer you go on, the more and more you emphasise your lack of understanding of evolution. We've discovered transition species, we've discovered the gradual progression of one species into the next, according to their specialised niche...we've seen all of this.

If it was genetically impossible, don't you think geneticists would say: "oh, you know that evolution thing? It's not possible" instead of supporting it!? I'm getting fed up arguing with you...you're just making one mute point after another, and I'm losing patience...after nearly a year of this, I'm fed up seeing the same poorly thought out and researched arguement over, and over, and over.

I suggest you read up on both genetics, and evolution....seriously...you don't seem to have even a rudementary grasp of either.

Actually, there is evidence of miracles, but people play a strange game when confronted with them. I saw a program once where a man diagnosed with terminal cancer had his cancer totally disappear. This was a secular program, not a religious one. In any event, his doctor was a cancer specialist, and he said that his diagnosis of this guy was definitely on the money. The doctor could not explain this total disappearance of the guy's cancer, which occured in between doctor visits. When the man was asked about how all this came about, he referred to prayer to the Judeo-Christian God. He believed he had been miraculously healed.

They brought in other doctors to analyze the original diagnosis and look at all available evidence, and they couldn't explain this. Now, none of the doctors became believers or anything. However, they were humble enough to admit that this was something they could not explain.

When I tell folk who demand "scientific proof" of things like this, their reactions are quite telling. Usually, they say something to the effect of, "I just can't believe stuff like that!" But wait: That statement and posture have nothing to do with science or the scientific enterprise. That has to do with a philosophical presupposition that miracles cannot happen. Such a stance is also concerned with personal epistemology, what I can or cannot believe. Again, I think such things are valuable, but they are not about the hard-edged, scientifc inquiry.

Another reaction is to cast scathing doubt on the people involved. "Oh, well the doctor might have been a Christian, so maybe they're in on some scam together..." or "This was something the network cooked up to boost their ratings!" So because it CAN'T happen, someone must be lying.

The final reaction I've encountered to this and other claims of the miraculous is as follows: "Well, the man's inexplicable remission of cancer could just be an anomaly that can entirely be explained by scientific inquiry, but we just can't do so as yet. Give us time, and we'll figure out what REALLY happened." This, actually, is the reaction I've encountered the most. And this is also very telling.

Many folks (especially in the West) operate under the delusion that everything they believe in and commend to others is rooted in hardcore, rationalistic empiricism. They think that they believe things solely because they have been proven through the scientific enterprise. I'm not saying that this isn't true for some things; however it is not true for all. What I've encountered from such rationalists when discussing the miraculous phenomenon is actually philosophical objections masquerading as scientific ones.

The first problem is that the rationalist believes him/herself to be a pure seeker of empirical evidence. In their minds, if they were confronted with the evidence they demand, they will immediately acquiesce and give in to it, no matter what conclusions it leads to. However, when presented with the miraculous, rationalists simply accept (with no investigation) a scientific explanation. Interestingly, their blind acceptance of this mirrors the blind faith that religious folks can be guilty of at times: Because data confirms a pre-existing worldview, then it is deemed to be true. Rationalists tend to discount their own personal and philosophical predispositions for and against certain things. And we ALL have these. But rationalists do not readily admit to them. For example, evolution didn't first catch on in Darwin's world simply because it satisified our longings for empiricism. Evolution in large part caught on because it's theory of natural selection gave a scientific rationale to why some people did better in Victorian society than did others (i.e., poor people). This is by no means the entirety of how and why evolution caught on; however, these sentiments did play a major role.

Many rationalists, when confronted with sound testimony and evidence for the miraculous, will appeal to the anamolous event: That whatever happened is not miraculous at all--just something entirely natural that we haven't learned to quantify, dissect, and measure yet. Again, this only works when one assumes that the miraculous cannot occur. If we operate under this assumption, then we have to--on blind faith--accept a naturalistic explanation and then with equal blindness assume that the scientific community with prove the naturalistic explanation one day.

I do not endorse the current scientism of our time because it fails to account for the worldviews that humans bring to the table, even when they are engaged in the scientific process. Furthermore, it perpetuates the Baconian split between the realm of facts and the realm of values, which is dehumanizing because we simply don't work that way. Also, scientism tends to promote a scandalously false view of the relationship between science and religion. As I've said before in other posts, the science vs. religion stuff was invented by 19th century atheists. I'm not trying to paint some idealistic picture of the relationship between the two, but said relationship is not NEARLY so anti-thetical as many would have one believe. If you read up on the history of the scientific enterprise, you find that the Church (yeah, those Catholics did do some things right!) funded many scientific enterprises (like those of Copernicus and Galileo!). As averse as so many seem to be to myth, it is ironic that they swallow the science vs. religion myth without any of evidence and with a disregard of the historical record.

Lastly, religion, for many years, fueled the scientific enterprise because religion (not just Christianity) usually carries with it the sense of the ideal. Scientific inquiry and invention tends to flourish when the ideal is in view. This is why so many scientists have been religious (and many of them Christian!). Their religion was not just something they did on Sundays; it fueled the scientific enterprise. What is scary now is that much of the scientific enterprise is fueled by money and militarism. Good, useful things can come from this (like the myriad inventions brought about by WWII), but at the expense of loss of life b/c of warfare, the subjugation of values and ethics to what is profitable, and the confusion of pragmatism with healthy idealism.

I need to say that I am not pointing back to some "good old days" that we need to return to. However, I am saying that folks who practice the religion of scientism (yes, it is religion) need to get a more firm grip on the history of science.

Absolute rubbish.

Science is a mode whereby conclusions are drawn based on presented evidence, and known fact. Science is a system through which theory can only be excepted if it has some founding in both logic, and existing data to show it as a possibility.

"Scientism" as you call it, is the only system of believe where an actual effort is made to establish, and even disprove its own beliefs, to ensure that they are the truth. It is the only system whereby "faith" accounts to absolutely nothing, as nothing can be accepted as truth unless it is able to establish itself as such through presentation of evidence.

These are not things religions do.

I'm sick of being trying to belittle science by calling it a religion You don't need "faith" to believe in science, you simply need to look at the facts, and apply logic to them. You simply need to accept which is the stronger case, based on the evidence at hand...science is a system of facts and figures, not of blind faith and religious zealotry.

Jesus didn't mean for his movement to be organized?

* He had a hierarchy of disciples: about 72 in general, 12 in particular, 3 intimate ones (Peter, James, and John), and one who seemed to be the closest (Peter)

* In Jesus' very Jewish mindset having a personal relationship with God automatically spilled over into one's relationship with his/her fellow person. Jesus did mean for disciples to "organize". He organized them. He emphasized community so much that he told them "Wherever two or three of you are gathered in my name, there shall I be among you" (Matt. ch 18). Also, he said the principal way the world would know that they were his disciples was by their love for each other! Implicit in this statement is a closeness that requires organization of some sort.

If you look at them, these instances are much, much deeper than mere dress codes for the faithful. A lot of what you are mentioning concerns how the early church was trying to deal with the fact that so many people of so many cultures were interacting with one another intimately for the first time. The kind of intimacy that believers in Jesus are supposed to share brings people-groups that have never been in touch with each other together. So there are definite issues to work out. Acts 15 and Romans 14 are great examples of issues of eating that are about maintianing Christian unity while allowing for marvelous diversity among brothers and sisters. 1 Corinthians 8 and 9 are also about eating foods, but Paul takes a petty dispute among believers and turns it into a treatise on how the stronger people should subordinate their rights/privileges to the weaker out of love for Jesus Christ. Yes, it's organized, but necessary when dealing with people across cultures. This never comes up with Jesus b/c all of his disciples were Jewish! There were no cross-cultural issues to work through.

Look, I share some of your angst over what perverted people have done in the name of Jesus. However, the "organized church" has also done some great things in history, many of which couldn't have been accomplished without some kind of organization. We need to have a balanced view here.

Jesus gave the mandate for the disciples (not just Paul) to tell the good news all over the world. I'm not trying to beat up on you or to be offensive here, but how else was Paul supposed to live out this message? Not to mention that the other apostles did the same thing. And I don't think that we can fault/credit Paul with starting the Roman Catholic church. Also, I'm a protestant (yeah, I've got my own baggage here), but I acknowledge that there are great Catholics out there who are truly Christian. Their efforts are undercut by all the weird and evil popes and priests.

Thats when they say "You gotta have faith!"

Anyone else notice how these religious people tend to imply that the open minded people who tried/researched both sides are the religious/turned religious people and the ones who either were religious and became atheistic or the ones that were atheistic from the beginning are the wrong, closed minded people who havent researched anything?