Atheists Threaten to Sue Over Sign

[Hilch]

They're back!

Atheists sue to stop Christian cross from being placed at the 9/11 World Trade Center memorial

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-memorial.html

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Cheese

You know any Engrish Mr T?

*translation*

The "truth of the Bible" in Shades's use of the term is whatever it seems to mean in sofar as his modern conventions of language have understood it. That is, he interprets literature according to modernly conditioned sets of assumptions, and imposes these upon ancient literary works that do no necessarily hold to the same rules or conditions. I used an example of how this works out in an earlier post in the development of human sexuality, and our understanding of its purpose and function over the past several thousand years. Perhaps a better example in this case is unpacking the historical meaning and development of the concept of religion. If you are keen to play along (or if anyone is, for that matter), how would you define religion?

Once you have defined it, let us then look at the implications of this definition in another cultural or historical context, and see what we understand ancient religion to be. Then, we shall see how different our own ideas about what religion is has dramatically obscured our own understanding of what religion meant for the ancients...

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Hilch

They're back!



http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-memorial.html

They need to get a life!

[Tinordi]

Fully support the Athiests. Don't pollute my spaces with your beliefs.

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Tinordi

Fully support the Athiests. Don't pollute my spaces with your beliefs.

Or athiests could build thier own monument if they are so offended.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by Cheese

You know any Engrish Mr T?

I'm waiting for him to pity da fool.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by Dion

Or athiests could build thier own monument if they are so offended.

What kind of monument would be comparable? A giant numeral zero?

[Dion]

Originally Posted by Reaper

What kind of monument would be comparable? A giant numeral zero?

That's for athiests to decide.

[Reaper]

Originally Posted by Dion

That's for athiests to decide.

WOOSH!

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

This is a crock.

• In the first place, crucifixion was invented by the Persians at some point in the mid-first millennium b.c.e. Any claims with regards to ancient Egyptian or Greek gods or heroes having been crucified prior to 600 or 700 b.c.e. is entirely false.
• Attempts to draw parallels between the virgin birth / baptism of Jesus and pagan gods tend to be very strained or non-existent. While I do concede that the virgin birth tradition attached to Jesus was probably influenced through contact with Greek religious traditions, this should not be at all surprising, given that myths were commonly borrowed and passed rather readily through cultural and religious boundaries.
• Jesus was NOT EVER presented in any Christian tradition as having been born on Dec 25. Christmas was adopted by the church for the official celebration of Jesus nativity, and as a result several elements of the Greco-Roman Saturmalia festival gravitated into the adopted Christian celebration. However, it is abundantly clear that throughout Christian history, the actual date of Jesus's birth remained a readily acknowledged mystery. The invention of Christmas had much less to do with commemorating the specific date of Christ's arrival, and much more to do with placating tens of thousands of new Roman converts into the recently State sanctioned religion.
• Attempted connections between the religious practices of Jesus, such as his baptism, the performance of miracles, or the basic teachings or even the organization of his ministry are incredibly strained. There was a great deal of "cross-seeding" between religions largely because most religions at some point or another stemmed from a common worldview. The point is that hundreds of religious leaders engaged in ritual purification, the assembly of followers, and the performance of miracles. Does that mean that they were all "copycats"? No. It simply means that ancient religion was much more homogeneous than we tend to imagine.

In the end, this Zeitgeist inspired garbage is a product of conspiricy theorists with a very poor sense of ancient history, and sloppy research abilities. Any supposed connections they seek to make are well after the fact, imagined, and not in any sense part of the historical record. What is happening here is more along the lines of anachronistically reading Christian traditions backwards onto more ancient religions.

More from the Secular Web...

Biblical scholars have long ago dismissed the literal interpretation of the miraculous virgin-birth of Jesus. Also, many liberal Christian denominations have either quietly purged the curious piece of teaching from their body of philosophy, or conveniently ignore the issue altogether. Despite this, the allure of such an intriguing concept is still very powerful and Jesus' virgin birth continues to enjoy the unquestioning belief of millions of people.

[J pold]

While I consider myself to be an atheist (I don't particularly enjoy that term) I'm not a fan of these protest.

[J pold]

Originally Posted by Dion

That's for athiests to decide.

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Cheese

More from the Secular Web...

Biblical scholars have long ago dismissed the literal interpretation of the miraculous virgin-birth of Jesus. Also, many liberal Christian denominations have either quietly purged the curious piece of teaching from their body of philosophy, or conveniently ignore the issue altogether.

As a Christian, I approach this question on the basis of what it adds to my own theology. The ancient tradition of Jesus's virgin birth is something that developed very quickly—the Apostle Paul, writing between 40–65 c.e. did not know of it, but then it appears in the span of probably less than 25 years in the gospels attributed to Matthew and Luke. Why did it develop, and what did it mean for those who converted to Christianity? I already suggested that the tradition was probably based in similar long-standing Greco-Roman religious traditions, and that it was mostly propagated among non-Jewish converts as part of a larger programme to find common cultural ground for the new religion. Interestingly, the virgin birth was probably simultaneously a major sticking-point that repulsed many Jews and prevented their conversion to what was originally a thoroughly Jewish movement. As the Greek / Roman Christian community grew and gained influence, it became incorporated into the catalogue of Christian dogma. In its introduction, then, it served as a galvanizing point for placating non-Jewish converts, and as these non-Jewish communities came to dominate the religion, it then served as a foundational point upon which to distinguish Jesus as the unique, unblemished, acceptable sacrifice for the atonement of global sin, since the primitive understanding of "evil" was as something hereditary.

In my own present worldview, I must reject such a notion, and can find no useful theological function beyond this mythically informed conviction: If one is to concede that the death of Jesus was an atoning sacrifice for sin in the same forensic sense as argued by Saint Paul (and it should be noted, that this belief of Paul's was almost certainly not widely held among Christian communities at the time that he championed it), then one must also logically believe that animal sacrifices also somehow magically performed this same function. As I must reject this view, then the "atonement" along with the virgin birth must function much more symbolically. The mythic "Christ" then, is an ideal: his virgin birth is a symbol of his purity or "righteousness", and this is something noble that one might hope to pursue in his own life. The question then must focus on determining exactly how that righteousness is defined, and that is no simple matter at all. Especially in a climate of cultural and social malleability.

Originally Posted by Cheese

Despite this, the allure of such an intriguing concept is still very powerful and Jesus' virgin birth continues to enjoy the unquestioning belief of millions of people.

Why do people continue to believe it? For most, it is probably out of an unswerving commitment to a very specific ideal of traditional or scriptural inerrency. If one were to probe a Christian's belief in this tenet, and at what practical level it informs her or his faith, I suspect that the results may be surprising. Most Christians simply do not bother to wonder why we have come to believe so many things that we do.

[Hilch]

Originally Posted by J pold

While I consider myself to be an atheist (I don't particularly enjoy that term) I'm not a fan of these protest.

Even though David Eagleman seems to recycle the same old lines I liked his thought on the term Possibilianism instead of Atheist. I'm not a fan of these things either and I'm not sure why people would waste their time. I understand their reasoning but at the same time who cares. I hate when church goers push their beliefs on non-believers so how is this any different? If people want to think that god saved that piece of metal and it means something, let them be crazy.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

As a Christian, I approach this question on the basis of what it adds to my own theology.

In my own present worldview, I must reject such a notion, and can find no useful theological function beyond this mythically informed conviction: If one is to concede that the death of Jesus was an atoning sacrifice for sin in the same forensic sense as argued by Saint Paul (and it should be noted, that this belief of Paul's was almost certainly not widely held among Christian communities at the time that he championed it), then one must also logically believe that animal sacrifices also somehow magically performed this same function. As I must reject this view, then the "atonement" along with the virgin birth must function much more symbolically. The mythic "Christ" then, is an ideal: his virgin birth is a symbol of his purity or "righteousness", and this is something noble that one might hope to pursue in his own life. The question then must focus on determining exactly how that righteousness is defined, and that is no simple matter at all. Especially in a climate of cultural and social malleability.

Im not sure your present view of Christianity is typical to your thoughts as late as 2 or 3 years ago? I follow your writings earnestly because I enjoy your walk through the history of religion and what appears to be a journey that has brought personal and philosophical changes to your life. I would like to think that if most people of a theological nature chose your path we might not have the volatility that exists in today's cultures.
I also find it interesting that a Christian could be raised believing one message, eg the belief that the virgin birth was a fact, and yet change that view to something more mythical and continue to find solace in the same religion.
Where does the line in the sand blur?
How does one find belief in something that has more symbols than fact, or am I misinterpreting your writings?

[SebC]

The cross, which was found standing upright in the rubble of the World Trade Center, is comprised of steel girders that were closely welded together, resembling a Christian Roman Cross.

It's just rubble.

As an atheist, it doesn't make sense to me that we'll reject anything that Christians declare to be blessed.

"Air is a sacred a gift from God!"
"Well then, no more breathing in public schools!"

It's dumb. Now, if the Chrisitans wanted to make a cross out of rubble, that would be different, although I can see the argument that selecting this piece of rubble is similar effectively "creating" a cross.

[Vulcan]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Im not sure your present view of Christianity is typical to your thoughts as late as 2 or 3 years ago? I follow your writings earnestly because I enjoy your walk through the history of religion and what appears to be a journey that has brought personal and philosophical changes to your life. I would like to think that if most people of a theological nature chose your path we might not have the volatility that exists in today's cultures.
I also find it interesting that a Christian could be raised believing one message, eg the belief that the virgin birth was a fact, and yet change that view to something more mythical and continue to find solace in the same religion.
Where does the line in the sand blur?
How does one find belief in something that has more symbols than fact, or am I misinterpreting your writings?

I'm not Christian but I look at it in this sense. I think in one of Skinner's box experiments a chicken jumps up and down, dances around and accidentally hits the bar so the food would come down. It took a long time for the chicken to realize that all he had to do was push the bar down. In that sense the virgin birth, and other extraneous acts or beliefs are just the chicken dancing around and are irrelevant. The bar is still there and still functions and learning that the dancing around isn't what's really needed to experience god, love, ecstasy, bliss, this energy, or whatever you want to call it, is a step forwards in my understanding.

[Thor]

Originally Posted by Dion

Or athiests could build thier own monument if they are so offended.

Hmm after reading it they do make some good points:

Atheists also oppose the alleged “cross” because it is a Christian icon and discriminates against the Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Hindus, Atheists, Agnostics, Humanists, Skeptics, Wiccans, Freethinkers, Nonbelievers and others who died on 9/11. Attorneys in the Atheists’ suit have estimated these non-Christians constituted some 1,031 of those who died. Yet these victims have no symbols representing them in the Memorial Museum.

Gotta say this is funny yet true...

“The WTC cross is a Christian symbol,” said David Silverman, president of American Atheists. “It has been blessed by so-called holy men and presented as a reminder that their god, who couldn’t be bothered to stop the Muslim terrorists or prevent 3,000 people from being killed in his name, cared only enough to bestow upon us some rubble that resembles a cross. It is truly a ridiculous assertion.”

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Textcritic

As a Christian, I approach this question on the basis of what it adds to my own theology.

Great stuff - I wish you were sick more often!

[Textcritic]

Originally Posted by Cheese

Im not sure your present view of Christianity is typical to your thoughts as late as 2 or 3 years ago?...

Probably. I vacillate wildly in my theological and philosophical thinking in my attempts to make sense of the world around me. Not just the natural world, but my social context as well. I am surrounded by friends, family and other acquaintances who have meaningful experiences with God on a daily basis. Just yesterday, a friend of mine who just suffered a sudden onset of near fatal pneumonia (possibly caused by meningitis?) began to inexplicably recover. His wife reported on her facebook page that doctors were "baffled" but that those of us who believe in prayer are not in the least bit surprised by his rapid recovery. You and I know that the appearance of divine intervention is a symptom of the vast gulf of incomprehension about the human body that medical sciences are still grappling with, and not the result of answered prayer. When I am surrounded by this climate, assent builds solidarity and community with a wonderful group of people that I cherish as my friends and family. As I remain hopeful about the existence of a god, it is not such a stretch for me to believe that "god"—whoever he is or whatever it is—had a hand in seeing that my friend is still alive, and I am glad for it.

Originally Posted by Cheese

I also find it interesting that a Christian could be raised believing one message, eg the belief that the virgin birth was a fact, and yet change that view to something more mythical and continue to find solace in the same religion.
Where does the line in the sand blur?

Maybe the line is not so fixed as you imagine it should be in the first place. I have come to consider many things taught within diverse branches of Christianity incredulous, but I continue to ascribe to my religion through a careful consideration of what I understand to be the motivations behind the formation of preposterous doctrines and ideas. Vulcan's analogy of Skinner's chicken is actually a very apt description of how I continue to hold to my faith. The purpose underlying the virgin-birth legend was theological and idealistic, but over the course of only a couple of decades came to be a tenet of history. Any careful reader of the Gospels of Matthew and Luke will recognize the subtle theological function of the legend, and my current religion seeks to rediscover those intentions in a contemporary applicable way.

Originally Posted by Cheese

How does one find belief in something that has more symbols than fact, or am I misinterpreting your writings?

No, I think you are understanding me, but I would take issue with the manner in which you have juxtaposed symbols against facts in such a way as to elevate the value of one over the other. One of the reasons the fact / fiction dichotomy has become a sticking point among Western skeptics is because we have been conditioned through the course of hundreds of years to set an incredibly high value on "what really happened" at the expense of "what it means". Historiography in the ancient world was governed by different premises and concerns, and this resulted in the propagation of legends and "myths" that we tend to now look down upon as primitive or naïve.

I guess, to answer your question, I would have to say that despite my own conditioning and my own training in rigorous historical critical methods, when it comes to my faith, I find the highest value in the meaning conveyed through stories. The "facts" of history—and I hold to these somewhat tenuously, out of recognition that our minds will always reconstruct "what happened" in the form of a rather poignant narrative—on their own are arbitrary and meaningless. Human nature imbues the past with meaning every time we attempt to re-tell it. The ancients had a much better understanding of this than we do, as they paid significant attention to the meaning of events. In essence, these become symbols, and can actually prove to be incredibly valid and relevant.

As an historian, I am bound by the tools and methods assigned to my craft, but philosophically speaking, I am also free to uncover meaning in the events of history, or even through others' interpretation of said events.

Does that make any sense?