de-conversion

21 Comments Add your own

• 1. agnosticatheist  |  May 11, 2007 at 6:39 am

  Justin,

  Did you watch the entire debates or just what was shown on Nightline?

  I believe the Nightline version was very biased against Brian and Kelly. You are right, however, that their expressions were very condescending towards Kirk and Ray.

  If you’re having trouble finding the video on ABC News (not sure why they make it so difficult), go here BSAlert.com

  The atheist won this debate “hands down,” as Stellar1 put it on her comment on the BLOG PARTY.

  Here’s an interesting link on the whole Josephus/Jesus issue:

  http://www.truthbeknown.com/josephus.htm

  Thoughts???

  BTW, Kirk and Ray claimed they’d prove God existed “without the use of faith.” After watching the full debates, let me know if you believe they accomplished this?

  aA

• 2. stellar1  |  May 11, 2007 at 9:27 am

  Justin said, “Yet, before any tenets of the arguments were discussed, the first thing I noticed was the anger - and this theme continued throughout the whole documentary. Perhaps they caught the atheists on a rough day, but I have never seen a group of people so consumed by anger. I truly feel bad for them. Unfortunately, this anger led to disrespect. Interestingly, the atheists were the ones sporting the “Holier than thou” attitude as it was evident through their remarks, reactions, and body language. The Christian debaters trumped the atheists in regards to civility.”

  I had mentioned before that I had issues with the presentation given by the atheists - and you have touched on one of the aspects of my concerns (there is another aspect that I will address at a later time). It was disturbing to see my side (the atheists) act so childish by rolling their eyes and making sly remarks while the other side was talking. This is bad form in any debate.

  While I still think the atheists proved their points far better than the christians, I was embarrassed at the level of poor sportsmanship displayed by supposed intellectuals.

  -Stella

• 3. HeIsSailing  |  May 11, 2007 at 10:04 am

  I did not watch the debate, nor do I intend to hunt it down. It sounded like it would be a snoozer from the get-go. I guess I can be accused of trashing it without even watching it - but Cameron and Comfort strike me as well-meaning but not terribly bright, and anybody who starts a trend as tacky as the Blasphemy Challenge strikes me as pretty arrogant. Outside of those cursory observations, I really have no idea who these four people are.

  What was the format of the debate? Questions from the moderator? From the audience (if there was one)? Or did they question each other?

  Justin is right. If one of Brian’s questions was ‘Who Created God’, then that is just repeating cliches. If there is a God, I expect a certain amount of transcendence from that being. I expect a certain amount that cannot be known. Who created God? Nobody knows Where did the matter and energy come from during the Big Bang? Nobody knows. Either question is a stalemate in debate.

  Kelly jumped to the conclusion that God = Jesus? That is an assumption usually made by Christians during debates of this sort. But she is correct - I do think a man named Jesus did walk the Earth and inspire the Gospels, but it is not inconceivable that he actually did not exist, and is just a conglomeration of Old Testament stories and Mediteranian cults and legends.

  Karen placed a link to a running online debate between Sam Harris and Andrew Sullivan that I am enjoying so far. Real food for thought on both sides, not just trite cliches. Check it out. http://www.beliefnet.com/story/209/story_20904.html

  Justin, you did not mention anything about what the Christians brought to the table. What did you feel was the strongest arguement made by the Christians? By the Atheists?

• 4. arrgjonsmad  |  May 11, 2007 at 12:35 pm

  Agnostic Atheist,

  Could you talk about demon possession and what you think. I dont know much, but ive heard lots of stories, and not one of them told of a demon going crazzy upon hearing the name of any other god, except Jesus Christ. just a thought.

• 5. agnosticatheist  |  May 11, 2007 at 3:54 pm

  Jon,

  I’ll post a blog on it soon. Thanks for the inquiry.

  In the meantime, check out this thread:
  http://agnosticatheism.wordpress.com/2007/04/25/i-may-be-an-agnostic-atheist-but-i-am-an-adevilite/

  aA

• 6. Karen  |  May 11, 2007 at 5:13 pm

  I did not watch the debate, nor do I intend to hunt it down. It sounded like it would be a snoozer from the get-go.

  I’m with you on this. It was a publicity stunt, pure and simple, and was guaranteed to go nowhere. Waste of my time, frankly.

  I’ve seen real debates, with real intellectuals, on the existence or non-existence of god, and I’m sure that neither side was up to snuff in this ABC silliness. The theological arguments on both sides have been around for centuries and involve very complex philosophy and theology, far more than Comfort and Cameron could handle, or Brian and Kelly either.

  As for style, Cameron’s an actor and has long been in the public eye. Comfort is a slick orator and preacher who constantly is in front of crowds selling his brand of religion - not to mention his myriad evangelism products.

  Brian Sapient and Kelly are a couple of in-your-face young people with very limited experience in public speaking. They’re obviously not debaters and they’re certainly not the most mature folks in the world. They’ve only gotten some limited publicity due to the Blasphemy Challenge. The fact that they didn’t perform very well hardly surprises me.

  Put a Dawkins or a Sam Harris or a Dan Dennett up there to debate theists and things get a whole lot more interesting, which is why I recommended the Harris vs. Sullivan “blogalogue.” It’s civil, it’s in-depth and it’s a pleasure to read intelligent people’s thoughts on both sides of the issue. Glad you’re enjoying it. I’d be interested in your thoughts when you finish it.

• 7. Mike C  |  May 12, 2007 at 12:38 am

  I finally got around to watching it, and it was definitely as bad as everyone was saying it was. At least from the minimal clips that ABC chose to show I didn’t hear either side say anything intelligent the whole time. Brian and Kelly were rude, Cameron & Comfort were polite but condescending. I doubt that anyone was impressed by either sides’ arguments unless you were already inclined to agree with them. And it’s pure self-promotion for either of them to declare themselves the “winner”. They were all losers IMO.

• 8. Justin  |  May 12, 2007 at 12:57 am

  Hi everyone,
  sorry I have been “in and out”, but it is a busy time for me at the moment. I will address some of your specific questions regarding my thoughts/views when I get a solid moment to sit down and watch the actual debate. Unfortunatley, I only saw the nightline coverage - which was very poor.

  In the mean time, have a great weekend!

  -Justin
  http://politicsandreligion.wordpress.com

• 9. Athiest  |  May 12, 2007 at 12:22 pm

  Actually, there is no factual evidence that Jesus existed.

• 10. Justin  |  May 12, 2007 at 7:10 pm

  Hi Atheist,
  Unfortunately that statement is not grounded in anything substancial.

  -Justin

• 11. agnosticatheist  |  May 12, 2007 at 7:36 pm

  Justin,

  Outside of the N.T. & Josephus (which is questionable), what proof is there that Jesus’ existed?

  The authentic letters of Paul were the first written documents referencing Jesus. The Gospels followed a few decades later.

  BTW, I do believe Jesus existed. However, it is difficult to prove that he said or did the things written in the gospels.

  aA

• 12. Justin  |  May 12, 2007 at 8:32 pm

  Hi aA,
  i noted some of the more famous references to Jesus in the post. For example, the babylonian talmud contains Jewish writings. In a reference to Jesus, they have put the following around 70AD:

  On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged. For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, “He is going forth to be stoned because he has practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy.”

  The Talmud was written by Jews who did not believe in Jesus as the Messiah, and therefore they were not his biggest fans. But what does the passage mean by saying that Jesus “was hanged”? Doesn’t the New Testament say he was crucified? Indeed it does. But the term “hanged” can function as a synonym for “crucified.” For instance, Galatians 3:13 It supports the NT claim that Jesus was crucified on the eve of passover (as metaphorical “passover” sacrfice for the people)

  The passage also tells us why Jesus was crucified. It claims He practiced sorcery and enticed Israel to apostasy! Since this accusation comes from a rather hostile source, we should not be too surprised if Jesus is described somewhat differently than in the New Testament. But if we make allowances for this, what might such charges imply about Jesus?

  Such a charge actually tends to confirm the New Testament claim that Jesus performed miraculous feats. Apparently Jesus’ miracles were too well attested to deny. The only alternative was to ascribe them to sorcery (as the Jews often did).

  Just because the gospels followed a few decades later should not come as a suprise. In fact, that time frame is extremely short given the way stories were verbally passed down from generation to generation for thousands of years.

  Anyway, sorry about the super long post, just some thoughts. Im gonna check out your new blog (tumbleblog?). I am curious about what it’s all about. What’s the purpose of it anyway?

  God Bless.

  Justin

• 13. HeIsSailing  |  May 13, 2007 at 12:22 am

  Justin sez:
  “For example, the babylonian talmud contains Jewish writings. In a reference to Jesus, they have put the following around 70AD:…”

  Justin, this is very interesting. This is a source I have never heard of. Can you cite a reference, or post a link where I can read more of this or some further information? I would like to read the whole passage in some sort of context, as this portion intrigues me:

  “For forty days before the execution took place, a herald . . . cried, “He is going forth to be stoned ”

  A herald? Who could this be? And why 40 days BEFORE the execution? Very interesting. Yeah, I would like to read more on this source. Thanks.

• 14. agnosticatheist  |  May 13, 2007 at 7:25 am

  *HIS,

  This is a new reference to me also. Looking forward to Justin’s responses.

  *Justin,

  The quote you gave said “stoned” and then you referred to Jesus being “hanged.”

  I’ve contented that since the Romans do not have any record of crucifying Jesus (and I believe they would if they were crucifying someone of this significance - per Gospel accounts), that Jesus probably was probably stoned (as per the Law) for the blasphemy.

  Of course stoning didn’t quite fit Paul’s intent so he made it crucifying and the gospel writers filled in the gaps.

  aA

• 15. Justin  |  May 13, 2007 at 12:00 pm

  Hi aA and HIS,

  There are two separate books of writings dealing with Jewish law called the Talmud. The first of these is the Mishnah, which is the Jewish code of religious jurisprudence. It began to be compiled sometime after the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70 and was completed about A.D. 200. This great body of newly codified case law became the object of Jewish study from which grew a body of commentaries called Gemaras. Together, the Mishnah (the law book) and the Gemara (the commentary) are called the Talmud. Being Jewish, suffice it to say, all references to “Yeshu’a of Nazareth” in the Talmudic writings are unfriendly, but nevertheless sufficient in number to establish beyond doubt his historical reality.

  Here is a few links regarding the Talmud:
  http://www.sacred-texts.com/jud/talmud.htm
  http://www.come-and-hear.com/tcontents.html
  http://www.breslov.com/talmud/talmud.htm

  The reference about being “hanged” comes from the beginning of the quotation (”On the eve of the Passover Yeshu was hanged”). This, being the past tense, means that in fact he was crucified. It is true, it does mention stoning. But the reference says, “he is going forth to be stoned…etc.”

  We know from the scriptures that the Jewish people wanted to stone Jesus bc of his teachings. They wanted him stoned, and tried various times but it never succeeded.

  The Jews knew that they couldn’t stone im b/c he had a following, so they brought him to the Roman government to have them execute him under the charge of treason/disobeying the emperor.

  “We found this man misleading our people; he opposes the payment of taxes to Caesar and maintains that he is the Messiah a king” (Luke 23:2)

  They knew that criminals under Roman law would be crucified (it wasn’t of Jewish practice). Therefore, when Pilate sentenced Jesus, he was “hanged’ b/c he was breaking Roman law.

  Hope that clears some things up. I’m in and out with my/this blog lately as I am in a transition at the moment. I’ll check back periodically.

  -Justin

• 16. Badger3k  |  May 13, 2007 at 7:53 pm

  Tacitus seems to be merely relating what he had heard about Christian beliefs, as his misidentification of Pilate would indicate. Hardly an accurate historical reference. As for using as 2nd-3rd century document, possibly written in response to the increasing anti-Judaic slant of Christianity…well, again, hardly what many would consider an accurate accounting of history. Since we have a pattern of growth and development of the history of Jesus, from Zero knowledge of Paul, up to the Gospels (and I’m including all the heretical writings of early Christianity as well, such as the infant gospels) with his life being fleshed out more and more, I think a plausible case can be made for a mythical, supernatural/spiritual Christ figure being gradually historicized as in other Founder/Great Man type myths. If we could get anything from the first century that might prove reliable (and not a later scribal interpolation, for instance), then we might have something to go on.

  Having just finished Dr Price’s “Incredible Shrinking Son of Man”, I think that, while I am not fully informed in many of the details, he has made some good points that should be looked into. Coming from a historical viewpoint, but now tending more towards the mythological side, I think too many people cannot accept that there might not have been a human founder and so read the texts with an eye towards justifying that belief.

  As for the idea that we know anything about a historical Jesus because of what is written in the manuscripts that people use today, well, we need to start with those first and address whether or not anything in them is historical. I think it can be shown that much of what is in them is a later development. If nothing else, the differences between the four canonical accounts make what is written in them suspect, at the very least. About the most we can claim is that the author of Luke says that the Jews wanted to kill Jesus because of his teachings. If nothing else, the fact that the current Gospels are the result of centuries of scribal redaction, with some parts of what is now accepted being either known to have been added or modified from earlier texts, that should throw a red flag at accepting anything written as straight history.

  As Justin, my work and other activities preclude an active participation in debates or discussions, I’ll try to come back here later and see if there is any response. Whether there is or isn’t, to recap, my main point is that there are reasons to doubt an actual historical Jesus, and I’m sure that will not be settled any time soon (or ever).

• 17. HeIsSailing  |  May 14, 2007 at 12:04 am

  Justin, the come-and-hear site has a tool where you can search the entire Babylon Talmud.

  http://www.come-and-hear.com/tindex.html

  I searched for about an hour for any reference to Yeshu, Yeshua, or using all the key words in your reference to Jesus’ execution. I came up solid blanks. I DID find out that there may be references in documents called the Baraitha and the Tosefta, which appear to be suppliments or appendices to the Talmud.

  According to this site, http://www.cuc.claremont.edu/bible/SGuide1c.htm,
  which is a study gude for Catholic students, We have four references in these appendices to what might be Jesus:

  1) It has been taught: On the eve of Passover they hanged Yeshu…because he practiced sorcery and enticed and led Israel astray. (Baraitha BT Sanhedrin 43a)

  2) Our rabbis taught: Yeshu had five disciples –Mattai, Nakkai, Netzer, Buni and Todah. (Ibid.)

  3) It happened with Rabbi Elazar ben Damah, whom a serpent bit, that Jacob, a man of Kefar Soma, came to heal him in the name of Jeshua ben Pantera; but Rabbi Ishmael did not let him. He said, “You are not permitted, Ben Damah.’ He answered, “I will bring you proof that he may heal me.” But he had no opportunity to bring proof, for he died. (Tosefta Hullin 2.22,23)

  4) Once, I was walking on the upper street of Sephoris and found one of the disciples of Yeshu the Nazarene, by the name of Jacob, a man of Kefar Sechanaya. He said to me, “It is written in your Torah: “Thou shalt not hire a harlot, etc.” How about making with it a privy for the high priest?” But I did not answer him at all. He told me. Thus did Yeshu the Nazarene teach me: ‘For the hire of a harlot has she gathered them, and unto the hire of a harlot shall they return,” from the place of filth they come, and unto the place of filth they shall go.” And the utterance pleased me..” (Tosefta Hullin 2.24)

  All Four are not only contradictory to Scripture (well, maybe not the first and last one), they are ambiguous at best. Are they really talking about OUR Jesus? I would really like to read them in context, but the only copies of these documents I could find online are no good unless you read Hebrew:

  http://www.mechon-mamre.org/b/f/f0.htm

  So for now, I don’t know that you can use these references as evidence of extra-biblical testimony of Jesus - they *might* be, but I am pretty suspicious. Does anybody else have any more information on this?

• 18. Karen  |  May 14, 2007 at 12:26 am

  Whether there is or isn’t, to recap, my main point is that there are reasons to doubt an actual historical Jesus, and I’m sure that will not be settled any time soon (or ever).

  I’ve heard two or three religion scholars speak on this and their conclusion is that there is no absolutely solid evidence for an historical Jesus.

  However, using textual criticism, they all concluded that there probably was a Jewish rabbi who espoused some of the teachings ascribed to Jesus in the gospels, though it’s impossible to say if he was killed by the Romans as no records have survived from that era (apparently they were on papyrus).

  I think you’re right that we’ll never know for sure, but I’d say it’s most likely there was some real person that the religion was based on, though he was NOT the divine, miracle working, son of god that later followers made him out to be for their own reasons.

• 19. Justin  |  May 14, 2007 at 5:13 pm

  Hi Karen and Badger,
  wow, thanks for all your thoughts and insights. Although I admit my response here does not directly address your points, it does touch on a subject which umbrellas our discussion.

  Historically, even the most religious of scholars will admit that information is lacking in the case of Jesus. This becomes tough for non-believers (as well as some believers) because it just doesnt equate. For example, in a court room, not having historical evidence would mean the crucifixion of your case (pun very much intended ).

  Unfortunately, beliefs about Jesus tend to always be subject to a “court room” setting (that is, present evidence that validates your belief).

  However, court room analogies fail to give reason why the religious belief should assume the role of plaintiff. While the person making any claim thereby becomes the claimant and has upon him the burden of proof, to be a claimant is not synonymous, nor can it properly be compared, with being the plaintiff.

  Thus, one who makes a claim outside of the context of a court of law or a lawsuit, does have the burden of proof, BUT that proof does not need to be subject to the high standard of the rules of evidence of criminal court in order to be considered reasonable or legitimate; there is no logical basis for requiring that claims of a religious nature be proven beyond a reasonable doubt in order to be considered justified.

  Well, unfortunately I am out of time and need to get going on some things. Have a great week, and God bless.

  -Justin

• 20. Is Jesus mentioned in the&hellip  |  May 15, 2007 at 7:35 am

  [...] 15th, 2007 In a recent article, Justin made the following statement: i noted some of the more famous references to Jesus in the [...]

• 21. Silly Old Bear  |  October 12, 2007 at 9:21 am

  I would like to point out that Talmud is not a very good source on J*sus, because the term “Yeshu” in Talmud is an acronym for “yemach shemo vezichro” simply meaning “May his name and memory be obliterated” - which was used to denote ANY individual who at any time had committed a violation of Jewish Law concerning Blasphemy, Apostacy or Sedition against a lawful government.

  The punishment for those violation were death by stoning, by hanging or by decapitation.

  I would also like to point out that there are several Xian antisemitic sites on-line that purport to be quoting Talmud, when they are in fact “quoting” falsified or non-existent portions of made-up books of Talmud.

  I would like to know where the reference to Talmud above was copied from, to be able to tell you if this is an authentic quote from Talmud.

  S(o)B

Leave a Comment

Some HTML allowed:
<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

Trackback this post  |  Subscribe to the comments via RSS Feed