The Coward Commenter of Politics and Religion

As many of you know, the reason I have made this blog is to talk about the major topics within politics and religion in a civilized manner. These are two topics which are very important in society (see my free report for deeper inquiry on this), and it is a shame that people will shy away from them as if they are the black plague.

So, I created a haven to talk about these important issues. Some posts have been better than others; some posts received a lot of attention while others go unnoticed. And my favorite, Sometimes people will comment.

I think that comments are the power behind the blog. I actually started the blog because of the opportunity to not only talk about what I love, but to talk with others about what I love. Which brings me to one of the downfalls with blogs… the “coward commenter”.

Analyzing Jesus: Scientific Evidence for being Jewish Messiah

Analyzing Jesus
Part Three: Scientific Evidence for being Jewish Messiah

So far in this series I have covered that Jesus did in fact exist (despite some conspiracy theories), and also the likelihood that Jesus is the Jewish Messiah given all the prophecy he has fulfilled (and the probability of doing so). Today’s post I will continue with the idea of Jesus as the Jewish Messiah, and hopefully successfully address some major questions.

The first issue I will address is a question that I posed at the end of the last part in this series. It was the following:

“couldn’t have all the stuff about Jesus fulfilling prophecy have just been added by zealots after his death?”

Quite a valid question, in fact, many people ask it today. I mean, how can it be possible for one man to actually fulfill every single one of the prophecies written over 1,000 year span? Someone HAD to change the prophecy around right?! Not necessarily.

Analyzing Jesus: Was he really the Jewish Messiah?

Analyzing Jesus
Part Two: Was he really the Jewish Messiah?

In Part One of this series, we analyzed Jesus as a historical figure in history. The second part of this series is to address if Jesus is the Jewish Messiah, but in order to do that, we need to understand what Messianic Prophecies are. Scholars (Jewish and Christian) believe that the Bible (Old Testament) contains over 300 predictions about the Jewish Messiah. These predictions do not come from one source, but are from multiple authors in a variety of books ranging about 1,000 years. In other words, what we have here is an enormous “library” of statements made about the Jewish Messiah (what he will be like, what he will do, and so on).

a Letter to Atheists

The internet has opened a whole slew of avenues to obtain information, meet new people, and read up on different ideas. Until recently though (roughly about the time I started this blog) I had never had constant contact with individuals from the atheist community. Wow have things changed. Today I read (daily) atheist commentaries and I even contribute on a very popular atheist blog (as the Christian Contributor of course).

Lawmakers Upset with iPhone

Interesting little bit I found when researching the iPhone.  It looks like there are some tricky “politics” going on when you want to terminate an AT&T contract!  Check it out!

_______________________________

WASHINGTON (AP) – The Apple iPhone has enjoyed favorable reviews since its recent debut, but it came in for some rare criticism on Capitol Hill on Wednesday.
The phones, which cost between $500 and $600—are usable only on AT&T Inc.’s wireless network and will remain that way until 2012.

Even though the phones become expensive paperweights if customers quit AT&T’s wireless plan, the company will still charge a $175 early termination fee, said Rep. Edward J. Markey, D-Mass., chairman of a House subcommittee on telecommunications and the Internet.

Markey described the phone as a “Hotel California service. You can check out any time you like, but you can never leave—you’re stuck with your iPhone and you can’t take it anywhere.”

The issue arose at a hearing on whether Congress should grant the cell phone industry’s wish and pre-empt states from regulating wireless phone companies. State public utility commissions have no authority over pricing on wireless plans, but do have the authority to regulate the terms and conditions of wireless service agreements.

The wireless industry opposes what Verizon Wireless general counsel Steven Zipperstein called “patchwork, utility-style regulation” as “unnecessary and harmful.”

Verizon wants a national framework for wireless oversight that would take authority away from state utility commissions while still allowing state attorneys general to protect against unfair and deceptive industry practices.

Tony Clark, a North Dakota public utility commissioner and chairman of the telecommunications committee of the National Association of Regulatory Utility Commissioners, said the states should be allowed to maintain their enforcement authority.

“The bottom line is that state regulators are seeking a middle ground that relies on each level of government doing what it does best: the federal government setting standards that apply to all and the states enforcing those rules and tailoring them to specific emerging issues,” he said.

Timothy Wu, a law professor at Columbia University and commentator on technology issues, described the cell phone industry as “spectrum- based oligopoly” where customers have given up their property rights.

“Imagine buying a television that stopped working if you decided to switch to satellite,” Wu said. “Or a toaster that died if you switched from Potomac Power to ConEd.”

The Federal Communications Commission is currently considering rules that will dictate how a valuable swath of spectrum to be auctioned in the next six months will be used. Among the proposals is a requirement that one block of airwaves being auctioned be accessible to all wireless devices—which would include the iPhone.
(story from breitbart.com)

Why are Geeks often Atheist?

[note that this post is meant to be light-hearted and tastefully intriguing] 

‘Geek’ brings to mind a long list of traits- Glasses, obsession with science, a high IQ. Recently, however, a new trait has come to light to add to the long, esteemed list: Atheism. Despite being widely known, there has been very little in the way of explanation proposed for this phenomena. It is the purpose of this article to address this deficiency.

‘What is a Geek?’. There can be many kinds, Art Geeks, Music Geeks, Computer Geeks, Math Geeks, you name it. Geeks are the people you want to talk to when you need to know something but perhaps don’t always want to invite to your parties. They are the people that collect information almost compulsively and nurture deep understandings of very obscure branches of knowledge. Geeks are people that live by their wits and believe in meritocracies and recognition not privilege or nepotism. They value our knowledge and appreciate those who can appreciate that and more importantly, add to it. They find great joy in learning a new thing, to extending our knowledge and sharing knowledge with another that can appreciate it. We are diverse, we are everywhere, we are different.

This leads at a cursory glance to the simple explanation of ‘geeks tend to be different, so they look beyond the mainstream religious explanations’. However, several other explanations have been proposed as well, one of them being that given the social aspects of religion, a person who does not particularly care about socialization, or interpersonal interactions might find some of the allure gone.

Another explanation that has been proposed is that geeks tend to be interested in how the universe works. Upon looking into it, many find the complexity of the universe to be astounding. From the delicate and intricate dance of subatomic particles to the raging of stars thousands of times larger than our earth, the complexity and beauty of the universe awe many of those geeks who have looked deeply into physics. It might make sense to think that many such geeks simply find something as simple as a creator an overly simplistic explanation for something so elegant.

Yet another idea is that scientists (and geeks) tend to think in terms of logic. Because they are intelligent, they believe that their approach to problems is right. Religion has no place in science. Most of what we know is gathered from reading, watching and hearing various mediums. Since we choose what to read, watch, or hear, all three of these faculties are fundamentally biased. Since geeks have a strong bias towards logic, the end result is a disbelief in a higher power, which relies on faith.

 A second aspect of intelligence is that a person who has grown up with the notion that he or she is more intelligent than those around (possibly a correct view) wants to get the most satisfaction from that intelligence. The quickest and most reliable way to be rewarded for intelligence is to prove someone else wrong (critical thinking). Such a strategy gives you an immediate result and also establishes a sense of superior intelligence. Being constructive is much less rewarding. So it is obvious that being critical and taking down other arguments is a much more appealing use of This leads many intelligent people to spend time attempting to disprove many established ideas that do not make sense to them.

The absence of proof does not mean there is no proof at all; but it does give a strong reason to doubt if there is any. Geeks have conditioned themselves to think logically, just as the religious have been conditioned to replace logic with trust in what they are told. What can be extracted from this is that geeks are not atheists simply because they may know “more” but also because they choose to think differently (whether or not they think superiorly is a question for another debate).

Of course, after all that, we still don’t know the answer to our question.  There is a limit to how much speculation can be done in a few hundred words. However, hopefully we have shown some possibilities, and set some debate in motion. (story from m4th.com, pictures from wikipedia)

Christianity’s “Contradictions”

Christianity’s Downfall Series - Part Two
(Havn’t read part one?  CLICK HERE before reading below) 

In the last installment of this series, I briefly outlined the basic tenets and dangers of modern day Christian fundamentalism, particularly in America. Today, I am going to go into more detail about why fundamentalism has difficulties, especially with contradictions from science (a favorite among atheists). Following which, I will discuss the proper way to approach Bible reading, and I can tell you now that it isn’t with strict literalism.

When we last left off, I explained that 20th century fundamentalism is a disservice to Christianity. It ignores context, logic, and science in a way that is generally harmful. Ignoring these three factors is enough to make anyone close minded and ignorant to the progression of society (a natural part of life).

Fundamentalism, which tends to ignore the three previously listed items, often reinforces the opposite of what Christianity holds near and true – such as acceptance, open-mindedness, equality, and true love. In many cases, fundamentalism can generate an “us versus them” mentality (armaggeddonists, I’m looking in your direction).

When fundamentalism hits the headlines, it usually does in the form of a dispute that has arose with one of the sciences. I feel that I must interlude here to say that I have an appreciation for the sciences that perhaps the average person does not. Although theology is a passion of mine, I did study psychology extensively in my undergrad. Therefore, I can relate and sympathize with the arguments from the scientific community.

I run into many people who cannot understand how fundamentalist Christians ignore concrete empirical evidence – because I participate as a theist contributor on an atheist website, I often hear this banter. Although conversations of that nature tend to go in circles, the one thing I do not do is defend the fundamentalist viewpoint as it is darn near impossible (without looking foolish).

So why do these contradictions occur with fundamentalism (strict literalism)? I will explain this by using science as an example. [I must note that I first came across this example from theologian Huston Smith].

Within science there are three domains for size. There is the microworld of which we can’t see with our naked eye. Distances at a micro level are described in terms of picometeres. There is the macroworld (which we inhibit). Distances in the macroworld are measured in inches, feet, miles, and so on. Then there is the megaworld. This world includes distances between stars and size is measured in light-years.

Neither the microworld nor the megaworld can be consistently described in ordinary language. An attempt to do so will result in the contradictions that plague cartographers when they try to show our three dimensional planet on two dimensional pages of a geography book (Greenland always becomes absurdly big).

However, the micro and mega worlds can be described effectively using their technical language, which is mathematics with its equations.

Now I am going to transition here, pay attention…

God is at least as different from our human world as are the micro and mega words, because He includes them. Therefore, for description purposes, we need a technical language like that of science. Religion’s techinical language is not mathematics, but symbolism.

 We must go a step higher, up to a place where we can get a “wider view” for a better understanding/perspective. Using strict literalism does not allow us to elevate our spiritual plane. It is through this widened view that we become capable of seeing that contradictions are actually paradoxes.

If you are having trouble following, let me put it this way. Let’s say you see a train moving down some railroad tracks. Twenty minutes later, you see the same train coming back at you on the same tracks. This would seem illogical since trains always face one way on their tracks. However, if we climb a hill to see that there is a turnstile in the track, the train going the opposite way is not a problem in the least bit. The situation remains the same (the train is going the opposite way on the tracks), but the ‘higher view’ reality allows the paradox to be resolved.

As it was commented in the previous post in this series, Christianity is not suppossed to be easy. Recall that when people heard Jesus preach, they talked about how his teachings were “hard” and turned away from Him. The same holds true today. Grasping the message of the Bible and what God has to say is not impossible, but it sure isn’t going to be equivallent to reading Dr. Seuss. If you do continue to read it at face value, you will find yourself at constant odds with reality.

Phew…that is all I am going to say in this part of the series. On a side note, if you feel that what is being said in this series is worth while, please share it with others. You can either send them to politics-religion.com, print the posts, or just simply copy and paste them in an email.  That being said, in the next post of this series I will discuss the most dangerous forms of fundamentalsim (extreme literalism) that we see today.

Until then, you may find this post interesting – it has to do with the problem of suffering.

Einstein comments on Jesus

Despite growing up as a Jew, Einstein admits to being “enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene” (“What Life Means to Einstein: An Interview by George Sylvester Viereck,”The Saturday Evening Post, Oct. 26, 1929, p. 17). As he got older, Einstein began to fall away from his faith and has soon become enthralled in the sciences.

During an interview by George Sylvester Viereck (cited above), Einstein had the following to say about Jesus. It isn’t much, but it demonstrates how the truth of Jesus is apparent to anyone (Atheist included) when it is approached with an open heart and mind.

George Viereck: “You accept the historical existence of Jesus?”

Einstein: “Unquestionably. No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life. How different, for instance, is the impression which we receive from an account of legendary heroes of antiquity like Theseus. Theseus and other heroes of his type lack the authentic vitality of Jesus.”

George Viereck: “Ludwig Lewisohn, in one of his recent books, claims that many of the sayings of Jesus paraphrase the sayings of other prophets.”

Einstein: “No man,” Einstein replied, “can deny the fact that Jesus existed, nor that his sayings are beautiful. Even if some them have been said before, no one has expressed them so divinely as he.”

Amen Einstein, Amen.

Science’s Overlooked Problem

 It is no secret that science and religion have been butting heads since the 20th century (particularly against the fundamentalist sect of faiths).  Yet I have been a firm believer that science cannot, and does not, provide ample explanation for things such as life, purpose, or even God (despite rather poor attempts).

I think it would be beneficial for you to reflect on the insight from religious scholar Huston Smith.  Essentially, scientists are being forced to reconsider their “bottom-up” reasoning theory of causation (the one that challenges, say, the Christian position).

Since science is empirical, everything in it spins off from our physical senses.  The fact that those sense connect only with physical objects and that the entire house of science is founded on our physical senses has led scientists to assume that matter is the fundamental ‘stuff’ of the universe.

Their familiar scenario begins with the Big Bang, from which issued the smallest conceivable entities – quarks, strings, what have you – that grouped themselves into progressively more complex entities until the latest nanosecond of cosmic time life and consciousness emerged.  It’s upward (bottom-up) causation all the way.

Smith has outlined the basic (dominant) theory and beliefs from the scientific perspective.  However, as he will point out, this type of causation is being question for very important, yet surprisingly obvious reasons.  Smith continues…

What is causing scientists to reconsider that scenario [the one outlined above] is their dawning realization that it contains no explanation for WHY [emphasis mine] complexity increases.  To say that it rides the Big Bang’s momentum is no good, for no one completely knows what powered the Big Bang in the first place.

And to say that the complex forms emerged fares no better, for emergence is a descriptive, not an explanatory, concept.

It would be wise to mull around what you just read and really let this overlooked point sink in.

Atheists vs. Theists: Not for the Close-Minded

I was reading a religious article on The Washington Post’s website the other day and was disgusted by what I saw at the end of it.  Just like most blogs these days, there is a spot to put comment so the author can get an idea of what people are thinking regarding his writing.  In most cases, these comments are thought provoking and generally intelligent, but such was not the case on this article.

At the end of a post titled “We Need God” by Thomas G. Bohlin, the first five comments I read were the following:

Comments (41)
candide:
Save? What does save mean? Saved from what? Only Christians obsess about being saved. They must have a lot of guilt.

I wish these Opus Dei men in skirts would take a flying leap into hell where they belong.

Posted June 12, 2007 9:10 AM
___________________________

Big Daddy:
Humans need a god like a fish needs a trombone. There is no god. Get over it.

Posted June 12, 2007 9:16 AM
___________________________

ttt:
you might need a god — but why this ‘we’?

silly little mind.

Posted June 12, 2007 9:27 AM
___________________________

Mavaddat:
The character in ‘La Chute’ is defeated by his own arrogance. That is not an argument for faith. Your inability to think without interposing your desire for a God has ruined your ability to interpret literature.

Posted June 12, 2007 9:45 AM
___________________________
What have any of these individuals brought to the table other than personal attacks?  Their remarks reflect their shallow thinking and poor interpersonal skills.  These remarks annoy me because I often hear from atheists about how religions have brought about more violence, war, and anger than anything else in history. 

First, religion does not cause war, incorrect human interpretations do.  And secondly, people with the mindset of the five individuals who posted these comments demonstrate a great deal of disrespect and anger (the seed of violent behavior).  In fact, Jesus warns us about even becoming angry (as it leads to much worse behavior…like murder).  These five people, as well as a slew of others (theists and athesits alike), can learn a great deal from the universal truths within the teachings of Jesus.

In the end, it seems that the theist is under (violent?) attack for no other reason than sharing his theology.  Is it too much to ask that people use their minds to develop real, thought provoking comments on important issues such as this?

I guess so.