. . . In This Issue.

"Spirituality, the Unchurched and Humanism" by Paul Ricci

Quote of the Month - Bertrand Russell

"The Christmas Message" by Jerry Parks

"Are Bible Miracles Credible? by Dave Silva

Philosopher's Corner by Juan Bernal, Ph.D.

AHA Booktalk by Monica Price

"Words to the Wise" humor contributed by Harry Becker.

At the Jan. 20^th Meeting: Starts at 1:30 p.m.

Spirituality,The Unchurched and Humanism

By Paul Ricci

"Nearly 40% of all Americans have no connection with organized religion.

Yet many of these people, even though they might not step in a house of worship, live profoundly spiritual lives. What is the nature and value of unchurched spirituality in America? Is it a recent phenomenon, a New Age fad that will soon fade, or a long standing and essential aspect of the American experience?

In "Spiritual, But Not Religious", Robert Fuller offers fascinating answers to these questions. He shows that alternative spiritual practices have a long and rich history in America, dating back to the colonial period, when church membership rarely exceeded 17% and interest in astrology, numerology, magic and witchcraft ran high. Fuller traces such unchurched traditions into the mid-nineteen century . . . Fuller argues that far from the flighty and narcissistic dilettantes they are often made out to be, unchurched spiritual seekers embrace a mature and dynamic set of basic beliefs. They focus on this world rather than the afterlife; they believe in the accessibility of God (Nature? my question) and in the mind's untapped powers; they see a fundamental union between science and religion . . ."

The above relates to a few past discussions we had, some years back, on the relation of Humanism to some form of spirituality. Though some of you, at the time, had some serious reservations about the term "spirituality" and how it could relate to Humanism, perhaps this latest discussion with Fuller's book as a background might soften some of those earlier reservations you might have had. At any rate, I look forward to your comments, criticisms and questions.

Quote of the Month:

"The fundamental defect of Christian ethics consists in the fact that it labels certain classes of acts 'sins' and others 'virtues' on grounds that have nothing to do with social consequences."

. . . Bertrand Russell

THE CHRISTMAS MESSAGE

By Jerry Parks

Even though it is absolutely not true, as religious fundamentalists claim, that the US was founded as a Christian nation, there can be no doubt that Christianity has had, and continues to have, a major influence on the everyday lives of all American citizens. The author,

M. Scott Peck, describes the Christian church as one of the two most significant and relevant institutions in this country. (The other institution: the federal government.) And, of course, he is right.

The religious right is constantly pushing for, and has had some success at, having laws enacted that enforce religious rules but that have no other reason for being. And to have tax money given to religious organizations and religious schools under one subterfuge or another. We all pay extra taxes to make up for the free ride given to valuable church property.

Anyone not associated with one of the main Christian churches is subtly discriminated against. Ex-president George H. W. Bush made a remark indicating that he didn’t think that anyone who did not believe in God should even be considered as a citizen of the US. (And, of course, he must have been referring to his particular Christian God. Or does that mean that he would prefer fanatic Wahhabi Muslims to good American Atheists?)

Spokesmen for the religious right are invited on news programs so that they can blame anything bad that has happened on those of us who do not take the bible literally. Humanists are singled out as the cause of "moral decay’ in our country. It is suggested that all of us should live by selected biblical rules. (That they select!)

Biblical creationism (under one guise or another) is repeatedly proposed as an alternative for scientific evolution in the science classes of our schools.

Currently, our president, in an effort to further push his "faith based initiative", which would offer millions of dollars to church groups supposedly to help the poor, is convening a series of conferences to train religious groups on how to apply for grants from federal agencies. At the same time the administration has been re-writing agency rules on grants to make it easier for [only] church-connected groups to receive financial support. And all without any government supervision as to how the money is spent or to see if the results are of any value.

Christianity, of course, is just one of the monotheistic religions. The concept of monotheism has had tremendous influence on civilization and history. Although the Egyptians toyed with the concept for a short while, it first came to notable success with Judaism and with the introduction of what the Christians call the Old Testament. And then it flowered with Christianity and the New Testament. Which was followed by Islam and the Koran. These monotheisms are patriarchal Sky-God religions. Women are relegated to second place. The Sky-God is a jealous god, he requires total obedience. Those who reject him must be converted or somehow nullified.

Thus these religions provide their believers with incentive to take social and political action. Political control is often the result. The Roman government eventually came under Christian influence and control. Islam in particular expanded as a result of power politics and military conquest. Islam was not only the state religion; it was generally also the state. People were taxed based on their religion. Non-Muslims had to pay exorbitant rates, while devout Muslims were exempt.

Here in the US, the Christian religious right seems to be making headway in their current goal of taking over the Republican party. President "W" only seems to nominate, for any kind of judgeship, those who want to stop abortions, promote the Christian religion in schools and drop any real separation between church and state.

Governments should like the Christian religion; after all, they can cite Paul and Peter saying that all governments are instituted by God. The concept of a single God, a perfect God, naturally leads to the idea of the perfect word of God, which leads to the belief in biblical inerrancy. Note that the Roman philosopher, Seneca, said that "Religion is what the common people see as true, the wise see as false, and the rulers see as useful."

I am not here to denigrate Christianity or the Bible. The Bible is a great collection of old myths. And no one can deny the power of myth, as Joseph Campbell and Bill Moyers wrote. But to make sense of the Bible, it helps to learn more about its sources and history. And that could help to counter the fanatical groups of religious extremists that insist that the bible is to be taken literally, and to blunt the bible driven hatred that sometimes comes from them.

One thing that irritates me is when someone quotes a passage in the Bible as though that is the last and final word on whatever the subject is. A while back, I noticed an article in Newsweek about hatemongers. One, a Fred Phelps, who incites action against gays, was shown carrying a sign "God Hates Fags" which indicated Romans 9:13 as the source. But he must have been so blinded by hate that he didn’t even get the verse right. That line is on a completely different subject.

For the critical thinker there are all kinds of proof that many of the stories in the Bible (in both the old and new testaments) are not literally true, or do not represent what they pretend to represent. Many of the biblical stories are actually gross plagiarisms of stories from earlier civilizations about other people who had other religions.

The book Secret Origins of the Bible details many of the sources of stories found in the Bible. Both the creation myth and the story of Noah and the flood in Genesis can be traced to earlier Mesopotamian stories. Of course, even Genesis 1 and Genesis 2 disagree with each other on details of creation. But they can be traced to separate earlier sources. An interesting read regarding the flood story is the book Noah’s Flood by Ryan and Pittman.

Tim Callahan, the author of Secret Origins indicates that while we do not have the original autographs of either the books of the Bible or the documents from which they were drawn, we do have the originals of the earlier Sumerian and Babylonian works inscribed on baked clay tablets which tell the stories on which the bible stories were apparently based. And, interestingly, since those tablets cover a period of thousands of years, it is easy to find evidence of the re-working of the religious material to suit political goals. And, of course, those stories were about other civilizations that had other religions with other gods.

The story of Moses cast adrift on the river in a basket caulked with tar was originally told about someone known as Sargon I of Akkad some 2600 years before the Common Era.

The story of the tower of Babel can also be traced to earlier sources. Most of the New Testament is about Jesus, his life, his death and presumed resurrection, and his teachings. But very little is known about the true Jesus.

There are no eyewitness accounts of Jesus. Only minor allusions to him can be found in contemporary accounts of his time. And from those there is no indication that he was very different from other rabble rousers with which the authorities had to contend.

With Luke claiming that he turned five loaves of bread and two fish into enough food for 5000 men who had not eaten for two or three days, or Matthew claiming that seven loaves and a few fish served 4000 men, how could there not have been some contemporary notice taken of that?

It wasn’t until decades after his death that anyone really started writing stories about Jesus, presumably by talking to original eyewitnesses if any were available, or just by gathering, and possibly embellishing oral legends that had circulated in the area. It was common in those days for people to borrow stories about some hero from another culture and tell the same story about someone they wanted to honor.

In John 2, the story of Jesus turning water into wine seems like a replay of the old Greek story of Dionysus, who also was supposed to be the son of a god (Zeus) and a mortal woman, and who also was supposed to have been resurrected after dying, and of course had supposedly turned water into wine. This miracle of Jesus is not mentioned in the earlier gospels (Matthew, Mark & Luke) and so is doubly suspect.

Death and resurrection myths were common in the ancient world. In the gospel of John, the death and resurrection of Lazarus reads like a straight copy of The death and resurrection of Osiris in the Egyptian Book of the Dead.

In any case it is clear that Jesus, as an historical entity, is a very shadowy figure whose supposed deeds were recorded by men who never knew him and who accepted mythological stories about him as true and probably embellished the accounts to such an extent that much of what has been incorporated in the New Testament is very suspect.

What was the real Jesus behind the Christian facade of the Christ? The book The Five Gospels explores the question as to which of the quotations in the bible, supposedly made by Jesus, might actually have been made by him. Called "the Jesus Seminar", a group of biblical scholars and ancient language experts analyzed each quotation. The general conclusion was that over 80% of the words from Jesus’ mouth were put there later by others.

The Jesus Seminar was organized under the auspices of the Westar Institute to renew the quest for the historical Jesus. At its inception in 1985 thirty scholars took up the challenge. Eventually more than two hundred professionally trained specialists joined the group. Together and singly they went over all the old texts for words attributed to Jesus. Then they further studied, debated, and finally after some six years or so voted on each of the more than 1500 sayings, as to the probability that Jesus said them.

The mere questioning of the claimed inerrancy of the Bible in such a way was to have dire consequences for some of the scholars at the hand of conservative Christians. At least one Fellow of the Jesus Seminar lost his academic post directly as the result of daring to attend such a group discussion. Others have been forced to withdraw from their posts under pressure. lnquisitors among Southern Baptists and Lutheran groups have gone witchhunting for scholars who did not strictly adhere to the accepted conservative beliefs.

Actually, voting was the way that the translation committees that created the King James and Revised Standard Version bibles decided what to include. But that was voting to include or exclude - black or white. And when it was done it was claimed that the result was not to be questioned, and was blessed by God. With the Jesus Seminar we get to see an indication of probability and have the acknowledgement that there is no proof that all such decisions are 100% correct.

The dropping of colored beads into a box as a way of determining the vote has been ridiculed by elitist groups wishing to denigrate the effort, but it does provide better understanding about the situation than simply a yes or no vote. The book follows the color coding of the beads. Quotations printed in red indicate he must have said it, pink means he probably said it, gray for he wouldn’t have said it but he may have said something similar, and bold black to indicate that those words were clearly written by someone else at a later date.

The gospels supposedly represent most of what is known about the life and works of Jesus, since there is little else other than the few and very scanty references from his day by Josephus, Tacitus and Suetonius. And even some of the writing attributed to Josephus is probably an interpolation by a later Christian copyist with an attitude.

Of the four gospels in the New Testament, Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the first three, although varying in detail, cover most of the same subjects, while John brings in different subjects and seems to be covering a different ball game.

The gospel of Mark, thought to be the oldest surviving written gospel, never mentions its author, nor the place, time or circumstance of its writing, It is thought to have been composed around the year 70 CE and probably in Syria, although possibly in Rome.

The book The Five Gospels gets its title from the fact that they included the gospel of Thomas. Judas Didymos Thomas was a missionary who journeyed to Parthia and India and who is sometimes identified as Jesus’ twin brother. (How can Jesus have a twin?)

Fragments of other documents have also been identified as gospels. The book The Complete Gospels (Robert J.Miller, editor) lists the sayings gospel 0, the Egerton Gospel, Gospel Oxyrhynchus, the Gospel of Mary, the Gospel of the Hebrews, the Gospel of the Ebionites, the Gospel of the Nazoreans, and other writings that could be considered gospels. (In this usage, "gospel" which basically means good news, refers to either stories of Jesus or collections of his sayings.)

Some of these fragmentary writings had not come to light when the bible as we know it was compiled. 0 stands for Quelle, meaning source, and is a collection of Jesus’ sayings which were simply inferred as a separate source since they were included in some copies of Matthew and Luke and not in earlier ones.

The Egerton gospel is named after the Englishman who funded the purchase of the papyrus fragments on which it is preserved. Oxyrhynchus is the same place in upper Egypt where part of the gospel of Thomas was found. Greek fragments of Thomas were discovered earlier. Some of these sources contain stories of miracles supposedly performed by Jesus that are not to be found in other stories of his life. It is as if everyone writing about Jesus was trying to outdo the others in attributing miracles to him.

Although the gospel of Matthew comes first in the bible, it is believed that Mark was written first and that Matthew is based on the gospel of Mark and the sayings Gospel Q. It contains virtually all of Mark, making Mark rather superfluous. At one time the author of Matthew was believed to have been the apostle Matthew, and thus would have had direct contact with Jesus. Scholars now believe that the author is someone unknown who simply re-wrote Mark and added other sources.

There is no real evidence as to who wrote any of the gospels. There is just a collection of fragmentary writings found in different places, but than can be separately identified somewhat because of different writing styles and language usage.

There is no evidence that Jesus intended to organize a movement by recruiting followers or that he had any interest in founding a religion. And, of course, if we believe Matthew 16:28 and 23:32 and the corresponding parts of Mark, which indicate that Jesus prophesied that the second coming would be seen by some of those he was speaking to at the time, there would have been no point in creating a formal religion since the end Was near! He was teaching a way of life good only for the brief period before the cataclysmic end. It should be noted, however, that this particular story was believed by the Jesus Seminar to have been entirely made up at a later date. And actually the gospel of Luke also contradicts Matthew and Mark on that point.

In any case, It appears that if it wasn’t for Paul, who did not know Jesus, and whose writings appeared decades after Jesus was gone, there probably would be no Christian Church today. Paul certainly was the driving force in creating the early church. And without the Christian Church there might not be any Islam, since Mohammed adopted the paternalistic Sky-God concept that the Christians had adopted from the Jews, accepted Jesus as an earlier prophet, and felt that he was carrying on where Jesus had left off.

Think about that. If it wasn’t for Paul would we still be worshiping Zeus? Would the peace loving Zoroastrians be fighting Zeus’ followers for the control of everyone's beliefs?

Over the years I have been noting certain passages in the bible that seem particularly offensive in what should be a civilized society. Some quotes of Jesus seem completely at odds with the Jesus we were told about in Sunday School. In Luke (12:47) Jesus approves of severe flogging of servants, quotes him as saying (in 19:27) "But as for those enemies of mine, who do not want me for their king, bring them here and slaughter them in my presence". And (in 14:26) saying "If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, even his own life, he cannot be a disciple of mine". Luke (23:29) also indicates him approving of women remaining barren. Matthew (10:34) quotes Jesus as saying "You must not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth, I have not come to bring peace, but a sword. I have come to set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a son’s wife against her mother-in-law; and a man will find his enemies under his own roof. No man is worthy of me who cares more for father or mother than for me".

The scholars of the Jesus Seminar believe that most of those sayings are not from Jesus.

In the long run, therefore, if we believe that the Jesus Seminar group was reasonably correct, then the real Jesus was more humane than the Jeckyll and Hyde type of character that emerges from many of his quotes in the Bible.

To accept that, however, would make it obvious that it also must be accepted that the Bible is full of errors, and make it clear that a lot of Christian fundamentalists are way off base in claiming the inerrancy of the Bible and quoting passages in the Bible as though that was the sure and final word on whatever the subject was.

ARE BIBLE MIRACLES CREDIBLE?

By Dave Silva

In his talk at the December meeting Jerry Parks gave some good reasons why the Bible shouldn't be taken seriously. I will add some material on the subject of miracles.

A miracle is defined as; "An event in the physical world that surpasses all known human or natural powers and is ascribed to a divine or supernatural cause." Using some quotes from Jerome Elbert's book "Are Souls Real", I will try to add to some of the arguments against the belief in biblical miracles that Jerry made..

In his book "Gospel Fictions" Randle Helms, an English professor at Arizona State, points out that more than 30 miracle stories in the Gospels are similar to events in the Old Testament. "For example, Helms showed how Luke’s story of the widow’s son matches Elijah’s resurrection of the widow’s son in 1 Kings 17. Helms points to many parallels between the two stories, such as that both Elijah and Jesus met the widows at "the gate of the city." This particular detail is very peculiar. Archaeological studies of Nain in Galilee, where the New Testament story is placed, showed that the town never had a wall, so there was no gate. Instead, Nain’s fictional gate is in the story because it was part of the Old Testament story".

In the miracle where Jesus walked on water and Peter walked toward Jesus but began to sink because his faith wavered there is this earlier story: "In faithful trust in Buddha he stepped into the water and went as if on dry land to the very middle of the stream. Then he came out of his contented meditation on Buddha in which he had lost himself, and saw the waves and was frightened, and his feet began to sink. But he forced himself to become wrapt in his meditation again and by its power he reached the far bank safely and reached his master."

The most important miracle in the Bible is "the resurrection". Instead of Jesus' death being a disaster for his followers and the end of the movement the resurrection story gives God's stamp of approval to Jesus and purpose to the event. Robert Funk, founder of the "Jesus Seminar" concludes: "The story of Jesus’ arrest, trials, and execution is largely fictional. It was based on a few historical reminiscences augmented by scenes and details suggested by prophetic texts and the Psalms.²⁷

This seems to be how the Bible was written in the absence of eyewitness confirmation. So, since Jesus was the Messiah he must have fulfilled the Old Testament prophecies and Luke and Matthew filled in the blanks to improve Mark's sketchy version. As to the empty tomb story Funk says, "The Fellows of the Jesus Seminar concede that Jesus may possibly have been buried in a common grave, but they doubt that his grave site was ever known. . . . The story of the women discovering an empty tomb on Easter morning, which suggests that a burial site was known, was undoubtedly a literary creation of Mark."

Moreover, we get four different versions of who was at the tomb.

Since there is no historical record of the empty tomb tale it may be Mark's creation. To get a more objective view let's substitute the name Jesus, which has so many ingrained images, for Irving.

If you read four different accounts of Irving's resurrection would you be more likely, or less likely to believe the story than if all four accounts were exactly the same? Logic would tell you that at least three of the accounts had to be wrong. When you consider that all these versions were written long after the event by people who weren't there and aren't basing their accounts on eyewitness testimony you might conclude that: (1) Irving never really died but was unconscious. (2) The tomb was empty because someone removed Irving's body. (3) Maybe there was no tomb, or (4) Irving was dead and his followers were fabricating the story to keep his memory alive.

Despite the advent of modern medical technology that makes near-death experiences more common, nobody has actually died and been resurrected. Another problem with miracles is how do they work? They seem to be outside the realm of cause and effect we know pertains to reality. No one has ever adequately explained what happens when a god snaps his, or her, fingers and a miracle occurs. Even religious people understand that if a magician makes an elephant disappear it isn't really magic it's a trick. Even if we don't know how the trick works we know it isn't a miracle. What is truly amazing is that otherwise intelligent people in science oriented countries still believe in miracles.

PHILOSOPHER’S CORNER

By Juan Bernal, a worker in the field

At our December (2002) meeting two questions came up which I shall touch on. First, questions were raised concerning my statement that the three synoptic gospels (Mark, Matthew, and Luke) are in general agreement on description of events from the Jesus’ baptism by John until the trial and crucifixion. Rather than going into a lengthy study of each of these gospels, I shall simply repeat what most reputable New Testament scholars claim. The similarity are so striking that a reasonable inference is that Mark’s gospel precedes the other two and is the source for large parts of Matthew’s and Luke’s gospels. The "Jesus Seminar" scholars list the following points to support this inference:

1. Agreement between Matthew and Luke begins where Mark begins and ends where Mark ends.

2. Matthew reproduces about 90% of Mark, Luke about 50%. They often reproduce Mark in the same order. When they disagree, either Matthew or Luke supports the sequence in Mark.

3. In segments that the three have in common, verbal agreement averages about 50%.

4. Matthew and Mark often agree against Luke; and Luke and Mark often agree against Matthew. But Matthew and Luke only rarely agree against Mark.

This does not mean that Mark is the only source for Matthew and Luke. There are other sources (e.g. the hypothetical sayings of Jesus labeled "Q"); nor does this mean that the agreement between the three synoptics is exact. Nor should anyone understand any of this to imply the claim that the three synoptics were reporting factual events. This would be a hasty jump to conclusion, one that remains very questionable.

The second question raised concerned the absence of any "fundamentalist scholars" among the Jesus Seminar participants. The criticism here is that the Jesus Seminar project did not represent all Christian viewpoints. Somehow this purports to cast doubt on the legitimacy of its work.

If this criticism is at all relevant, it would be that the Jesus Seminar omitted people who could have effectively contributed to the work of trying to identify Gospel statements attributed to "Jesus" as words actually spoken by the historical Jesus.

Would a "fundamentalist scholar" be someone who could effectively contribute to this project? Given my understanding of Christian fundamentalism (that the New Testament, including the four gospels, is divinely inspired and represents a generally inerrant account of the earthly work of the divine savior), its difficult to imagine how a "scholar" with such doctrinal commitment could effectively contribute to the work of the seminar. After all, the Jesus Seminar scholars were engaged in a form of rational, historical inquiry. How can anyone engage in such inquiry if he assumes that certain things in the gospels are not subject to question or doubt? Would a Christian fundamentalist ever entertain doubt that the "Jesus" of the Gospels is really the divine redeemer? This is not likely.

AHA BOOKTALK

by Monica Price

As some of you know we tried to host an online book discussion group, which was a failed venture, we have found a wonderful replacement however!

www.booktalk.org. The founder of the website, Chris O'Connor was gracious enough to make AHA member and friends their own forum board, in case you don't want to jump immediately into the already lively group. To get to the AHA board click on "Forums" and scroll down to "Organization Forums" (remember someone needs to be brave and start the discussion!)

BookTalk is a relatively new and exciting concept in online educational resources. Our community is less than a year old, but growing quickly and gaining much visibility in the freethinker world. The primary attraction of

BookTalk is our interactive nature. Members decide just about every aspect of our community's development.

BookTalk is an online book discussion community for freethinkers. Membership is open and free for people anywhere in the world. Together, as a community, we select, read and discuss one quality nonfiction text every two-months.

Members interact with each other on our message boards and in weekly chats in our private chat room. Whenever possible we have the author of our current book selection as our guest in the chat room.

The most rewarding aspect of our community would be the relationships we all develop with one another. As freethinkers, we are in a minority. What freethinker hasn't felt alone or isolated from like-minded people at one point or another? BookTalk can be the answer to this frustrating phenomenon.

Expect to become friends with your fellow members. It is an inevitable byproduct of regular interaction in the forums and chat room. These friendships may extend far beyond the scope of the online world.

To learn more about BookTalk visit www.booktalk.org and check out the various areas of the site linked to at the top of each page. If you have questions you can send them to chris@booktalk.org.

 Words to the Wise

Contributed by Harry Becker

A different world cannot be built by indifferent people.

A happy memory is a joy forever.

A candle loses nothing of it's light by lighting another candle.

The person who makes no mistakes usually doesn't make anything.

Destiny isn't a matter of chance, it's a matter of choice.

Failure is the opportunity to begin again more intelligently.

Bravery is not a lack of fear, it's proceeding in spite of it.

Luck is what happens when preparation and opportunity meet.

The trouble with being a good sport is that you have to lose to prove it.

The best things in life are messy!

Almost anything is easier to get into than to get out of.

The hours that make us happy also make us wise.

A true friend is someone who is there for you when he would rather be somewhere else.

On a clear disk you can seek forever.

Friends multiply joy and divive sorrow.

Try not to be a person of success, but a person of value.

Time is nature's way of preventing everything from happening at once.

To dream of the person you would like to be is to waste the person that you are.

A person that aims at nothing has a target he can't miss.

Words should be weighed not counted.

Make one person happy each day, even if it's yourself.