Why Atheists are Angry/Frustrated

Recently, someone asked me why I am so angry with so many Christians and with Christianity as a system of belief. They wanted to know what negative experiences I have had personally which have caused my anger. The fact is that no such personal ultra-negative experiences have occurred; yet I am still angry with a large number of Christians and even more angry with Christianity as a whole system of belief. Why?

I have reasoned that this world is all we have and that this life is the only life we have… that we know of. I have no reason to think otherwise. I also think human beings are great creatures and that people more often than not try to be moral, good, and just. I believe in human progress and scientific exploration. I want humankind to return to space and explore the Universe like in Star Trek. I want scientific research to find cures for diseases and to embrace new technologies, which will make life easier and better. I believe that all people should be treated equal regardless of race, gender, or sexual orientation. And most importantly, I believe in the future.

Quite frankly, I think Christianity is the biggest threat to all that. I think that it is a threat to Human dignity, Human freedom, Human exploration, Human education, Human scientific advances, Human tolerance, Human progress, and even Human survival. Why wouldn’t I be angry?

Actually, I’m not sure if anger is even the right word for my emotion, but it is the word that atheists get labeled with by Christians so that is the word I have used here. Personally, I think it is more like frustration than anger. Frustration with watching large numbers of people actively working against those things that I value and against the future of humanity because of some ancient book which scientists, historians, and almost anyone who can think critically can easily disprove. It’s just embarrassing.

To think that society is stuck and on egg shells because some people have a hard time giving up their belief in a 2000 year old myth. Admittedly, no Christian today believes the same things that Christians believed 2000 years ago. But this is because in the modern world those beliefs would be extra ridiculous. But almost every ideological change Christianity has made which makes it more conducive to actual human progress has been made kicking and screaming at those who embraced science and reason. Modernity has made Christianity more reasonable, but Christianity as a system of belief is still kicking and screaming.

Now in the age of nuclear weapons and global climate change, the kicking and screaming of those who wish to hold to ancient myths has become much more dangerous to us all. I’m frustrated and I think you should be too.

If you liked this blog, consider checking out the Daily Blog on DangerousTalk.net

Advertisements

15 responses to “Why Atheists are Angry/Frustrated

  1. You think Jesus is a myth? How about the Holocaust?

  2. I guess that depends, do you really think Hitler was the greatest person who ever lived or not? This is typical character assassination tactics. You can’t prove your point so you resort to claiming that the other person must hold a ridiculous view. I like how you lumped Jesus in with the Holocaust as if there both equally supported by the evidence. If you are so certain that Jesus was real, then you will have no problem telling us just one contemporary source aside from the Bible.
    -Staks

  3. “Myth” or “legend” is probably the best way to describe the Jesus character. Somewhat based in fact, but grossly exaggerated for effect.

  4. I understand that you want extra Biblical account of Jesus. What I don’t understand is why. Something that critics seem to forget is that the Gospel accounts of Jesus’ life as well as Acts of the Apostles and the other letters that are included in the New Testament weren’t written FOR inclusion into the Bible. What are now part of the Bible were once independent documents circulating throughout the Christian and non Christian community. The writers of these letters weren’t journalists working for something like, “Bible Magazine.” The documents that were compiled into what we know today as the New Testament were separate ancient documents, written by people who were interested in the life of Jesus. Some had been followers of or students of Jesus. Others, like Dr. Luke were historians. These people had no idea that what they’d written would one day become part of the biggest and most important movement in history. They were more like you or me as we are writing today. We have no idea if this stuff will be junked or used for something worthwhile.

    Anyhow, because you were honest enough to disclose your bias right at the start, you should know that absolutely none of what I’ve written here has anything to do with the Bible being inspired or infallible or any other trappings of religion. These are historical facts attested to by the vast majority of secular, atheist and Christian historical scholars. While there will always be those on the lunatic fringe who attempt to deny historical facts (the example I used was the holocaust), to deny that there is extra Biblical factually accurate information regarding the life, death and resurrection of Jesus requires that you be either profoundly ignorant or a determined liar and most importantly, you must lie to yourself about what is factually and historically true. There is absolutely no sustainable reason for the following historical events to have occurred unless the essential facts of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection are true. In other words, these historical facts require an explanation.

    If Jesus didn’t die on the cross:
    Why would Josephus, Matthew, Tacitus, Mark, Lucian of Samosata, Dr. Luke, Mara Bar-Serapion, John, The Babylonion Talmud and John Dominic Crossan of the “Jesus Seminar” all attest that Jesus’ crucifixion is historical fact? And why would that be when all but Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are non Christians? If Jesus didn’t die on the cross, why would these historians and scholars write that He did? Why would they simply invent these stories? There was/is absolutely nothing of earthly value to be gained by concocting this as a lie.

    If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
    . Why do we have multiple, independent, extra Biblical sources attesting to the risen Jesus? (Besides the one’s just listed, I’ll give you some more below).

    . Why do we have virtually unanimous modern historical scholarship agreeing that the disciples truly believed they saw Jesus alive after His death on the cross.

    . Why would atheist historian and New Testament critic Gerd Ludemann say, “It may be taken as historically certain that Peter and the disciples had experiences after Jesus’ death in which Jesus appeared to them as the risen Christ.”

    . Why would atheist historian Paula Fredriksen say, “I don’t know what they saw, but as a historian I know they believed they saw Jesus.”

    . Why would highly critical New Testament scholar Rudolf Bultmann agree that historical criticism can establish “the fact that the first disciples came to believe in the resurrection and that they thought they had seen the risen Jesus.”

    Without the resurrection being historical fact, this doesn’t make sense. Why would the enemies of Christianity affirm the historical facts regarding the life, death and resurrection of Jesus if the evidence isn’t accurate and compelling?

    If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
    . Why would all the disciples, plus hundreds and hundreds of others believe that they saw Him alive?

    . Why would they say that they spoke with Him?

    . Why would they say that they ate with Him at various times and various places?

    . If none of that is true, why would they be willing to die for making up the lie of seeing Jesus alive? There was absolutely nothing of earthly value to be gained, and everything to lose by concocting the supposed lies about Jesus life, death and resurrection.

    Remember these people didn’t believe someone else’s lie. Over the centuries many people have died for believing someone else’s lies. But if THESE people died for a lie, it was THEIR lie! They died for saying they saw Jesus alive again after His death. Liars simply do not make martyrs of themselves. Without the resurrection being historical fact, their willingness to die for the “truth” doesn’t make any sense.

    If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
    Why do we have Paul’s testimony about His encounter with Jesus and why do we have his radical transformation in character from a persecutor of the Church and a killer of Christians to the greatest missionary that the Christian Church has ever seen?

    Remember, Paul:
    . Was a rabid sceptic when Jesus appeared to him.
    . Was an enemy of the Church when Jesus appeared to him.

    This is not like most conversions whereby the person reads or hears something that persuades h/her to change. Paul’s evidence for the risen Jesus was first hand and so convincing that he endured years of hardship, persecution and rejection for proclaiming the risen Lord, before finally being beheaded by Nero in 64AD.

    Without the resurrection being historical fact, this change in Paul’s character doesn’t make any sense. He had absolutely nothing of earthly value to gain, and everything to lose by concocting a story of meeting Jesus while on His way to persecute the Church.

    If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
    . Why in the world would Jesus’ brothers James and Jude go to their deaths proclaiming that Jesus had indeed risen from the dead?

    . Why would they claim that they had seen Him?

    . Why would they confess that Jesus is the Lord God, Messiah?

    James’ and Jude’s conversions were a drastic change from thinking their Brother was insane and an embarrassment to the family.
    Without the resurrection being historical fact, this change in the beliefs of Jesus’ siblings doesn’t make any sense. They had absolutely nothing of earthly value to gain and everything to lose if what they said about Jesus appearing to them after His death was not true.

    Remember, Both Paul and James were sceptics at the time that Jesus appeared to them. Why would they become His followers if His resurrection wasn’t historical fact?

    If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
    Why was His tomb empty?
    . Jesus’ enemies were the ones to confirm that the body was missing by proposing that the disciples stole it.

    . The disciples didn’t have the power nor the inclination to steal His body. They were hiding behind locked doors.

    . Jesus’ enemies had no reason to steal the body and every reason to keep it right where it was. They posted an armed guard, and sealed the tomb with the Governor’s seal to make sure that nothing happened to the body.

    . The first proclamations of the empty tomb were made right there in Jerusalem where Jesus was murdered and buried. The tomb could have been easily checked out.

    If the resurrection isn’t historical fact, how is it that the tomb was empty with no sound explanation other than the resurrection?

    If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
    Why do the ancient documents written by Jesus’ followers make the “mistake” of saying that women (who at the time were seen as lower than animals and not capable of telling the truth) were the ones who discovered the empty tomb and encountered the risen Lord. If it wasn’t true, if the disciples were trying to convince others of a lie, if the resurrection wasn’t historical fact, why would the writers invent the testimony of women to say that it was true?

    If the resurrection isn’t historical fact, it doesn’t make any sense that His followers would do that.

    If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
    Why did Josephus, Hegesippus and Clement of Alexandria all non Christians and all historians write about Jesus’ and His brother James. Why did they write about James’ leadership in the Jerusalem Church and his martyrdom for proclaiming Jesus as risen Lord and Saviour?
    Without the resurrection being historical fact, this doesn’t make any sense. They would only write these things if the evidence convinced them that it was accurate.

    If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
    Why do we have an early oral tradition that dates from the first or second year after Jesus’ death attesting to the fact of Him rising from the dead.
    Without the resurrection being historical fact, this doesn’t make any sense. There is no hint of legend or exaggeration in this oral tradition. And these people had their lives to lose by repeating it. Why would they do that if it wasn’t true?

    If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
    Why do we have the written works of the early Church with hymns, poetry and creeds, stemming from the early oral history telling about Jesus rise from the dead?
    Without the resurrection being historical fact, we simply wouldn’t have this.

    If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
    Why do we have the Christian Church? Paul told early Christians, “If Jesus did not rise from the dead, your faith is worthless.”
    Without the resurrection being historical fact there wouldn’t be any Christianity. Yet here it is today, over 2 billion strong.

    If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
    How did Paul know what He knew about Jesus prior to any contact with the apostles and why would they accept Paul as one of their own based on what he was teaching about Jesus?
    Without the resurrection being historical fact, and without Jesus appearing to Paul and teaching Paul about Himself, this doesn’t make any sense.

    If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
    Why do we have the four ancient biographies of Jesus, one of them by historian and physician Luke who got his information from eyewitnesses all affirming the resurrection of Jesus? Why would they tell Luke that these things happened if they weren’t true? They paid for that “lie” with their lives.
    Without the resurrection being historical fact, this doesn’t make any sense.

    If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
    Why do we have Clement of Rome, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Polycarp and others, all saying that they had been taught by the apostles that Jesus had risen from the dead. And THEN, all of these men were themselves martyred based on the believability of what the disciples had told them. These were not ignorant, gullible men. Yet the evidence made sense to them.
    Without the resurrection being historical fact, how could that happen?

    If Jesus didn’t rise from the dead:
    What would account for the disciple’s radical transformation from fearful and cowardly men who denied Jesus and who ran away from Him during His trial, to bold individuals who were so confident of the truth of what they saw and heard regarding His resurrection, that they were willing to undergo years of persecution as well as torture and death rather than change their story. Without the resurrection, this change in character doesn’t make any sense.

    If the accounts of what the disciples taught weren’t true:
    . Why was it that Polycarp wrote of the endurance under torture of Paul, Ignatius, Zosimus, and Rufus for their belief in the risen Christ?
    . Why was it that Ignatius also wrote of the suffering and death of the apostles?
    . Why was it that Polycarp and Ignatius both allowed themselves to be martyred?
    . Why would they be willing to die in such a manner if the accounts of Jesus’ life, death and resurrection weren’t accurate?
    Without the resurrection being historical fact, this doesn’t make any sense.

    If the accounts of what the disciples taught weren’t true:
    Why would we have confirming accounts of the disciples teaching and deaths in Roman public records called “Lives of the Caesars.”
    Without the resurrection being historical fact, this doesn’t make any sense.

    If the accounts of what the disciples taught weren’t true:
    Why would Origen write, “Jesus, who has both risen AND led His disciples to believe in His resurrection and so thoroughly persuaded them of its truth that they showed to all men by their suffering how they were able to laugh at life’s troubles beholding to life eternal and a resurrection clearly demonstrated to them in word and deed by this one Jesus.”
    Without the resurrection being historical fact, it doesn’t make any sense that Origen would write that.

    If the accounts of what the disciples taught weren’t true:
    Why do we have Eusebius, Dionysius of Corinth, Tertullian, Hegesibous, Josephus, Clement of Alexandria, all of these sources, Christian and non Christian alike affirming the disciples willingness to die for what they believed to be true.
    Without the resurrection being historical fact, it doesn’t make any sense that these many and varied individuals would make this stuff up.

    If the accounts of what the disciples taught weren’t true:
    . Why is it that Luke writes that Jesus spent about 40 days with the disciples after He rose from the dead, and
    . Why can it be further calculated that about 50-55 days after His death, Jesus’ followers started proclaiming His resurrection, and
    . Why did Tacitus, an enemy of Christianity, write “Jesus’ execution by Pontius Pilot checked (the 50 – 55 days) for the moment, the Christian movement but it then broke out with force not only in Judea but even in Rome.”
    . Why would these accounts, one from a follower of Jesus and one from a secular historian and enemy of Christianity be so similar unless they’re true?
    Without the resurrection being historical fact, this doesn’t make any sense.

    Absolutely none of what I’ve just written has anything to do with the Bible being inspired or infallible or any other trappings of religion. These are historical facts attested to by the vast majority of secular, atheist and Christian historical scholars. While there will always be those on the lunatic fringe who attempt to deny historical facts (eg. holocaust) to deny that there is extra Biblical factually accurate information regarding the life, death and resurrection of Jesus requires that you be either profoundly ignorant or a determined liar and most importantly, you must lie to yourself about what is factually and historically true. There is absolutely no sustainable reason for the above historical events to have occurred unless the essential facts of Jesus death and resurrection are true.

    If Jesus did in fact supernaturally rise from the dead, then what He taught about being the Son of God and about the existence of Creator God must also be true. The evidence for the resurrection of Jesus demands a verdict.

    With the evidence so overwhelmingly pointing to the fact of His resurrection, one can do three things:
    . Submit to Jesus as Lord and Saviour – Or
    . Lie to yourself that none of this proves anything – Or. Say to yourself, “I don’t care if God is real, I’m going to live my life, my way.”

  5. “Why would Josephus, Matthew, Tacitus, Mark, Lucian of Samosata, Dr. Luke, Mara Bar-Serapion, John, The Babylonion Talmud and John Dominic Crossan of the “Jesus Seminar” all attest that Jesus’ crucifixion is historical fact?”

    If it was historical fact, why did none of these people write about it when it happened and not years and decades later?

  6. They probably did. Of course Crossan is someone who is living now so that’s a no brainer. But the “copies” that we have are from two or three decades later. As far as ancient documents go that is like the next day. Most copies from comparable documents are from 1,000 to 1,500 years after the originals were written, yet scholars have little problem deciding on their historical accuracy. As you’ve guessed, I have a hard time not writing a book instead of a comment, but let me just point out that we have a liturgy of sorts from 1st Corinthians 15:3-8 that secular and Christian historical scholars say came from oral, umm, I’m blocking in the right word, “tradition” is the closest word I can think of, that oringinated in the early Church within a year or two of Jesus’ death.

  7. You should probably read Bart Erhman’s “Misquoting Jesus” and Karen Armstrong’s “The Bible: A Biography.” I think you have a LOT of misinformation.
    -Staks

  8. “If it was historical fact, why did none of these people write about it when it happened and not years and decades later?”

    One of your weaker counter-arguments, morsecode, unfortunately! That’s like asking why the first lady didn’t write her memoires until after she was out of the white house. Surely you can do better than that!

  9. Not really, when you think about it. According to the story, a guy was running around do magic tricks and bringing people back from the dead and no one wrote about it in letters to friends or family? The guy allegedly died and came back to life and no one asked for an autograph? No historians at the time thought it note worthy? No skeptics wrote about how they thought the trick was done? Out of the hundreds of people the Bible claims saw this, not one wrote about it? Really? People are writing about the First Lady now and she has only been the First Lady for a month. But no one wrote about the dude who was God incarnate? That’s odd.
    -Staks

  10. Doulos,

    What Staks said.

    And your analogy is a bit off. It would be closer if you said that it was like asking why someone claiming to be the first lady but with no real evidence to back it up wrote her memoirs decades after the events were supposed to have taken place, and several large and small details contradict other accounts, which are also dubious.

  11. No, the only real response to comments such as why people would die for things they didn’t believe were real is to ask why anyone dies for Islam, Sihkism, Hindism, Jusaism, Buddhism, etc.

    People die for all sorts of ridiculous things.

  12. “You should probably read Bart Erhman’s “Misquoting Jesus” and Karen Armstrong’s “The Bible: A Biography.” I think you have a LOT of misinformation.”

    One of the challenges that we both face is honestly confronting evidence that doesn’t support our hypothesis or what we’ve chosen to believe. One of the questions that we both have to ask ourselves is, “Why do I believe this person and not that person. For example, when Bart Erhman says, “In some cases, the very meaning of the text is at stake,” should I believe him or should I believe the majority of both secular and Christian scholars who say that no essential doctrine of the Christian faith has been altered or damaged in any way by scribal errors. When Erhman says that the New Testament has 100’s of thousands of variants that seriously alter what the Bible says, is he correct or is his agenda causing him to, um, stretch the truth, somewhat like a lawyer might do when s/he’s trying to win a case? For one reason or another, you’ve chosen to believe Erhman and I’ve chosen to go with the majority of historical scholars. At the risk of turning this into a too long post, may I just point out the following.

    One of the problems with people like Bart Erhman is that they have imbibed a hyper fundamentalism that insists that we must believe – this is an exaggeration but not by much – we must believe that if we can find one “error” or one wrong stroke by a scribe then we can’t trust anything that the Bible has to say to us about Jesus the Christ. Erhman once held to that belief and when he found what he believes to be errors, he had no option but to switch sides. But let me look at just a couple of points that Erhman alleges to be worthy of toppling Christianity.

    What Erhman didn’t seem to know, or somehow neglected to take seriously is the fact that in the Bible there are clearly marked passages that, either in boxes or smaller print and / or in footnotes say,

    “These verses were probably not in the original manuscripts.”

    One is the familiar story of Jesus writing on the ground, forgiving the adulterous woman and making the now famous, “Let him who has no sin cast the first stone,” or something like that. Another is at the end of Mark where it talks about handling snakes and scorpion and there are three or four others. My point is, most of what Erhman highlights as “scandalous discoveries” (my guess is in order to sell books, and sell it did) are things that have been known for 1,000 years.

    The case of the variants is the same. Perhaps the general public hasn’t thought of scribal errors but that is old news to historical scholars. AND it’s no big deal. What is amazing is that there aren’t 100’s of thousands more than what we have. There are tens of thousands of manuscripts, Hebrew manuscripts, Greek manuscripts, Syrian and on and on. There are over 1,000,000 quotations made by Church Fathers from the New Testament. If the early copies of the New Testament were stacked one on top the the next they would reach 1.5 kilometers into the sky. If any one of them has a word that is different from the earliest copy, that’s considered a variant. If a letter is out of place. That’s a variant. If you have a 5,000 manuscripts that have the word “Lord,” in a certain verse and all the rest have the word “Jesus,” that counted as 5,000 variants.

    Has the meaning of the verse been changed? No, but it lets Erhman hype his numbers. The most common variant, and one that accounts for virtually all of the 100’s of thousands that Erhman says he has “discovered” deals with the Greek letter nu – or n. In Greek it’s called the moveable nu. It’s like the difference between English or english, or “an apple” and “a apple.” Yes it’s a mistake but the meaning isn’t changed at all. Another type of error is, “When Jesus knew” or “When the Lord knew.” The meaning doesn’t change but there may have been thousands of copies that said it one way when it should have been the other.

    Again, the reason that we have so many variants is because we have so many copies. No document from antiquity comes even close to having the number of copies as does the New Testament. The important thing to remember, and this is something that neither Erhman nor Armstrong seem to get (which immediately makes me suspicious of their motives because both of them are highly credentialed) is that no doctrine, not one single essential doctrine of the Christian faith is compromised by these “errors.” Again, Erhman comes out of a background where he irrationally believed that the red letters in our Bible are the exact words that Jesus spoke throughout His three years of ministry. Three years!! Think about that. If you read all of the read letter words in the Bible it would take you less than 2 hours. At one point people were taught by Jesus, I think it was three days, and what we have recorded is a 15 minute Sermon on the Mount. Do we have the essential teachings of Jesus? I believe we do. You believe we don’t. That’s life.

    There are numerous other places in Erhman’s book where he either overstates his case or simply manipulates verses to make a case. Bart Erhman knows the Bible far too well to imply in his book that it is saying what he clearly knows it isn’t saying. That to me is the tactic of someone that I simply quit trusting as a reliable source. You can stake your future on what he says if you want, but I think you’re making a mistake. Ms. Armstrong does the very same thing and I believe that both she and Erhman do it mainly to make a living. The main thing to remember about Bart’s book is that he doesn’t show ANYWHERE in his book where ANY doctrine is jeopardized. Read it again and you’ll see this is true. In fact the basic thesis since 1707 has been, “No cardinal or essential doctrine is altered by any textual variant that has a plausibility of going back to the original.”

    What’s even more important is that even among secular and atheist New Testament scholars, Erhman and Armstrong are by far and away in the minority as to their opinions on the historical reliability of the New Testament AND in their ability to spin a story to their financial advantage.
    ============

    “Out of the hundreds of people the Bible claims saw this, not one wrote about it? Really? People are writing about the First Lady now and she has only been the First Lady for a month. But no one wrote about the dude who was God incarnate? That’s odd.”

    Why in the world is that odd? You’re comparing the 21st century urban society where most people communicate through cyber space, to an illiterate agrarian society. I think that it’s more surprising that we have as many documents as we do.
    =============

    “And your analogy is a bit off. It would be closer if you said that it was like asking why someone claiming to be the first lady but with no real evidence to back it up wrote her memoirs decades after the events were supposed to have taken place, and several large and small details contradict other accounts, which are also dubious.”

    No real evidence? Jesus said, “You don’t have to believe that I am Creator God because I tell you, “Before Abraham was, I Am,” (my paraphrase) but you should believe me because of what I do.” Why would he say that? Because what He was doing was clearly outside of the laws of physics. People knew then as they know today that disease does not leave a body because someone tells it to leave. They knew then as they know today that crippled bodies do not heal on command, nor do storms quiet, not do the dead come to life. But those things did happen and that is why those who knew Jesus the best went to their graves after enduring years of hardship and torture simply for telling what they knew to be true about Jesus the Christ.

    Something totally other happened 2,000 years ago in Palestine. We can do a lot of things with Jesus but there’s one thing we can’t do, and that is, We can’t say that Jesus is just sort of important. He said that what we do with Him will have consequences of eternal proportions.

    Again, the COPIES may be from decades after the event but obviously the originals would have been written either during or very close to the event.

  13. I forgot. What contradictions are you alluding to?

  14. No one said Erhman was original, not even Erhman. He listed his sources which were quite extensive. But the fact is that if one is to claim that the Bible is divine in some way, than it ought to be “infallible” and you even admit that by asking about contradictions with the implication that you believe there are none. So any variant (especially big ones like those in Mark) become a very big deal and even a deal breaker. For the record, Armstrong still considers herself a Christian and she in not some fringe historian either. The fact is that Christianity has had a very strong hold over all of society and so now that their hold is starting to weaken real scholarship is being done and things such as Jesus’s historicity aren’t being given a pass as much as they used too. Even the Exodus is starting to be questioned by scholars. The Bible is not a historical book and that has become pretty obvious the more scholars have studied those claims. And even though Jesus claimed to have seen all four corners of the Earth, we have now rejected the belief that the Earth is or ever was flat. The Sun never stood still in the sky and God didn’t need to rest on the seventh day. It is Fiction!
    -Staks

  15. “by asking about contradictions with the implication that you believe there are none.”

    Well, I was interested in what you think is a contradiction, even more so about the “big ones” that are in Mark.

    Staks, I gave you a long list of historical facts about the historical figure Jesus. The list I gave are matters of historical record and that fact is agreed upon by the vast majority of historical scholars even those of an atheist nature. I think that means something. I think it demands an explanation. On the other hand, you think that the majority of scholars are wrong and that two other scholars are correct – and that’s ok! Like I said, “That’s life.”

    So away we go on our separate paths. I hope your philosophy carries the day for you. I’m gone for the next few days so thanks for the discussion.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s