Jesus and Atheism

While atheists universally deny that Jesus was God or the Son of God, I think that there is room for acknowledging that he must have been a very good man and that his teachings represent the highest moral and ethical aspirations of man. In my book, The Case Against God; A Lawyer Examines the Evidence, I discuss the fact that Jesus was nothing more than a Jewish holy man who taught traditional Jewish teachings and who had no intention of describing himself as a God or Son of God. He did not intend to form a new church or to go contrary to the laws of Judaism. He was most likely a Pharisee who conveyed the teaching of Hillel, the Pharisee sage. We cannot accept the Apotheosis and sanctifying of Jesus by later writers and churchmen.

Nevertheless, the picture of Jesus presented to us is a beautiful one. This cannot be explained solely by the embellishment of his image by churches and clerics. Much of it must stem from the man who actually lived in Israel over 2000 years ago. Scholars believe that many of the quotes of Jesus set forth in the New Testament were actually spoken by the real Jesus. Prior to the writing of the New Testament there apparently were a set of sayings called the “Q source” which were picked-up by the evangelists who wrote the canonical Bible.

Even if we consider that some of the stories about Jesus may have been added by later writers, we must admit that the picture painted of Jesus reflects the highest form of human ethics. Ludwig Feuerbach said that our ideas of God are merely a reflection of the highest human ideals. To a certain extent this is obviously true of our picture of Jesus. But it says something good about man. With all of our evil, cruelty, greed, and selfishness, we were able to imagine a Man/God who flowed with the goodness, kindness, love, charity, and sense of sacrifice that all humans admire. One writer described Jesus as a “sweet soul.”

It is helpful to think about things he probably said to his followers. He probably emphasized the idea of loving your neighbor. This was an ancient Jewish teaching. It is one of the hardest things anybody can do, but it is a lofty goal. It humanizes us more than almost any other thing. He probably told his followers to turn the other cheek, to feed the hungry and clothe the naked, to bless the poor and the meek and the peacemakers, to avoid self righteousness, and to show mercy. He probably gave the Sermon on the Mount. He probably told a crowd that he who is without sin should throw the first stone at the woman caught in adultery.

His kindness and goodness seems to have been abandoned by a Church that burned heretics in the Inquisition and waged crusades and wars against those who did not share the Church’s teaching. It is certainly lost on those today who practice the theology of anger, resentment, bigotry, sanctimoniousness, and self-righteousness. The New Testament describes a man who was kind and loving. He obviously loved children. He ate with sinners and forgave their sins. He obviously enjoyed a party and drank wine. He seems like somebody who laughed and enjoyed a joke. He even got angry and cursed a barren fig tree. He obviously rejected hypocrisy and false piety. I have no doubt that he would have been appalled by the strict Puritanism of many of the Protestant sects. I have no doubt that he would have been appalled at the great wealth and pomp of the Catholic Church. I have no doubt that he would have been appalled by monasticism in all its forms. I believe that he would have been devastated by and wept at the molestation of little children by members of the clergy.

I also have no doubt that Jesus would have glowed with pleasure at the kindness of many people today. He would have loved the people who dedicate their lives to helping others, who are kind and merciful, who stand for peace, who are filled with love for their fellow man. In the novel "Let the Great World Spin," by Colum McCann, the main character is a man from Ireland who becomes a brother and goes to live among the pimps and prostitutes of the lower Bronx in New York. He does not judge these poor sad women or preach to them. He helps them. What would Jesus think of this saint? One reads every day about saints like the character described by McCann. Their aim is to make life better for others, and to live in the image of Jesus.

As an atheist, I cannot believe in Jesus as some divine Son of God who created the universe and fills the air around us with his presence. But I do believe that the Jesus who actually lived and the Jesus we have created is a great man, an ideal human, someone to be imitated.

Depression

I have long suspected that depression might be the most realistic way of feeling. I have written about the many sorrows, tragedies, and horrors of life, and have often wondered why depression is classified as a mental illness. Illness is something that is not normal. Depression should be considered a normal way of feeling, thinking, and behaving. Anybody who takes a hard look at life realizes that as we age, if we don’t die young, we go through a long period of physical, and often mental, disintegration. In old age we become more and more reliant upon doctors, surgeries, treatments, therapies, medications, and hospitals. In the end, we die, often in great pain and agony. Some of us may think that there is life after death, but that is most unlikely.

Even if we are especially blessed with a life full of riches, good health, respect from the community, and fine children, we still have to go through the degeneration of old age and the ultimate insult of death.

When we look around us we see a world overflowing with misery. I have written about the massive amount of tragedy in the world resulting from poverty, disease, starvation, war, accidents, natural disasters, lack of clothing and shelter, mental illness, pain, addiction, sexual abuse, crime, envy, cruelty, sadism, dishonesty, deceit, disloyalty, treachery, infidelity, political tyranny, bigotry, ignorance, and many other causes of sorrow. Nobody goes through life without experiencing some of these evils. Yet most of us find that life is sweet, and we have a desire to go on living and not to die. One would think that it would be quite natural to want to commit suicide, but that is looked upon as a horrible thing. Why?

In an article by Tali Sharot in the June 6, 2011, issue of Time Magazine entitled: “The Optimism Bias,” the author, a cognitive scientist, finds that we are all genetically programmed with optimism. She says that without a neural mechanism generating optimism, all humans would be mildly depressed. In other words, even though the events of life should make us depressed, we tend to look for a silver lining because of an evolutionary adaptation of our brain which makes us optimistic even in the face of horror and tragedy. This is a tremendously important finding about human nature. It is actually this genetic tendency toward optimism that keeps the human species alive. Without it we might all commit suicide.

Tali Sharot’s finding helps explain the existence of religion in our world. A number of cognitive scientists, including Scott Atran, Pascal Boyer, and David Sloan Wilson, claim that religion is an evolutionary adaptation. Humans go on believing in gods, heavens, paradises, and life after death, despite the complete absence of evidence for their existence. I assume that such beliefs help to relieve us of the crushing grief surrounding the death of a loved one. They help us to deal with the dismal prospect of our own death. In the usual religious funeral services, the pastor will assure the relatives that the deceased “is in a better place.” Most people are unable to deal with the likelihood that such beliefs are overly optimistic and unwarranted.

One of the most terrible tragedies that can occur to a family is the death of a young child. While such a death destroys the life of some parents and siblings, others are somehow able to deal with it. They may be comforted by the belief that the child went to heaven and is living a life of wonder and beauty in the presence of God. If such people were able to critically examine such beliefs I think they would wind-up in deep despair. They would realize that there is no rational basis for such beliefs. The genetically built-in predisposition toward optimism enables such persons to get around the enormous grief of death and to go on living.

Despite this neural predilection for optimism, millions of people in America and around the world are depressed. The use of antidepressant medicine is widespread. Some critics claim that we use far too many antidepressants. I don’t agree. If the sorrows of the world are as prevalent as I think, it is surprising that there are not more people on such medications. Even depressed people want to go on living and do try to find happiness. The genetic predisposition toward optimism makes them eager to find some good even in bad situations. Nobody wants to be unhappy.

Our gene for optimism might help explain many of the ways we seek to find pleasure. Today I was listening to some beautiful music. It made me feel wonderful--as have so many beautiful pieces of music. Perhaps music is one of our ways of coping with the sadness of life. During times of depression and sorrow I have often turned to music. One piece that has soothed me is the slow movement of Beethoven’s Emperor Concerto. While I do not believe in God, I remember the line in the movie Amadeus where Salieri looks at the scores of Mozart and complains that somehow this must be the voice of God. There are times in great music when it almost seems that the beauty comes from something supernatural.

It is a good thing that we are blessed with a gene that veils the sorrows of life. It enables us to go on living, and sometimes to feel great bliss in the midst of all the bad things of life. It is wonderful to enjoy the pleasure of love and sex, to feel the beauty of a lovely spring day, to appreciate great art, literature, film, and theater, to take joy in the play of young children, to take pleasure in food and drink, to dance, to sing, to laugh, and sometimes, even to cry. Bart Ehrman tells us that we should confront the evil in the world by enjoying life, and that part of that enjoyment should be the helping of other people. Perhaps that is the answer to depression.

Newt The Salamander

In a recent editorial, The New York Times described Newt Gingrich’s many inflammatory rants against Democrats. Newt called President Obama and his party: “left-wing radicals” who lead a “secular socialist machine.” He accused them of producing “the greatest political corruption ever seen in modern America.” And then averred that: “The secular-socialist machine represents as great a threat to America as Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union once did.” Then, stooping to abject racism, he charged that President Obama displayed “Kenyan, anti-colonial behavior.”

Gingrich has claimed that advocates for gay rights are imposing a “gay and secular fascism” using violence and harassment. He stated that Justice Sonia Sotomayor of the Supreme Court is a “Latina woman racist.”

Perhaps the most disturbing thing about Newt is his blatant hypocrisy. Newt repeatedly denounced President Clinton for immoral behavior during his efforts to impeach Clinton for the affair with Monica Lewinsky. Nevertheless, Gingrich was, at the same time, while married, having a sexual affair with a female staffer. Newt’s history of marital infidelity is epic, especially when seen against the background of his moralizing criticism of Bill Clinton.

Gingrich has been married three times. In 1962, when he was 19 years old and she was 26, he married Jackie Battley, his former high school geometry teacher. In the spring of 1980, Gingrich left Battley after having an affair with Marianne Ginther. Battley said that Gingrich visited her while she was in the hospital following cancer surgery to discuss the details of their divorce. Six months after the divorce from Battley, Gingrich wed Marianne Ginther.

In the mid-1990s, Gingrich began an affair with House of Representatives staffer Callista Bisek, who is 23 years his junior. They continued their affair during the period in which Gingrich was a leader of the Republican investigation of President Clinton’s Lewinsky scandal. In 2000, Gingrich divorced his second wife, Ginther, and married Callista Bisek.

In a 2011 interview with David Brody of the Christian Broadcasting Network, Gingrich addressed his past infidelities by saying: "There's no question at times in my life, partially driven by how passionately I felt about this country, that I worked too hard and things happened in my life that were not appropriate.” This is Newt’s excuse for infidelity and hypocrisy! He loved America and worked too hard! If anybody swallows that line of crap, they deserve to have Newt as their president.

While Slick Mitt Romney may be the leading flip-flopper among the Republican presidential hopefuls, Newt is not far behind. In 2004, Gingrich repeatedly bashed then Democratic nominee for President John Kerry, saying his flip-flop on the Iraq war funding disqualified him from being president. Gingrich said on Fox News: "You can't flip-flop and be commander-in-chief." Nevertheless, Gingrich has repeatedly flip-flopped on the issues.

On May 15,2011, on Meet The Press, Gingrich said: “I’ve said consistently we ought to have some requirement that you either have health insurance or you post a bond.” When David Gregory asked him: “But that is the individual mandate, is it not?” Gingrich replied: “It’s a variation on it.” Nevertheless, the following day Newt issued a statement saying that he opposes an individual mandate.

On April 20, Newt Gingrich said he would have voted for Paul Ryan's Medicare reform and praised it as just a "first step” toward fixing our health care system. On May 15Gingrich ripped Ryan's plan as "radical change."

As of March 7, President Obama had not yet announced that the United States would be involved in a military action to institute a no-fly zone over Libya. When asked by Greta Van Susteren on March 7: “What would you do about Libya?” Gingrich replied: “Exercise a no-fly zone this evening, communicate to the Libyan military that Gadhafi was gone and that the sooner they switch sides, the more likely they were to survive ... This is a moment to get rid of him. Do it. Get it over with.” On March 23, after President Obama ordered U.S. forces to be actively involved in instituting a no-fly zone over Libya, Gingrich said: “I think that two wars in Iraq and Afghanistan is a lot ... I would not have intervened. I think there were a lot of other ways to affect Qaddafi. I think there are a lot of allies in the region we could have worked with. I would not have used American and European forces.”

In 2007, Gingrich favored "mandatory carbon caps combined with a trading system.” In 2008, he even produced a video with Nancy Pelosi on the urgent need to stop global warming. In April of 2009, he testified before the House against cap and trade.

Do the Republicans really want this clown to be President of the United States?

Harold Camping

HAROLD CAMPING



Harold Camping has made millions of dollars falsely predicting the coming Rapture and the end of the world. The dimwits who believe in him and who sold everything and emptied out their bank accounts on the strength of his prophesy are nothing more than marks in a great scam. Is Harold going to give his millions to those poor dummies who relied on him? No, apparently he is just moving the date for the apocalypse to October 21, 2011. It is likely that many of his followers are so stupid that they will go on believing in him and prepare for the October date.

If Camping is so sure of the October date, perhaps he would be open to a wager. I would be willing to bet Harold $10 million that October 21 will go by like any other Fall day, like May 21, like September 1994, and that there will be no Rapture, no end of the world, no apocalypse. Harold may refuse to bet me because I don’t have $10million, or because he doesn’t believe in gambling, but if I were to lose, what difference would it make? Harold and his believers would all be sucked-up into heaven, and people like me would be left on earth to experience the horrors he predicts.

There is only one reason why Harold Camping is a false prophet. The reason is that there is no such thing as God, and any prediction based on the Book of Revelations in the Bible is pure nonsense. There is a large number of phony prophets out there claiming that the world is about to come to an end. I have heard Hal Lindsey, Jack Van Impe, Tim LaHaye and others who claim to believe that we are approaching the apocalypse. They base their whole argument on the wording of the Book of Revelations. None of them seems able to pierce the veil of idiocy surrounding that book and the absurdity surrounding all predictions based on the Bible.

The Judeo-Christian Bible is not a book of history. It is not a book of fact. Virtually nothing in it is true. It is a fairy-tale, a book of myths, which, in many cases, is based on more ancient myths of other ancient religions. Millions of dimwitted people base their lives on this book of myths, just as millions of Moslems base their lives on the Quran. In the absence of a real god, or of any real evidence for the existence of God, these people latch onto the one thing that they believe gives them access to the teaching of God. It is pitiful.

I wish people would read my book: "The Case Against God: A Lawyer Examines the Evidence." It is available on Kindle and can be brought-up on any device that has Kindle applications. In it I demonstrate that the Bible is merely a kind of mythological sacred scripture. I show that Moses was nothing more than a mythical figure, that the Exodus never happened, and that Jesus of Nazareth was nothing more than a Jewish holy man who wanted to share certain ideas about Judaism based on the teachings of the Pharisees. In no way did he want to start a new religion naming himself as the Son of God. The poor misguided millions of sheep who went on to create and follow a church based on this misinterpretation of his teaching are always prey to the seduction of cults, sects, televangelists, rogues, and phonies of every kind.

Catholic Church Smokescreen

The United States Conference of Catholic Bishops has just released a report explaining the scandal of priests who abused thousands of young boys over several decades and who were protected by the hierarchy. As one who was raised in the Catholic Church, attended Catholic grammar school and college, and who even briefly entered a Catholic seminary, I can say that the Stories in the news about the report are consistent with the fact that the Catholic Church is an organization that sees its primary mission as preservation of its own existence--and not necessarily the promulgation of the teachings of Jesus Christ or the worship of God.

The report says that the abuse of these thousands of children occurred because priests who were poorly prepared and monitored, and were under stress, landed amid the social and sexual turmoil of the 1960s and ’70s. The New York Times reported that this “blame Woodstock” explanation has been floated by bishops since the church was engulfed by scandal in the United States in 2002. Now the bishops, who are the ones largely responsible for the continuation of this abomination, have offered this phony report as a lame excuse for their inexcusable behavior.

In one of its most bizarre findings, the report says that fewer than 5 percent of the abusive priests exhibited behavior consistent with pedophilia, which it defines as a “psychiatric disorder that is characterized by recurrent fantasies, urges and behaviors about prepubescent children.” The report goes on to say: “Thus, it is inaccurate to refer to abusers as ‘pedophile priests.”

I can tell you that the priests who abused children are pedophile priests. During my life as a lawyer I had the opportunity to conduct a great deal of research on the subject of pedophilia and on one occasion I wrote a lengthy report for the court in connection with the sentencing of a pedophile. I can say for certain that the conclusions of the Church’s report are hogwash. The Church is attempting a vast cover-up of its own complicity in the abuse of so many children.

Another dishonest revelation of the report is the claim that the scope of abuse of “prepubescent” children was far less than imagined. The report employs a definition of “prepubescent” children as those under age 10. Using this cutoff, the report found that only 22 percent of the priests’ victims were prepubescent. However The American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders classifies a prepubescent child as generally age 13 or younger. The New York Times reports that if the bishops had used that cutoff, a vast majority of the abusers’ victims would have been considered prepubescent. Moreover, even if some of the priests’ victims were 14, 15, or16, the sexual attack on such youngsters is still repellent.

Perhaps the most outrageous finding of the report is the claim that the silence by the young victims “is one reason why the abusive behavior persisted.” In other words, blame the victims. Can the Catholic Church be so indifferent to the suffering of these innocent young victims that it fails to realize why so many failed to speak-out about the unspeakable behavior of their trusted priests?

The real cause of the sexual abuse of children by priests is self-evident. During the 1960s and 70s vocations to the priesthood began to fall-off dramatically. In order to fill-up the seminaries, the Church loosened its ban on people with alternate sexual preferences. When I entered the seminary in 1958, the priests in charge questioned me and all other novitiates extensively to be sure we were not homosexual or pedophiliac. In the following decades, such screening simply was not done.

The result of the loosening of criteria for entrance into the priesthood was the ordination of large numbers of men who did not have the usual heterosexual orientation. To men with pedophiliac predispositions, employment by the church became an enticing occupation. Such men were not driven by desire to serve God. Rather, they were encouraged by the opportunity to be around, influence, and exert authority over young boys. In my research I came to understand that most pedophiles are not attracted to grown women. They are strongly attracted to young boys. By becoming priests they were able to avoid the uncomfortable problem of having to explain why they were not getting married. On the contrary, they could feel assured that their parents and relatives would admire and respect their choice of vocation.

It should be understood that homosexuality is not the same as pedophilia. Most homosexuals are not pedophiles. They are not interested in having sex with children. However, some forms of pedophilia do involve homosexuality. I do not believe that the ordination of homosexuals hurt the Church. Consensual homosexual behavior between adults should not be considered a reason for denial of ordination and should not be thought of as a sin. But many pedophiles are sexually attracted to children of their own sex. Pedophilia is a crime and an abomination. A child cannot consent to such treatment. It is irrelevant that the crime is caused by a mental irregularity. Many crimes are caused by psychological disturbances. That is not an excuse. The sexual abuse of a child is no more excusable than the rape of a woman.

According to the report, it was not possible for the church, or for anyone, to identify abusive priests in advance. The report said that priests who abuse minors have no particular “psychological characteristics,” “developmental histories” or “mood disorders” that distinguished them from priests who had not abused. In other words, the bishops want the public to let them off the hook because there was nothing they could do to prevent this atrocity. Well, I do not believe that for a moment. I remember the grilling we received when I entered the seminary, and if the church had continued that form of screening there might have been fewer priests but there also would have been far fewer pedophiles.

More important, the actions taken by the bishops after learning about the sex abuse of children were unconscionable. Instead of reporting these offenders to the police, the bishops sent them to internal programs run by the church. After treatment, the pedophiles were transferred to other parishes where many of them continued their predatory behavior toward young boys. Basically, the bishops committed the crime of aiding and abetting in the commission of felonies. In legal terms it is called “compounding a felony.” The bishops should have been sent to prison. The only reason they were not jailed is that the scandal did not break until years after much of the abuse was conducted and somehow the bishops received special treatment from the law because of their positions in society.

I suspect that there was more than one motive for the cover-up by the bishops of these crimes. Obviously, the bishops did not want to see the priests being hauled before the courts with the accompanying bad publicity for the Church. Also, they obviously felt that the Church could not afford to lose more priests from its already thinning ranks. But one further motive may have prevailed. I suspect that large numbers of bishops were also themselves pedophiles who understood the sexual drives of these priests and wanted to protect them.

One would think that an organization dedicated to religion, holiness, worship, and truth, would have the decency to come clean about this scandal. Instead, this report shows the Church for what it really is. There is nothing holy about the Holy Catholic Church.

Why We Believe--Fear of Death

Religion may not have arisen solely because of the fear of death, but if you ask people today, they will tell you that there has to be some continuing life after death. Religion provides assurance that there is such life.

Death is part of nature. Every living thing dies. All humans die. No matter how long science is able to extend the length of a human life, we will all die. It is inherent in all living things. Why do we fear death? Why is death the most terrible part of life? Why have we surrounded death with such enormous horror and grief? You would think that such a natural, universal event would be stoically accepted by us as inevitable. But it isn’t.

We fear death because fear is part of our survival as a species. Any species that does not develop some type of fear of death is likely to become extinct. Our young species has managed to survive for hundreds of thousands of years in part because of our fear of death. Like other genetically successful species, we have developed evolutionary methods of avoiding death, at least until we have reproduced and spread our genes. Whether we will be as successful a species as the long-lived turtles, sharks, and alligators, remains to be seen.

I believe that one of the many strategies the human race uses to deal with its fear of death is the creation of imaginary beings called “gods.” By creating gods, humans seek to avoid the despair that might accompany a full understanding of their fate. The invention of gods is a tranquilizer that helps man deal with the fact that when we die, we die to eternal oblivion.

Most people realize that the human body does not survive death. What they hope for is the survival of human consciousness and memory. The idea is that our spirit or “soul” survives in an afterlife. It would make little difference if the spirit or soul survived but did not remember living on earth. Most people wish for the survival of our memory. In heaven we would know who we are and remember our lives and family on earth. For most people this includes seeing and getting back together with our loved ones (although Jesus said that in the resurrection there was no marriage, Matt. 22:23-30). For most, the afterlife is an idealized version of life on earth. There is no pain, no misery, no stress, no sin, no evil, only unlimited joy. For Catholics it is the “beatific vision.” For Moslems it is “Paradise,” an eternal feast in a green garden with beautiful virgins serving the faithful. For most people, people in heaven are aware of what is happening on earth, and many believe that the dead can intervene in earthly events.

There is something contradictory about the idea that our consciousness survives our deaths. Death is, ipso facto, the death of consciousness. Consciousness is a function of the brain, and if the brain is dead it does not function. We want to believe that somehow, through the hand of God, our consciousness, our brain, goes on working after death even though for earthly purposes it is finished. We want to believe that the mind is not really part of the body, but rather, a spiritual function. Science knows that the mind is the brain and the nervous system, a purely physical phenomenon, and like the rest of the body, it dies.
Posted by Jack LeMoult at 12:55 PM 0 comments