POPE: I Screwed Up

Pope admits he mishandled Holocaust-denying bishop.

Pope admits he mishandled bishop matter

ROME (JTA) -- Pope Benedict XVI admits in a letter that his rehabilitation of a Holocaust-denying bishop backfired.

The remarkable letter to bishops, whose text was officially released Thursday by the Vatican, also says the Vatican must become Internet savvy to prevent further mishaps.

Benedict specifically addressed the Jan. 21 lifting of the excommunication order on Richard Williamson and three other traditionalist bishops, saying it unleashed "an avalanche of protests" whose "bitterness laid bare wounds deeper than those of the present moment."

Lifting the excommunications had been intended to heal a rift in the church. But due to the uproar over Williamson, the pope said, it "suddenly appeared as something completely different: as the repudiation of reconciliation between Christians and Jews," and a revocation of the reforms of the Second Vatican Council.

The pope continued, "A gesture of reconciliation with an ecclesial group engaged in a process of separation thus turned into its very antithesis: an apparent step backwards with regard to all the steps of reconciliation between Christians and Jews taken since the Council -- steps which my own work as a theologian had sought from the beginning to take part in and support." This, Benedict said, he "can only deeply regret."

"I have been told that consulting the information available on the Internet would have made it possible to perceive the problem early on. I have learned the lesson that in the future in the Holy See we will have to pay greater attention to that source of news," the pope said.

A pontiff very rarely issues a document admitting errors in such a detailed and personal way. Benedict said he was particularly hurt by the "open hostility" from within the Church itself.

"Precisely for this reason I thank all the more our Jewish friends, who quickly helped to clear up the misunderstanding and to restore the atmosphere of friendship and trust which -- as in the days of Pope John Paul II -- has also existed throughout my pontificate and, thank God, continues to exist."

World Jewish Congress President Ronald Lauder praised the pope.

"The Pope has found clear and unequivocal words regarding Bishop Williamson's Holocaust denial, and he deserves praise for admitting that mistakes were made within the Vatican in the handling of this affair," Lauder said in a statement.

"The Pope's letter conveys the essential requirements for interreligious dialogue: candor and the willingness to tackle difficult issues squarely. His expressed anguish at the events following the Holocaust-denying statements by Williamson reflects the similar emotional pain felt by Jews worldwide during this affair," he said. "We reciprocate his words of appreciation for Jewish efforts to restore interreligious dialogue and will continue to work with the Catholic Church to further strengthen mutual understanding and respect."

Comments

[Successful Messiah]

Your title is misleading. The pope is celibate. He does not screw.

[Jim the Catholic]

I told you so.

[Yonah]

I'm so, so surprised. Huh. Maybe they couldn't take this AND the nine-year-old rape/abortion uproar together.

[ah-pee-chorus]

i give the pope credit for admitting his mistake.
i am still curious why anyone would follow his words any more than any other human being. the incident and apology make it clear that god doesnt speak to pope, (it is hard for the non-existent to form words) so he's left on his own as a democratically elected person, whose judgement doesnt appear to be very good. will that stop a billion catholics from revering him? certainly not. that would be too rational.

[Chicago Samson]

The Pope shows signs of greatness, I am very happy he made the right ethical decision; sometimes we need to grant the benefit of the doubt and gently criticize instead of assume the worst in others.

I would say to my fellow chevra, before judging others we should ask ourselves, "What if we are wrong in our information and in our assumptions?"

[Dr. Dave]

OK, he messed up and apologized. Let's turn the other cheek - so to speak.

[Carol-Ann]

[...the apology makes it clear that god doesn't speak to the pope...]

Unless, God used this as a teaching moment: for the Pope, humility, and for others, forgiveness.

[ah-pee-chorus]

"Unless, God used this as a teaching moment: for the Pope, humility, and for others, forgiveness."

Posted by: Carol-Ann | March 12, 2009 at 04:43 PM

how convenient. another laughable excuse hiding behind the cloak of un-falsifiability. we'll never know, will we?

[ah-pee-chorus]

Carol-Ann (i'm assuming you are catholic),and Jim the catholic:

how do you explain all of the sun gods previous to jesus, sharing so many of the details?

[Jim the Catholic]

>Carol-Ann (i'm assuming you are catholic),and Jim the catholic:

>how do you explain all of the sun gods previous to jesus, sharing so many of the details?

I reply: How do you explain the the sharing of so many details between Judaism & Zoroastrianism.

Also while you are at it what about Darwin's theory of evolution & the ideas of the Atheist ancient Greek philosopher Democretus?

I guess the great similarities mean Christianity, Judaism, Atheism & the theory of Evolution must ALL BE FALSE.

Assuming that is your implication.

[Jim the Catholic]

BTW I repeat.

I TOLD YOU SO!

Now put on some sweats Shmarya.

[Jim the Catholic]

Papal letter: Pointed, personal and from the heart

By John Thavis
Catholic News Service

VATICAN CITY (CNS) -- In one fell swoop, Pope Benedict XVI has taken charge of the much-criticized realm of "Vatican communications" following his lifting of the excommunication of four traditionalist bishops, including one who denied the extent of the Holocaust.

The pope's letter to the world's bishops, made public March 12, was remarkable on many counts:

-- First, he candidly admitted mistakes in the way he and other Vatican officials handled the reconciliation move with the bishops of the Society of St. Pius X. Most specifically, he said they should have used the Internet to find out what millions of others already knew: that one of the four, Bishop Richard Williamson, was known for his radical views on the Holocaust.

-- Second, the pope revealed how deeply stung he was by the criticism of those who felt he was "turning back the clock" or repudiating Catholic-Jewish dialogue. His line about even some Catholics attacking him "with open hostility" showed that even in his supposed isolation as supreme pontiff this is a man who cares deeply about the reaction among the faithful.

-- Third, he put the Pontifical Commission "Ecclesia Dei" on a shorter leash. By placing it under the control of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, the pope effectively limited the commission's ability to freelance agreements with traditionalist groups without proper attention to doctrinal differences.

-- Fourth, he strongly defended his outreach to the Society of St. Pius X to those in the church who consider the group marginal and unimportant. He described his task as preserving unity so that witness to the Gospel is credible, and warned that divisions in the church -- the "biting and devouring" described by St. Paul in the church's first century -- are always counterproductive.

The 2,500-word papal letter was unusually pointed and direct, and showed Pope Benedict's own skills as a communicator once he puts pen to paper. His acknowledgment of mistakes in communications and Vatican ignorance of the Internet was unprecedented.

"I have learned the lesson that in the future in the Holy See we will have to pay greater attention to that source of news," he said.

Coincidentally, his letter came as the Pontifical Council for Social Communications was hosting a weeklong seminar on the church and "new media," with the idea that a new document may be needed to promote effective church use of online opportunities.

To many observers, the realignment of the "Ecclesia Dei" commission was a sign of disapproval of how the commission's president, Cardinal Dario Castrillon Hoyos, managed this phase of talks with the Society of St. Pius X. Cardinal Castrillon, who turns 80 in July, will probably leave his post soon.

Vatican officials have pointed to Cardinal Castrillon as the man who should have briefed the pope more fully on Bishop Williamson ahead of time. But the pope's dissatisfaction may run deeper than that.

Since the excommunications were lifted, the society's superior, Bishop Bernard Fellay, has insisted that his organization is far from ready to accept some teachings of the Second Vatican Council. In fact, Bishop Fellay has suggested that removal of the excommunications merely sets the stage for the real battle over Vatican II -- a battle the pope has no interest in fighting.

All this hints that perhaps the pope was not fully prepared for the society's inflexibility on some of these points.

Placing "Ecclesia Dei" under the doctrinal congregation also ensures that other Vatican agencies will be consulted on such reconciliation moves in the future, the pope said in his letter. That answered a specific complaint from Cardinal Walter Kasper, who coordinates dialogue with the Jews and who said his agency was never consulted on the latest concessions to the Society of St. Pius X.

The pope's message to the wider Catholic world was just as direct and just as heartfelt. He said his overture to the traditionalists had a strategic purpose, that of building church unity in an age when the world seems to be rejecting the Christian message.

In three or four sentences, he summed up what he views as the challenges and the primary objectives of his pontificate:

"In our days, when in vast areas of the world the faith is in danger of dying out like a flame which no longer has fuel, the overriding priority is to make God present in this world and to show men and women the way to God," he said.

As God disappears from the human horizon, he said, humanity is losing its bearings, with increasingly "evident destructive effects."

"Leading men and women to God, to the God who speaks in the Bible: This is the supreme and fundamental priority of the church and of the successor of Peter at the present time. A logical consequence of this is that we must have at heart the unity of all believers. Their disunity, their disagreement among themselves, calls into question the credibility of their talk of God," he said.

The pope's plea was for mainstream Catholics to see outreach to the traditionalists not as a step backward but as an attempt to incorporate the adherents of extremism in a way that helps break down their rigidity and releases their "positive energies."

The pope said the church should "allow herself to be generous" and "be capable of overlooking various faults and making every effort to open up broader vistas" in order to promote this unity. Those are words that will likely be quoted in the future, and not only by Catholic traditionalists.

END

[Yankele der ganiv]

Cut Pope Benedict some slack. It probably sucks having to replace a legend. I just feel sorry for Catholics that Pope John Paul II's replacement is turning out to be more of a Scott Hunter than a Mickey Mantle.

[ah-pee-chorus]

Jim the Catholic : you did not answer the question. how do you explain it? please try without having to resort to asking me a different question. it makes it look like you don't have a lot of confidence in your answer.

[ah-pee-chorus]

" guess the great similarities mean Christianity, Judaism, Atheism & the theory of Evolution must ALL BE FALSE."

Posted by: Jim the Catholic | March 12, 2009 at 05:28 PM

jim, you're better than this attempt...

any similarities are because they are all man-made.

you find atheism and theory of evolution similar? how so?

[Yankele der ganiv]

Ah-pee-chorus,

I'll go a step further than Jim and say: I find the theory of evolution, the creation story, atheism and religion to be similar.

The believer has to answer: Why do bad things happen to good people?

The atheist has to answer: Why do good things happen to good people?

[ah-pee-chorus]

and the answers are exactly the same. both good and bad things happen to both good and bad people in exactly the same percentages as they should by pure chance.

[Jim the Catholic]

>you did not answer the question. how do you explain it?

I reply: My tongue N' Cheek response was to show the absurdity of your similarity implies direct connection or origin meme.

For example Democritus seemed to hold to a primitive sort of pseudo/proto-evolutionary belief since he didn't believe there where any gods or Prometheus to make man. But to take that fact & to claim (as some misguided religious fundies do) that Darwin had somehow plagiarized Democritus or he was the direct inspiration of Darwin's theory of evolution is beyond laughable.

Because there may be some similarities but there are a HOST of differences that render the charge absurd. Like I said beyond laughable.

It is equally laughable to point to the pagan deity Osiris being killed then resurrecting as Horus & to ancient statues of goddesses holding their divine children on their laps & to Anks found on Egyptian tombs & their superficial similarity to crosses as an explanation for the alleged origins of the particular distinctiveness of Christianity.

As with the religious fundamentalist irrational attack on Darwin this Atheist Fundamentalist "criticism" won't fly either because even thought there are similarities there are a host of differences.

In short Christianity DID NOT come from paganism & neither did Darwin.

>any similarities are because they are all man-made.

I reply: The logical problem you have here is one can believe Christianity is man made BUT it still doesn't logically follow Christianity was the result of paganism. It could have been a unique original novelty for example. This argument can't be used to prove it even if God does not exist.

>please try without having to resort to asking me a different question. it makes it look like you don't have a lot of confidence in your answer.

I reply: Rather unlike rational Atheists like Flew, Nagil, Ruse or Smith you are clearly influenced by the cheap irrational fundamentalist Atheism of Hitchens, Dawkins & Dennett & the falsely called RATIONAL RESPONSE SQUAD who let's face it are retarded.

Comparing the former group to the later is like comparing Aquinas to Jimmy Swaggart.

You need to learn Jim the Catholic's maxim on Logic & Atheism.

"Reason & Logic are LEARNED SKILLS. Just because you believe religion is irrational & deny god(s) doesn't automatically make you rational."

Thus you will have to do better & pardon the pun but for God's sake if you are reading the "retarded ones" throw that shit out & pick up some REAL Atheist thinkers & philosophers like Thomas Nagil, Michael Ruse or Quinten Smith.

Dawkin's & Hitchens etc will retard your brain.

Now that I read Van Til, Plantagia, Ratzinger, Aquinas etc I wouldn't waste the brain God gave me on Young Earth Creationist nonsense if you paid me.

[ah-pee-chorus]

"But to take that fact & to claim (as some misguided religious fundies do) that Darwin had somehow plagiarized Democritus or he was the direct inspiration of Darwin's theory of evolution is beyond laughable."
Posted by: Jim the Catholic | March 12, 2009 at 09:41 PM

your analogy is so fatally flawed i'm surprised you would use it. your darwin-democritus example is irrelevant logically. lets assume darwin had completely plagiarized him, then added a few details. that would prove nothing in regards to whether either or both writings are true. it could be a plagiarism and still be true. a scientific look at the contents would be needed to see if it were true.
on the other hand, if in fact a book, or a story told claims to be unique amongst all other books as having been written by one who knows all, that created the world, and that book is so closely related in key details to many other earlier,man-written stories or books which we all agree were not written by god, then that is quite a problem.

++"there may be some similarities but there are a HOST of differences that render the charge absurd. Like I said beyond laughable."++

yes, some similarities, like that there were more than 10 prior gods born on dec.25 of a virgin mother, many whose birth was hailed by the three kings(or wise men), lay dead for three days and then resurrected. at that point, any differences have been rendered moot. they are all obviously different versions of the same anthropomorphization of the sun god, born under virgo(virgin) on the first day the sun rises noticeably on the horizon, dec.25th, after three days of the sun appearing to be inactive following the solstice on dec. 21st. thus death and resurrection as it rises again. but i dont have to tell you this, the church had a response on this issue. can you tell us what it was?

++In short Christianity DID NOT come from paganism & neither did Darwin+++

it clearly did, or else all of these other people who lived earlier were able to predict all these facts about god long before he ever spoke on this earth.
and where darwin's theory derived from is irrelevant. it could have sprung up from a pack of wild boars, as long as what it proposes can be shown true.

++= The logical problem you have here is one can believe Christianity is man made BUT it still doesn't logically follow Christianity was the result of paganism. It could have been a unique original novelty for example. This argument can't be used to prove it even if God does not exist.+==++

of course you are theoretically correct, but in this case the fact that it is so obviously a copy of pagan gods just happens to prove both, since neither of us believes that horus for example was really god, we are both atheists in relation to horus and 100,000 or so other gods. the subset of pagan gods is located completely within the set of untrue gods, so showing jesus is a copy of a pagan would in fact place him in the untrue group. faulty logic again, jim.
and rather than tantruming a tirade against your list of "bad" atheists, why not present a single shred of evidence which would subvert all of the atheist's premise.

[ah-pee-chorus]

++"Reason & Logic are LEARNED SKILLS. Just because you believe religion is irrational & deny god(s) doesn't automatically make you rational."+++

thats true, its not automatic. but whats also true and you might want to add to your maxim is that,

" continued belief in something despite evidence to the contrary is the definition of delusional.( of course as long as many others share that belief we call it religion.)"

[KosherKeeper]

The Pope's we-should-have-been-on-the-Internet reference was a gesture specifically to placate Shmarya.

[Jim the Catholic]

>your analogy is so fatally flawed i'm surprised you would use it. your darwin-democritus example is irrelevant logically.

I reply: I'm not trying to prove Darwin came from Democritus. I don't believe that. It is irrational. I'm showing the consistent application of your weird theory & where is leads.

>lets assume darwin had completely plagiarized him, then added a few details. that would prove nothing in regards to whether either or both writings are true.

I reply: Then by making this claim you have shot down your own argument. Since even if there is a connection between pagan dying god myths & Christianity then we can invoke C.S. Lewis' quaint claim that the dying God myths are proof mankind had a universal natural revelation that the True God would become man & die for out sins. This of course would be predicated on the idea Christianity is True.

> it could be a plagiarism and still be true. a scientific look at the contents would be needed to see if it were true.

I reply: Then logically Christ could Truly be the Incarnate God-Man & the pagan myths merely natural revelations of His coming. You are shooting yourself in the foot here. This is classic question begging. It's not rational.

>on the other hand, if in fact a book, or a story told claims to be unique amongst all other books as having been written by one who knows all, that created the world, and that book is so closely related in key details to many other earlier,man-written stories or books which we all agree were not written by god, then that is quite a problem.

I reply: But what peer reviewed objective scientific historical criteria are you applying to make this judgment? None that I can see. The above cannot be used as such given the competing archeological evidence outside of Rome for the early existence of Christianity & it's unique doctrines.

>yes, some similarities, like that there were more than 10 prior gods born on dec.25 of a virgin mother,

I reply: Accept if you read the Church Fathers you would know at least 4 or 5 different dates have been given by them for the birth of Jesus. Dec 25 is just the one the later Church settled on because it was the tradition of the Roman Church in the 3rd century. Which they could have gotten from the Apostles OR they might have just chosen to supplant the local pagan worship in the late third century.

De Pascha Computus, a calendar of feasts produced in 243AD, gives March 28 as the date of the nativity. In 245AD, the theologian Origen of Alexandria stated that, "only sinners (like Pharaoh and Herod)" celebrated their birthdays. In 303, Christian writer Arnobius ridiculed the idea of celebrating the birthdays of gods, which suggests that Christmas was not yet a feast at this time.

We have evidence that Pascha(called Easter in later Germanic languages) was celebrated since the first century either on the 14 of Nisan or the 1st Lord's Day after that. But Christmas didn't show up till the 3rd century.

Thus does not follow that the Roman Christians got the idea for Jesus from the local Roman pagan sun god.

Also there is no dogma in Catholicism or Christianity in general that says Jesus was born on Dec 25. It's not in the New Testament nor is it a unanimous tradition. Your ignorance of history & archeology are self-evident here.

A learned Atheist archeologist would laugh at your cheap theory.

>many whose birth was hailed by the three kings(or wise men),

I reply: Which myth? You haven't named it & I suspect you are making this up. I need a source.

>lay dead for three days and then resurrected.

I reply: Ditto.

>at that point, any differences have been rendered moot. they are all obviously different versions of the same anthropomorphization of the sun god,

I reply: It does not follow. Assuming the "facts" you have given me are facts (& you haven't backed them up with anything peer reviewed) all that you have shown is similarity. Not origin since archeology tells us Christianity originated in Palestine & came to Rome later in the first century after 60AD.

>born under virgo(virgin) on the first day the sun rises noticeably on the horizon, dec.25th, after three days of the sun appearing to be inactive following the solstice on dec. 21st. thus death and resurrection as it rises again. but i dont have to tell you this, the church had a response on this issue. can you tell us what it was?

I reply: You are also ignoring the fact the earliest recorded celebration of Dies Natalis Solis Invicti was 243 A.D. The doctrines of the Deity of Christ & Virgin are recorded in the writings of the Church Fathers who lived prior to this time & OUTSIDE OF ROME. This includes Ireaeus(Gaul 180AD), Polycarp & Ignacius (107 AD Syria), Melito of Sardis(Second Century),Polycrats(Asia Minor 190AD) & many many others. So at best the Christians supplanted the Dies Natalis Solis Invicti with Christimas in the 3rd century. But it does not follow Sol Invictus myth was the source of the doctrines of the Resurrection, Deity of Christ, or the Virgin Birth.

This is objectively true even if for sake of argument we presuppose a naturalistic origin for Christianity & an Atheist Universe.

>it clearly did, or else all of these other people who lived earlier were able to predict all these facts about god long before he ever spoke on this earth.
and where darwin's theory derived from is irrelevant. it could have sprung up from a pack of wild boars, as long as what it proposes can be shown true.

I reply: I can detect no coherent though here. What is your point?

>of course you are theoretically correct, but in this case the fact that it is so obviously a copy of pagan gods just happens to prove both, since neither of us believes that horus for example was really god, we are both atheists in relation to horus and 100,000 or so other gods. the subset of pagan gods is located completely within the set of untrue gods, so showing jesus is a copy of a pagan would in fact place him in the untrue group. faulty logic again, jim.

I reply: So far you "argument" is dogmatic statements made by fiat & special pleading that Jesus is just "so obviously a copy of pagan gods" on your part. It doesn't follow. My logic is solid. Yours does not exist. Like I said just because you deny god(s) doesn't automatically make you rational.

>and rather than tantruming a tirade against your list of "bad" atheists, why not present a single shred of evidence which would subvert all of the atheist's premise.

I reply: I would rather deal with rational Atheist challenges then cheap a-historical sophistry. That is all you have given me here. If God forbid I lost my Faith tomorrow I would still laugh at & denounce your argument as foolish. Which it clearly is.

>" continued belief in something despite evidence to the contrary is the definition of delusional.( of course as long as many others share that belief we call it religion.)"

I reply: Which is what we are forced to judge about your Christianity comes from Paganism meme. It your version of your religion. You clearly believe in it on Faith Alone.

Christmas wasn't celebrated till the 3rd century & the pagan festival of Sol Invictus on Dec 25 wasn't celebrated by Pagans till the 3rd century either.

But doctrines unique to Christianity CAN BE FOUND CLEARLY in the writings of Christians who lived outside of Rome & prior to the 3rd century.

So even if God does not exist your claims are just not rational.

Accept it. Why do I get the feeling it is futile to argue with a die hard Faith head like you ah-pee-chorus?

[Jim the Catholic]

I made a mistake so I will correct myself.

The earliest record of the celebration of Christ's birthday on December 25 dates to 243 A.D. Other dates given by other Christians include May 20, March 28, & March 25.

Emperor Elagabalus (218–222) introduced the festival of Sol Invictus, which ended on his death.

Aurelian, reinstituted sol Invictus in 274 who promoted it as an empire-wide holiday. This day had held no significance in the Roman festive calendar until it was introduced in the third century.

When Theodocus became Emperor he abolished the Pagan holoday in the 4th Century.

[yidandahalf]

I am unable to fathom why we as Jews should care what the pope says or does. If the Mormons baptize dead Jews, what of it? If the pope gets up one morning and forgets to wipe his ass and tells the Jews he won't pray at a certain venue in Isreal, WHAT OF IT? Can anyone answer this question? Preferably a Jew if possible.

[Jim the Catholic]

yidandanhalf,
If you strongly believe Judaism is the True Religion & believe the Pope's religion is wrong then ultimatly YOU SHOULDN'T care what the Pope says or does.

Sorry I'm not a Jew who can state the obvious but what can I do?

People used to complain about the Mormons because they didn't allow blacks in their Priesthood before the 70's.

But why should a Jew, Catholic, Muslim or Zoroastrian care about that?

If it's a false religion why would you want to belong to it & join it's clergy? If it's the True Religion they why would you want to be stupid enough to go against it?

[ah-pee-chorus]

++I'm showing the consistent application of your weird theory & where is leads.+++

Posted by: Jim the Catholic

it leads to realization that man-made ideas and writings are consistent with influence and plagiarism from other man-made sources. but writings by deities are Not. its a weird theory to expect god's writing to be original, huh?

+++Then logically Christ could Truly be the Incarnate God-Man & the pagan myths merely natural revelations of His coming. ++

so all the pagan , egyptian and eastern deities with same story were "miraculous
natural revelations" or predictions of what a god they had never fathomed would ultimately do. all of these varied cultures must have been blessed with amazing predictive powers. you dont see that anymore. i wonder why.

then you say christianity doesnt come from paganism. interesting. nobody seems to know for sure, according to you when jesus was born, yet the date the church settled on just so happens to be the same birthday as all of the previous sun gods born of virgins ,who were killed and resurrected. yup, no pagan influence here. thats funny.

[Yochanan Lavie]

The Divine Image
From Songs of Innocence
by William Blake

The Mercy, Pity, Peace, and Love
All pray in their distress;
And to these virtues of delight
Return their thankfulness.

For Mercy, Pity, Peace, and Love
Is God, our Father dear,
And Mercy, Pity, Peace, and Love
Is man, His child and care.

For Mercy has a human heart,
Pity a human face,
And Love, the human form divine,
And Peace, the human dress.

Then every man, of every clime,
That prays in his distress,
Prays to the human form divine,
Love, Mercy, Pity, Peace.

For all must love the human form,
In heathen, Turk, or Jew;
Where Mercy, Love, and Pity dwell
There God is dwelling too.

[Yochanan Lavie]

The Human Abstract
From Songs of Experience
by William Blake

Pity would be no more
If we did not make somebody poor,
And Mercy no more could be
If all were as happy as we.

And mutual fear brings Peace,
Till the selfish loves increase;
Then Cruelty knits a snare,
And spreads his baits with care.

He sits down with holy fears,
And waters the ground with tears;
Then Humility takes its root
Underneath his foot.

Soon spreads the dismal shade
Of Mystery over his head,
And the caterpillar and fly
Feed on the Mystery.

And it bears the fruit of Deceit,
Ruddy and sweet to eat,
And the raven his nest has made
In its thickest shade.

The gods of the earth and sea

[yidandahalf]

Here is a good read for those who still consider religion as practiced on this earth viable and necessary: White Lies Dark Truth by Mony Singh. Religions are all different sides of the same coin.

[Jim the Catholic]

>>+I'm showing the consistent application of your weird theory & where is leads.+++
Posted by: Jim the Catholic

>it leads to realization that man-made ideas and writings are consistent with influence and plagiarism from other man-made sources. but writings by deities are Not. its a weird theory to expect god's writing to be original, huh?

I reply: You have not proven plagiarism you merely assume it without giving hard evidence. All you have shown is minor similarity. Which is unremarkable.

>so all the pagan , egyptian and eastern deities with same story were "miraculous
natural revelations" or predictions of what a god they had never fathomed would ultimately do all of these varied cultures must have been blessed with amazing predictive powers. you dont see that anymore. i wonder why.

I reply: First you have not PROVEN all the pagan , egyptian and eastern deities have the same story. You merely have asserted it. You have not shown from primary sources this is the case. In fact I did some reading & your claim about other deities having wise men visit them at their alleged virgin birth is completely false. So either put up or shut up. Show me from a PRIMARY source some heathen deity was born of a virgin & had 3 wise men visit him. I require a PRIMARY SOURCE that is an English translation of an actual ancient writing that made this claim. Not the baseless claims of some 19th century fraud that has long been discredited by modern archeologist. Both Atheist & Religious.

>then you say christianity doesnt come from paganism. interesting. nobody seems to know for sure, according to you when jesus was born, yet the date the church settled on just so happens to be the same birthday as all of the previous sun gods born of virgins ,who were killed and resurrected. yup, no pagan influence here. thats funny.

I reply: Again you have not proven your claim about precise similarities between pagan deities & the life of Christ. You have merely asserted it.
My wife’s research shows at best there are minor superficial similarities. Second it is beyond question Christianity originated in Palestine in the 1st century as a unique sect of Judaism. Teachings unique to it (Resurrection, God-Man, Virgin Birth & resurrection) are found in the writings of Christians of the 1st & second centuries outside of Rome. The pagan festival of Sol Invictus is in the 3rd century. At best the Christians merely choose to supplant it. It doesn’t indicate the pagan origin of Christian teaching. That is impossible considering Sol Invitus late date.

The strength of my argument is that one CAN deny God & Christianity & still conclude it doesn’t have a pagan origin but may be merely unique. Your argument provides no hard primary evidence, is based on special pleading & is unoriginal. In fact the Pagan Myth Theory comes from the 19th century & has long been discredited by professional archeologist and Cultural Anthropologists many of whom are Atheists.

But if you have deathless blind faith in this idea of yours no amount of reasoning clearly will move you.

[ah-pee-chorus]

heres a good start for pre-jesus jesuses.

http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/jesus_similar.html

http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm

[ah-pee-chorus]

this one is funny, too.

jim; i have no horse in this race. i begin everything with a null hypothesis. since there is zero evidence supporting jesus having any non-earthly connections (assuming he lived at all) not to mention the incredible amounts of evidence which should be required to back up such an outrageous claim, i don't accept him as god. but i couldnt care less whether or not his story is original. the tooth fairy might be original while still not worthy of belief. so i have weighed the evidence objectively and reached the logical conclusion.
you, however, having accepted on faith , which is belief absent evidence, that he is god, are obviously pushed into a corner whereby you must also accept that the story is original. so your attempts to deny the overwhelming "coincidences" , as well as your attempt to compare my belief system with yours is neither logical nor objective.

[ah-pee-chorus]

opening line of prior post was meant to go with this website, which has many sources.

http://www.medmalexperts.com/POCM/pagan_origins_miracles.html

[Jim the Catholic]

>http://www.wilsonsalmanac.com/jesus_similar.html

I reply; I note this is of interest from the link the above.

Author's cautionary note
Most ancient deities are known to us through more than one source; often these varied sources present different myths and legends, some of them contradictory and even mutually exclusive. These inconsistencies might be reflected in these tables, as might my own errors of fact or interpretation. However, I have endeavoured to provide something of an overview of the fascinating 'pagan Christs' subject, and I welcome corrections, additions and any other information.

I would also like to add that although there are many similarities, there are also many differences. For example, Zarathustra is said to have been mortal rather than divine, had nine children, and died at 77, so in these matters he is quite unlike Jesus Christ. The tables above are not intended to prove complete congruencies between the people and deities mentioned; rather they perhaps tend to indicate influences of religions upon each other.

Caution is advised. Much of the above is contentious among scholars, and I am not a scholar but a hobbyist. "The category of dying and rising gods, once a major topic of scholarly investigation, must now be understood to have been largely a misnomer based on imaginative reconstructions and exceedingly late or highly ambiguous texts." – Mircea Eliade, 'Dying and Rising Gods' The Encyclopedia of Religion, Macmillian, 1987.END QUOTE

I reply: So you are giving me the opinions of an admited non-professional hobbest & I see NOT ONE PRIMARY SOURCE to back up the claim 3 Wise men visited Horus at his birth.

If there is an English Translation that shows a story remarkably like that of the NT narative then let's read it & judge for outselves.

Joseph McCabe who made the claim about the wise men & Horus is a well known crank. He actually claimed Pope Leo X was an Atheist. His work is a joke & HE DOES NOT GIVE primary sources but his own explaination of what he claims they say.

You will have to do better then this. Why is it so hard for you to give the PRIMARY SOURCE document telling about Horus' birth so we can judge for ourselves if it really is the same as the NT?

For example: You can either READ some shmuck's claim about what Josephus said OR YOU CAN READ Josephus.

Do you get it now?

>http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jcpa5.htm

I reply: More of the same. Not ONE SINGLE Primary Source. Do you understand at all what I am asking of you?
I'm not interested in someone's claim about what either Josephus or Philo taught. I want links to their actual writtings.
Classic documents translated into english can be found online. So it should be easy to read the Story of Horus for example.
So get on with it.

Oh & BTW Tom Harpur is another amature fraud. I've read essays by religious liberals & secular people who are professional PhD's on antiquity who have criticised & documented his beyond bad scholarship WITH PRIMARY SOURCES.
Tom does not take criticism well from either secularists or religious critics.

At this point you are like the Young Earth Creationist giving me "scholars" who make "scientific" assertions from the 19th century that modern biology, astrophysics, Chemistry & historical study have blown out of the water.

You HAVE TO ACCEPT there are Atheists out there who are Not credible witnesses to Atheism. Or you can be a Faith Head.

Your choice.

[Jim the Catholic]

BTW if you are going to cite amatures to me read this amature.

http://www.notyourmamasreligion.com/apps/articles/web/articleid/50210/columnid/3198/default.asp

QUOTE"You should also read the story of Horus for yourself:

Encyclopedia Mythica - Horus

Egyptian Mythology: Horus
Ancient Egypt: The Mythology - Horus

Wikipedia: Horus
You can also read the book that most of these myths are based on - Acharya S's book "The Christ Conspiracy" ...it's probably at your local library, but you can get it from Amazon too.

In the meantime, here are some responses to the common comparisons used for Horus and Jesus.

Horus’ mother was a virgin:
Horus’ mother was not a virgin. She was married to Osiris, and there is no reason to suppose she was abstinent after marriage. Horus was, per the story, miraculously conceived. Seth had killed and dismembered Osiris, then Isis put her husband's dead body back together and had intercourse with it. In some versions, she used a hand-made phallus since she wasn't able to find that part of her husband. So while it was a miraculous conception, it was not a virgin birth.

Horus’ mother’s name was Meri:
Acharya's footnotes don't provide evidence for the claim of Isis being a virgin or for "Meri" being part of her name. Only Christ-mythers make the claim that "Meri" was part of her name.

Horus was born in a cave:
Horus was born in a swamp, not a cave/manger. Acharya's footnotes for this point only make the claim that Jesus was born in a cave, and say nothing about Horus being born in one.

Horus’ birth was heralded by a star:
Acharya's source for this claim appears to be influential scholar Gerald Massey, who says "the Star in the East that arose to announce the birth of the babe (Jesus) was Orion, which is therefore called the star of Horus. That was once the star of the three kings; for the 'three kings' is still a name of three stars in Orion's belt . . . " Massey's apparently getting mixed up, and then the critics are misinterpreting it. Orion is not a star, but a constellation, of which the 'three kings' are a part. And even if there is a specific star called 'the star of Horus', there's no legend stating that it announced Horus' birth (as the critics are claiming) or that the 'three wise men' (the three stars in Orion's belt) attended Horus' birth in any way.

Horus is crucified accompanied by two thieves:
Horus was never crucified. There’s an unofficial story in which he dies and is cast in pieces into the water, then later fished out by a crocodile at Isis’ request. This unofficial story is the only one in which he dies at all.

Conclusion
Through these responses, we can see that there is little validity in the claims that the story of Jesus' life, as recorded in the Gospels, was modeled after the story of the Egyptian god Horus.

[shmuel]

"I have been told that consulting the information available on the Internet would have made it possible to perceive the problem early on. I have learned the lesson that in the future in the Holy See we will have to pay greater attention to that source of news," the pope said.

And so, here is the wave of the future in the Vatican:

INT. POPE'S OFFICE. DAY
POPE
Luigi, are you there?

LUIGI
Right here, Father.

POPE
Good. Listen, we have to appoint somebody in Milan. I need you to Google all our Archbishops, find out what you can. Facebook, of course. No need for MYSpace, that's out. Then run a check of the New York criminal courts website, see if any of them are molesters. Then a check of their FICO score, if you can. I am psyched. All this info on line. Man, where has the Holy Spirit been all these years?

LUIGI
I'm right on it, boss.
He leaves. Pope relaxes, stretches in his seat.
POPE
Yeah, it's good to be the Pope.

[ah-pee-chorus]

jim: we can argue over each individual similarity between each of the many other deities and jesus. you yourself admitted they exist. there are far,far too many to be coincidental. and as i stated before, i am completely objective on the matter. if it appeared to me to be original and unique i would gladly say so. scientology is rather original, it just happens to have no evidence to back up its myriad claims, same as christianity and other religions.
your position is based on "need to believe". you can quote all the christian n.t. apologists you like, they are , of course , in the same leaky boat as you.

[Dr. Dave]

When the pope speaks ex-cathedra he is infallible.

How do you know that is true?

The pope said so ex-cathedra.

[Jim the Catholic]

>jim: we can argue over each individual similarity between each of the many other deities and jesus. you yourself admitted they exist.

I reply: Japan has an Emperor & so did ancient Rome. It is has many similarities. But it does not logically follow Rome got their idea for an Emperor from Japan or vise versa. Nor does it rule
out independant development. My admiting similarity does nothing to advance your discreditied 19th century theory.

I OTOH have a strong argument against your Pagan Myth nonsense. I can DENY GOD EXISTS & rationally deny your theory on purely logical grounds. You CAN'T/WON'T rationally prove your theory from Primary sources.

>there are far,far too many to be coincidental.

I reply: Which can be applied to the origins of the office of the Japanese Emperor Vs the Roman Emperor. So this is not a sugnificant or useful argument for an Atheist to use.

>and as i stated before, i am completely objective on the matter. if it appeared to me to be original and unique i would gladly say so. scientology is rather original, it just happens to have no evidence to back up its myriad claims,

I reply: So you MUST logically concede this pagan myth nonsense is nonsense. You don't have to believe in God to conclude it. Why then do you resist logic?

>same as christianity and other religions.
your position is based on "need to believe". you can quote all the christian n.t. apologists you like, they are , of course , in the same leaky boat as you.

I reply: What you are doing now is shifting the burden of proof. You have failed to prove your pagan myth theory. I have shown it's false even if one holds to Atheism. Now you are challenging me to prove Christianity.

This is an implicit admission of defeat.

BTW take confort in the fact your loss here does NOT prove or disprove God. So you lose nothing of your beliefs.

[Jim the Catholic]

shmuel,

That is the funnyest thing I have ever read!:-)

Good call!!!:-)LOL!

PS. Note LUIGI would never call the POPE
"Father" but "Holy Father" & since the current Pope is German LUIGI should be FRITZ. I'm just saying....:-)

[ah-pee-chorus]

jim: similarity is by definition a subjective term. so i cannot and never claimed i could "prove" the origin of chr. and you cannot disprove that paganism was its source. it is a matter of opinion, and my objective one says chr. is an amalgam of prior myths and sun gods. your subjective opinion is the opposite. but feel free to claim victory if it makes you feel good. just add it to your list of unjustified beliefs.
you insist on repeating my points. yes, we both know that i could accept its originality without accepting it as truth. you can stop repeating it. but that doesnt mean i have to, does it?
i accept scientology as original, are you happy? if you are so unhappy with having your religions origin questioned switch to one with less obvious source material. or just keep declaring victory.

[ah-pee-chorus]

and jim, if you quote me and question me on it, make sure you are accurate. i wrote that births were hailed by three kings, and in parentheses wrote "or three wise men".

[Jim the Catholic]

>similarity is by definition a subjective term.

I reply: True, but Archeology, cultural anthropology & History are objective sciences that employ rational criteria. So we can know with reasonable certainty that the Japanese & Roman Emperors did not originate one from the other or Christianity from Paganism.

That is why I claim victory.

[ah-pee-chorus]

jim: the knicks just called me and declared themselves NBA champs. the two of you can have a big parade.

[Jim the Catholic]

I'm a Star Wars/Red Dwarf/Babylon 5 Sci-fi Geek. I know nothing of this "knicks" you speak of..plus I sucked at baseball.;-)

[Yochanan Lavie]

Jim: Do you like Trek, Dr. Who, and Battlestar, too? What about LOTR? The Matrix trilogy? I am an Ubernerd.

Once again, I repeat Bill's words:

For all must love the human form,
In heathen, Turk, or Jew;
Where Mercy, Love, and Pity dwell
There God is dwelling too.

For heathen, read both polytheists and non-theists.

Shabbat shalom: Whatever gets you thru the night is alright.

[mordecai]

Ah-pee-chorus writes:

Jim the Catholic : you did not answer the question. how do you explain it? please try without having to resort to asking me a different question. it makes it look like you don't have a lot of confidence in your answer.

Posted by: ah-pee-chorus | March 12, 2009 at 07:26 PM

+++++++++++++

Actually this is probative evidence to prove that Jim the Catholic is really Jewish. He answers a question by asking a question

[mordecai]

JIM THE CATHOLIC:

In reviewing your detailed responses I am convined you suffer from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder of some sort. It is time to lighten this heavy mood with a joke about a Priest, a Protestant Minister, and a Rabbi.

These 3 were agreeing that anyone can convert a human being but it is really an accomplishment to convert a wild bear. The priest approaches the wild bear and reads the catechism. The bear roars angrily and the priest pulls out a bottle of holy water, sprinkles some on the bear and the bear quiets down.

The protestant minister baptizes the bear but still does not convert him. The priest and the minister both fail though make a valiant attempt and are none the worse for wear.

It is the rabbis turn. He approaches the bear. When he returns the priest and minister see that the rabbi is in critical condition. He is bloodied, deep lacerations on his face, a broken leg. They asked: "How did that happen to you?"

The rabbi responded: "Well I gues I should not have tried to circumcise him."

[Carol-Ann]

That's a good one, mordecai!

How can I begin to understand the mysteries of the universe when I can't figure out the origin of ah-pee-chorus?

[Responsible Citizen]

The full text of Pope Benedict's remarks can be found on the blog of the Toronto based Salt and Light TV. The pontiff has courageously distanced himself from Bishop Williamson. For those of us in the Jewish community, this should be enough!

[ah-pee-chorus]

Carol-Ann : i like to tell a story of when i was a boy in school and myself and a few friends were singing by the urinals. in walks an elderly rabbi and says, " vhot is going on here? it sounds like a pee chorus. .... or....

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apikoris

if you were referring to my origin, it all began in a little swamp billions of years ago when my great granddaddy was a lot like bacteria....

[Jim the Catholic]

Yochanan my friend,:-)

>Do you like Trek,

Who doesn't?

>Dr. Who,

Tom Baker & this new one on scifi channel seem interesting.

>and Battlestar, too?

Classic Battlestat(aka Mormons in Space) & this new one has it's charms.

>What about LOTR?

It rocks! Tolken was a Traditionalist Catholic you know.

>The Matrix trilogy?

I liked the 1st one but it kinda went down hill from there.

mordecai,

Not sure I can refute your belief I'm obsessive.....not without lying anyway.;-)

>Actually this is probative evidence to prove that Jim the Catholic is really Jewish. He answers a question by asking a question.

Thanks guy!:-)

Carol-Ann my sister in You Know Who!(You are a Catholic Christian right? If not I apologize)

Anyway ah-pee-chorus came from nothing by nothing & is no more than matter, chemistry & some bio electrical energy.

Cheers!

[ah-pee-chorus]

+++Anyway ah-pee-chorus came from nothing by nothing & is no more than matter, chemistry & some bio electrical energy.+++

Posted by: Jim the Catholic | March 13, 2009 at 11:45 PM

thats right jim, same as you, only i haven't chosen to believe in a sun-god fairy tale just because it promises me eternal life.

does christianity teach you to insult those that disagree with you? just wondering.

[Paul Freedman]

There is no reason to doubt that human experience with a historical Jesus, whom Christians acknowledge as Christ is at the root of the Christian experience, errant Jews did not just make up stuff having tripped out to many times as tourists at Elysian rites or whatever--tho I still wonder what the Church teaches as Pauls relation to Peter

[Paul Freedman]

mordecia--Jim the Catholic could be an alternate personality of Shmarya the Rosenberg

[Paul Freedman]

apc: is there anything G-d could do [Him/Her/It]Self to prove to you that He She or it exists? The phenomena could always be labeled as Natural or Psychological or whatever. Your dog turns into an ice cream cone with the peanutty things on top of the chocolate-covered caramel goodness spelling out EHIYEH

oh well, that quantum improbability again...

apc, if you thought that the Christ of Christianity is a, what, sun-god fairy tale then you would be at best semi-literate, as you are more than this you are being deliberately insulting.

Sun-god, what are you going on about?

In Egyptian mythology privileging of the sun led to more austere and less "Christian" forms of proto-monotheistic cults of natural order; the sun-god in Greek mythology is a walk-on part, a cameo--you want to get to the meaty gods of renewal, of life, of change, of growth, you end up with your Demeters and your Orphic priestesses crying out that the god is dead in midnight lamentations.

[Paul Freedman]

Catholic teaching and literary tradition are well aware of this, Joyce, the myth-making logosmaker of modernity is not a random mutation anymore than you are.

[ah-pee-chorus]

+++apc: is there anything G-d could do [Him/Her/It]Self to prove to you that He She or it exists? +++++

Posted by: Paul Freedman

firstly, when you say god do you mean the bible god? or any superior being. i will answer as if you mean any god.
anyone possessing technology sufficiently ahead of that which is known can appear to be god. the cargo cults are one example. or if a man had built a few nuclear bombs in the time of the bible he could no doubt convince many that he was god. but , yes, if events could be made to happen for which no technology is known or is apparent on the horizon, my mind is open. i hold no opinions which cannot be altered by evidence. a few examples might be if i were shown some amputees who were instantaneously made whole. if people i know to be dead many years were brought back to life. if someone could move mt. everest to phoenix,az, maybe with me riding on it.
but the question is far more difficult for you. given that the world appears to run quite well on its own, with random events occurring randomly, what could possibly make you reject a belief in god, and what , on top of all the errors in the bible would make you not believe that god wrote it?

and as for the anthropomorphisizing of a sun god, heres an interesting video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EQLD59fK_Iw

[shmuel]

thanks, jim! glad you liked it.

[Yochanan Lavie]

Paul: You're a fellow Joycean, I see.

[Equal Tim e]

--mordecia--Jim the Catholic could be an alternate personality of Shmarya the Rosenberg--

Brave man - by so accusing Jim, you are now likely to be called "Emo Hamster", various rude variations of your name, teenager and liar.

Over and over and over and over...........

That said - I agree to a point. While I am not willing to say that Jim is a Shmarya alter ego (because I see no reason why someone dedicated to thrashing Orthodox Jewish Rashahs would take the time to create a controversial Catholic for his blog), I do think that "Jim the Catholic" is a character being played by someone who is neither Catholic - or named Jim.

[Equal Tim e]

--does christianity teach you to insult those that disagree with you?--

Perhaps it teaches that one should do that which one does best?

Just a thought.

[Paul Freedman]

APC: Jewish philosophers have debated throughout the centuries the conflict precisely, precisely between "revelation" and "reason"--exactly 100% the differences between what a rational deistic G-d would be on rationalist terms and the world of good and evil and from that 100% precisely the difference between what the G-d of Revelation and Tanach demands and is described as and that very same God of Deism, and then, precisely the contrast between the implicit covenant including the promises made to Noach and Abraham between that G-d of Revelation and the world of the broken covenant in which Israel's arms and legs are cutoff and the trunk then threatened.

That's what we do. This is taken for granted.

I don't understand why you don't accept this.

For me, as a secular Jew, there are additional contradictions between my own simple faith in the G-d of Israel and my parallel lack of observance *and* my certainty, as I get older, that, for me, the traditions of Sinai are *true* in one sense and *a literary construction* in another without means to bridge these gaps for myself let alone tell other Jews how to behave.

But as I live and breathe I feel our God around us as simply as I breath and as simply as I recognize brokenness. And just calling things random when randomness is a subset properly defined of the entirety of perceived orders and should not, I would think, therefore be extended to the whole or used as a cosmic explanatory tool--just reaching for simple atheism or denial or the novelty of randomness is, for me, intellectually impoverished, precisely if you wish to remain *non-theistic*.

For me, that the Rebbe for example, decided to shut down the sources of his inspiration and accept a restricted set of sources and then place them on steroids (as in this meeting with R. Ashlag's grandson [?]--no no no we don't have to explore this area--

http://pop.youtube.com/watch?v=S6otDPrA1t4&feature=related

doesn't mean that even "non-theistic" Jews have to "loose their nerve" in confronting the same intuitions and contradictions between the types of orders used as coin of the realm in secular scientific disciplines and the type of order implied by such concepts as "providence"--

I don't see that your own road would not become by far the richer for expanding upon a narrowly defined conceptual "tool-set" and permit in the space of non-resolution more room for the enrichment of the community of Israel as a whole.

I will check out the "sun-god" referernce.

The Beatles of course are another source.

[Paul Freedman]

YL: I ought to screw up my courage and take a prolonged vacation from work and get back to reading reading reading, including Joyce beyond Portrait. Personally I fall back into sloth and the year will come when shuffling in my bathrobe in the Hebrew Home I will regret not having had the discipline to extend my reading. The same richness of course can be found throughout Hebrew literature and I think that any Jew can find a taste and flavor in the many sources that they will find sweet and nourishing. Without having had the joy of this encounter with our literatures and finding that joy in life, whether in ritual or day to day encounters and hashgacha partit these debates to me naturally become airless and sad and gray and black and white. I take a look at even Chabad blogs like Crown Heights info and see how they are moving on from their crises of enthusiasm and even though this is not my life I sense a communal dedication to expression of commitment and detailed articulation of that commitment to give me personally the sense that, ah, the woodwind section is covered, the symphony can continue. Why the violin section should spend its time complaining that the woodwinds have no strings or have no vibrato or have no bows is beyond me.

[Paul Freedman]

Equal Time--you see I have learned from Jim the Catholic or the personna of Jim the Catholic and if he is Jim and a Catholic I thank him for that, but there is something in the style of some of the posts and the taunting of the equally eponymous Shmarya the Rosenberg in his underwear that me think of Philip Dick's beloved protagonist Horselover Fat in his (religious) trilogy Valis, Divine Invasion, and Transmigration of Timothy Archer--in Valis the narrator continually kibbutzes with the passionate an obsessed Horselover Fat who turns out to have been most likely an echo, a shadow, a cracked mirror image o the narrator (who is himself an image of the author).

[Paul Freedman]

to be fair and provide the other point of view:

here is a sample Dickian defense of the notion, expressed by the Rebbe, that chassidus without other sources of the Ari is just fine thank you:

http://pop.youtube.com/watch?v=ysTcQ4TgJx4&feature=related

i'll go away now...

[ah-pee-chorus]

"more room for the enrichment of the community of Israel as a whole"

Posted by: Paul Freedman

i'm all for anything which is a net positive for israel and the jewish community.

i take it from your response that you dont wish to attempt to answer what it would take for you to disbelieve in the torah god.

[Yochanan Lavie]

Paul; I haven't read the Valis triology yet, but plan to. BTW: Jim has extensive knowledge of Scholastic philosophy, as well as trends in his church. He is who he says he is. I just wish he'd can the ad hominem epitets, and stick to his polemics (hear that, Jim?).

[ah-pee-chorus]

i'm curious if anybody who is a theist regarding the old or new testament god has an answer to question as to what evidence or occurrence could take place which would convince you that your position should be changed. i have answered the question in reverse form.

[Yochanan Lavie]

APC: Like you, our minds are made up. It's a matter of temperment. (See God Spot post, that some brilliant mind brought to Shmarya's attention). The objective truth in this case is beyond the range of human cognition, IMO. So, let's kiss and make up.

[ah-pee-chorus]

YL: no need to make up, of course, as its never personal. but regarding obtaining objective truth in this case, i have a question. bible theists have clearly used some criteria by which they have rejected zeus, thor, quetzlcoatl, etc... so regarding other deities , i assume they think that those gods can objectively be denied as being "real" gods. so why have the same criteria not been applied to bible god, and if they have, what has caused them to accept this one as real? there must be some evidence in their minds which caused them to be atheists towards all other gods while accepting this one.

[ah-pee-chorus]

or, possibly do you believe that none of the past deities can objectively be disregarded?

[mordecai]

Jim:

It seems some here have rebuked you for your penchant in using expletives. I would invite your attention to Proverbs: "A rebuke goes deeper to a man of understanding than a thousand blows into the fool." I suggest you are the former and not the latter.

[Jim the Catholic]

>thats right jim, same as you, only i haven't chosen to believe in a sun-god fairy tale just because it promises me eternal life.

I reply: Except the "Sun-god fairy tale" is a discredited 19th century goofball theory no Atheist with an accredited Higher Degree in Cultural Anthropology or archeology would believe. It's a belief for the gullible.

>does christianity teach you to insult those that disagree with you? just wondering.

I reply: How have I insulted you? Given an Atheistic, Naturalistic, Materialistic and Reductionist you are in fact from nothing by nothing & is no more than matter, chemistry & some bio electrical energy.

If you are not comfortable & at peace with your own belief system that your problem not mine.

[Jim the Catholic]

>-mordecia--Jim the Catholic could be an alternate personality of Shmarya the Rosenberg--

I reply: I thought that was the last name of the Shmarya who runs this blog? Am I missing something?

>Brave man - by so accusing Jim, you are now likely to be called "Emo Hamster", various rude variations of your name, teenager and liar.

I reply: Not likely. Just you Unequal Time/Emo Hamster. Because you act like a teenager & lying to me is always a good way to get on my bad side.

>Over and over and over and over...........

I reply: and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over and over......

>That said - I agree to a point. While I am not willing to say that Jim is a Shmarya alter ego (because I see no reason why someone dedicated to thrashing Orthodox Jewish Rashahs would take the time to create a controversial Catholic for his blog),

I reply: Everyone thinks I'm Shmarya? Weird! But I'm so rational & Shmarya has this fundamentalist Skepticism mojo dogging em?

Ah well. I guess when people are predisposed to believe in Conspiracy theories they come up with all sorts of weird nonsense.

>I do think that "Jim the Catholic" is a character being played by someone who is neither Catholic - or named Jim.

I reply: Believe what you like the fact remains I've forgotten more about Catholic Doctrine then you have ever learned about Jewish doctrine Emo Hamster. But I'm 40 & your a teenager so you have time.

[Jim the Catholic]

>"A rebuke goes deeper to a man of understanding than a thousand blows into the fool." I suggest you are the former and not the latter.

I reply: Thank you mordecai. I shall meditate on this.

[Jim the Catholic]

Paul Freedman,

About the Apostles Paul Vs Peter(sorry I didn't get back to ya). Peter received the Keys from Jesus(Matt 16:18) & is the King Messiah in our theology & the Pope's office is based on the office of Eliakim(ISAIAH 22:20-23) who was the Master of the King's Household, a sort of Prime Minister to the King of Judah the fore runner of the Messiah.

That is where we Catholics get the Pope from. Eliakim was Father over the people, "Pope" is latin for Father etc...

Paul OTOH did write a lot of the New Testament & he was the least of the Apostle(last shall be first, first last etc). But Peter was in charge of everybody & the Apostle James(my namesake) was in charge of the Church in Jerusalem & leader of the early Jewish Christians.

The Protestants being Protestants naturally have a different view but naturally I believe their view is A-historical.

Of course Jews believe we Christians are all wrong & wasting our time with this whole Jesus/Pope thingy.

So what can you do? G_d be merciful to us all.

Cheers guy.:-)

[ah-pee-chorus]

++==reply: How have I insulted you? Given an Atheistic, Naturalistic, Materialistic and Reductionist you are in fact from nothing by nothing & is no more than matter, chemistry & some bio electrical energy.

If you are not comfortable & at peace with your own belief system that your problem not mine++++

Posted by: Jim the Catholic

while its literally true that thats all we are (yes, jim, you too) that doesn't mean we both cannot enjoy the rich human experience with its depth of emotions, appreciate the worlds beauty, love our family and friends, share in others sorrows, etc..
i am not only completely at peace with my life and belief system, i am also brave enough to face reality. it is you , who , because of your need to believe your life is somehow eternal, and has more meaning than it does, have chosen to avoid reason and rationale and instead , believe in a remnant of a pagan sun god to make you feel good. insult that concept all you wish. to an objective judge the connection is obvious. the church even responded to these questions, right jim?

[Jim the Catholic]

>i have a question. bible theists have clearly used some criteria by which they have rejected zeus, thor, quetzlcoatl, etc... so regarding other deities , i assume they think that those gods can objectively be denied as being "real" gods.

I reply: You are making a classic Richard Dawkins category mistake. You are assuming all "gods" are the same in every religious system & like the Dawkhead you are equating Anthropomorphic polytheistic temporal deities who by nature have parts & passions & are just humans with supernatural power who live forever & are bored with an Infinite, non-anthropomorphic, Transcendent, A-temporal, monotheistic Deity whose substance is simple & has no parts or passions.

It's like someone saying Lamarkian Evolution is basically the same as Darwinian just because they are both called Evolution.

Or better yet it's to equate Democritus's primitive view of Evolution with the actual Science of Darwin.

You really need to throw away the Dwakhead & read some Thomas Nagel real fast.

http://woauthority.blogspot.com/2006/10/nagel-on-dawkins-latest-book.html

>so why have the same criteria not been applied to bible god, and if they have, what has caused them to accept this one as real? there must be some evidence in their minds which caused them to be atheists towards all other gods while accepting this one.

I reply: The God of the Bible more resembles the The Absolute or Prime Mover of Aristotle then Zeus. Indeed He doesn't resemble Zeus at all except in later artistic representation & even then no educated Christian believe the bearded guy on the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel is literal.

You need to read Aristotle for starters.

[Jim the Catholic]

>while its literally true that thats all we are (yes, jim, you too)

I reply: Except logically then logic is out the window since how can mere bio-chemistry produce either logic or true belief? Evolution can weed for survival but it's a blind undirected process.

>that doesn't mean we both cannot enjoy the rich human experience with its depth of emotions, appreciate the worlds beauty, love our family and friends, share in others sorrows, etc..

I reply: Except here is the contradiction. How can bio-chemistry enjoy anything. Persons can enjoy & that suggests something intuitively more than mere then mere biochemistry.

>i am not only completely at peace with my life and belief system, i am also brave enough to face reality.

I reply: I'll believe that when you stop reading Dawkins, start reading Nagel & ditch the Da Vinci Code atheism for something intellectually substantive.

>it is you , who , because of your need to believe your life is somehow eternal, and has more meaning than it does, have chosen to avoid reason and rationale and instead

I reply: Reason can't exist in a Atheistic materialistic reality. Maybe a Deistic Materialistic reality but not an Atheist one. After all is reason something that exists apart from the human mind? Then you will need to account for it.

If it's a product of an undirected evolved cognition there is a low probability of trusting it to give you true belief.

I'm afraid Plantinga has conclusively proven that.

>, believe in a remnant of a pagan sun god to make you feel good.

I reply: I'm afraid your belief Christ originated with pagan sun gods is indefensible. Paul Freedmen doesn't believe in the Deity of Christ & he laughs at it. If I became an Atheist tomorrow I would laugh at it.

You believe in it with blind deathless faith. It's not healthy.

>insult that concept all you wish. to an objective judge the connection is obvious. the church even responded to these questions, right jim?

I reply: It's pop archeology & anthropology for the Atheist version of fundamentalism.

It's like some of my fellow Christians being impressed by the "scientific" arguments found in GENESIS & THE BIBLICAL FLOOD.

It all 19th century pre-scientific nonsense.

Deal with it.

[Jim the Catholic]

I'm off to watch some Zombie films. Cheers guys. I'll catch ya all later.

[ah-pee-chorus]

+++" You are making a classic Richard Dawkins category mistake. You are assuming all "gods" are the same in every religious system "+++

Posted by: Jim the Catholic

funny for you to assume any of my thoughts emanate from dawkins. and thanks so much for your reading recommendations. will the oprah book club be replaced by the jim the catholic book club? i hope so.

in the real world, to rational people,there is exactly the same chance of a three hesded tooth fairy to have created and be running the world as a single shapeless other thing. and according to the evidence, that chance is darn near zero. in your tiny view of the world, you have been duped into thinking that current man's assumption of what a non-existent ,unprovable being should be ,is more logical and likely than prervious societies equally confident view that god is an anthroporphic polytheistic temporal deity. how arrogant. i like both ideas equally. that is to say not at all.
i suspect you reject leprechauns as gods in all their forms.

++++It's like someone saying Lamarkian Evolution is basically the same as Darwinian just because they are both called Evolution. +++

you really need a class in logic. another childlike analogy. one is not required to assume sameness in two concepts to reject them for an equal lack of evidence. if there were evidence for any of these different god concepts it would be in a different category, just as certain aspects of the evolutionary process have been rejected while others validated.
but to date, all gods have been blessed to be on equal footing vis-a-vis their followers ability to show they exist.

[ah-pee-chorus]

jim:

may i suggest you be as honest as your pope and admit you screwed up.
you're 40, there's still time to face the truth. don't be scared. you can cross the street by yourself.

[ah-pee-chorus]

that was uncalled for but given the headline i couldnt resist.

[Jim the Catholic]

>funny for you to assume any of my thoughts emanate from dawkins. and thanks so much for your reading recommendations. will the oprah book club be replaced by the jim the catholic book club? i hope so.

I reply: Dawkins makes the same mistakes you do. Your thinking is clearly similar & just as anti-intellectual.

>in the real world, to rational people,there is exactly the same chance of a three hesded tooth fairy to have created and be running the world as a single shapeless other thing. and according to the evidence, that chance is darn near zero.

I reply: What kind of evidence are you talking about? Empirical? Forensic? Mathematical? Philosophical? Do you even understand the basic definitions of these words? Or do you like most fundamentalist atheists have this ambiguous Fetish Concept called “Evidence” which you dogmatically claim the Theist doesn’t have based on a self-referential neo-logical positivism that even Anthony J. Flew discarded at the height of his atheism?

Well do you?

>in your tiny view of the world, you have been duped into thinking that current man's assumption of what a non-existent ,unprovable being should be ,is more logical and likely than prervious societies equally confident view that god is an anthroporphic polytheistic temporal deity. how arrogant. i like both ideas equally. that is to say not at all.
i suspect you reject leprechauns as gods in all their forms.

I reply: Rather the logical necessity for an un-caused cause vs the philosophically & Logical impossibility for an infinite series of contingent finite causes, the philosophical necessity for a Ultimate Transcendental Mind to be the ground for the transcendental nature of logic as opposed to Darwin’s Dreadful Doubt.
These are logically relevant concepts & have nothing to do with Elves or leprechauns & point to the existence of God. Leprechauns are invoked by fundamentalist Atheists who are too lazy to learn any philosophy & are stuck in the neoDawkinite Sola Empiricist mode.

++++It's like someone saying Lamarkian Evolution is basically the same as Darwinian just because they are both called Evolution. +++

>you really need a class in logic. another childlike analogy. one is not required to assume sameness in two concepts to reject them for an equal lack of evidence.

I reply: You have yet to show any evidence you are logical. FYI based on your logic(or rather lack there of) we must conclude just because Lamarkian Evolution has been shown to be improbable therefore ALL EVOLUTION is improbable. That of course is false reasoning as is your weak defense of your category mistake.

Atheist philosophers Quentin Smith, Adolf Grünbaum & Thomas Nagel know this type of superficial criticism of theism is a bane to their cause.

To quote Nagel.
“"All explanations come to an end somewhere. The real opposition between Dawkins's physicalist naturalism and the God hypothesis is a disagreement over whether this end point is physical, extensional, and purposeless, or mental, intentional, and purposive. On either view, the ultimate explanation is not itself explained. The God hypothesis does not explain the existence of God, and naturalistic physicalism does not explain the laws of physics."

>if there were evidence for any of these different god concepts it would be in a different category, just as certain aspects of the evolutionary process have been rejected while others validated.
but to date, all gods have been blessed to be on equal footing vis-a-vis their followers ability to show they exist.

I reply: Sorry but if YHWH exists then Zeus by definition cannot exist. If one Infinite God exists there cannot be two infinite Gods. Since logically they would limit each other by virtual of the fact neither is the other & thus neither could be truly infinite.

Plus you have not put forth your basis for evidence. Empirical Science CANNOT prove Empiricism(since that is begging the question) or materialism. Those are philosophical & metaphysical concepts.

Like most fundamentalist Atheist you are putting a standard of proof on the Theist your ideology can’t meet for itself or account for basic epistemology.

>may i suggest you be as honest as your pope and admit you screwed up.
you're 40, there's still time to face the truth. don't be scared. you can cross the street by yourself.

I reply: Rather you need to read intelligent philosophical Atheists because this warmed over Dawkinite, Harris, Hitchens & Dennett bullshit of yours won't pass the laugh test much less the reason test.

[Paul Freedman]

Jim, Shmarya is a blog-name. Part of his mojo is his anonymity. I was, I admit, having a joke at your expense but your denunciations of Shmarya did remind me of Philip Dick's narrators issues with a not completely un-Shmaryaean protagonist in Valis (but completely in the other direction--Horselover Fats is a gnostic as, experientially was Dick with many many caveats) I thought of introducing the problem of non-locality into the reductionist naturalist materialism I think Dawkins advocates but why bother--Scientific American has a nice article this month on the problems of "local" realities vs "non-local" "spooky" quantum probabilities--btw I don't laugh at the belief in Christ which I didn't know was substantially (rather than trivially) even a belief per se--my impression was that the valence of the Church was a transformative experience through Christ--that is the transfiguration through agape--rather than focus on the summarizing catachesmis per se. That is there is nothing to believe in (or if you will, plenty of enumerated articles of faith to attest to if it comes to that) but rather That which is to Be-Lived Through.

[Paul Freedman]

not my team however....

[Paul Freedman]

I don't know why Christians persist in the error (that has become the root of much prejudice) that declination of acceptance of their faith is active rejection etc. This is false. It is denial when the opportunity to affirm is presented in the context that affirmation is requested. Nobody is saying that Xtianity is a "waste of time" any more than we are saying that Allegeri's Miseri Mei is a "waste of music".

YL: I think the Valis trilogy is amazing.

[Paul Freedman]

otoh the pomp and majesty bit is good for the odd larff--
sorry

[Paul Freedman]

APC: my post absolutely addressed your question.

??????

[Paul Freedman]

YL: I think that British philosophy and analytics was influenced by the scholastic tradition of at least attempting to define terms & what we mean when we are saying what we mean so that we mean what we say though they may have ended up someplace other than faith.

I would think that there are many rooms in all our mansions and most people should find at least something in one of them they like instead of going on about how the house is creaky, the roof leaks, the house over the hill is much nicer and the grass there much greener....

[Paul Freedman]

Jim: transubstantiation is a difficulty for me, but in particular I don't "get" the Church's notion of immutable yet transferrable yet non-revocable priestly sacramental efficacy--but I thought Protestants also objected to this...

[Paul Freedman]

APC: but, personally, my subjective experience is in the other direction away from atheism and towards biblical corporealism--so you have me at a disadvantage by asking what would it take you to believe there is no such thing as blueberry pie after I've had the experience of tasting it...although this experience is not a "logical" proof

[Paul Freedman]

& contradicts Maimonidean principles etc.

[ah-pee-chorus]

Jim the Catholic : the first cause arguement is and has been totally rejected. here is just one:

http://www.positiveatheism.org/faq/firstcause.htm

then, you go on to repeat analogies which i've already shown you to be completely illogical. in addition, even the arguments you present say nothing of the bible god being the first cause .
so i will ask you again, what event could take place or evidence be presented to you which could cause you to reevaluate your position? or do you admit that none exists? to have boxed yourself into a position from which no possible evidence can be brought to remove you from such, is highly irrational. according to websters dictionary, irrational :not governed by or according to reason .

[ah-pee-chorus]

Posted by: Paul Freedman | March 16, 2009 at 09:29 AM

paul, that answers my question.

[Paul Freedman]

APC, the issue for you, as your critics see it, is the type of a-theism you choose to adapt, whether strictly linear and deterministic or something other, what we think is richer--"proofs of God" were defined by some Church fathers as aids to prior faith--they are not necessarily taken as being dispositive or to be pounded over the table on--the exchange between Anselm and a student over his "ontological proof of God" is very amusing--the proof itself seems simple minded when you first read it, then it seems like a willful language game with a simple disproof that you are convinced you will come up with ... the student monk still found it unacceptable--I don't know that there is agreement in Judaism over the philosophical nature of the God to be proved or disproved--it is a faith that asserts it comes by way of revelation at least in large measure and not by reason....imo

[Jim the Catholic]

There are so many errors in that link I don't know where to begin? I feel like a mosquitoe in a nudist colony.

I'll pick this for now.
>The first axiom is very doubtful indeed. Quantummechanics works with events in nature that are, or at least seem to be, completely random.

I reply: Rather only a strict Copenhagen Interpretation of QM would be completely random. A Hidden Variables view of QM would not be random at all. But if we assume a CI view of QM the Atheist has the following problem.

The following I've cut N' pasted from another blog because I don't have time to put it in my own words.
http://atheism-analyzed.blogspot.com/search?q=Hawking

QUOTE"Quantum mechanics describes some very non-intuitive behavior. For example, a quantum particle exists only as a mathematical relationship until it is observed. The relationship is described by the Schroedinger equation which is an analog of the relationship of potential energy to kinetic energy. These equations describe a spectrum of existences, that depend on when they are observed.

This bit of metaphysics seriously troubled Einstein who mused, does the moon only exist when we view it? The idea has seemed so fantastic and un-real, that quantum mechanics has long been after tests to verify or falsify it. In some testing it was found to be even more weird: the particle / wave under observation could actually pre-determine the measurement, in effect knowing in advance what was about to occur. Recent testing in Vienna has shown that the equation collapse is more real than a constant, invariant reality. In other words, reality is created as we observe it.

Recently Hawking and Thomas Hertog have proposed that the Big Bang which created the universe was actually a quantum event. At t=0 an equation that described all possible universes (multiverses) collapsed, producing only the universe that we inhabit.

The unstated metaphysics are beautiful: where did the equation come from, and why did it collapse (who observed it)? The mechanism of equation collapse upon observation is a knife in the heart of Atheism. The duality of wave / particle is a spectrum of existence, where mind is in control and material particles are not. If the mind controls the existence of physical entities, then the mind must exist outside physical existence. Otherwise, there would be no physical things at all, just a superposition of possible existences as described by a single equation awaiting an outside mind to observe it.

To bring it into focus, our minds must exist outside physical, material existence; they are transcendental in a manner that we do not understand (yet, at least). The existence of the universe before us must have been hinged on a moment-to-moment observation by someone other than us. The continuity of reality that we seem to think we experience must have been created by an outside mind, which not only created it but coordinates it for overall coherence in each sequential moment of time. And the Big Bang spectral universe equation collapse must have been triggered by the observation by some mind outside the universe itself.

Atheists will have to pedal hard to deny these quantum issues. If they falsify them they can pick up their Nobel prizes; I’m sure there must be prizes for negations. In the meantime, the “scientific” blocks have been knocked out from under the mental process of Atheism, and it was done by science, which is not by definition Atheistic anyway.

"It would be perfectly consistent with all we know to say that there was a Being who was responsible for all the laws of physics"
Stephen Hawking
END QUOTE

>Particle/anti-particle pairs can come into existence and annihilate again without any apparent cause.

I reply: Uncaused in the above context means we don't know the conditions by which virtual particles arise from Zero point energy. But the particles don't come from nothing(i.e. an actual vacum) but from a Quantum Vacum which is merely the lowest energy state in the universe at the subtomic level.

>Many quantum-processes seem to happen without cause.

I reply: A primitive living on a remote island might deduce rain comes from clouds even if he doesn't understand condensation.

Just because we don't know how Zero Point Energy becomes a virtual particle doesn't mean we found a true example of something coming into existence un-caused in the strong sense. virtual particles come from Zero point energy not from nothing. They are only uncaused in that we don't understand yet the conditions by which this happens.

>Saying that everything must have a cause is a very bold thing to do, and would require some major scientific theories. Until and unless these theories are presented, I call the first axiom a falsehood.

I reply: Rather this link plays fast & lose with the science. I can't see Smith making these mistakes.

More later. This is why fundamentalist Atheism is useless. You REALLY need to start reading Smith & ditch the New Atheist fundie crap.

[Paul Freedman]

Jim, I would think that if you posit a quantum vacuum or even the mathematics for a quantum vacuum or any state that can give rise to a physical manifestation--then you would have not an argument from randomness but argument from a prior state--some dogmatic atheists seem to get an sense of explanatory completeness by splitting this state off from the universe--to get some "external" non-theistic (Platonic?) genitive causality--but if you accept it on its own terms I don't know why you don't end up with the equivalent of recourse to a self-causing universe--and I've never been convinced that first-cause arguments (that traditionally admitted of a co-eternal "hyclic" material universe) are any more convincing than "self-caused" "we're here because we're here" statements of a the bear-came-over-the-mountain variety. As noted, Scientific American has an article on the non-random correlation distribution of quantum effects.

And on ontological proof:

the young monk who made the first that-can't be right rejoinder was not a student :

http://www.trueu.org/Academics/NerdsCorner/A000000106.cfm

a hoot:

Gaunilo then goes on to say, "If ... someone wishes thus to persuade me that this island really exists beyond all doubt, I should either think that he was joking, or I should find it hard to decide which of us I ought to judge the bigger fool — I, if I agree with him, or he, if he thought that he had proved the existence of this island ... ."8 And so too with respect to the existence of God and the ontological argument, thinks Gaunilo; if the ontological argument proves the existence of God, then arguments like this can prove the existence of any variety of any thing.

[ah-pee-chorus]

Jim the Catholic: funny that you quote hawking to prove a point regarding the first cause nonsense. because hawking seems to have reached a different conclusion as to the validity of the argument and, as to whether or not he ends up with your result from this false argument. a few quotes from him...

Throughout the 1970s I had been mainly studying black holes, but in 1981 my interest in questions about the origin and fate of the universe was reawakened when I attended a conference on cosmology organized by the Jesuits in the Vatican. The Catholic Church had made a bad mistake with Galileo when it tried to lay down the law on a question of science, declaring that the sun went round the earth. Now, centuries later, it had decided to invite a number of experts to advise it on cosmology. At the end of the conference the participants were granted an audience with the pope. He told us that it was all right to study the evolution of the universe after the big bang, but we should not inquire into the big bang itself because that was the moment of Creation and therefore the work of God. I was glad then that he did know the subject of the talk I had just given at the conference -- the possibility that space- time was finite but had no boundary, which means that it had no beginning, no moment of Creation. I had no desire to share the fate of Galileo, with whom I feel a strong sense of identity, partly because of the coincidence of having been born exactly 300 years after his death! [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), pp. 115-16.]

The quantum theory of gravity has opened up a new possibility, in which there would be no boundary to space-time and so there would be no need to specify the behavior at the boundary. There would be no singularities at which the laws of science broke down and no edge of space-time at which one would have to appeal to God or some new law to set the boundary conditions for space-time. One could say: 'The boundary condition of the universe is that it has no boundary.' The universe would be completely self-contained and not affected by anything outside itself. It would neither be created nor destroyed. It would just BE. [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 136.]

The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started -- it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator? [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 140-41.]

thanks for the laughs. hawking was worried about being gallileo'ed by the church.