PDA

View Full Version : Church's Easter show shocks crowd with bunny whipping


wdlove
Apr 9, 2004, 02:48 PM
It may not have been as gruesome as Mel Gibson's movie, but many parents and children got upset when a church trying to teach about Jesus' crucifixion performed an Easter show with actors whipping the Easter bunny and breaking eggs.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/offbeat/2004-04-08-easter-show_x.htm

Apple Hobo
Apr 9, 2004, 03:48 PM
Melissa Salzmann, who brought her 4-year-old son J.T., said the program was inappropriate for young children. "He was crying and asking me why the bunny was being whipped," Salzmann said.

Performers broke eggs meant for an Easter egg hunt and also portrayed a drunken man and a self-mutilating woman, said Jennifer Norelli-Burke, another parent who saw the show in Glassport, a community about 10 miles southeast of Pittsburgh.

The first paragraph sounds like something out of The Onion. http://bellsouthpwp.net/g/s/gserv2/gifs/lol.gif

jrv3034
Apr 9, 2004, 04:04 PM
That is truly, TRULY bizarre... :eek:

I just had a good laugh here with my co-workers, though. Great way to end a Friday!

I wish I could've seen it; I'll bet it was hillarious! :D

Krizoitz
Apr 9, 2004, 04:38 PM
Honestly...didn't any of them want to take 5-seconds to think about this. I mean emphasizing that Easter is about Jesus is good and all, but a 4 year old isn't really going to get the deep theological meaning behind it if you beat the crap out of the Easter Bunny. Sheesh. Its people like that that give Christianity a bad name.

bousozoku
Apr 9, 2004, 06:17 PM
That's one of those denominations where anything can happen. I'm not sure that they ever think, they just do.

Moxiemike
Apr 9, 2004, 09:13 PM
Ah. Glassport is near Pittsburgh. I think the fumes chemicals from the steel mill days have had an ill effect on the rationality of the new generations of Pixburggggghers.

Sheesh.

Sometimes... i wanna move!

Heh

wdlove
Apr 10, 2004, 02:04 PM
Having a Passion play at a Christian church is good. There was no reason to be using a bunny, that is a secular icon. The real reason for this weekend is Jesus Christ and what he did for us, all those that accept him.

bousozoku
Apr 10, 2004, 06:21 PM
Having a Passion play at a Christian church is good. There was no reason to be using a bunny, that is a secular icon. The real reason for this weekend is Jesus Christ and what he did for us, all those that accept him.

I think they were just trying to remind people why there is Easter and that it had nothing to do with a rabbit.

solvs
Apr 10, 2004, 07:09 PM
I think (kind-of ironically) South Park made a good point about it. Maybe people should focus more on the good Jesus did, and everything he taught and stood up for. Not how he died.

Of course, Matt and Trey are the ones who made a cartoon Christmas card where Santa and Jesus are fighting to the death... but at least it wasn't meant for 4 year old kids.

Some people are just oblivious.

bousozoku
Apr 10, 2004, 08:04 PM
I think (kind-of ironically) South Park made a good point about it. Maybe people should focus more on the good Jesus did, and everything he taught and stood up for. Not how he died.

Of course, Matt and Trey are the ones who made a cartoon Christmas card where Santa and Jesus are fighting to the death... but at least it wasn't meant for 4 year old kids.

Some people are just oblivious.

I seem to remember years ago being in church and the minister was yelling about xmas and Santa Claus and what was wrong with it. I think that everyone left the yearly sermon/rant with negative feelings about the holidays and the minister and church.

As you're saying--focus on the positive.

IndyGopher
Apr 11, 2004, 09:08 AM
I think (kind-of ironically) South Park made a good point about it. Maybe people should focus more on the good Jesus did, and everything he taught and stood up for. Not how he died.
[...]

Some people are just oblivious.
Jesus did some pretty amazing things, and taught some vital lessons. However, the whole point of His coming to Earth was His death and resurrection... so I fail to see how too much emphasis could ever be put on that. The problem most people have with the crucifixion is their unwillingness to "get the message." The scourging, the death, the humiliation, all of them are what each of us deserve, but He took these punishments Himself so that we wouldn't have to. People seem to not want to believe that we deserve it. It's gotten much more so with the current notion that pretty much anything someone does is okay. Well, it's not. And if people would use the Lenten season to remember that, maybe we would all be better off.

rainman::|:|
Apr 11, 2004, 09:14 AM
Having a Passion play at a Christian church is good. There was no reason to be using a bunny, that is a secular icon. The real reason for this weekend is Jesus Christ and what he did for us, all those that accept him.

if you're showing it to consenting adults, fine. If you're showing it to children, it's child abuse. I wouldn't take a 5 year old to see the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and i wouldn't take him to Passion either... It's called being responsible.

The easter bunny thing... wow. Was the church in question Landover Baptist?

paul

wdlove
Apr 11, 2004, 03:18 PM
if you're showing it to consenting adults, fine. If you're showing it to children, it's child abuse. I wouldn't take a 5 year old to see the Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and i wouldn't take him to Passion either... It's called being responsible.

The easter bunny thing... wow. Was the church in question Landover Baptist?

paul

I applaud you for being a responsible parent. That is a big problem today, no one wants to take responsibility.

Freakk123
Apr 11, 2004, 08:28 PM
I heard about this incident this morning and I was disgusted to say the least. What were they thinking! Kids SHOULD NOT be subjected to something like this! The church should think things through! Its sooo sad... The kids must've been horrified! I would think that even the adults would be disgusted, ashamed, and slightly scared themselves!

P-Worm
Apr 11, 2004, 10:00 PM
I think (kind-of ironically) South Park made a good point about it. Maybe people should focus more on the good Jesus did, and everything he taught and stood up for. Not how he died.

My church feels this way. We don't wear crosses or have them in our homes. We've always believed that it was more about the ressurection and atonement than it was about the crucifixion.

I'm not trying to say that what He did for us wasn't amazing or unbelievably painful, just that it was all done for the atonement (us) and that's what should be focusing on, what He did for us, not what we did to Him.

P-Worm

kylos
Apr 12, 2004, 01:19 AM
My church feels this way. We don't wear crosses or have them in our homes. We've always believed that it was more about the ressurection and atonement than it was about the crucifixion.

I'm not trying to say that what He did for us wasn't amazing or unbelievably painful, just that it was all done for the atonement (us) and that's what should be focusing on, what He did for us, not what we did to Him.

P-Worm

That sounds reasonable, but I fear it may be misguided. It's all important, and focusing on one aspect over the other leads to twisted and cultish belief. We need to occasionally emphasize all aspects or we'll develop unhealthy beliefs. Mel Gibson's passion emphasizes a part that may not be emphasized nearly enough at times, however, as we can see in the case of the Easter bunny whipping, people can focus too much on a negative approach and really do some nasty dumb stuff. Likewise, focusing too much on the "positive" lessens our appreciation of what was really done. Christianity isn't just a good set of principles to live by in order to get along and be a good person, it's a life-changing belief that affects the core of who we are - fallen people in need of redemption.

MarkCollette
Apr 12, 2004, 03:44 AM
Jesus did some pretty amazing things, and taught some vital lessons. However, the whole point of His coming to Earth was His death and resurrection... so I fail to see how too much emphasis could ever be put on that. The problem most people have with the crucifixion is their unwillingness to "get the message." The scourging, the death, the humiliation, all of them are what each of us deserve, but He took these punishments Himself so that we wouldn't have to. People seem to not want to believe that we deserve it. It's gotten much more so with the current notion that pretty much anything someone does is okay. Well, it's not. And if people would use the Lenten season to remember that, maybe we would all be better off.

See, the thing is, that the Bible alleges that Jesus did three main things:

1. Instructed people how to live/love
2. Died
3. Rose

So, up until he died, then his whole purpose was to be a teacher, and his message was quite positive.

When he died, then his message was still positive, but their was an additional lesson: mess with the system, and the system will mess with you. So, a cautionary aside to a revolutionary tale.

I'll assume that the account of these first two actions is real, and thus my interpretations of them are valid. Perhaps things were exaggerated, but who knows. But, the third action, that he rose, is entirely debateable, and it is this action that leads to the retroactive belief that everything that came before is not really important. Sortof nice that Jesus said to be a good person, but paling in comparison to the enormity of humanity all getting to go to Heaven for ever and ever.

And so we have this obsession with dying and rising, even though it only occurred over the weekend, and his teaching lasted years and years.

Here's my proposal, scrap Christianity, with all your faith, and death-lusting. Start a new religion, you can call it Collettism if you like :) In that religion, you focus 99% of your time on following how Jesus said to live. Then spend 1% of your time acknowledging that Jesus may or may not be some god figure who may or may not have died and risen to save your sins, which aren't too important anyway, because you already believe that that the only two bad things one can do is to fail to love your god, and to fail to love your brother. You can always ask your brother for forgiveness, and so all you need to do is ask your god for forgiveness, which you already know he'll graciously accept, so you might as well spare yourself the time, and use it to better do that 99% of living your life :)

Then you would be doing what Jesus wanted, and appear actually rational to the rest of us who still stubbornly don't think there's a god. Heck, you guys might starting sane enough that we'd stop caring, and join you anyway :)

P-Worm
Apr 12, 2004, 07:20 AM
That sounds reasonable, but I fear it may be misguided. It's all important, and focusing on one aspect over the other leads to twisted and cultish belief. We need to occasionally emphasize all aspects or we'll develop unhealthy beliefs. Mel Gibson's passion emphasizes a part that may not be emphasized nearly enough at times, however, as we can see in the case of the Easter bunny whipping, people can focus too much on a negative approach and really do some nasty dumb stuff. Likewise, focusing too much on the "positive" lessens our appreciation of what was really done. Christianity isn't just a good set of principles to live by in order to get along and be a good person, it's a life-changing belief that affects the core of who we are - fallen people in need of redemption.

I see your point. I went and saw the Passion for that exact reason. I felt that I didn't have a great enough understanding of what He went through for us, and it was a lot. I just feel at times that a lot of religions put to big an emphasis on His death. Allthough it was important, the ressurection was the whole point. Well, that and learning to love our enemies and such. But I believe that it was the ressurection that saved us, not His death (I know, they go hand in hand, but I still feel this way).

I just feel bad about it. On one hand, He went through a ton for us. On the other hand, I'm not sure how good it is to focus on His death when He spent His whole life doing miracles and teaching us what we must do. In the long run, isn't that more important?

P-Worm

P.S. This is where internet talk can get scary. I don't mean to offend anyone and tell them that their belief is wrong, I just wish to state my viewpoint on the subject. I don't anyone to get hurt.

IndyGopher
Apr 12, 2004, 07:25 AM
See, the thing is, that the Bible alleges that Jesus did three main things:

1. Instructed people how to live/love
2. Died
3. Rose

So, up until he died, then his whole purpose was to be a teacher, and his message was quite positive.

When he died, then his message was still positive, but their was an additional lesson: mess with the system, and the system will mess with you. So, a cautionary aside to a revolutionary tale.

I'll assume that the account of these first two actions is real, and thus my interpretations of them are valid. Perhaps things were exaggerated, but who knows. But, the third action, that he rose, is entirely debateable, and it is this action that leads to the retroactive belief that everything that came before is not really important. Sortof nice that Jesus said to be a good person, but paling in comparison to the enormity of humanity all getting to go to Heaven for ever and ever.

And so we have this obsession with dying and rising, even though it only occurred over the weekend, and his teaching lasted years and years.

Here's my proposal, scrap Christianity, with all your faith, and death-lusting. Start a new religion, you can call it Collettism if you like :) In that religion, you focus 99% of your time on following how Jesus said to live. Then spend 1% of your time acknowledging that Jesus may or may not be some god figure who may or may not have died and risen to save your sins, which aren't too important anyway, because you already believe that that the only two bad things one can do is to fail to love your god, and to fail to love your brother. You can always ask your brother for forgiveness, and so all you need to do is ask your god for forgiveness, which you already know he'll graciously accept, so you might as well spare yourself the time, and use it to better do that 99% of living your life :)

Then you would be doing what Jesus wanted, and appear actually rational to the rest of us who still stubbornly don't think there's a god. Heck, you guys might starting sane enough that we'd stop caring, and join you anyway :)
I hardly believe you could say that would be doing everything Jesus wanted, but it is a good start. Of course, you're hardly the first person to suggest this course of action... even Dante devoted an entire circle of Hell to folks with this notion, referring to them as virtuous pagans. Not that I think Dante's Divine Comedy was in any way inspired, but it shows this idea as been around a while.
It's a failing of my own Christianity, but I do not feel the need to try and convert anyone.. so I am not going to argue with you... hope that's not what you were looking for. I know in my heart I am right, but the Word has been available to everyone for too long for me to feel the need to be an evangelist.

takao
Apr 12, 2004, 08:41 AM
IMHO that show wasn't ideal for children but i holds true nonetheless

eastern are the most holy days in christanity ..
without the passion would there be christianty ?... no it's central point in the belief (eastern is more important than christmas)

the easter bunny is rather new ... it came up in the last 300 years

to make eggs as presents is perhaps the oldest part of easter tradition

perhaps it is feared that the same will happend to eastern what happend to christmas in the past....

santa claus modells are set on fire every year here by protests because the economy want to replace the "christkind" ( the "christ child" traditionaly brings the presents since centuries) with santa claus (wich completely distorts the way how children think about christmas)

just like helloween is getting bigger and bigger every year here
10 years ago there was no helloween here ...

i'm not religious (and i have no problem with easter bunny either) but i hate how some things get distorted by media & TV and companies:
christmas trees made out of plastic (i would rather have none)

BTW:
and how everybody in the media complained about how cruel and violent the mel gibson movie "the passion" was ... the paintings of the passion in our church are not so different (and this church is only 120 years old) and when i look at the paintings hell in the big gothic cathedreals then "the passion" looks like a disney movie
austria is 88% catholic and "the passion" from mel gibson is a complete flop

kylos
Apr 12, 2004, 10:11 AM
See, the thing is, that the Bible alleges that Jesus did three main things:

1. Instructed people how to live/love
2. Died
3. Rose

So, up until he died, then his whole purpose was to be a teacher, and his message was quite positive.

When he died, then his message was still positive, but their was an additional lesson: mess with the system, and the system will mess with you. So, a cautionary aside to a revolutionary tale.

I'll assume that the account of these first two actions is real, and thus my interpretations of them are valid. Perhaps things were exaggerated, but who knows. But, the third action, that he rose, is entirely debateable, and it is this action that leads to the retroactive belief that everything that came before is not really important. Sortof nice that Jesus said to be a good person, but paling in comparison to the enormity of humanity all getting to go to Heaven for ever and ever.

And so we have this obsession with dying and rising, even though it only occurred over the weekend, and his teaching lasted years and years.

Here's my proposal, scrap Christianity, with all your faith, and death-lusting. Start a new religion, you can call it Collettism if you like :) In that religion, you focus 99% of your time on following how Jesus said to live. Then spend 1% of your time acknowledging that Jesus may or may not be some god figure who may or may not have died and risen to save your sins, which aren't too important anyway, because you already believe that that the only two bad things one can do is to fail to love your god, and to fail to love your brother. You can always ask your brother for forgiveness, and so all you need to do is ask your god for forgiveness, which you already know he'll graciously accept, so you might as well spare yourself the time, and use it to better do that 99% of living your life :)

Then you would be doing what Jesus wanted, and appear actually rational to the rest of us who still stubbornly don't think there's a god. Heck, you guys might starting sane enough that we'd stop caring, and join you anyway :)

To your first point add, claimed to be the Son of God and the only way to heaven. This is borne out in the best record of his teachings, the Gospels, which far surpass any historical document from that period and more in terms of accuracy, verifiability, and closeness (in terms of when written) to the actual events.

C.S Lewis said that anyone who made the claims Jesus did in regard to his deity is either a lunatic on the order of someone who would claim to be a poached egg, the Son of God, or the actual devil of hell.

As most will agree, the teachings of Jesus are remarkable for their insight into the human heart and mind. Therefore, it's unlikely he's a poached egg, since such people are usually quite far off on everything.

Son of God or devil of hell? Would the devil go toe to toe with himself as Jesus did, rebuking the devil on many occasions? I find that hard to believe.

So it seems hard to accept the existence of Jesus without accepting his deity, and it seems hard not to accept the existence of Jesus as many historians of his time mentioned him.


You say you don't believe in the existence of God. I have thought about that in detail a fair amount and would have to say that the opposite is more likely the case. A very quick explanation of this: Starting with an evolutionistic creation of the world (obviously necessary to get rid of God), one would claim that the universe started with a "big bang" or some other process by which matter comes together to form worlds and life. It's hard to tell how it started, it's always changing to get rid of a new flaw. The problem is, they haven't gotten rid of the fatal flaw, where did the energy for the bang and where did the matter for the bang come from? Leading scientists admit that at that point matters have reached a singularity, or the point in which the laws of physics have no jurisdiction (Zacharias, 2000 Jesus among other Gods). At that point, you need an entity that can set forth the laws of physics, something above the laws of physics, something supernatural (by definition), something a lot like God.

Oh, and Mr. Collette, I haven't questioned your sanity or capability for rational thought, and I would appreciate it if you could show the civility to do the same.

kylos
Apr 12, 2004, 10:27 AM
I see your point. I went and saw the Passion for that exact reason. I felt that I didn't have a great enough understanding of what He went through for us, and it was a lot. I just feel at times that a lot of religions put to big an emphasis on His death. Allthough it was important, the ressurection was the whole point. Well, that and learning to love our enemies and such. But I believe that it was the ressurection that saved us, not His death (I know, they go hand in hand, but I still feel this way).

I just feel bad about it. On one hand, He went through a ton for us. On the other hand, I'm not sure how good it is to focus on His death when He spent His whole life doing miracles and teaching us what we must do. In the long run, isn't that more important?

P-Worm

P.S. This is where internet talk can get scary. I don't mean to offend anyone and tell them that their belief is wrong, I just wish to state my viewpoint on the subject. I don't anyone to get hurt.

P-worm, actually I have yet to see the Passion.

I completely understand what you're saying, though. I guess I'm just emphasizing caution for a balanced perspective, which I think you show since you say that you did indeed see the passion to help you appreciate more the sacrifice Christ made. And as you say, it is very easy to over-emphasize the death of Christ. And yet without it... :) It's kinda like the Easter v. Christmas debate, which is more important? Neither,. Without Christ's birth he couldn't have lived. Without his teachings and claims, there was no point to his death. Without his death, his words would have no validation. And without his resurrection, his death, his teachings, and our faith would have been in vain. (1 Cor. 15:13-14, roughly.)

MarkCollette
Apr 12, 2004, 01:55 PM
I hardly believe you could say that would be doing everything Jesus wanted, but it is a good start. Of course, you're hardly the first person to suggest this course of action... even Dante devoted an entire circle of Hell to folks with this notion, referring to them as virtuous pagans. Not that I think Dante's Divine Comedy was in any way inspired, but it shows this idea as been around a while.
It's a failing of my own Christianity, but I do not feel the need to try and convert anyone.. so I am not going to argue with you... hope that's not what you were looking for. I know in my heart I am right, but the Word has been available to everyone for too long for me to feel the need to be an evangelist.

As an amusing side note, my reply was so long to write, that macrumors logged me out, and it was lost, so if I have lost my eloquence, it is due to that frustration.

Actually, my interpretation is that the two greatest commandments are generalisations from which all other commandments are derived, and hence to follow them would be to follow everything he said. (Matthew 22:40) Of course, I could be wrong about everything, but I think I would still be correct about it covering that 99% part.

In my post, I did not actually recommend for you to reject that Jesus is god, so your comment about paganism is not relevant. What I did say, was to separate what you've been taught into two separate categories: what history has been independently corroborated, and is known to be fact, and what it is that you think because of faith. I'm not saying to reject the faith part, or to even treat it as some second-class component of your religion, but to rather explicitly admit, in all your teachings, that it is faith and not necessarily fact.

There are two reasons for this.

The first is that because the Bible is written by people, and not your god, then it has the possibility of being wrong. Furthermore, it was merely a group of people who assembled the various sub-books all together and insisted that they were inspired by god, and thus counted as if god wrote them. In short, their is no proof to back up your equivalence that the Bible equals the "Word". Since the Bible may well, for all you know, then be in conflict with this "Word", then it should at least be taken with a grain of salt, if one actually cares what their god wishes.

Secondly, we as humans tend to have three types of things we believe, which are:
1. Things we have perceived with our own senses, that we know to be true. This is the most believed, yet it is still possible to be wrong.
2. Things that others have conveyed to us as fact. For example, if several billion people on earth think that the world is round, and astronomers have gone into space and seen then it is round, then we take it as fact. The funny part here is that we've never talked to the billion people or the astronomers, but in fact have only heard from several people about this.
3. Things that others have told us might be true, but it's up to us to decide on our own. Let's call this last one faith.

So, when you teach someone that the Bible, Christianity, etc. are "True", then you are conveying #2, fact from others. Your insistence that it is historical fact, with no room for error, actually removes it from the realm of faith, and places it in the realm of third party fact, psychologically. An example of this is when a child is raised in a Christian home, with the supposition of things like "Bible = Word", "Jesus is god", etc. Then they are not actually having faith that it is so, because they believe it to be fact. It is not a true faith that you construct then, as it is a sham faith. The person has not really made the decision to believe it in faith. Since Jesus said that you are saved by faith, would it not be a good idea to follow what he said, and actually advocate true faith?

Which brings to mind the question, of what would happen if enough, say 144,000 or so of you, would admit that you don't know, that you might all be totally wrong, but you still choose to believe, and have true faith?

kylos
Apr 12, 2004, 02:33 PM
Actually, my interpretation is that the two greatest commandments are generalisations from which all other commandments are derived, and hence to follow them would be to follow everything he said. (Matthew 22:40) Of course, I could be wrong about everything, but I think I would still be correct about it covering that 99% part.


That's a pretty decent interpretation. However, included in that generalization is Christ's claims to Godhood and so to accept his teachings mean accepting his Godhood, otherwise read my post above.

I'm not saying to reject the faith part, or to even treat it as some second-class component of your religion, but to rather explicitly admit, in all your teachings, that it is faith and not necessarily fact.

Hehe. Fun thought.:) To accept something as faith is to treat it as fact. And yet when you observe something yourself, you must have faith that you have the ability to observe properly, and when you accept what someone else tells you then you have to have faith in their word.

kylos
Apr 12, 2004, 02:34 PM
Actually, my interpretation is that the two greatest commandments are generalisations from which all other commandments are derived, and hence to follow them would be to follow everything he said. (Matthew 22:40) Of course, I could be wrong about everything, but I think I would still be correct about it covering that 99% part.


That's a pretty decent interpretation. However, included in that generalization is Christ's claims to Godhood and so to accept his teachings mean accepting his Godhood, otherwise read my post above.

I'm not saying to reject the faith part, or to even treat it as some second-class component of your religion, but to rather explicitly admit, in all your teachings, that it is faith and not necessarily fact.

Hehe. Fun thought.:) To accept something as faith is to treat it as fact. And yet when you observe something yourself, you must have faith that you have the ability to observe properly, and when you accept what someone else tells you then you have to have faith in their word. So fact is, essentially, faith.

MarkCollette
Apr 12, 2004, 02:39 PM
Unfortunately you have made a few logical errors, so I will trust that you appreciate my pointing them out, as much as I appreciate others doing the same fovor for me.

To your first point add, claimed to be the Son of God and the only way to heaven. This is borne out in the best record of his teachings, the Gospels, which far surpass any historical document from that period and more in terms of accuracy, verifiability, and closeness (in terms of when written) to the actual events.

There is no way to know that the many separate accounts, which have been compiled into the Bible, are in fact true. People chose what would go into it. Furthermore, how do we know that it was not intentionally subverted to some other cause, early on? Do you trust the people who may or may not have written the gospels, so much? Why would you give your trust so completely, without much proof? And finally, if more than half of the New Testament is written by some guy Paul, who never met Jesus, yet he was able to convince everyone that he saw visions, etc., then how can you rationally assume that he's not a fraud, and that they all aren't to some degree? Seems like a lot of unlikely assumptions to me. I'll accept if you take it as faith, but please do not pretend that we should take it as fact.


C.S Lewis said that anyone who made the claims Jesus did in regard to his deity is either a lunatic on the order of someone who would claim to be a poached egg, the Son of God, or the actual devil of hell.

As most will agree, the teachings of Jesus are remarkable for their insight into the human heart and mind. Therefore, it's unlikely he's a poached egg, since such people are usually quite far off on everything.

Son of God or devil of hell? Would the devil go toe to toe with himself as Jesus did, rebuking the devil on many occasions? I find that hard to believe.

So it seems hard to accept the existence of Jesus without accepting his deity, and it seems hard not to accept the existence of Jesus as many historians of his time mentioned him.


I have this "argument" in every single how-to-recover-from-being-an-atheist-and-reenter-the-fold book that my family has ever given me.

To save typing, I'm going to ignore the Jesus was the Devil part, since neither you nor I think that. Which leaves us with Jesus was either god or insane. Usually the argument goes that Jesus acted so sanely, that it's doubtful that he was insane, so he must be god. Quite a leap. And usually, the person infers that one would have to be stark raving mad to martyr themselves, or attempt a bit of fame, and Jesus wasn't stark raving mad, so he's god. I point out to you all of the people in our day and age who are quite willing to martyr themselves, to further some wacko cult. I point out to you all the people who are willing to say anything and do anything for a little bit of fame. I point out to you people like David Koresh who started out seeming normal, but then imploded later on. I point out to you the simple fact that there are plenty of people who have mental disorders that come and go, and have varying degrees of incapacitance, who you would not refer to as stark raving mad, but who are in reality in need of help.

It boggles the mind how we can see how many people are messed up in this world, and then make an assertion that someone could either be insane or god, merely because they've sacrificed for their fame. I've read C.S. Lewis, and here is my version: C.S. Lewis is either a fanciful writer who has taken poetic license from time to time, or he is an ignorant fool who does not understand humanity as it is.


You say you don't believe in the existence of God. I have thought about that in detail a fair amount and would have to say that the opposite is more likely the case. A very quick explanation of this: Starting with an evolutionistic creation of the world (obviously necessary to get rid of God), one would claim that the universe started with a "big bang" or some other process by which matter comes together to form worlds and life. It's hard to tell how it started, it's always changing to get rid of a new flaw. The problem is, they haven't gotten rid of the fatal flaw, where did the energy for the bang and where did the matter for the bang come from? Leading scientists admit that at that point matters have reached a singularity, or the point in which the laws of physics have no jurisdiction (Zacharias, 2000 Jesus among other Gods). At that point, you need an entity that can set forth the laws of physics, something above the laws of physics, something supernatural (by definition), something a lot like God.


Et la piece de resistance, the assumption that it is either A xor B, once again, in the culmination that either creationism is correct, or some scientists, who are only people after all, are correct.

Never mind that:

1. We've only followed the scientific method for a hundred years or so in the west, compared to our thousands of years of written history, and thus I would expect us to not know the answers so soon, if ever. In fact, it's been shown time and time again that scientists have been wrong. We accept that, it's a part of the process. What is dangerous is to allow the dogmatic perception that something is known, to infect our view of science. In math we can prove things, but in all else we can only disprove things. And sometimes one doesn't have enough of a view of the puzzle to know that we haven't eliminated all other possibilities to leave us with one truth.

2. The theory of the big bang, is precisely that a theory. You see, us scientists actually mean it when we say that something is a theory. My perspective on the big bang, is that it is something that other people have thought up, to the best of their abilities, and they might be completely wrong, or they might only be partially right.

3. In fact, we know that Newton's laws do not hold up at a subatomic level, and so they are irrelavent to the big bang anyway. Thus it is not in conflict with "the laws of physics". But, I don't blame you. I blame scientists for continuing to call it a law, even though we know it is not. It is merely a framework to explain a certain frame of reference. In my introductory physics course they even admitted that. I would hope that Christian authors at least attend intro physics courses, before preaching to untold millions about said physics.

All I'm asking is for people to admit that they don't know, and that we all only have our theories, at least at this stage of the game.


Oh, and Mr. Collette, I haven't questioned your sanity or capability for rational thought, and I would appreciate it if you could show the civility to do the same.

Then you have missed my point, because you should question everything. I may or may not be insane. I may or may not be an artificial intelligence program on a computer somewhere. You don't know.

My assertion of insanity is uncivil, and for that I apologise. But, is it rational to confuse what is known with what one would like to believe? And what would you call a systematic rejection of rationalism?

MarkCollette
Apr 12, 2004, 02:53 PM
That's a pretty decent interpretation. However, included in that generalization is Christ's claims to Godhood and so to accept his teachings mean accepting his Godhood, otherwise read my post above.


No, sorry. There are two things: one is what he taught, and the other is what you have read that he taught. Christian doctrine is that they are one and the same. I'm asking you to take a step out of the box and view them as potentially different. In theory, they could be completely different, but that would be less likely for its own reasons.

So, the book you have says that Jesus said two things:
1. Those commandments
2. He is god

Now, it is possible that he actually said neither 1 nor 2, only 1, only 2, or both. I have no position on it, because as another poster mentionned, that there are the whole possibilites of what Jesus said, not even being true (because he was insane).

So we have:
- What actually happened, and is true
- What Jesus said
- What his disciples interpreted him as saying
- What they wrote
- What is in your Bible

Again, they could all be the same. Or not. My exasperatingly long winded point is that one part of the Bible does not in fact necessarily corroborate any other.


Hehe. Fun thought.:) To accept something as faith is to treat it as fact. And yet when you observe something yourself, you must have faith that you have the ability to observe properly, and when you accept what someone else tells you then you have to have faith in their word. So fact is, essentially, faith.

Exactly, so we have all these different types of faith, all with their own weighting. So it's quite naturally wrong to assume that something you have faith in is fact. We should remember how likely they are to be true, and not hold them all equally. Thus, while we might functionally treat faith as truth, we should never confuse the two.

kylos
Apr 12, 2004, 02:57 PM
I'll get back as soon as possible. I have to study for a class. (No this isn't a copout, I love a good discussion, but uni work requires some studying.)

dieselg4
Apr 12, 2004, 03:44 PM
Ah. Glassport is near Pittsburgh. I think the fumes chemicals from the steel mill days have had an ill effect on the rationality of the new generations of Pixburggggghers.

Sheesh.

Sometimes... i wanna move!

Heh

They're still talkign about it on the news here! And they say Yinzburgh is never in the national news!

deco
Apr 12, 2004, 04:00 PM
First a correction. the rabbit as an icon at this time of year (for fertitlity) predates christianity. I am not sure when it or if it ever appeared along side christianity in a formal way. It is certainly more than 300 years old!

However, that is minor. One would question whether Jesus himself would ever have used such a display to demonstrate his teachings. Yes, he lived his life and death for every person, but I have trouble with the concept that "mediarizing" his death to make a point would have been in his teachings.

I doubt anybody left that church and did something good for humanity in Christ's name. It is also sad that noone stopped it in the middle. Where was the courage of convictions of the congregation? Has TV made us senseless, so not to act.

It is so sad to subject such pure young minds to this type of violent demonstrations. For any reason it is unacceptable. No wonder, we are unable to accept others as we do ourselves.

takao
Apr 12, 2004, 04:34 PM
First a correction. the rabbit as an icon at this time of year (for fertitlity) predates christianity. I am not sure when it or if it ever appeared along side christianity in a formal way. It is certainly more than 300 years old!


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

actually it comes from pre-christanity beliefs just like other symbols too
(christmas tree, easter lamb etc.) but it took a long way outside of the orgin countries

i doubt i was very different from the christmas tree history

BTW:
in some more country side villages/towns(like in carinthia) it is still commen to have "passion plays" where the passion of the christ gets re-enected by local amateur actors during eastern days including cross etc. (without serious hurting of course), this is still a big spectacle

neut
Apr 12, 2004, 05:43 PM
i think we all should go home and whip each other and then crucify each other... 'cause that's what jesus wanted; right?

stop worrying about it and go do something with your lives. :)

*****
oh yeah, and take care of your children (don't let them grow up to be bunny rabbits) mmmm k?


peace.

bousozoku
Apr 12, 2004, 05:58 PM
To your first point add, claimed to be the Son of God and the only way to heaven. This is borne out in the best record of his teachings, the Gospels, which far surpass any historical document from that period and more in terms of accuracy, verifiability, and closeness (in terms of when written) to the actual events.
...


Well, that certainly takes real faith. I would be more trusting of the writings of the Roman Empire at that time.

blue&whiteman
Apr 12, 2004, 06:16 PM
what shocks me even more than the whipping of the bunny is the bunny being used at all in a church. the easter bunny is a heathen figure and is being used by christians?

MongoTheGeek
Apr 12, 2004, 06:38 PM
in some more country side villages/towns(like in carinthia) it is still commen to have "passion plays" where the passion of the christ gets re-enected by local amateur actors during eastern days including cross etc. (without serious hurting of course), this is still a big spectacle

I have heard that it is big in the Philippines and Mexico where people do actually get whipped and crucified (pulled down before death of course)

When I first heard about this I thought of the Japanese crucified Santa Claus. Now it sounds more like performance art run amok. I wonder if they got an NEA grant for it. :)

takao
Apr 12, 2004, 07:09 PM
I have heard that it is big in the Philippines and Mexico where people do actually get whipped and crucified (pulled down before death of course)

When I first heard about this I thought of the Japanese crucified Santa Claus. Now it sounds more like performance art run amok. I wonder if they got an NEA grant for it. :)

re-enacting here are not brutal/violent like on the philipines with nails ,whipping etc. ;) it's more open air theather showing the last days of jesus including last supper etc.
no hollywood blood fountains sorry ;)

Apple //e
Apr 12, 2004, 08:13 PM
I have heard that it is big in the Philippines and Mexico where people do actually get whipped and crucified (pulled down before death of course)

yeah people have big reenactments all over mexico during easter. they dont use nails or really whip the guy but he does have to carry a big cross under the intense sun. its more like a play.

its like watching national geographic. i cant believe people still do that.

Apple //e
Apr 12, 2004, 08:21 PM
just like the popular response to "there is no god," we can tell them "you cant prove there is no easter bunny"

or....

..."i have faith in the easter bunny"

wdlove
Apr 12, 2004, 09:47 PM
yeah people have big reenactments all over mexico during easter. they dont use nails or really whip the guy but he does have to carry a big cross under the intense sun. its more like a play.

its like watching national geographic. i cant believe people still do that.

We have a reenactment of Jesus carrying the Cross. The church where I'm an administrative assistant participates. There are about 8 churches that participates. People take turns carrying the cross on their shoulder walking on the sidewalks. The cross is about six feet long. This year the walk ended at our Church. There was a Good Friday Service. Afterward refreshments were served.

neut
Apr 13, 2004, 12:44 AM
i think mass should be serverd by the easter bunny... that would be interesting. i wonder what he would like to focus on? procreation? ;)


peace.

MarkCollette
Apr 13, 2004, 01:52 AM
We have a reenactment of Jesus carrying the Cross. The church where I'm an administrative assistant participates. There are about 8 churches that participates. People take turns carrying the cross on their shoulder walking on the sidewalks. The cross is about six feet long. This year the walk ended at our Church. There was a Good Friday Service. Afterward refreshments were served.

For refreshments, did people just get vinegar from a sponge? ;)