Comment: - e-mail comments on various topics
The topics on this page are as follows:
| (1) Where are the freethinkers? | (2) Humanists as idiots |
| (3) Don't like the evidence? | (4) God |
| (5) Reply to 'God' | (6) Another reply to 'God' |
| (7) Holy Books | (8) Christmas |
I was struck by your comment: "I almost thought there were no free-thinkers
around".
I have heard this comment so often! Someone in my high school graduating class
(1960) wrote very much the same thing to me in our yearbook, over three and
one-half decades ago. And just a few months ago, I met a couple -- he is retired
and in his seventies, she a bit younger -- who said it again. I now suspect that
there are many, many like-minded people out there! To get at them we must first
of all get rid of the idea that it is somehow unacceptable not to be a Christian.
A thought after visiting your Site: Can you start a "Letters to the Editor"
feature?
That would make it easy for the likes of me to comment. And you would still
retain editorial control. (You may use the relevant parts of this letter as a starter
-- and you have my standing permission to use anything I send you via e-mail,
unless I specifically request otherwise.)
Kind regards,
Chris S.
The following was found on the K. Bible College Web Site on August 10/96
The Web Site address is: http://www.ky-bible.edu .
Until this I had discussed many topics amiably with Dr. J. at the College.
The following disclaimer was brought to my attention by Chris Stuhr
-- see his reply in the next section.
Belief Systems and Humanism
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Disclaimer - Personally, I think that the writer of this article is an idiot and
feeble minded. He boldly makes the statement that he is a "Religious Humanist."
I know what a human- ist is, I have never met one, that did not know that a
"Humanist" is not religious and that that is what makes him a humanist, and
therefore claims not to be so. Also notice that he makes regular updates to
his statement of belief system, (see -introduction). The claim therefore, an
oximoronic statement and the maker of it, a moron.
I encourage you to print the documents, read them, then you will be assigned
a paper of specified length to repudiate this article. J., PhD.
(II Peter 2:16, I Timothy 1:6-7) Read the article now
Dear Dr. J,
Thanks for your description of me.
You must have added access to my pages on your Web Site in the last few days
-- I could take this as an honour. At first I was angry because you had given me
the impression that this was going to be a rational exchange of ideas about the Bible
-- I didn't expect this of you. Your emotional description of me suggests that you
have some doubts about your own beliefs -- I think I may have "hit a nerve" as
they say.
I don't think I make regular updates to my beliefs unless evidence shows them to be
false.
I do make updates by adding pages to my Site though, which is what I have done
recently. Also, there are many kinds of Humanists.
I don't mind if you use me as an object lesson -- maybe your students will learn
something
from this -- maybe even make them think more critically of their own beliefs.
I think it would be fair to send the student's repudiations for me to look at
-- they may show convincing evidence that a given page has errors in it.
I welcome reasoned criticism.
Any comments to someone you call idiot, feeble minded and a moron?
(Matthew 5:22
22 But I say unto you, That
whosoever is angry with his
brother without a cause shall be in
danger of the judgment:
and whosoever shall say to his
brother, Raca, shall be in
danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool,
shall
be in danger of hell fire.) -- does
this apply?
From: Christian Stuhr
Subject: KBC and related matters
I was shocked and appalled when I saw the intemperate tone used by the author
of the home page of K. Bible College to describe not just your writings, but also
you personally. However, my friends and I are divided on what this means.
There are those who think that this is typical of Christians in general -- that in
the absence of a valid argument, they resort to slandering those with whom they
disagree. For this is certainly what KBC has done!
Others disagree, holding that the abuse which has been heaped on your head is an
aberration, and quite untypical of Christians in general.
I do not know what to believe, but would be happy to hear from anyone who has
thoughts on this point.
The reason I am interested in this: in 1966, I wrote an M.A. thesis in philosophy at
the
University of Toronto. Its title was "On the logical relationships among three
concepts
in the philosophy of Friedrich Nieztsche: eternal recurrence, the death of God, and the
coming of the Superman". My thesis supervisor was Dr. William Dray, later Chair of
Philosophy at Trent University.
Since 1993, I have been disabled by an insidious neurological condition,
normal-pressure
hydrocephalus. But my verbal skills are relatively intact, and I have hopes of now doing
that Ph.D. which I did not pursue three decades ago. I had thought of K. Bible
College , since it offers an on-line program.
In view of what KBC has written about you, for all the world to see, I am no longer
interested.
You may post this notice if you wish.
Christian Stuhr
From: Christian Stuhr
To: Hooge
We recently had an interesting exchange of views in the pages of our local weekly.
One of the local clergy wrote a column in which he advanced the Argument from
Design for the existence of God. You know the one -- to my knowledge it was
most strikingly articulated by the Archdeacon Paley either late in the 18th or early
in the 19th century. "If you found a watch," it runs, "you would
immediately infer
the existence of a watchmaker. Nothing so complex could come about by mere
chance. Well then, consider how much more complex our universe is! Therefore,
by the same reasoning, it too must have a Maker -- and that Maker is God." QED.
My reply, which was published, pointed out that this does not constitute conclusive
proof. For one thing, if a complex universe must have a Maker, God, then by the
same reasoning that even more complex God must have a Maker as well...and so on
to infinity. On the other hand, if anything can exist without a cause or a maker,
it might as well be the universe as God. Belief in God, I concluded, is a matter of
faith, not logic.
The Reverend in turn admitted that logic alone is not enough. "Faith and reason
must
work together."
My response -- I told you this went on for some time -- agreed. Faith, it seems to me,
provides the starting point. That may be One God for Jews and Muslims, a duality of
Gods for Zoroastrians, the Trinity for most Christians, a multitude of Gods for Hindus.
Nothing in any of this proves that God is good -- even the Satanists now have their own
Web Page on the fabled Internet! But whatever starting point is taken on faith, reason
and logic are then applied to build a rich and consistent, if not necessarily admirable,
religion.
By now we had the attention of many people in town. The Reverend challenged me to
explain the Order in the Universe. A woman wrote in to ask how Satanism could be
"rich and consistent". And our local legal aid lawyer came out of the religious
closet
and revealed that he is a member of the Eckankar Clergy. I am not making this up!
To find God, he said, you have to meditate in a quiet place and softly sing the word
HU, which is "a holy name of God". Will he also defend Jehovah's Witnesses,
who use an entirely different system of theological nomenclature?
At this point, the Editor cut us all off. Too bad. I was just about to mention the
problem
of Evil. You see, it seems to me that in this world, there is more Evil than Good.
I say this because I know that my clerical friends will agree; if it were not for
wickedness,
their services would not be required. So if the order in the world is evidence of a
Creator-God, then is not the pervasiveness of Evil evidence of a Satanic one?
I have my own thoughts about the validity of both arguments, but I am open to discussion.
Christian Stuhr
christian.stuhr@shaw.ca
Part of Hooge's reply. TOPIC: GOD
I agree again. If a person believes in a God, the kind of God often reflects the kind
of
person he is and/or the kind of society he is living in and/or the traditions he
inherited.
Some of my thoughts:
(a) Most people in our society
believe the bible is divine, even non-church people.
Quoting verses from the bible is, I find, a persuasive way of showing the absurdities of
it
-- makes some people think! So I would quote:
Isa 45:7
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil:
I the LORD do all these [things].
Jer 18:11
Now therefore go to, speak to the men of Judah, and to the inhabitants of
Jerusalem, saying, Thus saith the LORD; Behold, I frame evil against
you, and devise a device against you: return ye now every one from his
evil way, and make your ways and your doings good.
Eze 20:25,26
Wherefore I gave them also statutes [that were] not good, and
judgments whereby they should not live;
26 And I polluted them in their own gifts, in that they caused to
pass through [the fire] all that openeth the womb, that I might
make them desolate, to the end that they might know that
I [am] the LORD.
To contradict that God created EVIL:
De 32:4
[He is] the Rock, his work [is] perfect: for all his ways [are] judgment:
a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right [is] he.
(b) If there is a God that
created everything else, from a human point of view He really
messed things up. Because evil things happen, God could not have created everything
else (the universe?) especially for humans or any other organism on earth, since they
all experience bad things.
(c) Of course, evil is there
-- part of what is. It is up to men and women to decrease evil
-- no one else will.
Some of my thoughts,
Hooge
Christian Stuhr's reply to Hooge's e-mail the next day. TOPIC: GOD
> The argument -- that we are here, therefore we must have been designed
> the way we are by some intelligence, because the probability of our
> coming into being naturally is almost zero -- has a difficulty. Using
> probability, after the fact, would be like a lottery winner saying, "It
> is highly unlikely that I could have won this lottery, therefore I must
> not have won."
Or perhaps the thought is, "Since the odds of my winning were millions to one,
it could not have been by chance. God must have picked me."
There is a neat scam that can be worked on this psychological quirk of humans.
Suppose that every day, a race is held with seven horses. Of course, people will
bet on these races! So Step One is this: Get the names of forty-nine people who
bet regularly. Assign them numbers from one to forty-nine.
step two: Send Numbers One through Seven identical messages --
"On Monday,
Horse A will win! A FREE tip from THE PREDICTOR." Numbers Eight through
Fourteen get messages identifying Horse B as winner; Fifteen to Twenty-one get
the tip for Horse C, and so on.
step three: Of course, one of the seven horses has to win Monday's
race. It matters
not which one. Let's say it was Horse C. Forget about all the others. So on
Monday night, you send new messages to Numbers Fifteen to Twenty-one.
To Fifteen, the FREE tip from (by now) THE SURE PREDICTOR that
Horse A will win on Tuesday; Sixteen gets the tip for Horse B, etc.
Step Four: Again, somebody is going to be Tuesday's winner. Let's say
it was Horse B.
That makes Number Sixteen the recipient of the Tuesday night message from
(promoted again!) THE INFALLIBLE PREDICTOR: "I gave you the winner
on Monday -- for FREE! And on Tuesday -- again for FREE! If you want to win
big on Wednesday. meet me at the Waverley Hotel tomorrow at 10 a.m. and
bring a thousand dollars for the name of Wednesday's winner..."
If the combination of gullibility, greed and ignorance of statistics is great enough in
your mark, the payoff can be most gratifying.
Step Five: Take the money and leave town.
Chris
e-mail from Christian Stuhr -- Holy Books
One of my Humanist friends, Hank, has
done a study of the Sacred Literature of the world.
He has obtained list of well over two dozen books that are said to be divinely written
or inspired. The Bible is counted as one of these, even though there are many different
versions. So is the Koran, the Book of Mormon, the Zend-Avesta, etc, etc.
I think his total came to thirty.
Recently a mutual friend, a devout Christian, extolled the Bible to him.
Here is the dialogue:
Christian Friend: You should really accept the Bible. It is God's word, you know.
Hank: On this list, it says that the Koran is also the Word of God. Do you believe that?
CF: No! The Mohammedans are heathens.
Hank: How about Science and Health with a Key to the Scriptures?
CF: Mary Baker Eddy? Totally misguided!
Hank: So have a look at this list. Do you accept any of them?
CF: Only the Bible. That is the true Word of God.
Hank: And you reject the rest?
CF: Absolutely.
Hank: We may be closer in our views than
you think! You think that twenty-nine out of
thirty of these "divine" works are really something else. I agree with you about
those
twenty-nine, but would add just one more. Hey -- if we agree on twenty-nine out of
thirty books, we can't really be that far apart in our skepticism!
My conclusion? If Humanists are accused
of skepticism with respect to the Bible,
it is worth remembering that we are all skeptics about most religious claims,
rejecting the overwhelming majority. Certainly Christians are right up there
with the best of them when it comes to doubting!
Kind regards,
Chris
christian.stuhr@shaw.ca
From J.:
>P.S. I often wonder why those who reject worshipping Jesus Christ as Lord and
God celebrate is birth or sing songs that proclaim His name in worship.
My reply:
This is similar to people singing songs about Santa Claus and it is likely they don't
believe
in him. A survey announced by U.S. News and World Report, suggests that the
existence of Santa Clause as a real entity is believed by nearly one in ten adults.
9% of adults still believe in the Jolly Guy who rides a sled and delivers presents.
Of the 76% who once had faith in Santa, 84% report that they jettisoned the belief
by the age of ten. In spite of this they still sing songs that have to do with Santa and
have statues of him in their homes.
Christians adopted what we call the Christmas festival from the pagans, so they don't
have a monopoly on it. Every organized religion uses music, poetry, art, sculpture,
and other fine arts to vitalize their religion. Usually this art is produced by talented
artists that produced some "good stuff". This can be and is appreciated by
people
that do not believe in the religion that spawned it. In the case of Christmas carols,
just because some great composers produced these artistically beautiful songs does
not mean the message they present is true. People appreciate the music and the poetry
in them, but the message is considered untrue and whimsical by unbelievers.
In this century, many beautiful secular Christmas songs have been produced to be
added to the tradition of Christmas.
By the way, over 80% of Americans believe Jesus is more divine than anyone else
-- they believe God and Jesus are the same. This % has grown fairly rapidly over
the last couple of decades, and I suspect in the U.S. it will grow even more until
after
the year 2000. So the vast majority of Americans believe what they sing, and there
aren't a lot of people that actually sing and not believe the words -- not enough for
you to worry about. Even in Canada 75% believe Jesus is God, although this
% is decreasing.
New Age is another belief system that is becoming more popular. There is little
difficulty for a Christian to become a New Ager, since Christianity and New Age
are essentially the same.
J.:
>People wish there was "Peace on earth. Good will toward men" not willing
to
recognize that this "peace" is peace with God, and the "good will" is
that of
God toward men. Why would those who understand these things celebrate
something they don't believe in?
My reply:
Most people wish there was and believe in "Peace on earth. Good will toward
other people" and the world secular society is making good progress in that
direction,
compared to the organized religious past. What you say about God may be true,
but it would not be true of the God of the Bible. The basis of Christianity is the bible and
most of it does not promote peace. Even Jesus says:
Mt 10:34
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace,
but a sword.
-- by Kevin Courcey
December 21 marks the Winter Solstice, that time of the year when the sun reaches
its lowest point in its annual journey through the sky. That natural event is the real
basis of the holiday which later was transmogrified into "Christmas"
The festival now called Christmas is far older than Christianity.
It is a relic of sun-worship. It is the day on which the sun triumphs over the hosts of
darkness; and thousands of years before the republic of Rome existed, before one
stone of Athens was laid, before the Pharaohs ruled in Egypt, before the religion of
Brahma, before Sanskrit was spoken, men and women crawled out of their caves,
pushed the matted hair from their eyes, and greeted the triumph of the sun over the
powers of the night. The ancient Vikings and Druids would actually build huge
bonfires on hilltops the night of the solstice in order to give the sun just enough of
a boost to help it stay up a little longer the next day. Later, this rebirth of the sun
was celebrated through the myths of the sun-gods, who were, like the sun the
day after the solstice, metaphorically raised from the dead.
The major festival in ancient Rome was called the "Saturnalia," and it
centered
around the winter solstice. When the Julian calendar was first devised, the solstice fell on December
21st. However, due to an error in the calendar (it was off by 6 hours and
11 minutes a year), by the third century the solstice had crept forward to
December 24th. At this time, the Emperor Aurelian established an official
holiday (the festival of the "unconquered sun") on December 25th, in honor
of the Syrian sun god, "Sol." This established December 25th as the
official solstice, and all other religions which worshipped sun gods also
accepted December 25th as a fixed date for their celebrations. By the
fourth century, many Christians were celebrating this holiday as their own,
and by 350ad, Pope Julius I decreed that the nativity of Christ should be
celebrated on the same day as all the other sun gods, namely December 25th.
Some of the other sun gods whose birthdays were celebrated on December 25th
were Marduk, Osiris, Horus, Isis, Mithra, Saturn, Sol, Apollo, Serapis, and
Huitzilopochli.
If you were to wander around ancient Rome on December 24, a few years before
the reported birth of Christ, you would find much merriment and celebrating.
In an underground temple outside the city, you would find the birth of the sun-god
Mithra being celebrated. At midnight, the first minute of December 25, the temple
of Mithra would be lit up with candles, incense would be burning, and priests in
white garments would be reciting the history of Mithra. They would tell the faithful
of how Mithra killed a cosmic white bull. When he did so, the bull became the moon,
Mithra's cloak became the night sky and stars, and the blood of the bull gave
birth to all life on earth.
After the creation, Mithra retired to heaven, until he returned to act as savior to all
mankind. You would hear the story of how a star fell from the sky when Mithra
was born, how shepherds witnessed the birth, and how Zoroastrian priests
called Magi followed the fallen star to worship him, and how they brought
crowns of gold to the newborn "King of Kings."
In another section of the city, the Egyptians would be celebrating the birthday
of their god Horus. They would recite the story of how Horus was born of a
virgin in a stable on December 25, and how the priests would have reconstructed
this manger scene in their temple, with the baby Horus lying in the manger with his
virgin mother, Isis, standing beside him. Of course the Magi would also be shown
to be in attendance at the birth. The priests would tell the life story of Horus; how
he would go onto perform many miracles, such as walking on water and casting
out demons; how he would be betrayed by one of his own, tried before an
emperor, and crucified to atone for the sins of man, finally to be resurrected
from the dead.
So, when you hear someone say, "we ought to get back to the TRUE MEANING
of Christmas," explain to them that the original meaning is a pagan celebration of
nature, or the rebirth of the sun. Remind them that for more than 4,000 years,
this has been a time of feasting, visiting with relatives and friends, and gift giving.
We are simply celebrating the most precious gift we could possibly have on this
planet -- the gift of warmth and sunlight.