Thursday, December 27, 2018

Random smiles from Hoylake, England: 27.12.18

  • This is from Private Eye. Near where I live in Spain, this would not be regarded as amusing, as it's a regular occurrence:-

  • In the days of apartheid, a Brit arrived at Johannesburg airport. Where this conversation took place:-
- Customs Officer: Do you have any pornography, sir?
- Brit: Sorry, mate, I don't.
  • It's Christmas, so . . . . In general, I have no problem with Christianity or Judaism. My family is full of believers of both kinds. Each feeling superior to the other. Why, I even have very good friends in each category. Indeed, I even have Jehovah Witness friends, and they really do think they are the only true 'Christians'. But when I read stuff like the following paragraph – in a national newspaper – I do wonder if people with faith fully understand how their comments come across to atheists, even to those of us who aren't so-called 'New Atheists'. You know, the ones who talk/proselytise as much as theists do. I mean, what on earth is the writer's definition of 'understand' and 'know' in this paragraph? And how, for him, do these concepts differ from 'believe' . . . When you’re talking about the history of Jesus Christ, it’s actually impossible to remain wholly objective because the more you understand, the more you believe. This much we know: a virgin carried a baby in her womb. She and her husband travelled to Bethlehem, where she gave birth – and the child was venerated by those who had been told of his coming. That child grew up to perform miracles. He was arrested and crucified: he rose again on the third day. He ascended into Heaven. Once you accept this historical record, you are left with a true gift: the promise that he will come again. As I say, he's totally entitled to his faith and the beliefs which support this but, many years ago, it was the Catholic Pascal who said rationality was not consistent with faith. Though I think he thought the latter superior. As all theists do, of course. They have to because - contrary to what the columnist says – the historical evidence doesn't and never could prove there was, for example, a virgin birth or a resurrection. Nor even a trip to Bethlehem for a census.
  • Of course, where I take issue with theists is when they move beyond themselves into interfering in other's lives to impose on them a terrible terrestrial price for their (unproved and unprovable) eternal bliss. And take taxpayers' money to do this. And elect and support Fart in everything he does. But don't get me started. It's said to be the season of goodwill . . .
  • Finally . . . Picking up on the theist theme . . .

The Devil always has the last laugh . . . 

© [David] Colin Davies

3 comments:

Maria said...

I think I read about historical research being done, and there was a census around the time of Jesus' supposed birth. There was also a supernova around that time visible in the sky. I think there was some record of a crucifixion of a troublemaker, too. BUT, to jump from those meager facts to assuming that troublemaker was born of a virgin mother, and that he resurrected, leaves the realm of historical research and enters into pure faith.

Though faith is also a sin committed by many atheists, such as having faith in that most people think rationally.

Colin Davies said...

There are vast tomes - on both sides if the divide - on the historicity of Jesus. I like the 'Syncretic Jesus' approach. Several 'Jesuses'/holy men/ gurus/wandering teachers of that period are - 40-50 years later on - rolled into the one Jesus Christ and a philosophy cultural framework is created around this persona. . . .

Colin Davies said...

Here you go Maria . . . One example.

http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/book-review.html

Fascinating but not enough for me to spend money on it. And it would be a waste of time citing it to my Jewish, Catholic, or JW relatives and friends, as they'd all see it as the work of the Devil . . .