Dear Pericles,

<<But I guess that doesn't worry you>>

Indeed, why should it worry me if the said Pope was ignorant and probably not even religious? he would be neither first nor last in that predicament; or why should it worry me if one Jew writes an ultra-speculative article in an attempt to portray the world in the light of Judaism (which is not even a religion)?; or why should it worry me if Cicero thought that a hat was an umbrella, just because he was Cicero?

In his ignorance, BTW, Philologos claims that "no ancient Indo-European language had a specific word for religion" - what then about "Yoga", coming from the root "to yoke", same as "to connect with [God]"? or what about "Dharma"? Nay, there is no reason to take Philologos seriously!

<<You don't actually grasp the concept of atheism, do you>>

Atheism means the lack of belief that God exists - nothing less, nothing more.

It is common among atheists to believe that since God does not exist, then there is no point in worshiping Him or in aspiring to come closer to Him - but atheism itself does not necessarily imply that.
Consider Buddhism for example - religious atheists are quite a possibility (I even happen to fall under that category).

(1) They were born on or very near our Christmas Day.
Irrelevant as the date was selected by the Roman State Church to coincide with existing festivals. The actual date of his birth is a non issue, even as celebrating the Queen’s birthday is a non issue as her birthday is not June 11, it happened to be QV not QE.

(2) They were born of a Virgin-Mother.
To be a virgin mother means not have intercourse with a man until the birth of the child. Virgin conception was practiced by artificial impregnation in ancient Egypt to ensure the child was from the selected male donor. That meant the hymen was intact till the birth. Mary, who was a dedicated Temple virgin in care of the doves, was not able to stay at Temple once she began menstruation according to Levitical law. Her Priest Zecheriah searched a precedent in Israel history and found Isaiah Chapter 9 of a virgin with child who was to be Messiah. He then called all eligible suitors in the lineage of King David and chose Joseph and his sperm was chosen. Zecheriah was a sympathizer of the Essene community who practiced artificial insemination to avoid being unclean by intercourse with women. The New Testament speaks against the idea of forbidding to marry as the Essene held, as the Essene felt that children would have to suffer the oppression of Rome. Christ was specifically identified by Zecheriah and others as a deliverer of Israel see Luke 1 - 2.

(3) And in a Cave or Underground Chamber.
No underground chamber just a dugout for an animal shelter.

(4) They led a life of toil for Mankind.
Obviously no mythology here, otherwise his life would not be celebrated.

(5) And were called by the names of Light-bringer, Healer, Mediator, Savior, Deliverer.
These names were given to Messianic leaders in Israeli history. Isaiah identifies Messiah 600 BC in these terms.

(

Cont,
6) They were however vanquished by the Powers of Darkness.
If you mean he was falsely accused by men with evil intent - right.

(7) And descended into Hell or the Underworld.
Absolute nonsense as Christ spirit was in paradise Luke 23: 43. This did not occur in Christian scripture till 600 AD by the Roman Church.

(8) They rose again from the dead, and became the pioneers of mankind to the Heavenly world.

(9) They founded Communions of Saints, and Churches into which disciples were received by Baptism.

(10) And they were commemorated by Eucharistic meals.
Christ changed a Jewish covenant celebration of deliverance to have a spiritual meaning of deliverance from sin.

I think you have made your position on religion crystal clear, Yuyutsu, even if that position is essentially negative.

>>Indeed, why should it worry me if the said Pope was ignorant and probably not even religious? he would be neither first nor last in that predicament; or why should it worry me if one Jew writes an ultra-speculative article in an attempt to portray the world in the light of Judaism (which is not even a religion)?; or why should it worry me if Cicero thought that a hat was an umbrella, just because he was Cicero?"

On the topic of religion, you discard the views of the senior executive of the major Christian religion. You ignore input from a scholar of the Jewish faith, and from Marcus Tullius Cicero, arguably the greatest philosopher - certainly the most widely read and respected - of his generation.

It does make me wonder whether you actually listen to anyone else, or whether in fact you are blithely dancing to the rhythm of your own unique drum.

Absolutely nothing wrong with that, of course.

But it does turn any attempt at normal discussion with you into a bit of a one-way street, with you expressing your off-beat views as if they had some kind of particular validity that the rest of us are unaware of.

Your position is that Buddhism is not a religion, which then apparently allows you to describe yourself as atheist.

Which is, again, absolutely fine.

Indeed, one of Buddha's instructions (I understand) is "do not accept anything by merely considering the reasons". So it is obvious that if one of us works on the basis of reason, or rationale, and the other is bound to ignore such primitive processes, we can never reach a position of understanding, can we?

Have a thoroughly enlightened day.

>>I have no interest whatsoever in disrupting his spiritual efforts.<<

We are talking about the same runner here aren't we? As far as I can discern his spiritual efforts consist mostly of posting venomous rants against anybody who doesn't accept his fundamentalist version of Christianity - complete with Young Earth Creationism and a extra serving of bigotry. Constantly. You have a strange take on the idea of spiritual efforts Yuyutsu.

>>Judaism (which is not even a religion)<<

Wait a minute: everything - even atheism - is a religion but Judaism doesn't qualify? How does that work?

>> or why should it worry me if Cicero thought that a hat was an umbrella, just because he was Cicero?<<

Because Cicero was a Roman. Latin was his native tongue. I daresay he knew a lot more about the language than you ever will Yuyutsu. Ignoring his words on the subject of Latin etymology just because he was Cicero seems a bit silly.

Cheers,

Tony

Dear Pericles,

Where have I claimed that Buddhism is not a religion?

It is!

Because overall, it tends to bring its followers closer to God.

What I am saying is: "By their fruit you will recognize them", and I believe that Buddhism has a good religious record (and a few bad apples too, just like any other organization).

Buddha's instructions which you referred to were: "do not accept anything on mere hearsay", etc. (http://www.buddhanet.net/bvk_study/bvk204.htm), a good advice indeed for most people - but Buddha was also known to say one thing to one person and the opposite to another, depending on what approach will spiritually benefit the specific listener most. He told some for example that God exists and others that He doesn't.

Dear Tony,

I don't know Runner personally, so unless proven otherwise, I must assume that he writes what he writes with God's sake in his heart, not merely to annoy people.

Atheism is not a religion because in general it does not bring people closer to God. However, some people may come closer to God by riding a camel, and so others may come closer to God by practicing atheism. Only a charlatan, however, will make a general rule out of it, start a camel farm and advertise: "come ride my camels to come closer to God (only $500/hour)".

As for Judaism, it is not a religion - the closest way to describe it is as a national-movement. The purpose of Judaism is not to come closer to God, but to enhance the welfare and success of the people of Israel. As a tactic, Judaism believes that it has forged a deal with the Creator whereby the Jews will follow his commandments and in return the nation will prosper. Even if such a deal is true (which I doubt, but who am I to tell?), this is for a material cause, this is business, not religion!

There are a few who disagree with Cicero - See http://open-site.org/Society/Philosophy/Religion