The Synoptic Gospels attribute the following quote to Jesus: "Whoever is not with Me is against Me, and whoever does not gather with Me scatters" (Matthew 12:30), as well as the corresponding statement, "Whoever is not against us is for us" (Luke 9:50; Mark 9:40). The above breeds hate. I don’t want to be a follower of Jesus, but I don’t want to be an enemy of Jesus or his followers. The above quote doesn’t allow neutrality. You are a follower or an enemy.

Perhaps that is one reason why Christians are so effective at slaughter.

Too esoteric for me, I'm afraid. Every time I have another go at reading the New Testament I stop in disbelief. I can, and do, believe in Christianity as a guide to living, but I can't accept 'miracles'. I have believed in them less ever since that smirking con-man Scott Morrison said, "I believe in miracles".

The mention of "megachurches" (Morrison's 'Christianity') makes me boil. Houston and Hillsong were on TV last Sunday, and the best thing about it was someone referring to such circuses as hugely profitable entertainment industries getting the tax breaks real churches do.

As I approach the end of life, I think more about 'after'. Just yesterday at lunch, my wife and I were talking about her father, who died ten years ago. A man I loved and respected, who flew Lancasters over Europe during WW2 and helped save the world from tyranny, and kept baby ttbn safe. More recently the "baby" of his squadron died, so they are all gone now.

I find it hard to believe that vital, significant human beings who have contributed to society in all manner of ways, just end up like Fluffy the pet cat, buried in the back garden. And, maybe it's not the end for Fluffy, either.

I don't know anymore than the sneering cynics who don't believe in anything and have made up their minds, and preach emptiness and hopelessness. But it would be nice if there is something more than what we have now, which is quite often like the purgatory Catholics believe comes before Heaven.

The gospel is a work laced with primitive superstition and fiction. The four gospels differ. Only one has JC walking on water.

If one believes JC was crucified and died for our sins, then one has to hold open in the mind the possibility of the opposite or another explanation.

Miracles? Possibly, given anything is possible or beyond our understanding.
Alan B.

ttb
I think we must come to grips with the fact that the gospel writers are more sophisticated that us!

Alan B, It seems that no matter what I write you come out with the same old tired stuff.
P

Speaking of a sophisticated Illuminated Understanding of death and everything else too why not check out these related websites:

http://beezone.com/adida/laughingmanmag/vol2no3deathdying/welcomesisterdeath.html
http://deathanddyingwisdom.com
http://www.beezone.com/wide-stacks-many-topics/death_message.html

Right Human Life and the "Culture" of Death
http://www.aboutadidam.org/newsletters/newsletter-february2004.pdf

http://www.beezone.com/beezones-main-stack/stresschemistry.html

The bottom line is that, to my knowledge, no credible person has ever returned from the grave to inform the rest of us just what is there.
Miracles are scientifically and medically non existent. Everything has a cause.

Thank you Peter for another wonderful article.

In summary, this particular universe can be seen as a sandbox where objective causality through the laws of physics is the rule - yet this sandbox is just one tiny fragment of our experience.

When trying to explain miracles, there are three prevalent views:
1) The laws of physics can be broken.
2) There are no miracles because the laws of physics cannot be broken.
3) The laws of physics and the laws of spirit are not mutually exclusive, so the operation of the one does not exclude the operation of the other, just like 5+1=6 does not contradict 3×2=6.

What is common to all the above three views, is the opinion that only what happens in this physical objective sandbox matters: that opinion can be called "materialism".

- but why should that be the case?

We all know that our experience is not limited to this particular sandbox because in our dreams, for example, we experience different universes where physics and causality need not necessarily apply. In the case of dreams we are often (but not always) able to remember them, but just consider how often we could have other experiences of other universes which we cannot remember? Why should this one particular universe be more important than all others?

---

Dear Ateday,

«The bottom line is that, to my knowledge, no credible person has ever returned from the grave to inform the rest of us just what is there.»

Well "credible" depends on whom you give credit to, which is quite personal in nature.

Now how would you expect anyone to remember and tell you what is beyond the grave when a functioning brain is clearly needed to remember anything?

Claiming "there is nothing" just because one cannot remember is typical of the ostrich burying its head in the sand saying "what I cannot see is not there".

You are caught in a web of superstition and fear?
It is hard to break out of it?
But you must.
An analogy might be those who become addicted to gambling.
They go on and on, hoping for better times.
And they cannot break away from that hope.
But we all know it will never happen.

We are a computer program.
Life starts when we have awareness.
Our brain becomes aware of our senses perhaps.
When the brain switches off, there is no more awareness.
There is no output. There is no life. We are dead.
We have ceased to exist, completely.
Our physical remains are best disposed of quietly.

Dear Ipso Fatso,

«We are a computer program.»

If that is not a superstition then what else could be?

«Life starts when we have awareness.»

Worldly life, you mean. Biological life starts a bit earlier.
Neither is the kind of life that the author was referring to.

«Our brain becomes aware of our senses perhaps.»

A piece of matter cannot be aware of anything, neither do our dolls and teddy-bears.

«When the brain switches off, there is no more awareness.»

When the brain switches off, we are no longer aware of this world.

«There is no output. There is no life. We are dead.»

Our bodies are then dead.

«We have ceased to exist, completely.»

Within this particular world, alright.

So what's the big deal about it?
It is only a big deal if we think of this world as a big deal,
if we think that it is more important than any other.
I referred to that attitude in my previous post, as materialism.

«An analogy might be those who become addicted to gambling.
They go on and on, hoping for better times.
And they cannot break away from that hope.
But we all know it will never happen.»

It is rather the materialist who hopes for better times, who is addicted, who feels s/he cannot live without them.
Time, better time, worse time, is just a feature of this world.
Before coming into this world no one hoped or cared about times.
Once one dies they no longer experience time and its ravages either,
they no longer hope, they no longer care about this world.
It is only in between, for that flicker of time on earth, that fools become attached to what is surely fleeting, then suffer when it fails to fulfill their unrealistic expectations.

«Our physical remains are best disposed of quietly.»

Yes, as far as I am concerned they could be chucked into the green rubbish bin without further ado. My family, however, feels differently.

Thanks Peter for another great article. I always enjoy your pieces even when I sometimes disagree with them (not with this one, though).

Alan B
Actually Matthew 14:22–33, Mark 6:45–52 and John 6:16-21 report Jesus walking on water. Which doesn’t necessarily mean it actually happened, of course.

I'm reminded of one of my favourite quotes from bible scholar John Dominic Crossan:

“My point, once again, is not that those ancient people told literal stories and we are now smart enough to take them symbolically, but that they told them symbolically and we are now dumb enough to take them literally.”

Dear Rhian,

I doubt that Crossan knew what was in the minds of the people who wrote those stories. There are many versions of those stories as there are many translations, and the translations have been informed by the minds of the people who made those translations.

https://religionnews.com/2012/12/12/did-isaiah-really-predict-the-virgin-birth/

Among other changes, the new translation tweaks an Old Testament text — Isaiah 7:14 — that many Christians consider a prophecy about Jesus’ birth. In Matthew’s Gospel, for example, an angel cites the passage to convince Joseph to accept Mary’s mysterious pregnancy.

But in the new Catholic Bible, the prophet’s prediction and the angel’s words don’t quite match anymore. The word “virgin” has been replaced with “young woman” in Isaiah 7:14.

Few Christian doctrines are as tightly held as the belief in Jesus’ chaste conception. It’s mentioned several times in the Gospels, cited in the earliest creeds and considered essential evidence of Jesus’ divinity by many Christians.

In the original Hebrew of Isaiah there was nothing about a virgin giving birth. Alma, a young woman, not bethulah, Hebrew for virgin, was predicted to give birth. The new Catholic translation more accurately translates the original than previous translations.

Many heroes of pagan legend were born of a virgin. The first translation of Isaiah was the Greek Septuagint which translated almah as the Greek parthenos which means virgin to make the birth of Jesus conform to pagan legend.

Dear David

Crossan is controversial, but he does have an extensive record as an academic studying the historical context of Jesus’ life and society. There is no-one better qualified to understand the thinking of first—century Palestinian Jews.

Apart from that, I agree with all of your post. I don’t think Isaiah predicted Jesus’ birth to a virgin, though I still enjoy hearing the prophets read in the season before Christmas. Part of the issue was indeed translations. By Jesus’ day most Jews read the bible in Greek not Latin, so Matthew and Luke wove a virgin birth into their birth narratives, because that is what they read in the Septuagint.

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2020/12/18/jana-riess-lo-virgin/
(I think you’d enjoy that book, by the way).

Many prophesies also pointed to the Messiah’s birth in David‘s hometown of Bethlehem, which is why both the birth narratives contain (quite different, and incompatible) accounts of how a boy from Nazareth came to be born in Bethlehem.

The key question, I think, is whether Matthew and Luke actually believed Mary was a virgin, or expected their readers to believe it. I don’t think that is the case. That is my understanding of Peter’s point about “miracle as metaphor”, and Crossan’s point about “symbolic” stories. It is only the more literal modern mind, which holds things to be either factually accurate or false, that struggles with stories that point to deeper truths through symbol and metaphor. That’s not to say the scriptures are entirely fictional, but their truths are not based on being reliable eyewitness accounts of historical events.

Dear Rhian,

You wrote: "It is only the more literal modern mind, which holds things to be either factually accurate or false, that struggles with stories that point to deeper truths through symbol and metaphor. That’s not to say the scriptures are entirely fictional, but their truths are not based on being reliable eyewitness accounts of historical events."

There is not one literal modern mind as there was one unitary ancient mind. I don't think it is legitimate to lump all ancients together any more than it is to lump all moderns together. Over two thousand years ago the circumference of the earth was measured with a fair degree of accuracy. In the current time many people in different cultures believe in some form of messianic myth. I believe the main difference between ancient and modern culture is the development of more advanced technology. The different ways in which humans see the world hasn't changed. Seneca, the Roman said: “Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false, and by rulers as useful.” I think it was true then and is true now.

Dear Rhian,

I have read and enjoyed:

https://www.sltrib.com/religion/2020/12/18/jana-riess-lo-virgin/

I am an old man of 97. I came to Australia because my Australian wife wanted to come home when I retired. She died March 26, and I am a stranger in a strange land. However, in one way I am not a stranger in a strange land. I find a similar range of opinions in Australia to the range in the US although the proportions of the population holding those different opinions vary from those in the US.

Just got this on 'Facebook'

"Within 7 hours from now, God will destroy all sickness in your body. There will be a healing miracle"

Me thinks, I'll cancel Mondays doctors appointment.

Dear David

Sorry to hear about your loss, it is a terrible thing to lose a loved one. And I hope you have friends/family here, so you are not completely a stranger in a strange land.

Yes, there are varieties of worldviews today and doubtless were in the past. But nowadays, among both some atheists and some believers, there is a belief that miracles can only be true if they describe actual events; or that the ancients believed that miracles must explain the origins of things they didn’t understand but we do, like the development of the cosmos of the role or evolution in creating the amazing variety of life on earth. Because of my interest in Christianity I have studied something of the origins of the bible and social and religious thought in Jesus’ time and society, but have very little idea about most other ancient cultures.

I think you are right about the spectrum of views being similar in Australia and your homeland, but the proportions at different points varying. I migrated from the UK decades ago, and would say the same of there. My guess is that more Americans than Australians identify as Christian, they are more likely to be active churchgoers and they are more likely to make a more literal reading of the bible than Australians. The situation in the UK is probably closer to here. On most social and political questions there is probably a similar situation – the same overall range, different proportions at different points. The one issue on which the USA seem out of step with most rich western societies is gun control, and there are historical reasons for that.

Dear Rhian,

You wrote: “Because of my interest in Christianity I have studied something of the origins of the bible and social and religious thought in Jesus’ time and society, but have very little idea about most other ancient cultures.”

I believe the above statement tells what is wrong with most Christians. Christianity like any other social phenomenon is a living breathing expression of a current in society. Your statement above is like studying human history and confining your interest to the first fossil evidence of human life. You are possibly not only ignorant of other ancient cultures but also ignorant of the history of Christianity and its precursors. If you want to know about humans or any species are, you study what they have become and how they became what they are. What happened in Jesus’ time contains speculation and myth. Christianity has two thousand years of history – the way Rome became dominant, the wars of the Reformation, the Inquisition, the Holocaust, Christian Imperialism etc. To confine one’s study of Christianity to its beginnings means you know very little about Christianity. I am not a Christian but am interested in it as a social phenomenon. It has more than 2,000 years of history. It has been influenced by Greek and Jewish Society. I have read “A History of Christianity: the First Three Thousand Years” by Diarmaid MacCulloch, Professor of the History of the Church at Oxford. You may find it interesting.

Dear David F.,

I am sorry to hear about the passing of your dear wife.
My you always find peace.

Dear Yuyutsu,

Thank you for your good wishes. May you have a great love.

Dear Rhian,

I am sorry for being critical of you. I don't know you. You may be a very good person.

Dear David

No need to apologise, I enjoy your directness and critical thinking.

I may have given the impression that my studies were confined to first century Palestine. If so, I apologise, that’s not the case. I have also studied the history of Christianity, the history and content of the Hebrew Scriptures and the influence of Christianity as part of my theological studies as well and some broader (mainly Western) European history. I own and have read several of MacCulloch’s books including that; and yes, it is interesting. One of my theology assignments was on the church’s approach to same-sex marriage and, because he is as a gay ordained deacon as well as a respected theologian and historian, I found his insights really helpful.

I am much less familiar with the history and origins of other faiths and societies – Indian, South American, Chinese, Sub-Saharan African. To be honest, I have focussed on the roots of my own faith and culture. If I were an Indian-born Hindu, my interests would probably be very different

To whom it may concern:
There are those who cannot get rid of the idea that life is continuous.
That somehow we existed before we were born, and live on after we die.
(This is where superstition takes hold of mental processes?)
People will say that they believe life does continue.
But I say my belief is that they don't believe that at all.

A belief is not a certainty.
It is something you have reason to think is more likely than not to be true.
So you have reasoned it out, and you have found logical argument to support your belief.
And that being the case, it should not be too hard to explain to others the validity of that 'belief'.
Using the same reasoning of course.
But you cannot.
So you don't really believe it, do you?

But none of this is important.
We live in a real world.
So what is really happening around us is what is important.
In other words, the truth.
We are the output of a computer program.
Our living computer will not last forever.
So neither will we.

One thing common to all religion is that it divides people.
Where there is forced division, there is immediate difference.
Difference can grow, and lead to frustration and even violence.
So anything which divides people can lead to some kind of disaster.
United we stand, divided we fall?

And it doesn't have to be religion.
Even those who 'follow' different football teams have been known to do more than disagree.
They have resorted to physical violence against the opposing team or its supporters?
Along with natural difference, (we all came out of a different mould) there is an abundance of similarity.
In living life, we need to keep this ample commonality in mind.
Look to see what we can do together: not focus on difference.

Dear Ipso Fatso,

«We are the output of a computer program.»

Please speak for yourself - I am not.

«There are those who cannot get rid of the idea that life is continuous.»

Just to clear any doubt, this isn't something I said.

«That somehow we existed before we were born, and live on after we die.»

Nor this. Neither me nor the author were speaking of existence - nuances matter!

Yet the article claims, that you don't necessarily live even before death!
You seem to support this claim too, because computer outputs do not live.

«People will say that they believe life does continue.
But I say my belief is that they don't believe that at all.»

Fair enough, now you are speaking about yourself and your own beliefs. While you might not believe me, I for one believe you that you so believe.

«But none of this is important.
We live in a real world.
So what is really happening around us is what is important.»

Would you agree that all matter is finite and will eventually be gone, that none shall be left (that is what physicists claim anyway)?
Then what makes anything around important?

«It is something you have reason to think is more likely than not to be true.»

When you wear your socks, is it more likely that you will wear socks again - or more likely that this be the last time you wear socks?

When you take a haircut, is it more likely that you will have another haircut - or more likely that this be the last time you have a haircut?

When you kiss a girl, is it more likely that you will have another kiss - or more likely that this be the last time you kiss a girl?

So when you take birth, which is more likely, that this be the last time you are born, or that there will be more?

«One thing common to all religion is that it divides people.»

Any proof? Any support even, or this is just one more belief of yours?

Dear Rhian,

I am very interested in religion but have no religious belief. I have visited mosques, churches and temples of various sorts. Unfortunately, the clergy I talk to in general find it hard to accept that one can have an interest in religion without being a candidate to adopt one. Therefore, regardless of my protestations, they regard me as a candidate for conversion to their religion. When that dominates the conversation it becomes difficult to continue. I am writing my biography and have titled it "Discarding the Spiritual". As a young man my father was an atheist. As he became older he became more and more religious. He wanted me to accompany him on his spiritual journey, but I was going the other way. I identify with MacCulloch as he apparently also has interest without belief.

From his "A History of Christianity"

I still appreciate the seriousness which a religious mentality brings to the mystery and misery of human existence, and I appreciate the solemnity of religious liturgy as a way of confronting these problems. I live with the puzzle of wondering how something so apparently crazy can be so captivating to millions of other members of my species. P. 11

Hi David,

A couple of miracles;

Prof Marcia Langton once said, I think it was around the time of the bicentenary; "The MIRACLE is we (Aboriginal people) are still here.

A little bit more light-hearted; "Johnny came into the pub the other day and shouted a round of beers, it was a MIRACLE!"

I to am interested in religions without being religious, I actually go to Male Church Fellowship sometimes (Yes they still separate the boys from the girls in 2023). I tend to be "controversial" during discussions at times, making statement like; "I believe on the evidence, Saul of Tarsus (St Paul), was the true founder of Christianity." They find that hard to accept, and some of the other "controversial" things I say, I think most are comfortable with orthodoxy, not me. A recent discussion centred around "the nature of God" My contention was there may be more than one Christian God, as God's persona had changed over the centuries from a spiteful, vengeful being to a loving kind being, which seemed to be at odds with the previous God. Possibly God was just moving with the times. What is your opinion on the persona of God as presented by Christianity over the ages.

Dear David F.,

To answer MacCulloch, "I appreciate the solemnity of religious liturgy as a way of confronting these problems. I live with the puzzle of wondering how something so apparently crazy can be so captivating to millions of other members of my species":

As most mammals spend much time cleaning their fur, what is surprising about people taking time to cleanse their minds?

Dear Yuyutsu,

You wrote:

"To answer MacCulloch, "I appreciate the solemnity of religious liturgy as a way of confronting these problems. I live with the puzzle of wondering how something so apparently crazy can be so captivating to millions of other members of my species":

As most mammals spend much time cleaning their fur, what is surprising about people taking time to cleanse their minds?"

Descending into superstition is cleansing the mind?

Dear David F

Indeed, and McCulloch goes on to make a similar point to what I think Peter and indeed Crossan are saying about miracles:

“Is Shakespeare’s Hamlet ‘true’? It never happened, but it seems to me to be much more ‘true’, full of meaning and significance for human beings, than the reality of the breakfast I ate this morning, which was certainly ‘true’ in a banal sense. Christianity’s claim to truth is absolutely central to it over much of the past two thousand years, and much of this history is dedicated to tracing the varieties of this claim and the competition between them.”

(page 11 also – it looks like the page numbers are the same even though I have the Kindle version and I guess you have a hard copy).

From what I can discern about you I’m pretty sure the answer is “yes”, but have you tried attending a Quaker meeting? They have a less strident take on orthodoxy and are less inclined to proselytising (nowadays) than most denominations, I think.

Dear David F.,

«Descending into superstition is cleansing the mind?»

Obviously it cannot...

It is not the superstition (when present) which cleanses the mind, it is the worship which does.

But sometimes it is superstition which entices people (especially primitive people) to worship. Otherwise they probably wouldn't.

You see, children hate going to the doctor to have an injection, a painful needle, so often their parents tell them: "if you come with me nicely to the doctor then I will give you a lolly (or some desired toy)". Obviously lollies cannot cure you, lollies in themselves cannot increase your immunity, but they can at times help you to get to the doctor.

Sadly, we also see some parents who only remember the lollies and the toys but forget to take their children to the doctor.

Modern adults like us do not require such lollies. For us, pure logic and medical understanding should suffice.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You are a modern adult because you are an adult living in a modern age. By that definition you are a modern adult. However, you preserve and venerate the superstition prevalent in a past age. That is true of many modern adults.

Dear David F.,

«However, you preserve and venerate the superstition prevalent in a past age. That is true of many modern adults.»

The topic is about faith, spirit, miracles, the living dead and the dead living, etc., not about myself and my possible personal bad habits.

At this particular juncture you quoted MacCulloch on the topic of worship (or religious liturgy), to which I replied, and at which point you introduced the issue of superstition.

As per my previous post, superstition could indeed also be present, but has little to do with worship itself. In terms of logic, this is a red herring.

Dear Yuyutsu,

You wrote: "The topic is about faith, spirit, miracles, the living dead and the dead living, etc., not about myself and my possible personal bad habits."

As far as I am concerned faith is a kind of superstition. Therefore, my comments relate to the subject. Your personal failings are regrettable but shared with many. I feel you are a decent human being but not an enlightened one.

I was thinking about mobile phones.
A phone has a processor, and is in fact a computer.
Add an operating system, and it becomes capable of many forms of communication.
Without such a system, the phone is inert.
Its active operating system can be 'turned off' if desired, and turned on again at a later time.
It will then work as it did before.

Humans have a computer too. We call it a brain.
It has an operating system.
It has fixed memory, (instincts) and also variable or volatile memory.
These equate to the ROM and RAM in a conventional computer.
But our brain is a living organ.
It requires nutrition to stay alive.
The physical body provides this.
Without nutrition, the brain would stop functioning.

The brain directs the body.
The body nourishes the brain.
So they are co-dependent.
Should one fail, so will the other.
Everything a person is will be stored in his living brain.
If it stops completely, the intelligence it contains will disappear.
And there is no way to reboot or restart a brain.
So the person can and will no longer exist, except in physical form.
Without an active brain, a person is said to have died.