The article, like most that seek to influence, implies that "if only we did this and that, things would be better". This is the simplistic notion that the whole political process is built around. Has the author considered that what we do as individuals or even as political groups never has the intended consequences any more? That while what we do may be good for us as the originators, our professed political aims are just a means to an end and shouldn’t be taken at face value?

At least Howard was honest and understood this when he said "the times suit me" after getting into government. The truth is there are a large number of highly-fluid forces and interests in play that are all jockeying for position and will fill the breach when they have an opportunity or when it is their turn. As they say, "there's nothing more powerful than an idea whose time has come". Given that ideas can be completely independent of politics, what does this say about the validity of the political process?

It's amazing how an idea that was held as a central tenet for a long period of time can be overturned and replaced with something else at the blink of an eye.

Barack Obama is not Jesus Christ. He does not say that only through him can one enter the Kingdom of Heaven. Unlike Jesus he will listen to others and not claim his is the only way. In his inauguration speech he mentioned unbelievers. He does not demand belief in his ideas. Unlike Jesus in Matthew he does not resign himself to saying that the poor shall always be with us. Obama as a community organiser has worked with poor to help them change their status. Unlike Jesus Obama has lived in many societies and has a grasp of different social milieus. Obama is a real person rather than a mythical figure like Jesus.

In comparing the two I much prefer Obama.

'In comparing the two I much prefer Obama.'

No doubt as a man of sin and corruption Davidf, you would choose Obama above Jesus. Hopefully you will have your eyes open spiritually and you will see your own foolishness before its to late.

Dear Runner,

How do you know I am a man of sin and corruption? You are just blasting a person you don't know who might be leading a more decent life than you. You apparently lack any tolerance for those who don't believe as you do. Is it possible for someone who does not share the nonsense you believe (at least it is nonsense in my view) to be a good person?

Jesus said to look at the beam in your own eye rather than the mote in your neighbours. Please try that.

Barack has given an inspirational address to the American public and the world community. Time will tell if he institutes a radical and overdue overhaul of the way their economy and society operates. He certainly touched on the things that must happen for change to occur - the most important being people power and looking to science for solutions. Of course the pressures to be 'an intelligent Bush' will be immence.

I would not right off Obama after just one day in office as it could be a master stroke in taking some of the experts in the failed financial, environmental, military, health and education systems and re-chanelling their considerable knowledge and expertise into new, innovative, equitable and sustainable solutions. This is my great hope.

"Unlike Jesus he will listen to others and not claim his is the only way.....

Unlike Jesus Obama has lived in many societies and has a grasp of different social milieus......

Obama is a real person rather than a mythical figure like Jesus."

davidf, if Jesus is a mythical figure, how did he do all of the above? He either did the above or he didn't. It seems you think he was a mythical figure. So in the interests if consistency, your comparison is void. If you believe that Jesus is a mythical figure, then you don't believe that he did any of those things.

However, would you like to provide some kind of evidence or backing to this statement that Jesus is myth?

After all, it's a statement that not many educated people in that field (historians, New Testament scholars) even take seriously. This is of course because it's a statement based on imaginative speculation and a sole focus on certain parts of the body of evidence, combined with either ignorance or gross distortion of the larger body of evidence.

There's another difference I can think of between Jesus and Obama.

Jesus died, then conquered death by rosing again. Obama hasn't died yet, so we'll have to wait and see whether he can do the second part. But I suspect we'll be waiting a while, unless those right wing extremist whites get their way. So for now, Jesus wins the comparison hands down

David f

You ask 'Dear Runner,

'How do you know I am a man of sin and corruption?'
The simple answer to that is that Christ would not of freely given of His life if their were any righteous on earth. He was the righteous dying for the unrighteous. Your arrogance and deliberate misrepresenting of Christ confirms exactly what I have said about you. You might be a good person in your own eyes and possibly others.Unfortunately compared with Christ you, me and all others fail miserably. I suggest you find some righteousness other than your own. You certainly need it.

I have my serious misgivings about Obama and he should be watched very closely. However, we can't completely rule out the possibility that he may be on our side.

It turns out that virtually all the left around the world, were wrong about JFK and RFK, thanks to the insidious influence wielded by phony US dissidents Noam Chomsky and Alexander Cockburn(1). Contrary to what Chomsky and Cockburn would have us believe, JFK intended to stand up to the US corporate elite. Specific examples include JFK's intention to withdraw the US from Vietnam, his refusal to invade Cuba and his actions against the profiteering of the US Steel Corporation.

That is why JFK was murdered. However Chomsky managed almost single-handedly to lead the left away from the trail that would have lead to the killers of JFK, RFK, Malcolm X and MLK.

The most charismatic and effective leaders of the 1960's, who could have turned the US away from the course which has since caused untold harm to humankind and the planet's ecology, were all murdered and yet Chomsky and Cockburn and other 'left gatekeepers' insist that they see nothing suspicious in this and that anyone who does is an irrational and paraonoid.

Similarly, since 2001 Chomsky and Cockburn have gone out of their way to attack the 9/11 Truth Movement and cover you the crime committed against the US people by Cheney, Bush, Rumsfeld, Rice et al on 11 September 2001 (see also "9/11 Truth" at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=76 http://911oz.com http://911blogger.com http://ae911truth.org http://911truth.org etc.).

If it turns out that Obama, rather than being a pale imitation of Bush, acts resolutely against the corporate elites, let's do what we can to make sure that the latter don't do this time to Barack Obama what they did to JFK, RFK, MLK and Malcolm X, or, if they do, that they are made to pay the price.

---

1. See Barrie Zwicker's "The Shame of Noam Chomsky and the Left gatekeepers" at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhrZ57XxYJU

Trav, extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. The onus is upon you.

Runner,

Do you wear sackcloth and exercise self-flagellation? Take cold showers throughout winter and fast for the entire period of lent?

You should, y'know. It'd make the picture I have of you complete.

Bennie, Jesus existence is no extraordinary claim, in fact it's one that only a handful of sensationalist contrarians reject. So I'll assume you're referring to my claim that Jesus rose from the dead.

And for that, there is some good evidence. Only you can answer the question of whether it's enough to satisfy your requirement of "extraordinary".

Everyone has their own apriori presuppositions regarding the existence of the supernatural, and those presuppositions have an effect on how anyone will respond to evidence presented to them about claims of the supernatural.

If you look at the bible and just assume for a starting point that it should be treated in a similar fashion to any other historical work- in that it's a collection of ancient documents which should be scrutinised using the same principles of historical enquiry as any other ancient collection of documents, you'll find a few interesting things. That is, just look at it with the skeptical eye of historical enquiry (any supernatural claims should be looked at with suspicion).

Now if we do that, a few things pop out. The first and most obvious thing is the timegap between the supposed events and the writing. The dates of writing are considered to be VERY close to the events, given their historical nature.

Following on from the dating, scholars use historical principles to determine what they think we can ascertain about the texts and the events they describe. Scholars vary greatly, but almost all scholars (Over 90%) accept the following four events as historical:

-Jesus was crucified

-The disciples believed that Jesus appeared to them after he died.

-Paul, previously a Christian persecutor, had an experience, after which he converted to Christianity.

-James, the brother of Jesus, who previously didnt believe, also believed he met the resurrected Jesus.

A 5th events is agreed to by 75% of all scholars:

- Jesus tomb was empty after his crucifixion.

In the absence of any strong apriori presuppositions against the possibility of the supernatural, I'd argue that Jesus rising from the dead is the most reasonable explanation for the above historical events

Trav

"I'd argue that Jesus rising from the dead is the most reasonable explanation for the above historical events."

I can't see how it's possible that a physically dead body could move itself out of a sealed tomb. Being realistic, I'd say there would have to be a more mundane reason for this event. How about a friend of Jesus, who perhaps did not want to see his body desecrated in any way, moved it out of the tomb and buried it somewhere else? Maybe someone who had the wherewithal to do so like Joseph of Arimathea?

The resurrection of Jesus and its manifestation seems to be referring to some kind of ethereal or supernatural state of Jesus. The story about the transfiguration would seem to support this.

I can't resist :) Dear DAvid F....

for one who seem to hold the view that Jesus was 'mythical' you seem to like quoting Him as an authority to support various arguments. :)

blessings.

What a sour, sad, grumpy little article this is Mr Passant, to be sure.

>>He has captured many in presenting an almost Harry Potter-like vision for all Americans. The difference is that Voldemort might win.<<

No-one expects a single individual to change the world overnight. Even Jesus Christ didn't manage that. You only have to look at the continuing political instability of his birthplace, after 2,000 years. Hardly a great yardstick, I would have thought.

My expectation is that Obama will turn out to be a competent manager. He will encourage his staff to be bold and thoughtful in their policy development. He will listen to the alternatives put to him, and insist that they be clear in their objectives and constructive in their impact on people. He will motivate all levels - his own staff, his own people, and his peers in other countries - to work towards peaceful, productive and achievable goals.

The rest is pretty much out of his hands.

My hope is also that he has the intestinal fortitude and stamina to outwit and outlast the glass-half-empty Passy's of his world - of which there will be many - and remain positive about the role that he and the rest of America can play in the world, economically and politically.

But no doubt he will be constantly slagged off for his inability to fix a rattling toilet door in Rabbit Hash KY, or to get Iran and Israel to love each other by next Tuesday week.

Anyone can play the doom-'n-gloom game, Passy. But it is a game that will ultimately turn you into a mumbling misanthrope.

Oh, wait...

The most reasonable explanation is "we don't know". The rest is guesswork or faith, depending on perspective. However, "in the absence of any strong apriori presuppositions against the possibility of the supernatural" you'd believe just about anything, Trav. Which you do.

That said, BH Obama ain't supernatural either yet some people seem to believe he's going to reverse the earth's spin and bring on a 52-week sunmmer while performing a pirouette around the oval office. Some people, like the author, have gone in the other direction and suggest he's the same as his insufferable predecessor. Seems to me he's having a free kick even before the whistle blows.

Why "jesus"?

Speaking of the "reality" of that comic book character called "jesus" where is the HARD documentary evidence or the polaroid photographs?

Without such hard concretised evidence ALL the claims re the "real jesus" are codswallop---childish nonsense appealing to the same childishly primitive emotional level as the tooth fairy and santa claus or the parental good-luck deity who is going to pamper me and give me lots of goodies here on earth and in "heaven" when I die---but only if I am good.

Meanwhile these three references and the associated website provide a comprehensive Spiritually informed critique of the origins and ESSENTIALLY POWER SEEKING POLITICAL purposes of the institutional church fathers that created them.

1. http://www.dabase.org/bloodsac.htm

2. http://www.dabase.org/exochrist.htm

3. http://www.dabase.org/proofch6.htm#idol

It IS time to put away this childish religiosity.

Guys, the article was NOT about comparing Obama to Jesus.

This was simply used in the heading for dramatic effect. This article isn't about religion or philosophy, it's a political piece.

But I guess some can't see past their set keywords. 'Jesus' apparently, is one of them. I'd wager if the author had used mohammed, we'd have yet another Islamic slangfest, even though it wasn't mentioned again in the text. Good grief.

What bothers me about pieces like this, is that because Obama is adopting a pragmatically centrist approach, instead of pandering to either side of the political spectrum, those on the far-left will criticise him because he's not adopting unrealistic, even foolhardy, fringe policies.

A "more competent Bush"?

Oh, puh-lease. The fact is that politicians in most Western countries have a fairly narrow political spectrum in which they operate.
The second fact is, Western countries tend to be the most prosperous in the world, so the formula, in a general sense works. It's when ideological idiocy prevails that things get thrown out of whack - such as neoliberalist extremism.
Under Clinton for example, the US worked quite well. No doubt those on the far left will criticise him as yet another imperialist leader of an oppressive regime cloaked with democracy.

Hogwash.

Obama will tack more to the centre than Bush. Precisely what is needed. His tax plan also targets upper-income earners, thus repealing a fair amount of the inequalities that came about as a result of the neo-liberal ideology. Thus, he's doing a fair job of instituting practical leftist economic policies, without going to an extreme socialist route.
He's also withdrawing troops from Iraq, while maintaining pressure in Afghanistan, the source of the majority of the world's drug problems as well as a genuine haven for Islamic militants. I good idea, although not the policies of the extreme left pacifists.

All in all, a pragmatic way forward, reasonably devoid of idiotic ideology from either end of the spectrum.

Thank goodness for that.

TurnRightThenLeft wrote, "He's also ... maintaining pressure in Afghanistan, ... a genuine haven for Islamic militants."

Are you aware that the 9/1 Truth Movement has completely demoslished this rationale for the invasion of Afghanistan. Again, see "9/11 Truth" forum at http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=2166&page=76 http://911oz.com http://911blogger.com http://ae911truth.org http://911truth.org etc.

daggett, I'm aware of the many conspiratorial 9-11 theories.

I don't subscribe to them any more than the JFK assassination theories, the notion the moon landings were faked or that the Freemasons are a diabolically powerful sect.

These all require a huge, far reaching conspiracy. I've already said I don't believe the theories that the media are the lapdogs of the powerful which would be a necessary component in believing such fanciful ideas. Such far reaching conspiracies aren't sustainable.

So no, I'm afraid I'm dismissing that as poppycock.

An interesting article.

Barack Obama is not Jesus Christ?

Well, let's see...

" Once long ago, in a world of confusion and
weariness, there came a new and exciting hope...
A man appeared in Palestine and spoke ..."

Barack Obama in his Inauguration speech said:

"On this day, we gather because we have chosen
hope over fear, unity of purpose over conflict
and discord..."

Jesus said: "That you love one another as I have
loved you."

And Barack Obama said:

"We are shaped by every language and culture, drawn
from every end of this earth; and because we have tasted
the bitter swill of civil war and segregation, and
emerged from that dark chapter stronger and more united,
we cannot help but believe that the old hatreds shall
someday pass; that the lines of tribe shall soon
dissolve; that as the world grows smaller, our common
humanity shall reveal itself; and that America must
play its role in ushering in a new era of peace..."

No folks, Barack Obama is not Jesus Christ,
but he comes pretty close!

Why are the god botherers upset, you have your beliefs and they are respected.
Enjoy what you believe in and respect others, that do not have the same conviction to your beliefs.
The media created this illusion, and I am sure Obama ain't happy, as he has enough on his plate.

BTW; Can you ask "him/her above" to send some decent rain to South Australia. Tar!

Some however, like Amjad Attalah a Co-Director of the New America Foundation/Middle East Task Force, already have given Obama miraculous powers as they claim that the cease-fire in Gaza is a direct result of the Obama 'Ascension'.

See:http://www.kotzabasis.observationdeck.org

It is true that new-conservatives, right and religious extremists, big crooks, super nationalists and enemy of the peace and progress created huge problems in USA and the whole world. Obama knows, we know, that the solutions of all these problems will not be easy BUT we TRUST OBAMA AND WE ARE READY TO SUPPORT HIM.
Of cause white suprimasists, KKK, right and religious extremists, big crooks, super nationalists and enemy of the peace and progress will try to create problems to Obama but they CAN NOT block him.
While there are many extremists who would like to kill president Obama, I hope, I wish American authorities will protect his life.
YES, PRESIDENT OBAMA IS NOT Jesus Christ BUT A REAL PERSON WHO TRY TO SOLVE REAL PROBLEMS, NOW, ON OUR PLANET!
OF CAUSE I PREFER OBAMA FROM ANY MYTHICAL PERSON.
Antonios Symeonakis
Adelaide

TRTL ‘All in all, a pragmatic way forward, reasonably devoid of idiotic ideology from either end of the spectrum.’

People at either end of the spectrum are not idiots, nor are they necessarily ideologues. In some respects, they are not even extremists. They just reject many aspects of centrist political ideology for a variety of reasons – personal, practical and philosophical.

The centre does not hold a monopoly on common sense or pragmatism. In fact, it’s every bit as reactionary and consumed by its own self interest as the supposed extremes it so despises. More often than not, the centre rejects much needed reforms for the sake of expediency, until a catastrophe or crisis forces it to act … usually too little, too late - as with the global economic crisis that both the libertarian right and socialist left had been predicting loudly from the rooftops for at least 10 years.

So too, both the ‘extremist’ libertarian right and the socialist left profoundly reject war – yet the centre goes along with any war on offer, regardless of justification … just to keep the peace, so to speak.

Give me an extremist over a moderate any day.

Daggett

Don’t be too hard on Chomsky. (He’s my pin-up boy. Much sexier than Che!) He’s stuck his neck out so many times over the course of his amazing career to expose the banal, everyday language of imperial hubris, his unwillingness to join the 911 Truth Movement should not be seen as the sum total of all he has achieved.

Pericles “What a sour, sad, grumpy little article this is”

Yep, our Passy must have mixed up his haemoid ointment with a tube of bengay cream

But despite this being about Obama, he manages to put the boot in to Bush “But I think the blame for stagnating incomes lies with George W Bush as the Commander in Chief of Capitalism.”

Oh such crippled thought processes, twisted and torn by the manifest failings of the socialist models which he would seek to inflict upon us all.

I see we have “”bourgeois economists” like Paul Krugman”

Rather than “champions of the workers economists” like comrade Passant

“The gap between expectations and reality creates an opportunity for the revolutionary left in the US and elsewhere”

And with their usual incompetence the “revolutionary left” will either trip on that gap or better still, fall into it and be lost forever.

“Our task is to patiently explain, and support those fightbacks against capitalism and imperialism that do and will occur around the world and in the US and Australia.”

Well Johnny, libertarian capitalism is presently challenged by the excesses of big government, the very big government which Ronald Reagan was at pains to do a bonsai on.

When the previous Soviets of the revolutionary left were faced with a crisis and challenged by libertarian capitalism, back in 1980-90s they caved in on themselves.

I have no doubt, libertarian capitalism will weather this storm, as it has every other storm it has faced in its long history and it will prevail once again over the "revolutionary left" and all the other indolent parasites and maligned wannabe peons who think there is any salvation for anyone in socialism.

In the mean time, Johnny, do keep writing, your articles are an absolute hoot and a hilarious diversion from matters of the real world.

Foxy “No folks, Barack Obama is not Jesus Christ,
but he comes pretty close!”

I thought he was less like Jesus but does do a good impression of Al Jolson

I hear the plea for rain in South Australia. As the State that first abolished Christianity, in 1927, I am minded of the first sentence in the Book of Ruth. Now it came to pass in the days when judges ruled, that there was a famine in the land. I heard such a plea from the Late Sir Joh, in Queensland and a call for State wide prayer. It rained. Hillsong Church had a mega prayer night, when the dams were down to 38% and we were flat out getting out of Sydney by air, for storms and rain. Obama would be the last to claim he is Jesus Christ. He did however go to an Episcoplian Church, ( read Anglican) and bend his knee before the Lord, before he took on what will probably be the most onerous task in the world.

Following the Book of Ruth, is the Book of Samuel, who became a Just Judge for forty years. The Book of Ruth does not say the drought broke, but it comes directly after the Book of Judges and there was grain for her to glean, from a successful harvest. The book of Judges is about the preservation of the twelve tribes of Israel. Twelve is the number settled upon for a jury. Israel is the name given by Almighty God to Jacob, after a wrestling match in the dark, and means man of God. Twelve men or women of God, called together under Oath, So help me God, can call down the blessing of Almighty God on a “court” and deliver justice. In Ephesians 2:12 in the King James Version it says: That at that time you were without Christ, being aliens from the commonwealth of Israel….

The trials and tribulations visited upon the Jews, and by the Jews on others were supposed to end with Jesus Christ. The war between good and evil continues. As a country constituted under a Christian Constitution Australia should be blessed. The appointment of Judges to rule, and be Gods representative is pagan. By their fruits (rains) shall they be known.

Col Rouge,

You said, "I thought he was less like
Jesus but does do a good impression of
Al Jolson."

That's interesting, Jewish entertainers put
on a blackface because both groups felt a
deep woe, had suffered at the hands of
oppressors, and lived close to their pain.
Many of the new songs of that time hailed the
brighter day and the aggressiveness necessary
to live in the new land, but the singers invested
the black face with a plaintive note, which kept
them in touch with their past though with the
pain once removed, hidden behind a black face.

Thank You for your astute observation Sir.

Obama's a weakling.

And that will become clearer by the day.

The real contest will not be about issues but about whether he's led by the nose by Michelle, Rhamm, Nancy or Harry.

SJF, I appreciate your interest in what I wrote of Noam Chomsky.

Nevertheless, I must take issue with what you have written.

Yes, I concede that Chomsky is an appealing and seemingly likeable person and Zwicker, himself, readily acknowledges that, but you need to look beyond the appearance and examine the substance.

SJF wrote, "He's stuck his neck out so many times over the course of his amazing career ..."

No, he hasn't. He has lived a comfortable sheltered life and avoided posing any real challenge to the US corporate elite and he has gone out of his way to undermine others who have.

The people who have really stuck their necks out are the likes of the late Barry Jennings and Ellen Mariani.

Barry Jennings mysteriously died of a heart attack in August 2008 after he confided in others that he feared for his job and safety because he had spoken of explosions and other mysterious occurrences in WTC 7 the third tower to collapse on the day.

Ellen Mariani, whose husband Neil boarded the doomed flight 175 which crashed into the South Tower (or so we are told), the second tower to be hit, demanded real answers from the Government on that very day and, as a consequence, she suffered bullying harassment from the Government. Only four days later on 15 September while she was at her youngest daughter's wedding, obviously still trying to cope with the loss of her beloved husband, a helicopter hovered over her head and wouldn't leave. She said thought she was going to die on that day.

I urge you to hear and see Ellen Mariani herself at http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=20GGyDWAF4M http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eRBOUildaJE and ask why a man you hold in such high regard as Chomsky would stoop to labelling people like Ellen Mariani 'conspiracy nuts'.

I also urge you to consider carefully the evidence against Chomsky with included video and broadcasts on these pages:

"Sacred Cow Noam Chomsky gored by Barrie Zwicker" at http://ningens-blog.blogspot.com/2006/12/sacred-cow-noam-chomsky-gored-by-barry.html
"Noam Chomsky And The Gatekeepers Of The Left" at http://thefilter.ca/articles/indoctrination/noam-chomsky-and-the-gatekeepers-of-the-left/
"The Shame of Noam Chomsky & left gatekeepers: Zwicker" at http://nz.youtube.com/watch?v=BhrZ57XxYJU

Runner wrote;

Your arrogance and deliberate misrepresenting of Christ confirms exactly what I have said about you.

Dear Runner,

Not sharing your superstition makes me arrogant? I attack your superstition but not you. I would appreciate the same courtesy.

I have not misrepresented Jesus in the least. He made bigoted and self-centred statements. I just cited the statements exactly as recorded in the Bible.

Oh, we all are creatures of sin and corruption. Religion-inspired neurotic guilt!

Trav wrote:

However, would you like to provide some kind of evidence or backing to this statement that Jesus is myth?

It is difficult to prove to a person gripped by delusion that they are deluded. It would be difficult to argue with a follower of the ancient Roman gods that Venus and Mars did not exist. However, there is evidence that Jesus is myth. One bit of evidence is that his narrative has similarities with the narratives of other humanoid gods. It seems obvious that the Jesus myth incorporates myths popular at the time.

The following is from Edward Carpenter’s “Origin of Christian and Pagan Beliefs:

At the time of the life or recorded appearance of Jesus of Nazareth, and for some centuries before, the Mediterranean and neighboring world had been the scene of a vast number of pagan creeds and rituals. There were Temples without end dedicated to gods like Apollo or Dionysus among the Greeks, Hercules among the Romans, Mithra among the Persians, Adonis and Attis in Syria and Phrygia, Osiris and Isis and Horus in Egypt, Baal and Astarte among the Babylonians and Carthaginians, and so forth.

Societies, large or small, united believers and the devout in the service or ceremonials connected with their respective deities, and in the creeds which they confessed concerning these deities. And an extraordinarily interesting fact, for us, is that notwithstanding great geographical distances and racial differences between the adherents of these various cults, as well as differences in the details of their services, the general outlines of their creeds and ceremonials were—if not identical--so markedly similar as we find them.

continue

continued

I cannot of course go at length into these different cults, but I may say roughly that of all or nearly all the deities above-mentioned it was said and believed that:

(1) They were born on or very near our Christmas Day.

(2) They were born of a Virgin-Mother.

(3) And in a Cave or Underground Chamber.

(4) They led a life of toil for Mankind.

(5) And were called by the names of Light-bringer, Healer, Mediator, Savior, Deliverer.

(6) They were however vanquished by the Powers of Darkness.

(7) And descended into Hell or the Underworld.

(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.

Let me give a few brief examples.

Mithra was born in a cave, and on the 25th December. (1) He was born of a Virgin. (2) He traveled far and wide as a teacher and illuminator of men. He slew the Bull (symbol of the gross Earth which the sunlight fructifies). His great festivals were the winter solstice and the Spring equinox (Christmas and Easter). He had twelve companions or disciples (the twelve months). He was buried in a tomb, from which however he rose again; and his resurrection was celebrated yearly with great rejoicings.

He was called Savior and Mediator, and sometimes figured as a Lamb; and sacramental feasts in remembrance of him were held by his followers.

You can read more from the book which is available on the net at http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/

BOAZ_David wrote:

I can't resist :) Dear DAvid F....

for one who seem to hold the view that Jesus was 'mythical' you seem to like quoting Him as an authority to support various arguments. :)

Dear BOAZ_David,

I don’t reject wisdom even when it is cloaked in superstition and surrounded by nonsense.

Dear Foxy: You are perceptive, astute, caring and truly vulpine.

"I can't see how it's possible that a physically dead body could move itself out of a sealed tomb"

Rob, if you don't even see it as a remote possibility, then you shouldn't really look at the evidence. Your presuppositions have closed your mind from considering all options.

"How about a friend of Jesus, who perhaps did not want to see his body desecrated in any way, moved it out of the tomb and buried it somewhere else? Maybe someone who had the wherewithal to do so like Joseph of Arimathea?"

Whilst this is one argument against the empty tomb, it doesn't touch any of the other 4 historical events I've listed. So any counter theory to the resurrection really needs to take those into account as well.

Bennie:

"The most reasonable explanation is "we don't know". "

That's a cop out.

Of course we don't "know". But if you think about it, you'll realise that you don't really "know" anything. Therefore, the best you can do is follow where the evidence leads.

"However, "in the absence of any strong apriori presuppositions against the possibility of the supernatural" you'd believe just about anything, Trav. Which you do."

Not at all. I simply believe what the evidence points towards. Are you going to come up with anything which contradicts my evidence or statements, or just make general statements like "you'll believe anything"? (Without considering or commenting on what it is which leads me to believe that what I believe is, in fact, the best explanation).

Ho Hum

"Meanwhile these three references and the associated website provide a comprehensive Spiritually informed critique of the origins and ESSENTIALLY POWER SEEKING POLITICAL purposes of the institutional church fathers that created them."

Those actually turn out to be incredibly UNinformed. I see no references or solid evidence there. it's mainly imaginative speculation springing from a fertile mind

Davidf:

"One bit of evidence is that his narrative has similarities with the narratives of other humanoid gods"

So, on the basis of some obscure similarities between the accounts about Jesus and some ancient myths, you conclude that Jesus is also a myth? Incredible.

Regarding the Mithras myth, allow me to refer you to a couple of different sources:

A debate between Gary Habermas and Tim Callahan, lasting 5 minutes, where Habermas clearly establishes that there is basically No solid evidence whatsoever, of resurrection myths predating Jesus:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rq64qX7bNNU

A webpage which goes through all of your claims in detail:

http://www.pleaseconvinceme.com/index/Is_Jesus_Simply_a_Retelling_of_the_Mithras_Myth

The summary:

From this quick examination of the Mithras tradition, we can see that he is formed from the rock of a mountain. His birthday celebration was later adopted at the winter solstice, just as the Roman Catholics did for the birth of Christ. Mithras was not a teacher like Jesus. He did not have twelve disciples like Jesus. He may have offered his followers immortality, as this was common for deity mythologies of all kinds. He was believed to have performed miracles, like other deities. He did not sacrifice himself for the world as did Jesus. There is no evidence that Mithras ever died, was ever buried or ever resurrected. In a similar way, there is no evidence that Mithras was ever called the “Good Shepherd” or associated with the lamb. He was loosely associated to the lion in that he was a sun-god associated to Leo. Mithras has never been called the "Way, the Truth and the Light," the "Logos," "Redeemer," "Savior" nor "Messiah." He was called a “mediator” but in a very different way than Jesus. Followers of Mithras did celebrate on Sunday in the years FOLLOWING the Christian celebration of the “Lord’s Day”, and while Mithras followers did fellowship together, they did not celebrate a Eucharist of any kind. So in hindsight, how similar is Mithras to Jesus after all

Looks like the thread got taken over by an argument about Jesus.

It is ironic that a socialist should make the connection between political power and religious fervour. That is precisely what is needed to believe in socialism. These are people who worship the state. However bad Obama may be, they want *more* political control over every aspect of everyday life.

Cost 100,000,000 lives where it was tried? Oh that's right, that's just a strange coincidence. Nothing to do with the project of socialising the means of production.

david f,

Thank you for your kind words.

"Tact is the ability to describe
others as they see themselves."
(Eleanor Chafee).

Vulpine?
I love that!

Davidf

'Dear Runner,

Not sharing your superstition makes me arrogant?

Certainly not but your self righteousness certainly does. The Scriptures describes your corrupt mind accurately.

TurnRightThenLeft wrote, "daggett, I'm aware of the many conspiratorial 9-11 theories."

... and I have been 'aware' of 'conspiratorial 9-11 theories' since 2003, but 'awareness' of a conspiracy theory is not the same as understanding it.

TurnRightThenLeft wrote, "I don't subscribe to them any more than the JFK assassination theories, the notion the moon landings were faked or that the Freemasons are a diabolically powerful sect."

Have you studied the evidence, or do you just reject 'conspiratorial 9-11 theories' and alternate 'JFK assassination theories', because it seems fashionable to do so?

Well, I also don't subscribe to "the notion the moon landings were faked" and I don't know for sure how "diabolically powerful" the freemasons may or may not be.

But, how are either of these questions relevant to 9/11?

TurnRightThenLeft wrote, " ... I'm afraid I'm dismissing that as poppycock."

You can do that if you like, but I don't see how dismissing a theory without having demonstrated any comprehension of that theory is to your credit.

Barack Obama is still a lawyer. He is also a Christian, and we must hope that he recognizes the sovereignty of Almighty God over and above the hype of his high office and the prejudices of his lawyers education. We have great expectation of him, and when he was inaugurated he took on the role of the Chief Magistrate of the United States.

This role is taken by Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second in respect of Australia and the United Kingdom and when She took her Oath of Allegiance, it was to Almighty God and the culmination of over two hundred and sixty four years of Christian rule in the United Kingdom and since 1828 in Australia. During that time, the Parliament of the United Kingdom refused to recognize the right of the American Colonists to the blessings of Almighty God and the rebel colonists replaced the King with a President.

The Royal Prerogative of Almighty God is exercised in the United States by the President, and Bush, abused it to let some convicted cronies out of jail. The United States Constitution enshrines the Christian Institution of jury trial of civil matters, as a guarantee in any matter involving the sum of $20 or more. This has more or less kept the bastards honest. Consequently after all other republics have failed, the United States has prevailed.

The English and the United States both have Christian Republican Government, the only difference being that the Representative of Almighty God in the United States is elected. The past eight years have demonstrated that this method can be flawed. Money talks, and through the electronic media, Obama got lots of money, not from the usual sources, but directly. The King makers who usually elect United States Presidents were unhorsed by popular contributions. Obama comes without baggage.

Some men rise above themselves in public office, others sink into corruption. We may be blessed that Obama has continued his education beyond the iconoclast Law Schools, as has our Kevin Rudd, by following the example of Jesus Christ and consulting God in church and out every day.

There are some points in here, and considering the lack of ;- No - Zero content of objective achievements in Modern times – and The Media – in broad terms , I would have thought it more relevant to name the titled of the essay as : “ Obama is not the new Mohammad” you know , or is that not allowed?
It stands to reason , with all things considered with our Media.

But then again , it seems as if he may be.

Daggett

Just for the record, I've always believed that by far the most implausible explanation for 911 is the official one.

However ... re Noamh Chomsky. I had a look at some of your links, from Zwicker etc. Yes, it's very disappointing that Chomsky (and other high-profile figures of the left) is so dismissive of the 911 Truth Movement. But my argument is that it doesn't have to be an either/or thing. He can BOTH reject the 911TM AND still remain an important critical voice on American hegemony etc. And he HAS stuck his neck out on many other issues throughout his career, e.g. his dissection and discrediting of US claims of Serbian genocide used to justify the Kosovo bombing and to criminalise the Serbian leadership.

And, as for Zwicker, his disenchanted-fan outpourings are a little fatuous for my liking. (Having said that, however, I will try and read his book.)

Trav,

"Rob, if you don't even see it as a remote possibility, then you shouldn't really look at the evidence. Your presuppositions have closed your mind from considering all options."

You're right I do have a presupposition and it is this. To physically get a dead body out of a cave requires physical force to first move the rock out of the doorway and then the body out of the cave. As a dead body can no longer provide a motive force, it can't do the physical deed. It's that simple.

If Jesus really did spring back to life in a physical sense, where did he go? Why did only a few apostles see him? Why did he not continue to spread his message?

I have no reason to doubt that James had a real, personal experience. I believe it was in another dimension (which was picked up by James' intuitive sense) but not in the physical sense.

SJF, evidently we have differing definitions of both extremism and different ideas as to what the fringe of the political spectrum represent and reject.
What you describe sounds more like the apathetic.

I didn't say that people from the very edge of the spectrum are idiots, actually, what I said was the Obama's policy was devoid of idiotic policies from the fringe.

I think we'd be very lucky if all extremists were idiots. They wouldn't be capable of making such problems.

An 'extreme' view, would be, by definition, one that is outside the mainstream. It would be one that is held by a minority of people.

Thus, if an 'extreme' view is adopted by society at large, it has been forced upon them. If it's an accepted idea, then by definition it is a mainstream one.
In order to hold a fringe view, you must first reject society as needing an overhaul.
This is the attitude centrists despite, because by its very nature it is contemptuous of the views held by the public, plus it's usually aggressive.

I reject that the 'centre' merely go along with wars, I'd say it's the extremists who wage them and the apathetic who just go along to keep the peace.

You speak of the libertarian right and the socialist left, however seeing as you use the term socialists, then I'm assuming when you use the term libertarian, you're referring to libertarian economic policy?
The recent neo-conservative US administration held extreme libertarian economic beliefs but conservative social policies - I'd argue this was an extreme government, in contrast to the more centrist government of Clinton.
It was the more extreme government which waged wars.
If you're referring to groups who believe in a libertarian social agenda, then yes I'm sure they reject wars... but don't most socialist movements tend to hail from the left and hold pretty libertarian social agendas?

You state: "Give me an extremist over a moderate any day."

Well, try spending some time with the Taliban. Or is that example too 'extreme'?

TRTL

Despite many semantic difficulties, I relate to a lot of what you say. Just some further thoughts …

‘I reject that the 'centre' merely go along with wars, I'd say it's the extremists who wage them and the apathetic who just go along to keep the peace.’

This is my main point of disagreement. War is initiated mostly by centrist political parties as a standard response to extreme events. All politicians know that to publicly oppose a war is political suicide. Some are brave enough to do so, but their careers stall or go into decline. And it’s not apathy that causes people to go along with a war – it’s the fear of negative centrist reaction.

‘The recent neo-conservative US administration held extreme libertarian economic beliefs…’

I don’t think their beliefs had much to do with extremism or libertarianism. They reworked the centrist US free enterprise doctrine to favour the rich, while keeping all other traditional economic controls in place – nothing extreme about that.

What they represented was pretty much what centrist American society valued – military might, national hegemony, wealth and celebrity, masculine honour, family pride, religious reverence. They lost popularity because they were generally incompetent, they militarily screwed up two wars and because the economy collapsed on their watch – not because of their supposed extremism.

Had someone like Ron Paul or Denis Kucinich won the presidency, that would be an example of an extremist US Administration – and, in my view, a more positive one.

‘I'd argue [Bush] was an extreme government, in contrast to the more centrist government of Clinton. It was the more extreme government which waged wars.’

Clinton (Mr Cruise Missile) waged more wars than Bush, only much less spectacular. Clinton’s crippling siege/sanctions/bombing campaign against Iraq progressively degraded its military, indicating that a US 'intervention' was in the planning. Clinton waged low-intensity wars on other fronts, especially against Serbia and Somalia, as well as intense propaganda campaigns, especially against the Taliban (not that I don’t condemn the Taliban, just the way both Clinton and Bush have dealt with them).

SJF,

I am glad to know that you hare not a 9/11 Truth Denier.

I am interested in what you have written about the Kosovo conflict. My current understanding was that the war against Serbia was just war because of Serbia's ethnic cleansing of the Kosovars.

However, I have been meaning to have another look at that question. So, if you can show me any evidence that would show my understanding to be wrong, I would be most interested.

---

It seems to me that you have not fully understood what Barrie Zwicker said of Chomksy.

Had you looked at Chomsky's own words at http://thefilter.ca/articles/indoctrination/noam-chomsky-and-the-gatekeepers-of-the-left/ ?

Who cares if the Government killed JFK?

Who cares if the Government staged 9/11?

Chomsky could not possibly be that stupid.

In regard to 9/11, let's just turn that around 180 degrees. What if opponents of the US imperial war in Afghanistan went around saying,

"Who cares whether or not Islamic extremists in caves in Afghanistan staged 9/11?"

How far would they have got?

---

If you look carefully at what Zwicker says and writes he doesn't altogether dismiss the value of Chomsky's writings, however his point is that these good ideas are 'bait' which serve to draw people in in order to accept other ideas, the 'switch', which are in the interests of the US ruling elite, that is, that the official explanation of 9/11 is correct and that their is nothing suspicious about the assassinations of JFK, Malcolm X, MLK and RFK.

I hope you seriously look at this again. I think that this probably gos a long way towards explaining the almost total ineffectiveness of the left over the past 3 and a half decades.

RobP, "As a dead body can no longer provide a motive force, it can't do the physical deed. It's that simple."

And, if an external force was making this physical act take place? Eg: A SUPERnatural force?


"I believe it was in another dimension (which was picked up by James' intuitive sense) but not in the physical sense."

Do you affirm then, the resurrection in a spiritual sense?

If so, I don't personally see the point in debating this point. If there was a spiritual rather than physical resurrection, the theological implications are really the same. Many cling to a physical resurrection rather than spiritual, but to me it's still a resurrection.

This doesn't negate belief in God's power either as I'd assume that if one believes God exists in some realm then it wouldn't be logical to deny his powers. However, your statement above regarding the physically impossible does seem to limit God, so I'm confused by your position here.

It seems a lot of readers on this forum, have been short changed on miracles. A candidate for Sainthood, must have been involved in at least two miracles. The Liberal Party miraculously won in 2004. Seven weeks before the election they were gone for all money. Mark Latham was an Atheist. Did God deliver them the fourteen percent swing,and 23 seats that gave them victory in 2007?

I believe in miracles.I have seen too many in my life. When science fails, true believers get miracles. Barren women fall pregnant. I know one such woman, born after science said her mother could not and never would get pregnant. How about the story in 1 Samuel.

Church attendance is not a precondition on a miracle, but it is like a school of further and greater education. We all like to think of a bit of magic. I am still alive because I have listened to the little voice that sometimes whispers in my ear. The 23rd Psalm works. I would like to think that Psalm 92 Verse 13 would start to work in Australia. Those that be planted in the house of our Lord, shall flourish in the courts of our God. Jursprudence, the science of law, tells us the Parliament is one of three types of courts created by the Constitution. The Other two are the Executive Council, and the Ch III Courts in which juries should rule on a Godly Oath. The Magic number three.

As Church attendance has dropped so too has the common good. Both KR and Barack, have their feet planted in the House of the Lord. Let us give them a chance to flourish. Let more of us follow the leaders, and start to undertake further and better education. It is really a fascinating journey. Church and court mean the same thing. Go to one or you will be summonsed to the other. That the States Courts are no longer Christian, is an indictment on our Churchmen.

Trav,

"Do you affirm then, the resurrection in a spiritual sense?"

Yes.

"If so, I don't personally see the point in debating this point. If there was a spiritual rather than physical resurrection, the theological implications are really the same. Many cling to a physical resurrection rather than spiritual, but to me it's still a resurrection."

Agreed.

"However, your statement above regarding the physically impossible does seem to limit God, so I'm confused by your position here."

Many people in the past have got the physical and the spiritual mixed up by taking the story of the resurrection literally. I'm really making the point that physical laws operate in the (limiting) physical realm and operate independently of other largely unknown forces.

Daggett

Re your request for information that challenges current assumptions about Serbian 'ethnic cleansing', a good place to start is with these two links. They both have excellent reference lists if you want to explore further.

The first, by Diana Johnstone (who has also written a book on the subject), is at Alex Cockburn’s Counterpunch site, and the second is by Edward S. Hermann, co-writer with Chomsky of ‘Manufacturing Consent’.

1. http://www.counterpunch.org/johnstone10122005.html
2. http://www.srebrenica-report.com/politics.htm

… But please don’t let Johnstone and Hermann's association with these ‘phony dissidents’ put you off. :) (And BTW Chomsky received quite a bit of heat for defending Johnstone’s book.)

And yes, I agree with your general argument that many on the Left are in serious denial of the real 'how' and 'why' of its disempowerment in recent decades.

The demonisation of Serbia is a good case in point. As (anti-Western) Serbia was the principal 'player' in the former Yugoslavia, its demonisation was necessary to the West's determination to shatter the federation after 1991. The former Yugoslavia - despite early communist atrocities and many economic woes in the post WWII period - went on to become a reasonably successful socialist economy and culture. And we all know how the West deals with the threat of a good socialist example.

God, please give us all relief from such dogmatic pedantry!

This guy is oblivious to how tedious he really is.

Mr. Passant, why don't you come over here to the U.S.A. and spend some time talking to REAL workers who make their living from the soil . . . like those in the Midwest. You might learn something.

On second thought . . . do NOT come here. You would just bore us all to death.