Wishes for the Season

We are all blessed in this season of holidays. Whether one is Christian, Jew, or atheist -- we should each take this time to reflect upon those people that we have as family.

One does not have to be of any religion to understand love. My prayer is that each of us will take this season to express to those we love and hold dear, just how much we value them. While expressions of love should never be confined to any moment or season, let us take this season to ensure that we let those who walk through life with us as friends and family know just how much we consider ourselves blessed to be travelers with them.

For those who celebrate Christmas, Hanukkah, or Kwanzaa -- may this season be one in which your festivals are joyful. For those who do not recognize a religious holiday, may your season with family be full of love and joy.

During this season, each of us should strive to let those who make a difference in our lives know we appreciate them. And, we should each strive to make a difference in someone else's life. And, if we can each spare a moment of time or a handful of coins, let each of us help to bring joy to those who might otherwise be without.

And last, may each of us remember those who serve our country. May we cast aside political labels and appreciate each person for their service to this nation. May we remember the soldier separated from friends and family who serves in distant lands. Those men and women who serve our Nation -- who protect our lands, and preserve our freedom. May we remember husbands/wives/children who will celebrate this season with a loved one far from home. Who each day cast an eye to the news hoping to catch a glimpse of a loved one serving, while hoping at the same time they don't see them among the casualties.

To each and all, may you have a blessed holiday, and may we each enjoy the company of family and friends.

Billie Goodson
December 20, 2006

Atheism and Honesty

Isn't it amusing that someone would bring up the spector of "dishonest christian sources" in a thread on a public forum? In discussions about the religion of our founding fathers, I often run across atheist who are attempting to revise history and change the faith of our founding fathers. They do this most often through using quotations from the founders our of context, or using incomplete references. Here are a few of my favorites.

From http://jeromekahn123.tripod.com/thinkersonreligion/id9.html

Late in life he [John Adams] wrote: "Twenty times in the course of my late reading, have I been upon the point of breaking out, "This would be the best of all possible worlds, if there were no religion in it!"

Mr. Adams did most assuredly write that. However, he went on in the next sentence to add:

"But in this exclamation I would have been as fanatical as Bryant or Cleverly. Without religion this world would be something not fit to be mentioned in polite company, I mean Hell."
-- See the original document at http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/religion/vc006646.jpg

Another favorite is quoting from a letter from Nelly Custis-Lewis, the adopted daughter of Washington that lived 20 years with our first president. The site PositiveAtheism offers:

Custis: Never Witnessed Devotions

"I never witnessed his private devotions. I never inquired about them."
-- Eleanor "Nellie" Parke Custis Lewis, Martha Washington's granddaughter from a previous marriage, quoted from Sparks' Washingon, also from Franklin Steiner, The Religious Beliefs of Our Presidents, p. 22

Funny, Nellie also says:

"Is it necessary that any one should [ask], “Did General Washington avow himself to be a believer in Christianity?" As well may we question his patriotism, his heroic devotion to his country. His mottos were, "Deeds, not Words"; and, "For God and my Country."

Same letter -- I wonder why that gets left out?


In short ... one is left to wonder who is dishonest. Sometimes you hear the phrase "the pot calling the kettle black" -- but, I am not sure Christianity plays the kettle or the pot in this.

Reflections

Reflections

Monuments. What are they and why are we drawn to them? Why must we observe the monuments of yesterday, if not to learn for tomorrow? I love history, and the study of it. One person even said that those who refuse to learn from history are doomed to repeat it's failures. So monuments provide for those of us today, a marker for yesterday’s successes and failures.

For 10 years, we lived in the Washington D.C area. Having done my undergraduate work in History, the D.C area was the first place I lived as an adult that was truly “historical.” Sure, Mobile and Huntsville, Alabama both have local history and some national significance if you dig enough. But, Washington D.C, the place where our burgeoning nation would teethe on the concept of “government for the people, by the people,” was a hotbed of history. I remember the first time I drove into the city and was confronted with the sight of our Nation’s capital building, standing majestically against the skyline. It was almost indescribable to finally behold with my own eyes that which I had read so much about before.

Invariably, any visitor to the capital city will have certain sights etched in their memories. Maybe it’s the National Archives which contains the Declaration of Independence witnessed by 56 men brave men who challenged the world’s strongest empire when they affixed their names to the treatise that would proclaim “that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.” Perhaps it is the Lincoln Memorial, where the man who spoke over the site of one of America’s greatest battlefields that “The brave men, living and dead, who struggled here, have consecrated it, far above our poor power to add or detract" sits in granite immortalized. 

For me, the most visually moving monument is the Vietnam Veteran’s Memorial. I visited it once alone, a private journey.

On a fall day, many years later, I would accompany my family to that hallowed monument.

Once criticized for its simplicity, no other monument ever had the dramatic effect on me that this one offered. I have walked Gettysburg and Appomattox. I have seen the remains of Hitler’s power in Germany. I have stood on soil where Americans have bled and died. Yet, somehow, this haunting memorial to 58,245 of America’s sons deeply moved me.

As moving as the monument was when I saw it alone, I was not prepared for the reaction my father would have at the Wall.

My father was a private person. He was of the breed that kept his emotions in check. That is not to say he never was upset or happy. He just never allowed others to see his emotions too deeply. He confronted the world with a sarcastic wit and was always ready to smile at himself and others. He served his nation proudly for over 20 years, going to defend the Republic of South Vietnam two times as a member of the 5^th Special Forces Group, and was honored to wear the Green Beret of America’s Special Forces. He served with distinction in what has been described by one source as the most successful Special Operations unit in the Vietnam theater of war.

Touring the Wall, a different side of my father was revealed. Together, we walked the path beside the panels that reflect the names. We stood together at the books that document the names on the wall. My father would recall a name, I would look it up. Each time I found a name and pointed it out, I could see him reflect on the memories of his brother in arms. When we didn’t find a name, he would nod his head, as if to say “he came home.”

My sister and I would talk later in the day about the reaction of my father at the Memorial. Dad was different that day. The crusty veneer that he presented to the world was cracked.

I still struggle with what I saw that day. I did not see the man my father had always appeared to be. I saw a man that felt the burden of seeing so many of his friends names' inscribed in the granite walls, brothers that saw their days end in a land far from home. 

There are many that may say that America had no right to be there, and the war was wrong. I will not argue the politics, but, the fact that American men bled and died there is not changed. Whether the government was right in sending them, these men -- these soldiers, adhered to the oath they took upon entering the service of their country. Theirs was not the argument of right or wrong, but of doing what those duly elected to office over them had ordered them to do. They answered the call of their country, and some paid the ultimate price for their loyalty.

My father passed away a few years later. On January 27, 2005 he breathed his last on this earth. As I spoke with my mother in preparation for his funeral, she shared with me that my father, two months prior to his death had “made his peace with God.” During the last year of his life he had become a devoted reader of the Bible. He was not an atheist prior to that, instead, my father had a knowledge of God and his Son, Jesus Christ. But, it was only a knowledge of who Jesus is, not an acceptance of what Jesus is.

When Jesus walked the earth, he was questioned by men as to who he was. The only time it seems during his life it was acknowledged who he was, it was by demons. They understood the person and the holiness of He who confronted them. Isn’t it amazing that only the demons of Satan understood that in front of them stood the 'Son of Man'.

Many people know who Jesus is, yet they don’t appreciate that He was more than just a character in a story. He was not just the son of Mary; He was the only Son of God. He was to serve as God’s attempt to reclaim his creation. God would continually strive to reunite with his creation and He would, at the Cross, complete the act of reclaiming his children.

My dad reached that knowledge prior to his death. He reached out and claimed the promises that God makes available. While his passing brought great sorrow, I know that one day, I will see him again. When my time on earth has passed, I will be welcomed into heaven and my father will be in the welcoming committee.

While preparing for the funeral, we went through many of my dad’s papers trying to gather required information for his decorations and awards. This brought back many memories of discussions with my father concerning his service and time in combat. My mind went back to that day when we stood at the Wall and beheld the monument to America’s dead. His reaction on seeing names on the Wall, and then knowing some of his friends returned home from Southeast Asia. It made me wonder. Is there a Wall in heaven?

What would a wall in heaven mean? Maybe the names of those who heard the gospel, but never grasped the availability of salvation’s eternal promise would appear there -- those who knew the good fight, but never fought it. Those who felt the tugging of the Holy Spirit, yet, turned away. Maybe those names would be marked on a Wall in heaven.

Seventy black granite panels bear the names of a generation’s sons, brothers, husbands, and fathers that bled and died in the jungles of that Southeast Asia land. I wonder how many panels would be in Heaven’s Wall? How long would we walk the paths laid out by the Wall, reading the names of friends and family, and wonder why they never grasped the calling of the Creator? Maybe, I would stand there with my father, and we could search the names for friends and family, and the share the joy of failing to find a name. And, we could stand with Jesus to see him smile that knowing smile for each friend’s name that we didn’t find, and I would know his thoughts, “That one is here with us, he is home.”

A Theory By Any Other Name

A Theory by any other name.................

It is with some amount of humor that I read a recent editorial appearing in the Florida Today entitled “Concerning the teaching of the theory of evolution”. The author, appropriately anonymous, has seemed to confuse fact with fiction quite deliriously. The term "theory' does not denote a fact, but instead, somewhat less than fact. When I took science, oh so many years ago, I was taught that theories were unscientifically unproven. If they were proven, they would no longer qualify as "theory." Maybe that has changed with "enlightenment" of today's education. I tend to doubt that.

But, enough, let us move to the second paragraph of the offered prose. The writer’s statement that "evolution as the only scientifically valid explanation for the diversity of life on Earth" is somewhat laughable. I am sure this person considers themselves enlightened, probably even educated. I was taught that education was the acquiring of knowledge. This person need not acquire any, they have instead allowed others to think and have accepted it without the possibility of debate.

Has anybody ever done the math to figure out how long it would take for all of the different species/phylum/etc to come about? Actually, there is a mathematical look at that question of evolution probability. To summarize, the probability can be expressed as 10⁶⁰, if written out, would be "one" followed by sixty "zeros." In other words, the chance that a 200-component organism could be formed by mutation and natural selection is less than one chance out of a trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion, trillion! Oh, speaking of a 200 part organism, even a one-celled plant or animal may have millions of molecular "parts." [1]

Then again we are talking about time. Oh, thats right, the theory of evolution is not bound by time. If things don't fit, just change the time scale. For years, carbon-14 dating was held as a standard. However, anyone with a computer can do a search on carbon-14 dating and find as many people explaining the inaccuracies of the method as there are items for sale at EBay.

The author went on to point out a ruling by the Supreme Court that occurred in 1987 that forbid the teaching of creation. It is interesting to note, there is no ruling that specifically forbids the teaching of creationism. One needs to read the Supreme Court decision to grasp what was being contemplated by the Court. Justice Brenna, in writing the majority opinion stated; “In a similar way, teaching a variety of scientific theories about the origins of humankind to schoolchildren might be validly done with the clear secular intent of enhancing the effectiveness of science instruction. But because the primary purpose of the Creationism Act is to endorse a particular religious doctrine, the Act furthers religion in violation of the Establishment Clause.”

What the court decided in this case was not that creationism could not be taught, but that it could not be required to be taught to complement the theory of evolution. This prevents the Christian principle of creationism from being forced upon a school system simply because the theory of evolution is being taught. To make it simple, its like saying you have to offer Coke if you offer Pepsi, and the court ruled that you could in fact only offer one, the other could not be required. Justice Brennan in writing for the majority, did not include any language that could be construed as prohibiting the teaching of creationism.

That brings us to another fine point that lacks support. The Separation of Church and State, contrary to some opinions is not contained within the Constitution. This is no more within the Constitution than the three wise men were at the manger. Don’t confuse popular notions with fact. The concept of Separation of Church and State is factually traced to a letter written by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptist Association of Connecticut in 1802. Our founders were careful to establish that the government should not force upon the people a religion, and now some would have the government force there to be no religion. While some may not see the difference, it is very clear to the educated what that distinction implies.

I find it humorous that someone that would claim to be educated would accept the opinion of some in science without question. But, I assume that is how some felt when they looked upon the scientific statements that stated the world was flat, or that the sun revolved around the earth, or any number of popular theories that have been dis-proven with time. As a Christian, I have no problem with the schools teaching the theory of evolution. It is only when the teaching neglects to notice the word “theory” that I have problems. If you choose to believe in evolution, then I have no objection. If I choose to believe in Creationism, why should you have a problem with that? Does my belief threaten yours? If my belief is correct, that will be revealed in time, if yours is correct, I guess we will never know. My belief has a better eternity payoff.

“THE MATHEMATICAL IMPOSSIBLITY OF EVOLUTION”, - BTG No. 179a November 2003, by Henry M. Morris, Ph.D.*© Copyright 2004 Institute for Creation Research. All Rights Reserved.

Did Christianity Steal from Mithra

In response to a recent query for a forumteer on our local newspaper's forum to provide proof that Christianity stole from Mithracism, a website was provided as definitive proof of the claim. The site was a link to Acharya S' article providing proof of the claim.

What follows is my response to the article.

"It is said that Mithra or [the] Sun took birth in the Cave on December 25th. It is also the belief of the Christian world that Mithra or the Sun-God was born of [a] Virgin. He travelled far and wide. He has twelve satellites, which are taken as the Sun's disciples.... Swami Prajnanananda"

Is the assertation that the swami above is some mithraic theologian? It is doubtful. The first sentence gives it away...."It is said" -- by whom? When? Where? This discourse would not past muster in any fifth grade class. Sorry, this convinces me of nothing -- truth be known, I am glad paper was not wasted in its production. There appears to be a problem in this forum. Some people are want to make allegations and accusations, then seem to struggle to produce any credible proof as to what they say. I don't know is it just me that tends to not believe everything people say that they cannot support?

Just for giggles, I refute the previous argument referenced by Dan Foster with my own link -- http://www.carm.org/evidence/mithra.htm I guess this is how the freethinkers argue, post to other people's research. I guess it does make it simpler. However, I think it promotes a laziness that shows how easily a mind can be convinced of anything. This technique would be the sand, not the solid Rock. Jesus said to not build on the sand....there was a reason.


I have read the link posted and I will share with you some of the contents: ===================
Claim: Jesus and Mithra were both born of a virgin

Article Statement: "Like the vast majority of the ancient gods, Mithra was never a "real person." In actuality he was originally represented by non-human forms, following the Persian abhorrence of "idols," as related by Herodotus, until being personified or anthropomorphized after his migration to Asia Minor."

Analysis: Hmm, article says never a real person...but, the claim is born of a virgin. Sorry, someone with less intelligence will need to explain how that can happen. In my experience, one would have to be a real person to have been born...help me out here.

====================

Claim: Both were born on December 25

Analysis: Well, he wasn't a real person, so again, when was he born? Or not born...sorry, getting lost again in how Mithra, who was not a "real person" was born...maybe it was an easter egg treasure.

=====================

Claim: The sacrifice of Christ was taken from Mithra Article text: "Mithra's slaying of the Bull was an act that became as central to Mithraism as was the crucifixion to Christianity. The bull represented rebirth, fertility and fecundity, with his blood corresponding to the wine of the mysteries. The sacrifice of the bull was reenacted in the Mithraic baptism, a mystery rite in which the initiates were splattered with the blood. The initiate was then said to have been "born again."

and...

"The Mithra-Bull motif, in which the god seeks out, grabs the bull by the horns and then mounts it, resembles the Zen Buddhist story regarding the sage in search of his "bull," which represents himself. Indeed, in slaying the Heavenly Bull, Mithra is essentially sacrificing himself, in order to save the world: The bull appears to signify the earth or mankind, and the implication is that Mithra, like Christ, overcame the world; but in the early Persian writings Mithra himself is the bull, the god thus sacrificing himself, which is a close approximation to the Christian idea. That Mithra is himself the bull is further evident from Robert Graves's assertion that the "Persian Mithras was also eaten in bull form.""

Analysis: So Mithra killed the Bull as a sacrfice...but, Mithra was the bull, so he sacrificed himself? Ok....glad we got that clarified....
============================

Claim: Iconography of Christianity and adapation of Mithraic Icons From the Article: "Cumont also argued that the images of "heaven, earth, ocean, sun, moon, planets, the zodiacal signs, the winds, the seasons, and the like, found on Christian sarcophagi and in mosaics and miniatures areadaptations of Mithraic models.""

Analysis: Oh, without Mithras, or before Mithras, there was no sun, heaven, earth, moon, planets...etc? Sorry, these are common elements that have existed...well, since creation. To claim these as a "creation" of Mithras is really a stretch....

==============================

Claim: Mithras predates Christianity

From the Article: "Mithra as the Mediator is unquestionably a concept that predated Christianity by centuries, and the deliberate reference to Christ as the Mediator at Hebrews 9:15 is an evident move to usurp Mithra's position."

Analysis: This is the most obvious collapse of the whole story to me. Jesus is the Messiah, not simply because he claimed it to be so...in fulfilling the personage of the Messiah, Jesus was fulfilling prophecies that date back centuries. Jesus, or the Messiah to be more specific, is not a 1st Century out of the dark creation. He is a fulfillment of the old testament scriptures that date back centuries. Sorry, only someone clueless to Christianity could make the assumption the author makes in her piece. Only an acolyte of hers would accept this as valid.
=====================

It is clear from a cursury examination of the argument presented that it is at best a fairy-tale, and at worst a plea to the masses of the ignorant for more money.
=====================

Along another vein, the author states in her work one source, a Sir Weigall. In her text she identifies him as: "Christian apologist Sir Weigall". Who is this Christian Apologist. There is an Egyptologist that was also a Sir Weigall, but, there is no assertation in the portions of his biography that I could find that would identify him as a christian or an apologist. This seems clearly an attempt to present a person under false pretenses to add credibility to the claims being made. Sorry, as they would say on Mythbusters == B U S T E D

Continued Analysis of Foster's Evidence Dan Foster in response to my request for a scholarly source for the claim that Christianity stole from Mithraic legend was limited to a single posting from Acharya S on her website http://www.truthbeknown.com/ , linked to the specific page of mithra.htm. An interesting side note to the scholarly credentials of the author. If one visits the into page to her site, http://www.truthbeknown.com,/ you are presented testimonials from what would have to be described as individuals she places in high esteem. Remember, this is her site, not the site of some other person, so she chose the content. One would have to suppose, although I guess it could be argued -- pointlessly, that these are the best testimonials that could be gathered. Three names were listed as the source of the testimonials. I thought it might be interesting to determine the bona fides that these people were bringing with their testimonial. My findings were interesting:

===============

"Acharya S is the ranking religious philosopher of our era." ~ John Kaminski

High Praise indeed. Wow, what a testament. Who is this John Kaminski that has heaped this high honor on the author? Well, I googled him (scientific research as determined by our departed friend Andrew). The result was interesting. Seems Mr. Kaminski is an accomplished writer.

Let us look at the brief listing of titles authored by our laureate:

"THE DAY AMERICA DIED" -- from this insightful article, we can learn -- Arab terrorists didn’t hijack the planes. -- The Twin Towers didn’t collapse, they exploded. -- Fake cellphone calls and bogus box cutters.

"The Perfect Enemy" -- reveals that the al-Qaeda terror network is a fictional creation of the bloodthirsty maniacs who have seized control of the United States of America and now threaten the health and well-being of everyone in the world.

"The Universe Is A Laughing Woman" --Our planet has become a toxic landfill because men's rituals obscure reality.

Wow, this guy should be required reading in all of our schools.....
========================

Then there is the second testimonal

"Acharya S deserves to be recognized as a leading researcher and an expert in the field of comparative mythology, on a par with James Frazer or Robert Graves--indeed, superior to those forerunners in the frankness of her conclusions and the volume of her evidence." ~~ Barbara Walker

Ms. Walker presents to us some of her most scholarly works -- "Knitting from the Top", or "Quest for Quimper" (Quimper is aparently a style of pottery). To be fair, she has also published "Feminist Fairy Tales" and has a deck of Tarot cards that can be ordered through Amazon.
========================

The third source was a little more problematic. The testimonial offered:

"Amidst global chaos, Acharya S is the voice of reason." ~~ Joan D'Arc

Catchy name...but, no, not that Joan. So who is this D'Arc? Googled it, no clear source at quick read. But, I did notice something when researching John Kaminski...who should have a testimonial on his site but Ms. D'Arc. Here is how she was quoted:

"In a voice almost too bold to contemplate, John Kaminski turns our attention toward the unspeakable: religious bigotry, vile stupidity in high places, and a bottomless pit of hatred in the world. Reading his essays will spin your head; you will be turned on a dime to his way of thinking." — Joan d'Arc, Paranoia magazine

Paranoia Magazine can be found at http://www.paranoiamagazine.com./ I will let the reader draw their own conclusions.

PS: If his work causes her to "turn on a dime" then there will surely be 9 cents change.

========================
So, you as the reader decide --- I asked for scholarly work, this is the evidence we have before us. No other view has been expressed. You decide.