Today’s Best-of Congames radio broadcast was devoted to religion—a call from a Lutheran listener who spoke as articulately on religion as ever I’ve heard a person speak, and I’ve heard many. (My apologies I do not remember his name, for he certainly merits recognition in this post.)
During the call, Michael asserted that to be a U.S. President, a candidate must declare a devotion to Jesus Christ. The conversation turned to the religious beliefs of the founding fathers, and then to the beliefs of Benjamin Franklin. The caller claimed Franklin was agnostic. Michael questioned this and said he’d have to consult Walter Isaacson’s Benjamin Franklin: An American Life.
Of course I shall defer to Isaacson on this or any other matter. But I would like to point out the following: first, Franklin was never a U.S. President. He served as President of the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania from 1785 to 1788, but he was not a U.S. President. Second, I yawn at the tautology that says the founding fathers were Deists, not Christians. Deists are Theists—Monotheists—closer by far to Christians than Atheists or Agnostics.
I’ve stipulated several times on AspenPost that I am no Christian apologist. Still, it must be said that above the north entry of the administration building of the university I attended was an inscription, a quote by Jesus Christ himself, according to the Gospel of John:
If ye continue in my word, then are ye my disciples indeed, and ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.
~Holy Bible, New Testament, John 8:31-32
In no word in that passage do I find a condemnation of scientific law.
Cheers,
Greetings Mitch,
Punch in zeitgeistmovie.com and take the time to veiw a thinking perspective on your post. Once again, I am interested in your response. Star Eagle
Star Eagle,
Regarding Part I of Zeitgeist, I find the arguments of Christopher Hitchens much more substantive than Zeitgeist’s attempt to discredit religious institutions, and thereby Christianity, using the comedy routines of George Carlin and another, unfortunately nameless, comedian.
Moreover, I find the writings of Joseph Campbell far more thoughtful than anything this movie offers up in the name of Biblical revisionism.
For example, Zeitgeist asserts that Horus is the Egyptian god of the sun. Horus was the sky god, not the sun god. Ra was the sun god. Horus’ eyes, one a sun the other a moon, may account for the film’s confusion about this.
Similarly, Zeitgeist attempts to discredit the story of Christ’s virgin birth by asserting the story follows a pattern set by the virgin birth stories of mythical figures like Horus, Attis, Krishna, Dionysus, and Mithra. The problem is none of these characters were born of virgins.
First, Horus was the son of Osiris and Isis. The manner in which Isis conceives I leave to your own discovery. Suffice it to say you can characterize Horus’ mom severally, but “virginal” doesn’t really work.
Second, Attis was the son of Cybele. Again, the sexual proclivities of Attis’ parents were unusual, but I don’t think you could properly characterize them as chaste.
Third, Krishna’s mother was not a virgin. According to the Mahabharata, Krishna’s parents were Princess Devaki and Vasudeva, who together had several children before Krishna was born.
Fourth, there are conflicting traditions about Dionysus’ maternal parentage. One account suggests Dionysus’ mom was Persephone, the Greek queen of the underworld. Another suggests he was born of Demeter, a kind of Greek “mother nature” goddess. Neither account proffers a meaningful comparison to human, say nothing of virgin, birth.
Fifth, and finally, Mithra was born of a rock. On this Zeitgeist’s claim may hold water, for even without the benefit of first-hand knowledge, I’m pretty sure that rock was a virgin.
These are just a few incongruities that come to mind. If this is what you had in mind, I’ll kindly withhold my disappointment. Zeitgeist’s skepticism about the Biblical account of Christ is amusing, but not nearly as snort-worthy as the rest of the footage.
Cheers,