Tuesday, September 30, 2014

    Bookworm report for October 2014: The World's Sixteen Crucified Saviors

    By Russell Pizer

    This Bookworm Report  is regarding a paperback reprint dated 2007 from an original book dated 1875.  Whereas it might be intriguing for Humanists, it would probably be shocking for Christians. 

    The World’s Sixteen Crucified Saviors was written by Kersey Graves who was born in Brownsville, Pennsylvania on November 12, 1813. The rear cover states: “His parents were Quakers. As a young man he accepted the observances of his parents then later, moved to a different wing of Quakerism. He was disowned by his Quaker meeting group due to his neglect of attendance and also setting up a rival group.”  

    That disownment was, no doubt, also a result of the many ideas he must have acquired through a book titled: The Anacalypsis by Sir Godfrey Higgins dated 1833. Mr. Graves used much of that book’s contents for the basis of his 1875 publication.

    I have read many books about what would be called “anti-Jesus literature” but this was incredible. I thought I knew a lot of the incongruities that exist in The Bible, however, this is full of additional and surprising revelations.

    Beginning on page 33, Graves begins: “The following considerations exhibit some of the numerous absurdities involved in the story of the miraculous birth of Jesus . . .”  He then gives, by actual number, 17 items.  Here are the first three:
     “1.  The evangelical narratives show that Christ himself did not claim to have a miraculous birth.  He did not once allude to such an event; while if, as Christians claim, it is the principal evidence of his deityship, he certainly would have done so. . . 2.  His parental genealogy, as made out by Matthew and Luke, completely disproves the story of his miraculous conception by a virgin. . . .  3. [H]is own disciple (Philip) declared him to be the son of Joseph . . .  [This] is still further confirmation of the conclusion [that he did not come to earth via a virgin birth] . . . ”

    The next excerpt begins on page 39. “There is much evidence that the Christian Savior was a black man, or at least a dark man . . .  And that evidence is the testimony of his disciples who had nearly as good an opportunity of knowing what his complexion was as the evangelists who omit to say anything about it. In the picturers and portraits of Jesus by the early Christians, he is uniformly represented as being black. . . [T]he only text in the Christian bible quoted by orthodox Christians, as describing his complexion, represents it as being black.  Solomon’s declaration, “I am black, but comely, O ye daughters of Jerusalem. . . .” (Sol. I.5) . . .”

    Mr. Graves goes on to speculate . . . “Let us suppose that, at some future time, he makes his second advent to the earth, as some Christians anticipate he will do, and that he goes to . . . one of our fashionable churches . . .   Would the [usher] show him to a seat? . . .”

    This next except is especially amusing.  It appears on page 46.  “. . . observe the absurdity in Matthew’s story, which teaches that the wise men followed the star in the east, when they, coming from the east, were, as a matter of course, traveling westward, which would placed the star at their backs. . . .”

    Chapter XXXII is titled: “Three Hundred and Forty-Six Striking Analogies Between Christ and Krishna.”  (Krishna’s birth is given as 3228 B.C.E.)  This shows, if the book’s contents are true, those ghost writers of Matthew, Mark, Luke & John, borrowed almost all of their material for the story of the man the Christians call Jesus of Nazarus from the life and teachings of The Lord Krishna of India.

    Needless to say, there are some vociferous criticisms of this book to be found on the Internet.

    Sunday, September 28, 2014

    Humanist Invocation given by Dianne Post at Maricopa Board of Supervisors meeting

    The Humanist Minute at the September 21, 2014 meeting consisted of reading an invocation given by HSGP member Dianne Post at the September 10, 2014 meeting of the Maricopa County Board of Supervisors meeting.  The invocation is published here to allow both those who missed it and those who heard it to read it for themselves and reflect on Dianne's words.

    My name is Dianne Post.  I've been a resident of Maricopa County since 1980.  I'm speaking as a humanist.

    I ask you not to bow your heads but instead to open your eyes.

    Look at the world as it is but imagine what it could be if we all brought our good hearts to work every day.

    The word "invocation" has several meanings:

    First one:  the act or process of petitioning for help or support.

    Today I petition for support for our democracy: a democracy that includes all people regardless of their individual characteristics or choices.

    A democracy that does not elevate one person, one ideology or one belief over another.  A participatory democracy that stands for human rights and social justice.

    Second meaning:  calling upon for authority or justification.

    Today I call upon the authority of evidence, facts and reason as justification for the decisions made by this governmental body.

    Decisions that will benefit all of the people of this county, not just the rich, not just the vocal, not just the powerful - but all of us.

    Third meaning of invocation is:  a formula for conjuring.

    Today I conjure up the best of what's in all our hearts, kindness and concern for others, acceptance and understanding, the ability to think for ourselves using reason and knowledge.

    The last meaning is:  an act of legal or moral implementation.

    Implementation is, of course, the most important aspect of any "invocation".

    What do we want to implement?

    We want to lead meaningful lives.

    We want to be free from dogma and fear.

    We want to have compassion for our fellow citizens.

    We want to leave the world a better place than we found it.

    We owe it to ourselves and all with whom we sure this fragile planet now and in the future to make our lives the best we can.

    Let us embrace a code of ethics driven by a sincere thirst for justice.  A code that does not depend on threat or punishment but can only be found within ourselves by understanding the connections to our mutual well-being.

    A friend of mine, Olivia Free-woman said "the table of peace will be set with justice."  May we have both in our hearts this day and every day.

    More about CO2 to go along with our recent climate change presentation

    Recent HSGP Sunday speaker LuAnn Dahlman spoke about the effects of CO2 on Earth's climate.  Here's more explanation of CO2 and what we might do about it from the NY Times

    If you missed LuAnn's presentation, you can find a summary of it along with some great web links by going to, selecting Past Speakers from the right hand column and scrolling down to September 21, 2014.

    Thursday, September 25, 2014

    British feminists and their religious stances

    This article is almost in the category of a big "Duh".

    Karen Armstrong on the incorrect conflation of religion and violence

    Karen Armstrong has a new book out too.  Warning, this is a seriously long article apparently based on the new book.  An interesting take on the history of the development of secularism by, one should note, a writer on comparative religion who perhaps has her own slant.  If you're willing to invest the time reading this, you may learn something yourself.  As always, skepticism is an appropriate stance.

    Dawkins has a new book out so of course he's in the news.

    A short article about Dawkins' and his latest pronouncements.

    Note that in a related on-line survey by The Guardian, 71% of the respondents agreed with Dawkins. No selection bias there!

    Friday, September 19, 2014

    Another in the NYTime Opinionator series on religion: See if you can figure it out

    In case you haven't been following along, the NY Times columnist Gary Gutting has been conducting a series of interviews with various pundits, sages and other purported wise men on the subject of religion.  Here's one entitled "Why Take a Stance on God?" which seems to be the most convoluted of all, although you may have your own favorite.  Lots of talking in circles which doesn't seem to be solving anything, IMHO.  By the end, my head was reeling so much that all I could determine with certainly was that the current interviewee felt it was important to take a stance although I think he coyly hinted on which side of the line he would stand.

    If you're really, seriously, improbably interested that much, you can link to other columns in the series from this one.  Warning:  not to be read while under the influence although it might be a good non-pharmaceutical sleep aid.

    Thursday, September 18, 2014

    Has RIchard Dawkins lost it?

    From the Guardian, evidence that Dawkins is not perfect, may even have feet of clay.