As for the following cartoons, I find in them the theme, "It's the dogma, stupid." To me that is often the issue at stake when atheists and theists clash: Backwards dogma and a dogmatic clinging to preconceived notions. And yes, it is possible to be dogmatic without being religious.

Here's the cartoon that got me thinking about it (and a couple others that fit the theme in some way):

[cartoon thanks to atheistcartoons.com]

[cartoon thanks to jesusandmo.net]

[click to enlarge, cartoon thanks to xkcd.com]

Could Dadaism be used as an antidote for dogmatism?

"Why are my bones so small?" Ha! I think that's going to be the new Zen koan I work on.

Of course, Easter weekend is all about a Jesus and his alleged resurrection.* But there are really two things that form the basis of the Christian belief that Jesus was a messiah of a higher order: first, his birth to a virgin, second, his resurrection after death.

Between these bookends of miracles atypical to other Jewish messiahs, Jesus' life was the standard messiah tale. He preformed miracles and preached an updated version of his god's wishes and promises.

Moses turned his staff into a snake and brought down from the mountain the first ever David Letterman top-ten list (things not to do in ancient Israel). Jesus walked on water and said, "go ahead and eat pork, but remember to love thy neighbor."

Even during Jesus' days, there were other miracle-performing preachers. Jesus calls them false prophets and warns his followers -- beware of those who also heal the sick and can do a triple axel without ever having strapped on a pair of ice-skates.

According to Christian doctrine, what makes Jesus the Christ, what sets him apart as a divine messiah, indeed, as a divinity himself, are the miracles of his birth and death. (Oh yes, then there's that little "who's your daddy?" element. Can't forget that.)

Was Mary a virgin? Did sperm not play a role in the physical formation and development of Jesus? Did a holy ghost deliver his "y" chromosome?

A number of years ago I attended a talk by Eddie Tabash about the general lack of evidence for a god. During the question and answer period a woman challenged the speaker. She told him that Jesus' birth to a virgin was evidence of her god. Eddie's reply was spot-on. He said something to this effect: Because I wasn't Mary's gynecologist, I can't really verify that.

What interests me this morning is that despite the essential centrality to Christian thinking of Jesus' birth to "the Virgin Mary," only two of the four gospels mention it. There's one clear verse in Matthew and two hazy ones in Luke. In Mark and John -- nothing.

The gospels are biographies, they tell of the life of a Jesus. All four gospels consider Jesus' magical feat of feeding thousands with one supersized Happy Meal significant enough to include in their pages. All four gospels likewise consider it significant that a nameless person offered Jesus vinegar to drink while he hung on the cross. So why do 2 of the 4 gospels not mention the supposed virgin birth? For those bothering to listen, the silence is deafening.

Almost as surprising, of the 23 other books of the New Testament, there isn't so much as a peep about Mary the virgin, mother of Jesus the supernatural superman. The Acts of the Apostles, the many Epistles (letters to congregations spread across the land), Revelation . . . no trumpeting of the glorious, quote, "truth" of Jesus' miraculous birth.

How should the television newscaster -- and that's "newscaster" not "fictioncaster" -- have referred to Mary? Should she have said, Mary, whom two of the four biographies of Jesus claim to have been a virgin, yada, yada, yada…?

I don't know. What I do believe is that people who value rationality attempt to keep clear the distinction between fact and folklore. Heck, at least the newscaster could have prefaced her remarks with something like, "According to Christian teachings/tradition . . . ."

Question authority. That's essential advice to any freethinker, whether that authority is a single, high-profile individual, or the utterances of past authorities kept alive today in the words we choose to speak about our world.

---

*If there ever was a 'real' Jesus. Where do I stand on this issue? You might say I'm presently . . . ah . . . agnostic about it. I find it likely that Jesus is a compilation of one or a number of real people PLUS a whole slew of characteristics borrowed from other mythical agents. Was there a real Jesus? Maybe kinda. But definitely not of the supernatural variety.

[cartoon thanks to xkcd.com]

[source unknown]

[thanks to atheistcartoons.com]

The heart has its reasons which reason knows nothing of. - Blaise Pascal

It is Super Bowl Sunday. I am a fan of football. Perhaps a bigger fan of the enjoyable hoopla involved, starting with the food. I find a good party to be invigorating, if not cathartic. But perhaps that's just my justifying a favored idiocy. Maybe loving football is crazy.

I realize that my love of football isn't "rational." But it seems to me that holding just about any aspect of life to a ruler of cold logic sucks the life out of it. For good and bad. Couldn't the origin of biological life itself be seen as a bit of a quirk, a happenstance detour from the straight and narrow?

Yes, when there are problems to confront, full-strength rationality can be one heck of a tool. In many situations, an indispensable tool. But to apply it to all of life . . . maybe that's crazy.

As for the Pascal quote, I might revise it this way:

The unconscious has its reasons of which the conscious is largely unaware and has little comprehension.

Whatever you do today, I hope you enjoy it.

Of course, Easter weekend is all about a Jesus and his alleged resurrection.* But there are really two things that form the basis of the Christian belief that Jesus was a messiah of a higher order: first, his birth to a virgin, second, his resurrection after death.

Between these bookends of miracles atypical to other Jewish messiahs, Jesus' life was the standard messiah tale. He preformed miracles and preached an updated version of his god's wishes and promises.

Moses turned his staff into a snake and brought down from the mountain the first ever David Letterman top-ten list (things not to do in ancient Israel). Jesus walked on water and said, "go ahead and eat pork, but remember to love thy neighbor."

Even during Jesus' days, there were other miracle-performing preachers. Jesus calls them false prophets and warns his followers -- beware of those who also heal the sick and can do a triple axel without ever having strapped on a pair of ice-skates.

According to Christian doctrine, what makes Jesus the Christ, what sets him apart as a divine messiah, indeed, as a divinity himself, are the miracles of his birth and death. (Oh yes, then there's that little "who's your daddy?" element. Can't forget that.)

Was Mary a virgin? Did sperm not play a role in the physical formation and development of Jesus? Did a holy ghost deliver his "y" chromosome?

A number of years ago I attended a talk by Eddie Tabash about the general lack of evidence for a god. During the question and answer period a woman challenged the speaker. She told him that Jesus' birth to a virgin was evidence of her god. Eddie's reply was spot-on. He said something to this effect: Because I wasn't Mary's gynecologist, I can't really verify that.

What interests me this morning is that despite the essential centrality to Christian thinking of Jesus' birth to "the Virgin Mary," only two of the four gospels mention it. There's one clear verse in Matthew and two hazy ones in Luke. In Mark and John -- nothing.

The gospels are biographies, they tell of the life of a Jesus. All four gospels consider Jesus' magical feat of feeding thousands with one supersized Happy Meal significant enough to include in their pages. All four gospels likewise consider it significant that a nameless person offered Jesus vinegar to drink while he hung on the cross. So why do 2 of the 4 gospels not mention the supposed virgin birth? For those bothering to listen, the silence is deafening.

Almost as surprising, of the 23 other books of the New Testament, there isn't so much as a peep about Mary the virgin, mother of Jesus the supernatural superman. The Acts of the Apostles, the many Epistles (letters to congregations spread across the land), Revelation . . . no trumpeting of the glorious, quote, "truth" of Jesus' miraculous birth.

How should the television newscaster -- and that's "newscaster" not "fictioncaster" -- have referred to Mary? Should she have said, Mary, whom two of the four biographies of Jesus claim to have been a virgin, yada, yada, yada…?

I don't know. What I do believe is that people who value rationality attempt to keep clear the distinction between fact and folklore. Heck, at least the newscaster could have prefaced her remarks with something like, "According to Christian teachings/tradition . . . ."

Question authority. That's essential advice to any freethinker, whether that authority is a single, high-profile individual, or the utterances of past authorities kept alive today in the words we choose to speak about our world.

---

*If there ever was a 'real' Jesus. Where do I stand on this issue? You might say I'm presently . . . ah . . . agnostic about it. I find it likely that Jesus is a compilation of one or a number of real people PLUS a whole slew of characteristics borrowed from other mythical agents. Was there a real Jesus? Maybe kinda. But definitely not of the supernatural variety.