turboplanner

This thread has been difficult but at least we know who the devil is.

And now here's some local news: http://www.astronomy.pomona.edu/archeo/aborigines/flood.htm

Who's this God of Abraham you keep crapping on about? So far in the discussion we seem to have become bogged at about 2,000 years back, and Abraham was around a little before that, but we haven't had a chance to get into the Egyptuans relationship with God and they have a written history of 24,925 years - somewhat longer than when Abraham was standing around in a leather jacket at the local bar drinking the local wines. There is a bigger picture

It started out well, but after reading the highly entertaining sermons below it and in the following posts, the words "hoist with his own petard" came to my mind. The Collins New English Dictionary lives. If you want to use another dictionary (complete with it's 'up with the Jones's adjective), fine, then live it, be an atheist, don't believe, don't let that upset you, just sit in the sun and stop preaching fiery sermons while misunderstanding the Bible you don't believe in.

I wondered about that too

You should be able to provide plenty of proof of your own then. You probably forgot you already said that, and the co-discoverer doesn't seem to be sharing Gribbin's excitement

The Basilica of St Denis in Paris was the first one, but the architects (or Master Masons are unknown) There is a mixture of contemporary features and new ones in it, so there should be drawings around in at least some of the Cathedrals. The material the Templars found had been buried in 70AD, 1058 years before the Templars dug it up and the information they found could be much older than this. In the reference material I've found so far, nothing the Templars found has been destroyed (other than the treasures and money), so you may yet get to see some carbon dating. Here's a couple of photos of St Denis - almost all windows Sources: Bordelled, Milkbreath And a link, with another take on those times, and current, with the digging ongoing this time by the PLO..http://www.rense.com/general7/tunnel.htm [ATTACH]47496._xfImport[/ATTACH] [ATTACH]47497._xfImport[/ATTACH]

It looks to me as if some atheists see the BIBLE virtually as God. I wouldn't look at it from on year to next. To me in some cases it's a history book, in others a manual on how to behave, and in others just advertising.

The problem for you Octave is that you are arguing about a theory that was never proved, and Darwin was honest enough to admit that, however, aside from what we've already seen on this thread, here's another interesting link for you http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/higher-things/2011/sep/6/darwins-error-disproving-theory-evolution/, and if you google "Darwin Theory Disproved, you will see quite a number of discussions Probably because everyone else was over it after the first few posts. If you want to spend time on this, I'd recommend sites which focus on the battle between "Evolutionists", "Creativists" and "Catastrophists" and I'm sure you will find hours of information.

Not the WHOLE Bible, this is what I posted in #112 "I've been studying ancient civilizations and it's interesting that some stories in the Bible can not only be corroborated by hard evidence, but can be pinned down to a year, months and time of day. This is due to the massive amount of evidence being produced and stored thanks to the digital age. In #735 I posted: "Instead he invented a new cult to which he gave the Greek name “Christians”, as a translation of the Hebrew word messiah. He called Jesus, a man he never knew, “Christ”, and started to build a following around himself. Because Paul had no understanding of the terminology of the Nasoreans, he was the first person to apply “literalism” to the allegory in Jesus’s teachings and a miracle working god/man was created out of a Jewish patriot. He claimed that he had the support of Simon Peter, but this was just one of a whole framework of lies. Simon Peter issued a warning against any other authority but the Nasorean leadership: The Romans were attracted to Saul/Paul's magic, became Christians and the Roman Catholic Church started, and the New Testament was written after that, so it follows that you would need to be very wary to believe ANYTHING in the New Testament.

That's a bit of a worry, now you're taking literal meanings from Facthunter. The big problem is, to our minds at their present state of development, which seems to be dropping year by year lately, it is intangible - just like asking someone to prove or prove a photo of the edge of the universe - we can't come to terms with infinity. This may come as a surprise to some but before Jesus was dead, crosses were just crosses, and the Nasorean Logos included two curved brush strokes that formed a fish. Their priests and Christs were considered "fishers of men (new believers). However, I've mentioned a few times the information about Saul/Paul and I'd say the loaves and fishes story is BS. The parting or the red sea is said by some who have looked at the location to be a tidal effect, but that's a much older story from the Old Testament. Fear not, many of them are taxi drivers and nightclub owners in London these days. I really don't know where you get the idea that God lives your life for you.

I must apologise to the Freemasons for dragging them into this, but as I see it, the only way they fit into this thread is that they require a belief in God, and from my research originated from William St Clair swearing them very successful to silence at a time when the Roman Church would have killed the lot and destroyed what knowledge of the Jerusalem/Nasorean Church they could find. It was the Knights Templar who play the main part in this story rather than the designers and builders of Roslyn Chapel.

So far I've referenced less than 1% of my library, so I agree it would be overwhelming, but really all I've suggested is: that the Bible has been written by so many people and translated so many times, that you have to be careful about, and question a lot of the content, yet much of the Bible has now been verified as very accurate, and is being corroborated right now, and I posted a corroborated fact (I forget which one, but it's there) that the old testament is the most accurate, and that the older versions of the Bible, written contemporary with events will be more accurate that the other parts written a thousand years later. that Christianity post Christ is so inaccurate that it needs a complete revisit, and in any case has no bearing on deciding whether you're an atheist or whether you believe in God. that there are signs that God does exist There are more signs, as we go further back BC The problem, when we are talking about God, is that to the human mind today he is intangible - at the end of this thread we are not going to come to a little house in Norway and see a bearded man. Facthunter hit the nail on the head with this: "As for belief in a supernatural being, It's a bit like coming to a deep canyon and there is a raging river down below. People over the other side.are saying "just believe hard enough and a bridge will be there to carry you safely across. It worked for us" .. I would rather be able to see and touch it and makes sure it was built properly.. Especially if lots of others had been promising the same result from different bridges that were invisible too." Mike's experience is interesting, it's fits into the "Angel" category which has been reported many times over the centuries.

Definition from the New Collins Dictionery - Atheist: "one who denies the existence of God" And the atheists in this thread, including yourself fit this definition very well. I don't have a problem if an atheist says he doesn't believe in God, but none of them in this thread have just left it at that. You've made constant reference to them, taking advantage of every irrelevancy in the book; most of the rest of us understand for example that the Roman gods had no substance, and so eventually did the Romans. After being told about inaccuracies in the Bible, you've used lteral quoes of nonsensical passages to try to do just that. Always the spike at the end. You are free to be comfortable in your Godless state, but you imply that I am not rational, and that's typical of the atheist that doesn't know what he doesn't know. That sound very much to me like a bad experience with Catholics, but certainly some religious people, usually those who have picked up a little lingo, believe they should go out into the world and convert people, which would be fine if they got their stories correct, and I agree they are a nuisance.

Well OK, after a few of your posts you are just going to have to do the research and receive the revelation yourself.

Thanks, I was wondering why you didn't know about the Viracochas

Best post I've seen from you in months.

There are no worm holes in this Bikky, you either believe or you don't, and your posts fit the definition

Not for me, and not for many

Which country do you live in Bikky?

It was a bit of a copout because I read the details about ten years ago and I've forgotten the details, other than what I just said.

Not at all. If several religions worship the same God they are all in direct contact, not serial contact.

Buy the book, all will be explained, and you'll be happy. The Grand Master down here is quite young for the seniority of that office, and judging by the Facebook comments and contents young ones are still coming through Although discovered in 1947, the Dead Sea Scrolls are still in the process of being translated today, but so far it appears that he himself never made the outlandish claims that Saul did, and I think we covered (albeit very briefly) the false claims of succession. The teachings of Jesus make a lot of sense and are very similar to other Nasorean teachings (he was a Nasorean), and had much the same themes as the Viracochas taught in South America. The Masons went quiet for a few centuries and in England lifted their profile again, I think from the 1800's. I'm not aware of any persecution. As an Atheist, you are bound to deny the existence of God, whereas they acknowledge the existence of God, so naturally I would expect you to agitate for that.

Several faiths can be traced back to the same God, (which strengthens any doubt about God existing) Both the Imperial and Metric systems, and some other trace back to a single system (ironically the Imperial system is far more realistic than metric) As studies continue, language is tracing back towards a possible source language However, arguing over the religions is a time waster, since the definition of Atheist is "one who denies the existence of God" It's God we need to be talking about, not the Pope v the rest

It's fruit loop day.