Atheist knowledge

[turboplanner]

Why would an atheist be taking any notice of the Bible?

 

 

[facthunter]

Not using your imagination much, Turbs. That is the constant position the atheist is confronted with when discussing these matters. That has been my main point all along. It's a conversation stopper with many. Open and shut case for them. Nev

 

 

[Bikky]

Why would an atheist be taking any notice of the Bible?

It's good to know what you're up against. It's also an interesting read if you don't take it seriously and model your morality on it.

 

 

[facthunter]

yeah. I suppose if you are one of a bunch who want to sodomise someone's guest, and he says "no he is my guest Take my daughter instead". Good deal for guests and those who are lusting. Not so good for daughters. Some places are like that still. You have to pick the bit's to model yourself on if you use it as a guide. Nev

 

 

[turboplanner]

What goes on at your place is your business FH

 

 

[facthunter]

Is THAT supposed to be funny Turbs. It's from the bible, so it's not of much consequence to me except as a historical anthropological? consideration. Nev

 

 

[octave]

relax folks it's just satire

 

 

[bexrbetter]

relax folks it's just satire

I'm off to become a "Sandlelite"!

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0uMJYQ9LKGQ

 

 

[Bikky]

I'm off to become a "Sandlelite"!

Well, if the shoe fits ...

 

 

[turboplanner]

POST JESUS CHRIST

 

These are non-contiguous cuts from The Hiram key to provide a very brief outline of what happened after Jesus Christ was crucified. a lot of supporting explanations and information has been left out so you will need to do your own research.

 

The killing of “the king of the Jews” by a Roman Procurator created a lot of publicity, throughout Israel and beyond, people became interested in the messianic movement. One such person was a Roman citizen by the name of Saul who came from an area that is now southern Turkey. His parents had become Diaspora Jews and he was a young man who was brought up as a Jew but without the culture and attitudes of such pure followers of Yahweh as the Qumran Community. The idea that his job was to persecute Christians is an obvious nonsense as there was no such cult at that time. The Nasoreans, now led by James, were the most Jewish Jews it is possible to imagine and Saul’s task was simply to put down any remaining independence movement on behalf of the Romans. The Mandaeans of southern Iraq are Nasoreans who were driven out of Judah whose migration can be accurately dated to AD37; it therefore seems almost certain that the man that persecuted them was Saul (alias Paul) himself.

 

Paul heard the story of the Nasoreans directly from the lips of James [the brother of Jesus], but being a foreign Jew and a Roman citizen he failed to understand the message that he was given and immediately developed a Hellenistic fascination for the story of Jesus’s death and his role of a ”sacrificial lamb”. It is certain that Paul was not admitted into the secrets of Qumran, because he spent only a short time there; as we know, it required three years of training and examination to become a brother. The relationship between the newcomer and James quickly became very strained.

 

Paul had seventeen years of hunting down potentially rebellious Jews and he was never converted to the cause of John the Baptist, Jesus and James.

 

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:

 

“Wherefore observe the greatest caution, that you believe no teacher, unless he brings from Jerusalem the testimonial of James, the Lord’s brother.”

 

After reading Robert Eisenman’s interpretations of the Qumran texts we had no doubt about the identity of Paul as the “Spouter of Lies” who battled with James, the “Teacher of Righteousness”.

 

We believe that the “Liar” and the enemy of James was Paul; the man who lied about his training as a Pharisee, lied about the mission of Christ, taught that the Law of the Jews was not important and admitted the uncircumcised.

 

Ebionite writings confirm that Paul had no Pharisaic background or training. He came to Jerusalem as an adult, and became a henchman of the High Priest. When he was disappointed in his hopes of advancement, he split with the High Priest and founded his own new religion.

 

Paul acknowledges that there were two opposed versions of the life and mission of Christ: the “false teachings of James. the brother of Christ; and his own Hellenistic mystery romance that disregarded the very core beliefs of Jerusalem. In 1 Corinthians, 9:20-25 he is not shy of admitting his disregard for the Jerusalem Church , and openly states that he is an unscrupulous liar:

 

“I made myself a Jew to the Jews to win the Jews….To those who have no Law I was free of the Law myself…..I made myself all things to all men…..That is how I run intent on winning; that is how I fight, not beating the air.”

 

This open disregard for the Law and a willingness to say and do anything to achieve his own strange ends shows why James and the Qumran Community called Paul the “Spouter of Lies”. In Romans 10:12 and elsewhere Paul announces his desire to found a community that would “make no distinction between Jew and Greek”. This is precisely the kind of ambition which characterised the Herodian family and their supporters. Paul went out of the way to legitimise the forces of occupation that had driven the branch of David out of Jerusalem and had murdered their king/messiah. He reasons, “You must obey the governing authorities. Since all government comes from God, the civil authorities are appointed by God.

 

Paul’s Roman citizenship was clearly well earned.

 

So after Jesus died there was a swerve away from the teachings of the Essenes, Qumranians, Nasoreans, Ebionites and the Church of Jerusalem as Saul/Paul who had never met Jesus invented the new "Christian" cult.

 

 

Christians inserted new passages and whole books [in the Bible] and then had the audacity to accuse the Jews of having deleted these sections from their own scriptures.

 

There is a very fundamental point here which cannot be ignored: nowhere in the Old Testament does it prophesy the coming of a world saviour. The Jews expected a leader to emerge who was an earthly king in the mould of David and, however much Christians would like it to be so, Jesus was not the Messiah of the line of David (the Christ), because he did not succeed in becoming the undisputed king of Israel. For the Jewish people of the time, including Jesus himself, there was no other meaning for the word; it is not a question of faith, it is a matter of history beyond theological debate.

 

Interestingly, one of the most important documents not to come out of the Council of Nicaea was the “Donation of Constantine”. This was an eighth-century discovery which purported to be Constantine’s instruction that the Church of Rome should have absolute authority in secular affairs because St Peter, the successor to Jesus as leader of the Church, has passed such authority to the bishop of Rome. Tis is now universally accepted to be a poor forgery but despite this the Roman Catholic Church still clings to the rights that this bogus document conferred upon it. We should also mention at this point that the claim that Peter gave the keys of Heaven to the Pope is another deliberate falsehood, intended to sustain the claims of the Roman Church. It is clear from the Acts of the apostles and Letters of Paul that James, the younger brother of Jesus the Christ took the leadership role of the Jerusalem Church.

 

>>>>>>

 

Constantine himself never became a Christian. His mother, the Empress Helena certainly did.

 

Helena wanted all of the holy sites to be identified and suitably marked with a church or other shrine, so she sent out teams of investigators who had instructions not to return until they had discovered every holy location and artefact from the burning bush of Moses to the True Cross itself.

 

Christ’s tomb was duly found in Jerusalem beneath Jupiter’s temple and the site of the crucifixion identified a short distance away. The very spot where Mary Magdalene stood when she heard the good news of the resurrection was located and marked out with a star – all this three hundred years after the events had taken place and two hundred and fifty years after the Romans had destroyed the city. By a miraculous coincidence it was Helena herself who stumbled across the True Cross, complete with Pontius Pilatus’s “King of the Jews” plaque. Perhaps her servants were just a little too eager to please.

 

>>>>>

 

The Romanised Church destroyed any evidence that portrayed its saviour as a mortal rather than a god. In one of the greatest acts of vandalism the Christians burnt the library at Alexandria in Egypt to the ground because it contained so much information about the real Jerusalem Church. In doing so they destroyed the greatest collection of ancient texts the world has ever seen.

 

 

[turboplanner]

So it's a reasonable question to ask you that the majority of churches today, regardless of denomination, aren't worth attending in your opinion? And if your answer is in the affirmative, which church or method of 'worship' (sorry for wrong term if so) is truer to the "more authentic information available"?Serious questions, no catches.

From what I posted, it appears that the Davidian line of civilization which worshipped God was truncated when Saul/Paul defeated James, the younger brother of Jesus, who was head of the Jerusalem Church.

 

Paul had no connection with Jesus, but built up a magical story around him, the Romans went with it and so there are worshipers of God before the Crucifixion and worshippers of God after the crucifixion, but they are not directly linked. Saul/Paul operated using the known and invented history of Jesus Christ, but had never known him.

 

Now that may come as shock to many Christians, so it's worthwhile doing your own research based on all the facts which have come to light since 1947, and particularly over the last decade.

 

I wouldn't bother attending a Roman Catholic Church because that was the one central to Saul's actions, however a number of Churches had already worked out the scam hundreds of years ago, and don't use an image of a crucified Christ etc.

 

The way I see these is a bit like the company where you work, where the mission statement might be unobtainable, the advertising containing a lot of spin, and the instructions on the product a little less than satisfactory. However, you still work there, and you've been there for twenty years.

 

So my answer to the first question is:

 

I don't find the need to make a display of myself by attending Church, but I wouldn't say they are not worth attending because they are still the best places to get religious knowledge.

 

With Paul's invention of the Roman Catholic Church so much has been altered from when Jesus Christ was alive that you would be better not to start there.

 

With the Anglican Church, we know King James doctored the English Bible,and with 47 translators there will be 47 versions, some of his alterations could be corrections and others spin.

 

Much the same goes for the other denominations.

 

Aside from that you've got the thousands of years of Theological arguments,and that's among people who've been trained, and researched for years

 

In general terms, the closer you get back to the years when Christ was alive, the more accurate will be the stories of witness, and eventually there will be some eyewitness statements.

 

So my answer to the second question is the Church of Jerusalem

 

Since it and all the contemporary Churches no longer exist, then the Jewish faith may in fact be the truest, hence, some deep thinking is required.

 

A thousand years ago, doing your own research would likely involve wrestling with a hand written book a metre high by half a metre high and 100 mm thick, and you might have to look through hundreds of them and go to Europe for seven years t really get a good answer, but today we have authors who often hire 20 or so researchers, we have digital searches and we have this mass of discoveries of contemporary scrolls and tablets, and correlation coming from all parts of the world.

 

So my preferred answers would be

 

1. Remodel current Churches based on new data available

 

2. Rewrite the Bible based on the truth as we know it today.

 

 

[Marty_d]

From what I posted, it appears that the Davidian line of civilization which worshipped God was truncated when Saul/Paul defeated James, the younger brother of Jesus, who was head of the Jerusalem Church.

Paul had no connection with Jesus, but built up a magical story around him, the Romans went with it and so there are worshipers of God before the Crucifixion and worshippers of God after the crucifixion, but they are not directly linked. Saul/Paul operated using the known and invented history of Jesus Christ, but had never known him.

 

Now that may come as shock to many Christians, so it's worthwhile doing your own research based on all the facts which have come to light since 1947, and particularly over the last decade.

 

I wouldn't bother attending a Roman Catholic Church because that was the one central to Saul's actions, however a number of Churches had already worked out the scam hundreds of years ago, and don't use an image of a crucified Christ etc.

 

The way I see these is a bit like the company where you work, where the mission statement might be unobtainable, the advertising containing a lot of spin, and the instructions on the product a little less than satisfactory. However, you still work there, and you've been there for twenty years.

 

So my answer to the first question is:

 

I don't find the need to make a display of myself by attending Church, but I wouldn't say they are not worth attending because they are still the best places to get religious knowledge.

 

With Paul's invention of the Roman Catholic Church so much has been altered from when Jesus Christ was alive that you would be better not to start there.

 

With the Anglican Church, we know King James doctored the English Bible,and with 47 translators there will be 47 versions, some of his alterations could be corrections and others spin.

 

Much the same goes for the other denominations.

 

Aside from that you've got the thousands of years of Theological arguments,and that's among people who've been trained, and researched for years

 

In general terms, the closer you get back to the years when Christ was alive, the more accurate will be the stories of witness, and eventually there will be some eyewitness statements.

 

So my answer to the second question is the Church of Jerusalem

 

Since it and all the contemporary Churches no longer exist, then the Jewish faith may in fact be the truest, hence, some deep thinking is required.

 

A thousand years ago, doing your own research would likely involve wrestling with a hand written book a metre high by half a metre high and 100 mm thick, and you might have to look through hundreds of them and go to Europe for seven years t really get a good answer, but today we have authors who often hire 20 or so researchers, we have digital searches and we have this mass of discoveries of contemporary scrolls and tablets, and correlation coming from all parts of the world.

 

So my preferred answers would be

 

1. Remodel current Churches based on new data available

 

2. Rewrite the Bible based on the truth as we know it today.

Or, 3. ignore all of it and research something worthwhile.

 

 

[Gnarly Gnu]

My main problem with religion is that it stood and continues to stand in the way of progress.

Specifically which religion? There are many, Atheism is one significant belief in the west.

 

Christians started hospitals and universities (Yale, Princeton, Oxford, Harvard, Trinity etc.... all started by Christians / churches) yet this is anti-progress to you. And we know that Atheist run countries are pretty much the most backward intolerant hell-holes out there, the fruit is there for everyone to see Bik.

 

 

[turboplanner]

What about the Viracochas Bik?

 

 

[Marty_d]

Specifically which religion? There are many, Atheism is one significant belief in the west.

Christians started hospitals and universities (Yale, Princeton, Oxford, Harvard, Trinity etc.... all started by Christians / churches) yet this is anti-progress to you. And we know that Atheist run countries are pretty much the most backward intolerant hell-holes out there, the fruit is there for everyone to see Bik.

Gnu, despite being told several times by several people, you insist that atheism is a faith. If you can't grasp the simple concept that atheism is simply the absence of a belief in the supernatural, what's the point in discussing anything with you?

 

 

[nomadpete]

Regarding the place that religious faith has in a countries government, I admired the USA founding fathers for writing their constitution with the explicit intention of keeping religion separated from government. Sounds like common sense to me. Pity that they later lost their way, and now pander to a religion. It will undoubtedly eventuate in causing division and conflict

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Old Koreelah and Facthunter, this is for you, I know we always have thread drift , but slipping political hate into this discussion is more a reflection of you than the rest of us....0

Turbs does this mean you think I have I "...slipped political hate into this discussion"? I am more than offended by this.

 

Evidence please. The only "hate" that I have expressed is of the actions of the man who may well be remembered by history as the most ignorant US President of modern times.

 

To suggest that the President of the United States of America bypasses the 435 members of Congress and 100 members of the Senate and kills or "nukes" people is just sick. 0

...so the disastrous second Gulf War and the vast loss of life and destruction it unleashed is not the fault of GWB? The manipulation of public opinion and political process that lead to this mess was beyond his control? I won't go into the dismantling of regulations that allowed the greedy rich to plunge the US and the rest of world into the Recession.

 

If America had a healthy functioning democratic system (including a reliable and balanced media) it might have avoided these disasters.

 

Perhaps this speech, the best I've heard in three decades might serve to show there is goodness in the world. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-11-05/pearson-a-salute-to-australias-greatest-white-elder/5868730

At last, something we can agree on. Thank you for posting this link; being isolated from the rest of Australia with no TV, I missed these events, and particularly wanted to watch Pearson' speech.

 

 

[Old Koreelah]

Regarding the place that religious faith has in a countries government, I admired the USA founding fathers for writing their constitution with the explicit intention of keeping religion separated from government. Sounds like common sense to me. Pity that they later lost their way, and now pander to a religion. It will undoubtedly eventuate in causing division and conflict

Pete you are not alone in your admiration of the American Declaration of Independence and the constitution that followed.

 

Ho Chi Minh was also a fan, having worked for a time in New York. He cooperated with America in the war against Imperial Japan and modelled Vietnam's Declaration of Independence from France on this great document. Unfortunately, the USA had already lost its way and instead of supporting him, helped the French slaughter countless of his countrymen in a misguided effort to restore French colonial rule.

 

 

[bexrbetter]

Christians started hospitals and universities .

It's incredulous and a complete denial of civilizations that were around before any bible was written. Do you seriously think that the Egyptians, the Greeks, the Chinese etc. with all their Waring states didn't have the need for organised medical facilities ...

 

You might argue the semantics of what defines a University per say, but higher education was around in China long before any bible was written and very well documented - as you would expect from educated people.

 

It seems you are suggesting that no race gave a shat about advancing or caring for their own in any form until Christians came along, you find difficulty in gaining support for that thought train.

 

 

[facthunter]

Its all supposed to have happened around a small part of the Mediteranian . Too bad if you come from some other part of the WORLD. You are just heathen to be converted to Christianity..Nev

 

 

[Bikky]

Specifically which religion? There are many, Atheism is one significant belief in the west.

Which religions deny all truths except their own "divine truth" ? Well, the answer to that is quite simple.

 

I could mention <insert name here> as an example.

 

You can take your pick. Zoroastrian, Mormon, Christian, Muslim, Bash Buptist - whatever flavour you prefer.

 

Can you have more than one religion? It's not that I'm particularly greedy, but if I had to believe, I would accept them all in the hope that one of them would lead me to salvation. (this is a second conditional statement, therefore purely hypothetical)

 

Salvation from what, I don't know. Mortality? Morality? Personal responsibility for my actions?

 

Fortunately, I don't fear or feel the need to be saved from any of the above.

 

I have no need to believe.

 

It might cause you some confusion, but I don't believe in atheism either!

 

How could I? It's not a belief! a = without, theist = a believer in a deity. Ergo atheist = one who does not believe in a deity.

 

See the logic here?

 

An atheist, by definition, doesn't believe in gods. It's not a belief, let alone a significant one!

 

 

[Bikky]

Of course all these esteemed universities you speak of only teach sciences that fit with Christian doctrine.

 

Imagine the uproar if they adhered purely to the "science" of creationism.

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Spitfire. Sh*ts all over the BF109 in speed, climb and maneouverability for most of the envelope. (Disclaimer: I LOVE Spitfires.)

Actually Marty,. . . . . in the early part of WW2, BF109 pilots became quickly adept at "Hit and Run" tactics against formations of Spitfires, meaning that they could fire off some cannon shells then dive almost vertically to escape the Spitfires which would then suffer from loss of engine power from carburation problems due to the negative G force when they tried to give chase, the 109 was fuel injected, so the Spit was at a distinct disadvantage in that regard on it's early marques.

 

Sorry for the non - religious thread drift, this damn flying stuff can be so distracting don't you think . . . ?

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Are all you atheists airing your knowledge? Nev

Hmmm, you might have a point there Nev,. . . . but surely worshipping skygods and their chariots shouldn't be regarded as a sort of aviation blasphemy ? ? ?

 

Phil

 

 

[Phil Perry]

Time will tell which of Darwin's ideas was right. There are still a lot of fossils to be discovered.

This appears to be the case OK,. . . . . some time last week I heard that the fossil of a Mammal skull had been discovered in Madagascar, which, the scientists have dated and placed some 2 million years earlier than mammals generally were understood to have appeared. . . . . . talk then began about "Rewriting" the history of the mammal. Interestinger and interestinger innit ??

 

Phil