Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
crookedspiral

Atheism is incompatible with science

3,680 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Noteverythingisaconspiracy
9 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

Were you just as arrogantly certain that Hillary would win the election?

 

 

Are you saying that Hillary is God ?

 

 

I can do bad analogies too. :lol:

  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
21 minutes ago, Alchopwn said:

I find a great many of the 114 Logia of Thomas to be very odd.  Some are straightforward parables that could be from other Gospels, but there are some downright weird ones that make little sense at all, even in the original Coptic.  Who says Christianity isn't an occult doctrine?

With all religion, the core is mystical, and the Gospel of Thomas is largely a mystical text.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
joc
11 hours ago, Habitat said:

The certainties of youth frequently give way to more cautious judgement. Or non-judgement. You are the most arrogant poster I have seen here.

Don't think you can get away with that just because I'm in the Lounge!  We are Legion!

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Will Due
3 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

The best way of waging that war is often to undermine the myths so people don't fall for the lies.

 

But why haven't you noticed that you've fallen for the lie that God is just a character in a myth?

You seem more than capable of recognizing truth so why not do your duty like everyone else must and separate the truth from the lies?

 

 

 

Edited by Will Due

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThereWeAreThen
12 hours ago, Habitat said:

Perhaps you really mean you are inclined to take dogmatic positions, not that the dogmatic positions are always correct. People do tire of dealing with "seldom unsure, often wrong" personalities, and I guess "never unsure, maybe wrong", is equally unsatisfactory. If you are going to declare something, you better have excluded any thought of possibly being mistaken,

Ok, I'm gonna type this as best as I can. I've only had 1 hour sleep, (had insomnia for years it's getting worse) and in shattered.

I'm not changing my position on god and religion. But, as I'm trying to say as best as I can, I'm open to the idea of being wrong, if you think I'm not certain? That's grand. But that openness is minuscule, probably smaller than an atom.

As to this railing malarkey, it's a forum. A discussion board. I come on here to discuss/debate, if you feel I've been aggressive or whatnot in anyway what so ever, let me know and I'll apolagies duely. Which to be fair I don't think you're insinuating I am.

My only beef is it seemed you were doubting my intelligence due to my position, which is my opinion, and the fact that I'm young (26 constitutes as young I suppose :lol:).

If this is still too riddly let me know and I'll try again tomorrow, as I'm "self medicating " shall we say at the moment to help me sleep (not drugs). So I should be getting some bloody sleep tonight as I'm on a night shift tomorra!!!:lol:

 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ThereWeAreThen
2 hours ago, Will Due said:

 

But why haven't you noticed that you've fallen for the lie that God is just a character in a myth?

You seem more than capable of recognizing truth so why not do your duty like everyone else must and separate the truth from the lies?

 

 

 

In your opinion ofcourse. Come on fella, that looks like you're putting ideas in to Alcopwns head with what you said.

  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
On 10/17/2019 at 3:01 AM, Alchopwn said:

I find a great many of the 114 Logia of Thomas to be very odd.  Some are straightforward parables that could be from other Gospels, but there are some downright weird ones that make little sense at all, even in the original Coptic.  Who says Christianity isn't an occult doctrine?

The Gospel of Thomas is about as Christian as the Quran. It is sayings taken from older Canonical Chridtian sources with Gnostic sayings layered on top.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
SmartAZ

Science is anything that can be measured. Spirit is anything that can not be measured. Science is powered by logic and evidence. Spirit is powered by believing and wisdom. No connection. Trying to prove or disprove spiritual things with science is a wasted effort.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alchopwn
16 hours ago, DieChecker said:

The Gospel of Thomas is about as Christian as the Quran. It is sayings taken from older Canonical Chridtian sources with Gnostic sayings layered on top.

The Gospel of Thomas is simply as invalid as every other Christian gospel.  The fact is, Christianity is based on a series of allegorical stories taught by the Therapeuts, who became outlawed as the Docetist heresy after the first council of Nicea, because they were the oldest Christian sect, originating in 200BC  and yet they never even pretended that Jesus was a physical historical person.  For them, Jesus was a religious educational story, and the notion that Jesus was ever physically made into a person was blasphemy.  These "Docetists" are the very oldest sect of Christianity btw, and all other Christians come about as a result of their preaching.  Prior to them, there were no Christians in Judea or anywhere else.  As such, who cares about the pedigree of a gospel, when they are essentially all frauds?

Edited by Alchopwn
  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
2 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

The Gospel of Thomas is simply as invalid as every other Christian gospel.  

Depends on ones perspective. GoT was written in 2nd century and deemed Gnostic about 200 years later. The books of the Bible were written about the same time, but have been around almost 2000 years.

Various Councils took up, and rejected GoT.

So, from the Christian point of view, you're entirely wrong. And, being generous, from a secular point of view, it didnt last the test of time, and so also should be seemed inferior.

Quote

The fact is, Christianity is based on a series of allegorical stories taught by the Therapeuts, who became outlawed as the Docetist heresy after the first council of Nicea, because they were the oldest Christian sect, originating in 200BC and yet they never even pretended that Jesus was a physical historical person.  For them, Jesus was a religious educational story, and the notion that Jesus was ever physically made into a person was blasphemy.  These "Docetists" are the very oldest sect of Christianity btw, and all other Christians come about as a result of their preaching.  Prior to them, there were no Christians in Judea or anywhere else.  As such, who cares about the pedigree of a gospel, when they are essentially all frauds?

Oh really? Please give me a link.

From what I read Docetists had their origin around 200 BC, but never were established as an actual group of believers. The theology was banned some 150 years later. Because almost everyone thought it was bunk.

There were established churches in the near east way before 200 AD. Polycarp's writings show established communities of non-Docetists before that.

Sounds to me like you're believing rubbish you've found on the internet.

But... Go ahead and post some links and I'll read them.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Artaxerxes

"(slaps arm to kill a mosquito)..."  - ChrLzs

Every mosquito bite imprints on our consciousness or "soul" the shape and parameters of the body.  Like bits of information it teaches our consciousness what "out there" looks and feels like.  Every bite, every scratch, every itch, every burn, every kind of pain, and feeling, both good and bad, is teaching our consciousness what the limits of our body are, sort of like a sculptor that takes a block of marble and every chisel and hammer strike is "creating"  who we are.  It is imprinting on our consciousness (or soul stuff) what it is like to have a body, what its shape is, what time and space look and feel like, and ultimately creating "us".   It is how we learn who we are, our self, a separate, unique, individual, separate from every other person.   And it has everything to do with "why we are here."  There is no separation in heaven due to those overwhelming feelings of oneness and connectedness that so many near death experiencers describe.  If you want to become a separate unique individual it has to be learned here.  All the things that separate us in this life don't exist in the next because of those feelings of oneness and connectedness.  So, the mosquito does serve a useful purpose because it is teaching our soul about the body.  And the more emotion that it generates the more we remember it because there is a very close connection between emotion and memory.  The more emotion the more we remember our experiences.   https://www.webmd.com/balance/news/20050131/emotions-make-memory-last

Art

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alchopwn
On 10/19/2019 at 10:20 PM, DieChecker said:

Depends on ones perspective. GoT was written in 2nd century and deemed Gnostic about 200 years later. The books of the Bible were written about the same time, but have been around almost 2000 years.  Various Councils took up, and rejected GoT.  So, from the Christian point of view, you're entirely wrong. And, being generous, from a secular point of view, it didnt last the test of time, and so also should be seemed inferior.

LOL GoT is a terrible initialism, as most people will think it applies to Game of Thrones.  I'm opting for calling it "Thomas" instead. 

As to the various councils, let's begin.   Regarding the primary one, this is now hushed up by the Church, but records remain.  It took place in 318AD at Nicea, and involved 318 attending Bishops.  It was arguably the first Nicean Council, but as it is now contentious, it has been somewhat historically expunged from the record; how convenient.  This sort of fraud is a common problem with Church records.  During the undertaking, Eusebius was present, as was Sabinus of Heraclea, amongst others.  During proceedings, all of the various gospels were placed under a communion table, and the pagan Roman ritual of Sortes Sanctorum was performed to choose the "true texts".  The ritual of Sortes Sanctorum had its origins in ancient Roman theurgical practice (generally using Homer or Virgil), but gained new popularity in the Early Christian Church, but was eventually decried as a form of   In all likelihood, the answers were known in advance, and certain individuals slipped in and decided the doctrinal fate of Christianity forever after, in line with the Emperor's ideological preference.  Subsequent Councils of Nicea were, in general, an excuse to set about persecuting people for the crime of believing something different to the "party line".  A crime, I might add, that all  protestants are guilty of.  Aren't we glad that we now have a Separation of Church and State, so there can be a proper freedom of conscience, and people can be free to worship as they please, rather than being murdered for it?  We later find that the Popes have banned the practice, but it persists even today as New Age Bibliomancy, and the popular protestant practice of opening the Bible at random for "divine guidance".  To be fair, the gospel that the "angels" chose was Mark, which is likely the oldest and the most reliable, but to suppose that this somehow legitimizes the "Four Evangelists" and discredits the "Apocrypha" is an argument based, ultimately, entirely on faith in theurgy, which is a system of pagan magical rituals.  Furthermore, the consequences were Orwellian i.e. "A boot stamping on a human face forever".

On 10/19/2019 at 10:20 PM, DieChecker said:

From what I read Docetists had their origin around 200 BC, but never were established as an actual group of believers. The theology was banned some 150 years later. Because almost everyone thought it was bunk. There were established churches in the near east way before 200 AD. Polycarp's writings show established communities of non-Docetists before that. Sounds to me like you're believing rubbish you've found on the internet.

If you want to understand the Docetists, you need to get into the history and origins of the Theraputae.  This isn't something you can find on a wiki page, you will need to actually buy books on the topic, or find them in University libraries. Needless to say, they are a deep dive, scholastically speaking, and the wiki page is pretty bad, as more is known about them than this sketchy offering, which I will seek to amend at some point when have the time to argue it out in the wiki forum. It is probably best to describe the Therapeutae as the New Age movement of their time (albeit an awfully long time ago).  They were set up to ideologically convert the region we would now call Israel/Palestine to the cause of the Ptolemaic dynasty, thru their distinct form of Hellenization which itself was a syncretic hybrid of Egyptian, Greek, and Judaic religions and philosophies.  The Therapeutae were healers, which is why they were able to gain access to people and earn their trust (we see a similar idea playing out today with Cuba's foreign policy via their sending doctors to needy countries).  The Therapeutae were trained in Alexandria, and there worshipped the state god of the Ptolemies, known as Serapis, who was a hybrid deity incorporating the Apis Bull, Osiris, and Zeus (as Demiurge), thus three gods in one. Add to this the common teachings of Babylonian astrology, that informed the Jews (due to the captivity), and the Egyptians.  Note that in the illustration of Serapis, that he has a strange looking cap on his head?  That is a cup for the burning of holy oil, as Serapis is "the Anointed one" or "Christ", and his image needs to be anointed with oil on a regular basis.  Serapis is the first deity to have Bishops (or "Episcopos" in Greek).  It is from this unusual syncretic blend of pre-Christian Middle Eastern mysticism that the Essenes are born, and the story of Jesus is an astrological mystery that is discussing the turning of the age of Ares into the age of Pisces via a series of allegories.  Now, all of this was going on about 2 centuries before Jesus, as the Ptolemies and the Seleucid empire fought it out in Israel, Lebanon and Syria.  This is part of why Jesus says the whole thing about any follower of his must know how to heal, and why Jesus is alleged to be the fulfillment of "all the prophecies", meaning not just Jewish prophecies, but many pantheist prophecies as well.

I started studying the effects of the Cult of Sol Invictus on Early Christian Architecture for a monogram I wanted to write, and maybe submit to a few academic publications, but the rabbit hole of the effects of non-Jewish beliefs on early Christianity simply became deeper and more complex than I had anticipated. Initially I wasn't very interested, but some of the things that are out there in those old German 19th century texts are jaw dropping, and sort of out-Blavatsky Blavatsky.

Edited by Alchopwn
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
On 10/20/2019 at 4:45 AM, Alchopwn said:

As to the various councils, let's begin.   Regarding the primary one, this is now hushed up by the Church, but records remain.  It took place in 318AD at Nicea, and involved 318 attending Bishops.  It was arguably the first Nicean Council, but as it is now contentious, it has been somewhat historically expunged from the record; how convenient.  This sort of fraud is a common problem with Church records.  During the undertaking, Eusebius was present, as was Sabinus of Heraclea, amongst others.  During proceedings, all of the various gospels were placed under a communion table, and the pagan Roman ritual of Sortes Sanctorum was performed to choose the "true texts".  The ritual of Sortes Sanctorum had its origins in ancient Roman theurgical practice (generally using Homer or Virgil), but gained new popularity in the Early Christian Church, but was eventually decried as a form of   In all likelihood, the answers were known in advance, and certain individuals slipped in and decided the doctrinal fate of Christianity forever after, in line with the Emperor's ideological preference. 

So, I'm not sure if you are knowledgable, or blowing smoke. It is convenient that almost all records of such happening seem to have been purged, yet you have learned it. 

Indeed there's nothing public that says the 1st council fixed the canon. It mainly says they decided that Jesus was the Son of God. And not just a teacher, or just a prophet... but sent by God as a part of God.

Thus... saying the Gnostics and the Gnostic texts were non Christian. 

If you have a link, or just a book title, please post it. Referencing the use of Sortes in establishing canon. And as to 1st Nicean Council establishing canon, other then establishing Gnostic texts as non-canon.

Quote

We later find that the Popes have banned the practice, but it persists even today as New Age Bibliomancy, and the popular protestant practice of opening the Bible at random for "divine guidance".  

I did read that. And that it was also said that many required a period of fasting, or meditation, before doing so. 

I believe many modern people do think doing so is a good way to seek advice. But, it does smack of divination, which is directly called out as wrong in the OT.

Quote

To be fair, the gospel that the "angels" chose was Mark, which is likely the oldest and the most reliable, but to suppose that this somehow legitimizes the "Four Evangelists" and discredits the "Apocrypha" is an argument based, ultimately, entirely on faith in theurgy, which is a system of pagan magical rituals.  

But the Apocrypha wasn't determined until the Eastern Orthodox/Greek Orthodox/Roman Catholic split. And then further with the Protestant Reformation.

Apocrypha is simply the various Christian works accepted by one denomination, but not by another. None of them were banned in 325, that I know of.

Feel free to shsre more, or post some links.

Quote

If you want to understand the Docetists, you need to get into the history and origins of the Theraputae.  This isn't something you can find on a wiki page, you will need to actually buy books on the topic, or find them in University libraries. Needless to say, they are a deep dive, scholastically speaking, and the wiki page is pretty bad, as more is known about them than this sketchy offering, which I will seek to amend at some point when have the time to argue it out in the wiki forum. It is probably best to describe the Therapeutae as the New Age movement of their time (albeit an awfully long time ago).  They were set up to ideologically convert the region we would now call Israel/Palestine to the cause of the Ptolemaic dynasty, thru their distinct form of Hellenization which itself was a syncretic hybrid of Egyptian, Greek, and Judaic religions and philosophies.  The Therapeutae were healers, which is why they were able to gain access to people and earn their trust (we see a similar idea playing out today with Cuba's foreign policy via their sending doctors to needy countries).  The Therapeutae were trained in Alexandria, and there worshipped the state god of the Ptolemies, known as Serapis, who was a hybrid deity incorporating the Apis Bull, Osiris, and Zeus (as Demiurge), thus three gods in one. Add to this the common teachings of Babylonian astrology, that informed the Jews (due to the captivity), and the Egyptians.  Note that in the illustration of Serapis, that he has a strange looking cap on his head?  That is a cup for the burning of holy oil, as Serapis is "the Anointed one" or "Christ", and his image needs to be anointed with oil on a regular basis.  Serapis is the first deity to have Bishops (or "Episcopos" in Greek).  It is from this unusual syncretic blend of pre-Christian Middle Eastern mysticism that the Essenes are born, and the story of Jesus is an astrological mystery that is discussing the turning of the age of Ares into the age of Pisces via a series of allegories.  Now, all of this was going on about 2 centuries before Jesus, as the Ptolemies and the Seleucid empire fought it out in Israel, Lebanon and Syria.  This is part of why Jesus says the whole thing about any follower of his must know how to heal, and why Jesus is alleged to be the fulfillment of "all the prophecies", meaning not just Jewish prophecies, but many pantheist prophecies as well.

I started studying the effects of the Cult of Sol Invictus on Early Christian Architecture for a monogram I wanted to write, and maybe submit to a few academic publications, but the rabbit hole of the effects of non-Jewish beliefs on early Christianity simply became deeper and more complex than I had anticipated. Initially I wasn't very interested, but some of the things that are out there in those old German 19th century texts are jaw dropping, and sort of out-Blavatsky Blavatsky.

Even if all that is true... and convenient it's all "off line"... What I already said would still seem to apply.

There were estimated to have been 318 bishops at the 1st Council of Nicea, right? How many where Docetists? I'd guess very few since it is believed most all the Bishops decided on that Jesus was divine, while the Docetists believed Jesus was a created, or illusionary, person. A concept Central to Gnostism. Which the 1st Nicean Council found was non Christian.

There existed a well established religion of 1800 bishops around 300 AD, who were firmly proto Catholic, but you're saying the only organized Christian religion 100 years earlier were the Gnostics?

Please pardon me, I've not studied the subject on a scholarly level, but I find that hard to believe.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alchopwn
4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

So, I'm not sure if you are knowledgable, or blowing smoke. It is convenient that almost all records of such happening seem to have been purged, yet you have learned it. 

If you knew the subject better you could tell the answer.  As to the records being purged, well, purged is not quite the right answer.  The fact is the Church got at the copies they possessed, but that was not all copies.  Who knows what the Church actually got away with censoring?  The Vatican is utterly unaccountable to anyone.

4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Indeed there's nothing public that says the 1st council fixed the canon. It mainly says they decided that Jesus was the Son of God. And not just a teacher, or just a prophet... but sent by God as a part of God.

Correct, the council in question happened during the reign of Constantine, and before the main named and public sitting we know as the First Council of Nicea.  I will reiterate that, as you may have skimmed it, but I did mention this in my earlier post.

4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Thus... saying the Gnostics and the Gnostic texts were non Christian. 

Christianity is so very schismatic that as far as I am concerned, anyone who claims that they take their inspiration from the teachings of Jesus and calls themselves a Christian is a Christian in my book.  I personally don't believe in heresy as a concept, and see it only as an attack on freedom of conscience, and certainly against the fine American tradition of Freedom of (and from) Religion.  To pretend even for a moment, that some people are not somehow "Christian" because they don't follow quite the same religious philosophy as your own preferred interpretation is a dangerous game.  What if you are wrong?  "Judge not lest ye be judged".

4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

If you have a link, or just a book title, please post it. Referencing the use of Sortes in establishing canon. And as to 1st Nicean Council establishing canon, other then establishing Gnostic texts as non-canon.

I did.  It's called wikipedia.  I refer you to the footnotes where the references can be found.

4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I did read that. And that it was also said that many required a period of fasting, or meditation, before doing so. I believe many modern people do think doing so is a good way to seek advice. But, it does smack of divination, which is directly called out as wrong in the OT.

It is "wrong" unless a registered priest of the state approved religion performs it.  Of course just because a priest is paid up and registered, doesn't mean they're any good at divination imo.  The Jews used to perform a form of it called Bath Kol which is interesting, and I have mentioned the Roman theurgical practice.  I believe the Chinese practiced a form of it as well.

4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

But the Apocrypha wasn't determined until the Eastern Orthodox/Greek Orthodox/Roman Catholic split. And then further with the Protestant Reformation.  Apocrypha is simply the various Christian works accepted by one denomination, but not by another. None of them were banned in 325, that I know of.

That is technically correct, its just that the same books that were neglected by the Sortes Sanctorum were also the ones later dumped into the Apocrypha.  Go figure.  This political attack represented nothing short of censorship of vulnerable religious minorities and an attack on freedom of conscience, that every thinking person should abhor.  Valuable alternative forms of mysticism were attacked and lost, and what was left was a totalitarian rump with all the genuine spiritual teaching left dead in a gutter, just so the Roman Emperors got the fascist version of Christianity they wanted and the Church got to hide their lies, and their ignorance behind a veil of unassailable totalitarian legal protection.

4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Even if all that is true... and convenient it's all "off line"... What I already said would still seem to apply.

Convenient for whom?  It only serves to annoy me that I have found this info and I cannot find the links online.  Perhaps I simply haven't used the correct keywords?  I am pulling most of my info from memory btw.

4 hours ago, DieChecker said:

There were estimated to have been 318 bishops at the 1st Council of Nicea, right?

No.  You misread or misinterpreted what I wrote.

5 hours ago, DieChecker said:

How many where Docetists?

There are 2 councils being discussed.  One relates to the Sortes Sanctorum.  The other relates to the Docetists.  I also believe the Docetists were "tried in absentia", for the sake of convenience, and not given a right of reply.

5 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I'd guess very few since it is believed most all the Bishops decided on that Jesus was divine, while the Docetists believed Jesus was a created, or illusionary, person.

In fact the Docetists were responsible for laying the groundwork for the very first Christian Bishopric in Antioch.  And what was the first Bishop of Antioch called?  Answer: Serapion. 

5 hours ago, DieChecker said:

while the Docetists believed Jesus was a created, or illusionary, person.

This is a misinterpretation of what the early Docetists believed.  They never considered Jesus to be anything other than an allegory.  The slack-jaw of the early Church theologians couldn't get their heads around that concept, and instead decided to murder each other over the "substance of Jesus" argument for a century, until it became "the same substance as the father" in the credo with a lake of innocent blood spilled to prove it.

5 hours ago, DieChecker said:

There existed a well established religion of 1800 bishops around 300 AD, who were firmly proto Catholic, but you're saying the only organized Christian religion 100 years earlier were the Gnostics?

No.  I am referring to the original creation of Christianity in 200BC as an extension of Serapism as a form of Hellenizing Judaism via the Therapeuts, who were responsible for the creation of the Essenes and the Mandeans over the course of time.  There was no such thing as a gnostic, that is a designation of a heresy used by later theologians at the Nicean Councils to silence mystical ideas they didn't like, as they weren't privy to them.

5 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Please pardon me, I've not studied the subject on a scholarly level, but I find that hard to believe.

Well, given that you haven't bothered to look properly, you really can't comment from an informed position.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
5 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

If you knew the subject better you could tell the answer. 

I guess I don't, 'cause I can't.

So tell me how you found out about this Zeroth Council of Nicaea in 318 (what everybody except you calls the First one happened in 325, so let me call yours the Zeroth to avoid confusion). Speaking of confusion, you don't find it an interesting coincidence that 318 bishops attended, the same number traditionally given (supposedly Athanasius' count) for the First council seven years later?

Anyway, there must be books or something written down somewhere in order for you to have found out about it. If they're not online, I understand. As luck would have it, I have stack priviliges at three international-class research university libraries, two of them Ivy League. (Meh, all in a day's work and a wasted youth; lots of people could say the same, but they don't know it, or don't fill out the paperwork. I have the kind of job where you need to know what resources are available, and how to get signed up).

So let's give it a roll, shall we? What were your sources? I don't promise that follow-up will make the top of my to-do list, but I think it'd be cool as a moose to be the second person to know about a brand new council, and to solve the canon puzzle in the bargain.

This isn't the kind of thing where you'd tell me, but then you'd have to kill me, is it?

 

Edited by eight bits
  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
9 hours ago, Alchopwn said:

If you knew the subject better you could tell the answer.  As to the records being purged, well, purged is not quite the right answer.  The fact is the Church got at the copies they possessed, but that was not all copies.  Who knows what the Church actually got away with censoring?  The Vatican is utterly unaccountable to anyone.

True. The Vatican does what it will. I do believe they have lots of forbidden knowledge/texts in their archives. 

But it does seem to me if what you say is true, it would pop up in the various ancient sources. It would be like trying to cover up bigfoot being real, or aliens being covered up. Extremely hard.

Quote

Christianity is so very schismatic that as far as I am concerned, anyone who claims that they take their inspiration from the teachings of Jesus and calls themselves a Christian is a Christian in my book.  I personally don't believe in heresy as a concept, and see it only as an attack on freedom of conscience, and certainly against the fine American tradition of Freedom of (and from) Religion.  To pretend even for a moment, that some people are not somehow "Christian" because they don't follow quite the same religious philosophy as your own preferred interpretation is a dangerous game.  What if you are wrong?  "Judge not lest ye be judged".

True. Judgement should be for God.

I tend to agree that someone calling themself a Christian is so... Till they prove otherwise. I dont consider it judging to say someone isnt Christian. I've in no way hampered them, and I've, on my side, in such a case, watched out for false teachers and prophets, as Jesus suggested. 

Quote

That is technically correct, its just that the same books that were neglected by the Sortes Sanctorum were also the ones later dumped into the Apocrypha.  Go figure.  This political attack represented nothing short of censorship of vulnerable religious minorities and an attack on freedom of conscience, that every thinking person should abhor.  Valuable alternative forms of mysticism were attacked and lost, and what was left was a totalitarian rump with all the genuine spiritual teaching left dead in a gutter, just so the Roman Emperors got the fascist version of Christianity they wanted and the Church got to hide their lies, and their ignorance behind a veil of unassailable totalitarian legal protection.

Wait, so books that remained canon in the East and West, that were later made Apocrypha were discarded around 300 AD? I suspect you are still referring to Gnostic texts, and calling them Apocrypha to legitimize them. How can texts be banned and yet remain in the canon scriptures centuries till the split of East and West?

Is there a list of these "sortes" banned texts?

Not everything different, especially in religion, is valuable. The church sought to centralize and organize Christianity. To get rid of fringe thinking cults. True... often those cults come up with interesting ideas/worship/beliefs, but again that doesnt infer value, other then to historians and religious scholars. Religion tend to foster conservatism, not experimentism.

Quote

In fact the Docetists were responsible for laying the groundwork for the very first Christian Bishopric in Antioch.  And what was the first Bishop of Antioch called?  Answer: Serapion.

I looked up Serapion on Wiki and it says just a handful of his work is left. But, it does say he wrote a letter condemning Docetist teachings, not that he fostered them.

Apparently Serapion was also anti-Gnostic.

Quote

Lastly, Eusebius quotes (vi.12.2) from a pamphlet Serapion wrote concerning the Docetic Gospel of Peter, in which Serapion presents an argument to the Christian community of Rhossus in Syria against this gospel and condemns it.[2]

Quote

Serapion also acted (Pantaenus supported him) against the influence of Gnosticism in Osroene by consecrating Palut as bishop of Edessa, where Palut addressed the increasingly Gnostic tendencies that the churchman Bardesanes was introducing to its Christian community. He ordained Pantaenus as a Priest or Bishop in Edessa.

Unless we're talking a different Serapion? The wiki article is about Serapion who died around 200 AD.

Quote

This is a misinterpretation of what the early Docetists believed.  They never considered Jesus to be anything other than an allegory. The slack-jaw of the early Church theologians couldn't get their heads around that concept, and instead decided to murder each other over the "substance of Jesus" argument for a century, until it became "the same substance as the father" in the credo with a lake of innocent blood spilled to prove it.

How do I know it is a misrepresentation? You're so far the only one I've ever heard profess this knowledge. And everything online I looked at disagrees with you.

I'd expect if the Christian Scholar community had knowledge of all this it would make it's way online real quick. Is it that no one, of millions of scholars, knows, or that there is some ban on exposing it? 

Quote

No.  I am referring to the original creation of Christianity in 200BC as an extension of Serapism as a form of Hellenizing Judaism via the Therapeuts, who were responsible for the creation of the Essenes and the Mandeans over the course of time.  There was no such thing as a gnostic, that is a designation of a heresy used by later theologians at the Nicean Councils to silence mystical ideas they didn't like, as they weren't privy to them.

The original creation of Christianity 200 years before Jesus would have been born?

You are losing me here.

Gnosticism was a real Greek thing, and it was natural for the Greeks to try to meld Gnosticism with Christianity. But, the evolving church in Rome decided these fringe Christians were wrong, in that Jesus was real, and supernatural, and not just a thought form.

Gnosticism was banned because it focused not on the Trinity of God, and not on the sacrifice of Jesus, and didnt recognize any of the Apostles, but did proclaim secret knowledge and rituals that the rest of Christianity had never followed.

Quote

Well, given that you haven't bothered to look properly, you really can't comment from an informed position.

So no references. Just going off memory. Seems to support the Gnostic view of Christianity....

I'm afraid you're still not convincing me.

Edited by DieChecker
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alchopwn
8 hours ago, DieChecker said:

True. The Vatican does what it will. I do believe they have lots of forbidden knowledge/texts in their archives. But it does seem to me if what you say is true, it would pop up in the various ancient sources. It would be like trying to cover up bigfoot being real, or aliens being covered up. Extremely hard.

Not really, because it wasn't as if the Vatican had much power in the early days of the Church, as by the time the papacy had any power, the Western Roman Empire (WRE) was collapsing.  It wasn't like today where everything is online.  Many monasteries didn't have a proper inventory of their libraries, as despite the notion of having book lists, they weren't always kept current. Also, despite the Islamic tendency to burn books that weren't the Quran, a great deal of the Library of Alexandria had been transferred to Damascus.  One way or another, a lot of heretical texts survived, and even Church projects such as trying to promulgate the Jesus in Josephus fraud remained obvious.  Much of this material remain hidden in royal libraries and private collections, and there was a lot of underground cache to having a banned book or two hidden away.  In fact this literary underground is where a lot of our present internationally most valued manuscripts for antiquarians come from.

8 hours ago, DieChecker said:

True. Judgement should be for God.

Not "for" but "by".

8 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I tend to agree that someone calling themself a Christian is so... Till they prove otherwise. I dont consider it judging to say someone isnt Christian. I've in no way hampered them, and I've, on my side, in such a case, watched out for false teachers and prophets, as Jesus suggested. 

You are effectively telling people who consider themselves to be Christian that they aren't, based on nothing but your own prejudice.  What makes you the authority other than arrogance?

8 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Wait, so books that remained canon in the East and West, that were later made Apocrypha were discarded around 300 AD? I suspect you are still referring to Gnostic texts, and calling them Apocrypha to legitimize them. How can texts be banned and yet remain in the canon scriptures centuries till the split of East and West?

The Sortes Sanctorum stacked the books, best to worst.  One assumes that lists were kept, but politics played a huge part in what was later selected, and a number of books that weren't popular in the WRE were kept because they were popular in the East.  In 318, nobody was declared a heretic, and no books were burned, yet...  That came later.  Remember also that there was no central printery, books were hand copied, and many communities with libraries kept and recopied books without reference to a central authority, as even during the Councils of Nicea, there were multiple popes around the Mediterranean, who each had a claim on seniority.

8 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Is there a list of these "sortes" banned texts?

Obviously, but not that I have found a copy of yet.  All the history says is that it extolled Mark's Gospel over the others.  This does remain a hole in the story, but when I was in Istanbul, I was told that Iviron monastery in Greece had a copy.

8 hours ago, DieChecker said:

Not everything different, especially in religion, is valuable. 

But who is to say what is and is not valuable?  Who dares to speak for God in this matter?  Judge not lest ye be judged.  The only argument that is ever put forwards is ultimately merely an appeal to authority, and the value of that authority is dubious in matters of conscience.  This statement is an argument for mindless conformity that denies the mystical, and without the mystical, why even bother to have a religion in the first place?  Without the mystical, the religion all just degenerates into a shabby excuse to get people putting money on a plate once a week.

8 hours ago, DieChecker said:

The church sought to centralize and organize Christianity. To get rid of fringe thinking cults. True... often those cults come up with interesting ideas/worship/beliefs, but again that doesnt infer value, other then to historians and religious scholars. Religion tend to foster conservatism, not experimentism.

Yes, with political success came the ability for some politically minded clergy who lacked any genuine connection with the holy spirit to settle old scores and turn the religion into a vampire that preyed on the ignorance of people in order to fund itself.  An ignorance that was carefully fostered by the powers that be so their authority, which was ludicrously thin, could not be challenged without violent reprisal.  The old Orwellian boot stamping on a human face forever, again.

8 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I looked up Serapion on Wiki and it says just a handful of his work is left. But, it does say he wrote a letter condemning Docetist teachings, not that he fostered them. Apparently Serapion was also anti-Gnostic. Unless we're talking a different Serapion? The wiki article is about Serapion who died around 200 AD.

Don't worry, we are talking about the original Serapion.  What you aren't getting is the family history of Bishop Serapion of Antioch.  He is the unknowing heir of a Docetist legacy that can be traced a fair way back, and his letters are actually a somewhat tragic betrayal of his family's religious history.  He was yet another undereducated appointment in the early Church, who failed to understand his legacy, or deliberately chose not to.  He was, after all, commenting on literature that his own family had, in the past, helped pay for having copied.

8 hours ago, DieChecker said:

How do I know it is a misrepresentation? You're so far the only one I've ever heard profess this knowledge. And everything online I looked at disagrees with you.

Perhaps you should extend your search to the third or fourth page of the search engine once in a while?  I also endorse following footnote texts where possible, and not only reading Catholic pages, and perhaps using Google Scholar instead of basic Google.

8 hours ago, DieChecker said:

I'd expect if the Christian Scholar community had knowledge of all this it would make it's way online real quick. Is it that no one, of millions of scholars, knows, or that there is some ban on exposing it? 

Millions of scholars?  Hardly.  A couple of thousand perhaps, of whom about 50 are worth reading.  Theology doesn't pay, in case you hadn't noticed.

8 hours ago, DieChecker said:

The original creation of Christianity 200 years before Jesus would have been born?

Yes, exactly.  There was no historical Jesus.  He's an allegorical character.

Edited by Alchopwn
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
30 minutes ago, Alchopwn said:

Obviously, but not that I have found a copy of yet.  All the history says is that it extolled Mark's Gospel over the others.  This does remain a hole in the story, but when I was in Istanbul, I was told that Iviron monastery in Greece had a copy.

So, your ultimate source is a rumor you once heard in Turkey that there was a document somewhere else?

OK, let's backtrack. Where did you read that "history says ... that it extolled Mark's Gospel over the others," that is, the name of the book, article, or other source, who wrote it, and any other information that might be helpful to somebody looking to find this source?

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alchopwn
13 hours ago, eight bits said:

So tell me how you found out about this Zeroth Council of Nicaea in 318 (what everybody except you calls the First one happened in 325, so let me call yours the Zeroth to avoid confusion). Speaking of confusion, you don't find it an interesting coincidence that 318 bishops attended, the same number traditionally given (supposedly Athanasius' count) for the First council seven years later?

I'm glad you asked. I was at the Halki Theological library in Istanbul, snooping some of the Byzantine collection, as I got special permission to be there, due to being a translator attached to an archaeological dig in Cappadocia in Nevşehir, Turkey involving an old fortress back in 2013.  My ancient Greek is probably better than my modern Greek.  Anyhow, I found a copy of Sabinus of Heraclea's works on the Councils of Nicea, and it was in there.  It also crops up in Socrates of Constantinople's Historia Ecclesiastica.  I would be surprised if there weren't further references in other texts as well.  As far as I am concerned it is somewhat shadowy, but its sheer shadiness is what makes it so intriguing, and to have it recorded and not subsequently expunged is also interesting.  I am inclined to regard it has historical.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker
11 minutes ago, Alchopwn said:

Not really, because it wasn't as if the Vatican had much power in the early days of the Church, as by the time the papacy had any power, the Western Roman Empire (WRE) was collapsing.  It wasn't like today where everything is online.  Many monasteries didn't have a proper inventory of their libraries, as despite the notion of having book lists, they weren't always kept current. Also, despite the Islamic tendency to burn books that weren't the Quran, a great deal of the Library of Alexandria had been transferred to Damascus.  One way or another, a lot of heretical texts survived, and even Church projects such as trying to promulgate the Jesus in Josephus fraud remained obvious.  Much of this material remain hidden in royal libraries and private collections, and there was a lot of underground cache to having a banned book or two hidden away.  In fact this literary underground is where a lot of our present internationally most valued manuscripts for antiquarians come from.

Well that's all good, but it doesnt help prove anything you said is true, or not. Without proof, basically you're just telling us a story.

We have all kinds of ancient Gnostic and Apocraphic texts, yet somehow the ones you're referencing are not among them?

Quote

You are effectively telling people who consider themselves to be Christian that they aren't, based on nothing but your own prejudice.  What makes you the authority other than arrogance?

Umm...  Yes!

I'd point at 1700 years of mostly consistant ceremonies, beliefs, and teachings, in the East, West, and among the Protestants. 1900 years of a Bible to reference as to what Jesus did, and didnt teach.

Just as I'd point at a Mormon and say they arent Christian. They split off from Christianity, just as Islam took much from Christianity.

I'd argue that even rejecting the divinity of Jesus is not enough to disqualify someone, or rejecting of the Trunity, or rejecting the Ressurrection, or rejecting miracles... Even rejecting the Bible can be forgiven to a point.

But denying Jesus completely IS, IMHO, a clear sign of a NonChristian. Rejecting Jesus' connection to God. Rejecting Jesus is the source of Salvation... these are big red flags.

Quote

The Sortes Sanctorum stacked the books, best to worst.  

Ah... see I was confused on that point. So the Sortas ranked the scriptures? 

Quote

But who is to say what is and is not valuable?  Who dares to speak for God in this matter?  Judge not lest ye be judged.  The only argument that is ever put forwards is ultimately merely an appeal to authority, and the value of that authority is dubious in matters of conscience.  This statement is an argument for mindless conformity that denies the mystical, and without the mystical, why even bother to have a religion in the first place?  Without the mystical, the religion all just degenerates into a shabby excuse to get people putting money on a plate once a week.

Ah, but Jesus said obey those in authority. Because all authority comes from God, so those people are there at God's will. So when 300+ Bishops gathered to figure out Christianity going forward, it could be nothing but God's will.

Those who sought conformity, did not reject the mystical. Indeed they demanded it. That Jesus WAS God. The Doctists/Gnostics believed nothing of the kind, AFAIK. They were interested in how to live, not the mystical.

Quote

Yes, with political success came the ability for some politically minded clergy who lacked any genuine connection with the holy spirit to settle old scores and turn the religion into a vampire that preyed on the ignorance of people in order to fund itself.  An ignorance that was carefully fostered by the powers that be so their authority, which was ludicrously thin, could not be challenged without violent reprisal.  The old Orwellian boot stamping on a human face forever, again.

Isnt that what all revolutionaries say? I'm being oppressed....

I'd agree it is true to an extent, but I have to admit the words, teachings, and ceremonies, that came from Jesus continued, and perhaps it took a restrictive organization to make that happen. Without a organized, centralized church, might we not all be Muslims right now?

Quote

Don't worry, we are talking about the original Serapion.  What you aren't getting is the family history of Bishop Serapion of Antioch.  He is the unknowing heir of a Docetist legacy that can be traced a fair way back, and his letters are actually a somewhat tragic betrayal of his family's religious history.  He was yet another undereducated appointment in the early Church, who failed to understand his legacy, or deliberately chose not to.  He was, after all, commenting on literature that his own family had, in the past, helped pay for having copied.

So what is known if this earlier Serapion? What proof he even existed? 

Quote

Perhaps you should extend your search to the third or fourth page of the search engine once in a while?  I also endorse following footnote texts where possible, and not only reading Catholic pages, and perhaps using Google Scholar instead of basic Google.

I'll try that, but there are some fringe sites out there I'm just never going to embrace as anything but rubbish.

Quote

Yes, exactly.  There was no historical Jesus.  He's an allegorical character.

You. I take it, are a Gnostic Christian?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
eight bits
33 minutes ago, Alchopwn said:

Anyhow, I found a copy of Sabinus of Heraclea's works on the Councils of Nicea, and it was in there.  It also crops up in Socrates of Constantinople's Historia Ecclesiastica. 

Thanks, that's helpful.

OK, so we might agree that these aren't two independent sources? Socrates of Constinople is generally held to have commented extensively and usually unfavorably on Sabinus of Heraclea. Are you saying this is an exception? Socrates agrees with Sabinus about these events of 318, even though they generally disagree about other historical conciliar claims?.

If that's the situation, then is it not also a concern that Sabinus seems to be about a century too late to serve as a witness to events of 318? Apart from his dicey reputation as a partisan?

Also, is it possible that you've misremembered your actual sources? Might your actual source have been more like this:

https://www.sacred-texts.com/the/iu/iu105.htm

Even if not, when it comes to historical fact claims, it's often a bad sign when the Theosophists agree with you. They're kind of a "negative barometer" for accuracy in religous history and, like you, seem to have a bug up their butts when it comes to mainstream Christianity.

Meh; an amazing coincidence, right?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alchopwn
51 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Well that's all good, but it doesnt help prove anything you said is true, or not. Without proof, basically you're just telling us a story.

The same criticism can be levelled at the entire Bible and all the Christian scholars who have ever lived. I honestly don't have the time to chase up my notes.  

51 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

We have all kinds of ancient Gnostic and Apocraphic texts, yet somehow the ones you're referencing are not among them?

I wasn't aware I had referenced any actual texts other than the Gospel of Mark, as I don't have a list to refer to.  Sabinus of Heraclea didn't provide one.

51 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I'd point at 1700 years of mostly consistant ceremonies, beliefs, and teachings, in the East, West, and among the Protestants. 1900 years of a Bible to reference as to what Jesus did, and didnt teach.

...As viewed through a lens of totalitarian censorship that have a totalitarian agenda of thought control.  Yeah, go for it.  That'll give you the whole picture.  It's like reading a History of the Romanov Dynasty written by Joseph Stalin.

51 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Ah, but Jesus said obey those in authority. Because all authority comes from God, so those people are there at God's will. So when 300+ Bishops gathered to figure out Christianity going forward, it could be nothing but God's will.

So you're calling Jesus a hypocrite?  Did Jesus obey those in authority when he scourged the temple?  The story of Jesus is one of continuous conflict with authority that ultimately leads to his crucifixion, and you are suggesting that we should take this obvious nonsense at face value?  Who exactly benefits from making Jesus say something that supports ideas that his acts contradict?  The totalitarians.  I don't buy it, and it says a lot about you that you choose to.

51 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

But denying Jesus completely IS, IMHO, a clear sign of a NonChristian. Rejecting Jesus' connection to God. Rejecting Jesus is the source of Salvation... these are big red flags.

But still really not for you to judge.  Just because someone thinks that Jesus is just a story book character, and never a real person doesn't invalidate their perspective, especially if their sect pre-existed all other Christian sects by 200 year or more, and all other Christian sects are ultimately derived from a superstitious misunderstanding of their teachings.  In fact, it is more likely to invalidate those derived from the younger and less well informed sources.

51 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

Those who sought conformity, did not reject the mystical. Indeed they demanded it. That Jesus WAS God. The Doctists/Gnostics believed nothing of the kind, AFAIK. They were interested in how to live, not the mystical.

Nonsense.  The Church put mysticism in a doctrinal straightjacket to insure it didn't happen and make them look bad.  As if anything as personal as a mystical experience can be forced to conform to doctrine without utterly mind controlling the victim?  I say victim, because by the time someone's mystical impulse can be so controlled that it actually conforms to orthodox dogma, what else can you call them?  They may as well have been neutered.

As for Jesus being god, well, no, as he gets things wrong, and that proves he isn't omniscient ergo he cannot be god.  Remember when Jesus points out that a mustard seed is the smallest of all seeds?  He was wrong.  Poppy seeds were cultivated in the Middle East at the time, and they are always smaller than mustard seeds.  Why wouldn't an omniscient being know that? 

As for what the Docetists and Gnostics believed, you aren't even close. Their communities were intensely mystical, in fact our very word for "reality" was derived from Catharism, and referred to "a state to which we return".  The doctrine of the Sophia is one of mystical liberation from the material world to a higher state of being, and away from the power of the Demiurge, who seeks to mislead people into thinking that he is god.

51 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

So what is known if this earlier Serapion? What proof he even existed? 

Don't ask that question too often or you may end up an atheist like me.  All we have is the same sketchy and incomplete Byzantine records that we have for everything else related to the period, but certainly more than nothing. 

51 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

I'll try that, but there are some fringe sites out there I'm just never going to embrace as anything but rubbish.

An open mind is not an uncritical mind.  The last thing I want to do is promote cults, the USA has way too many.

51 minutes ago, DieChecker said:

You. I take it, are a Gnostic Christian?

No, I'm an atheist.  I do however value intellectual diversity and freedom of conscience over authoritarianism, and I think the so-called Gnostics got an unreasonably bad deal all round, not least of which by religious scholars.

Edited by Alchopwn
  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alchopwn
19 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Thanks, that's helpful.

My study is now in an uproar.  I eventually found the library slips I used in my suitcase pocket.

21 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Thanks, that's helpful.

OK, so we might agree that these aren't two independent sources? Socrates of Constinople is generally held to have commented extensively and usually unfavorably on Sabinus of Heraclea. Are you saying this is an exception? Socrates agrees with Sabinus about these events of 318, even though they generally disagree about other historical conciliar claims?.

I have heard theological arguments based on flimsier evidence that got more traction, put it that way.

22 minutes ago, eight bits said:

If that's the situation, then is it not also a concern that Sabinus seems to be about a century too late to serve as a witness to events of 318? Apart from his dicey reputation as a partisan?

Yes, I noticed that when skimming the wiki page.

23 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Also, is it possible that you've misremembered your actual sources? Might your actual source have been more like this: https://www.sacred-texts.com/the/iu/iu105.htm

While I have definitely read Isis Unveiled, I didn't recall this being in it.  On the other hand, I can verify at least 2 of the 3 sources Blavatsky uses here.

29 minutes ago, eight bits said:

Even if not, when it comes to historical fact claims, it's often a bad sign when the Theosophists agree with you.

Yeah, I'm a bit more ambivalent now.  On the other hand, I have seen 2 of the 3 references she uses and can confirm them, and I get the feeling I know of another couple of references as well, but now I am second guessing myself, so thx for that LOL.  The point I will make is, whatever you think of Blavatsky and her agenda, and I am personally not a fan, her footnotes are valid, even if the points she thinks they illustrate aren't always quite so clear cut as she presumed.  I know charges of plagiarism were levelled against her, but that isn't quite the same as saying that he person she plagiarised was factually incorrect, merely that her personal claims of authorship were dishonest.

42 minutes ago, eight bits said:

They're kind of a "negative barometer" for accuracy in religous history and, like you, seem to have a bug up their butts when it comes to mainstream Christianity.

Well, given that the Pilgrim father had a bug up their butts about mainstream Christianity, I am not alone, and neither were they, as the legions of complaints echo down the ages. 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Alchopwn
On 10/17/2019 at 10:59 PM, Will Due said:

But why haven't you noticed that you've fallen for the lie that God is just a character in a myth?  You seem more than capable of recognizing truth so why not do your duty like everyone else must and separate the truth from the lies?

Sorry, to me the world looks like it was designed badly by a committee, not a single governing intelligence.  Furthermore, there are so many mistakes in your deity's alleged scripture that it cannot be inspired by an omniscient and perfect intelligence.  As such it is an obvious fraud, for a benevolent deity would simply not allow humans to be misled and an omnipotent deity could literally go back in time and correct all the errors before they were ever made, so no falsehoods were ever spoken in the deity's name.

As you say, I am more than capable of recognising the truth, consequently I can see that your God is indeed merely a storybook character, and frankly he's a petty, totalitarian, fetishistic, voyeuristic, judgemental, narcissistic, jealous, sexist, racist, genocidal and sadomasochistic character who represents much that is the lowest and shabbiest part of human nature, and yet this character is supposed to represent the highest moral example of goodness.  You have been brainwashed into not properly examining the character and motivations of your deity Will Due, but on closer inspection you will find that you worship an evil deity, and that can't be a good thing, for you or the world.  Isn't it great therefore that there is no evidence that this grubby tyrant is anything other than entirely fictional?  Rejoice, for you too can be rid of this god of letters and the parasitic con artists who deliver his threats of total obedience or eternal punishment in order to bilk the poor and gullible of their hard earned cash.

Edited by Alchopwn
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Habitat
1 hour ago, Alchopwn said:

so no falsehoods were ever spoken in the deity's name.

Right, so what would happen when someone decided to spout falsehoods about the deity ? Involuntary spasm of the vocal cords ? Writer's cramp when they went to write naughty things ? You do realise this is a crazy idea ?

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.