User Name:

Password:

FAQ Donate Join

Atheist Community of Austin
bombing in the name of religion...LMAO

Bullshit........I want an atheist to show the proof that they have that a persons motivation is based on what the person claims it is. Basically atheists are accepting the word of a maniac as being a fact without challenging the validity of their claims. An atheist who doesn't challenge whether or not this person is being truthful is nothing more than an idiot who believes something on blind faith. Of course as long as the assertion falls into what atheists are ready want to believe , well I guess that makes it true........LOL

Skip,

I have no idea of what you're responding to.

Since religious belief isn't grounded in an objective reality, the only thing that can be discussed about it is the claims that believers make about their own beliefs (their perceived mental states). I can't prove that someone is a Christian (or not). We can only go by what people call themselves. (There is also a wide variation in what Christians will accept as someone being a "true believer".) My own definition of a true believer is someone who would kill to please their god. What is your faith number? (http://www.atheist-community.org/library/articles/read.php?id=747)

Are you playing the game that true believers (by your definition) are only the ones that do good so that you get to discount the atrocities, while claiming the others are just lying about their belief? You may be committing the No True Scotsman fallacy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman).

There have been plenty of atrocities committed in the name of belief. Take a look at the long history of Christian persecuting Jews, including the Holocaust. Many atheists have been tortured for their lack of belief in God. It's also doubtful that the 9/11 attackers would have flown the planes into the buildings unless they believed that it would secure their special place in heaven along with their families. Surely, you've heard of the 72 virgins promised to martyrs for Islam. (Devout Muslim families are generally pretty happy when one of their kin dies a martyr.)

Do you have a good way of objectively determining what a person believes?

--Don

"What is my faith number"..assumption...what the hell are you talking about. An attempt to define something or someone without proof contradicts what an atheist claims is their approach to life. I disagree with and criticise you therefore I must be.....Right. Religious beliefs are not grounded in objective reality...Prove it. Prove religious doctrine wasn't derived from actual existing stimuli or observed phenomena. Prove that reality is defined accurately by the human brain. Prove no other possibility exists. We can only go by what people call themselves....Who proved this, cite the approach and method on which you base this "fact" and the authority on why you think this is true. Sounds more like you trying to manipulate me to believe what you do. Scotsman fallacy as far as religion.. Our religion teaches people to be loving kind and peaceful. Therefore if a person acts in an evil way they are not being kind or loving therefore they cant be a true member of our religion....... First off why would anyone take the position that the act of teaching includes the learning of and practising of that which was taught...this is ridiculous

There "have" been many atrocities committed in the name of belief....atheist conclusion is therefore people who commit atrocities are completely honest people. LOL Take a look at Christians persecuting Jews..I can play that game..White people enslaved black people, so therefore if black people were Asians they would not have been enslaved. Cite the proof you have that Christians persecution of Jews was inevitable because of religious beliefs and that this human behaviour is not innate. Many atheists have been tortured because of their lack of belief in God......Atheist position is therefore that people with the psychological disposition to torture other people are genuinely honest people as in to why they torture......LOL. Once again prove that this human behaviour is not innate. "It is doubtful that the people would have flown those planes into buildings unless they didn't believe it would secure their place in heaven." By whose authority on human behaviour have you made this ridiculous assertion other than your willingness to blindly accept these preposterous claims. Proving what someone believes.. a belief is only a true belief when applied to variables and differing applications. When someone claims they believe something then there cannot be scenarios where those beliefs are contradicted. Otherwise it isn't a belief as stated it is only an emotional attempt at convincing ones own self that they possess a belief in stead of a conditioned response.

>contradicts what an atheist claims is their approach to life

Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. There is no such thing as an "atheist" claim. There is no "atheist claim" about how anyone should approach life, although there may be people who make claims about the best ways to approach life who are also, coincidentally, atheists. Their claims are not, however "atheist" claims, but personal claims with no authority to represent any other athiest's views. A person can believe the best approach to life is to be utterly irrational, and still not believe a god or gods exist--and so, be an atheist. There is no atheist set of beliefs or dictates about anything. Just to address this one error/issue.

Don I overlooked a question you had for me because of time constraints. Lets take a look at how you define true believer and your attempt to create the deflection that my position is somehow equated with the no true scotsman fallacy. First off I noticed your definition of "true believer" was nothing more than a self indulgent attempt on your part to establish you have a valid position. So, we must first determine whether "True" is being used to modify "believer". According to your definition , believer is an individual who "believes" the concept of Christian theology. Correct? Are you then using "true" to define what the believer "thinks" the concept of Christianity means. You would first have to prove to me that this individual is correctly comprehending the meaning of the text, Because you are using this example under the incorrect assumption that the majority of people correctly understand the the ideas within the Christian theology. Your attempt to define "true believer" can be equated to the following analogy on , say debating the concept of time. Why do people believe that there are 24 hours in a day. Is is not true that the mechanisms of all clocks could be adjusted accordingly , slow the movement down, change the numbers on the face of the clocks to 1 thru 10 , thus establishing that there are actually 20 hours in a day. This of course is true. The reason why the "24 hour " day is defined as such is because this is the process on which concepts are established. Definitions in concepts are only true if the definition is consistant and they possess no contradictions. It is no different is respects to "believers", to attempt to comprehend something is to vague a position to take. "True" would have to be agreed upon between you and me. Unfortunately what I know about the "truth", when it comes to the meaning of the concepts within Christianity, is a subject which is way to involved to establish here. I hate typing and refuse to offer my proof that I correctly interpret Christian theology in this forum and that your debunking of Christian theology is not at all a debunking, but merely a debating of "incorrect" definitions without establishing or knowing the correct definitions in the first place.

Response to time - Perception of time is a subjective thing not a fact. Example: A kid thinks it is a long time until Christmas because they believe in Santa Clause. An adult thinks the time is short because there is no Santa Clause. (That is a concept or a perception.) I wrote this dissertation on time even though I know that no amount of explaining will ever satisfy those whose beliefs are based on faith not facts.

Quote - Because you are using this example under the incorrect assumption that the majority of people correctly understand the the ideas within the Christian theology. Your attempt to define "true believer" can be equated to the following analogy on , say debating the concept of time. Why do people believe that there are 24 hours in a day. Is is not true that the mechanisms of all clocks could be adjusted accordingly , slow the movement down, change the numbers on the face of the clocks to 1 thru 10 , thus establishing that there are actually 20 hours in a day. This of course is true. The reason why the "24 hour " day is defined as such is because this is the process on which concepts are established. Definitions in concepts are only true if the definition is consistant and they possess no contradictions.

You can do anything you want to with your clock- it doesn't change the reality of time (Time does exist, and the natural world offers constants that can measure time. Each of these timepieces relies upon a constant in nature, like the Earth's rotation.) Any exhibit that demonstrates otherwise is inaccurate. The only place where time doesn't exist is never-never land (Peter Pan). Your analogy is not logical or convincing, and your analogy has no relevance concerning the fundamental premise of time.

Physicist know that time is one of three fundamental quantities. The other is mass and distance. Viewed quantitatively, the rate at which we move with the arrow of time is well determined and specific (currently clocks are available that are accurate to one part in 1,000,000,000,000,000!).

Einstein provided us with Special Relativity and its notions of space-time. Since the Sun stays still while the Earth rotates, the position of the Sun overhead reveals the passage of time. This basic concept makes the sundial work as a timepiece. Ancient sundials were quite simple, telling only the approximate time. Today, a modern sundial can tell time to the minute. The natural world offers other constants that can measure time. Each of these timepieces relies upon a constant in nature, like the Earth's rotation or movement of water, to record and measure the passage of time. Horology is the Science of Time. In order to explain how time is calculated you have to understand internal geometry, harmony, and resonance of light quanta (photons).

International System of Units (SI)- A day is defined as 86,400 seconds. Each second is currently defined as-the duration of 9,192,631,770 periods of the radiation corresponding to the transition between the two hyperfine levels of the ground state of the caesium-133 atom. This makes the SI day last exactly 794,243,384,928,000 of those periods. Astronomy: A day of exactly 86,400 SI seconds is the fundamental unit of time in astronomy. For a given planet, there are two types of day defined in astronomy: 1 apparent sidereal day = a single rotation of a planet with respect to the distant stars (for Earth it is 23.934 solar hours) 1 solar day = a single rotation of a planet with respect to its star.

The skies can be used as a natural clock because of the interactions of bodies in the solar system (an obvious example is the sun.) Although dependent on latitude and time of year, the sun appears to rise and set each day in a simple pattern. By observing other bodies, larger amounts of time can be distinguished by simple observance. The moon is the second most luminous object in the sky and easily observable from the Earth. The movement of the moon around the Earth produces an effect that occurs in which the moon appears to go through phases. These phases are easily distinguishable and are periodic. The moon is an excellent natural clock.

The time that it takes to go from one phase all the way through the other phases and back to the original phase is approximately 29.5 days. Therefore, based on a period of 29.5 days, the moon can be used to keep track of days. A new moon represents the first day of a lunar month. The moon continuously becomes more illuminated until it becomes a full moon. The period of time when the moon is becoming more illuminated is called waxing. After it has reached the full moon stage half way through the cycle, it starts becoming less illuminated every day and is said to be waning. Other important phases of the moon include quarter (either waxing or waning) in which exactly one half of the moon is illuminated. Because of the physical properties of the motion of the earth, the celestial sphere makes observable patterns of movement across the sky as viewed from the earth. Various lengths of time can be recorded by the observance of these movements. The motions of the stars also make patterns that are useful in telling time. This method of time telling was used thousands of years ago. Technology and advanced methods for keeping time are used today, including the movement of atoms. But the sun, moon, and stars are a method for keeping track of time. Ancient Egypt provides an excellent example of the utility of the stars in keeping time for agricultural purposes. The Egyptians that led to the formation of a yearlong calendar noted an important discovery. A star called Sirius rose next to the sun every 365 days, and allowed the Egyptians to then accurately predict seasons. Later improvements included the addition of stars so that time was kept using 36 stars, not to mention the immediate value of the sun and moon. The planets Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn are easily visible with the naked eye. They also make paths across the nighttime sky. But the planets' apparent motion generates problems in keeping time. Because of their proximity to the Earth compared to stars, they do not "move" in the same type of observable patterns. All of the planets have different orbital periods, causing an effect known as retrograde motion. Because the Earth orbits the Sun more quickly, it "catches up" and surpasses Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn, causing an observed effect of apparent backwards movement by the planets. Based on the criteria of natural clocks, other extraterrestrial bodies make excellent clocks. In a given period, they exhibit definable initial and final conditions (these of course being the same position and/or phase). Some celestial bodies go through irreversible processes on a short-term basis- for example, the moon will never skip phases or go back to others without completing a full cycle.

Theology does have a problem with the reality of time, the age of rocks, the age of the earth, and the formation of the universe. The reason preachers have a problem with time is the creation story as described in the Bible verses. The scientific theories of how this planet developed, and the time factor, which can be proven by carbon dating and other scientific research, has presented them with a huge problem. The earth is not flat; the earth is not the center of the universe, and the reality of time has nothing to do with numbers on a clock.

Oops, forgot to define "true believers". You took the position that you thought I was defining "true believers" as only those who only do good things. Wrong , suffice it to say you are not capable of grasping how I define true believers because it negates the ability for there to be more than one and only one person in existence to be a " true believer ",i.e. someone who knows the truth in religious texts and then adopts and goes through this world accordingly. Don't think this is the no true Scotsman fallacy. I would first have to take a defined position and then change my evidence after you counteract it.

So, first you post a message saying that nobody that commits an act of violence in the name of biblical God could possibly have genuine belief in said God. And then, after the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy is brought up, you go on to state that you're obviously not committing it because all religion teaches is turning your cheek, peace, love, and harmony, and that anything outside of this interpretation - your interpretation - is a false interpretation, and thus, anyone who believes it clearly isn't a true believer.

In other words, you say that you're not committing the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy, and then, in justifying this, you commit the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.

What Don was saying about belief not being grounded in objective reality is this- When someone comes along, claiming that they're doing something under divine mandate, or that they're guided by faith of some kind, there is absolutely no way to test the validity of that statement. For example, I have a friend that says that she is a true believer in the Iroquois creation myth that North America lies on the back of a giant turtle. I have a hard time believing that she believes that this story is a reflection of physical objective reality, as the makeup of the earth is fairly well documented, but never-the-less, this is what she says the believes in spite of evidence. I have no way of contesting that belief, and no way of arguing against that belief because, by her own admission, it isn't based on evidence, but rather on faith.

Whether you like it or not, it's exactly the same with Christian belief. No Christian has any reliable evidence to suggest that any of the supernatural things from which they claim to derive their teachings actually exist at all. The bible was written by men, and nobody has any way to test whether it was divinely inspired. Judging from the number of errors it makes, however, in contradicting itself, history, other holy books, and physical objective reality, there's a fairly good case to be made against it. You do not (nor does anyone else) have any grounds on which to claim that people don't believe what they claim to believe. You can't make an argument that Scientologists don't believe that Lord Xenu actually existed, nor can you claim that people that fly planes into towers, bomb abortion clinics, or beat up homosexuals and atheists arbitrarily don't do so out of a belief in Yahweh, Jehovah, Allah, or whatever else you want to call the God of Abrahamic religion, even when they themselves say that faith is their motivation.

Love your neighbor, turn the other cheek, do unto others etcetera, etcetera, etcetera is only your interpretation of the bible. And it's your interpretation in spite of the other sections of the bible that fully endorse the wholesale slaughter of those who violate the codes set fourth in the holy book. While you might stand back and smugly claim that you're a true believer because you know that the true message of religion is peaceful, know that elsewhere, there's a man not entirely unlike you standing back and smugly saying that he's a true believer because he knows that the bible says we should put homosexuals to death, which it does, and he thoroughly intends on acting on this divine mandate to avoid the eternity of pain and suffering in a lake of hellfire that you, me, and all the rest of us surely have waiting for us.

Lastly, you say that our small brains surely couldn't grasp your complex definition of 'true believer' which, in your words would, "[negate] the ability for there to be more than one and only one person in existence to be a ' true believer ' ,i.e. someone who knows the truth in religious texts and then adopts and goes through this world accordingly." Well, while my brain is racing to keep up with the logical processes of a man who has not yet grasped the proper use of question marks, my gut tells me that this "one and only one person" might be... I don't know... Jesus? Holy crap, that was hard! Well, let me say this- that's not a common definition, it's certainly not held as the definition by many people who use the words 'true believer', nor is it a particularly useful definition of the term for discussion.

When did I claim what religion teaches......Atheist attempt at deflection

"When did I claim what religion teaches......Atheist attempt at deflection"

You did it right here-

"Our religion teaches people to be loving kind and peaceful. Therefore if a person acts in an evil way they are not being kind or loving therefore they cant be a true member of our religion......."

Doc i was responding to religous version of "true scotsman fallacy" you are not reading my thread closely enough. Pay closer attention I then state Why would anyone take the position that teaching of something includes the learning of and practising of that something.....

In other words I dont subscribe to that position.....

And I have in no way said What I think religion teaches........I'm not about to go into the ideas within religous concepts.. This has always been about the atheist approach to deducing ideas.

Me again...

>This has always been about the atheist approach to deducing ideas.

Atheism is a lack of belief in a god or gods. It is irrelevant _how_ an atheist draws that conclusion. There is no "atheist approach" to anything. I thought maybe your first gaff was an error, but seeing it again, I don't think you actuall understand what "atheism" is.

in an attempt to deflect issue and position oneself, and ideas, as being superior atheist sites irrelevant information, i.e. " lack of understanding of the use of question marks, "..........atheist then says.......

"your definition of "true believer" isn't USEFUL to the discussion".... prove my definition is wrong instead of admitting you accept something as being true without proof Doc. Instead of refusing to correct an error in order to debate issue honestly , instead of blind submission to something because it satisfies an emotional need to convince yourself you have a superior idea. Confront the fact as into what the actual definition of a term is that you use a debating tool.

Now this is simply the most laughable claim by you Doc....... "the definition used by the majority " atheist claiming if the majority say so it must be true....

And lastly atheist claims without proof, "If someone comes along , claiming they're doing something under divine mandate, or that they are guided by faith of some kind...There is "ABSOLUTELY NO WAY " to test the validity of that statement. Site the proof you have of this.......... All anyone has to do is first inquire as to where their faith comes from. Explore the text they site. Conclude whether they correctly understood the text and deduce whether their belief is valid. After all how can someone believe the sky is blue if they don't understand or know the definition of blue. It is nothing more than extracting whether this persons "belief" is derived from actual meaning in text or whether an individual wrongly defined something and then formed "invalid" belief in regards to teachings of text.

You're not getting the point. There's no one correct interpretation. That's the whole point of the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy. You have no more authority to conclude what is the correct interpretation than they do.

As for whether the literal text says it, more often than not, it does. For example, Leviticus 20:13, "And if a man lie with mankind, as with womankind, both of them have committed abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them." So, next time someone beats a gay man to death saying that he has biblical backing, know that he's not misinterpreting the text. He's using a different one than you, but not getting it wrong. There's a huge difference.

Just so we understand this ,you have now admitted in the hypothetical that religious doctrine comes from God and serves a "purpose".

OK doc. Prove the definition of "put to death" in this instance of text refers to , "Enacting physical harm until death as understood by man". Look here's your problem. Just because you think, "put to death" means the physical death , it is impossible for someone to derive a belief from this text within the true meaning of the text unless they understand it. Just because someone states this is where their behaviour is validated , you must extract from the individual if they understand the true meaning. If not, they are acting out of self indulgence and their own motivation merely siting that they think this means something isn't enough. And your position that my "interpretation" is different is wrong. This text has a specific meaning and purpose and it in no way means "putting the end to the "physical" existence of someone." Therefore no matter how you want to justify your claim that "its true, a person derived a belief from this text that caused them to kill homosexuals," it is not possible to derive that belief from this text while understanding it. Now, you wanna debate whether beliefs are from religious texts are do you merely want to justify behaviour siting religious text in order to forward your own agenda. A belief comes from understanding , not just hoping something has a meaning.

There's no correct interpretation....of "true believer"...wrong, this is a definition of someone. My definition exists within a consistent philosophical position and has no contradictions. To merely accept that this is an opinion would have negated your attempt at debating me....i.e. if we don't agree upon the definitions of terms how can we be debating the same subject. You have no proof that "true believer" is an idea merely left up to an interpretation. You are willingly accepting this premise to satisfy your own agenda. You want something to mean something not because you have proven it is true, but only because it falls within your own selfish needs to promote what you believe is true.

One more thing Doc. You say the definition I site of true believer........is one and only Jesus......YOU ARE WRONG............Thus proving my claim you couldn't grasp what my definition meant. After all, according to historical sequence claimed by the Christian concept , Jesus existed before the books of the bible, so how in the hell could Jesus have read the Bible.......LOL

Thus the comedy of errors within the atheist community goes on............. just joking guys

You cannot be a "TRUTH" believer, if you dont know the truth. we agree to go separate ways . I'm tired of typing and TYPING SUKS

I will read anything you print Doc but not until Fri. I do enjoy this but this is something that should be left to a face to face debate of ideas and beliefs...because TYPING SUCKS

"Just so we understand this ,you have now admitted in the hypothetical that religious doctrine comes from God and serves a "purpose"

Uh... no. I didn't. In fact, I said given the contradictions that the texts have with themselves, other texts, history, and physical objective reality, the claim is extremely far fetched. Does it have a divinely inspired purpose? No, probably not. However, the importance of discussing the bible and other holy texts doesn't come from meaning given to it by a spooky incompetent father figure in the sky, but rather from the fact that 75% - 80% of the planet follow one holy book or another, and some, especially the monotheist that compose 50% of those numbers, use those texts to inform their actions.

"My definition exists within a consistent philosophical position and has no contradictions. To merely accept that this is an opinion would have negated your attempt at debating me....i.e. if we don't agree upon the definitions of terms how can we be debating the same subject. You have no proof that "true believer" is an idea merely left up to an interpretation. You are willingly accepting this premise to satisfy your own agenda. You want something to mean something not because you have proven it is true, but only because it falls within your own selfish needs to promote what you believe is true."

Your position is contradicted by the millions and millions of other religious folk that would categorize true believer in a vastly different way than you do. If the term wasn't up for interpretation, as you assert, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. As far as your allegation that "[I] want something to mean something not because [I] have proven it is true, but only because it falls within [my] own selfish needs to promote what you believe is true." What do you mean, exactly? My definition (one who asserts the existence of a deity as fact rather than a poorly supported story in the face of the utter lack of evidence) is both far more reasonable than yours, and also drawn from how it's used in discussion or what one might read in the entry for 'belief' in the dictionary rather than pulled out of thin air, as your mystery definition is.

"One more thing Doc. You say the definition I site of true believer........is one and only Jesus......YOU ARE WRONG............Thus proving my claim you couldn't grasp what my definition meant."

Ok, well then you need to elaborate on what your definition of 'true believer' in a less nonsensical fashion before stirring up debates on who is or isn't a true believer. Who else would a Christian claim had a better understanding of the "intended" message of Christianity than everyone's favorite undead carpenter?

"After all, according to historical sequence claimed by the Christian concept , Jesus existed before the books of the bible, so how in the hell could Jesus have read the Bible.......LOL"

Correction, the old testament, also known as the first half of the Christian bible was from well before the time that Jesus is said to have lived. Nice try though.

Honestly, I don't know what else to say here. You keep making the same fallacious statements over and over again whilst offering nothing to back them up. Others keep telling you why it's a fallacy, and then you simply dismiss it without addressing any of the arguments put fourth. Here, just for fun, in your own words, is the 'No True Scotsman' fallacy.

"Just because someone states this is where their behaviour is validated , you must extract from the individual if they understand the true meaning. If not, they are acting out of self indulgence and their own motivation merely siting that they think this means something isn't enough. And your position that my "interpretation" is different is wrong. This text has a specific meaning and purpose and it in no way means "putting the end to the "physical" existence of someone." Therefore no matter how you want to justify your claim that "its true, a person derived a belief from this text that caused them to kill homosexuals," it is not possible to derive that belief from this text while understanding it."

You say, in roughly so many words, that, 'My interpretation is right, their interpretation is wrong, and anyone using their interpretation doesn't really understand the text', thus making them not a true believer because, in your own definition, you said that the true believer is someone who has a "correct" interpretation (aka. your interpretation) of holy texts and lives their life according to that interpretation. This is a fallacious statement for the same reasons that it was a fallacious statement about 20 posts ago. It's both very, very incorrect, and extremely arrogant to claim that there is one and only one interpretation - your interpretation - to be produced.

Doc , nobody asked you how you define "true believer". Your attempting to change the subject. I said you define the "Idea" of true believer as being an interpretation, it is not. Secondly, I said Jesus could not have read the Bible. You say the Bible had a few books written while Jesus supposedly walked the earth, "some of the books" isn't the Bible. Though you are correct in the position that Jesus would understand the text if read. But the Bible was written for mankind. I never said who wrote it. Secondly, my definition is contradicted by millions and millions of people. Well. they must be right because they are "millions and millions of people." You then try to make this subject about Christians claims of a deity to further avoid the issue. You also claim you deduced contradictions with the religious text. Unfortunately this is only true in so far as the incorrect definitions claimed by Christians. I. e. you uncover contradictions from definitions not found in the Bible, merely contradictions because the initial definition is incorrect, making your claim invalid.

You are also claiming that the Bible is left up for interpretation.....wrong. The Bible is a concept in which consistent understanding is only possible if the reader understands the context and definiitons therein. It has consistent positions as long as the reader knows how the concepts are correctly defined. You don't understand the definiitons there fore you can't expose contradictions.

The Bible isn't left up to interpretation.....Period. It has specific definitions in order to establish relationships within the concept. You are taking the position that definitions in concepts can be "defined" based on the readers interpretation.

Interpret..(def.) To bring out the meaning of , (dramatic work, or music) by performance or execution So you think the Bible means whatever someone thinks it does. Here lies the problem with atheists........ They will debate the wrong definition of something as long as it supports their own agenda, instead of first asking an individual to prove that they actually know what "the something" means. Atheists blindly accept that a person is telling them the correct definition of something, without proof that the definition is correct....blind faith, ( belief "WITHOUT TRUE UNDERSTANDING , PERCEPTION OR DISRIMINATION ) I accept how someone defines the text of the Bible without true understanding of what it means, I will blindly allow Christians to tell me what the Bible means or I will apply my own definition as long as it allows my position to seem valid. The Bible has definitions within in the text which first must be understood. If you are saying the definition in the Bible means something and that is not how it is defined, you are not discussing the Bible. If you read something in the Bible and are not applying the correct definition you cannot form beliefs from that which you don't understand the definition of. I believe the sky is blue even though I dont know what the definition of blue is.........Gotcha

"The Bible isn't left up to interpretation.....Period. It has specific definitions in order to establish relationships within the concept. You are taking the position that definitions in concepts can be "defined" based on the readers interpretation."

There's no room for interpretation of the bible? Seriously? If that's really going to be your position, you have a whole lot of explaining to do, and you certainly can't simply assert that your position is true. For example, if there's absolutely no room for interpretation of the bible, why are there over 20,000 separate Christian sects worldwide with vastly different practices and beliefs? Which sect got the bible right?

Now, onto the second paragraph.

"Interpret..(def.) To bring out the meaning of , (dramatic work, or music) by performance or execution So you think the Bible means whatever someone thinks it does."

Sounds good up until here.

"Here lies the problem with atheists........ They will debate the wrong definition of something as long as it supports their own agenda, instead of first asking an individual to prove that they actually know what "the something" means. Atheists blindly accept that a person is telling them the correct definition of something, without proof that the definition is correct....blind faith, ( belief "WITHOUT TRUE UNDERSTANDING , PERCEPTION OR DISRIMINATION ) I accept how someone defines the text of the Bible without true understanding of what it means, I will blindly allow Christians to tell me what the Bible means or I will apply my own definition as long as it allows my position to seem valid."

No, no, no! Now, I don't really care about the random mud slinging, but don't make it look as if you're going to actually address an argument only to turn around at the last minute and go on an unfounded rant about how bad atheism is. It's a red herring, and moreover, very anticlimactic.

Here you get back on track, sort of.

"If you are saying the definition in the Bible means something and that is not how it is defined, you are not discussing the Bible."

Now, I would try to argue that there's really no reason to assume divine authorship of the bible, or divine anything at all, and in so doing render the concept of inherent meaning in the bible meaningless, but that would be a waste of time. So, let me put it like this- why is your interpretation the correct one? How do you know? I'm willing to bet that God doesn't come down from on high to flash you a thumbs-up whenever you happen to successfully extract meaning from a passage. Is it because that's what a preacher tells you? Is it the beliefs held by your family? Or is it simply the meaning that seems to come to you when you read it?

If it's any of the above, with the exception God coming down from on high and flashing you a thumbs up, please explain why you have the slightest bit of reason to say that other sects, which derive different meanings from the texts in exactly the same methods, are obviously false, while yours, of course, are clearly true.

That or, well, you could simply leap to another subject entirely. Or better yet, yell about how mean and dogmatic atheists are. All the while, touting the superiority of your biblical interpretation over all of the other forms of Abrahamic religion.

....."Why is your interpretation the correct one"...invalid question implying definitions within concepts are up for interpretation. i.e. The 24 four hour day in the concept of time is left up to interpretation thus meaning if someone interprets it to mean that a 24 hour day lasts three weeks they have a valid position. " how do you know " implying it is not possible for knowledge to be innate contradicting the existence of musical savants who at the age of 3 must have learned music from someone. ..."What a preacher tells you " implying position that my, say ,definition of true believer is demonstrable to exist within someone or something you have been exposed to.... you didn't readily admit ever hearing that definition before , although I know you haven't. So you refuse acknowledgment of uniqueness. " Beliefs held by my family" implying truth is a belief " Or is it something that just comes to you when you read it" implying the understanding is merely my own self indulgent delusion None of these... simply put..... if you are capable of extracting that a position I have ,within how I define the concepts of Religious text, collapses under numerous applied variables then the position itself would be incorrect.

Example of position........ God is defined within the contents of the Bible as always existing. i.e did not come into being but has always been....."Definition within a concept" Individual then takes counter position "you can't prove God exists" invalid response to original position the original position would be a debate about whether or not ,counter position, "is there an example of something that has always existed," is this definition possible." So now debate with me whether or not you can site an example of "Anything" that has always existed........matter ,energy I don't know I'm sure there has to be something you think has always been in existence. Maybe not I dont know you. Unless you believe something comes from nothing, (my assumption) this is an involved subject and this is just an elementary way of me proving that it is valid to define God as having always existed within a definition in a concept. thus robbing you of the " Who created God " position I'm merely assuming you have a position of argument that seems to come from numerous atheists I've seen debating Christians. Let me reassure you in no way am I saying I can prove God exists or for that matter care to confront you about that particular subject.

Quote - So now debate with me whether or not you can site an example of "Anything" that has always existed........matter ,energy

If someone can't prove that some entity does not exist it should be kept out of the argument! Then it's not nothing. Nothing cannot exist! Yes, you are correct and you have NOW ... come up with Something from Nothing! Quantum science teaches that unless something is observed it is not real. An entity does not exist merely because someone says it exists. If there is no tangible evidence to test for its presence it isn't there. The bible is anything but a perfect book, but belief in god is based on this flawed rubbish. Of course some believers take both sides so they won't be called ATHEIST. (Whatever truth we live by needs to be self-evidenced, requiring neither proof nor disproof.)

You say god exists simply because you want it to be so, with outrageous claims come the burden of proof .... CONCLUSION - JEREMIAH 8:8 "How can you say, we are wise, and the Law of the Lord is with us'? But, behold, the false pen of the scribes has made it into a lie,"

Linda, can you give an example of what you mean by "quantum science teaches that unless something is observed it is not real"?

In order to study anything scientifically you have to have evidence that it exist, it can't be done on faith. You can use the math of quantum mechanics to solve problems... Science answers questions about things that do exist like matter, the natural laws, and the universe. Laws of physics, astronomy, and the exploration the cosmology of the universe are studied through quantum science.

To apply reason and logic to explain the world rather than superstition is not immoral. Using coherent judgment instead of religious zeal, or hysterical madness to solve the unsolved.

Although the dutiful devout person sincerely trusts the preacher guy's judgment over their own; I believe what someone said "There is something immoral about abandoning your own judgment". ...

I prefer my own sense of what is logical, rather than to have to meet someone else's.

By "quantum science teaches" (or, if you prefer, by "science teaches") do you mean through experimental results and, if so, is there some more specific result that you have in mind?

A scientific explanation better be consistent with natural law, or it won't get very far within the scientific community (assuming the community is paying attention).

Fields such as astrology and homeopathy are generally ignored within the scientific community because of they completely ignore the requirement to reference natural laws. Creationist literature is perhaps more striking, as substantial amounts of it is devoted to precise descriptions of which natural laws (such as those governing radioactive decay and the motion of tectonic plates) must have been systematically violated in order to make a creationist viewpoint consistent with scientific evidence.

It is clear that much of science is performed in reference to natural law, or involves attempts to describe such laws via observations of natural systems. More commonly, however, natural laws act as limitations on what science will consider: models and hypotheses are formulated in reference to natural laws in the sense that nothing is proposed that knowingly violates them, and those proposals that do are rejected.

But much of science, as well as the applied fields derived from it, occur at a significant distance from the most fundamental of natural laws, such as those of quantum mechanics. Science has coped with this in a variety of ways. In some of these cases, observations have led to other natural laws that are separated from those of physics (for example: all organisms on earth are related through common descent). In other fields, science is still awaiting the technological advances that can allow a more direct, quantitative study of processes that can link observations to natural laws. In cases such as these, the work focuses on a subset or approximation of natural laws. For example, those studying protein structures recognize that they ultimately form through processes that originate at the quantum level. Most of the insights in the field, however, can be derived by a focus on charge attraction/repulsion and Van der Waals forces.

Good Bye

Predictions of science, including predictions of quantum mechanics, can be fun to derive. Have you had the occasion to derive predictions of quantum mechanics (for example, the blackbody spectrum and the spectrum of atomic hydrogen) and, if so, which have you found to be among the most enjoyable?

You see, you're not making any points about why my argument is wrong. You're repeatedly dismissing it offhandedly as being invalid because it contradicts your beliefs. I have put forth a number of criticisms of your position of a single pre-defined meaning in the bible, and you didn't address or even mention one of them. Rather than chasing after your train of thought, I would ask that you stop ranting and merely asserting that your points are true without acknowledging criticism.

"....'Why is your interpretation the correct one'...invalid question implying definitions within concepts are up for interpretation."

Listen, regardless of whether you believe that there is inherent meaning in the bible, the position that the bible is not interpreted is purely asinine. Even you think that there are a number of people that misinterpret the "true message" bible, and come to a "false understanding" of it. That implies interpretation. There is no way to come to a false understanding if there's not multiple ways to interpret the text. You just happen to assume that the one you hold is the correct one.

He wants to discuss where your opinions come from - but you don't want to discuss how the Christinsanity got their opinions. Well, here are a few reasons.

Your Quote - "After all, according to historical sequence claimed by the Christian concept Jesus existed before the books of the bible, so how in the hell could Jesus have read the Bible.......LOL" Laugh all you want! Why not examine some of the foolishness in the bible babble. Then you could really laugh… Jesus told a man: Mark 8:34 "... Whosoever will come after me let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow me." This statement was made early in his ministry. Yet, the cross could not have become a Christian symbol until after the Crucifixion. There would be nothing to pick up. This utterance would have made no sense whatever to the man being addressed.

Most believers say that the Bible is totally without error, and free from all contradiction; referring to the complete accuracy of Scripture.

Matt. 5:22 "...but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire." Yet, Jesus repeated called people fools: Matt. 23:17,19 "Ye fools and blind..." Luke 11:40 "Ye fools,..."

Your Quote - But the Bible was written for mankind. I never said who wrote it.

Mssr. Abelard Reuchelin an earnest researcher of historic genealogies concluded that Christianity is fake. The New Testament, the Church, and Christianity, were all the creation of the Calpurnius Piso family, who were Roman aristocrats. (The New Testament and all the characters in it...are all fictional.) Abelard Reuchelin, an earnest researcher of historic genealogies who specialized in ancient families began to zero in on one family in particular, the Piso family of Roman Patricians, who dominated the Roman aristocracy over several generations, producing caesars, consuls, generals, statesmen, philosophers, historians, scholars and bishops of the early Church. Blood and marriage relations within the Piso family included Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, Suetonius, Trajan, Vitellius, Vespasian, Julius Caesar's uncle. Lucius Piso, Galba Caesar, and etc…the same tribe essentially ruled Rome directly for over two hundred years, and indirectly via the Church up to the present.

Mssr. Abelard discover that the authorship of the New Testament, and hence Christianity, was an ongoing Piso family project for over two generations, utilizing some of the best literary minds of the age as a battering ram against a series of alarmingly effective Jewish revolutions primarily in Judea, but also spreading to Egypt. The Pharisee party was in a powerful geopolitical position to choke trade routes and a powerful ideological position to challenge a variety of what they viewed as idolatries, with a monotheism that was at its core anti-slavery. Roman abuses and the abuses of their puppet regimes had created a tinderbox that could easily be fanned into a full-scale insurrection of the Eastern provinces. It was obvious to the patrician strategists that the Jewish ideology had to be countered on its own terms. Judea preached a pacifist message; the writings of Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, the subsequent Epistles, the personages including the Christ figure, the apostles, the later important converts, Simon Peter, Saul/Paul, etc. were fabricated out of various Eastern mythologies, and in some cases, the biographies of the conspirators, themselves.

This argument is made stronger by a glaring and obvious body of supporting historic fact, although fact by omission. One of the great conundrums to Biblical research has been the nagging lack of independent contemporary documentation making any reference whatsoever to a nascent Galilean religion. All extant literature dating from before 100 A.D., which makes reference to early Christianity, is from the pen of the conspirators, often writing under pseudonyms. Reuchelin claims that the contemporary Jewish General and historian Flavius Josephus is, in fact, Arius Calpurnius Piso. The real support to this case of vacant references to early Christianity is to be found in the strange silence that surrounds researches into the famous Dead Sea Scrolls; leather, parchment and metal scrolls written in Hebrew which have been unearthed in the hundreds, often complete and in excellent condition. The records of religious events, important commentaries and chronicles by a sect of Essene scribes and scholars writing in Judea for a hundred years up to 70 A.D. And nowhere is mention made of a new religion, a Messiah, a worker of miracles, a preaching to multitudes, a trial and crucifixion. Nothing. This silence is a great embarrassment to Biblical scholars and is treated extremely cautiously by the Biblical academic community.

The Church is nothing more than a corrupt institution that has no ability to forgive or redeem anyone. And has no power to judge you.

>But the Bible was written for mankind.

Actually, the OT books were written for Hebrews very specifically--not "mankind"--if by "mankind" we mean people in general. Also, the NT books were almost all addressed to specific groups or individuals--not to "mankind." It would be as though I wrote a letter to the ACA, and 1,000 years later people read it as though I wrote it to them. Most books of the Bible are addressed to a very specific audiences, and clearly not intended as general reading for "everybody" (they're mainly letters in the NT--correspondence to certain individuals from other individuals--addressed as letters).

Hey Skip, If you think typing "suks", then why do you continuously type responses-not only to others, but to your own self? Also, I am concearned about something.Why are you so often "laughing out loud"-are you trying to drown out the voices in your head. (If so, try some chamomile tea instead). I do commend you on one thing, though-you have invented some words and phrases I have never heard before, ala Amy from 'Little Women."

Max wrote,

"The bible was written by men, and nobody has any way to test whether it was divinely inspired. Judging from the number of errors it makes, however, in contradicting itself, history, other holy books, and physical objective reality, there's a fairly good case to be made against it."

Max A judge can not make a judgment with out facts; therefore I would like to see your facts to the many errors the Bible makes. And in no way do I want your assumptions based on your readings of the bible but only your study of the original documents. Can I get that from you MAX! By the way here are the guidelines.

Inerrant "Inerrancy means that when all facts are known the Scriptures in their original autographs (manuscripts) and properly interpreted will be shown to be wholly true in everything that they affirm, whether that has to do with doctrine or morality or with the social, physical, or life sciences." (Paul Feinburg, in Inerrancy, p. 299)

As we face challenges to inerrancy, it is essential that we keep some important qualifications in mind that Dr. Robert Pyne points out in his Dallas Seminary Notes.

o The doctrine of inerrancy does not guarantee knowledge of the solution to problem passages. It rather guarantees the existence of or possibility of formulating solutions to such problems.

o Inerrancy (like inspiration) applies to the autographs. Manuscript variations and transmission errors do not contradict the doctrine of inerrancy, and our translations are inerrant to the extent that they reflect the original text.

o Inerrancy applies to that which Scripture affirms. The accurate reporting of human or satanic lies does not contradict the doctrine of inerrancy. There is no implication that sources quoted are themselves inerrant.

o Inerrancy does not demand strict adherence to grammatical rules. Inerrancy concerns the conformity of affirmations to reality not the conformity of writing to grammar and syntax.

o Inerrancy allows for general, phenomenal, and metaphorical assertions. Lack of precision is not contrary to the doctrine of inerrancy.

o Likewise, inerrancy does not demand strict direct quotations in the reporting of statements and assertions by others. Indirect quotation and paraphrase may be used by the N.T. in quoting the O.T. and by the gospels in reporting the sayings of Jesus.

Dr. Pyne continues, The point to be made is that the doctrine of inerrancy is not taken as blind insistence that would refuse to recognize an error if it stared it in the face, but rather a logical, common sensical overall approach to Scripture which constantly recognizes that each time it is faced with apparent errors it is also faced with the question: have we found something that throws into disrepute all that the Scripture teaches (including all that Jesus Christ teaches) about its own inerrancy, or rather, does that teaching compel us to continue the search for a logical and rational solution to the problem? Evangeli¬cals believe that the doctrine of inerrancy has stood the test of constant investigation of problem passages.

Remember that the doctrine of inerrancy teaches that truthful solutions to problems in Scripture exist, but there is no guarantee that you or I will be aware of those solutions. Augustine wrote, "If, here or there, I stumble upon something which seems not to agree with the truth, I make no doubt that either the copy is faulty, or the translator did not express exactly the thought of the original, or that I do not understand the matter." In the same way, J. C. Ryle said, "I accept the difficulties and humbly wait for their solution. But while I wait I am standing on the rock" (in Pache, 158).

Recognize that many problems that have been labeled as "errors" in the past have been given interpretive solutions that are satisfactory to evangelicals and non-evangelicals alike. "Digging deeper" generally yields solutions that make the initial objections seem rather shallow.

How deep have you dug? I am sure it is on the surface that you stake your claims.

Good Luck! That is what you believe isn't it "LUCK"?

The fundamentalist violently opposes anything that goes against what is written in the Bible. In the twenties and thirties, this opposition was focused particularly on any theory of man's origins, especially evolution,

Fundamentalist refuse to budge from the most conservative version of their faith that is available to them and resist, even to the point of violence, all competing worldviews, including scientific knowledge about the origins of life, the age of the Earth, and the fact that Earth is not really the center of the universe.

By arguing that what you believe is the truth and all differing views are false you are using closed logic. In other words no one can really be right but you, and anything, no matter how much proof is presented that it is correct will be considered incorrect by a fundie. It is a closed logic system that defines itself as always true and all differing views as always false -- hence logical "failure" can never be demonstrated because it literally cannot be perceived by the Fundamentalists. They're trained tricksters.

Isaac Asimov - "I don't believe in an afterlife, so I don't have to spend my whole life fearing hell, or fearing heaven even more. For whatever the tortures of hell, I think the boredom of heaven would be even worse."

You want errors? You got em.

The bible says that giants walked the earth at one time.

"6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men, and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were of old, men of renown."

It also says that unicorns exist.

Numbers 23:22 KJV: "God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn."

Numbers 24:8 KJV: "God brought him forth out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn: he shall eat up the nations his enemies, and shall break their bones, and pierce [them] through with his arrows."

Job 39:9-10 KJV:

"9: Will the unicorn be willing to serve thee, or abide by thy crib?

10: Canst thou bind the unicorn with his band in the furrow? or will he harrow the valleys after thee?"

Psalms 29:5-6 KJV

"5: The voice of the LORD breaketh the cedars; yea, the LORD breaketh the cedars of Lebanon.

6: He maketh them also to skip like a calf; Lebanon and Sirion like a young unicorn."

Psalms 92:10 KJV: "But my horn shalt thou exalt like [the horn of] a unicorn: I shall be anointed with fresh oil."

A literal interpretation of the dates in the bible places the age of the earth somewhere between 6000-10000 years ago, where, in reality, it's closer to 4,500,000,000 years old.

It also has passages that imply the world is flat.

"[T]he devil taketh him up into an exceeding high mountain, and sheweth him all the kingdoms of the world, and the glory of them" (Matthew 4:1-12)

"The earth takes shape like clay under a seal." (Job 38:14)

"take the earth by the edges and shake the wicked out of it (Job 38:12-13)

"The visions of my head as I lay in bed were these: I saw, and behold, a tree in the midst of the earth; and its height was great. The tree grew and became strong, and its top reached to heaven, and it was visible to the end of the whole earth." (Daniel 4:10-11)

The bible supports a geocentric cosmology, which simply isn't true.

Joshua 10:12-13 "Then spoke Joshua to the Lord in the day when the Lord gave the Amorites over to the men of Israel; and he said in the sight of Israel, 'Sun, stand thou still at Gibeon, and thou Moon in the valley of Aijalon.' And the sun stood still, and the moon stayed, until the nation took vengeance on their enemies. Is this not written in the Book of Jashar? The sun stayed in the midst of heaven, and did not hasten to go down for about a whole day."

Chronicles 16:30 "tremble before him, all earth; yea, the world stands firm, never to be moved."

Psalms 93:1 "The Lord reigns; he is robbed in majesty; the lord is robbed, he is girded with strength. Yea, the world is established; it shall never be moved."

Psalms 96:10 "Say among the nations, "The Lord reigns! Yea, the world is established, it shall never be moved; he will judge the peoples with equity."

It sets up the earth as an immobile disk set on top of a giant pillar. Earthquakes are implied to be a result of God shaking the pillar, rather than the result of plate tectonics.

Psalms 104:5 "Thou didst set the earth on its foundations, so that it should never be shaken."

Job 9:6 "who shakes the earth from its place, and its pillars tremble."

Isaiah 24:18 "He who flees at the sound of the terror shall fall into the pit; and he who climbs out of the pit shall be caught in the snare. For the windows of heaven are opened, and the foundations of the earth tremble." Regardless, it certainly describes an earth that isn't spherical.

Isaiah 44:24 "Thus says the Lord, your Redeemer, who formed you from the womb; "I am the Lord, who made all things, who stretched out the heavens alone, who spread out the earth -- Who was with me? --"

It also claims that mustard seeds are the smallest seed in existence, which they're not. It claims that the entire population of the earth except Noah, his family, and two of each animal were killed in a global flood for which there is no evidence. It also says that these animals were somehow packed into an ark that was only 450 long.

Genesis 6:15 "And this is the fashion which thou shalt make it of: The length of the ark shall be three hundred cubits, the breadth of it fifty cubits, and the height of it thirty cubits."

1 cubit = 45.72cm 1 foot = 30.48cm

300 cubits x 45.72 = 13716 cm 13716cm/30.48 = 450 feet

And somehow it contained 2 of every animal on earth. Go figure.

The Bible - Leprosy is caused by the wrath of God or the malice of Satan. Science - The disease leprosy is caused by infection with Mycobacterium leprae.

I Kings 7:23 and 2 Chronicles 4:2 - And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about. It gives pi as 30/10 or 3, which is wrong for any decent calculation. Pi is about 3.1416 Centuries before the oldest books of the bible were written, both the Egyptians and Babylonians approximated pi to a few decimal places. And yet the Bible….divinely inspired…offers an approximation that is terrible even by the standards of the ancient world.

In Genesis 1:11, plants are created. Later, in Genesis 1:13, God makes the sun/moon/stars. Well, how can plants live without light? Joshua's - God made the sun stand still and it stood still. This does show how little they knew about laws of the universe. They thought that if the sun stood still night wouldn't come. Day And he made a molten sea, ten cubits from the one brim to the other: it was round all about, and his height was five cubits: and a line of thirty cubits did compass it round about. or night come by the revolution of the earth on its axis. This is obvious to anyone.

The closest star to the earth is more than a billion miles away. A star was standing still and hovering over a manger. if any star came that near the earth or anywhere near the earth, it would immediately disarrange the whole solar system. Anybody who can believe this fairy tale isn't using reason. You must accept on faith because reason won't lead you to it!

There isn't a single word contained in the Sermon on the Mount that isn't contained in what is called the Sacred Book of the Jews, long before Jesus lived

The earth is, and the universe is possibly fifteen billion years old. The universe may have existed ten billion years before the earth, but according to the biblical description of creation the earth, the sun, the moon, and the stars were all created at the same time. As a matter of fact, according to the Bible, the earth itself existed from the beginning, whereas the stars, sun, and moon were created on the fourth day. To be continued…

>Max A judge can not make a judgment with out facts; therefore I would like to see your facts to the many errors the Bible makes. And in no way do I want your assumptions based on your readings of the bible but only your study of the original documents.

No one can make any comments on the "original documents" as they are lost to time. And the current Bible translations contain far too many documented forgeries (some as substantial as John 7:53-8:11 and Mark 16:9-20) and discrepencies between manuscripts of the same books (where one copy of a manuscript of Acts says one thing, but another manuscript says something different) to be considered reliable as indicators of the "originals." The NASB and the NIV are some of the most popular and best (most scholarly) translations on the market today. Both contain marginal notes documenting how riddled the books are with problems. Here are some pretty substantive ones:

>The most reliable early manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20.

>The earliest and most reliable manuscripts and other ancient witnesses do not have John 7:53-8:11.

With only substantially revised translations of copies of translations of copies to go on, no one can reliably comment on what might have actually been in the "original documents."

I know here the Bible came from. It came from books that the scribes who were recording the history from the place where civilization started, ancient Sumeria. Scholars have managed to locate many of the tablets that contain the ancient biblical accounts from which the Torah, the Old Testament, and the Haggadah (the well-spring of Jewish oral tradition) originate. These tablets describe the origin of man in a similar way to the Old Testament and Torah (as do other middle eastern, Chinese, and many other secular ancient sources) but are much more clear when it comes to the story of the first man. The name for God in the Old Testament in ancient Hebrew is "Elohim", a borrowed Semitic term deriving from ancient Sumerian, that is commonly translated as "God", but this is incredibly innacurate, "Elohim" is plural meaning Gods in that translation. However, that's not even accurate itself, as "Elohim" in its most accurate translation means "Loft Ones", not "Gods". Ancient Egypt and the Bible: The Egyptian word for paper was pa-pe-ra. The Greeks called it papyrus. One can easily see that the English word, paper, came from the Egyptian pa-pe-ra. The dictionary will also confirm that the word Bible is of an Egyptian origin. The Bible, or book, was derived from byblos, which is the Egyptian hieratic word for papyrus. In the three religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam, whenever the faithful pray, regardless of language, they always end their prayer by saying Amen. There is no linguistic translation for Amen, because it is a name and not a word. The origin of Amen is Egyptian, for Amen was the name of God. The name of Amen, which means the Hidden One, in Ancient Egypt, lives on. The spheres of angels and archangels in Christianity are strikingly similar to Ancient Egypt's heirachy of neteru (gods/goddesses). The Song of Moses in Deuteronomy (32:43), as found in a cave at Qumran near the Dead Sea, mentions the word gods in the plural: "Rejoice, O heavens, with him; and do obeisance to him, ye gods." When the passage is quoted in the New Testament (Hebrews, 1:6), the word gods is substituted with angels of God. As such, the neteru who were called gods by some, were endorsed and incorporated into Christianity under a new name, angels. Daily life activities are portrayed, on the walls of the Ancient Egyptian tombs, in the presence of the neteru (gods/goddesses) or with the assistance of the neteru. The typical Egyptian sowing and reaping scene is symbolically similar to the Bible's "Whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."

The thirty chapters of the Teaching of Amenemope (Amenhotep III) contain many wisdom texts that were later adopted in the Old Testament's Book of Proverbs. Numerous verbal parallels occur between this Egyptian text and the Bible.

The well-known Ancient Egyptian illustration showing Khnum, the Divine Potter, at his potter's wheel, fashioning men from clay, was echoed thousands of years later in Isaiah, 64:8: Yet, O Lord, thou art our Father; we are the clay, and thou art our potter; we are all the work of thy hand.

The reason for all those errors! Many of the so-called Old Testament books were actually written after the New Testament books, and after the dispersion of the Jews. The rulers in Judea, Julius started out by giving the Jews a pantheistic religion, as can be found by examining the first few words of the oldest original versions of Genesis 1:1. This first Jewish religion was built around the first five books of the Jewish scripture - the Torah. About the time of King Herod, the Jewish religion began to change because of Hillel the Pharisee and the Pharisaic Party. The Jews were becoming humanistic and intolerant to slavery. The first compilation of the Bible as we know it, was done by the Roman Emperor Marcus Aurelius and his relative who wrote in Hebrew and Aramaic - Rabbi Judah The Prince. This was around the year 180 C.E. They were related through the Gamaliel line that went back to Hillel the Pharisee.

The Roman Piso Family wrote the New Testament. The Jews, who were tired of being ruled over by the Roman Aristocracy, were lead in their third great revolt against Rome since 6 C.E., in 60 C.E., by Benjamin the Egyptian of the Pharisaic Party. Though the Romans defeated them, the Romans knew that something had to be done. Arrius Piso succeeded in defeating Vitellius, thereby securing Rome for Vespasian. Vespasian, in turn helped Arrius to destroy the Temple in Jerusalem in the year 70 C.E. Vespasian already had his son Titus laying siege on Jerusalem, so Arrius could go with his legions to finish them off. Arrius and the Flavian side of his family owned the entire known world. He inherited title to all of the books in the Ptolemic Library in Alexandria, Egypt. Circa 100 B.C.E., the total of books in the Ptolemic Library was over half a million. Arrius also had all of the books in Judea and he started gathering up books in Rome so that he could re-write history. Once he had obtained all the books he could, either by buying them or confiscating them, he burned all but certain books. He jokes about this in Acts 19:19. The Piso's used the slave scribes to churn out propaganda against the Jews. While the first books of the New Testament were only mildly giving inferences against the Jews, the New Testament became increasingly anti-semetic. Both Josephus and the New Testament are full of names and allusions to relatives and ancestors of the Piso's. They did things secretly to enhance their epistemological capacities, while stifling that of the masses. Humanity had already known that the Earth revolves around the Sun, instead of visa versa. But the family was busy setting the clock of wisdom back for the masses. Arrius Piso's grandson who was the brother of Suetonius/Antonius Pius, wrote as Ptolemy and held our knowledge of astronomy back 1800 years. They went about destroying books, they kept Aristotle, not because of their descent from him alone, but because his rhetorical 'logic' was consistent with the teachings of Christianity. Also, there were many books that they could not entirely destroy. Their own family was censored by excluding writings from the canon if it hinted at the making of Christianity. The new enemies of the impassioned Christians were the Stoics. When they first laid the groundwork for Christianity, they cultivated the minds of the masses with superstition.

Roman emperors for national solidarity nationalized Christianity. Christianity was not established as a religion until the time of Constantine the Great, who needed a national religion to solidify his empire. He embraced the new religion, and made it into a national sect. He not only caused its acceptance as the one and only religion of the empire, but he formulated its policies, and caused to be accepted its doctrines, and stigmatized as heretics those who would not accept the new religion, banishing them from his kingdom, or putting them to death.

It was noted by Abelard Reuchlin that the dots under the Hebrew letters helped aid in alluding to the Pisos. In the Talmud, there are many allusions to the Pisos and what they did. This is why the Jews are the Chosen People. They are the witnesses to what the Pisos did. That is the true reason for the continuance of their religion. They used it as an excuse to hide and save this information in order that Christianity may someday come to an end, thereby giving Beth Hillel (Humanism) another chance. In the Talmud, we find references like; "The Horse (ippos, Piso) wrote Matthew," and Rabbi Joseph (Josephus) wrote Matthew. The literatures of the Jews hold much of what is needed to unravel 'the mystery of the Gospels'. That is, that the Pisos wrote them. Though the Jews lost the war with the Romans, many of them knew what the Romans were doing with these Gospels. Much of this information was kept, but hidden. It is present within the Jewish customs, tradition, literature, commentaries, holidays, and prayer books. Most notibly, in the first Babylonian (Jewish) prayer book, the 'Amram Gaon', and later in Parthia in the 'Saadia Gaon'. So these ideologies came from a bunch of murderers pretending to be 'holy' Church Fathers and laying the foundation for laws to keep the masses in their place.

Abelard Reuchlin, who in 1973 started piecing together his theory that the Romans who wrote the New Testament were mentioned and alluded to in Jewish history and tradition. Abelard Reuchlin is fluent in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Yiddish. He also knows Latin and Greek. Abelard Reuchlin wrote the first edition of his "The True Authorship of the New Testament" in 1979.

We all know what the Christian apologist have to say, it's all you ever hear. You can only judge if you compare the apologists' answers to those of modern secular scholars, and do so side-by-side. I think the scholars are correct. A Christian apologist explanation consistent with reason is simply not possible. (There's nothing to be gained.) What I have written is correct, but it's not everything we know. (Don't comment on it if you haven't read it.) If you know what the scholars have to say you might find out that SOMEBODY knows a lot. Nobody knows? Many scholars knew the Roman Piso Family wrote the New Testament. . BACON/SHAKESPEARE, CERVANTES, RABELAIS TOLSTOY, MILTON, SPENSER, all knew. Somebody knows- not the Christian apologist! But don't worry bout missing out on all the fun - many Christian holidays coincide with Pagan holy days, and have overlapping symbolism.

I apologize to this list--I apparently replied to this section already, and just did so again. Forgotten I'd done it last time I stopped by. Didn't mean to be repetitive.

>And in no way do I want your assumptions based on your readings of the bible but only your study of the original documents. Can I get that from you MAX! By the way here are the guidelines...

Actually you can't get "that" from _anyone_. There are no known "original documents" in existence today. And no one can say for sure what the texts upon which the current texts are based actually contained. The best we can do is attempt to extrapolate which of the many variations in existence might best represent what might have been in any "original texts" or combinations of texts that might have been used to create what is today held to be the "most reliable" copies.

Follow us on:

twitter facebook meetup

ustream.tv