Lefty

Regular Member
  • Content Count

    94
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by Lefty

  1. Did Jesus exist? Which Jesus? The historical record apparently has several people that the Romans were dealing with who proclaimed to be some kind of messiah. I can see the situation of the day causing many to oppose Roman rule in a variety of ways. But I keep falling back to questions about the accounts of Jesus and his travels. I keep thinking if any person were stirring up as much interest as to cause crowds by the thousands to show up to hear some guy preach against Rome and the Jewish religion, surely the historical record would have some mention of such events. At the same time, I can see Rome doing what it could to censor the record so as to have no record of any person causing a stir among the masses. I would expect those who were the rulers of the day to not give any platform to the opposition so evidence may well be intentionally limited. Just think about it...here's a guy proclaiming a solution, doing miracles, and speaking to very large crowds on multiple occasions. It appears their message was gaining ground. It's at that point I would expect the people of the day, even eyewitnesses to write down the events, even non-followers would likely report on these events to some degree. Yet what we have is no written record outside of biblical texts and those accounts are many decades later. How can such a controversial figure have so little written accounts? I admit it's possible the written record was scrubbed when I consider how Islam has treated any evidence of Jewish history in and around the temple mount. Could it be no record means they did a very thorough job of censorship? Maybe, but I don't think we can give them that much credit. So, did a Jewish man named Jesus go around and proclaim some new message of him being the messiah? I think the lack of evidence points to an answer of no, he didn't exist, that this person was a fabrication through subversive intent. I think there may well be more evidence to support that Rome backed the creation of such a story in an effort to oppose Judaism. Rome had the money, means, and the motive. Was there ever a roman leader that converted to Judaism? Clearly, there was one who converted to Christianity and such conversion was proclaimed all over the place. Consider also that Rome was having big problems maintaining the empire by even the first century. By the fifth century, Rome was pulling out of Britain and consolidating their footprint, all this as Roman Christianity was growing and being established as a recognized religion. It was a time when the Roman Catholic Church was being established as a world power. Construction of the Vatican began in the fourth century. To me, there is way too much evidence, however circumstantial, to support that Jesus was a created character to be used as opposition to other religions as a means to draw in the masses to a new state-sponsored religion that the pagan hordes would find more appealing than Judaism. Then once that program was up and running, along came Islam in the seventh century just to make sure. Did Jesus of the bible exist? No, not in my opinion.
  2. I would have to say no, believers of Christianity do have a common set of fundamental beliefs, but that commonality should not cause one to define them as fundamentalists. Basically, I see the question as two questions rolled into one when really they should be asked separately; Fundamentals versus Fundamentalist. The second question I must say no, it should have zero bearing on your attitude towards people, in my opinion. I think you may be asking about our methodology of interacting with people, which may vary from person to person. I have never been to the UK, so I cannot speak to any differences if any.
  3. Understand, thanks. I'm starting to see where you are going with this. It is a bit tricky at least for me to articulate in print what is racing through my mind, but I do understand it's quite the puzzle you are touching on in proving something from text itself that shouldn't exist. Interesting angle that I haven't fully thought about much. I'm curious how it all plays out in the bigger picture of showing the fraud of religion in general. I look forward to more!
  4. It's easy to get caught up in "politics". But that is the draw of a political party system. By its very design, it drives a wedge between people, forcing them to take a side. It's a method used to manage and manipulate the voting system. No theory to it as I see it. It's clearly conspiracy. I do believe part of it is indoctrination into the "good little citizen" ideology, "God and country" and all the other patriotic stuff they use to play on the minds of voters to keep them interested in the whole government and country concepts. They are trying to get people to vote the way the political party votes. But they don't want you to question if that very voting system is actually working. It's not about what you want, it's about what the party wants. This to me breeds discrimination in all forms. I personally believe the political party system should be banned across the board. I believe they should not exist. Based on history, it is clear it is a system that is compromised and corrupt. All the media buzz is democrat this, republican that, and the masses go wild. But the truth is, the US system has far more than republican or democrat, but the majority has used their position to stifle other parties in the voting process. Even a so-called news station is crying they can't broadcast debates because the Democratic party said so. Do the American people really think the situation is okay? I encourage every American to read the Declaration of Independence. Democrat, Republican, or even Socialist, it's all crap. Nothing more than a secular form of religious denominations. Besides, the US system is allegedly made up of representatives of the people, but politicians vote and act based on what their party says, and their "constituents" are left on the side waving their party flags. All of this plays on a need by humans to label things, to sum it up and spare the details.
  5. The real world scientific record definitely differs from the biblical text, but I'm not convinced the intent of that text was to be scientific. Clearly, it isn't presented in the classical scientific manner. The primary science presented is a god that allegedly can do everything. That is the basis for biblical science. I think it still safe to say I really can't ask where have the gods gone when the reality is that they never existed to begin with. If they did exist, a simple observation of humanity shows that those gods have failed catastrophically.
  6. Yes, you did. Thank you. So, I THINK it appears we are on the same page then, that it is not written in the biblical text. That would then mean people did such things of their own accord outside of doctrine, which is my whole point. I honestly cannot say, though I have indeed made the accusations, yet I don't know what each person's intent was when somebody started promoting meeting in a building rather than going house to house. As you say, believers of religion were already meeting in a set location in various religions. It may well be that they felt it was a better way to draw people in seeing people were already meeting at huge stone monoliths, etc in the pagan religions, as well as the Jewish temples. That falls in line with my contention that the church grew to become just like the world, which their own book tells them to avoid. Christians may have changed their religion from something pagan but they never separated from the world and those buildings are just one example of that lack of separation. To me, it appears as another case of men making things up as they went along, and that is my point. With the Jewish temple, at least there are clear rules to temple worship. No such rules exist in Christianity. It's a personal meeting kind of thing and the temple is the individual believer. It is likely at some point somebody said they need a bigger house to meet in, and off they went. Out of that came what we see today, but what we have today should not exist. It's become a fraud just like the religion itself, in my humble opinion.
  7. My apologies mwc. I have felt frustrated at our conversion, and so I went back and read again what has been posted. My reply to this post is where I claimed you were being difficult. Reading back, I see that I misread what you had posted. I was feeling you were intentionally trying to "toss question after question..." when I see now that I didn't stay focused on understanding your point. You were not being difficult. You actually agreed with my point and simply added an observation of human pride. I had difficulty in reading comprehension. Please accept my apology.
  8. You and I understand that about humans, but that doesn't mean what Christians do is actually doctrinal. My claim is that it is not doctrinal but rather a concept made up for reasons other than doctrine and in contradiction to what their book tells them.
  9. What makes you think that's where it ends once "...he's made flesh"? That requires you to make as much an interpretation as anybody. And what makes you think that it was not commanded to become written text? How do you come to the conclusion "this fleshly word become written word"? My reading of the text tells me that it says the word was in the beginning and later was made flesh "...and dwelt among us...". I never said any of this makes cents. I'm just relating my understanding of their story as I have read it. Besides, this is about my questioning of the church building concept. What you are doing is the primary thing I have always hated most about way too many atheists. And now that I myself am an atheist, I find it even more aggravating. I find it immature and as they say..."unprofitable and vain". If you want their explanation, ask them because I really have no desire to get into any debate with a fellow non-believer. You're coming across as wanting to ask for provocation reasons, I guess because you're bored maybe? As I have said, I don't care to play that game of yours. I would venture you are more interested in asking than actually engaging in reasonable dialog. It's simple to sit back and toss out question after question when you no doubt have your own understanding. How about you offer some explanations. How could Christians end up with the church system based on what is written in their own bible texts? Where in the text does it say to build church buildings and hold services?
  10. No loss. I've never mingled much simply because I don't like the world we live in and try to participate as little as possible out of protest. It's my business, not theirs, and never have felt the need for socializing in general so my associations have always been very limited. I'd rather be a happy hermit than a miserable social butterfly.
  11. Actually, Jesus is in fact "quoted" saying it in the word (bible text) itself. According to the text, Jesus IS The Word. Carnal man allegedly cannot understand the spiritual so the word of text was given to make the transition from carnal to spiritual. "The Word was made flesh...". But as powerful as the word is supposed to be according to their own story, the text mankind has is far from perfect. A god that allows it's own doctrine in the text that said god uses to draw men in to be so imperfect is no god. That is the literary stench of man and not a god.
  12. You may want to rephrase that statement seeing it is inconsistent with the doctrine. While the believer is "...bought with a price..." as the story goes, the person is free to believe or not, to accept or reject salvation. If mankind cannot resist your god's desire to save, then it is no more grace and all mankind are forced to be saved, which clearly is not the case according to your book. But it gets worse! You proclaim "If God wants you...". UHM, according to the book, your god wants all to be saved, yet apparently doesn't have the ability to save everyone and/or chooses some to save. Why? It is alleged that mankind can accept or reject in an act of free will. That in itself is absurd. What kind of god would allow it's flawed and imperfect creation to make that kind of decision that has eternal consequences? According to the text, mankind is hopelessly weak due to the imperfect flesh he totes around until that magic "in a moment" flash of conversion of the flesh when it is "changed". This is one of the areas I had trouble with as a believer. It just doesn't hold water (pun intended). To continue to punish a believer even after admitting that the flesh is flawed and is the source of all the believer's mistakes is in my opinion psychotic. Clearly, there was both motive, opportunity, forethought and evidence that spans 2000 years and millions of dead bodies of people who attempted to exercise their free will and were denied said free will. Somebody should go to jail. That is not judgment, that is clearcut observation. So many believing this stuff just shows how well that collection of writings was done. Lots of mistakes indeed, but overall they had the right idea about many things, which to me shows intent. Obviously, it was good enough to get enough people to believe it to actually have an effect on the masses being managed.
  13. LOL, well, actually, I can show in the text the justification for the text. In fact, that is the easiest one of all seeing the text is the whole point of the concept. "In the beginning was the Word...", "and the word was made flesh and dwelt among us...", etc. But fear not mwc, going in holes in the ground is scriptural..." Thou shalt have a place also without the camp, whither thou shalt go forth abroad: 13And thou shalt have a paddle upon thy weapon; and it shall be, when thou wilt ease thyself abroad, thou shalt dig therewith, and shalt turn back and cover that which cometh from thee: Deut 23:12 You're welcome!
  14. Yeah, practicality, convenient, it's easier and on it goes with the reasons. I get it, I do. Mankind likes easy because we quite frankly are lazy or at least we don't like things to be hard. Scripturally speaking, yes, the body of believers are considered the "church", that can be shown in verse. Believers of religion do all manner of things that aren't really part of their doctrine out of convenience. I know if I were to start a religion, I'd want all the adherents in one place, as it makes things easier to manage and control.
  15. Thanks, Casey. I had more typed but this forum has a bug in it, it keeps eating what has been typed when I do a backspace or a return for the next line. It's done that now several times. Sometimes it will come back with the editor text box saying it was restored, sometimes not like this last time. VERY annoying to write within a train of thought only to have it suddenly go poof. Basically, I can't prove what isn't in scripture. Believers need to post what justification they find in their book. I never have found any for it. Church buildings and related services simply aren't scriptural. Men with an agenda came up with all that stuff and not for doctrinal reasons. Somebody will need to show me where I'm wrong. I'm extremely confident they can't, I looked for years. Basically, the church system is a complete fraud, not to mention the religion itself.
  16. LOL, depends on which bible! Some mention leviathans as well, whatever that is. But talking donkeys? All I know is if you do enough of the right drug you'll see a lot of shit that may or may not be there!
  17. Lefty

    Hello

    Greetings Jerry. Your situation is indeed a tough one, but as others have said, there are others with similar situations that likely can offer some insights. Might I add that there are a great many people (and preachers!) within religions that are there purely for social or financial reasons though they really don't actually believe in religion. It may make things easier if you internally look at it as a social function and not a belief system, which actually if you think about it, is more akin to the truth. Personally, I prefer trying to be honest about how I stand, but indeed it gets tricky when others have an opposing view, especially when it involves spouses, children, and family. From what you say, I think it wise to be as quiet as a church mouse and just let it play out naturally.
  18. So, have I given a sufficiently clear answer? I know I can ramble which can blur a point.
  19. That was a bit rhetorical, based on their sign. I actually have met a couple of them way back years ago as a believer. No real comment though, they weren't all strange freaky like some folks in strange cults. I just saw them from a Christian perspective as going to hell. Their welcome everybody attitude and low profile was like that then and I guess still are.
  20. Exactly, I was seeing the anti-vax stuff well over 10 years ago, for me, as early as maybe 2005, and it was going strong before then. I cannot say who the major opposition was, but it most definitely is nothing new, and honestly, I don't see anything recent that suggests there has been a more recent concerted effort to oppose them. I do know there have been more cases of late than at any time since then, or at least it seems that way.
  21. Mcnugget cheeseburger? That's genius!
  22. Really? Seems like your now just being...difficult.
  23. LOL, strange dynamic eh? I was indeed in opposition to the "church system" as a believer and managed to unnerve more than one church member that I met over the years. Everybody has their forte'. Mine was how my "brothers" were acting which reflected on the whole body. There are whole sermons on when you see brethren out of line, etc. Back then, I was coming from the perspective that believers should practice what they preach. Noone yet has been able to offer solid scriptural basis for the church building concept. I'm VERY familiar with all the verses that are used to justify the practices, I've heard pretty much all of it I'd say. Still not convinced to this day. So, the reason for the proverbial chip then and now, is that those buildings act as a beacon to the public, it draws people in, and stands in the forefront of the church's actions. Once inside, then you get a more clear idea of how they operate, but it all starts with what? Something to the effect of..."Hey, why don't you come to our church on Sunday...". It is quite common for a group to be more proud of their buildings than the mission. In their own book, one of the disciples did that very thing with Jesus and the temple. Long story short, he wasn't impressed, so why are men? Vanity of the flesh, portraying something that is a lie in order to get more people to join in their practices, ultimately for financial reasons. If one can show that the church system is a fraud, I'd say that goes a long way in proving their religion is a fraud as well.
  24. The need for vaccines aside, I'm curious if it's just me, or has there been a sudden outbreak of these diseases in multiple locations? Or is it the media is focusing of late for whatever motivations that make it appear more than what has been normal outbreaks? Forgive me, but I am very suspicious of when something comes up and big pharma shouts their drugs are needed. Some drugs are needed indeed, but knowing the history of drug makers and how they operate I tend to be skeptical. I say this because people opposing vaccines is absolutely nothing new. What has been pushed into the media spotlight recently is immigration. I'm not convinced that is coincidence.
  25. Seems to me that they are also opportunists.