Coming back to truth
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-04-2016, 12:59 AM
RE: Coming back to truth
(30-04-2016 12:32 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  
(30-04-2016 12:26 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Yeah, but there are more stars than us.

And they're bigger.

Also, brighter.

Maybe he is hungry for worship in moderate quantity?

Should have made a more moderate universe then. Rolleyes

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2016, 01:45 AM
RE: Coming back to truth
(30-04-2016 12:59 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  
(30-04-2016 12:32 AM)Szuchow Wrote:  Maybe he is hungry for worship in moderate quantity?

Should have made a more moderate universe then. Rolleyes

Space wizards aren't exactly known for being rational. Limits of their creators are being shown in this I suppose.

The first revolt is against the supreme tyranny of theology, of the phantom of God. As long as we have a master in heaven, we will be slaves on earth.

Mikhail Bakunin.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2016, 04:27 AM
RE: Coming back to truth
(29-04-2016 03:16 PM)smitthom624 Wrote:  Here's one other thing I couldn't wrap my head around. If "God" created the universe then why would he allow humans to worship him in a bunch of different ways? I would think if was a god I would want everyone worshipping me the same way.

Christians will say that other cultures are deceived by the devil.

"Skepticism is the first step towards truth" -Denis Diderot
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2016, 05:51 AM
RE: Coming back to truth
(30-04-2016 12:12 AM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  Take it another step. How come a being that created the universe wants worship from us? Why doesn't he have the stars worship him? That would be way cooler. Tongue

And who's to say they don't? Consider

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-04-2016, 06:48 AM
RE: Coming back to truth
(28-04-2016 10:01 AM)smitthom624 Wrote:  [...] Would it be a good idea to re-read the bible now that I have a better understanding of what it's all about?

No, don't waste your time. It'll all be exactly the same bullshit as when you read it the first time.

Better to start with something like The God Delusion, by Richard Dawkins.

"Much of the Bible is not systematically evil but just plain weird, as you would expect of a chaotically cobbled-together anthology of disjointed documents, composed, revised, translated, distorted and 'improved' by hundreds of anonymous authors, editors and copyists, unknown to us and mostly unknown to each other, spanning nine centuries. This may explain some of the sheer strangeness of the Bible. But unfortunately it is this same weird volume that religious zealots hold up to us as the inerrant source of our morals and rules for living."

I'm a creationist... I believe that man created God.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes SYZ's post
30-04-2016, 07:11 AM
RE: Coming back to truth
(28-04-2016 10:01 AM)smitthom624 Wrote:  So I kinda fell off the map for awhile after my wife discovered that I was looking into the atheist arguments. I decided to re-examine Mormonism (which my wife is currently a member) and also Christianity. I immediately realized that Mormonism was bullshit but I did try to embrace Christianity for the sake of saving the family. I tried and I just couldn't totally dive into it because of everything I had learned from Dawkins, Hitchens, Seth Andrews and Matt Dillahunty. The seed of doubt had been planted and in looking at Christianity again, I could see how their arguments were valid. I have recently realized that in fact religion is bullshit and that their is no supreme being in charge of it all. I am embracing the secular ideas and at 39 years old I have realized that I don't have the time for bullshit anymore. I am an Atheist and if people can't accept that then it's just too bad. I know that this sounds like a rant and it is but I need to get this out. Now for a question.. Would it be a good idea to re-read the bible now that I have a better understanding of what it's all about?

I wouldn't waste my time. I'd read instead books on logic and reason and honestly I'd recommend you read Philosophy: Who needs It by Ayn Rand. Leaving religion is great but I would recommend you discover a fully integrated and rational philosophy in its place.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2016, 02:13 PM (This post was last modified: 02-05-2016 02:27 PM by Deltabravo.)
RE: Coming back to truth
(28-04-2016 10:01 AM)smitthom624 Wrote:  So I kinda fell off the map for awhile after my wife discovered that I was looking into the atheist arguments. I decided to re-examine Mormonism (which my wife is currently a member) and also Christianity. I immediately realized that Mormonism was bullshit but I did try to embrace Christianity for the sake of saving the family. I tried and I just couldn't totally dive into it because of everything I had learned from Dawkins, Hitchens, Seth Andrews and Matt Dillahunty. The seed of doubt had been planted and in looking at Christianity again, I could see how their arguments were valid. I have recently realized that in fact religion is bullshit and that their is no supreme being in charge of it all. I am embracing the secular ideas and at 39 years old I have realized that I don't have the time for bullshit anymore. I am an Atheist and if people can't accept that then it's just too bad. I know that this sounds like a rant and it is but I need to get this out. Now for a question.. Would it be a good idea to re-read the bible now that I have a better understanding of what it's all about?

I think I have had the same sort of issue, in that my wife is Catholic and I am an atheist.

I don't know how I went down the particular rabbit hole I did, or why, now I look back but I became interested in the writings of Joseph Atwill who wrote Caesar's Messiah. I then stumbled across Ralph Ellis' works on an alternative version of the New Testament.

I seem to have come away from this with some ideas that are quite different from anything I have seen here or read in those works as to what Christianity is really all about.

The starting point, I feel, has to be history so one has to look at the real history of the area in which this religion developed, Anatolia (Turkey), the Near and Middle East, mainly Iraq.

The Old Testament is a revisionist version of history of a people led by Abraham who comes from Ur which is in southern Iraq. This people can only be the Sumerians. Here is something called The Standard of Ur, which gives a glimpse into that civilization: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=87qT5BOl2XU

Essentially, this is the old center of what might be called the Indo-European world and it was feudalistic and these people, in a nutshell, worshipped gods who came from the skies. They built pyramids.

This civilization is interesting because it appears to center around waterways, the Tigris and Euphrates and the Persian Gulf, leading into the Indian Ocean. A number of things are of note about these people. They spoke an agglutinative language and they "disappeared". However, the Akkadian language developed out of Sumerian by way of breaking down the long "glued" together words of Sumerian and turning them into smaller individual words. Also, the Sumerian civilization shifted northwards and became "Egypt". Egyptians are also known as Kem, which gives us Camel but also gives names like Khmer Rouge, suggesting that Cambodia was visited by these red haired sailors. We also get names like Cameron and Cameroon which show the link to other cultures.

The spread of these people is interesting because their headquarters always seems to be at the center of what could be described as the "world system" which centers on trade, by land and by sea. Ur was located in a key location in that one can travel up the Tigris and Euphrates almost to the Mediterranean so that this route connects the whole of Europe with the Far East.

Then, we see another civilization emerging further north in what is now Turkey and Syria, called Greater Armenia. Abraham is said by some to have come, not from Ur, but from Urfa or Edessa, now Sanliurfa. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9Eanl%C4%B1urfa

The Armenians are, in fact, simply the Sumerians by another name and Tur (Turkey) is the Akkadian word for Sumeria. Turkish is agglutinative. In short, Sumeria shifted northward, probably due to global warming and the old Sumeria, in Iraq, becoming a desert.

What I find interesting about this area is that it encompasses places such as Tyre, which is said to be the birthplace of Europa and from which Europa "fled". Hmmm... Europe flees from a sea port... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tyre,_Lebanon

This is the heartland of the Phoenicians who Buckminster Fuller said were the same people we call Vikings. His theory can be read about here: http://worldhistoryconnected.press.illin...heyer.html

We then have a couple of interesting historical statements. One is by Josephus who says that the "Jews" in Egypt came from Armenia. They settled in the area of the Nile Delta so presumably they came by ship. The eventually flee, we are told in the New Testament and set up in Jerusalem, or Herusalem, as it can also be spelled. If these are Armenians, then they have gone full circle.

The Anglo Saxon Chronicles written at the time of King Alfred, says that the British came from Armenia. http://www.britannia.com/history/docs/1-448.html

Armenia, or Turkey, is in a very important location because after Europe comes out of the Ice Age, sailors can navigate from Turkey northwards across the Black Sea to the mouth of the Danube and all the way to Germany, southwards to the Far East, India and China, west through the Mediterranean to the Atlantic and beyond.

If you look at a map, Turkey is also at the middle of the old silk route between Europe and the Far East. In every way this area is at the center of the old world order.

Then we look at Egypt and today we have the Suez Canal, which is a hugely important navigational route. But, there was an earlier canal which Napoleon discovered connecting the Nile to the Red Sea. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canal_of_the_Pharaohs


The question is, what became of all this and all the wealth, the feudal dynasties of this ancient Indo-European civilization? It eventually came under the rule of the Romans, and that point coincides with the concluding part of the Old Testament which recounts the decline and fall of the House of David.

The Old Testament is, I am convinced, simply a revisionist history of these people who were immensely wealthy because of their control of key transportation routes between east and west of a huge world system. They became fabulously wealthy and can only have been the precursors of modern European feudal dynasties, the Phoenician world and the modern banking world because these people traded and needed to have currencies to trade. They needed an easily understood language, a lingua franca, which resulted in the development of Akkadian.

These people were driven by economics and the Armenians claimed to be descended from Hayek, a huge hunter figure. In Egypt they become the cult of Horus, the sky hunter, Orion. This is the Messiah, the Christ. In fact, the word Christ is simply an alternative spelling of Horus as is the saint who Horus becomes, Georges (the G is silent)

In 69 AD, the Roman Empire fell into civil war with the death of Nero. This ended the Claudian dynasty and there were, in that year, Four Emperors: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Year_of_the_Four_Emperors

In the Near East there was an uprising called the War with the Jews. If these "Jews" were the Armenian/Sumerians, then this may well have been an uprising aimed at putting the old Armenian/Sumerian/Jewish ruling dynasty back in charge of the whole of the Indo-European world...

Of course, the Romans won and the old civilization of the Armenians lost. At that time the New Testament was written and it is my view that the key to understanding Christianity is in how you read the New Testament.

If you look at the Claudian dynasty, it followed a period of Republicanism in which the dominant philosophical movement was Epicureanism which was rational and secular. The Claudians replaced that with a system in which they were "man/gods" and they acted with brutality and depravity.

After the War with the Jews, the Emperor Vespasian came to power and the New Testament was written and a man, "Saul" travelled around old Armenia, pushing this new religion.

Christianity has two sides to it. The name refers to a concept in an older religion. A man/god who would return and deliver his "people", a Messiah. This religion is now called "Judaism" but it, in fact, is a messianic religion which worships a sky god-figure, horus/Orion.

It is only when the figure "Jesus" in the NT arrives on the scene that he preaches a new philosophy and to understand this you have to look and read the New Testament in a rational way. You have to start with the central figure in it, "God", and who is he? The NT tell us plainly and clearly that God is "the word" and this, in Greek was "the logos". This is a wholly different religion from the older religion of the area which had a God/man or star configuration who was an avenging warrior.

This new religion then sets out its moral philosophy "do unto others as you would have them do unto you". This completely rolls back both the old religion or vengeance and Claudian emperor worship and brings back a rational philosophy which is more akin to Epicurean thinking. It even tells us to not be bothered about clothes:

"Matthew 28 And why take ye thought for raiment? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow; they toil not, neither do they spin:

29 And yet I say unto you, That even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these."


The Golden Rule in Matthew is then followed by a number of examples of how this rule works and the teachings of Jesus are nothing more than a series of stories showing how this rule works in real life.

That is about it. If the key concepts of the New Testament are rationalistic, then the non-rational elements, which come from an earlier religion, such as a concept of a god-man, an inseminating god, crucifixion, are irrelevant to the rational message which is, ultimately, Hellenistic and Roman.

Of course, we then see the Council of Nicea fronting the composing of the New Testament and the relocation of Rome to Constantinople, thus putting the capital of the Indo-European world back in its logical geo-political center with a rational philosophical morality which is dressed up as an old Armenian/Jewish messianic religion to sell it to the people who they are selling the religion to. It's no more than Kant's categorical imperative woven into a Superman story.

Having come to this conclusion, I can see my wife's position as that of someone who simply adopted ancient ideas because that is how this religion is sold to the masses who buy into a pacifistic religion because of the literary technique used by the author/s of the New Testament.

I feel like a dad going to the movies with my kid and his friends. I can watch a super hero movie and see the moral message being sent out by the writers but also see the method of luring in young immature minds who need to have a role model who is so powerful that they feel they have to follow him.

This is why I feel that Jesus must have existed and that he was an Armenian/Sumerian/Jewish prince who converted to a new, Roman sponsored religion and the only person/s I see as fitting this description is/are Izates bar Monobaz I and II who convert to a new Judaism being preached by the Rabbi Eleazar, which is essentially a precursor to Christian moral philosophy. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Izates_bar_Monobaz

That doesn't make me a Christian, but, for me, it makes sense, in a rational way, of the New Testament, so that I no longer torture myself over the impenetrableness of the New Testament if read in a conventional manner.

I sincerely hope that someone is helped by this to come to understand what Christianity is and can free themselves, as I did.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2016, 02:30 PM
RE: Coming back to truth
In short, a story based in whole or in part on the life of Izates Manu Abgarus (literally, Jesus Immanuel Christ) portraying him as having superpowers but conveying a rational moral message.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2016, 05:43 PM
RE: Coming back to truth
(29-04-2016 03:16 PM)smitthom624 Wrote:  Here's one other thing I couldn't wrap my head around. If "God" created the universe then why would he allow humans to worship him in a bunch of different ways? I would think if was a god I would want everyone worshipping me the same way.
You said that your wife is LDS. Ask her. She should give you an answer.

English is my second language.
I AM DEPLORABLE AND IRREDEEMABLE
SHE PERSISTED WE RESISTED
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
02-05-2016, 10:49 PM
RE: Coming back to truth
(02-05-2016 05:43 PM)Alla Wrote:  
(29-04-2016 03:16 PM)smitthom624 Wrote:  Here's one other thing I couldn't wrap my head around. If "God" created the universe then why would he allow humans to worship him in a bunch of different ways? I would think if was a god I would want everyone worshipping me the same way.
You said that your wife is LDS. Ask her. She should give you an answer.
I don't think she even knows the answer. Lately she seems to be "Mormon in name only" and doesn't even really follow the basic doctrines.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: