What “thinking atheists” don’t think about.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
09-06-2015, 06:04 PM
RE: What “thinking atheists” don’t think about.
(08-06-2015 11:51 AM)Anti-oil Wrote:  By treating the Bible as allegory and following the large number of clues available, I have discovered a hidden history of Christianity, and with it, an understanding of what religion is really about.
Can't get anymore revealing than that. Drinking Beverage

"I don't have to have faith, I have experience." Joseph Campbell
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like grizzlysnake's post
09-06-2015, 09:00 PM
RE: What “thinking atheists” don’t think about.
(08-06-2015 11:51 AM)Anti-oil Wrote:  Atheists frequently see parallels between the Bible and other sources as evidence against the supposed divine nature of the Bible, but there is one remarkable parallel that atheists appear to have missed or simply ignore. The first part of this parallel appears in Plato’s Theaetetus:

Socrates: “In the name of the Graces, what an almighty wise man Protagoras must have been! He spoke these things in a parable to the common herd, like you and me, but told the truth, his Truth, in secret to his own disciples.”

And the parallel passage appears in Mark 14:10-12 which reads:

Mark 14:10 When he (Christ) was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. 11 He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12 so that, "'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'"

I believe that this parallel linking Christ to the Sophist Protagoras was intended as a deliberate allusion designed to let those “initiated” into the “Mysteries” that Christianity was in fact a Sophist invention. (I believe the Mar Saba Letter provides some support for this idea.)

Atheists also seem to have missed these remarks about Sophists in Plato’s Protagoras:

“Now the art of the Sophist is, as I believe, of great antiquity; but in ancient times those who practiced it, fearing this odium, veiled and disguised themselves under various names, some under that of poets, as Homer, Hesiod, and Simonides, some, of hierophants and prophets, as Orpheus and Musaeus, and some, as I observe, even under the name of gymnastic-masters, like Iccus of Tarentum, or the more recently celebrated Herodicus, now of Selymbria and formerly of Megara, who is a first-rate Sophist. Your own Agathocles pretended to be a musician, but was really an eminent Sophist; also Pythocleides the Cean; and there were many others; and all of them, as I was saying, adopted these arts as veils or disguises because they were afraid of the odium which they would incur.”

NOW THINK… What is the manner of the Sophist’s “veils”. (Also, remember the “tradition” of Veronica and her veil and think about how it might be interpreted.) The obvious answer is their disguise is in their words. At the time that Christ supposedly walked the earth, Philo of Alexandria was interpreting the Books of Moses just as hundreds of years earlier the Plato portrayed the rhapsode Ion (who is also identified as being from Ephesus) as interpreting the works of Sophist Homer.

I also view John (Greek: Ioannes) 1:1 as a deliberate allusion designed to make a connection to the interpretations of Philo:

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Philo was a false interpreter who confined his interpretations to the Books of Moses in the same way that Ion confined his false interpretations to Homer. What I am suggesting by these connections is that the Apostle John (who has also been linked to Ephesus by “tradition”) is an allegoric representation of Philo.

THINK… How would you create a world? You could begin by placing words on a “flat” surface with “four corners”. How would you provide “eternal life”? Simple, tell a person’s story in the “heaven” of literal meaning. How would you “raise the dead”? First, find them in the underworld of hidden meanings and then bring them into the literal world through interpretation.

By treating the Bible as allegory and following the large number of clues available, I have discovered a hidden history of Christianity, and with it, an understanding of what religion is really about. (THINK about where the word “clue” comes from.) Based upon previous experience, I doubt that any one is ready to take my ideas seriously, but perhaps they might find time to at least think about them when they next come upon something that cannot be explained with conventional reasoning.

And think about what it means if I am correct. Atheists can open a new front in their war against religion.

I guess that's interesting, but what is the deeper meaning of mullets?

[Image: Mullet-Cover.jpg]

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2015, 06:11 AM
RE: What “thinking atheists” don’t think about.
(09-06-2015 09:00 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  I guess that's interesting, but what is the deeper meaning of mullets?

The secret lies in the ovaries:

[Image: mullet.jpg]

"The person who is certain, and who claims divine warrant for his certainty, belongs now to the infancy of our species." - Christopher Hitchens

"Remember kids, if you don't sin, then Jesus died for nothing. Have a great day!" - Ricky Gervais
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Eva's post
10-06-2015, 06:55 AM
RE: What “thinking atheists” don’t think about.
The ideas of the underdog that went on to become the Jesus character of the bible, were not original concepts to the bible. This idea that Socrates became the prototype for the Jesus character is not widely talked about but historians have been making this connection for a long time.

The truth is that there has never been any religion in human history that magically popped out of dirt all by itself. Any religion that gets created draws off of prior and surrounding motifs. What eventually became Christianity was influenced by many surrounding and prior groups, from the Canaanites to the Egyptians. Europe, North Africa and Mesopotamia geographically are very close and were always accessible to those with the means to travel.

The idea of avoiding conventional sex via inserting a penis into a vagina, was also made about the pregnancy of Queen Maya giving birth to the first Buddha. Isis, although she is depicted in Egyptian polytheism as having sex with the disembodied penis of Osiris, still gave birth to the savior god Horus, whom arose to heaven to sit with Osiris under Ra to sit in judgment of the dead.

While knowing this history is important, it is also equally important if not more, to understand that no amount of a religious person OF ANY religion, pointing to real people or real places(if proven) will make any magical fantastic claim that defies science true.

So even if we were to find the bones of a man named Jesus and confirmed it with DNA, the only thing that would amount to is that a mere man started a new religion. Really no different than saying a guy named Mohammed still never talked to an invisible being, but merely managed to start a new club.

Poetry by Brian37(poems by an atheist) Also on Facebook as BrianJames Rational Poet and Twitter Brianrrs37
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2015, 08:01 AM
RE: What “thinking atheists” don’t think about.
(10-06-2015 06:55 AM)Brian37 Wrote:  The ideas of the underdog that went on to become the Jesus character of the bible, were not original concepts to the bible. This idea that Socrates became the prototype for the Jesus character is not widely talked about but historians have been making this connection for a long time.

The truth is that there has never been any religion in human history that magically popped out of dirt all by itself. Any religion that gets created draws off of prior and surrounding motifs. What eventually became Christianity was influenced by many surrounding and prior groups, from the Canaanites to the Egyptians. Europe, North Africa and Mesopotamia geographically are very close and were always accessible to those with the means to travel.

The idea of avoiding conventional sex via inserting a penis into a vagina, was also made about the pregnancy of Queen Maya giving birth to the first Buddha. Isis, although she is depicted in Egyptian polytheism as having sex with the disembodied penis of Osiris, still gave birth to the savior god Horus, whom arose to heaven to sit with Osiris under Ra to sit in judgment of the dead.

While knowing this history is important, it is also equally important if not more, to understand that no amount of a religious person OF ANY religion, pointing to real people or real places(if proven) will make any magical fantastic claim that defies science true.

So even if we were to find the bones of a man named Jesus and confirmed it with DNA, the only thing that would amount to is that a mere man started a new religion. Really no different than saying a guy named Mohammed still never talked to an invisible being, but merely managed to start a new club.

Christianity owes everything to the Ancient Semetic religions, Canaanite, Levant, Assyro-Babylonian, Sumerian and pre-Islamic Arabian polytheism all heavily influenced the formation of Judaism and eventually Christianity. They also influenced the formation of Greek Mythology, so it's not surprising to find common themes in mythologised historical figures from this broad geographical area.

Personally, I blame Gilgamesh for the spread of Christianity.

Archi

"I love the term magic realism. It's about expanding how you see the world. I think we live in an age where we're just hammered to think this is what the world is. Everything's saying 'That's the world.' And it's not the world. The world is a million possible things." - TG

Salman Rushdie talks to Terry Gilliam
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2015, 12:45 PM
RE: What “thinking atheists” don’t think about.
(08-06-2015 11:51 AM)Anti-oil Wrote:  Atheists frequently see parallels between the Bible and other sources as evidence against the supposed divine nature of the Bible, but there is one remarkable parallel that atheists appear to have missed or simply ignore. The first part of this parallel appears in Plato’s Theaetetus:

Socrates: “In the name of the Graces, what an almighty wise man Protagoras must have been! He spoke these things in a parable to the common herd, like you and me, but told the truth, his Truth, in secret to his own disciples.”

And the parallel passage appears in Mark 14:10-12 which reads:

Mark 14:10 When he (Christ) was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. 11 He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12 so that, "'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'"

I believe that this parallel linking Christ to the Sophist Protagoras was intended as a deliberate allusion designed to let those “initiated” into the “Mysteries” that Christianity was in fact a Sophist invention. (I believe the Mar Saba Letter provides some support for this idea.)

Atheists also seem to have missed these remarks about Sophists in Plato’s Protagoras:

“Now the art of the Sophist is, as I believe, of great antiquity; but in ancient times those who practiced it, fearing this odium, veiled and disguised themselves under various names, some under that of poets, as Homer, Hesiod, and Simonides, some, of hierophants and prophets, as Orpheus and Musaeus, and some, as I observe, even under the name of gymnastic-masters, like Iccus of Tarentum, or the more recently celebrated Herodicus, now of Selymbria and formerly of Megara, who is a first-rate Sophist. Your own Agathocles pretended to be a musician, but was really an eminent Sophist; also Pythocleides the Cean; and there were many others; and all of them, as I was saying, adopted these arts as veils or disguises because they were afraid of the odium which they would incur.”

NOW THINK… What is the manner of the Sophist’s “veils”. (Also, remember the “tradition” of Veronica and her veil and think about how it might be interpreted.) The obvious answer is their disguise is in their words. At the time that Christ supposedly walked the earth, Philo of Alexandria was interpreting the Books of Moses just as hundreds of years earlier the Plato portrayed the rhapsode Ion (who is also identified as being from Ephesus) as interpreting the works of Sophist Homer.

I also view John (Greek: Ioannes) 1:1 as a deliberate allusion designed to make a connection to the interpretations of Philo:

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Philo was a false interpreter who confined his interpretations to the Books of Moses in the same way that Ion confined his false interpretations to Homer. What I am suggesting by these connections is that the Apostle John (who has also been linked to Ephesus by “tradition”) is an allegoric representation of Philo.

THINK… How would you create a world? You could begin by placing words on a “flat” surface with “four corners”. How would you provide “eternal life”? Simple, tell a person’s story in the “heaven” of literal meaning. How would you “raise the dead”? First, find them in the underworld of hidden meanings and then bring them into the literal world through interpretation.

By treating the Bible as allegory and following the large number of clues available, I have discovered a hidden history of Christianity, and with it, an understanding of what religion is really about. (THINK about where the word “clue” comes from.) Based upon previous experience, I doubt that any one is ready to take my ideas seriously, but perhaps they might find time to at least think about them when they next come upon something that cannot be explained with conventional reasoning.

And think about what it means if I am correct. Atheists can open a new front in their war against religion.

It seems that you have a far more compelling case on your hands, than anything made by Mark Fulton. Bravo.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
10-06-2015, 01:10 PM
RE: What “thinking atheists” don’t think about.
(08-06-2015 11:51 AM)Anti-oil Wrote:  (THINK about where the word “clue” comes from.)

Clue...Clue...C.L.U.E... WAIT! Clue as a game invented in the late 1940's during WW2. War..Clue? Clue was also a movie in 1985 the same year as the cold war? Hmmm Clue stared Tim Curry. Curry...war...clue? Curry also played Dr. Frank N. Furter in Rocky Horror Picture show that was an alien from outer space. Curry...war...clue..Outer space. Curry is also a dish served in the middle east WHICH WE ARE AT WAR WITH! HOLY CRAP!

The aliens have landed in The middle east! They have been leaving CLUES for us! HOW Could we be so blind! THANK YOU ANTI-OIL. I never thought of this before! They have been creating every war.Hobo

...oh wait... I forgot i'm not insane.

Don't Live each day like it's your last. Live each day like you have 541 days after that one where every choice you make will have lasting implications to you and the world around you. ~ Tim Minchin
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Commonsensei's post
10-06-2015, 05:47 PM
RE: What “thinking atheists” don’t think about.
(10-06-2015 12:45 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  
(08-06-2015 11:51 AM)Anti-oil Wrote:  Atheists frequently see parallels between the Bible and other sources as evidence against the supposed divine nature of the Bible, but there is one remarkable parallel that atheists appear to have missed or simply ignore. The first part of this parallel appears in Plato’s Theaetetus:

Socrates: “In the name of the Graces, what an almighty wise man Protagoras must have been! He spoke these things in a parable to the common herd, like you and me, but told the truth, his Truth, in secret to his own disciples.”

And the parallel passage appears in Mark 14:10-12 which reads:

Mark 14:10 When he (Christ) was alone, the Twelve and the others around him asked him about the parables. 11 He told them, "The secret of the kingdom of God has been given to you. But to those on the outside everything is said in parables 12 so that, "'they may be ever seeing but never perceiving, and ever hearing but never understanding; otherwise they might turn and be forgiven!'"

I believe that this parallel linking Christ to the Sophist Protagoras was intended as a deliberate allusion designed to let those “initiated” into the “Mysteries” that Christianity was in fact a Sophist invention. (I believe the Mar Saba Letter provides some support for this idea.)

Atheists also seem to have missed these remarks about Sophists in Plato’s Protagoras:

“Now the art of the Sophist is, as I believe, of great antiquity; but in ancient times those who practiced it, fearing this odium, veiled and disguised themselves under various names, some under that of poets, as Homer, Hesiod, and Simonides, some, of hierophants and prophets, as Orpheus and Musaeus, and some, as I observe, even under the name of gymnastic-masters, like Iccus of Tarentum, or the more recently celebrated Herodicus, now of Selymbria and formerly of Megara, who is a first-rate Sophist. Your own Agathocles pretended to be a musician, but was really an eminent Sophist; also Pythocleides the Cean; and there were many others; and all of them, as I was saying, adopted these arts as veils or disguises because they were afraid of the odium which they would incur.”

NOW THINK… What is the manner of the Sophist’s “veils”. (Also, remember the “tradition” of Veronica and her veil and think about how it might be interpreted.) The obvious answer is their disguise is in their words. At the time that Christ supposedly walked the earth, Philo of Alexandria was interpreting the Books of Moses just as hundreds of years earlier the Plato portrayed the rhapsode Ion (who is also identified as being from Ephesus) as interpreting the works of Sophist Homer.

I also view John (Greek: Ioannes) 1:1 as a deliberate allusion designed to make a connection to the interpretations of Philo:

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Gen. 1:1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.

Philo was a false interpreter who confined his interpretations to the Books of Moses in the same way that Ion confined his false interpretations to Homer. What I am suggesting by these connections is that the Apostle John (who has also been linked to Ephesus by “tradition”) is an allegoric representation of Philo.

THINK… How would you create a world? You could begin by placing words on a “flat” surface with “four corners”. How would you provide “eternal life”? Simple, tell a person’s story in the “heaven” of literal meaning. How would you “raise the dead”? First, find them in the underworld of hidden meanings and then bring them into the literal world through interpretation.

By treating the Bible as allegory and following the large number of clues available, I have discovered a hidden history of Christianity, and with it, an understanding of what religion is really about. (THINK about where the word “clue” comes from.) Based upon previous experience, I doubt that any one is ready to take my ideas seriously, but perhaps they might find time to at least think about them when they next come upon something that cannot be explained with conventional reasoning.

And think about what it means if I am correct. Atheists can open a new front in their war against religion.

It seems that you have a far more compelling case on your hands, than anything made by Mark Fulton. Bravo.

It is not at all compelling, just more tortured connecting of dots in an ad hoc manner.

And "clue" is of Germanic origin, so that was a totally off-the-wall comment.

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
10-06-2015, 10:47 PM
RE: What “thinking atheists” don’t think about.
(10-06-2015 05:47 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(10-06-2015 12:45 PM)Tomasia Wrote:  It seems that you have a far more compelling case on your hands, than anything made by Mark Fulton. Bravo.

It is not at all compelling, just more tortured connecting of dots in an ad hoc manner.

And "clue" is of Germanic origin, so that was a totally off-the-wall comment.

Is OK. Tommy's just trolling.

We'll love you just the way you are
If you're perfect -- Alanis Morissette
(06-02-2014 03:47 PM)Momsurroundedbyboys Wrote:  And I'm giving myself a conclusion again from all the facepalming.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: