A Viewpoint

On July 23, 2016, we discontinued our forums. We ask our members to please join us in our new community site, The Hartmann Report. Please note that you will have to register a new account on The Hartmann Report.

4 posts / 0 new

God does not care whether you believe in Him/Her or not but wants you to live a life of good thoughts and actions. So God exists and does not exist at the same time. A possibility, after all this IS God. Therefore God exists within each and every one of us or does not exist.

God does NOT communicate with you, influence you, nor reveal His/Her presence or existence to you in any way if He/She exists.

Moses' Burning Bush is NOT God otherwise this would contradict the statement that God exists within each and every one of us and God does NOT communicate with you, influence you, nor reveal His/Her presence or existence to you in any way if He/She exists.

The belief of Jesus Christ as the only Divine Savior of the world and that you must accept only him for Salvation is questionable. Specifically, the Divinity of Christ must be disbelieved otherwise this would contradict the statement that God exists within each and every one of us and God does NOT communicate with you, influence you, nor reveal His/Her presence or existence to you in any way if He/She exists.

God does NOT send agents on His/Her behalf otherwise this would contradict the statement that God does NOT communicate with you, influence you, nor reveal His/Her presence or existence to you in any way if He/She exists.

A spiritual statement or belief does not need to be proved. It may be accepted or rejected.

aview's picture
Jul. 30, 2015 1:53 am


For every time you use the word "God" in your sentences, one could put "Thor" or "Zeus" or "Mickey Mouse" and they'd all be total nonsense. "God" is merely an invention of superstitious man just like all the other gods like Thor or Zeus. You could say that I don't believe there is a God (with a big G) or a god( with a little g) and you'd be correct. I am an atheist! Have been all my life. And when people start spouting that nonsensical word, I just have to reject it as nonsense. "God" is not in me nor is "Satan". They are both words of superstitious people. And when those superstitious people start popping off with "God is in everybody and everything" nonsense it is obvious that they are trying to proselytize others with their nonsense.

By the way, my avatar is showing Michael Brown bullying the convenience store clerk after stealing cigars from that store in Ferguson, MO.

Palindromedary's picture
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

By the way, you can delete two of these three posts or all of them if you want.

Palindromedary's picture
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

I agree that there are a lot of pseudo-Christians who are right wing hypocrites but I even think that many of those who claim to be Christians, who think of themselves as not part of that group that are right wing hypocrites are also pseudo-Christians because they will sin and then try to say that they are still going to heaven because "no one is perfect" and all they have to do is "accept Jesus Christ as their savior and ask for his forgiveness" and that will purify them once again fit to reside in heaven after they die.

For one thing, most Christians have no idea where Christianity came from... what the original Christians believed... or how Christianity has been modified over the last 2000 years by the church. It's a kind of brainwashing similar to the likes of just about any other cult. And asking prying questions is frowned on... why?... because a lot of it is a lie... only some of it is historical! Get rid of all of the magic and you might find some historical truth in some of it.

The only thing they know about Jesus is through those interpretations and writings by monks and priests and scribes who all had an axe to grind. It has always been the case! All religions were created by someone who wanted to control someone else by manipulating their beliefs and taking advantage of their superstitions.

If there even was a real Jesus, he may not have been what today's modern Christians believe he was. I don't think too many modern Christians would believe that Jesus was a Sicarii, who were militants armed with curved daggers that they could hide under their robes and sneak up behind a Roman soldier in a crowded market place, stab him in the back, and then disappear in the crowd. Was Jesus a terrorist who murdered Romans? Yet some theologians tend to think there is evidence to support that Jesus was a Sicorii terrorist. Some theologians believe that there is evidence that at least some of the more incredible stories in the Bible were created by people who were high on psilocybin mushrooms.1

Wouldn't the Romans want to do anything they could to discredit such a terrorist as a Sicarii and put down the rebellious Jew? And what better way to do that than to create stories about Jesus that believers would be turned into peaceful zombies that would not fight back...but "turn the other cheek"? Wouldn't the real Jesus and his rebels be more like today's ISIL terrorists instead of someone who would "turn the other cheek". Remember that the Jews were "prophecying" the coming of a messiah that would militarily conquer Rome and chase them out of Israel for good.

Could it be that the Romans tried to get rid of these pesky terrorists by trying to change how the people, the Jews, thought by creating a new religion, an offshoot of Judaism, that preached peace, give unto Caesar that which belongs to Caesar (ie: pay your taxes), and not to rebel against one's master, etc? So, the Bible sanctions slavery? Sure looks like it!

According the the biblical stories of Jesus, he was a bit of mental case... he's doing all kinds of magic tricks... bringing the dead back to life, walking on water, casting demons out of swine, feeding the masses... all kinds of magical thinking that many bumpkins would be easily fooled by and impressed by. But, one minute he's preaching love and peace, the next he goes into a rage and turned over the Temple money changers tables. The next, he is cursing out a fig tree (or maybe it was an olive tree) for not bearing fruit. The next, he is smart mouthing his mother.

Was he a homosexual when the bible claimed he slept with a naked man? (Perhaps the result of homosexual priests or monks who created a little titilating porn to get off on?) Or perhaps Jesus wasn't the chaste virgin everyone likes to think of him that way...when he kissed Mary Magdeline ( a prostitute) on the lips as jealously reported by one of the male apostles. Maybe Jesus was bi-sexual? Was Jesus a sexual pervert? Did he even have a penis? I wonder how many Christians think about Jesus' penis and what he did with it. Did he whack off like most normal guys do? Or, perhaps he found a stray sheep once in a while. Who knows what Jesus was? No one that's who! Jesus is mostly what you conjure up in your imagination and, perhaps, what you see in the movies.

All you Christians can do is get little confusing and contradictory snippets from a book that has been edited over the last 2000 years by monks and priests and scribes that all had the power to adulterate past documents to add their own proclivitites and predilections. The only scant mention that Jesus may have even existed outside of the Bible was proved to be a forgery and that document was written quite some time after the alleged Jesus' death. Even the early churches...in the first 100 years after Jesus was supposed to be crucified... all had different stories as to who they believed Jesus was. Some believed he was a mortal man. Others believed he was wasn't... others thought he was half man, half god. And those churches all bickered among one another over their interpretations of who Jesus was and the history of Jesus. They argued over the "virgin birth" as well.

Some biblical scholars believe that there is evidence that the Romans, with the help of Josephus (a Jew that sold out to the Romans and became tight with the Roman Flavian Emperors, just made up the fictional character of Jesus as a kind of insiders joke that they, the Romans, could get a good laugh out of it at the expense of the Jews that were suckered into believing those stories. It was also a way to fool the Jews, some of them anyway, into worshipping Caesar and not know it. The joke was on them. Of course, many Jews didn't buy it! They had their own myths, lies, and nonsense to believe in and no one, not even the Romans were going to change that. But the Romans evidently hooked some of them as well as other non-Jews. But that eventually caused a big problem for Emperor Constantine who ordered all the heads, the Bishops, of these early churches to get together and hammer out a unified story of what Chistianity was going to be henceforth. They all had to get their stories straight. They threw away a lot of manuscripts and kept others. And their story had to serve the Roman Empire. It's largely served the Roman Empire, with various alterations, since. And all of the cults and offshoots of the Catholic Church, that became other Christian religions, represent all of the more modern bickerings of the Christion Church who demanded that their parisheners all adopt their manipulated stories about Christianity.
Joseph Atwill wrote a book called "Caesar's Messiah: The Roman Conspiracy to Invent Jesus"

The author's thesis is that Christianity was the invention of the Flavian family of Roman Emperors to squash the messianic uprisings of the Sicarii and create a pacified messianic Judaism. The writings of Josephus read "intertextually" with the Gospels are apparently a satire on the Jewish uprisings of the first century. A more thorough summary could be found in the book's reviews on Amazon.com, but the book primarily relies on parallelism between the four Gospels and the Josephus's War of the Jews to support its thesis.

...the primary arguments center around paralleling Josephus's War of the Jews with the Gospel accounts by comparing conceptual similarities.

Atwill offers the case of the Gadarene demoniac as one example. Jesus goes to Gadara and orders "Legion" out of the man. The Legion of demons enters a group of two thousand swine, who then plunge into the sea and drown. Forty years later, Titus leads a campaign in the same area and drives two thousand Jewish rebels to drown in the sea. He notes that in Josephus's account of all that is taken when the Romans plunder Gadara, "No swine are mentioned."

This, he declares, is because the "Swine" are actually the Jewish Rebels. Of course, if there were a Real Jesus, who really did drive two thousand swine into the sea, there simply might not be any pigs left in the region.

Consider also that War of the Jews contains an account of a woman, Mary the Daughter of Eleazar/Lazarus, who, during the siege of Jerusalem roasts and devours her own son. This is held in comparison to Jesus, son of Mary, instituting the Last Supper with the command to eat his own flesh and blood.

Atwill asserts that Jesus' supposed ministry exactly mirrors the campaign of Titus in War of the Jews, and that the record of the former is meant to be a satire of the latter, a mockery of the messianic Jews - I think. Atwill is not yet clear on what the Romans are satirizing.

He also argues that the prophecies of the NT were actually invented by Josephus to be "predicted," and then "fulfilled" by Titus in the War of the Jews. The prophecy that (paraphrasing here) Jerusalem would be destroyed in one generation (40 years) is of course fulfilled by Titus.

According to Atwill, the Romans' solution to these problems was to create a special kind of post-war propaganda. They called it in Greek evangelion, a technical term meaning "good news of military victory." In English, it is translated as "gospel." The name is in fact ironic humor: the Romans were amusing themselves with the notion of making the Jews accept, as the actions of the Messiah Jesus, what were in fact literary echoes of the very battles in which the Romans had defeated the Jews' armies. A further joke was buried in unmistakable parallels between the life of Jesus and that of Titus: in worshiping Jesus, the Jews who adopted Christianity, as it came to be called, were in fact hailing the Emperor of their conquerors as god.

Professor Robert Eisenman of California State University describes Atwill's research as rendering contemporary Christian scholarship so challenged that it is now "looking into the abyss". It is worth noting, in this regard, that the general scholarly consensus that there was a historical, Jewish Jesus is itself largely a recent historical idea, traceable to Abraham Geiger in the 1860's. He persuaded scholars that the Gospels were an account of a historical Jewish Jesus, a typical Pharisee of his day. Since then this view, and with it the notion of Christianity as a development of Judaism, has become the dominant paradigm in Christianity. However, as the new discoveries in Caesar's Messiah make clear, this is not just misleading, but a dangerous concession to a false system of belief. The Romans created this new religion deliberately to humiliate the Jews and to keep them in submission. For contemporary Jewish scholars to collude with this Roman literary invention, and to even pretend that this fictional character had historic reality, is the height of irony.

It is one thing for Christians to use works of literature as their sacred documents. It is quite another for them to continue using what have now been discovered to be deliberate Roman fakes about a non existent Messiah.

The eleven satirical events that coincide chronologically with historical events in Josephus' The War of the Jews:

1. Jesus begins his efforts by the Lake of Galilee.

2. He sends a legion of devils out of a demon-possessed man and into pigs.

3. He offers his flesh to be eaten.

4. He mentions signs of the destruction of Jerusalem.

5. In Gethsemane a naked man escapes.

6. Jesus is captured at Gethsemane on the Mount of Olives.

7. Simon denies knowing him.

8. Jesus is crucified with two other men and only he survives.

9. He is taken down from the cross by a man called Joseph of Arimathea.

10. His disciple John survives but his disciple Simon is sent off to die in Rome.

11. After his death his disciple Judas kills himself.

Each of these peculiar events has a parallel in the writings of Josephus, our main record of the military encounter between the Judeans and their Roman conquerors-even to the unusual crucifixion in which three men are crucified, and a man named Joseph takes one, who survives, down. To give a flavor of the humor buried in this grand Roman joke, we see that where, in Josephus, the crucifixions take place at Thecoe, which translates as the "Village of the Inquiring Mind," the gospel's satiric version takes place at Golgotha, or the "Hill of the Empty Skull."

Events at the Lake of Galilee launch the Judean careers of both Titus and Jesus. There Jesus called his disciples to be 'fishers of men'. There the Roman battle took place in which Titus attacked a band of Jewish rebels led by a leader named Jesus. The rebels fell into the water and those who were not killed by darts "attempted to swim to their enemies, the Romans cut off either their heads or their hands" (Jewish War III, 10). Men were indeed pulled out of the water like fish.

As for the episode of the Gadarene swine-in which demons leave a Gadara demoniac at Jesus' bidding and then enter into a herd of 2,000 swine, which rush wildly into the lake and drown-Josephus recounts the Roman campaign in which Vespasian marched against Gadara. In the same way that the demons were concentrated in one demoniac, Josephus describes the faults of all the rebels being concentrated in the one head of the rebel leader John. Then, rushing about "like the wildest of wild beasts," the 2000 rebels rushed over the cliff and drowned.

To take a third example, Josephus describes how Titus went out without his armor (and therefore to a soldier metaphorically naked) in the garden of Gethsemane, was nearly caught and had to flee. The parallel in the gospel of Mark is a naked young man who appears from nowhere in the Garden of Gethsemane and flees.

So far over dozen of these parallels have been identified -many of which had already been discovered by other scholars. But Atwill is the first researcher to have identified the overall pattern. The pattern in each case is the same. This fulfills the criterion for 'good' parallels set out by James R. Davila in his paper 'The Perils of Parallels', University of St Andrews Divinity School, (April 2001), which states that "patterns of parallels are more important than individual parallels" and "the larger and more complex the pattern of parallels, the more we should take them seriously."

Since the events occur in Josephus in exactly the same order as their counterpart events in the Gospels, probability theory can then be used to assess the likelihood that this might be due simply to chance, or instead, that one source copied the other. The calculation shows that it is over 99.9999% certain that one account was written based upon the other. This calculation takes a conservative approach that assumes that, once used, each of the eleven items could not be used again. The probability is thus calculated as 11 factorial, or 11x10x9x8x7x6x5x4x3x2x1 .This would equal 1 chance in 39,916,800. Expressed as a percentage, this means that it is 99.999997% certain that one account influenced the other. In other words, the likelihood that these parallel sequences occurred by chance is less than 0.000003%--effectively zero. (The alternative approach would assign truly random possibilities for each of the events, in which case the odds are calculated as eleven to the eleventh power, or one chance in 285,311,670,611, for an even more remote probability of 0.0000000003%.)

videos: http://www.rodephemet.org/welcome.html

And so, everyone that says he is Christian claims that only his/her beliefs are valid and none of the other Christian's beliefs are. I think they are all hippocrites. And they are all full of it! That's part of the reason why I am an atheist!
1.The Sacred Mushroom and the Cross: A Study of the Nature and Origins of Christianity Within the Fertility Cults of the Ancient Near East -- 1970
-John Marco Allegro

Palindromedary's picture
Jul. 31, 2007 4:01 pm

Can Humanity Be Saved?

Thom plus logo As the Amazon is on fire and the Democratic Party refuses to hold a debate focused on climate change, an Australian think tank has come out with a report suggesting the possibility that climate change could destroy human civilization within as little as 30 years.
Powered by Pressflow, an open source content management system