Causes of Atheism

[GISMYS]

32. Isaiah tells of the mystery of our faith and hope:4478“Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel.” I know that the Jews are accustomed to meet us with the objection that in Hebrew the word Almah does not mean a virgin, but a young woman. And, to speak truth, a virgin is properly called Bethulah, but a young woman, or a girl, is not Almah, but Naarah!4479What then is the meaning of Almah? A hidden virgin, that is, not merely virgin, but a virgin and something more, because not every virgin is hidden, shut off from the occasional sight of men.

NPNF2-06. Jerome: The Principal Works of St. Jerome - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

The above is St. Jerome. He knows that his translation is wrong but carries on. Otherwise, they can't use Isiah 7:14.

A young woman that conceived is a million times a day event but not a virgin conceiving.

 

[Disir]

32. Isaiah tells of the mystery of our faith and hope:4478“Behold a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Emmanuel.” I know that the Jews are accustomed to meet us with the objection that in Hebrew the word Almah does not mean a virgin, but a young woman. And, to speak truth, a virgin is properly called Bethulah, but a young woman, or a girl, is not Almah, but Naarah!4479What then is the meaning of Almah? A hidden virgin, that is, not merely virgin, but a virgin and something more, because not every virgin is hidden, shut off from the occasional sight of men.

NPNF2-06. Jerome: The Principal Works of St. Jerome - Christian Classics Ethereal Library

The above is St. Jerome. He knows that his translation is wrong but carries on. Otherwise, they can't use Isiah 7:14.

A young woman that conceived is a million times a day event but not a virgin conceiving.

It's an intentional lie.

 

[amrchaos]

OK--let us take the stance that the NT is composed of a bunch of bull.

Now the question I have is--why waste time creating it? What goal was in the minds of these various people to make their versions of a book that they have to have known had nothing to do with reality?

I guess another question I have to ask is-"What events would lead to the desire of a new religious concept in Israel?" Apparently, it wasn't the Jewish religious order because many of the concepts in the NT damns them and relatively dismisses Judaism.

I guess the creators of the NT did not fully appreciate the history of the Jews and there experiences of exile and exodus. If they did, the NT would have been written radically different than it is now.

 

[JoeB131]

OK--let us take the stance that the NT is composed of a bunch of bull.

Now the question I have is--why waste time creating it? What goal was in the minds of these various people to make their versions of a book that they have to have known had nothing to do with reality?

I guess another question I have to ask is-"What events would lead to the desire of a new religious concept in Israel?" Apparently, it wasn't the Jewish religious order because many of the concepts in the NT damns them and relatively dismisses Judaism.

I guess the creators of the NT did not fully appreciate the history of the Jews and there experiences of exile and exodus. If they did, the NT would have been written radically different than it is now.

Okay, a couple of thoughts.

When you talk about the books of the New Testament, you are talking about 26 or so books that were accepted as "Canon" out of hundreds of gospels, Epistles, Acts and Apocalypses that existed at the time, written by dozens of factions of people who called themselves "Christians".

So putting them in the historical context might be a better thought.

The Epistles, written 50-80 AD came first. Some were written by Saul of Tarses (AKA St. Paul) others attributed to him. Saul had more to do with spreading Christianity than anyone else. But two points. Paul never met Jesus, and his epistles are largely lacking biographical details.

Next you get the Gospel of Mark. Mark has some biographical details, but is intentionally vague. It is also clear Mark never visited the Holy Land. He gets geography and customs wrong.

Then you get the next two gospels, Luke and Matthew. 90% of Mark is copied into these two Gospels and a second document called the "Q-Gospel", but they both enhance the story with biographical details. And since neither of them knew Jesus either, they contradict each other.

Matthew was written for a Jewish audience, and puts in a lot of misattributed scripture quoting to create Jesus bona fides. Luke is written for a Greek audiences. He puts in a lot of historical detail that contradicts the others and makes things questionable. (His literary device to put Jesus of Nazareth in Bethlehem is very amusing.)

Then you have John, which is written at a time where where the split between the Jews and Christians is pretty severe. So there you get all the blaming of the Jews for Jesus death that Mel Gibson is so fond of.

All four contradict each other on when Jesus lived, who his followers were, and so on.

And keep in mind, these were the four gospels picked out of hundreds by the Romans 300 years later to try to standardized their church.

 

[GISMYS]

The cause is not thinking and allowing satan to play you for a fool.

 

[JoeB131]

The cause is not thinking and allowing satan to play you for a fool.

After reading the bible - and thinking about it - i'm still trying to figure out which one was the bad guy.

God-

drowns everyone in the world. (Almost)
burns everyone alive in Sodom
kills every firstborn in Egypt
demands the sacrifice of Jephthah's daughter to fulfill a foolish oath
Sells his own people into slavery several times.
Kills David's son to prove a point about adultery.
Sends a plague for doing a census that either he or Satan ordered, killing 70,000.

And I could go on... Frankly, God is up there with Dr. Doom and Magneto as far as sociopathic supervillians go.

Satan -

....kills all of ten people- the Children of Job - because he had a bet with God that if he made Job's life miserable enough, Job would curse God.

So I have to ask, reading the Bible, which is God's word, which one is the bad guy again?

 

[LiberalMedia]

Causes of Atheism

Do we need a cause?

How about a cause for theism? For your rampant bigotry and rejection of science? How about a cause for the theistic hatred of education, intellectual honesty, and reality?

Moses isn't real. Jesus isn't real. Moonhammad isn't real. All of "their" books were written to control the masses. You've read, and believed, what are essentially ancient Harry Potter stories with mind control as an objective. You've been fooled into thinking that there's something more than just matter and antimatter out there creating things, and that our lives are run by something else unseen rather than just atoms.

You're wrong, theists. All religion is wrong. Get over it.

 

[amrchaos]

OK--let us take the stance that the NT is composed of a bunch of bull.

Now the question I have is--why waste time creating it? What goal was in the minds of these various people to make their versions of a book that they have to have known had nothing to do with reality?

I guess another question I have to ask is-"What events would lead to the desire of a new religious concept in Israel?" Apparently, it wasn't the Jewish religious order because many of the concepts in the NT damns them and relatively dismisses Judaism.

I guess the creators of the NT did not fully appreciate the history of the Jews and there experiences of exile and exodus. If they did, the NT would have been written radically different than it is now.

Okay, a couple of thoughts.

When you talk about the books of the New Testament, you are talking about 26 or so books that were accepted as "Canon" out of hundreds of gospels, Epistles, Acts and Apocalypses that existed at the time, written by dozens of factions of people who called themselves "Christians".

So putting them in the historical context might be a better thought.

The Epistles, written 50-80 AD came first. Some were written by Saul of Tarses (AKA St. Paul) others attributed to him. Saul had more to do with spreading Christianity than anyone else. But two points. Paul never met Jesus, and his epistles are largely lacking biographical details.

Next you get the Gospel of Mark. Mark has some biographical details, but is intentionally vague. It is also clear Mark never visited the Holy Land. He gets geography and customs wrong.

Then you get the next two gospels, Luke and Matthew. 90% of Mark is copied into these two Gospels and a second document called the "Q-Gospel", but they both enhance the story with biographical details. And since neither of them knew Jesus either, they contradict each other.

Matthew was written for a Jewish audience, and puts in a lot of misattributed scripture quoting to create Jesus bona fides. Luke is written for a Greek audiences. He puts in a lot of historical detail that contradicts the others and makes things questionable. (His literary device to put Jesus of Nazareth in Bethlehem is very amusing.)

Then you have John, which is written at a time where where the split between the Jews and Christians is pretty severe. So there you get all the blaming of the Jews for Jesus death that Mel Gibson is so fond of.

All four contradict each other on when Jesus lived, who his followers were, and so on.

And keep in mind, these were the four gospels picked out of hundreds by the Romans 300 years later to try to standardized their church.

I understand there is a lot of "gospels" and books claiming to talk about Jesus. The question I have is who started the Jesus story and for what reasons?

Was it Saul (St. Paul) or were there some one else before Saul that told a story similar to the Jesus and Saul decided to write that version(or an altered version) and run with it?

I guess the answer to my question could be found in one of the many gospels or maybe there is some other source that could tell us "who invented Jesus and why?"

maybe I should look that up--Who invented Jesus?

 

[Disir]

OK--let us take the stance that the NT is composed of a bunch of bull.

Now the question I have is--why waste time creating it? What goal was in the minds of these various people to make their versions of a book that they have to have known had nothing to do with reality?

I guess another question I have to ask is-"What events would lead to the desire of a new religious concept in Israel?" Apparently, it wasn't the Jewish religious order because many of the concepts in the NT damns them and relatively dismisses Judaism.

I guess the creators of the NT did not fully appreciate the history of the Jews and there experiences of exile and exodus. If they did, the NT would have been written radically different than it is now.

I'm going to start with the second question and then return to the first later tonight when I get back.

I should have mentioned this earlier. The Septuagint had been translated in the second century BCE under the orders of Ptolemy II in Alexandria by a small group of Jewish people that were fluent in Koine Greek and lived in the city. It has never been used or accepted by Jewish people.

Secondly, we have only one source for the internal Jewish Wars and that is Flavius Josephus. He writes from a pro-Roman view and long after many events that he covers. The people are not seeking a new religious movement-it's political. There are the Jewish elite running the government that are also pro-Roman ('cuz they don't really get a choice) and then the peasant class which was the hardest hit. You have a movement of intellectuals that are in disagreement over here. You have people like Simon bar Giora who was an extremely popular military commander and thus a threat to the elite which creates a larger than life liberator.

I think that the confusion lies in how messiah is defined. Jewish tradition has a criteria that must be met of the messiah. The early Christians knew this and failed it. There is no the Messiah=God. That would break the first commandment. Christianity doesn't begin here.

Christianity is tied to four areas: Antioch, Alexandria, Rome and Constantinople. I have to take off.

 

[amrchaos]

Great

The more I look online, the more I find hypothesis that do not logically work.

All I am seeing is constant argument, assertions that are dramatically undermined b others--and over reliance on some books that others claim to fraudulent, or contained fabricated materials to undermine another Book.

The question does not seems there is sufficient evidence to answer with clear certainty.

In fact, the best argument is that some jewish sects are responsible.

 

[Disir]

Great

The more I look online, the more I find hypothesis that do not logically work.

All I am seeing is constant argument, assertions that are dramatically undermined b others--and over reliance on some books that others claim to fraudulent, or contained fabricated materials to undermine another Book.

The question does not seems there is sufficient evidence to answer with clear certainty.

In fact, the best argument is that some jewish sects are responsible.

If you are going to take the path of searching only within those texts you will come up short. It's an agonizing back and forth but if that's your flavor it's cool. You have to leave that arena and look at the politics and actual history of the time periods in question. You won't find good information on line. It's in books. Christianity becomes a state sponsored religion under Constantine. It was purely a political move not because he believed in Christianity but to oust another group.

It took 8 centuries to create a Christology.

People have a tendency to think that the Ecumenical Councils were a group of men merely debating. In reality, they were violent as hell.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Causes of Atheism

Do we need a cause?

How about a cause for theism? For your rampant bigotry and rejection of science? How about a cause for the theistic hatred of education, intellectual honesty, and reality?

Moses isn't real. Jesus isn't real. Moonhammad isn't real. All of "their" books were written to control the masses. You've read, and believed, what are essentially ancient Harry Potter stories with mind control as an objective. You've been fooled into thinking that there's something more than just matter and antimatter out there creating things, and that our lives are run by something else unseen rather than just atoms.

You're wrong, theists. All religion is wrong. Get over it.

Isn't that the whole point of religion? For theists to convince themselves that they are right and everyone else is wrong. That single premise, that only their religion is the single one that is absolutely and unquestionably right, is the cause of a great deal of human suffering.

No one is born with the knowledge of a deity or a religion. It must be taught to them by other theists. The sooner it is taught the less likely it is to be questioned. But without questioning we would still be in caves. It was asking questions that allowed us to become what we are today. So to insist that there is something that cannot be questioned is illogical.

 

[Montrovant]

Causes of Atheism

Do we need a cause?

How about a cause for theism? For your rampant bigotry and rejection of science? How about a cause for the theistic hatred of education, intellectual honesty, and reality?

Moses isn't real. Jesus isn't real. Moonhammad isn't real. All of "their" books were written to control the masses. You've read, and believed, what are essentially ancient Harry Potter stories with mind control as an objective. You've been fooled into thinking that there's something more than just matter and antimatter out there creating things, and that our lives are run by something else unseen rather than just atoms.

You're wrong, theists. All religion is wrong. Get over it.

Isn't that the whole point of religion? For theists to convince themselves that they are right and everyone else is wrong. That single premise, that only their religion is the single one that is absolutely and unquestionably right, is the cause of a great deal of human suffering.

No one is born with the knowledge of a deity or a religion. It must be taught to them by other theists. The sooner it is taught the less likely it is to be questioned. But without questioning we would still be in caves. It was asking questions that allowed us to become what we are today. So to insist that there is something that cannot be questioned is illogical.

Regarding the bold, yes to the first part, no to the second. A person could obviously come to believe in something on their own, or religions would never have existed.

 

[GISMYS]

Do we need a cause?

How about a cause for theism? For your rampant bigotry and rejection of science? How about a cause for the theistic hatred of education, intellectual honesty, and reality?

Moses isn't real. Jesus isn't real. Moonhammad isn't real. All of "their" books were written to control the masses. You've read, and believed, what are essentially ancient Harry Potter stories with mind control as an objective. You've been fooled into thinking that there's something more than just matter and antimatter out there creating things, and that our lives are run by something else unseen rather than just atoms.

You're wrong, theists. All religion is wrong. Get over it.

Isn't that the whole point of religion? For theists to convince themselves that they are right and everyone else is wrong. That single premise, that only their religion is the single one that is absolutely and unquestionably right, is the cause of a great deal of human suffering.

No one is born with the knowledge of a deity or a religion. It must be taught to them by other theists. The sooner it is taught the less likely it is to be questioned. But without questioning we would still be in caves. It was asking questions that allowed us to become what we are today. So to insist that there is something that cannot be questioned is illogical.

Regarding the bold, yes to the first part, no to the second. A person could obviously come to believe in something on their own, or religions would never have existed.

WHAT PEOPLE anywhere on earth is there that do not know there is GOD???

 

[LiberalMedia]

Isn't that the whole point of religion? For theists to convince themselves that they are right and everyone else is wrong. That single premise, that only their religion is the single one that is absolutely and unquestionably right, is the cause of a great deal of human suffering.

No one is born with the knowledge of a deity or a religion. It must be taught to them by other theists. The sooner it is taught the less likely it is to be questioned. But without questioning we would still be in caves. It was asking questions that allowed us to become what we are today. So to insist that there is something that cannot be questioned is illogical.

Regarding the bold, yes to the first part, no to the second. A person could obviously come to believe in something on their own, or religions would never have existed.

WHAT PEOPLE anywhere on earth is there that do not know there is GOD???

Intelligent people.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Isn't that the whole point of religion? For theists to convince themselves that they are right and everyone else is wrong. That single premise, that only their religion is the single one that is absolutely and unquestionably right, is the cause of a great deal of human suffering.

No one is born with the knowledge of a deity or a religion. It must be taught to them by other theists. The sooner it is taught the less likely it is to be questioned. But without questioning we would still be in caves. It was asking questions that allowed us to become what we are today. So to insist that there is something that cannot be questioned is illogical.

Regarding the bold, yes to the first part, no to the second. A person could obviously come to believe in something on their own, or religions would never have existed.

WHAT PEOPLE anywhere on earth is there that do not know there is GOD???

New borns! Children raised in non theistic households and Atheists.

BTW I suggest you check the statistics. Non theists are now the 3rd or 4th largest group on the planet.

 

[GISMYS]

Regarding the bold, yes to the first part, no to the second. A person could obviously come to believe in something on their own, or religions would never have existed.

WHAT PEOPLE anywhere on earth is there that do not know there is GOD???

New borns! Children raised in non theistic households and Atheists.

BTW I suggest you check the statistics. Non theists are now the 3rd or 4th largest group on the planet.

IS THAT YOUR BEST ANSWER???? THAT IS pathetic!!!

 

[Derideo_Te]

WHAT PEOPLE anywhere on earth is there that do not know there is GOD???

New borns! Children raised in non theistic households and Atheists.

BTW I suggest you check the statistics. Non theists are now the 3rd or 4th largest group on the planet.

IS THAT YOUR BEST ANSWER???? THAT IS pathetic!!!

Denying the facts won't make them go away no matter how hard you pray!

'No Religion' Is World's Third-Largest Religious Group After Christians, Muslims According To Pew Study

'No Religion' Is World's Third-Largest Religious Group After Christians, Muslims According To Pew Study

REUTERS - People with no religious affiliation make up the third-largest global group in a new study of the size of the world's faiths, placing after Christians and Muslims and just before Hindus.