One Nation Under God?

[AVG-JOE]

Then you're mind is closed to the concept of someone having a different belief system being tolerated as equal.

I can't help you to understand.

WHAT?!

I never said anything about being intolerant to another belief system. Have you not seen me defend Muslims right to worship freely? Such a brazen presumption is frankly offensive. My mind is closed to the fact that one faith or belief be superior than the other. I see Atheism as arrogant and self imposing. That still doesn't stop me from affording the same rights to believe what they want to believe.

You contradict yourself.

First you say that one faith is not superior to another and then you say that your beliefs are indeed superior to atheism.

You do this a lot. Its as though you don't know your own thoughts and beliefs.

Acting like everyone else's beliefs are just as valid as our own is hard. Everyone else is wrong.

You all do know that 'to tolerate' is a verb, eh? ​

 

[AVG-JOE]

And Joe, I couldn't help but notice your sig line.

~Treat the Earth well... It was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children.
~We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children.
` --Native American Proverbs

You do realize how spiritual Native Americans were, right? Just curious.

Certainly!

I find what little I know about Native American religion fascinating, and I'm not concerned about the life I've lived, ass-u-me-ing there's any substance to their ancient stories.

It's not a zero sum game for me, just because I don't believe that the ancient stories inspired by Abraham are the last word on God doesn't mean I think God isn't possible.

Anythings possible when it comes to the unprovable questions of origins and after-life... what's left is probabilities.

Dunno. Nobody knows. That's the point.​

 

[AVG-JOE]

So that should be construed as intolerance? Why are you assigning these things to me?

Your opinion of Christians is stereotypical, and honestly, you are too lazy to find out the truth of my faith. You would much rather sit back and judge it from an ivory tower aloft. It's rather disappointing. Avail yourself of knowledge before you dole out your judgements.



Um. I do. I am a firm believer of the law as well. Just because I am a Christian does not excuse me from obeying the law. The Bible says love one another, love thine enemy, do unto others as you would have them do to you, etc.

There are plenty of things that suggest we don't treat other lifestyles as "second class." In Romans 13, I am commanded to respect the governing authorities, thusly the law, because just law is divinely inspired. Thus if I disobey the law, I disobey God.

I don't know where you're getting your stuff from, but it is intellectually dishonest. I don't have to accept any lifestyle, nor do you. But you sit there demanding I accept yours. In this land of freedom, that's too bad, my friend.

And as far as generalizing goes, you administered a heavy dose of it earlier (and I'm paraphrasing here), "If this is how Christians act, then I want no part of it. This is why they get no respect from me."


Lastly, who do I want to punish? What are you afraid of?

Do you believe that gay and straight marriages should be treated equally under the Tax Code and the Social Security Act?

Why or why not?

I believe in equal treatment under the law. Why? Because not only does the 14th Amendment make it deadly clear, Matthew 7 makes it clear I should reserve passing judgement on unbelievers, lest I be judged with the same standards and fail to meet them myself.

So that's a 'yes'?

You have no problem with gay couples getting all of the tax breaks and social security benefits that straight couples get, paid for by tax pools that you have no choice but to contribute to when participating fully in the economy?

Welcome to the wonderful world of the tolerant.

 

[AVG-JOE]

1. That's nonsensical.

2. Actually, one nation under god does have a history and it does, in fact, matter. I am against the pledge altogether and not just one line. Having children recite it on a daily basis is a form of brainwashing and you know it. The concepts in that pledge are not going to be understood because they deal with abstract thinking which doesn't begin to develop until between the ages of 12-15.

3. Again nonsensical and should have been combined with 1.

4. and 5. should have been combined. Emotions are chemical reactions.

6. and 7. I have never paid attention to Anthony Flew. Ever. His conversion is not my concern. Further, for every individual that alters his/her position there are several more heading the opposite way.

I think there is some misconception that atheists spend mass quantities of time reading or attending lectures by and for atheists. I do not. You won't find me at Youtube responding to videos. I am not attending an atheist conference. Not that there is anything wrong with it. I just have other things to do.

8. Intelligent design is not science. It's BS and I don't care who believes in it. You want that? You keep that in a religious private school that doesn't accept public funds. Keep it out of the public schools.

You said--intelligent design is BS------ then you must believe in evolution--the big bang---where trillions x trillions x trillions of atoms exploded into utter kaos--yet everyone fell perfectly into place to create a whole universe and living beings.( talk about BS) there is 0 chance of that being reality. --this is--Genesis 1:1--Gods precision use of science and math= creation.

‘Intelligent design’ is religion, just as subjective, failed, and flawed as any other religion, as religion is in fact a creation of man, reflecting man’s imperfection.

Good call.

Any attempt to answer the unknowable questions of how life arose, how monkeys became Sentient Monkeys, and / or what happens to the software that drives the flesh after the flesh is dead is a religious discussion.

As soon as some idiot thinks he has the answers and a hat gets passed soliciting donations to promote it, it becomes a 'religion'.

 

[TemplarKormac]

You said--intelligent design is BS------ then you must believe in evolution--the big bang---where trillions x trillions x trillions of atoms exploded into utter kaos--yet everyone fell perfectly into place to create a whole universe and living beings.( talk about BS) there is 0 chance of that being reality. --this is--Genesis 1:1--Gods precision use of science and math= creation.

‘Intelligent design’ is religion, just as subjective, failed, and flawed as any other religion, as religion is in fact a creation of man, reflecting man’s imperfection.

Good call.

Any attempt to answer the unknowable questions of how life arose, how monkeys became Sentient Monkeys, and / or what happens to the software that drives the flesh after the flesh is dead is a religious discussion.

As soon as some idiot thinks he has the answers and a hat gets passed soliciting donations to promote it, it becomes a 'religion'.

Well, as convincing as that might be to an outsider, there is no evidence to suggest that Christianity "is a man made creation." In fact the notion of such is rather offensive, imo. I am also of the belief that my faith extends beyond the organized part. Christianity is not purely limited to a building, nor do you need money to promote it. However, we are commanded to give one tenth of all of out our profits to God. As we live in a money driven society, it would be impossible to spread our faith effectively without it.

But while we are on the subject, using such logic on the lines of " As soon as some idiot thinks he has the answers and a hat gets passed soliciting donations to promote it, it becomes a religion":

I'm sure people such as the "Freedom from Religion Foundation," for example, solicit donations for their cause as well. So as I see it, even Atheists think they have all the answers, too and are just as compelled to take in money to drive their points home. As such, I would see atheism as a 'religion' as well.

 

[Moonglow]

The Jews believe that Jesus Christ as the Messiah was a man made invention....

 

[TemplarKormac]

Do you believe that gay and straight marriages should be treated equally under the Tax Code and the Social Security Act?

Why or why not?

I believe in equal treatment under the law. Why? Because not only does the 14th Amendment make it deadly clear, Matthew 7 makes it clear I should reserve passing judgement on unbelievers, lest I be judged with the same standards and fail to meet them myself.

So that's a 'yes'?

You have no problem with gay couples getting all of the tax breaks and social security benefits that straight couples get, paid for by tax pools that you have no choice but to contribute to when participating fully in the economy?

Welcome to the wonderful world of the tolerant.

In as many words, words, yes. The Bible says to love your enemies and neighbors, treat others as you would want to be treated, and to judge not, lest we be judged. Even my devoutly religious grandmother believes that. And she thinks homosexuality is abominable; as do I. But we don't condone it, we think it's sinful; however we do not condone people being mistreated under the law for being different (whether it be of their own volition or not, I'm not going to sit here and debate whether it is or isn't) if we want the law to be fair and just, it must and should not be dictated by the hatred of others.

I have never been 'intolerant' though, my uncle was gay, I wanted to see him before he passed away. I have three friends who are gay as well. Being a true Christian is being fair and just, as God is. I will continue being such, but I will not let such tolerance interfere with my devotion to God.

 

[TemplarKormac]

And Joe, I couldn't help but notice your sig line.

~Treat the Earth well... It was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children.
~We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children.
` --Native American Proverbs

You do realize how spiritual Native Americans were, right? Just curious.

Certainly!

I find what little I know about Native American religion fascinating, and I'm not concerned about the life I've lived, ass-u-me-ing there's any substance to their ancient stories.

It's not a zero sum game for me, just because I don't believe that the ancient stories inspired by Abraham are the last word on God doesn't mean I think God isn't possible.

Anythings possible when it comes to the unprovable questions of origins and after-life... what's left is probabilities.

Dunno. Nobody knows. That's the point.​

I appreciate your clarification, Average. I think I understand where you're coming from.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The Jews believe that Jesus Christ as the Messiah was a man made invention....

They were also the ones who had him nailed to a cross to die on trumped up charges too. Your point?

 

[Pogo]

I'm like 88 posts behind so some of this might be repetitive

No, I'm not trying to start a fight. Invariably though, I will be flamed for this OP; in fact I fully expect to. But I have a few questions for liberal secularists and atheists. I simply just want to ask them a few things and state my mind. Honestly. Namely about their aversion to God in general, about their contention that they either don't believe in him, or that he isn't real. I encourage them to respond to this, to talk to me. I really want to know what drives this. But anyways, here goes nothin'.

Question and Thoughts:

1. How can you be offended by a God you don't believe in or think exists?

You have a strawman. Who said they were "offended" by a god, extant or not?

2. Why do some of you want to strike the phrase "under God" from the pledge? The history or the motives behind the pledge or the phrase are irrelevant, simply because there's an underlying principle involved. Moreover, I believe you are being irrational.

Again, "I believe you are being irrational" sounds like a response to someone or something we're not privy to. Who?

It's a complex question, as it's assessing the validity of two ideas: the phrase "under God", and the pledge itself.

I'm not activisting to strike "under God" from the pledge, though I don't think it belongs there. The reason I think that's a waste of time is that the pledge itself is a waste of time. It's a prayer to a piece of cloth, a fetish. It's actually kinda kinky; no country in the world has a pledge to a piece of cloth like this, except for the Philippines, and they after all were our colony. A prayer to a piece of cloth is a slippery slope to go down, a slope of indoctrination and jingoism.

The phrase "under God" does make it worse, simply because it's injecting religion into a national icon and thereby sticking a toe into the waters of theocracy -- it's an invitation to create a hysteria next time we invade Uruguay or whoever, that we're doing so "under God", and that's dangerous. But the pledge itself is bogus so the question of whether the phrase is in there or not is kind of moot. If you've got old spoiled food in the refrigerator, and its container is damaged too, you don't really care about fixing the container; you toss the whole thing. Let's throw the whole thing out and get over ourselves.

3. You question why a Christian believes in a God they can't see, but you yourself are offended by a God you don't believe in, or which exists. So:

a) How is that possible?

b) How is it logical?

c) How, ultimately, is that rational?

It isn't. Again, it's the same strawman as #1. Nobody's "offended". If there's any "offense" it would apply to proselytizers who demand in myriad ways that everyone else needs to sip the same Kool-Aid they do. But that's the proselytizer, not the god.

The existence of "God" cannot be proven. The nonexistence of "God" cannot be proven. Therefore both theism and atheism are irrational. Simple as that.

4. Regardless of what you think, we believe life has a purpose and meaning

"We" do?
Define "we"...

, that courage, love, and honor aside from other things are real, yet they aren't manifested in physical form at all. Should they then be discounted as not being real either? This is the rationale you use to disprove the existence of God.

"God" cannot be proven to not-exist, so that's a non-starter.

But the traits you've listed here are motivations. Just as greed or hate or envy are. Since we feel our own motivations, without which we could literally do nothing, they're real as motivations. "God" is not a motivation; it's (alleged to be) an entity. Your comparison is I'm afraid inoperative. Not exactly apples and oranges... more like apples and hunger.

Snipped the rest -- 5 really presents no question, and not familiar with the gentleman in 6.

 

[Pogo]

The Jews believe that Jesus Christ as the Messiah was a man made invention....

They were also the ones who had him nailed to a cross to die on trumped up charges too. Your point?

Uhh-- the Romans were the ones who had him nailed to the cross, for insurrection. That is specifically what crucifixion was for. Rome didn't give a shit who did what religiously; what they cared about was the power of Rome and any threat to it. Whether such charges were "trumped up" within Roman law at the time, we're in no position to judge. Starting a riot in the temple just as the local population was swelling for Passover certainly seems to have been a catalyst.

Well I skipped from post 1 to post 88; it seems in between the thread um.... evolved. Or devolved.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The Jews believe that Jesus Christ as the Messiah was a man made invention....

They were also the ones who had him nailed to a cross to die on trumped up charges too. Your point?

Uhh-- the Romans were the ones who had him nailed to the cross, for insurrection. That is specifically what crucifixion was for. Rome didn't give a shit who did what religiously; what they cared about was the power of Rome and any threat to it. Whether such charges were "trumped up" within Roman law at the time, we're in no position to judge. Starting a riot in the temple just as the local population was swelling for Passover certainly seems to have been a catalyst.

Well I skipped from post 1 to post 88; it seems in between the thread um.... evolved. Or devolved.

Uhh-- the Romans were the ones who had him nailed to the cross, for insurrection. That is specifically what crucifixion was for.

Pilate said he could find no fault with Jesus. He gave the Jews a choice between Barabbas and Jesus, he tried three times to dissuade the angry mob. But ultimately, the crowd insisted on having him crucified. So yes, the Romans performed the crucifixion, but the Jews sent him there, out of pure hatred having an insurrectionist and a murderer released.

The charges were trumped up, even Pilate said so in the Bible. Whether you consider the Bible a source of historicity or not is inconsequential.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Pilate nor Herod saw Jesus as a threat. Only the Jews did.

So Pilate asked Him, saying, "Are You the King of the Jews?" And He answered him and said, "It is as you say." Then Pilate said to the chief priests and the crowds, "I find no guilt in this man." But they kept on insisting, saying, "He stirs up the people, teaching all over Judea, starting from Galilee even as far as this place." When Pilate heard it, he asked whether the man was a Galilean. And when he learned that He belonged to Herod's jurisdiction, he sent Him to Herod, who himself also was in Jerusalem at that time.

Now Herod was very glad when he saw Jesus; for he had wanted to see Him for a long time, because he had been hearing about Him and was hoping to see some sign performed by Him. And he questioned Him at some length; but He answered him nothing.

And the chief priests and the scribes were standing there, accusing Him vehemently. And Herod with his soldiers, after treating Him with contempt and mocking Him, dressed Him in a gorgeous robe and sent Him back to Pilate. Now Herod and Pilate became friends with one another that very day; for before they had been enemies with each other.

Pilate summoned the chief priests and the rulers and the people, and said to them, "You brought this man to me as one who incites the people to rebellion, and behold, having examined Him before you, I have found no guilt in this man regarding the charges which you make against Him. No, nor has Herod, for he sent Him back to us; and behold, nothing deserving death has been done by Him. "Therefore I will punish Him and release Him."

Now he was obliged to release to them at the feast one prisoner. But they cried out all together, saying, "Away with this man, and release for us Barabbas!" (He was one who had been thrown into prison for an insurrection made in the city, and for murder.) Pilate, wanting to release Jesus, addressed them again, but they kept on calling out, saying, "Crucify, crucify Him!" And he said to them the third time, "Why, what evil has this man done? I have found in Him no guilt demanding death; therefore I will punish Him and release Him."

But they were insistent, with loud voices asking that He be crucified. And their voices began to prevail. And Pilate pronounced sentence that their demand be granted. And he released the man they were asking for who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, but he delivered Jesus to their will.

Luke 23:3-25

 

[Disir]

Luke was written in approximately 90 CE.

 

[BDBoop]

. . . which has nothing to do with socialism.

Huh?

Thank you.

 

[guno]

Pilate nor Herod saw Jesus as a threat. Only the Jews did.

So Pilate asked Him, saying, "Are You the King of the Jews?" And He answered him and said, "It is as you say." Then Pilate said to the chief priests and the crowds, "I find no guilt in this man." But they kept on insisting, saying, "He stirs up the people, teaching all over Judea, starting from Galilee even as far as this place." When Pilate heard it, he asked whether the man was a Galilean. And when he learned that He belonged to Herod's jurisdiction, he sent Him to Herod, who himself also was in Jerusalem at that time.

Now Herod was very glad when he saw Jesus; for he had wanted to see Him for a long time, because he had been hearing about Him and was hoping to see some sign performed by Him. And he questioned Him at some length; but He answered him nothing.

And the chief priests and the scribes were standing there, accusing Him vehemently. And Herod with his soldiers, after treating Him with contempt and mocking Him, dressed Him in a gorgeous robe and sent Him back to Pilate. Now Herod and Pilate became friends with one another that very day; for before they had been enemies with each other.

Pilate summoned the chief priests and the rulers and the people, and said to them, "You brought this man to me as one who incites the people to rebellion, and behold, having examined Him before you, I have found no guilt in this man regarding the charges which you make against Him. No, nor has Herod, for he sent Him back to us; and behold, nothing deserving death has been done by Him. "Therefore I will punish Him and release Him."

Now he was obliged to release to them at the feast one prisoner. But they cried out all together, saying, "Away with this man, and release for us Barabbas!" (He was one who had been thrown into prison for an insurrection made in the city, and for murder.) Pilate, wanting to release Jesus, addressed them again, but they kept on calling out, saying, "Crucify, crucify Him!" And he said to them the third time, "Why, what evil has this man done? I have found in Him no guilt demanding death; therefore I will punish Him and release Him."

But they were insistent, with loud voices asking that He be crucified. And their voices began to prevail. And Pilate pronounced sentence that their demand be granted. And he released the man they were asking for who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, but he delivered Jesus to their will.

Luke 23:3-25

Half of New Testament forged, Bible scholar says

Half of New Testament forged, Bible scholar says ? CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

TRANSLATION ERRORS AND FORGERIES IN THE BIBLE


How the Gospels were created

Constantine then instructed Eusebius to organize the compilation of a uniform collection of new writings developed from primary aspects of the religious texts submitted at the council.

His instructions were:
"Search ye these books, and whatever is good in them, that retain; but whatsoever is evil, that cast away. What is good in one book, unite ye with that which is good in another book. And whatsoever is thus brought together shall be called The Book of Books. And it shall be the doctrine of my people, which I will recommend unto all nations, that there shall be no more war for religions' sake."
(God's Book of Eskra, op. cit., chapter xlviii, paragraph 31)

"Make them to astonish" said Constantine, and "the books were written accordingly"
(Life of Constantine, vol. iv, pp. 36-39).
Eusebius amalgamated the "legendary tales of all the religious doctrines of the world together as one", using the standard god-myths from the presbyters' manuscripts as his exemplars.

Merging the supernatural "god" stories of Mithra and Krishna with British Culdean beliefs effectively joined the orations of Eastern and Western presbyters together "to form a new universal belief" (ibid.). Constantine believed that the amalgamated collection of myths would unite variant and opposing religious factions under one representative story.

Eusebius then arranged for scribes to produce,
"fifty sumptuous copies ... to be written on parchment in a legible manner, and in a convenient portable form, by professional scribes thoroughly accomplished in their art"
(ibid.).

"These orders," said Eusebius, "were followed by the immediate execution of the work itself ... we sent him [Constantine] magnificently and elaborately bound volumes of three-fold and four-fold forms"
(Life of Constantine, vol. iv, p. 36).
They were the "New Testimonies", and this is the first mention (c. 331) of the New Testament in the historical record.

With his instructions fulfilled, Constantine then decreed that the New Testimonies would thereafter be called the "word of the Roman Savior God" (Life of Constantine, vol. iii, p. 29) and official to all presbyters sermonizing in the Roman Empire. He then ordered earlier presbyterial manuscripts and the records of the council "burnt" and declared that "any man found concealing writings should be stricken off from his shoulders" (beheaded) (ibid.). As the record shows, presbyterial writings previous to the Council of Nicaea no longer exist, except for some fragments that have survived.

Some council records also survived, and they provide alarming ramifications for the Church. Some old documents say that the First Council of Nicaea ended in mid-November 326, while others say the struggle to establish a god was so fierce that it extended "for four years and seven months" from its beginning in June 325 (Secrets of the Christian Fathers, op. cit.). Regardless of when it ended, the savagery and violence it encompassed were concealed under the glossy title "Great and Holy Synod", assigned to the assembly by the Church in the 18th century.

Earlier Churchmen, however, expressed a different opinion.

The Second Council of Nicaea in 786-87 denounced the First Council of Nicaea as,
"a synod of fools and madmen" and sought to annul "decisions passed by men with troubled brains"
(History of the Christian Church, H. H. Milman, DD, 1871).
If one chooses to read the records of the Second Nicaean Council and notes references to "affrighted bishops" and the "soldiery" needed to "quell proceedings", the "fools and madmen" declaration is surely an example of the pot calling the kettle black.

Constantine died in 337 and his outgrowth of many now-called pagan beliefs into a new religious system brought many converts. Later Church writers made him "the great champion of Christianity" which he gave,
"legal status as the religion of the Roman Empire"
(Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire, Matthew Bunson, Facts on File, New York, 1994, p. 86).
Historical records reveal this to be incorrect, for it was "self-interest" that led him to create Christianity (A Smaller Classical Dictionary, J. M. Dent, London, 1910, p. 161). Yet it wasn't called "Christianity" until the 15th century (How The Great Pan Died, Professor Edmond S. Bordeaux [Vatican archivist], Mille Meditations, USA, MCMLXVIII, pp. 45-7).

Over the ensuing centuries, Constantine's New Testimonies were expanded upon, "interpolations" were added and other writings included (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, pp. 135-137; also, Pecci ed., vol. ii, pp. 121-122). For example, in 397 John "golden-mouthed" Chrysostom restructured the writings of Apollonius of Tyana, a first-century wandering sage, and made them part of the New Testimonies (Secrets of the Christian Fathers, op. cit.).

The Latinized name for Apollonius is Paulus (A Latin-English Dictionary, J. T. White and J. E. Riddle, Ginn & Heath, Boston, 1880), and the Church today calls those writings the Epistles of Paul. Apollonius's personal attendant, Damis, an Assyrian scribe, is Demis in the New Testament (2 Tim. 4:10).

The Church hierarchy knows the truth about the origin of its Epistles, for Cardinal Bembo (d. 1547), secretary to Pope Leo X (d. 1521), advised his associate, Cardinal Sadoleto, to disregard them, saying,
"put away these trifles, for such absurdities do not become a man of dignity; they were introduced on the scene later by a sly voice from heaven"
(Cardinal Bembo: His Letters and Comments on Pope Leo X, A. L. Collins, London, 1842 reprint).
The Church admits that the Epistles of Paul are forgeries, saying,
"Even the genuine Epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of their authors"
(Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vii, p. 645).
Likewise, St Jerome (d. 420) declared that the Acts of the Apostles, the fifth book of the New Testament, was also "falsely written" ("The Letters of Jerome", Library of the Fathers, Oxford Movement, 1833-45, vol. v, p. 445).


http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/biblianazar/esp_biblianazar_40.htm

 

[rightwinger]

Question and Thoughts:

1. How can you be offended by a God you don't believe in or think exists? I am not offended by a God I know doesn't exist. I am offended by simple minded people forcing their religious beliefs on me and my children
2. Why do some of you want to strike the phrase "under God" from the pledge? The history or the motives behind the pledge or the phrase are irrelevant, simply because there's an underlying principle involved. Moreover, I believe you are being irrational.

Because the very reason it is there is political reactionism to godless commies in the fifties. Our country does not support religion that includes declaring that for some reason you are Gods favorite
3. You question why a Christian believes in a God they can't see, but you yourself are offended by a God you don't believe in, or which exists. So:

Again, what makes you think atheists are offended by God? I am not offended by unicorns, fairies, trolls, or other magical beings

4. Regardless of what you think, we believe life has a purpose and meaning, that courage, love, and honor aside from other things are real, yet they aren't manifested in physical form at all. Should they then be discounted as not being real either? This is the rationale you use to disprove the existence of God.

Atheists believe in those values also. We just believe they are inherent in mankind and not the result of some magical creature

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Pilate nor Herod saw Jesus as a threat. Only the Jews did.

So Pilate asked Him, saying, "Are You the King of the Jews?" And He answered him and said, "It is as you say." Then Pilate said to the chief priests and the crowds, "I find no guilt in this man." But they kept on insisting, saying, "He stirs up the people, teaching all over Judea, starting from Galilee even as far as this place." When Pilate heard it, he asked whether the man was a Galilean. And when he learned that He belonged to Herod's jurisdiction, he sent Him to Herod, who himself also was in Jerusalem at that time.

Now Herod was very glad when he saw Jesus; for he had wanted to see Him for a long time, because he had been hearing about Him and was hoping to see some sign performed by Him. And he questioned Him at some length; but He answered him nothing.

And the chief priests and the scribes were standing there, accusing Him vehemently. And Herod with his soldiers, after treating Him with contempt and mocking Him, dressed Him in a gorgeous robe and sent Him back to Pilate. Now Herod and Pilate became friends with one another that very day; for before they had been enemies with each other.

Pilate summoned the chief priests and the rulers and the people, and said to them, "You brought this man to me as one who incites the people to rebellion, and behold, having examined Him before you, I have found no guilt in this man regarding the charges which you make against Him. No, nor has Herod, for he sent Him back to us; and behold, nothing deserving death has been done by Him. "Therefore I will punish Him and release Him."

Now he was obliged to release to them at the feast one prisoner. But they cried out all together, saying, "Away with this man, and release for us Barabbas!" (He was one who had been thrown into prison for an insurrection made in the city, and for murder.) Pilate, wanting to release Jesus, addressed them again, but they kept on calling out, saying, "Crucify, crucify Him!" And he said to them the third time, "Why, what evil has this man done? I have found in Him no guilt demanding death; therefore I will punish Him and release Him."

But they were insistent, with loud voices asking that He be crucified. And their voices began to prevail. And Pilate pronounced sentence that their demand be granted. And he released the man they were asking for who had been thrown into prison for insurrection and murder, but he delivered Jesus to their will.

Luke 23:3-25

Half of New Testament forged, Bible scholar says

Half of New Testament forged, Bible scholar says ? CNN Belief Blog - CNN.com Blogs

TRANSLATION ERRORS AND FORGERIES IN THE BIBLE


How the Gospels were created

Constantine then instructed Eusebius to organize the compilation of a uniform collection of new writings developed from primary aspects of the religious texts submitted at the council.

His instructions were:
"Search ye these books, and whatever is good in them, that retain; but whatsoever is evil, that cast away. What is good in one book, unite ye with that which is good in another book. And whatsoever is thus brought together shall be called The Book of Books. And it shall be the doctrine of my people, which I will recommend unto all nations, that there shall be no more war for religions' sake."
(God's Book of Eskra, op. cit., chapter xlviii, paragraph 31)

"Make them to astonish" said Constantine, and "the books were written accordingly"
(Life of Constantine, vol. iv, pp. 36-39).
Eusebius amalgamated the "legendary tales of all the religious doctrines of the world together as one", using the standard god-myths from the presbyters' manuscripts as his exemplars.

Merging the supernatural "god" stories of Mithra and Krishna with British Culdean beliefs effectively joined the orations of Eastern and Western presbyters together "to form a new universal belief" (ibid.). Constantine believed that the amalgamated collection of myths would unite variant and opposing religious factions under one representative story.

Eusebius then arranged for scribes to produce,
"fifty sumptuous copies ... to be written on parchment in a legible manner, and in a convenient portable form, by professional scribes thoroughly accomplished in their art"
(ibid.).

"These orders," said Eusebius, "were followed by the immediate execution of the work itself ... we sent him [Constantine] magnificently and elaborately bound volumes of three-fold and four-fold forms"
(Life of Constantine, vol. iv, p. 36).
They were the "New Testimonies", and this is the first mention (c. 331) of the New Testament in the historical record.

With his instructions fulfilled, Constantine then decreed that the New Testimonies would thereafter be called the "word of the Roman Savior God" (Life of Constantine, vol. iii, p. 29) and official to all presbyters sermonizing in the Roman Empire. He then ordered earlier presbyterial manuscripts and the records of the council "burnt" and declared that "any man found concealing writings should be stricken off from his shoulders" (beheaded) (ibid.). As the record shows, presbyterial writings previous to the Council of Nicaea no longer exist, except for some fragments that have survived.

Some council records also survived, and they provide alarming ramifications for the Church. Some old documents say that the First Council of Nicaea ended in mid-November 326, while others say the struggle to establish a god was so fierce that it extended "for four years and seven months" from its beginning in June 325 (Secrets of the Christian Fathers, op. cit.). Regardless of when it ended, the savagery and violence it encompassed were concealed under the glossy title "Great and Holy Synod", assigned to the assembly by the Church in the 18th century.

Earlier Churchmen, however, expressed a different opinion.

The Second Council of Nicaea in 786-87 denounced the First Council of Nicaea as,
"a synod of fools and madmen" and sought to annul "decisions passed by men with troubled brains"
(History of the Christian Church, H. H. Milman, DD, 1871).
If one chooses to read the records of the Second Nicaean Council and notes references to "affrighted bishops" and the "soldiery" needed to "quell proceedings", the "fools and madmen" declaration is surely an example of the pot calling the kettle black.

Constantine died in 337 and his outgrowth of many now-called pagan beliefs into a new religious system brought many converts. Later Church writers made him "the great champion of Christianity" which he gave,
"legal status as the religion of the Roman Empire"
(Encyclopedia of the Roman Empire, Matthew Bunson, Facts on File, New York, 1994, p. 86).
Historical records reveal this to be incorrect, for it was "self-interest" that led him to create Christianity (A Smaller Classical Dictionary, J. M. Dent, London, 1910, p. 161). Yet it wasn't called "Christianity" until the 15th century (How The Great Pan Died, Professor Edmond S. Bordeaux [Vatican archivist], Mille Meditations, USA, MCMLXVIII, pp. 45-7).

Over the ensuing centuries, Constantine's New Testimonies were expanded upon, "interpolations" were added and other writings included (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vi, pp. 135-137; also, Pecci ed., vol. ii, pp. 121-122). For example, in 397 John "golden-mouthed" Chrysostom restructured the writings of Apollonius of Tyana, a first-century wandering sage, and made them part of the New Testimonies (Secrets of the Christian Fathers, op. cit.).

The Latinized name for Apollonius is Paulus (A Latin-English Dictionary, J. T. White and J. E. Riddle, Ginn & Heath, Boston, 1880), and the Church today calls those writings the Epistles of Paul. Apollonius's personal attendant, Damis, an Assyrian scribe, is Demis in the New Testament (2 Tim. 4:10).

The Church hierarchy knows the truth about the origin of its Epistles, for Cardinal Bembo (d. 1547), secretary to Pope Leo X (d. 1521), advised his associate, Cardinal Sadoleto, to disregard them, saying,
"put away these trifles, for such absurdities do not become a man of dignity; they were introduced on the scene later by a sly voice from heaven"
(Cardinal Bembo: His Letters and Comments on Pope Leo X, A. L. Collins, London, 1842 reprint).
The Church admits that the Epistles of Paul are forgeries, saying,
"Even the genuine Epistles were greatly interpolated to lend weight to the personal views of their authors"
(Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley ed., vol. vii, p. 645).
Likewise, St Jerome (d. 420) declared that the Acts of the Apostles, the fifth book of the New Testament, was also "falsely written" ("The Letters of Jerome", Library of the Fathers, Oxford Movement, 1833-45, vol. v, p. 445).


The Forged Origins of The New Testament

This is why there are so many parallels and similarities in certain parts of christianity and paganism.

Constantine forced pagans to build churches on the sites of their own places of worship and many incorporated pagan symbols into the newer buildings. Christianity was born as a way to fight paganism and it was christians who murdered so many pagans.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Question and Thoughts:

1. How can you be offended by a God you don't believe in or think exists? I am not offended by a God I know doesn't exist. I am offended by simple minded people forcing their religious beliefs on me and my children
2. Why do some of you want to strike the phrase "under God" from the pledge? The history or the motives behind the pledge or the phrase are irrelevant, simply because there's an underlying principle involved. Moreover, I believe you are being irrational.

Because the very reason it is there is political reactionism to godless commies in the fifties. Our country does not support religion that includes declaring that for some reason you are Gods favorite
3. You question why a Christian believes in a God they can't see, but you yourself are offended by a God you don't believe in, or which exists. So:

Again, what makes you thing atheists are offended by God? I am not offended by unicorns, fairies, trolls, or other magical beings

Agree.

Post after post saying that atheists hate god but I have yet to read where anyone actually does.

Its how some people USE their god that is objectionable.

 

[editec]

Atheists cannot hate GOD because one cannot hate nothing.

I mean seriously...how hard is that to figure out