I know why many Christians are so upset over the movie, The Da Vinci Code. It isn't that people are going to die over this, like Jews died in the past when The Passion plays were performed, or like the people who died at cartoon protests recently. No, the Christians aren't worried about people dying because of this movie. They are worried their already flimsy belief system will be further questioned, potentially losing even more of their flock.
Science is hard enough to argue against, but now a fake but plausible story about their mythological saviour....this is too much. How dare someone add to the phoney story they already live and die by? It is like telling a Fundy to add evolution and an ancient earth to their belief system. Many Christians don't like add ons. Too much thinking is required, too many new lies must be invented to keep people believing the old lies.
It is obvious that distorting the mythological Jesus by allowing for a wife and possible kids is totally taboo, causing such an uproar. Yet the release of the movie, The God Who Wasn't There, hardly made news. Maybe Brian Flemming should have got Tom Hanks to appear in a couple of scenes:)
I know as far as my belief in the historical Jesus goes, I never questioned his existence until around the time that Mel Gibson started with his movie, The Passion.
All of a sudden, I was turned on to lots of information about the FACT that Jesus most likely didn't even exist. And everything I've read since, even from Christian Apologists, has only reinforced the non existence of Jesus Christ. It is kind of like the opposite of evolution, where everything I read reinforces evolution as fact. Us Atheists, we are such a cynical bunch, always demanding proof. How dare us!
Here are a couple of clips from The God Who Wasn't There. Definitely worth watching.
The first one runs around 6 minutes and the second one is less than 2 minutes long.
This is the movie that should upset Christians much more than The Da Vinci Code. At least the Code assumes Jesus was a living breathing person.
Yes, there was a 40 year gap from when Jesus supposedly lived, and the first words were written about the greatest myth of all times (OK, he is tied with God).
Oh, and before I get nasty comments by Christians here, please look at some of these sites and try refuting them. You can't.
http://www.jesusneverexisted.com/
http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/m_m_mangasarian/truth_about_jesus.html
http://www.luigicascioli.it/home_eng.php
http://www.i4m.com/think/bible/historical_jesus.htm
http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
http://www.bidstrup.com/bible.htm
Was Jesus mostly based on Caesar?
I once encountered a woman who kept running off at the mouth to me about how she was raised Catholic and how Jesus was the Son of God and how everyone was supposed to believe that or lose Heaven. There was no room for a dialogue; she was like a recorded message that kept playing the same information over and over and over. At best, she showed the sensitivity of a voice-controlled answering system. It took me very little time to realize that if she had a brain, the Catholic Church had stolen it from her for good. Thinking is not something that these people do so well because they are told to "have faith" instead. It is as if a person were to try to approach the topic with an open mind would mean automatic damnation.
ReplyDeleteI can't say that I've had experiences with proselytizing Christians that have been all that different. At some point, they all insist that the good and pious turn off their brains and discard them in favor of "having faith," and that's just a little too frightening for me to accept.
What I have always wondered: If the Vatican hadn't made such a big deal over The DaVinci Code in the first place, would there be such a raging dispute in Christian circles? Or would the book have just faded away into well-deserved obscurity? I think the Vatican's vocal opinions on a-- frankly-- poorly-written book just generate more suspicions against an organization that really can't handle anymore scandal.
ReplyDeleteFunny, I never even thought about doubting the existance of Jesus, just his divinity. Interesting thought, though.
K.
Atheism is not trying to tear down Christianity. Atheists are just people like me who see absolute no reason to believe in God and no evidence whatsoever that God exists.
ReplyDeleteI'm sure at least half the Atheists out there believe Jesus was a living breathing person, or at least just don't care if he was or not.
I'm sure you didn't read the links I provided. They show in a intellectual way that there is no proof Jesus existed and in fact, reasons for him to be completely made up and who the myth of Jesus personifies.
I loved The God Who Wasn't There. I only wish it were 2+ hours rather than 70 minutes. There's so much more to cover!
ReplyDeleteAs for a historical Jesus, I also find it doubtful. To me, the most convincing evidence is this: Not a single secular historian who lived at the same time that Jesus allegedly did mentioned the miracle worker's existence. If Jesus really did exist, wouldn't at least ONE secular historian who was his contemporary choose to mention him? By the way, this time period is one of the most well documented of antiquity.
That is fine. You are allowed your view. But you can't refute the links I provided. Why is it that you accept a book written by man way after the fact as proof of someones existence? Yes, ancient bibles writings do exist. That is why you believe what you believe, because you think that stories made up a couple of hundred years after Jesus supposedly lived should be declared history books.
ReplyDeleteI was an Atheist long before I doubted Christs existence. That is a new one for me. And the reason I post about it is because I find the facts fascinating. If I was ignorant for over 40 years about what "proof" Christians have been using to justify a historical Jesus, I can imagine how many others are out there.
Thank Mel Gibson for making this a hot topic. Without Mel, I'd probably still think Jesus was a real person.
The Da Vinci Code: Fact or Fiction
ReplyDelete1. Fiction: Mary Magdalene was married to Jesus.
This claim is the backbone of Brown's novel. The The Da Vinci Code
claims that Jesus and Mary Magdalene were married, that they had
children, and that their descendants included a line of kings in
France, as well as some of the main characters in Brown's novel.
Despite Brown's claims, however, there are no historical documents
that claim that Jesus was married - not even the "Gnostic gospels"
that Brown mentions in his novel. (The Gnostic texts were written a
century or more after the New Testament. The Gnostic texts borrow
some names and ideas from Christianity but the texts are not
Christian and they are not used by Christians.)
The only specific evidence that Brown cites to support this claim of
a marriage is a passage from one of the Gnostic texts - the so-
called "gospel of Phillip." And that lone piece of evidence actually
undermines Brown's claim.
The main problem with the "Phillip" passage is that it clearly shows
that even in the context of this Gnostic text, Mary Magdalene and
Jesus could not have been married. If you read the passage, as shown
on page 246 of the hardcopy version of The Da Vinci Code, you'll see
for yourself:
"the companion of the Savior is Mary Magdalene. Christ loved her more
than all the disciples and used to kiss her often on her mouth. The
rest of the disciples were offended by it and expressed disapproval.
They said to him, 'Why do you love her more than all of us?'"
If, in the context of this Gnostic text, the Savior and Magdalene
were supposedly married, then why would the disciples bother to ask
why he loved her more than them?
Can you imagine a scenario in which a group of men would ask a
married man, "Why do you love your wife more than us? And, for that
matter, why do you keep kissing your wife?" Such a question wouldn't
make any sense. In fact, it wouldn't make any sense even if the two
were merely engaged or simply dating.
The only way that the question would make sense in the Gnostic text
is if there was no reason for Mary Magdalene to be treated any
differently than the men. And the only way that this could be true is
if Mary Magdalene was supposed to have the exact same relationship
with the "Savior" as did the "other disciples." In other words, only
if she was not married, or otherwise intimately involved.
There are other problems with Brown's marriage theory:
• Despite Brown's "translation" of that key passage from the Gnostic
gospel of Phillip, the word "mouth" doesn't actually appear in the
original text. According to page 49 of The Da Vinci Deception, by
Erwin W. Lutzer: "You should know that because of the poor quality of
the papyrus, a word or two is missing in the original. The text
reads, 'Jesus kissed her often on the [blank].' So scholars fill in
the blank with the word mouth, face, or forehead, etc. Actually, for
all we know the text might have said 'the hand' or even 'the cheek'
since the statement implies that he also kissed his other students –
presumably on the cheek as is still done in the Middle East."
• Brown claims that the Aramaic word for "companion" literally
meant "spouse." That is not true according to various Aramaic
scholars. And, even more importantly, the Gnostic gospel of Phillip
was not written in Aramaic. It was written in Coptic.
• None of the Gnostic gospels ever claimed that Jesus and Mary
Magdalene were married. Even the so-called Gnostic gospel of Mary
Magdalene fails to makes such a claim.
• Finally, consider this from page 41 of The Truth Behind The Da
Vinci Code, by Richard Abanes, in regards to the Gnostic Phillip
text: Ironically, if this text does anything, it cuts out the very
heart of any assertion about Mary and Jesus being wed. It does so by
adhering to one of the basic tenets of ancient Gnosticism, which
declares that all physical matter was inherently evil. Consequently,
sexual relations were intrinsically debasing! The Gospel of Phillip
goes so far as to say that marital relations defile a woman.
2. Fiction: The Gnostic gospels and the Dead Sea Scrolls are "the
earliest Christian records."
The The Da Vinci Code claims that the New Testament is a forgery and
that the Gnostic gospels and the Dead Sea Scrolls are the original
Christian texts.
This claim, however, is flatly contradicted by an overwhelming amount
of scholarship by Christians and non-Christians. Many scholars
believe that the New Testament was written during the first century
and that the Gnostic texts were written no sooner than the second
century. And, the Dead Sea Scrolls don't contain any gospels of any
kind. In fact, the Dead Sea Scrolls do not contain any Christian
writings of any kind.
There are four New Testament Gospels, which are named Matthew, Mark,
Luke and John. Many scholars believe that these were written during
the century in which Jesus lived. The Gnostic gospels are generally
believed to have been written later – about 100 to 300 years later.
These Gnostic texts borrow some elements from Christianity, including
the names of Jesus and his apostles, but these writings are not
Christian.
There are major differences between the New Testament Gospels and the
Gnostic gospels. The New Testament Gospels contain details about life
in the land of Israel during the first century. They also contain
several references to Old Testament passages, prophecies and
theological concepts. For Christians, the New Testament is the
continuation of the Old Testament. In contrast, the Gnostic texts
contain very little detail to suggest that their authors had ever
been to the land of Israel, or that they were even alive during the
first century. And the theological concepts of the Gnostic texts
sharply contradict those that are found in the Old Testament.
Consider this from pages 26 and 27 of The Truth Behind the Da Vinci
Code, by Richard Abanes:
"But were the Gnostic gospels written prior to the books of Matthew,
Mark, Luke and John? Most scholars, Christian and non-Christian,
would answer no. They date the Gnostic gospels (for example, those in
the Nag Hammadi collection) to about A.D. 150 to 250. Although many
of these texts are Coptic translation of earlier Greek texts (that
are no longer extant), most scholars agree that the material itself
still does not date previous to the mid 100s to the early 200s.
"In other words, the Gnostic texts were written after the books of
Matthew (about 65 to 100), Mark (about 40 to 75), Luke (about 60 to
80), and John (about 90). They [the Gnostic texts] were late
arrivals, which is one reason why church leaders rejected them. ...
These Gnostic gospels not only disagreed with the older [New
Testament] Gospels, which were already accepted by Christians, but
they lacked authority since their authors were neither a) apostles of
Jesus nor b) persons associated with apostles of Jesus. ... No one
really knows who wrote the [Gnostic] texts."
As for Brown's claim about the Dead Sea Scrolls - these scrolls were
found in 1947, not in the 1950s as Brown mistakenly claims on page
234 of The Da Vinci Code. The Dead Sea Scrolls contain copies and
fragments of Old Testament books and various religious and secular
writings. But they do not contain any gospels, and they do not
contain any references to Jesus. In fact, many of the Dead Sea
Scrolls were written centuries before the time of Jesus.
3. Fiction: Christianity stole its ideas and concepts from paganism.
The Da Vinci Code, on page 232: claims: "Nothing in Christianity is
original. The pre-Christian god Mithras - called the Son of God and
the Light of the World - was born on December 25, died, was buried in
a rock tomb, and then resurrected in three days. By the way, December
25 was also the birthday of Osiris, Adonis, and Dionysus. The newborn
Krishna was presented with gold, frankincense, and myrrh."
This sequence of claims has puzzled many critics of Brown's book as
to their possible origin, if indeed they have an origin outside of
the author's imagination.
Serious scholars who have studied the Mithraic traditions, including
Franz Cumont, paint a very different portrayal. They don't mention
any death of Mithra, and they certainly don't mention any type of
resurrection for Mithra.
Some Christians do celebrate Christmas on December 25 as a time of
year to commemorate the birth and life of Jesus. But that doesn't
mean that they believe that Jesus was born on that particular date.
In fact, the Bible does not mention a specific birth date for Jesus.
For comparison, consider the American holiday called "Presidents
Day." The holiday occurs on a day in February, but that doesn't mean
that Americans believe that all presidents were born on that
particular day in February. Of course not. It is simply a day that is
set aside to commemorate American presidents.
As for the claim that the myths known as Osiris, Adonis and Dionysus
were born on December 25, I have been unable to track down any
scholarly source that actually makes that claim.
In regards to some of the other claims involving Mithra and
Christianity, consider the following from page 87 of de-coding Da
Vinci: The facts behind the fiction of The Da Vinci Code by Amy
Welborn:
"Mithras was a god with many forms. By the centuries after Christ,
his cult was primarily a mystery religion, popular among men,
especially soldiers. Mithraic studies do not find any attribution of
the titles 'Son of God' or 'Light of the World,' as Brown claims.
There is also no mention of a death-resurrection motif in Mithraic
mythology. Brown seems to have picked this up from a discredited
nineteenth-century historian, who provided no documentation for his
assertion. The same historian is the source for the Krishna
connection to which Brown alludes. There is not a single story in
actual Hindu mythology of Krishna being presented with gold,
frankincense, and myrrh at his birth (see Miesel and Olsen, Cracking
the Anti-Catholic Code)."
4. Fiction: The sacred name for God has a paganistic origin.
The Da Vinci Code, on page 309, claims: "The Jewish Tetragrammaton
YHWH - the sacred name of God - in fact derived from Jehovah, an
androgynous physical union between the masculine Jah and the pre-
Hebraic name for Eve, Havah"
This is perhaps one of the most embarrassing errors within Dan
Brown's The Da Vinci Code. The word Jehovah isn't the name for God.
In fact, that word doesn't appear in the Bible in either the Hebrew
text of the Old Testament or in the Greek text of the New Testament.
The word Jehovah is a made-up English word.
The ancient Jews began a tradition that they would not pronounce the
name of God (YHWH), as a way of showing respect. Instead, when they
read aloud from the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament), and they came
across the name for God (YHWH), they would substitute another word –
the Hebrew word for "Lord," which is "Adonah." This is similar to the
practice of addressing a king as "Lord," rather than as "king."
Over time, the vowel sounds for the Hebrew word "Adonah" were fused
with the consonants for the name of God (YHWH), and a new word was
created - "Yehovah." (This hybrid word, which didn't exist until
roughly 500 years ago, was often mistakenly pronounced by English
speakers as "Jehovah," even though there is no J sound in the Hebrew
language).
Therefore, any theory, however ill-intentioned or well-intentioned,
that involves either the word "Jehovah" or the word "Yehovah" is
completely meaningless, because there is no such word in the Hebrew
text of the Old Testament or in the Greek text of the New Testament.
Brown, however, isn't the first person to mistakenly think that
Jehovah was an actual word. And given the popularity of his novel, he
won't be the last.
5. Fiction: The Vatican killed an "astounding 5 million women" during
the witch hunts
This is important to Dan Brown's The Da Vinci Code, because in order
for novel's storyline to work, the Catholic Church must be portrayed
as an evil, oppressive institution that hates, oppresses and feels
threatened by women.
But, despite Brown's claims that there were 5 million women burned to
death by the Vatican, the fact is many scholars, including those who
are not Christian, say that the witch hunts were generally done by
local governments and individuals. Many scholarly sources estimate
that the number of people killed by the witch hunts is between 20,000
to 100,000. And, some sources estimate that 20 to 25 percent of the
victims were men.
Here are some additional details from page 36 of The Truth Behind the
Da Vinci Code:
It also should be noted that these persecutions were actually "a
collaborative enterprise between men and women at the local level."
Adam Jones, professor of international studies at the Center for
Research and Teaching Economics (Mexico City), has cited many sources
showing that most of the accusations of witchcraft "originated
in 'conflicts [that] normally opposed one woman to another.'"
For instance, Jones quotes Robin Briggs (author of Witches &
Neighbours: The Social and Cultural Context of European Witchcraft)
as saying that "most informal accusations were made by women against
other women." In Malevolent Nurture, Deborah Willis of the University
of California, Riverside, confirms that "women were actively involved
in making witchcraft accusations against their female neighbors." She
adds, "To a considerable extent, then, village-level witch-hunting
was women's work."
6. Fiction: Emperor Constantine shaped the New Testament.
This is essential to the plot in The Da Vinci Code because it
requires that the reader can believe that Constantine replaced the
Gnostic writings with what we now call the New Testament. But,
Constantine could not have had a hand in shaping the New Testament
for two reasons: He wasn't born soon enough and he didn't live long
enough. Based on writings from early church leaders, which date from
the year 96 through the year 112, 24 of the 27 books that are part of
today's New Testament were already regarded by early Christians as
being authoritative, a full 213 years before Constantine convened the
Council of Nicea. And, the Council of Nicea didn't canonize anything.
The canonization process occurred a full 70 years later, on a
different continent. In addition, there were several writings by
early church leaders, who died long before Constantine was even born,
that collectively quote thousands of New Testament passages.
7. Fiction: The Vatican demonized pagan worship.
The Da Vinci Code, page 37: "As part of the Vatican's campaign to
eradicate pagan religions and convert the masses to Christianity, the
church launched a smear campaign against the pagan gods and
goddesses, recasting their divine symbols as evil.... Venus' pentacle
became the sign of the devil."
Many people might not realize this, but there is a great deal of
historical evidence that shows that pagans tried to eradicate
Christianity and that pagans copied Christian symbols and ceremonies
in the hopes of surviving the rapid spread of Christianity,
especially during the first three centuries after the time of Jesus.
During that era, the pagans had tremendous resources, including the
support of emperors, who by default, where designated as high priests
of pagan religions. Their efforts to eradicate Christianity were
remarkably unsuccessful, and Christianity was able to become the
first religion to spread to followers worldwide. Even today, it can
be argued that Christianity is still the only worldwide religion.
As for Brown's claim about the pentacle, even that contradicts
historical evidence. The fact is, many Christians actually embraced
the pentacle! "The truth is, during the later medieval era (the 1100s
to the 1500s), Christians used the pentagram and pentacle as a
reminder of Christ's five wounds (hands, feet, side, back, head).
They also used it as a symbol for "the five books of Moses" and "the
five stones used by David against Goliath," according to page 32 of
The Truth Behind the Da Vinci Code.
There is nothing about a symbol, such as the pentacle or pentagram,
that is inherently good or evil. Its meaning depends on who is using
it and for what purpose they are using it. Some school teachers will
mark a student's homework assignment with a star (a pentacle) to show
that the student did excellent work. In this context, there is
nothing demonic about the pentacle, it simply represents "stellar"
work. But, when the founder of the Church of Satan needed a symbol
for his religion during the 1960s he chose to use a pentacle, which
he turned upside down. A pentacle, then, is what one makes of it.
So who "demonized" the pentacle? According to some scholars, and
according to some modern pagan sources, it was a French occultist who
lived during the 1800s. In other words, it was a pagan
who "demonized" the symbol.
8. Fiction: Constantine and the Vatican demonized Mary Magdalene and
sought to degrade women as part of a "power grab."
These claims are very important to Dan Brown's storyline. The
historical evidence, however, strongly contradicts Brown's claim.
Mary Magdalene is held in special regard by the Catholic Church, in
part because she was the first person to witness the resurrection of
Jesus Christ. If the Catholic Church wanted to tarnish the image of
Mary Magdalene, and if it was willing to rewrite scripture to do it,
then why would it allow Mary Magdalene to be the first person to have
witnessed the most important event in all of Christianity, which is
the resurrection?
Another problem for Brown's theory is that the Vatican exalts Mary
Magdalene – as a saint! In fact, several churches are named in honor
of Mary Magdalene, who is also honored with an annual celebration by
Catholics.
And if someone can still think that Brown's theory is somehow true,
that the Vatican allegedly hates women, then consider its regard for
another woman named Mary – the mother of Jesus. And when you're
finished contemplating that, apologize to yourself if you even
momentarily thought that Dan Brown was on to something.
9. Fiction: "Christianity's weekly holy day was stolen from the
pagans."
Da Vinci Code, pages 232-233: "Christianity's weekly holy day was
stolen from the pagans. Christianity honored the Jewish Sabbath of
Saturday, but Constantine shifted it to coincide with the pagan's
veneration day of the sun."
Actually, long before Constantine was even born, there were Christian
writings that made it clear that there was a Sabbath, which
corresponds to Saturday, and a "Lord's Day," which corresponds to
Sunday. Since the early beginnings of Christianity, Christians had an
affection for the first day of the week (Sunday) because this is the
day on which Jesus was resurrected. Early references to the "Lord's
Day" include Acts 20:7 and 1 Corinthians 16:2, which are books in the
New Testament. These were written during the first century and
predate the birth of Constantine by more than 200 years! Outside of
the New Testament, there are early Christian writings that confirm
that Christians celebrated a "Lord's Day" (Sunday). These writings
include those by Justin Martyr and Melito of Sardis. Both lived
during the Second Century (during the 100s), and both had already
died before Constantine was even born.
Cool, you attempted to prove that the Da Vinci Code is crap.....but first I think you should try to prove Jesus existed.
ReplyDeleteG, again, you have offered no proof of Christ's existence. And I have given you links that proves that all historians don't believe he existed.
I have a hard time with you. I'm wondering why a Buddhist needs to believe in a historical Jesus. Because, evidently, you do.
BEAJ is it me or have the nutjobs really come out of the woodwork recently.
ReplyDeleteThis new anon is quite a piece of work. The rambling unsubstantiated nature of it's posts is quite entertaining but pretty much a waste of time.
I can barely keep my eyes opened reading some of these short stories.
ReplyDeleteI suggest they get there own blogs or make one point at a time.
Hey BEAJ- why should they make one point at a time when they can bludgeon us to death with so much mind-mush that it's impossible to sort out what to refute? I mean that would be reasonable right?
ReplyDeleteAnd for my second point (Ha!)
I'm with you on the Jesus never existing thing- too many similarities to ancient near eastern mystery religions: Dionysus, Orpheus and especially Mithraism. Early Chritians were deeply bothered by this too btw, but most contemporary Christians don't know jack about church history.
About who's a Jew:
ReplyDeleteYou seem to mix things up regarding Jews. There are 3 types of classifications for groups:
1. Race (eg. arab, aborigine, jew)
2. Nationality (eg. Swedish, Danish, Israeli, Egyptian)
3. Religion (eg. Islam, Judaism, Christianity)
THe mistake that people do is that they mistake someone who believes in Judaism for a Jew. I'm gonna try to highlight the difference:
A person can convert to Islam, but he cannot convert to arab.
A person can convert to Judaism, but he cannot convert to being a Jew.
This is because arabs are a race and jews are a race. But Islam is a religion and Judaism is also a religion. The problem arises since the same name ("jew") is used for both ethnic jews and those who believe in Judaism. That is, same name for two different things.
This is where people get it wrong. noone can convert to being a jew, as little as someone can convert into being an arab. you are born as a Jew just as you are born as an Arab. It's not a choice.
However, the religious belief is. That's why a Jew can convert to Islam, and an arab can convert to Judaism, but an arab cannot convert to being a Jew as little as a Jew can convert to being arab.
Kent, you have it wrong. Race is the wrong word. Jews come in all types of races.
ReplyDeleteA Jew is a Jew by birth (ethnicity) and/or by religion. If someone converts to Judaism, he/she is then considered a Jew.
It is possible for an Arab, Arab/Muslim or Muslim to convert to Judaism and become a Jew.
Someone born to a Jewish mother is considered to be a Jew from birth until death no matter what he/she believes in.
Hitler didn't ask any Jew in Europe if they believed in God, Jesus, the Sun, or nothing. He murdered them for being born Jewish.
Man, W, you should get your own blog rather than spam someone's comment section with multiple posts. For the record, Buddha was a lazy, shiftless layabout.
ReplyDeleteAtheists simply do not see any evidence that God exists.
ReplyDeleteWe each have our own values and principles. These values and principles are based on what has the best outcome for individual circumstances, and/or are innate (we evolved much of what is considered morality), and/or they are based on societal laws.
In general, we simply are only interested in reality.
This is dangerous to Christians though because it might get them onto real history.
ReplyDeleteReal history has no proof of Jesus' existence.
The advertising for Mel's film caused a lot of action in cyberspace, and actually got me to investigate the historical Jesus. Now I don't believe such a person existed, when before, I always assumed it.
Bacon: Thanks for the links!
ReplyDeleteTo all who state that jesus was not divine, but was a great man/ teacher:
jesus was by no means a great man or teacher. According to the gospels he was often arbitrary, petty, cruel, and hypocritical.
The best way to understand the nature of atheism is to understand
ReplyDeleteits author. satan is its author.
It's important to remain conscious of the fact that satan had his
origin in heaven, and is thoroughly familiar with the fact of the
existence of God, heaven, the angels, hell and etc. Thus despite
what you have been previously deceptively taught and despite the
deceptive dictionary's meaning of atheism, atheism is properly
defined as a denial of the existence of God in the midst of full
knowledge that the true God does indeed exist. Atheism knows God
exists; it is quite familiar with that fact, but it says "under no
circumstance or situation will I admit to God's existence."
Atheism clearly perceives the fingerprints of God on all of
creation, but refuses to admit He is the Creator. Atheism perceives
the divine authorship of the TEN COMMANDMENTS, but refuses to admit
that God is their Author. Atheism perceives the decorousness and
perfection of the TEN COMMANDMENTS, but refuses to admit they are
superior to all other laws. Atheism clearly perceives the divinity
of the Lord Jesus Christ, but refuses to admit His divinity. If an
atheist could see the wounds in the body of Christ and actually feel
them with his hands, he would deny that the wounds are there.
Atheism is deliberate effort to never admit the existence of God.
Atheism is the ultimate of satanism. Ask satan does God exist and he
will deny it. Ask him does satan exist and he will deny his own
existence even while in your presence. Atheism holds the Bible in
one hand, but deny its existence by denying its truth with the
other.
In order to properly understand the nature of atheism, one must
understand the natures of righteousness and sin. The two principles
are antithetical to one another. Since sin is antithetical to
righteousness, its very antithetical nature seeks to nullify
righteousness. Since it is an antithetical principle to
righteousness, it must remain true to its nature even in the most
insane instances. Therefore it must hate God even though God is
righteous and has given it no just cause for its hatred. It is this
antithetical principle, called "the law of sin" which is at work in
the hearts of atheists causing them to reject God. The law of sin is
none other than the law that governs satan's kingdom.
by Robert T Lee
Pimpette, I posted links on this post. Atheists aren't necessarily the ones who would seek whether there was a historical Jesus or not. Those looking to find out if Jesus could have been married, may go down the path I went down.
ReplyDeleteAnon, Robert T. Lee is an idiot. No idea what an Atheist is. Just a bunch of crapola. Atheists do not hate God, Atheists claim there is no evidence of God nor any need for a God. You can't hate something that isn't real.
Oh yes, find me the devil so we can ask him is God exists or not. LMAO
Fortunately, I know the difference between atheism and Satanism and do not read comments on this blog or any other as a means of fact finding. The anonymous poster has gone through great lengths to draw many false conclusions in which he/she seems to believe.
ReplyDeleteMan, you sure attract your share of fundy whackos. 'Anonymous'is a freaking hoot. He hasn't got the faintest notion of what atheism is. (But I love that he believes we're in cahoots with Beelzebub.)
ReplyDeleteBack to the Da Vinci business... amazing to watch Christians performing contortions OVER A WORK OF FICTION. This is hilarious. I get the feeling that fundies will be picketing theatres and flagellating themselves -- or wearing that thigh-digging crown of thorns thingy in an attempt to ward off the evil vapours. Too precious.
Back to the Da Vinci business... amazing to watch Christians performing contortions OVER A WORK OF FICTION. This is hilarious.
ReplyDeleteI guess they're afraid Ron Howard's work of fiction will undermine all the in-roads they made with Mel Gibson's work of fiction. I saw "The Passion" in theatres, and reviewed it for my college newspaper. I gave it a generous B-. I also got a piece of hate mail because of my irreverence and skepticism to the whole affair.
3. "Fiction: Christianity stole its ideas and concepts from paganism.
ReplyDeleteThe Da Vinci Code, on page 232: claims: "Nothing in Christianity is
original. The pre-Christian god Mithras - called the Son of God and
the Light of the World - was born on December 25, died, was buried in
a rock tomb, and then resurrected in three days. By the way, December
25 was also the birthday of Osiris, Adonis, and Dionysus. The newborn
Krishna was presented with gold, frankincense, and myrrh."
Anon, I've seen this December 25th birthday used before. What is really being refered to as December 25th is the Winter Solstice. Obviously Osiris and Adonis wouldn't have an official birthday in the Julian calendar, but December 25 is a fairly good approximation of this. Its makes quite a bit of sense for sun gods to be born on this day, wouldn't you agree?
4. Whether Yahweh is the proper name of god is actually irrelevent here. Did the tetragrammaton, however way its pronounced exist before 1 AD? Well, YHVH is in the dead sea scrolls so the answer is yes. So the assertion that the tetrarammaton is of recent origin is incorrect. The only thing in question is what the vowels are. There is suggestions that he was worshipped as Yah or Yaw where he was one of the Elohim, or sons of El. There are other theories as to its Cannaanite origin.
I don't have the energy to go down the complete list,
I don't know if you cut and pasted this or actually thought to spend this much time as a comment post but I suggest you do a bit more research on all of your assertions.
BEAJ, I know that you consider me to be anti-semitic slime. But I was just wondering if you have ever read real atheist Jews like Stephen Zweig and Arthur Schniztler?
ReplyDeleteYou might be surprized, but these two are two of my favorite authors, like Freud and Spinoza as well.
I suggest you read them, particulary "The World of Yesterday" by Zweig and "Der Wegs en Frei"(Road to the Open" by Schnitzler. The latter no longer in print I am afraid.
You could use a little education.
Bernarda, you are anti-semitic.
ReplyDeleteJust as I thought, you don't know any of these real atheist jews. You have the general culture of a sea slug.
ReplyDeleteI'm very familiar with Freud. I'm not interested in the others. I really don't want any part of what you consider culture.
ReplyDeleteThe opera bores me as does classical music, and I stopped reading books after university.
An atheist jew who doesn't know Spinoza.
ReplyDeleteThat's a good one.
Spinoza was one of the greatest thinkers of his time. He was expelled from the jewish community and ostracized by jewish religious and community leaders for atheism and various other affronts to jewish superstition.
That is what jewish culture and tradition gets you.
But Spinoza is still recognized and respected around the world, except by people like you, while the names of his persecuters have passed into oblivion.
Spinoza was persecuted by his fellow jews, people exactly like you, not by xtians or muslims.
Atheists were persecuted by all religious groups back then. It wasn't a Jewish thingy.
ReplyDelete