Searching for the Ultimate Religion Explaining Theory
Árpád Fekete
I think the Bible might be true,
but it is not probable because of macroevolution.
If macroevolution is true,
then the Bible definitely lies about the Global Flood,
but then science should give a Theory which explains
the strange phenomenon of religion.
I am searching for this theory,
and I would appreciate any help in it.
I've followed Christianity for about 7 years,
and I need explanation for the following phenomena:
1. Why did the followers of Christianity experience
supernatural things?
I mean the many legends of saints, for example, but I myself
had experienced such things when I followed Christianity.
For example, when I left the baptist denomination
in order to be a Roman Catholic, lines appeared in my palms,
and formed crosses, for example.
When I didn't learn for my exams and I have read the Bible
instead, my exams were successful.
(The Bible says that we should search for the Kingdom of God,
and everything is given to us in addition to it.)
When I was thinking on God, I felt the Sun shining more intensively.
It occured several times when the priest had spoken about
things just in connection with my recent life.
Why is there this energy of Christianity if it is false,
and why don't ordinary people experience such things?
2. What is the true history of Christianity?
Did Moses existed or did he deliberately lie or what happened there?
Why is it hidden in the Bible that the Ark landed on the highest
mountain?
Was Imhotep Joseph?
Why is religion more believeable than myths?
Why are the faces of Jews and Arabs resembling each other?
Why did Jesus know that his religion will be spread upon the Earth?
Why is it recorded that Christianity spreaded because of wonders?
If Jesus is a superpower, is he good or evil if he lied?
Arpad Fekete
Boikat
> Dear Reader,
>
> I think the Bible might be true,
> but it is not probable because of macroevolution.
> If macroevolution is true,
> then the Bible definitely lies about the Global Flood,
The Biblical flood is not a lie, it is a fable. "Lies" are things
told by someone who knows that what they are saying is untrue to
achieve some goal or aim.
> but then science should give a Theory which explains
> the strange phenomenon of religion.
This may help:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutionary_origin_of_religions
By and large, it boils down to being a source of social bonding and
control as an alternative to "the guy with the biggest stick is in
charge".
> I am searching for this theory,
> and I would appreciate any help in it.
>
> I've followed Christianity for about 7 years,
> and I need explanation for the following phenomena:
>
> 1. Why did the followers of Christianity experience
> supernatural things?
Is there any evidence they really did?
> I mean the many legends of saints, for example, but I myself
> had experienced such things when I followed Christianity.
> For example, when I left the baptist denomination
> in order to be a Roman Catholic, lines appeared in my palms,
> and formed crosses, for example.
If you say so.
> When I didn't learn for my exams and I have read the Bible
> instead, my exams were successful.
Maybe it simply helped you to focus.
> (The Bible says that we should search for the Kingdom of God,
> and everything is given to us in addition to it.)
> When I was thinking on God, I felt the Sun shining more intensively.
Have you ever heard of "The Placebo effect". it does not just apply
to sugar or salt pills instead of actual medication.
> It occured several times when the priest had spoken about
> things just in connection with my recent life.
> Why is there this energy of Christianity if it is false,
> and why don't ordinary people experience such things?
They do, they just don't associate it with any sort of religious
belief.
>
> 2. What is the true history of Christianity?
> Did Moses existed or did he deliberately lie or what happened there?
No evidence, and myth does not mean "lie".
> Why is it hidden in the Bible that the Ark landed on the highest
> mountain?
It's a claim made in the Bible, and not really hidden, though the
Bible does not say "the highest mountain", it says "the mountains of
Arrarat".
> Was Imhotep Joseph?
Why would that be the case?
> Why is religion more believeable than myths?
I see no difference, however, religious beliefs are usually taught as
"fact" to children at an early age, and anything else, like the Greek
or Norse religions are taught as myth because, in the case of Europe,
when religion was determined but decree by the King or emperor, then
that religion was your religion. That is why different regions have
different predominant religions.
> Why are the faces of Jews and Arabs resembling each other?
"Jew" is a religion, not an "ethnic race".
> Why did Jesus know that his religion will be spread upon the Earth?
If he said that, it would likely have been due to optimism. Also,
anything Jesus ever said, if he said anything that is atributed to
him, was written down decades after his death. It's real easy to say
"so and so said this, ..." after the fact.
> Why is it recorded that Christianity spreaded because of wonders?
It didn't. It spread more through Royal Decree and forced/coerced and
bought conversions.
> If Jesus is a superpower, is he good or evil if he lied?
Since the *actual* words attributed to Jesus were not written until
decades after his death, there is no way of knowing what he said.
Besides, when you boil it all down, all he said (if he said) was
"respect each other". There is no lie in that simple wisdom, nor is
there need for that wisdom to come from a holy man, even if he's just
a man that someone deified after his death. Everything else is just
bells and whistles with smoke and mirrors added to make an impression.
Boikat
Burkhard
> Dear Reader,
>
> I think the Bible might be true,
> but it is not probable because of macroevolution
.Doesn't really follow. Science and religion are only incompatible if
your specific religion wants the to be.
> If macroevolution is true,
> then the Bible definitely lies about the Global Flood,
Quite on the contrary. if the flood were true, massive and
accelerated macro-evolution would have been needed to get the variety
of species we observe today from the limited number that would have
fit on the ark.
> but then science should give a Theory which explains
> the strange phenomenon of religion.
> I am searching for this theory,
> and I would appreciate any help in it.
>
There are lots of it. Some are evolutionary in nature, explaining it
by the developemnt of our cognition.
E.g.
Johnson, D. D. P. & Bering, J. M. (2006) Hand of God, mind of man:
punishment and cognition in the evolution of cooperation. Evolutionary
Psychology 4: 219�233.
You find lots of material along these lines here:
http://evolution-of-religion.com/
Then there are of course various sociological models that explain
religion in terms of social pressures, from the consolidation of
power in the hand of the god-kings to motivating the lower classes to
work.
see eg
Kevin J. Christiano, et al., Sociology of Religion: Contemporary
Developments, Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers
Or you could take a more neutral view that to some extend combines the
two, but puts the individual back into the centre. Max Weber's
sociology of religion is along these lines, describing them as an
attempt by people to explain and verbalise certain subjective
experiences.This approach, which puts religion closer to other belief
systems about the non-physical world like aesthetics particularly
appeal to me
> I've followed Christianity for about 7 years,
> and I need explanation for the following phenomena:
>
> 1. Why did the followers of Christianity experience
> supernatural things?
That rather smuggles in a presupposition. The more neutral approach
would be: why did they experience things they thought best to explain/
verbalise as supernatural
> I mean the many legends of saints, for example, but I myself
> had experienced such things when I followed Christianity.
> For example, when I left the baptist denomination
> in order to be a Roman Catholic, lines appeared in my palms,
> and formed crosses, for example.
Whole range of explanations, of course. The evolutionary theories
mentioned above would point to our cognitive bias to see patterns and
look for intentional explanations where there aren't any. Your
example would be most likely of the former kind, interpreting as a
cross what is just a naturally occuring vaguely cross like shape.
People who grew up in a Christian culture tend to see christian
symbols, but not people who grew up in other cultures - they see their
own)
Then there is of course always the possibility of hallucination or
mental illness to consider, if you really want a scientific
explanation.
> When I didn't learn for my exams and I have read the Bible
> instead, my exams were successful.
Well, a controlled test would have to see if others who simply did not
learn at all performed just as well - the tests might have been to
easy, or you learned more in class than you thought you did. The
tendency to infer a causal connection if one event happens after the
other is another of these cognitive traits which work sufficiently
often to be selected for evolutionary - but we now know that they
often go also wrong, and science has found ways to test for this.
Another explanation could be a sort of placebo effect: if your main
exam problem are nerves (as they are for many students) going through
rituals, reading something familiar and conforting etc may just take
care of that obstacle.
> (The Bible says that we should search for the Kingdom of God,
> and everything is given to us in addition to it.)
> When I was thinking on God, I felt the Sun shining more intensively.
> It occured several times when the priest had spoken about
> things just in connection with my recent life.
> Why is there this energy of Christianity if it is false,
> and why don't ordinary people experience such things?
Why do yo think they don't? They might just express them in different
terms (boy, these hot flushes get worse and worse now I'm menopausal"
> 2. What is the true history of Christianity?
I take it you really mean the historicity of biblical events rather
than the history of Christianity, which started much later and is well
documented and researched?
> Did Moses existed
For him, as for many other events and figures, the archaeological
record is just too sparse
to come up with a definite history.
According to Ze'ev Herzog though: "This is what archaeologists have
learned from their excavations in the Land of Israel: the Israelites
were never in Egypt, did not wander in the desert, did not conquer the
land in a military campaign and did not pass it on to the 12 tribes of
Israel.... The many Egyptian documents that we have make no mention of
the Israelites' presence in Egypt and are also silent about the events
of the exodus."
http://mideastfacts.org/facts/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=32&Itemid=34
But as i said, these things tend to be contested even amongst
archeologists. You might also want to consult Finkelstein and
Silberman, The Bible Unearthed: Archaeology's New Vision of Ancient
Israel and the Origin of Its Sacred Texts. Even of you don't buy into
their own conclusion, they give a good overview of the academic debate
in the field.
>or did he deliberately lie
If he did no exists, how could he lie?
> or what happened there?
> Why is it hidden in the Bible that the Ark landed on the highest
> mountain?
Not sure what you mean with that.
> Was Imhotep Joseph?
Since Imhotep became a god after his death, the implications for
Christianity would indeed be considerable ;o). There are obvious
overlaps between the two stories, but if they are really of the same
person, or if Joseph was just loosely based on the Imhotep legend, is
difficult to say.
> Why is religion more believeable than myths?
Religion is a myth with an army - that is to say, those myth that are
successful and/or do bad things to you if you call them myth, we call
religion.
Note though that I would never use the term myth derogatorily, a myth
is simply "A traditional, typically ancient story dealing with
supernatural beings, ancestors, or heroes that serves as a fundamental
type in the worldview of a people, as by explaining aspects of the
natural world or delineating the psychology, customs, or ideals of
society"
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/myth
> Why are the faces of Jews and Arabs resembling each other?
similar reason that they both speak semitic languages: they are
closely related and have a shared ancestry.
see e.g. Almut Nebel, Dvora Filon, Bernd Brinkmann, Partha P.
Majumder, Marina Faerman, and Ariella Oppenheim, The Y Chromosome Pool
of Jews as Part of the Genetic Landscape of the Middle East, American
Journal of Human Genetics (2001) 69(5): 1095�1112
> Why did Jesus know that his religion will be spread upon the Earth?
Most religious founders make that prognosis, some of them are bound to
be right
> Why is it recorded that Christianity spreaded because of wonders?
Not sure what you mean by this. But generally on miracles and why they
are not a good basis for religion, see Mackie's book "The miracle of
Theism".
> If Jesus is a superpower, is he good or evil if he lied?
>
ibid. Don't think that question makes much sense
> Arpad Fekete
rxpi
>
> > Why is it hidden in the Bible that the Ark landed on the highest
> > mountain?
>
> It's a claim made in the Bible, and not really hidden, though the
> Bible does not say "the highest mountain", it says "the mountains of
> Arrarat".
>
The Bible mentions some lengths of periods in Noah's story,
and from these it can be inferred that
the Ark landed on/after the day when the water was above the
highest mountains. Thus the Ark must be landed on the
highest mountain, so the mountain of Ararat should be the
highest mountain of that time according to the Bible.
Perhaps the Ark is on the Mount Everest or the K2,
and the "mountains of Ararat" is the mountains which
contain K2. The Bible mentions that after the Flood,
people came from the east to Babel.
> > Was Imhotep Joseph?
>
> Why would that be the case?
>
The spelling is very similar,
and both persons were immediately after the Pharaoh.
> > Why is religion more believeable than myths?
>
> I see no difference, however, religious beliefs are usually taught as
> "fact" to children at an early age, and anything else, like the Greek
> or Norse religions are taught as myth because, in the case of Europe,
> when religion was determined but decree by the King or emperor, then
> that religion was your religion. That is why different regions have
> different predominant religions.
>
Myths include stories which are much more unbelieveable than
religions,
I think. Just read some myths, they usually doesn't have any
connection
with the reality.
> > Why did Jesus know that his religion will be spread upon the Earth?
>
> If he said that, it would likely have been due to optimism. �Also,
> anything Jesus ever said, if he said anything that is atributed to
> him, was written down decades after his death. �It's real easy to say
> "so and so said this, ..." after the fact.
>
Yes, but after decades after his death Christianity was not spread
upon the Earth.
> > Why is it recorded that Christianity spreaded because of wonders?
>
> It didn't. �It spread more through Royal Decree and forced/coerced and
> bought conversions.
Speaking in new languages, and healing by laying on hands were written
in
the Bible, and it should have happened lest people wouldn't believe in
Christianity. I've also seen a documentary about Norse people
converting
to Christianity because their berserker didn't succeeded in a
challenge
against Christians, somewhat similar to the challenge in the Bible
about Eliash.
>
> > If Jesus is a superpower, is he good or evil if he lied?
>
> Since the *actual* words attributed to Jesus were not written until
> decades after his death, there is no way of knowing what he said.
> Besides, when you boil it all down, all he said (if he said) was
> "respect each other". �There is no lie in that simple wisdom, nor is
> there need for that wisdom to come from a holy man, even if he's just
> a man that someone deified after his death. �Everything else is just
> bells and whistles with smoke and mirrors added to make an impression.
>
Jesus told such things that:
- The Flood did destroyed all lest Noah's family.
- Whoever loves his family better than Jesus is not worthy to Jesus.
- Whoever doesn't believe will be condemned.
Arpad
Free Lunch
in talk.origins:
>Dear Reader,
>
>>
>> > Why is it hidden in the Bible that the Ark landed on the highest
>> > mountain?
>>
>> It's a claim made in the Bible, and not really hidden, though the
>> Bible does not say "the highest mountain", it says "the mountains of
>> Arrarat".
>>
>
>The Bible mentions some lengths of periods in Noah's story,
>and from these it can be inferred that
>the Ark landed on/after the day when the water was above the
>highest mountains. Thus the Ark must be landed on the
>highest mountain, so the mountain of Ararat should be the
>highest mountain of that time according to the Bible.
>Perhaps the Ark is on the Mount Everest or the K2,
>and the "mountains of Ararat" is the mountains which
>contain K2. The Bible mentions that after the Flood,
>people came from the east to Babel.
Perhaps you are being silly.
>> > Was Imhotep Joseph?
>>
>> Why would that be the case?
>>
>
>The spelling is very similar,
>and both persons were immediately after the Pharaoh.
More silliness.
>> > Why is religion more believeable than myths?
>>
>> I see no difference, however, religious beliefs are usually taught as
>> "fact" to children at an early age, and anything else, like the Greek
>> or Norse religions are taught as myth because, in the case of Europe,
>> when religion was determined but decree by the King or emperor, then
>> that religion was your religion. That is why different regions have
>> different predominant religions.
>>
>
>Myths include stories which are much more unbelieveable than
>religions, I think. Just read some myths, they usually doesn't have any
>connection with the reality.
Such as the stories in Genesis?
...
Boikat
> Dear Reader,
>
>
>
> > > Why is it hidden in the Bible that the Ark landed on the highest
> > > mountain?
>
> > It's a claim made in the Bible, and not really hidden, though the
> > Bible does not say "the highest mountain", it says "the mountains of
> > Arrarat".
>
> The Bible mentions some lengths of periods in Noah's story,
> and from these it can be inferred that
> the Ark landed on/after the day when the water was above the
> highest mountains. Thus the Ark must be landed on the
> highest mountain, so the mountain of Ararat should be the
> highest mountain of that time according to the Bible.
> Perhaps the Ark is on the Mount Everest or the K2,
> and the "mountains of Ararat" is the mountains which
> contain K2. The Bible mentions that after the Flood,
> people came from the east to Babel.
Given the vagueness and openness to interpretation, who knows? But
it's academic, since it's still a myth. (I do not take single source
claims as the last word. The Biblical account of a world wide flood,
with only 8 human survivors, and a ark full of "kinds" to repopulate
the Earth is not supported by any genetic evidence, nor is there any
geologicla support for such a flood, especially any time during the
last 10,000 years, and not at any time in geological history.)
>
> > > Was Imhotep Joseph?
>
> > Why would that be the case?
>
> The spelling is very similar,
> and both persons were immediately after the Pharaoh.
A quick Google search shows that there is some speculation to that
effect. The truth of the matter will have to rest on the evidence.
>
> > > Why is religion more believeable than myths?
>
> > I see no difference, however, religious beliefs are usually taught as
> > "fact" to children at an early age, and anything else, like the Greek
> > or Norse religions are taught as myth because, in the case of Europe,
> > when religion was determined but decree by the King or emperor, then
> > that religion was your religion. That is why different regions have
> > different predominant religions.
>
> Myths include stories which are much more unbelieveable than
> religions,
A relatively recent six day creation is believable? A world wide
flood that covered the whole earth, up to 20 feet (or so) above the
highest mountain, is believable?
How is Beowulf *less* beleavable?
> I think. Just read some myths, they usually doesn't have any
> connection
> with the reality.
Neither do the various Old Testament claims in the Bible.
>
> > > Why did Jesus know that his religion will be spread upon the Earth?
>
> > If he said that, it would likely have been due to optimism. �Also,
> > anything Jesus ever said, if he said anything that is atributed to
> > him, was written down decades after his death. �It's real easy to say
> > "so and so said this, ..." after the fact.
>
> Yes, but after decades after his death Christianity was not spread
> upon the Earth.
>
Again, optimism on the part of the writers.
> > > Why is it recorded that Christianity spreaded because of wonders?
>
> > It didn't. �It spread more through Royal Decree and forced/coerced and
> > bought conversions.
>
> Speaking in new languages, and healing by laying on hands were written
> in
> the Bible,
I'm sure ther are other accounts of miraculous claims in other
religious writings too.
> and it should have happened lest people wouldn't believe in
> Christianity. I've also seen a documentary about Norse people
> converting
> to Christianity because their berserker didn't succeeded in a
> challenge
> against Christians, somewhat similar to the challenge in the Bible
> about Eliash.
>
The victor usually gets to write the headlines and tell the story.
They also get to claim whatever they want as the cause for their
victory.
>
>
> > > If Jesus is a superpower, is he good or evil if he lied?
>
> > Since the *actual* words attributed to Jesus were not written until
> > decades after his death, there is no way of knowing what he said.
> > Besides, when you boil it all down, all he said (if he said) was
> > "respect each other". �There is no lie in that simple wisdom, nor is
> > there need for that wisdom to come from a holy man, even if he's just
> > a man that someone deified after his death. �Everything else is just
> > bells and whistles with smoke and mirrors added to make an impression.
>
> Jesus told such things that:
> - The Flood did destroyed all lest Noah's family.
After the "fact". To him, that was already ancient "history".
> - Whoever loves his family better than Jesus is not worthy to Jesus.
What can you say to that, except maybe, if he said it, he was full of
himself? Religious prophets (either self proclaimed, or thrust into
the role, and buying into the role) seem to like to make such claims,
> - Whoever doesn't believe will be condemned.
Ah. That's that "coercion" thing I mentioned.
>
> Arpad
Don't nym shift your user nym That is a no-no.
Boikat
rxpi
can be explained by evolution.
My question is that how could you explain
the stories of the Bible which are almost
in the same time when they are written?
Myths are about very ancient times,
but Bible stories are about the supposed history,
presented as if a historian wrote it.
One exception is the Genesis,
this story might be made up by Moses or some Jew,
if it is not true. I don't know other possibilities, do you?
I think the Genesis were more believeable than the myths in the past.
Free Lunch
in talk.origins:
>I understand that the ethics of religion
>can be explained by evolution.
>
>My question is that how could you explain
>the stories of the Bible which are almost
>in the same time when they are written?
They are not. You seem to be very unfamiliar with the history of the
Bible.
>Myths are about very ancient times,
>but Bible stories are about the supposed history,
>presented as if a historian wrote it.
And are not corroborated by the evidence. Often the supposed historical
claims found in the Bible are shown to be erroneous by the evidence.
>One exception is the Genesis,
>this story might be made up by Moses or some Jew,
>if it is not true. I don't know other possibilities, do you?
Genesis borrows from other, older stories. Moses is one such mythic
figure. Science has found a great deal about the past. It is too bad
that you were never allowed to learn anything about science or history.
If you had, you would realize that Genesis is not a possibility at all.
>I think the Genesis were more believeable than the myths in the past.
No, it is not. It is equally unbelieveable.
Boikat
> I understand that the ethics of religion
> can be explained by evolution.
>
> My question is that how could you explain
> the stories of the Bible which are almost
> in the same time when they are written?
Were they? Most, if not all, Biblical claims were written decades,
even centuries, after the claimed events. I don't know of any
evidence that anything written in the Bible was written at the time
the events were claimed to have occured.
>
> Myths are about very ancient times,
> but Bible stories are about the supposed history,
> presented as if a historian wrote it.
"Supposed" is a key word, As far as "written as if a historian ha
written them" applies to most, if not all, mythologies. Some of the
Bible reads like a history, but some parts also read like a narative.
The style in which anything is written (or presented) has little to do
with the historical validity of the subject of the writing. An
example would be Orson Wells' Holloween broadcast of "The War of the
Worlds". It was broadcast as a series of news reports. There as panic
because many people missed the "dramatization" part, and they believed
Martians were invading New Jersey. No Martians.
>
> One exception is the Genesis,
> this story might be made up by Moses or some Jew,
> if it is not true. I don't know other possibilities, do you?
Of course it was made up. Maybe not by Moses, if he even existed.
All cultures that I know of have some sort of creation myth. If there
was a Moses, and he actually wrote Genesis, it's most likely it's
because that was the creation myth of his people, handed down over
generations by oral tradition.
>
> I think the Genesis were more believeable than the myths in the past.
That's your right. However, that is in direct conflict with your first
statement in the first post in this thread, unless I am mistaken, and
you are not the author of the OP (Original Post), Arpad Fekete.
Boikat
Ron O
>
> I think the Bible might be true,
> but it is not probable because of macroevolution.
> If macroevolution is true,
> then the Bible definitely lies about the Global Flood,
There had to be massive amounts of macro evolution after the flood.
By the YEC's own calculation there could only be around 30,000 "kinds"
on the ark and there are now millions of different species in just a
few thousand years.
The guys responsible for the creation museum in Kentucky admit this.
Ron Okimoto
SNIP:
Burkhard
>
> My question is that how could you explain
> the stories of the Bible which are almost
> in the same time when they are written?
>
> Myths are about very ancient times,
Not really, no. New myth are created all the time, and deal with any
time from yesterday to the most distance past.
> but Bible stories are about the supposed history,
> presented as if a historian wrote it.
>
Yes, myth often are. Indeed, the difference is often difficult to
see.
el cid
Would you please be kind enough to elaborate based
on your analysis of the Iliad and the Odyssey.
Include your take on when you think these stories
began, when they first took the written form and
what would be their historical foundations.
Or were you just making all of that up without
an actual informed view of myth and history?
David Hare-Scott
> 1. Why did the followers of Christianity experience
> supernatural things?
> I mean the many legends of saints, for example, but I myself
> had experienced such things when I followed Christianity.
> For example, when I left the baptist denomination
> in order to be a Roman Catholic, lines appeared in my palms,
> and formed crosses, for example.
I get the same thing when I fix photocopying machines and laser printers.
Holy toner Batman!
David
Christopher Denney
> Dear Reader,
>
> I think the Bible might be true,
> but it is not probable because of macroevolution.
> If macroevolution is true,
> then the Bible definitely lies about the Global Flood,
> but then science should give a Theory which explains
> the strange phenomenon of religion.
> I am searching for this theory,
> and I would appreciate any help in it.
You don't really sound convinced or sincere, but what the heck.
The bible is a bunch of stories, some of them are good for teaching
children how to behave. Many are not.
If you want to know about science or history, look elsewhere.
> I've followed Christianity for about 7 years,
> and I need explanation for the following phenomena:
"Followed Christianity" not "Been a Christian" ??
> 1. Why did the followers of Christianity experience
> supernatural things?
They didn't, it's just campfire stories. Look at Elvis, he's already a
demigod and he has bearly been gone a generation. Give it another 150
years or so and he will either be his own religion, or will become
part of the Christian mythos.
> I mean the many legends of saints, for example, but I myself
> had experienced such things when I followed Christianity.
> For example, when I left the baptist denomination
> in order to be a Roman Catholic, lines appeared in my palms,
> and formed crosses, for example.
People can convince themselves of many things, and alter their own
memories.
> When I didn't learn for my exams and I have read the Bible
> instead, my exams were successful.
If you passed your exams you probably did actually learn the stuff.
Meditation is a powerful tool for aiding concentration, some people
meditate by studying the bible.
> (The Bible says that we should search for the Kingdom of God,
> and everything is given to us in addition to it.)
> When I was thinking on God, I felt the Sun shining more intensively.
> It occured several times when the priest had spoken about
> things just in connection with my recent life.
> Why is there this energy of Christianity if it is false,
> and why don't ordinary people experience such things?
They are called hallucinations.
> 2. What is the true history of Christianity?
> Did Moses existed or did he deliberately lie or what happened there?
> Why is it hidden in the Bible that the Ark landed on the highest
> mountain?
Hidden?
> Was Imhotep Joseph?
> Why is religion more believeable than myths?
They are the same, all equally believable, all myths.
> Why are the faces of Jews and Arabs resembling each other?
Um, the place Judaism arose was Arabia. (i.e. the middle east)
> Why did Jesus know that his religion will be spread upon the Earth?
It's pretty easy to say he said that after it already occurred.
> Why is it recorded that Christianity spreaded because of wonders?
Huh?
> If Jesus is a superpower, is he good or evil if he lied?
This doesn't make any sense, please restate the question in the form
of something that isn't gibberish.
Desertphile
<fek...@gmail.com> wrote:
> I think the Bible might be true,
Wrong newsgroup.
--
http://desertphile.org
Desertphile's Desert Soliloquy. WARNING: view with plenty of water
"Why aren't resurrections from the dead noteworthy?" -- Jim Rutz
SkyEyes
> Dear Reader,
Oh, boy. I can tell what's coming.
> I think the Bible might be true,
Why? Which parts? All of it? Some of it? If the latter, how do you
tell which parts are true? Do you believe that pigeon's blood cures
leprosy? Because in Leviticus, that's how it says to treat the
disease.
> but it is not probable because of macroevolution.
That does not follow. As many people on this newsgroup who are
theists frequently point out, evolution - or "macroevolution," as you
insist on calling it - might have been the way a god decided to do its
creating.
> If macroevolution is true,
...and it *is*...
> then the Bible definitely lies about the Global Flood,
Well, no shit, Sherlock.
> but then science should give a Theory which explains
> the strange phenomenon of religion.
> I am searching for this theory,
> and I would appreciate any help in it.
Pick up a copy of Daniel C. Dennett's book _Breaking the Spell:
Religion as a Natural Phenomenon_. Dennett devotes quite a bit of
space to an evolutionary explanation for religion.
>
> I've followed Christianity for about 7 years,
> and I need explanation for the following phenomena:
>
> 1. Why did the followers of Christianity experience
> supernatural things?
How do you know they actually *did*? There's no evidence that *any*
supernatural phenomenon has ever taken place.
Get this through your head: *anyone* can write *anything* down in a
book. That doesn't make it *factual*.
> I mean the many legends of saints, for example, but I myself
> had experienced such things when I followed Christianity.
What things? Please explain them in detail.
> For example, when I left the baptist denomination
> in order to be a Roman Catholic, lines appeared in my palms,
> and formed crosses, for example.
Well, I've gotta tell you right up front, Arpad, that I don't believe
you for a minute. Got any evidence that we can examine, test, or
quantify? Sorry, but personal testimony doesn't cut it around here.
Let me tell you something, kid: I'm 60 years old: my hands - not to
mention the rest of me - has *lots* of lines that they didn't have
before. And some of them cross each other. Whoopity-fucking-doo.
> When I didn't learn for my exams and I have read the Bible
> instead, my exams were successful.
I don't see the need of any supernatural explanation here, sorry. For
one thing, you're probably dismisremembering *all* your exam outcomes;
and secondly, who knows what you picked up in class without really
paying that much attention to it?
> (The Bible says that we should search for the Kingdom of God,
> and everything is given to us in addition to it.)
The problem is, Lambchop, the bible is a book of Bronze and Iron Age
mythology. It is not internally consistent, and it is riddled with
factual inaccuracies and contradictions.
And *yes*, I've read it. I was also brought up Baptist, and converted
to Catholicism (to please my husband).
Here's what we need you to do: provide objective evidence that a god
exists. Any god. Mankind has had in excess of 18,000 of them
throughout history, so pick any one you like. Just make sure that
it's objective, verifiable, extra-biblical evidence, 'kay?
> When I was thinking on God, I felt the Sun shining more intensively.
So...you were in an introspective psychological state, and you felt
things more accutely? I hate to be the one to tell you, but you need
to get your ass out of church and back into classes, preferrably some
science courses. Good grief.
By the way, are you in the market for some beachfront property?
'Cause I've got some *beautiful* lots for sale, and I'll make you a
great little price.
> It occured several times when the priest had spoken about
> things just in connection with my recent life.
Oh, please. That you expect us to take this as some kind of
"evidence" is just insulting.
What are you, about 12 years old?
> Why is there this energy of Christianity if it is false,
> and why don't ordinary people experience such things?
Ordinary people *do* experience such things. How arrogant of you to
think that we don't!
> 2. What is the true history of Christianity?
Blood, mind control, power struggles. Pretty much the same as the
history of every *other* religion.
> Did Moses existed or did he deliberately lie or what happened there?
There isn't a shred of evidence that the biblical Moses ever existed.
Most biblical scholars agree that he was more-or-less a literary
device used by the several authors of the first five books of the old
testament.
> Why is it hidden in the Bible that the Ark landed on the highest
> mountain?
The bible says that the ark landed on Mt. Everest??? Far out. That's
news to me.
> Was Imhotep Joseph?
I've never seen any evidence that he was, no. "Joseph" was also
probably a myth. Was Daffy Duck ever Donald?
> Why is religion more believeable than myths?
It isn't. Religion *is* myths. It's superstition, that's all it is.
If it makes you feel better about yourself, fine; but there's nothing
particularly special about it. There's no substantive difference
between christianity and the religion practiced by those primitive
people on the other side of the ocean, who wave rattles and feathers
and dance around trying to make the crops fertile. It's all an
attempt to do magic.
> Why are the faces of Jews and Arabs resembling each other?
Because they're both semetic peoples whose ancestors came from the
same part of the world? Geez...why do Danes and Swedes resemble each
other?
> Why did Jesus know that his religion will be spread upon the Earth?
A lucky guess on his part? Self-fulfilling prophecy? Text written
after-the-fact?
> Why is it recorded that Christianity spreaded because of wonders?
Because gullible people will believe *anything*. If you need an
example, look in the mirror.
> If Jesus is a superpower, is he good or evil if he lied?
I don't care. So far, there's no evidence outside the bible that
Jesus actually existed.
Now answer a question for me: why are you so fucking gullible?
Brenda Nelson, A.A.#34
skyeyes nine at cox dot net
Thurisaz the Einherjer
> 1. Why did the followers of Christianity experience
> supernatural things?
Prove that they did. Note: Da wholly babble is NOT proof. We don't accept
Mein Kampf today as proof that Jews are evil, so why should we treat da
babble differently?
> Did Moses existed or did he deliberately lie or what happened there?
Huh?
If he never existed he can't have lied, buster.
> Why is it hidden in the Bible that the Ark landed on the highest
> mountain?
Hidden? In plain sight or what?
That said, let's see... it's obvious that mountains are high and that
floods "come from" below. Does one need any supernatural revelation to
conclude that mountains would be covered last and emerge first from any
flood?
> Was Imhotep Joseph?
WTF?
> Why is religion more believeable than myths?
Define the difference between myth and religion.
> Why are the faces of Jews and Arabs resembling each other?
Why shouldn't they if da babble was bullcrap?
> Why did Jesus know that his religion will be spread upon the Earth?
Prove that jebus ever really existed.
> Why is it recorded that Christianity spreaded because of wonders?
And that is recorded where exactly, besides the book known as da wholly
babble that is full of lies and bullshit?
> If Jesus is a superpower, is he good or evil if he lied?
Prove the existence of jebus and I may deal with this one.
--
Romans 2:24 revised:
"For the name of God is blasphemed among the Gentiles through you
cretinists, as it is written on aig."
My personal judgment of monotheism: http://www.carcosa.de/nojebus
rxpi
I wanted to argue in favour of Christianity.
I'm also disappointed with it,
but as I've spent 7 years of studying it,
I'm really curious about the real truth.
I'm a mathematician and confess the philosophy that
you don't know surely that the world existed before your birth.
I search for the most probable explanation.
So it is probable that the Genesis story was made up by some Jew,
because it is so elaborate that the author should
have added to the myths before his time.
At the beginning of Christianity, we experience that the Jews
were doing the things that the Old Testament instructed.
But what was the time when they began to do this?
When they began it, did they know that it is not true?
How could they be deceived?
I'm searching for the Ultimate Theory which explains religion,
and also the supernatural things which you don't believe,
but I think they are probable.
Your posts are not elaborate enough to be the Story
alternative to the Bible. I don't have this Story, or Ultimate Theory
of religion,
but if there were one, I could probably find an error in it.
alextangent
Mr Fekete, please stop nym-shifting otherwise you'll get banned.
> I've not started this topic because
> I wanted to argue in favour of Christianity.
>
> I'm also disappointed with it,
> but as I've spent 7 years of studying it,
> I'm really curious about the real truth.
There's no such animal.
> I'm a mathematician and confess the philosophy that
> you don't know surely that the world existed before your birth.
I existed before you were born. Ergo, the world existed before your
birth. Speak to your mother about this.
> I search for the most probable explanation.
>
> So it is probable that the Genesis story was made up by some Jew,
Genesis was probably an amalgam of oral traditions with several
writers and editors. It has a patchy history, dating over a period of
centuries.
> because it is so elaborate that the author should
> have added to the myths before his time.
> At the beginning of Christianity, we experience that the Jews
> were doing the things that the Old Testament instructed.
> But what was the time when they began to do this?
> When they began it, did they know that it is not true?
> How could they be deceived?
What are you on about? All religions have their own practices, and
deceit sounds like you're making some judgment from some other
religious practice; Christianity perhaps?
>
> I'm searching for the Ultimate Theory which explains religion,
> and also the supernatural things which you don't believe,
> but I think they are probable.
> Your posts are not elaborate enough to be the Story
> alternative to the Bible. I don't have this Story, or Ultimate Theory
> of religion,
> but if there were one, I could probably find an error in it.
42.
Stop searching, start living.
rxpi
> On Jan 2, 11:06�am, rxpi <fek...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Mr Fekete, please stop nym-shifting otherwise you'll get banned.
I'm a Hungarian, I don't know what does nym-shifting means.
I started this topic at the time when I were not member of the group,
and when I entered the group google asked for a nickname in the group,
and I choosed a name with one word like many others in the group.
It's an old nickname of mine, you can check it on my webpage:
http://fekarp.extra.hu
> 42.
>
> Stop searching, start living.
I think this is the best ending for me to exit from this conversation,
because I don't feel like it now.
born with the name: Arpad Fekete
short nickname: rxpi
writer/pen name: Justin Sad
Dan Listermann
"alextangent" <bl...@rivadpm.com> wrote in message
news:2e68b8ea-ade9-404f...@s31g2000yqs.googlegroups.com...
calculate in base 13?
.
alextangent
> On Jan 2, 2:25 pm, alextangent<b...@rivadpm.com> wrote:
>> On Jan 2, 11:06 am, rxpi<fek...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Mr Fekete, please stop nym-shifting otherwise you'll get banned.
>
> I'm a Hungarian, I don't know what does nym-shifting means.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=nymshifting
> I started this topic at the time when I were not member of the group,
> and when I entered the group google asked for a nickname in the group,
> and I choosed a name with one word like many others in the group.
> It's an old nickname of mine, you can check it on my webpage:
> http://fekarp.extra.hu
ok
>
>> 42.
>>
>> Stop searching, start living.
>
> I think this is the best ending for me to exit from this conversation,
> because I don't feel like it now.
I'm pleased that it helped.
Ye Old One
>Dear Reader,
>
>I think the Bible might be true,
>but it is not probable because of macroevolution.
>If macroevolution is true,
>then the Bible definitely lies about the Global Flood,
>but then science should give a Theory which explains
>the strange phenomenon of religion.
>I am searching for this theory,
>and I would appreciate any help in it.
>
>I've followed Christianity for about 7 years,
>and I need explanation for the following phenomena:
>
>1. Why did the followers of Christianity experience
>supernatural things?
They didn't. Those are just stories made up by the people that started
the religion.
>I mean the many legends of saints, for example, but I myself
>had experienced such things when I followed Christianity.
>For example, when I left the baptist denomination
>in order to be a Roman Catholic, lines appeared in my palms,
>and formed crosses, for example.
Sure they did.
>When I didn't learn for my exams and I have read the Bible
>instead, my exams were successful.
Proving you did learn.
>(The Bible says that we should search for the Kingdom of God,
>and everything is given to us in addition to it.)
>When I was thinking on God, I felt the Sun shining more intensively.
Delusion.
>It occured several times when the priest had spoken about
>things just in connection with my recent life.
>Why is there this energy of Christianity if it is false,
>and why don't ordinary people experience such things?
They don't.
>
>2. What is the true history of Christianity?
It was invented by a group of people in the late 1st century.
>Did Moses existed
Nope.
>or did he deliberately lie or what happened there?
The writers of the story invented him.
>Why is it hidden in the Bible that the Ark landed on the highest
>mountain?
What do you mean "hidden", and anyway, nowhere does it claim the
"highest mountain"
>Was Imhotep Joseph?
Joseph is a fictional character. He may, or may not have been based on
a real person but we cannot really know.
>Why is religion more believeable than myths?
Religion is myth.
>Why are the faces of Jews and Arabs resembling each other?
Because they are the same people.
>Why did Jesus know that his religion will be spread upon the Earth?
JC is a fictional character, he didn't know anything.
>Why is it recorded that Christianity spreaded because of wonders?
Where is that recorded?
>If Jesus is a superpower, is he good or evil if he lied?
He is a fictional character.
>
>Arpad Fekete
--
Bob.
Theists think all gods but theirs are false. Atheists simply don't
make an exception for the last one.
Ye Old One
enriched this group when s/he wrote:
>Dear Reader,
>
>>
>> > Why is it hidden in the Bible that the Ark landed on the highest
>> > mountain?
>>
>> It's a claim made in the Bible, and not really hidden, though the
>> Bible does not say "the highest mountain", it says "the mountains of
>> Arrarat".
>>
>
>The Bible mentions some lengths of periods in Noah's story,
>and from these it can be inferred that
>the Ark landed on/after the day when the water was above the
>highest mountains. Thus the Ark must be landed on the
>highest mountain, so the mountain of Ararat should be the
>highest mountain of that time according to the Bible.
>Perhaps the Ark is on the Mount Everest or the K2,
>and the "mountains of Ararat" is the mountains which
>contain K2. The Bible mentions that after the Flood,
>people came from the east to Babel.
There was no flood.
>
>> > Was Imhotep Joseph?
>>
>> Why would that be the case?
>>
>
>The spelling is very similar,
Funny, they don't look it to me.
>and both persons were immediately after the Pharaoh.
Were they?
>
>> > Why is religion more believeable than myths?
>>
>> I see no difference, however, religious beliefs are usually taught as
>> "fact" to children at an early age, and anything else, like the Greek
>> or Norse religions are taught as myth because, in the case of Europe,
>> when religion was determined but decree by the King or emperor, then
>> that religion was your religion. That is why different regions have
>> different predominant religions.
>>
>
>Myths include stories which are much more unbelieveable than
>religions,
Believe me, you don't get more unbelievable than the bible.
>I think. Just read some myths, they usually doesn't have any
>connection
>with the reality.
Nor does most of the bible.
>
>> > Why did Jesus know that his religion will be spread upon the Earth?
>>
>> If he said that, it would likely have been due to optimism. �Also,
>> anything Jesus ever said, if he said anything that is atributed to
>> him, was written down decades after his death. �It's real easy to say
>> "so and so said this, ..." after the fact.
>>
>
>Yes, but after decades after his death Christianity was not spread
>upon the Earth.
Could you put that in English please.
>
>> > Why is it recorded that Christianity spreaded because of wonders?
>>
>> It didn't. �It spread more through Royal Decree and forced/coerced and
>> bought conversions.
>
>Speaking in new languages, and healing by laying on hands were written
>in
>the Bible, and it should have happened lest people wouldn't believe in
>Christianity. I've also seen a documentary about Norse people
>converting
>to Christianity because their berserker didn't succeeded in a
>challenge
>against Christians, somewhat similar to the challenge in the Bible
>about Eliash.
>
>>
>> > If Jesus is a superpower, is he good or evil if he lied?
>>
>> Since the *actual* words attributed to Jesus were not written until
>> decades after his death, there is no way of knowing what he said.
>> Besides, when you boil it all down, all he said (if he said) was
>> "respect each other". �There is no lie in that simple wisdom, nor is
>> there need for that wisdom to come from a holy man, even if he's just
>> a man that someone deified after his death. �Everything else is just
>> bells and whistles with smoke and mirrors added to make an impression.
>>
>
>Jesus told such things that:
No, he didn't teach anything.
>- The Flood did destroyed all lest Noah's family.
We know that is not true.
>- Whoever loves his family better than Jesus is not worthy to Jesus.
Better to love thy neighbour, she may enjoy it.
>- Whoever doesn't believe will be condemned.
Oh good.
>
>Arpad
--
Bob.
You have not been charged for this lesson - learn from it rather than
continuing to make a fool of yourself.