Atheism is Witchcraft

[The Starmaker]

Bottom line is...Atheism is Witchcraft.


You gotta look at the facts.

You gotta look at the truth.


The majority of the people
follow some sort of God, or religion...


Science is witchcraft with their strange
symbols and rules.

The majority of scientist are atheist, so they are into witchcraft.

If you're not following some sort of God, or religion...

then you're a witch.


Those are the facts. That is the truth.


Bottom line
is...
Atheism is Witchcraft.



Next month is Holloween...go put on your witch costume.




https://www.noao.edu/noaoprop/help/symbols/img18.gif

http://us.123rf.com/450wm/bowie15/bowie151504/bowie15150400088/39901903-mad-scientist.jpg?ver=6

[Normal Human]

On 12/09/16 05:43, The Starmaker wrote:
> Bottom line is...Atheism is Witchcraft.
>
>
> You gotta look at the facts.
>
> You gotta look at the truth.
>
>
> The majority of the people
> follow some sort of God, or religion...
>
>
> Science is witchcraft with their strange
> symbols and rules.
>
> The majority of scientist are atheist, so they are into witchcraft.
>
> If you're not following some sort of God, or religion...
>
> then you're a witch.

Poor indoctrinated fool! Go tell your god she can fuck off as far as
science is concerned.....

[The Starmaker]

You don't sound like a Normal Human, you sound like a ....Witch!


case closed.

[Wisely Non-Theist]

Theism relies far more on witchery and witchcraft
than either atheism or agnosticism do.

[Dorothy J Heydt]

In article <aaa-A242E4.1...@news.giganews.com>,

Wisely Non-Theist <a...@bbb.ccc> wrote:
>Theism relies far more on witchery and witchcraft
>than either atheism or agnosticism do.

Reminds me of the SCA cartoon (featuring Lady Tudor Glitz) in
which an ambitious reporter (a Geraldo Rivera wannabe) visited
and SCA event and asked everybody if they were Satanists.

Some answers:

"I'm Church of England, that's period for Tudor.
"I'm a Lutheran."
"I'm Polish National Catholic."
"I'm an atheist, and I don't believe in the other guy either."
"I'm a Neo-Pagan. Would you like a slice of sacrifical
watermelon? It's a perfect symbol: food and drink in the same
bowl, and lots of seeds."
"Oh, by the way, we've taped everything you said to us, and
deposited a copy with our lawyer."

It went on for several pages, with the reporter ultimately
whimpering "They wouldn't do this to Geraldo Rivera!" Oh yes
they would.

--
Dorothy J. Heydt
Vallejo, California
djheydt at gmail dot com

[Thomas Heger]

Am 12.09.2016 02:06, schrieb Dorothy J Heydt:
> In article<aaa-A242E4.1...@news.giganews.com>,
> Wisely Non-Theist<a...@bbb.ccc> wrote:
>> Theism relies far more on witchery and witchcraft
>> than either atheism or agnosticism do.
>
> Reminds me of the SCA cartoon (featuring Lady Tudor Glitz) in
> which an ambitious reporter (a Geraldo Rivera wannabe) visited
> and SCA event and asked everybody if they were Satanists.
>
> Some answers:
>
> "I'm Church of England, that's period for Tudor.
> "I'm a Lutheran."
> "I'm Polish National Catholic."
> "I'm an atheist, and I don't believe in the other guy either."
> "I'm a Neo-Pagan. Would you like a slice of sacrifical
> watermelon? It's a perfect symbol: food and drink in the same
> bowl, and lots of seeds."
> "Oh, by the way, we've taped everything you said to us, and
> deposited a copy with our lawyer."
>

The exists something called 'freedom of religion'.

This allows everyone to believe in what he wants. He may also believe in
nonsense of any kind, as long as he does not annoy his environment or
commit crimes.

So you may believe in the usefulness of ritual sacrifice of virgins, for
instance, but you are not allowed to do that.

So churches or believe system are NOT allowed to commit crimes, even if
their particular believes system demands something similar.

So bad luck, if you believe in the something, that demands e.g.
cannibalism.

It is - nevertheless - allowed to worship entities, which require
disgusting rituals.

This is so, because religious wars had caused way too many casualties
already. So religious freedom is way cheaper than such wars.

This freedom does not include the freedom to commit crimes of any kind.

And you should not annoy believers of other fractions more than
necessary, because they could eventually believe, that extermination of
non-believers is allowed (what it is not).


TH

[Ned Latham]

Thomas Heger wrote:
> Dorothy J Heydt wrote:

> > Wisely Non-Theist wrote:
> > >`
> > > Theism relies far more on witchery and witchcraft
> > > than either atheism or agnosticism do.

Theism relies on superstition, which witchcraft is a type od.

Argewism and agnosticism do not.

----snip----

> The exists something called 'freedom of religion'.

What we need is freedom *from* religion; especially, freedom
from the tax burden that State support of religion imposes
on us.

----snip----

> because they could eventually believe, that extermination of
> non-believers is allowed (what it is not).

Fundy Jews, Christuans and Muslims believe *exactly* that,
and all three are guilty of genocide.

Ned

[David (Time Lord) Fuller]

Starsharter is sharting again

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 12:57:25 GMT, Ned Latham
<nedl...@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote:

>Thomas Heger wrote:
>> Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
>> > Wisely Non-Theist wrote:
>> > >`
>> > > Theism relies far more on witchery and witchcraft
>> > > than either atheism or agnosticism do.
>
>Theism relies on superstition, which witchcraft is a type od.
>
>Argewism and agnosticism do not.

My lysdexic fingers slip to the next keys, too!

>----snip----
>
>> The exists something called 'freedom of religion'.
>
>What we need is freedom *from* religion;

It's guaranteed by the First amendment - because theists can't have
freedom of religion without the flip side of freedom from all the
other religions.

But they imagine their own freedom of speech overrides everybody
else's First Amendment freedoms.

Just look how many of these Liars For God scream that we are abridging
their freedom of speech when we demand they put up or shut up.

And how many imagine their freedom of speech compels others to listen.

> especially, freedom
>from the tax burden that State support of religion imposes
>on us.

It's not supposed to be state-supported, but the religious are
continually pushing the envelope, especially in the Bible Belt.

[David (Time Lord) Fuller]

Christopher A. Lee wrote:

It is not supposed to be state-supported, but the religious are continually pushing the envelope, especially in the Bible Belt.

SPORTS
Alabama Pastor Allen Joyner Says People Who Don't Stand For The National Anthem Should Be Shot

Dissent is treason..
Sedition of govt is God Hating anti-patriotism

[Ned Latham]

Christopher A Lee wrote:

> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Thomas Heger wrote:
> > > Dorothy J Heydt wrote:
> > > > Wisely Non-Theist wrote:
> > > > >`
> > > > > Theism relies far more on witchery and witchcraft
> > > > > than either atheism or agnosticism do.
> >
> > Theism relies on superstition, which witchcraft is a type od.
> >
> > Argewism and agnosticism do not.

Blech!

> My lysdexic fingers slip to the next keys, too!

I'm not a touch typist and my proofreading suffers from my
poor eyesight. Sad to say, I can't help missing typoes here
and there.

> > ----snip----
> >
> > > The exists something called 'freedom of religion'.
> >
> > What we need is freedom *from* religion;
>
> It's guaranteed by the First amendment -

Nope. Not even in the USA.

> because theists can't have
> freedom of religion without the flip side of freedom from all the
> other religions.

That is not freedom from religion.

----snip----

> > especially, freedom from the tax burden that State support
> >`of religion imposes on us.
>
> It's not supposed to be state-supported, but the religious are
> continually pushing the envelope, especially in the Bible Belt.

They don't just push the envelope. They get tax concessions in
many ways. They don't pay taxes on their property; their officers
don't pay income taxes; they receive moneys that the donors can
write off their taxes ...

If they had to pay their own way, they'd be floundering. Some
of them would be extinct.

Ned

[Thomas Heger]

Am 12.09.2016 14:57, schrieb Ned Latham:

>> The exists something called 'freedom of religion'.
>
> What we need is freedom *from* religion; especially, freedom
> from the tax burden that State support of religion imposes
> on us.
>
> ----snip----
>
>> because they could eventually believe, that extermination of
>> non-believers is allowed (what it is not).
>
> Fundy Jews, Christuans and Muslims believe *exactly* that,
> and all three are guilty of genocide.
>

Islam, Christianity and Judaism were actually the same religion.


This is a very interesting story and goes like this:

There have been large empires in ancient times, which controlled also
the believes of their people.

They merged their culture into the exact same early religion, which is
very ancient and stems from Africa. This were the early Jews, before
they went into slavery in Egypt.

Those Jews were black people and lived in what is today Ethiopia. There
were given as tribute to the Egyptians by the Queen of Sheeba.

Then they went to Palestine and to the Empire of Babylon.

From these stations they took some alien influences with them, for
instance the so called Talmud.

The Christians emerged from Judaism as kind of sect. They had the same
believe, but no Talmud. This Christian believe spread around the Middle
East and merged into the Syrian society. These early Christians spoke
Aramaic.

The Romans didn'd like neither Jews nor Christians, since they had their
own believe system and demanded from their citizens to worship their
gods. But the Jews rejected this demand.

So the Romans wiped out the Jews. The Christians would have been wiped
out, too, but they were already gone and they were not that many.

Later the emperor Constantine merged early Christianity with the Roman
form of Sun worship called 'Mitraism' and changed the early version of
Christianity to what is now the Catholic Church. The main change was
called 'trinity', while the so called 'Arians' were monotheistic.

So the Arians were prosecuted again and had to flee. They went along the
Silk-Road into the Empire of the Sassanides into the city Merv.

They changed the early script of their religion into Aramaic language.

Then came the Arabs and conquered the city and the entire Empire of the
Sassanides.

The Arians were kind of successfull, so the Sarazenes let them proceed
with their religion.

Around the ninth century this changed and they wanted the Arian believe
more 'Arabic'.

So the former holy scripts of the Arians were translated from Aramaic to
Arabic, what is not a big deal, since both languages are close relatives.

With the translation they changed the Aramaic word 'mahmed' to the
Arabic name 'Mohammed'.

'Mahmed' is actually a title and means 'the one to be praised' and was
used for Jesus.

So Jesus and Mohamed were actually the same person, only slightly
'Arabified'. And Jesus was, of course, Jewish.

So Judaism, Christianity and Islam had been at a certain time the same
religion, which was later altered to fit the demands of the then ruling
Empire (Egypt, Babylon, Rome, Sassanides, Sarazens).

TH

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Mon, 12 Sep 2016 19:18:42 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de>
wrote:

>Am 12.09.2016 14:57, schrieb Ned Latham:
>
>>> The exists something called 'freedom of religion'.
>>
>> What we need is freedom *from* religion; especially, freedom
>> from the tax burden that State support of religion imposes
>> on us.
>>
>> ----snip----
>>
>>> because they could eventually believe, that extermination of
>>> non-believers is allowed (what it is not).
>>
>> Fundy Jews, Christuans and Muslims believe *exactly* that,
>> and all three are guilty of genocide.
>
>Islam, Christianity and Judaism were actually the same religion.

I wouldn't say that - Christianity evolved from Judaism, Islam evolved
from Christianity (as did the LDS), and Baha'i evolved from Islam.

They have evolved to be completely different, even though their gods
are nominally the same one.

>This is a very interesting story and goes like this:
>
>There have been large empires in ancient times, which controlled also
>the believes of their people.
>
>They merged their culture into the exact same early religion, which is
>very ancient and stems from Africa. This were the early Jews, before
>they went into slavery in Egypt.

No.

Judaism has its origins in the Babylonian and Sumerian beliefs.

>Those Jews were black people and lived in what is today Ethiopia. There
>were given as tribute to the Egyptians by the Queen of Sheeba.

[rest of this tripe that is irrelevant and off-topic in both
alt.atheism and sci.physics.relativity, deleted]

[Thomas Heger]

Am 12.09.2016 19:37, schrieb Christopher A. Lee:

>>>> The exists something called 'freedom of religion'.
>>>
>>> What we need is freedom *from* religion; especially, freedom
>>> from the tax burden that State support of religion imposes
>>> on us.
>>>
>>> ----snip----
>>>
>>>> because they could eventually believe, that extermination of
>>>> non-believers is allowed (what it is not).
>>>
>>> Fundy Jews, Christuans and Muslims believe *exactly* that,
>>> and all three are guilty of genocide.
>>
>> Islam, Christianity and Judaism were actually the same religion.
>
> I wouldn't say that - Christianity evolved from Judaism, Islam evolved
> from Christianity (as did the LDS), and Baha'i evolved from Islam.
>
> They have evolved to be completely different, even though their gods
> are nominally the same one.
>
>> This is a very interesting story and goes like this:
>>
>> There have been large empires in ancient times, which controlled also
>> the believes of their people.
>>
>> They merged their culture into the exact same early religion, which is
>> very ancient and stems from Africa. This were the early Jews, before
>> they went into slavery in Egypt.
>
> No.
>
> Judaism has its origins in the Babylonian and Sumerian beliefs.

No. The roots of Judaism stem from Africa.

The Sumerian Empire was a certain station of the long migration this
believe, but Babylon is actually alien to Judaism, like ancient Rome was
alien to Christianity.

The Romans had actually prosecuted Christians.

To see the similarities, you would need to remove the influence from the
various foreign cultures, like the Babylonians, Egyptians or Romans.

The core is monotheism and one single universal God.

Roman folklore included deification of celestial objects and the Roman
Emperors.

But this was pretty remote to the monotheistic believe of the Jews.

Islam has now certain similarities to the former Christianity, which was
at that time a Jewish sect.

The differences from these religions do not stem from the early
Christians or Jews, but from subsequent occupation and from merging
this religion with what the occupants had before.

The Roman merged so called 'Mithraism' into the early Christianity,
while the Sarazenes altered the location to the Arabian peninsula.

>> Those Jews were black people and lived in what is today Ethiopia. There
>> were given as tribute to the Egyptians by the Queen of Sheeba.
>

The Ethiopians have actually remains of a former high-culture. There are
very ancient ruins of churches carved out of the rock in the ground.

They had also a lot of Jews and they also had their own 'messiah', named
Haile Selassi.

His civil name was 'Ras Tafari'.

So the ancient Jews would have looked somehow similar to Bob Marley.


TH

[Michael Moroney]

Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> writes:

>'Mahmed' is actually a title and means 'the one to be praised' and was
>used for Jesus.

>So Jesus and Mohamed were actually the same person, only slightly
>'Arabified'. And Jesus was, of course, Jewish.

Wrong. Jesus (Isa ibn Maryam) is revered in Islam as a prophet, the
prophet preceding Mohamed. Islam has different beliefs about Jesus,
he was not God or the Son of God, he was not killed by crucifixion,
but he did perform miracles. He was mentioned many times in the
Quran.

And the Jews did originate in the Middle East (unless you want to
claim that technically they, like all humans, originated in Africa
long before any civilization)

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <e3o6bo...@mid.individual.net>,

Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:

> Am 12.09.2016 14:57, schrieb Ned Latham:
>
> >> The exists something called 'freedom of religion'.
> >
> > What we need is freedom *from* religion; especially, freedom
> > from the tax burden that State support of religion imposes
> > on us.
> >
> > ----snip----
> >
> >> because they could eventually believe, that extermination of
> >> non-believers is allowed (what it is not).
> >
> > Fundy Jews, Christuans and Muslims believe *exactly* that,
> > and all three are guilty of genocide.
> >
>
> Islam, Christianity and Judaism were actually the same religion.
>
>
> This is a very interesting story and goes like this:
>
> There have been large empires in ancient times, which controlled also
> the believes of their people.
>
> They merged their culture into the exact same early religion, which is
> very ancient and stems from Africa. This were the early Jews, before
> they went into slavery in Egypt.

Since Jews were never slaves in Egypt, there's no need to read any
further.

--

JD

Men rarely (if ever) manage to dream
up a God superior to themselves. Most
Gods have the manners and morals of a
spoiled child.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <e3oicb...@mid.individual.net>,

What's your evidence for this?

[David (Time Lord) Fuller]

Religion is Group think Hive mind "team spirit" compliance NLP VIRUS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTEJ4M8Oepc

[David (Time Lord) Fuller]

Religion is Group think Hive mind "team spirit" compliance NLP VIRUS

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lTEJ4M8Oepc

Professional Sport...group think irrational submission to authority

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VA5jOdPiZWI

[David (Time Lord) Fuller]

Conform to & Praise groupthink or GET SHOT TO DEATH

https://www.google.com/amp/m.huffpost.com/us/entry/us_57d61590e4b03d2d459b0ec6/amp

[David (Time Lord) Fuller]

Religious Groupthink hive mind infestation
Brain Dead Season 1

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLJFfH9O-kqaX492Fjnu9dja8fh47v2_Gj

[David (Time Lord) Fuller]

Resistance is Futile, you will be Assimilated into the Groupthink Hive Mind.

I am the Begining, the End, the One who is Many. Praise & Obey the Hive.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sMt3SzAH_i0

[Thomas Heger]

The early Christians had no cross as symbol and they did not believe in
trinity, but only in one single god.

This believe system is called 'Arianism'.

Jesus was a prophet and not a god himself (for the Arians).

He was also not crucified.

This part (son of god, crucification, wonders, resurrection and so
forth) stems from Egyptian sun-worship and had the form of 'Mitraism' in
Rome.

Now the Arians were prosecuted after the council of Nicea and had to
flee from Syria. Much later their believe build the roots of what is
today Islam.

The change from Aramaic language to Arabic changed the title of Jesus
(in Aramaic) 'mahmed' to the name 'Mohammed' in Arabic.

But originally meant was the exact same person.

TH

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 06:45:21 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de>
wrote:

>The change from Aramaic language to Arabic changed the title of Jesus
>(in Aramaic) 'mahmed' to the name 'Mohammed' in Arabic.

What a fucking moron.

And why are you posting this mindless stupidity in alt.atheism and
sci.physics.relativity where it is completely off-topic?

[Thomas Heger]

Am 13.09.2016 04:13, schrieb Jeanne Douglas:

>>>> because they could eventually believe, that extermination of
>>>> non-believers is allowed (what it is not).
>>>
>>> Fundy Jews, Christuans and Muslims believe *exactly* that,
>>> and all three are guilty of genocide.
>>>
>>
>> Islam, Christianity and Judaism were actually the same religion.
>>
>>
>> This is a very interesting story and goes like this:
>>
>> There have been large empires in ancient times, which controlled also
>> the believes of their people.
>>
>> They merged their culture into the exact same early religion, which is
>> very ancient and stems from Africa. This were the early Jews, before
>> they went into slavery in Egypt.
>
>
> Since Jews were never slaves in Egypt, there's no need to read any
> further.
>

Moses & The Queen of Sheba 3:06
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqtJsotUU4s

The Queen of Sheba was the Empress of Ethiopia who married the Egyptian
(Tut-)Moses.

They ruled a kingdom, which also contained the former people of Ethiopia
(which were Jewish).

The male line of Egyptian Sun worship then merged with monotheism in the
female line (Judaism).

So the original Jews must have been black people like today Ethiopians.

If you call the citizens of that time 'slaves' is actually a question
for debate.


TH

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <e3pfgn...@mid.individual.net>,

Where's your evidence that Jews were ever slaves in Egypt? That line of
nonsense is not evidence.

[Thomas Heger]

Am 13.09.2016 06:56, schrieb Christopher A. Lee:

>> The change from Aramaic language to Arabic changed the title of Jesus
>> (in Aramaic) 'mahmed' to the name 'Mohammed' in Arabic.
>
> What a fucking moron.

The idea stems from a German Islam scientist and historian named
Karl-Heinz Ohlig.

He wrote this

http://inarah.de/sammelbaende-und-artikel/inarah-band-4/geschichte-rueckwaerts-gelesen/

Unfortunately this is all in German. But eventually you can get it
translated into English by google.translator.

>
> And why are you posting this mindless stupidity in alt.atheism and
> sci.physics.relativity where it is completely off-topic?

Well, cross-posting is a common problem in the UseNet. Actually I read
sci.physics.relativity and reply to posts, that show up there, even if
they are off topic to relativity (as is this topic).

But what other method would you suggest?

I don not really want to extend the number of groups which I read, but
have on some occasion something to say about cross-posts reaching these
groups for unknown reasons.


TH

[Thomas Heger]

Am 13.09.2016 07:29, schrieb Jeanne Douglas:

>>
>> Moses& The Queen of Sheba 3:06

>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqtJsotUU4s
>>
>> The Queen of Sheba was the Empress of Ethiopia who married the Egyptian
>> (Tut-)Moses.
>>
>> They ruled a kingdom, which also contained the former people of Ethiopia
>> (which were Jewish).
>>
>> The male line of Egyptian Sun worship then merged with monotheism in the
>> female line (Judaism).
>>
>> So the original Jews must have been black people like today Ethiopians.
>>
>> If you call the citizens of that time 'slaves' is actually a question
>> for debate.
>
>
> Where's your evidence that Jews were ever slaves in Egypt? That line of
> nonsense is not evidence.
>

Sorry, but my knowledge of the Bible is only fragmentary.

But as far as I know the Jews had to flee from Egypt. This escape was
possible because the Red Sea split apart and drowned the prosecuting
Egyptians.

The Jews came to Egypt, because they were give to the Pharao as kind of
tribute. Since it was the Queen of Sheba, who gave them to the Pharao,
the Jews had to stem from her kingdom (->Ethiopia).

So original Jews would have been 'black'.


TH

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <e3pk7k...@mid.individual.net>,

Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:

> Am 13.09.2016 07:29, schrieb Jeanne Douglas:
>
> >>
> >> Moses& The Queen of Sheba 3:06
> >> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qqtJsotUU4s
> >>
> >> The Queen of Sheba was the Empress of Ethiopia who married the Egyptian
> >> (Tut-)Moses.
> >>
> >> They ruled a kingdom, which also contained the former people of Ethiopia
> >> (which were Jewish).
> >>
> >> The male line of Egyptian Sun worship then merged with monotheism in the
> >> female line (Judaism).
> >>
> >> So the original Jews must have been black people like today Ethiopians.
> >>
> >> If you call the citizens of that time 'slaves' is actually a question
> >> for debate.
> >
> >
> > Where's your evidence that Jews were ever slaves in Egypt? That line of
> > nonsense is not evidence.
> >
> Sorry, but my knowledge of the Bible is only fragmentary.

The bible is worthless as history.

> But as far as I know the Jews had to flee from Egypt.

They were never in Egypt, so they never had to leave.

>This escape was
> possible because the Red Sea split apart and drowned the prosecuting
> Egyptians.

This is complete fantasy. It never happened.

> The Jews came to Egypt, because they were give to the Pharao as kind of
> tribute. Since it was the Queen of Sheba, who gave them to the Pharao,
> the Jews had to stem from her kingdom (->Ethiopia).

The Jews were never in Egypt.

> So original Jews would have been 'black'.

You still haven't provided evidence for this assertion.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <e3pjt7...@mid.individual.net>,

Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:

> Am 13.09.2016 06:56, schrieb Christopher A. Lee:
>
> >> The change from Aramaic language to Arabic changed the title of Jesus
> >> (in Aramaic) 'mahmed' to the name 'Mohammed' in Arabic.
> >
> > What a fucking moron.
>
> The idea stems from a German Islam scientist and historian named
> Karl-Heinz Ohlig.
>
> He wrote this
>
> http://inarah.de/sammelbaende-und-artikel/inarah-band-4/geschichte-rueckwaerts
> -gelesen/

What evidence does he present? And has it been peer-reviewed and found
valid.

[The Starmaker]

The Starmaker wrote:
>
> Bottom line is...Atheism is Witchcraft.
>
> You gotta look at the facts.
>
> You gotta look at the truth.
>
> The majority of the people
> follow some sort of God, or religion...
>
> Science is witchcraft with their strange
> symbols and rules.
>
> The majority of scientist are atheist, so they are into witchcraft.
>
> If you're not following some sort of God, or religion...
>
> then you're a witch.
>
> Those are the facts. That is the truth.
>
> Bottom line
> is...
> Atheism is Witchcraft.
>
> Next month is Holloween...go put on your witch costume.
>
> https://www.noao.edu/noaoprop/help/symbols/img18.gif
>
> http://us.123rf.com/450wm/bowie15/bowie151504/bowie15150400088/39901903-mad-scientist.jpg?ver=6


Why do you think the majority of people in the 'scientific community' are Atheist?


They were thrown out of the church for practicing witchcraft.

Those strange symbols of theirs is what created the atomic bomb.

They created the internet among themselves so that they can share witchcraft secrets.


Black holes, that's witchcraft....dark matter...thats witchcraft.


They haven't even figured out how to put witchcraft symbols on keyboards yet....God won't let them.

[The Starmaker]

Have you ever heard anyone from the 'scientific community' talk about...TRUTH????

[Ned Latham]

Thomas Heger wrote:

> Ned Latham wrote:
> > >
> > > The exists something called 'freedom of religion'.
> >
> > What we need is freedom *from* religion; especially, freedom
> > from the tax burden that State support of religion imposes
> > on us.
> >
> > ----snip----
> >
> > > because they could eventually believe, that extermination of
> > > non-believers is allowed (what it is not).
> >
> > Fundy Jews, Christuans and Muslims believe *exactly* that,
> > and all three are guilty of genocide.
>
> Islam, Christianity and Judaism were actually the same religion.

Nope. They are the same *type* of religion: monotheist.

> This is a very interesting story and goes like this:
>
> There have been large empires in ancient times, which controlled
> also the believes of their people.
>
> They merged their culture into the exact same early religion
, which is> very ancient and stems from Africa.

Nope. It's a developement of the Semitic polytheism practised
in Babylon and in Israel before the Jews were taken there.

> This were the early Jews, before they went into slavery in Egypt.

That's myth.

----snip----

> The Christians emerged from Judaism as kind of sect.

Christianity is an offshoot of the Essene cult.

> They had the same believe, but no Talmud.

Christianity originated in Saul of Tarsus's perversion of the
propaganda story in the Gospels. He made Jesus too much like
a god, setting up a schism between Judaism and the new cult.
Later political developments made him *into* a god, which
Christians deny with a device they call the "trinity".

> This Christian believe spread around the Middle East and
> merged into the Syrian society. These early Christians
> spoke Aramaic.

The *Jews* of the time spoke Aramaic.

----snip----

The Roman demand for worship of the emperor is what caused
problems between them and the monotheist cults.

----snip----

> Then came the Arabs and conquered the city and the entire
> Empire of the Sassanides.

Mohammed lived in the seventh century. He developed Islam
from what he knew of Judaism and Christianty.

----snip----

> So Jesus and Mohamed were actually the same person, only slightly
> 'Arabified'. And Jesus was, of course, Jewish.

Np. Mohammed was an Arab merchant and trader: got his ideas in his
travels. Jesus was Joshua bar Josheph, an Essene swordman (the
ancient equivalent of a suicide bomber). His mission in Jerusalem
was the assassination of the Temple's Chief Priest. That's why he
was caught armed and at night skulking in the Garden of Gethsemane,
the Chief Priest's residence. And it's why he was crucified: that
was the standard Roman penalty for the crime of revolt against Rome,
which is what the assassination of collaborators was deemed to be.

----snip----

Ned

[Thomas Heger]

Am 13.09.2016 09:49, schrieb Ned Latham:

>> Islam, Christianity and Judaism were actually the same religion.
>
> Nope. They are the same *type* of religion: monotheist.
>
>> This is a very interesting story and goes like this:
>>
>> There have been large empires in ancient times, which controlled
>> also the believes of their people.
>>
>> They merged their culture into the exact same early religion
> , which is> very ancient and stems from Africa.
>
> Nope. It's a developement of the Semitic polytheism practised
> in Babylon and in Israel before the Jews were taken there.

>> This were the early Jews, before they went into slavery in Egypt.
>
> That's myth.
>

If you exclude myth from religion, than what will be left over?

>> The Christians emerged from Judaism as kind of sect.
>
> Christianity is an offshoot of the Essene cult.

Ok, I would agree. But it was a Jewish sect, since Christianity came later.

>> They had the same believe, but no Talmud.
>
> Christianity originated in Saul of Tarsus's perversion of the
> propaganda story in the Gospels. He made Jesus too much like
> a god, setting up a schism between Judaism and the new cult.
> Later political developments made him *into* a god, which
> Christians deny with a device they call the "trinity".

I would agree here too, at least somehow. The 'deification' of Jesus was
part of the Roman policy, who used that as means to spread their own
believe system.

The Arians (from Syria) opposed this plan and rejected trinity.

So Emperor Constantine prosecuted the Arians and they had to escape.

They fled along the Silk Road to the City 'Merv' in what is now
Turkmenistan. This what at this time (about 350) the largest city in the
World (with more than a million citizens).

>> This Christian believe spread around the Middle East and
>> merged into the Syrian society. These early Christians
>> spoke Aramaic.
>
> The *Jews* of the time spoke Aramaic.

Aramaic was at that time spoken all over the Middle East. That was kind
'Esperanto' of the ancient times. Especially tradesmen spoke Aramaic.

And the Far Eastern trade along the silk road was certainly the most
profitable business of its time.

So these trades people were kind of elite. Their home region was
northern Syria.

There exist ruins of abandoned cities till today.

And the people from there were predominantly Christians. But I would
guess, they saw no great difference between Judaism and Christianity. So
the early Christians were kind of 'Reform Jews'.

> The Roman demand for worship of the emperor is what caused
> problems between them and the monotheist cults.
>

Well, a little more than that, since the Romans killed almost all Jews.


They would have killed the Christians too, but they were hidden and
actually much less. And a number fled into the Empire of the Sassanides.

>
>> Then came the Arabs and conquered the city and the entire
>> Empire of the Sassanides.
>
> Mohammed lived in the seventh century. He developed Islam

This story is most likely not true.

The idea of the historian Ohlig was to search for evidence for the
existence of this person in the Arabian peninsula of that time.

What he found was Christian symbols e.g. on coins and no written record
about such a person from independent sources.

So it would make some sense to assume, that the Arabs have reformed the
Arian believes and created a new religion, with themselves in the centre.

This was actually a common method, and for instance the Greek or Romans
did that, too.

So we can safely assume that religious scripts have been influenced by
the ruling powers of that time. And those had always claimed to be the
best people possible.

To check, whether or not Christian scripts found their ways into those
of the Muslims, we need to check the text for similarities. E.g. names,
symbols, stories or philosophical concepts could have been copied.

If their are similarities of this type, we can be certain, that one
writer copied from earlier scripts.

> ----snip----
>
>> So Jesus and Mohamed were actually the same person, only slightly
>> 'Arabified'. And Jesus was, of course, Jewish.
>
> Np. Mohammed was an Arab merchant and trader: got his ideas in his
> travels. Jesus was Joshua bar Josheph, an Essene swordman (the
> ancient equivalent of a suicide bomber).

Well many claim this was also how Mohamed behaved.

My assumption is, that Jesus and Mohammed were actually the very same
person. Only the time was slightly modified, similar as the location.

The real history is very difficult to research, since there is an
obvious bias towards the own position in any of the regions and believe
systems involved.

So it is not that easy to find out, who these people really were.

TH

[The Starmaker]

witchcraft:
means the practice of, and belief in, magical skills and abilities that are able to be exercised by individuals and certain social groups.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchcraft




"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic." - Arthur C. Clarke

[The Starmaker]

"Polygraph tests are 20th-century witchcraft." - Sam Ervin

[The Starmaker]

This is not a mad scientist, it is a modern day....witch:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ae/Mad_scientist.svg/1094px-Mad_scientist.svg.png


same hairdo
same nose
same witchcraft chemicals



https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ae/Mad_scientist.svg/1094px-Mad_scientist.svg.png



The *majority* of the people on planet Earth

follow some sort of God, or religion...

the rest practice witchcraft.


Don't let the witches fool you into thinking think they can control the climate....it's witchcraft.


They will turn you into a pig if you let them...

[Thomas Heger]

Am 13.09.2016 09:07, schrieb Jeanne Douglas:

>>>> The change from Aramaic language to Arabic changed the title of Jesus
>>>> (in Aramaic) 'mahmed' to the name 'Mohammed' in Arabic.
>>>
>>> What a fucking moron.
>>
>> The idea stems from a German Islam scientist and historian named
>> Karl-Heinz Ohlig.
>>
>> He wrote this
>>
>> http://inarah.de/sammelbaende-und-artikel/inarah-band-4/geschichte-rueckwaerts
>> -gelesen/
>
>
> What evidence does he present? And has it been peer-reviewed and found
> valid.
>

Sorry, but I don't know.

As far as I can tell he's a honourable scientist. But actually Islam
studies are not really my subject. So I have read something he wrote,
but I'm not able to estimate how influential he is.

Certainly he is far from the mainstream.

anyhow: I like his idea.

Here is a link to what google.translator made out of his web-page:

https://translate.google.de/translate?sl=de&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=de&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2Finarah.de%2Fsammelbaende-und-artikel%2Finarah-band-4%2Fgeschichte-rueckwaerts-gelesen%2F&edit-text=&act=url

a few quotes:

"First was, as will be seen below, the Quranic movement a special form
of Syriac Persian Christianity. She defended aggressively to the
accuracy of this sectarian peculiarities, but without separating from
the other Christians or to break away from Torah and Gospel."

"According to the inscription in the Rock has Abd al-Malik muammad more
than Christological predicate understood?. [34] This document the
coinage, which he minted during his turn from east to west: point to one
side of a MHMT, in the West arrived with the Arab explanation muammad,
and on the other a Christian iconographic design. [35] 750 AD ago. But
John of Damascus sees in his Liber de haeresibus if this passage is
authentic, Mamed (Machmed) as a proper name of the herald of a graphe
(writing). [36] Thus should the transition to the conception of Mohammed
as a historical figure in the first half of the 8th century to be done."


"Even earlier, however, about the year 77 H. (around 701 BC) Can be
found far to the east, in Merv coins, bear the marking 'machmatan' one
reads this word as Persian vocabulary, it means the attached syllable.
means "people of ...", the whole concept it means "people (or
followers) of Muhammad". Another possibility would be a Syrian reading
in the has an adjective meaning, ie "to Mohammed belonging" - in two
versions, consequently, the same statement. But if you also 'machmat
'only translated ( "the Promised" or "the Honorable to"), then it would
be to people who belong to the Honorable to (Jesus). However, the latter
possibility seems most grammatically possible, but for the intentioned
situation too complicated (unless you draw a parallel to the Greek name
Christianoi [Christians], which indeed literally also means "people [or
trailer] the Messiah" [ Jesus]). Suppose - it is the most simple
solution - that is mentioned on the coins of "people of Muhammad"."


Certainly a terrible translation. But somehow it should express, that
'mahmed' was a title in Aramaic (for Jesus), which morphed to 'muhammad'
(Mohamed) in Arabic.

TH

[HGW]

On 12/09/16 05:43, The Starmaker wrote:
> Bottom line is...Atheism is Witchcraft.

A religious person is a thoroughly demoralized individual who, either by
misfortune or plain stupidity has had such a miserable existence that it
will go to any length to reassure its deluded mind that it will one day
be given a second chance at life.

[Wisely Non-Theist]

On 12/09/16 05:43, The Starmaker wrote:
> Bottom line is...Atheism is Witchcraft.

But there is no such thing as witchcraft, especially to atheists,
while there appears to be atheism to witches like Starmaker!

[benj]

True. Especially deeply religious atheisst who are convinced that
ethics, morality, honesty and anything but animal instinct is nothing
but delusion. They keep hoping to meet a stronger animal that will kill
them and end their miserable existence. Sad.

[Thomas Heger]

Am 14.09.2016 01:59, schrieb benj:

>>> Bottom line is...Atheism is Witchcraft.
>>
>> A religious person is a thoroughly demoralized individual who, either by
>> misfortune or plain stupidity has had such a miserable existence that it
>> will go to any length to reassure its deluded mind that it will one day
>> be given a second chance at life.
>
> True. Especially deeply religious atheisst who are convinced that
> ethics, morality, honesty and anything but animal instinct is nothing
> but delusion. They keep hoping to meet a stronger animal that will kill
> them and end their miserable existence. Sad.

The people, who do not believe in religion or supernatural beings are
not called 'Atheists' but 'Agnostics'.

Atheism require believe, but also attempts to oppose divine authority.
This could eventually lead to obscure rituals, which are an attempt to
violate assumed laws as far as possible.

The agnostic would never ever do anything alike, since he bases its
doings on the own understanding of ethics and moral, which he would like
to keep as high as possible.

The occultists tries - on the other hand - to find ways, by which he
could eventually violate assumed laws. So he believes in divine laws and
is in fact the greater believer than the agnostic.


TH

[Smiler]

On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 19:59:14 -0400, benj wrote:

> On 9/13/2016 7:10 PM, HGW wrote:
>> On 12/09/16 05:43, The Starmaker wrote:
>>> Bottom line is...Atheism is Witchcraft.
>>
>> A religious person is a thoroughly demoralized individual who, either
>> by misfortune or plain stupidity has had such a miserable existence
>> that it will go to any length to reassure its deluded mind that it will
>> one day be given a second chance at life.
>
> True. Especially deeply religious atheisst

As rare as hirsute bald men.

<snip even more lies>

--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 03:15:56 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de>
wrote:

>Am 14.09.2016 01:59, schrieb benj:
>
>>>> Bottom line is...Atheism is Witchcraft.
>>>
>>> A religious person is a thoroughly demoralized individual who, either by
>>> misfortune or plain stupidity has had such a miserable existence that it
>>> will go to any length to reassure its deluded mind that it will one day
>>> be given a second chance at life.
>>
>> True. Especially deeply religious atheisst who are convinced that
>> ethics, morality, honesty and anything but animal instinct is nothing
>> but delusion. They keep hoping to meet a stronger animal that will kill
>> them and end their miserable existence. Sad.
>
>The people, who do not believe in religion or supernatural beings are
>not called 'Atheists' but 'Agnostics'.
>
>Atheism require believe, but also attempts to oppose divine authority.
>This could eventually lead to obscure rituals, which are an attempt to
>violate assumed laws as far as possible.

Go fuck yourself, arrogantly nasty, in-your-face liar.

You're not a mind-reader.

So what makes you "think" you know what it means to be atheist, better
than we atheists do ourselves?

>The agnostic would never ever do anything alike, since he bases its
>doings on the own understanding of ethics and moral, which he would like
>to keep as high as possible.

So why don't you, hypocrite, instead of making up bullshit about
atheists?

>The occultists tries - on the other hand - to find ways, by which he
>could eventually violate assumed laws. So he believes in divine laws and
>is in fact the greater believer than the agnostic.

Yet another pig-ignorant, arrogantly stupid, nasty sociopath who can't
think outside the theist box, lies about atheists to our faces.

All because he is incapable of understanding that to those who don't
share them, the theists' gods are merely somebody else's religious
belief - not something that could or could not exist.

[benj]

On 9/13/2016 9:16 PM, Smiler wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 19:59:14 -0400, benj wrote:
>
>> On 9/13/2016 7:10 PM, HGW wrote:
>>> On 12/09/16 05:43, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>> Bottom line is...Atheism is Witchcraft.
>>>
>>> A religious person is a thoroughly demoralized individual who, either
>>> by misfortune or plain stupidity has had such a miserable existence
>>> that it will go to any length to reassure its deluded mind that it will
>>> one day be given a second chance at life.
>>
>> True. Especially deeply religious atheisst
>
> As rare as hirsute bald men.
>
> <snip even more lies>
>

Obviously we are in the presence of an atheist of great faith!

[benj]

Atheists deny religion or supernatural beings. They do not believe in
them. They believe they do not exist. Agnostics on the other hand try to
have no opinion on these subjects. They are the original da da crowd.
Such makes them less of a religion than atheists but nevertheless saying
that one can't decide on anything is indeed still a system of belief and
hence a kind of half-asses religion. Sort of like anarchists are kind of
half-assed politicians.

However, this group (sci.physics) is about science. Science is not about
belief. Science is about observations and evidence and measurements.
Belief plays no role (unless you believe someone is faking data like say
AGW "scientists") But Science is not agnosticism because the goal of
science is to find out, not deny that anyone can know or decide.

[Christopher A. Lee]

Obviously we are in the presence of a deliberately and arrogantly
nasty, lying theist.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <e3r46i...@mid.individual.net>,

Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:

> Am 13.09.2016 09:07, schrieb Jeanne Douglas:
>
> >>>> The change from Aramaic language to Arabic changed the title of Jesus
> >>>> (in Aramaic) 'mahmed' to the name 'Mohammed' in Arabic.
> >>>
> >>> What a fucking moron.
> >>
> >> The idea stems from a German Islam scientist and historian named
> >> Karl-Heinz Ohlig.
> >>
> >> He wrote this
> >>
> >> http://inarah.de/sammelbaende-und-artikel/inarah-band-4/geschichte-rueckwae
> >> rts
> >> -gelesen/
> >
> >
> > What evidence does he present? And has it been peer-reviewed and found
> > valid.
> >
> Sorry, but I don't know.
>
> As far as I can tell he's a honourable scientist. But actually Islam
> studies are not really my subject. So I have read something he wrote,
> but I'm not able to estimate how influential he is.
>
> Certainly he is far from the mainstream.
>
> anyhow: I like his idea.

I like the idea of the Big Bang resulting from the collision of 2
branes. Doesn't mean I give it any credence in reality. Because there's
no evidence to support it.

Why, since it's nonsense?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <e3rmmj...@mid.individual.net>,

Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:

> Am 14.09.2016 01:59, schrieb benj:
>
> >>> Bottom line is...Atheism is Witchcraft.
> >>
> >> A religious person is a thoroughly demoralized individual who, either by
> >> misfortune or plain stupidity has had such a miserable existence that it
> >> will go to any length to reassure its deluded mind that it will one day
> >> be given a second chance at life.
> >
> > True. Especially deeply religious atheisst who are convinced that
> > ethics, morality, honesty and anything but animal instinct is nothing
> > but delusion. They keep hoping to meet a stronger animal that will kill
> > them and end their miserable existence. Sad.
>
> The people, who do not believe in religion or supernatural beings are
> not called 'Atheists' but 'Agnostics'.

Wrong.

> Atheism require believe, but also attempts to oppose divine authority.
> This could eventually lead to obscure rituals, which are an attempt to
> violate assumed laws as far as possible.

Care to translate that word salad into English.

> The agnostic would never ever do anything alike, since he bases its
> doings on the own understanding of ethics and moral, which he would like
> to keep as high as possible.
>
> The occultists tries - on the other hand - to find ways, by which he
> could eventually violate assumed laws. So he believes in divine laws and
> is in fact the greater believer than the agnostic.

What the fuck do cultists have to do with atheism or agnosticism?

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <e3qm9r...@mid.individual.net>,

Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:

> Am 13.09.2016 09:49, schrieb Ned Latham:
>
> >> Islam, Christianity and Judaism were actually the same religion.
> >
> > Nope. They are the same *type* of religion: monotheist.
> >
> >> This is a very interesting story and goes like this:
> >>
> >> There have been large empires in ancient times, which controlled
> >> also the believes of their people.
> >>
> >> They merged their culture into the exact same early religion
> > , which is> very ancient and stems from Africa.
> >
> > Nope. It's a developement of the Semitic polytheism practised
> > in Babylon and in Israel before the Jews were taken there.
>
> >> This were the early Jews, before they went into slavery in Egypt.
> >
> > That's myth.
> >
>
> If you exclude myth from religion, than what will be left over?

Absolutely nothing. Which is why religion is garbage.

> >> The Christians emerged from Judaism as kind of sect.
> >
> > Christianity is an offshoot of the Essene cult.
>
> Ok, I would agree. But it was a Jewish sect, since Christianity came later.
>
> >> They had the same believe, but no Talmud.
> >
> > Christianity originated in Saul of Tarsus's perversion of the
> > propaganda story in the Gospels. He made Jesus too much like
> > a god, setting up a schism between Judaism and the new cult.
> > Later political developments made him *into* a god, which
> > Christians deny with a device they call the "trinity".
>
> I would agree here too, at least somehow. The 'deification' of Jesus was
> part of the Roman policy, who used that as means to spread their own
> believe system.
>
> The Arians (from Syria) opposed this plan and rejected trinity.
>
> So Emperor Constantine prosecuted the Arians and they had to escape.
>
> They fled along the Silk Road to the City 'Merv' in what is now
> Turkmenistan. This what at this time (about 350) the largest city in the
> World (with more than a million citizens).
>
>
>
>
> >> This Christian believe spread around the Middle East and
> >> merged into the Syrian society. These early Christians
> >> spoke Aramaic.
> >
> > The *Jews* of the time spoke Aramaic.
>
>
> Aramaic was at that time spoken all over the Middle East. That was kind
> 'Esperanto' of the ancient times.

So you're saying that Aramaic was a joke language that nobody spoke???

> Especially tradesmen spoke Aramaic.
>
> And the Far Eastern trade along the silk road was certainly the most
> profitable business of its time.
>
> So these trades people were kind of elite. Their home region was
> northern Syria.
>
> There exist ruins of abandoned cities till today.
>
> And the people from there were predominantly Christians. But I would
> guess, they saw no great difference between Judaism and Christianity. So
> the early Christians were kind of 'Reform Jews'.
>
> > The Roman demand for worship of the emperor is what caused
> > problems between them and the monotheist cults.
> >
>
> Well, a little more than that, since the Romans killed almost all Jews.

After they rebelled.

> They would have killed the Christians too, but they were hidden and
> actually much less. And a number fled into the Empire of the Sassanides.
>
>
> >
> >> Then came the Arabs and conquered the city and the entire
> >> Empire of the Sassanides.
> >
> > Mohammed lived in the seventh century. He developed Islam
>
>
> This story is most likely not true.
>
> The idea of the historian Ohlig was to search for evidence for the
> existence of this person in the Arabian peninsula of that time.
>
> What he found was Christian symbols e.g. on coins and no written record
> about such a person from independent sources.
>
> So it would make some sense to assume, that the Arabs have reformed the
> Arian believes and created a new religion, with themselves in the centre.

Why would it make sense?

> This was actually a common method, and for instance the Greek or Romans
> did that, too.
>
> So we can safely assume that religious scripts have been influenced by
> the ruling powers of that time. And those had always claimed to be the
> best people possible.
>
> To check, whether or not Christian scripts found their ways into those
> of the Muslims, we need to check the text for similarities. E.g. names,
> symbols, stories or philosophical concepts could have been copied.
>
> If their are similarities of this type, we can be certain, that one
> writer copied from earlier scripts.
>
>
> > ----snip----
> >
> >> So Jesus and Mohamed were actually the same person, only slightly
> >> 'Arabified'. And Jesus was, of course, Jewish.
> >
> > Np. Mohammed was an Arab merchant and trader: got his ideas in his
> > travels. Jesus was Joshua bar Josheph, an Essene swordman (the
> > ancient equivalent of a suicide bomber).
>
> Well many claim this was also how Mohamed behaved.
>
> My assumption is, that Jesus and Mohammed were actually the very same
> person. Only the time was slightly modified, similar as the location.

How can 2 purported people who lived 600 years apart be the same person?

> The real history is very difficult to research, since there is an
> obvious bias towards the own position in any of the regions and believe
> systems involved.
>
> So it is not that easy to find out, who these people really were.

Well, we know Jesus probably didn't even exist, so there's nothing to
know.

[Ned Latham]

Jeanne Douglas wrote:

----snip----

> Well, we know Jesus probably didn't even exist,

Actually, we know the opposite. "Jesus" is a Latinisation
of the hellenisation ("Iesos") of the Aramaic name "Jeshva"
(in English, "Joshua").

Jeshva barJoshiph (Jesus son of Joseph) probably did exist,
and was, as I said, an assassin who got caught and was
executed in the Roman manner by the Romans for the crime
of rebellion against Rome.

Jesus "Christ* certainly did not exist.

----snip----

Ned

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 06:27:54 GMT, Ned Latham
<nedl...@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote:

>Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>
>----snip----
>
>> Well, we know Jesus probably didn't even exist,
>
>Actually, we know the opposite.

We do _not_ know that.

> "Jesus" is a Latinisation
>of the hellenisation ("Iesos") of the Aramaic name "Jeshva"
>(in English, "Joshua").

So what? It was a common name.

>Jeshva barJoshiph (Jesus son of Joseph) probably did exist,
>and was, as I said, an assassin who got caught and was
>executed in the Roman manner by the Romans for the crime
>of rebellion against Rome.

In spite of the total lack of any evidence.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <slrnnthrf9.s...@woden.valhalla.oz>,

Let's see your evidence.

[HGW]

On 14/09/16 13:55, Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> In article <e3rmmj...@mid.individual.net>,

>>> True. Especially deeply religious atheisst who are convinced that
>>> ethics, morality, honesty and anything but animal instinct is nothing
>>> but delusion. They keep hoping to meet a stronger animal that will kill
>>> them and end their miserable existence. Sad.
>>
>> The people, who do not believe in religion or supernatural beings are
>> not called 'Atheists' but 'Agnostics'.
>
> Wrong.

Thomas gets a little confused about English terminology sometimes. He
considers the 'A' before Theist as meaning ANTITHEIST when it really
means "Opposite of a theist" , the latter being a believer in that
imaginary concept.

Thomas thinks an atheist is a person who accepts the existence of a 'god
thing' but fights against whatever it is supposed to stand for...
He thinks that to oppose this god thing, one must first accept its
existence, ie., believe in it...which would be logically correct if his
definition of the word was valid.
Because Thomas is under the misguided impression that religion is a
highly respectable and charitable movement rather than the sinister,
male dominated haven for sadistic, sex, power and money hungry cheats,
pedophiles and warmongers that history and current investigations reveal
it to be, he thinks that anyone opposing it is naturally devoid of
feeling and principle.

>> Atheism require believe, but also attempts to oppose divine authority.
>> This could eventually lead to obscure rituals, which are an attempt to
>> violate assumed laws as far as possible.
>
> Care to translate that word salad into English.

Thomas is very confused. That's why lives deep in remote cave somewhere
in Europe.



--

[Ned Latham]

Christopher A Lee wrote:

> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> >
> > ----snip----
> >
> > > Well, we know Jesus probably didn't even exist,
> >
> > Actually, we know the opposite.
>
> We do _not_ know that.

Oh, but we do. Read it again.

> > "Jesus" is a Latinisation of the hellenisation ("Iesos")
> > of the Aramaic name "Jeshva" (in English, "Joshua").
>
> So what? It was a common name.

So now those reading this thread who thought it was some
magical Christian thing know otherwise.

> > Jeshva bar Joshiph (Jesus son of Joseph) probably did exist,

> > and was, as I said, an assassin who got caught and was
> > executed in the Roman manner by the Romans for the crime
> > of rebellion against Rome.
>
> In spite of the total lack of any evidence.

Actually, there's quite a lot of collateral information in
the four books that Christians call the gospels. It ain't
hard evidence, but it does dovetail with other sources about
the troubled nature of relations between Rome and the Jews.
And the story itself is clearly Essene propaganda, designed
to draw Roman attention away from the sect and mask its
dual nature from them, but not from other Jews. It just
doesn't make sense except in that light.

And it worked admirably: the Romans didn't wake up
to what the Essenes were doing until nearly two
generations later.

A little indicator for you: "Barabbas" is actually a
hellenisation of "bar abba"; it's a title, not a name,
and it means "son of the father". The "thief" Barabbas
was the leader of the kill squad that Jesus was part
of.

> > Jesus "Christ* certainly did not exist.

Sigh. But look at the mayhem that believing otherwise
has wrought.

Ned

[Ned Latham]

Jeanne Douglas wrote:

> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> >
> > ----snip----
> >
> > > Well, we know Jesus probably didn't even exist,
> >
> > Actually, we know the opposite. "Jesus" is a Latinisation
> > of the hellenisation ("Iesos") of the Aramaic name "Jeshva"
> > (in English, "Joshua").
> >
> > Jeshva barJoshiph (Jesus son of Joseph) probably did exist,
> > and was, as I said, an assassin who got caught and was
> > executed in the Roman manner by the Romans for the crime
> > of rebellion against Rome.
> >
> > Jesus "Christ* certainly did not exist.
>
> Let's see your evidence.

ROTFL!

Ned

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 11:14:35 GMT, Ned Latham
<nedl...@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote:

>Christopher A Lee wrote:
>> Ned Latham wrote:
>> > Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>> >
>> > ----snip----
>> >
>> > > Well, we know Jesus probably didn't even exist,
>> >
>> > Actually, we know the opposite.
>>
>> We do _not_ know that.
>
>Oh, but we do. Read it again.
>
>> > "Jesus" is a Latinisation of the hellenisation ("Iesos")
>> > of the Aramaic name "Jeshva" (in English, "Joshua").
>>
>> So what? It was a common name.
>
>So now those reading this thread who thought it was some
>magical Christian thing know otherwise.

What a fucking moron.

It means it is dishonest to claim that this means a specific Jesus
existed.

>> > Jeshva bar Joshiph (Jesus son of Joseph) probably did exist,
>> > and was, as I said, an assassin

Idiot.

> who got caught and was
>> > executed in the Roman manner by the Romans for the crime
>> > of rebellion against Rome.
>>
>> In spite of the total lack of any evidence.
>
>Actually, there's quite a lot of collateral information in
>the four books that Christians call the gospels. It ain't

Which are worthless as evidence.

>hard evidence, but it does dovetail with other sources about

What "other sources"?

>the troubled nature of relations between Rome and the Jews.
>And the story itself is clearly Essene propaganda, designed
>to draw Roman attention away from the sect and mask its
>dual nature from them, but not from other Jews. It just
>doesn't make sense except in that light.

Made up, rationalised bullshit.

>And it worked admirably: the Romans didn't wake up
>to what the Essenes were doing until nearly two
>generations later.
>
>A little indicator for you: "Barabbas" is actually a
>hellenisation of "bar abba"; it's a title, not a name,
>and it means "son of the father".

Give the man a peanut.

> The "thief" Barabbas
>was the leader of the kill squad that Jesus was part
>of.

What "kill squad"?

>> > Jesus "Christ* certainly did not exist.
>
>Sigh. But look at the mayhem that believing otherwise
>has wrought.

Some of us understand the difference between belief and fact, and
don't need to make up bullshit.

>Ned

[Ned Latham]

Christopher A Lee wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Christopher A Lee wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> > > >
> > > > ----snip----
> > > >
> > > > > Well, we know Jesus probably didn't even exist,
> > > >
> > > > Actually, we know the opposite.
> > >
> > > We do _not_ know that.
> >
> > Oh, but we do. Read it again.

Oh dear. Pore Kwissy-wissy can't work it out.

> > > > "Jesus" is a Latinisation of the hellenisation ("Iesos")
> > > > of the Aramaic name "Jeshva" (in English, "Joshua").
> > >
> > > So what? It was a common name.
> >
> > So now those reading this thread who thought it was some
> > magical Christian thing know otherwise.
>
> What a fucking moron.

Don't be so hard on yourself, Kwissy: we all know you don't
know how to fuck.

> It means it is dishonest to claim that this means a specific
> Jesus existed.

You're wrong again, Kwissy. Its meaning isn't even close to that.

> > > > Jeshva bar Joshiph (Jesus son of Joseph) probably did exist,
> > > > and was, as I said, an assassin
>
> Idiot.

Tch, You've put your .sig in the wrong place, Kwissy.

(Typical moron fuckup)

> > > > who got caught and was
> > > > executed in the Roman manner by the Romans for the crime
> > > > of rebellion against Rome.
> > >
> > > In spite of the total lack of any evidence.
> >
> > Actually, there's quite a lot of collateral information in
> > the four books that Christians call the gospels. It ain't
>
> Which are worthless as evidence.

Gee. What does "it ain't hard evidence" mean, Kwissy?

> > hard evidence, but it does dovetail with other sources about
>
> What "other sources"?

Josephus, for one.

> > the troubled nature of relations between Rome and the Jews.
> > And the story itself is clearly Essene propaganda, designed
> > to draw Roman attention away from the sect and mask its
> > dual nature from them, but not from other Jews. It just
> > doesn't make sense except in that light.
>
> Made up, rationalised bullshit.

Aw. Kwisst-wissy's jealous. He thinks I'm beating him at his
own game.

Pore sook.

> > And it worked admirably: the Romans didn't wake up
> > to what the Essenes were doing until nearly two
> > generations later.
> >
> > A little indicator for you: "Barabbas" is actually a
> > hellenisation of "bar abba"; it's a title, not a name,
> > and it means "son of the father".
>
> Give the man a peanut.

LOL. You *are* a peanut,

> > The "thief" Barabbas
> > was the leader of the kill squad that Jesus was part
> > of.
>
> What "kill squad"?

The kill squad Jesus was part of, dummy. If you try real
hard you can read it above, where the text says 'The

"thief" Barabbas was the leader of the kill squad that

Jesus was part of'.

> > > > Jesus "Christ* certainly did not exist.
> >
> > Sigh. But look at the mayhem that believing otherwise
> > has wrought.
>
> Some of us understand the difference between belief and
> fact, and don't need to make up bullshit.

You know, I never thought I'd ever encounter an insane
atheist. Yet there you are, making a fuss about some
rational deductions that indercut the made-up bullshit
of one of the most evil creeds on the planet, while
leaving that made-up bullshit alone.

Is it true that your shrink had a nervous breakdown?

Ned

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 12:31:52 GMT, Ned Latham
<nedl...@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote:

>Christopher A Lee wrote:
>> Ned Latham wrote:
>> > Christopher A Lee wrote:
>> > > Ned Latham wrote:
>> > > > Jeanne Douglas wrote:
>> > > >
>> > > > ----snip----
>> > > >
>> > > > > Well, we know Jesus probably didn't even exist,
>> > > >
>> > > > Actually, we know the opposite.
>> > >
>> > > We do _not_ know that.
>> >
>> > Oh, but we do. Read it again.
>
>Oh dear. Pore Kwissy-wissy can't work it out.

Idiot.

>> > > > "Jesus" is a Latinisation of the hellenisation ("Iesos")
>> > > > of the Aramaic name "Jeshva" (in English, "Joshua").
>> > >
>> > > So what? It was a common name.
>> >
>> > So now those reading this thread who thought it was some
>> > magical Christian thing know otherwise.
>>
>> What a fucking moron.
>
>Don't be so hard on yourself, Kwissy: we all know you don't
>know how to fuck.

Idiot.

>> It means it is dishonest to claim that this means a specific
>> Jesus existed.
>
>You're wrong again, Kwissy. Its meaning isn't even close to that.

Idiot.

>> > > > Jeshva bar Joshiph (Jesus son of Joseph) probably did exist,
>> > > > and was, as I said, an assassin
>>
>> Idiot.
>
>Tch, You've put your .sig in the wrong place, Kwissy.
>
>(Typical moron fuckup)

Project much, troll?

>> > > > who got caught and was
>> > > > executed in the Roman manner by the Romans for the crime
>> > > > of rebellion against Rome.
>> > >
>> > > In spite of the total lack of any evidence.
>> >
>> > Actually, there's quite a lot of collateral information in
>> > the four books that Christians call the gospels. It ain't
>>
>> Which are worthless as evidence.
>
>Gee. What does "it ain't hard evidence" mean, Kwissy?

It's not evidence at all, imbecile.

>> > hard evidence, but it does dovetail with other sources about
>>
>> What "other sources"?
>
>Josephus, for one.

Which is clearly a later Christian insertion.

Anybody with a functioning mind would know that no Jew would call
Christianity "the truth" - and that's onlu one of the obvious
problems.

>> > the troubled nature of relations between Rome and the Jews.
>> > And the story itself is clearly Essene propaganda, designed
>> > to draw Roman attention away from the sect and mask its
>> > dual nature from them, but not from other Jews. It just
>> > doesn't make sense except in that light.
>>
>> Made up, rationalised bullshit.
>
>Aw. Kwisst-wissy's jealous. He thinks I'm beating him at his
>own game.

>What a fucking moron. A liar as well as an idioot,

>Pore sook.
>
>> > And it worked admirably: the Romans didn't wake up
>> > to what the Essenes were doing until nearly two
>> > generations later.
>> >
>> > A little indicator for you: "Barabbas" is actually a
>> > hellenisation of "bar abba"; it's a title, not a name,
>> > and it means "son of the father".
>>
>> Give the man a peanut.
>
>LOL. You *are* a peanut,

Idiot.

>> > The "thief" Barabbas
>> > was the leader of the kill squad that Jesus was part
>> > of.
>>
>> What "kill squad"?
>
>The kill squad Jesus was part of, dummy. If you try real
>hard you can read it above, where the text says 'The
>"thief" Barabbas was the leader of the kill squad that
>Jesus was part of'.

The one you plucked out of your arse.

>> > > > Jesus "Christ* certainly did not exist.
>> >
>> > Sigh. But look at the mayhem that believing otherwise
>> > has wrought.
>>
>> Some of us understand the difference between belief and
>> fact, and don't need to make up bullshit.
>
>You know, I never thought I'd ever encounter an insane
>atheist. Yet there you are, making a fuss about some
>rational deductions that indercut the made-up bullshit
>of one of the most evil creeds on the planet, while
>leaving that made-up bullshit alone.

Project much, pathological liar?

>Is it true that your shrink had a nervous breakdown?

You're insane.

>Ned

[Ned Latham]

Christopher A Lee:

> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Christopher A Lee wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:

----large serves of the bumbling moron's idiocies snopped----

> > > > hard evidence, but it does dovetail with other sources about
> > >
> > > What "other sources"?
> >
> > Josephus, for one.
>
> Which is clearly a later Christian insertion.

You're wrong again, moron. Read what I said. Keep your idiot
straw man inventions out of it.

> Anybody with a functioning mind would know that no Jew would call
> Christianity "the truth" - and that's onlu one of the obvious
> problems.

Take your straw man irrelevancy and shove it where the sun don't
shine, moron.

> > > > the troubled nature of relations between Rome and the Jews.

Get that into yout pointy little head, you bumbliung moron.

----remainder of the bumbling moron's idiocies snipped----

Med

[The Starmaker]

And what is NASA looking for, (or don't know what they are looking for)? Water, Life....or


MONSTERS from Outer Space????


Searching in the dark for Monsters to bring to Earth.


Monsters that will eat you and your food and rape your women.


The only thing behind the rocks are Monsters...
http://www.space.com/images/i/000/058/265/original/2-mars-curiosity-rover-murray-buttes-slopes.jpg?interpolation=lanczos-none&fit=inside|660:*

http://www.space.com/images/i/000/058/266/i02/5-mars-curiosity-rover-murray-buttes-cross-bedding.jpg?1473706630?interpolation=lanczos-none&downsize=640:*

https://timedotcom.files.wordpress.com/2016/09/mars-murray-buttes-03.jpg?quality=85&w=626


You don't even know what the Monsters really look like...


Certaintly the Monsters are atheist.

[Thomas Heger]

Am 14.09.2016 10:34, schrieb Jeanne Douglas:

>>> Well, we know Jesus probably didn't even exist,
>>
>> Actually, we know the opposite. "Jesus" is a Latinisation
>> of the hellenisation ("Iesos") of the Aramaic name "Jeshva"
>> (in English, "Joshua").
>>
>> Jeshva barJoshiph (Jesus son of Joseph) probably did exist,
>> and was, as I said, an assassin who got caught and was
>> executed in the Roman manner by the Romans for the crime
>> of rebellion against Rome.
>>
>> Jesus "Christ* certainly did not exist.
>
>
> Let's see your evidence.
>

We have here translations of translations. But as far as I know 'Christ'
came from a Greek word, which means 'follower'.

And 'Jesus' came from Greek, too (see above).

But the person in question spoke most likely Aramaic, was a Jew and
belonged to the sect of the Essener.

Now the historian Karl-Heinz Ohlig wrote, that this person was also the
'Mohamed' of the Koran.


TH

[Thomas Heger]

Am 14.09.2016 05:53, schrieb Jeanne Douglas:

>> Certainly a terrible translation. But somehow it should express, that
>> > 'mahmed' was a title in Aramaic (for Jesus), which morphed to 'muhammad'
>> > (Mohamed) in Arabic.
> Why, since it's nonsense?

For me the story of Karl-Heinz Ohlig does make sense!

To understand the idea, you need to understand the economy of that time.

most profitable was the far-East trade.

Now there have been several ways, how you could get from Europe to India
and China.

You could sail from the Mediterranean Sea past Gibraltar and around
Africa, across the Indian ocean and would reach India.

But this route has a lot of disadvantages. At first it was very long
and people of that time did not like to sail on the Atlantic. But most
likely Phoenician and Chinese sailors went along this route.

You could walk along the Silk Road and send goods with camels to China.

This route was controlled by the Sassanides.

The Romans controlled a route over the Nile, a little bit of desert and
the Red Sea.

The disadvantages of that route: the Romans wanted high taxes (about 25%).

Since the goods from the East had enormous value, the Empires fought
constantly over control of these trade routes.

And the Romans wanted a monopoly and tried to wipe out all competitors.

For this purpose they hired the Arabs as associated forces. So the Arabs
went east and conquered the Empire of the Sassanides.

The 'hub' of the trade along the Silk Road was the city Merv.
This city was kind of metropolis, because besides trade, there was a lot
of information coming from all parts of the World.

Among these influences were Christian sects, like the 'Arians'.

Now the Arabs conquered this city and kept most of the intellectual
resources.

The trade hub was relocated to the west and wisdom was taken with the
occupants to the capital of the Sarazens.

And once the Roman Empire had disappeared the Arabs wanted their own
religion (different from the Roma Christianity).

And the Arians could actually deliver. So their believes were fused with
the culture of the Sarazens and out came Islam.

This is roughly the concept of Karl-Heinz Ohlig and to me it makes sense.



TH

[The Starmaker]

You have to imagine for a moment...

What did the Scientist look like in the 15th and 16th century? Witches of course!

http://cartoon-clipart.disneyimage.com/_/rsrc/1393918411002/halloween-funny-witch-cartoon-clipart/Cartoon_Witch_1.png?height=400&width=400


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/ae/Mad_scientist.svg/1094px-Mad_scientist.svg.png

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Wed, 14 Sep 2016 19:45:37 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de>
wrote:

idiot.

>TH
>

[HGW]

The main difference between a religious preacher and a used car salesman
is that the latter's product actually exists, at least until the money
has been paid.



--

[Thomas Heger]

Am 14.09.2016 20:15, schrieb Thomas Heger:

> The 'hub' of the trade along the Silk Road was the city Merv.
> This city was kind of metropolis, because besides trade, there was a lot
> of information coming from all parts of the World.
>
> Among these influences were Christian sects, like the 'Arians'.
>
> Now the Arabs conquered this city and kept most of the intellectual
> resources.
>
> The trade hub was relocated to the west and wisdom was taken with the
> occupants to the capital of the Sarazens.
>
> And once the Roman Empire had disappeared the Arabs wanted their own
> religion (different from the Roma Christianity).
>
> And the Arians could actually deliver. So their believes were fused with
> the culture of the Sarazens and out came Islam.
>
> This is roughly the concept of Karl-Heinz Ohlig and to me it makes sense.

It is actually possible to prove, that this had actually happened in
reality.

The idea is, that the wars for control of trade routes also changed the
streams of wealth associated with this trade.

The wealthy cities also attracted a variety of of ancient intellectuals
and among them were the people who influenced religion.

If now the ruling powers changed, the predominant believe system also
changed. And most likely it changes towards the culture of the then
ruling powers - at the expense of former and defeated cultures.

In this case we have a couple of cities involved in a complex story of
the migration and changes of a certain believe system (monotheism).

The believers usually do not see this long story, since they assume
eternal and unaltered existence of what was there, when they were born.

So the believers in the Koran assume, it is original and had no
forerunners.

But in fact everything is based on something older - usually.

Since the Koran mentions names and stories from the bible, it is obvious
to assume, that the Koran evolved from a Christian sect, which itself
evolved from Judaism.

Also Judaism will most likely have earlier traditions (and so forth).

Now the present believers of something new do not regard believers in
the earlier versions as authority, but as moronic traditionalists.

And on occasion, they want to break free of such traditions and start
something 'modern'.

Now they would certainly not support traditionalist, who point to the
earlier versions of what appears to be new.

And traditionalist would get in conflict with the new ruling powers,
since the earlier traditions included also other people in power than
currently ruling.

Depending on the political system, the heresy of accepting other rulers
could eventually be punished in some societies.

But historians, theologians and other scientists have other objectives
and can search for traces of roots in earlier cultures.

This would result in theories, which violate the demand for exclusive
truth of the own interpretation of history, maintained by a certain
believe systems.

In other words: historians are not always welcomed and can get in
trouble in some cases.



TH

[Wisely Non-Theist]

Atheists are the only ones who are free from witchcraft

[benj]

On 09/14/2016 07:38 PM, Wisely Non-Theist wrote:
> Atheists are the only ones who are free from witchcraft
>

Obviously an atheist who does not understand the power of the mind.

[benj]

So you are saying that psychologists, psychiatrists,, analysts, lawyers,
and "libs who give "needed" counseling" are all basically used care
salesmen liars only they have no product to sell. You sound like some
Lib due to your lack of thinking.

[Wisely Non-Theist]

In article <57da1643$0$30253$b1db1813$7946...@news.astraweb.com>,

The mind power of atheists is not witchcraft!
Except in the eyes of witches!

[Thomas Heger]

Am 15.09.2016 01:34, schrieb Thomas Heger:

> Now the present believers of something new do not regard believers in
> the earlier versions as authority, but as moronic traditionalists.
>
> And on occasion, they want to break free of such traditions and start
> something 'modern'.
>
> Now they would certainly not support traditionalist, who point to the
> earlier versions of what appears to be new.
>
> And traditionalist would get in conflict with the new ruling powers,
> since the earlier traditions included also other people in power than
> currently ruling.
>
> Depending on the political system, the heresy of accepting other rulers
> could eventually be punished in some societies.
>
> But historians, theologians and other scientists have other objectives
> and can search for traces of roots in earlier cultures.
>
> This would result in theories, which violate the demand for exclusive
> truth of the own interpretation of history, maintained by a certain
> believe systems.
>
> In other words: historians are not always welcomed and can get in
> trouble in some cases.

What historians and scientists try to deliver, should be correct in an
objectives sense.

This would be in many cases in conflict with propaganda of the powers in
control, since those powers usually want to decide, what is correct and
what is not.

So science and power are acting on the same subject, but in opposite
directions.

Scientists want truth and rulers want (more) power. If the scientists
eventually threaten current ideology, then the ruling classes regard
this as heresy.

We have seen this in a variety of forms in many authoritarians
societies, like ancient Rome, medieval Spain or the former Soviet Union.

But history is science and science tries to find true stories, whether
or not the politicians like them. Power, money, influence and ideology
are not scientific categories, hence usefulness of a certain finding is
not the aim of science, but truth.

If we apply scientific methods to the history of monotheistic religions,
we would research similarities and historic developments over many
millennia and over different regions, countries, cultures and languages.

So Judaism, Christianity and Islam could have similarities, which were
not seen as such.

E.g. all three religions created a unique era, after which they number
the years.

But there was history before and the new era was not the beginning of
the world.

Only this fact is rejected, without obvious reason and against simple
logic. This was done, because the people of that new era saw themselves
in the centre of the universe (at least of the Earth) and this had to be
always there, where they are.

So further history was removed from the records and mentioning of older
cultures was threatened with punishment.

And this is so until the present day.


TH

[Thomas Heger]

Am 15.09.2016 05:36, schrieb benj:

>> The main difference between a religious preacher and a used car salesman
>> is that the latter's product actually exists, at least until the money
>> has been paid.
>
> So you are saying that psychologists, psychiatrists,, analysts, lawyers,
> and "libs who give "needed" counseling" are all basically used care
> salesmen liars only they have no product to sell. You sound like some
> Lib due to your lack of thinking.
>
>

Services of the various kinds, like e.g. the work of a lawyer, do not
necessarily contain material objects.

This is why they are called 'services' and not 'sale'.

Commercial services are different to churches, since they are in fact
commercial, while a church is not.

Most religions are strictly non-commercial.

The mixture of commercial interests and believe was somehow a speciality
of the medieval Catholic Church.

On the other end of the same scale we had Hinduist monks, who had to beg
for food.

Most religions of today are more in the middle and collect some money,
but mainly to maintain the life of the priests and to run the system of
the church.




TH

[HGW]

On 15/09/16 16:52, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 15.09.2016 05:36, schrieb benj:
>
>>> The main difference between a religious preacher and a used car salesman
>>> is that the latter's product actually exists, at least until the money
>>> has been paid.

> Services of the various kinds, like e.g. the work of a lawyer, do not
> necessarily contain material objects.
>
> This is why they are called 'services' and not 'sale'.
>
> Commercial services are different to churches, since they are in fact
> commercial, while a church is not.
>
> Most religions are strictly non-commercial.

HAHAHHHAHHAHA! That's a joke, surely. They are all in it for the money
and sex under the guise of respectability and honesty. The best way to
lose your friends is to criticize a charity worker even if you know they
are fiddling the till to buy their grog..

> The mixture of commercial interests and believe was somehow a speciality
> of the medieval Catholic Church.
>
> On the other end of the same scale we had Hinduist monks, who had to beg
> for food.
>
> Most religions of today are more in the middle and collect some money,
> but mainly to maintain the life of the priests and to run the system of
> the church.

Now that homosexuality is legal in many countries, the church is having
a lot of trouble enlisting priests.

I wonder why...


> TH


--

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <e3uup5...@mid.individual.net>,

Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:

> Am 15.09.2016 05:36, schrieb benj:
>
> >> The main difference between a religious preacher and a used car salesman
> >> is that the latter's product actually exists, at least until the money
> >> has been paid.
> >
> > So you are saying that psychologists, psychiatrists,, analysts, lawyers,
> > and "libs who give "needed" counseling" are all basically used care
> > salesmen liars only they have no product to sell. You sound like some
> > Lib due to your lack of thinking.
> >
> >
>
> Services of the various kinds, like e.g. the work of a lawyer, do not
> necessarily contain material objects.
>
> This is why they are called 'services' and not 'sale'.
>
> Commercial services are different to churches, since they are in fact
> commercial, while a church is not.
>
> Most religions are strictly non-commercial.

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <slrnntic8r.6...@woden.valhalla.oz>,

Ned Latham <nedl...@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote:

> Christopher A Lee wrote:
> > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> > >
> > > ----snip----
> > >
> > > > Well, we know Jesus probably didn't even exist,
> > >
> > > Actually, we know the opposite.
> >
> > We do _not_ know that.
>
> Oh, but we do. Read it again.
>
> > > "Jesus" is a Latinisation of the hellenisation ("Iesos")
> > > of the Aramaic name "Jeshva" (in English, "Joshua").
> >
> > So what? It was a common name.
>
> So now those reading this thread who thought it was some
> magical Christian thing know otherwise.
>
> > > Jeshva bar Joshiph (Jesus son of Joseph) probably did exist,
> > > and was, as I said, an assassin who got caught and was
> > > executed in the Roman manner by the Romans for the crime
> > > of rebellion against Rome.
> >
> > In spite of the total lack of any evidence.
>
> Actually, there's quite a lot of collateral information in
> the four books that Christians call the gospels. It ain't
> hard evidence,

It's not evidece at all. It's hearsay written down decades after the
purported events and none of the men whose names are on the gospels had
anything to do with them.

Hearsay is not evidence.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <slrnntigpo.8...@woden.valhalla.oz>,

The passage in his work is a forgery added centuries later. Sheesh!

> > > the troubled nature of relations between Rome and the Jews.
> > > And the story itself is clearly Essene propaganda, designed
> > > to draw Roman attention away from the sect and mask its
> > > dual nature from them, but not from other Jews. It just
> > > doesn't make sense except in that light.
> >
> > Made up, rationalised bullshit.
>
> Aw. Kwisst-wissy's jealous. He thinks I'm beating him at his
> own game.

Wow, that's a serious delusion you've got going there.

> Pore sook.
>
> > > And it worked admirably: the Romans didn't wake up
> > > to what the Essenes were doing until nearly two
> > > generations later.
> > >
> > > A little indicator for you: "Barabbas" is actually a
> > > hellenisation of "bar abba"; it's a title, not a name,
> > > and it means "son of the father".
> >
> > Give the man a peanut.
>
> LOL. You *are* a peanut,
>
> > > The "thief" Barabbas
> > > was the leader of the kill squad that Jesus was part
> > > of.
> >
> > What "kill squad"?
>
> The kill squad Jesus was part of, dummy. If you try real
> hard you can read it above, where the text says 'The
> "thief" Barabbas was the leader of the kill squad that
> Jesus was part of'.

What "kill squad" was that?

> > > > > Jesus "Christ* certainly did not exist.
> > >
> > > Sigh. But look at the mayhem that believing otherwise
> > > has wrought.
> >
> > Some of us understand the difference between belief and
> > fact, and don't need to make up bullshit.
>
> You know, I never thought I'd ever encounter an insane
> atheist. Yet there you are, making a fuss about some
> rational deductions that indercut the made-up bullshit
> of one of the most evil creeds on the planet, while
> leaving that made-up bullshit alone.

What the fuck are you talking about?

> Is it true that your shrink had a nervous breakdown?

Yours must have.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <slrnntipl3.d...@woden.valhalla.oz>,

Ned Latham <nedl...@woden.valhalla.oz> wrote:

> Christopher A Lee:
> > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > Christopher A Lee wrote:
> > > > Ned Latham wrote:
>
> ----large serves of the bumbling moron's idiocies snopped----
>
> > > > > hard evidence, but it does dovetail with other sources about
> > > >
> > > > What "other sources"?
> > >
> > > Josephus, for one.
> >
> > Which is clearly a later Christian insertion.
>
> You're wrong again, moron. Read what I said. Keep your idiot
> straw man inventions out of it.
>
> > Anybody with a functioning mind would know that no Jew would call
> > Christianity "the truth" - and that's onlu one of the obvious
> > problems.
>
> Take your straw man irrelevancy and shove it where the sun don't
> shine, moron.

Yet another theist moron who doesn't know what a straw man is.

[Ned Latham]

Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:

----snup----

----some surreptitiously deleted text restored----

> > Actually, there's quite a lot of collateral information in
> > the four books that Christians call the gospels. It ain't

> * hard evidence, but it does dovetail with other sources about
> * the troubled nature of relations between Rome and the Jews.

>
> It's not evidece at all. It's hearsay written down decades
> after the purported events

Get a dictionary. The word yoiu're looking for is "alleged".

The point of the collateral information is, as the text made
quite clear, not aboiut the alleged events, but about the
nature of relations berween Rome and the Jews.

If you're going yo try to "correct" something, try to avoid
the straw man.

----snip----

Ned

[Ned Latham]

Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Christopher A Lee wrote:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:

----snip----

> > > > hard evidence, but it does dovetail with other sources about

> > > > the troubled nature of relations between Rome and the Jews.
> > >
> > > What "other sources"?
> >
> > Josephus, for one.
>
> The passage in his work is a forgery added centuries later. Sheesh!

Fuck, you're thick. That's about the "troubled nature of relations
between Rome and the Jews". Do try to keep up.

> > > > And the story itself is clearly Essene propaganda, designed
> > > > to draw Roman attention away from the sect and mask its
> > > > dual nature from them, but not from other Jews. It just
> > > > doesn't make sense except in that light.
> > >
> > > Made up, rationalised bullshit.
> >
> > Aw. Kwisst-wissy's jealous. He thinks I'm beating him at his
> > own game.
>
> Wow, that's a serious delusion you've got going there.

Aw, gee. Thicky doesn't understand what baiting the bumbling
idiot is.

----snip----

> > > > The "thief" Barabbas was the leader of the kill squad
> > > > that Jesus was part of.
> > >
> > > What "kill squad"?
> >
> > The kill squad Jesus was part of, dummy. If you try real
> > hard you can read it above, where the text says 'The
> > "thief" Barabbas was the leader of the kill squad that
> > Jesus was part of'.
>
> What "kill squad" was that?

Man! You must be this newsgroup's champion thicky! You should
get a neuron implant to double your brain size.

----snip----

> > > Some of us understand the difference between belief and
> > > fact, and don't need to make up bullshit.
> >
> > You know, I never thought I'd ever encounter an insane
> > atheist. Yet there you are, making a fuss about some
> > rational deductions that indercut the made-up bullshit
> > of one of the most evil creeds on the planet, while
> > leaving that made-up bullshit alone.
>
> What the fuck are you talking about?

Religion, you dullard.

> > Is it true that your shrink had a nervous breakdown?
>
> Yours must have.

No prizes for second, loser.

Ned

[Ned Latham]

Jeanne Douglas wrote:
> Ned Latham wrote:
> > Christopher A Lee:
> > > Ned Latham wrote:
> > > > Christopher A Lee wrote:
> > > > > Ned Latham wrote:

----deleted text restored to show up the bunbling of the idiots----

> > > > > > hard evidence, but it does dovetail with other sources about

> > > > > * the troubled nature of relations between Rome and the Jews.

> > > > >
> > > > > What "other sources"?
> > > >
> > > > Josephus, for one.
> > >
> > > Which is clearly a later Christian insertion.
> >
> > You're wrong again, moron. Read what I said. Keep your idiot
> > straw man inventions out of it.

There's quite a lot in Josephus about "the troubled nature of
relations between Rome and the Jews". And *none* of it is later
Christian insertions.

> > > Anybody with a functioning mind would know that no Jew would call
> > > Christianity "the truth" - and that's onlu one of the obvious
> > > problems.
> >
> > Take your straw man irrelevancy and shove it where the sun don't
> > shine, moron.
>
> Yet another theist moron who doesn't know what a straw man is.

Theist? Larf. Your stupidity is mind-boggling.

Ned

[Wisely Non-Theist]

Theism is Witchcraft, atheism is science!

[Les Hellawell]

Not in a court of law no but modern historians have no such
restrictions.

They also have intelligence and training in the assessment of evidence
and heresay unlike a Jury and will be well aware of the reliability of
such sources which will be low without plenty of corrobative evidence.

Les Hellawell
Greetings from:
YORKSHIRE - The White Rose County

Martin Luther wrote:
"Faith must trample underfoot all sense, reason and understanding

Which means that if Luther practised what he preached
nothing he ever said made any sense

[Thomas Heger]

Am 15.09.2016 09:33, schrieb Attila <:

>>> In other words: historians are not always welcomed and can get in
>>> trouble in some cases.
>>
>> What historians and scientists try to deliver, should be correct in an
>> objectives sense.
>

> Correct and should not include any personal beliefs.

Scientists can believe in whatever they like.

It the scientific finding is correct, than there is no problem with
religion.

>>
>> This would be in many cases in conflict with propaganda of the powers in
>> control, since those powers usually want to decide, what is correct and
>> what is not.
>

> That is called political pressure.

>
>>
>> So science and power are acting on the same subject, but in opposite
>> directions.
>

> Not power - politics.


Wealth, position, personal relations, strength, knowledge, fame and a
few other features could make a person influential.

The set of influential people are now named 'power'.

Politicians often have power, but not necessarily they alone.

E.g. the Pope is not a politician, but is certainly influential.

>>
>> Scientists want truth and rulers want (more) power. If the scientists
>> eventually threaten current ideology, then the ruling classes regard
>> this as heresy.
>>
>> We have seen this in a variety of forms in many authoritarians
>> societies, like ancient Rome, medieval Spain or the former Soviet Union.
>

> Political influence and pressure exists under every system.


Well, no.

Political pressure on science about historical questions is by no means
acceptable.

>>
>> But history is science and science tries to find true stories, whether
>> or not the politicians like them. Power, money, influence and ideology
>> are not scientific categories, hence usefulness of a certain finding is
>> not the aim of science, but truth.
>>
>> If we apply scientific methods to the history of monotheistic religions,
>> we would research similarities and historic developments over many
>> millennia and over different regions, countries, cultures and languages.
>

> No such study could be made because it would be a study of belief, not
> fact.


The subject in question was a hypothesis of the German Islam scientist
Karl-Heinz Ohlig.

He had researched history of the early Islam.

He found out something interesting: that the Islam was derived from a
certain form of early Christianity, which was common the region, which
today is Syria.

This was kind of sect, which is called now 'Arians' or 'Nestorians'.

Their holy scripts were later the foundation for the Koran.

They spoke Aramaic and they used the title 'mahmed' (in Aramaic) for
Jesus. With translation to Arabic, this title was changed to the Arabic
name 'Mohamed', but still meant Jesus.

So 'Jesus' and 'Mohamed' are different names for the same person.

Whether or not a real person existed, that is not really important in
this context, but only the identity of the person.

And THAT is a really big deal today, since in case of Ohlig is correct,
then Islam and Christianity are not two different religions, but only
different forms of the same believe.

This has far reaching implications, since then Christians could not be
treated as non-believers by Muslims.

>> So Judaism, Christianity and Islam could have similarities, which were
>> not seen as such.
>

> Until one or more is validated that is irrelevant.

No.

Since religion and politics are often mixed, the question of the
boarders between one belief and the other has influence on politics,
too. And this would influence the life of billions of people.

So it is precisely not irrelevant.


TH

[HGWilson, DSc.]

On 16/09/16 04:44, Thomas Heger wrote:
> Am 15.09.2016 09:33, schrieb Attila <:

>
> This was kind of sect, which is called now 'Arians' or 'Nestorians'.
>
> Their holy scripts were later the foundation for the Koran.
>
> They spoke Aramaic and they used the title 'mahmed' (in Aramaic) for
> Jesus. With translation to Arabic, this title was changed to the Arabic
> name 'Mohamed', but still meant Jesus.
>
> So 'Jesus' and 'Mohamed' are different names for the same person.
>
> Whether or not a real person existed, that is not really important in
> this context, but only the identity of the person.
>
> And THAT is a really big deal today, since in case of Ohlig is correct,
> then Islam and Christianity are not two different religions, but only
> different forms of the same believe.

Who gives a hoot? All religions exist for one purpose. To give great
power to a handful of evil people over the minds of whole populations.
Until all forms of religion are seen for what they are and eradicated,
there can be no civilized peace on this planet.

[Thomas Heger]

Am 15.09.2016 11:50, schrieb Jeanne Douglas:

>> Services of the various kinds, like e.g. the work of a lawyer, do not
>> necessarily contain material objects.
>>
>> This is why they are called 'services' and not 'sale'.
>>
>> Commercial services are different to churches, since they are in fact
>> commercial, while a church is not.
>>
>> Most religions are strictly non-commercial.
>
> BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>

Most people overestimate the importance of money.

A church is not really a business and has not primarily commercial
interests. Churches are related to the spiritual realm and cover
philosophical questions, ethics and moral.

People also try to acquire certain experiences, that are elevated above
the usual life.

Something as profane as money does not really fit into such a picture.

And most churches are actually poor.

But there are major exceptions from this rule, like e.g. the Catholic
Church.

But being wealthy does not mean, that the Catholics only exist to earn
money.


TH

[Virgil]

Atheism does not rely on magic!
--
Virgil
"Mit der Dummheit kampfen Gotter selbst vergebens." (Schiller)

[benj]

On 9/13/2016 10:12 PM, Christopher A. Lee wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 22:01:06 -0400, benj <be...@nobody.net> wrote:
>

>> On 9/13/2016 9:16 PM, Smiler wrote:
>>> On Tue, 13 Sep 2016 19:59:14 -0400, benj wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 9/13/2016 7:10 PM, HGW wrote:
>>>>> On 12/09/16 05:43, The Starmaker wrote:
>>>>>> Bottom line is...Atheism is Witchcraft.

>>>>>
>>>>> A religious person is a thoroughly demoralized individual who, either
>>>>> by misfortune or plain stupidity has had such a miserable existence
>>>>> that it will go to any length to reassure its deluded mind that it will
>>>>> one day be given a second chance at life.
>>>>
>>>> True. Especially deeply religious atheisst
>>>
>>> As rare as hirsute bald men.
>>>
>>> <snip even more lies>
>>>
>> Obviously we are in the presence of an atheist of great faith!
>
> Obviously we are in the presence of a deliberately and arrogantly
> nasty, lying theist.
>

Actually, since this is the INTERNET, you haven't a clue what you are in
the presence of, but that doesn't stop your fantasy life.

[Christopher A. Lee]

I'm "in the presence" of somebody who lies about atheists and atheism,
to atheists in the atheist newsgroup.

Stop pretending.

[Christopher A. Lee]

On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 20:02:45 -0400, Attila <<proc...@here.now>
wrote:

>On Thu, 15 Sep 2016 20:44:09 +0200, Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> in
>alt.atheism with message-id <e408g2...@mid.individual.net> wrote:
>
>>Am 15.09.2016 09:33, schrieb Attila <:
>>
>>>>> In other words: historians are not always welcomed and can get in
>>>>> trouble in some cases.
>>>>
>>>> What historians and scientists try to deliver, should be correct in an
>>>> objectives sense.
>>>
>>> Correct and should not include any personal beliefs.
>>
>>Scientists can believe in whatever they like.
>
>

>True.

>
>>
>>It the scientific finding is correct, than there is no problem with
>>religion.
>

>Science does not address religion.

Apart from cultural anthropology and psychology.

Although it addresses religious claims made in the real world.

[Alex W.]

Also sociology.

Neuropsychology (if that can be called a separate science).

Economics, in some respects.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <e40fpd...@mid.individual.net>,

Explain all those huge mansions of all those evangelical ministers.

Explain Pat Robertson telling elderly people who can barely pay the bill
to keep the lights on, who might have to choose between food and their
medications, that they should continue sending money to him.

Religion is ALL about the money.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <e408g2...@mid.individual.net>,

Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:

> Am 15.09.2016 09:33, schrieb Attila <:
>
> >>> In other words: historians are not always welcomed and can get in
> >>> trouble in some cases.
> >>
> >> What historians and scientists try to deliver, should be correct in an
> >> objectives sense.
> >
> > Correct and should not include any personal beliefs.
>
> Scientists can believe in whatever they like.
>
> It the scientific finding is correct, than there is no problem with
> religion.
>
>
> >>
> >> This would be in many cases in conflict with propaganda of the powers in
> >> control, since those powers usually want to decide, what is correct and
> >> what is not.
> >
> > That is called political pressure.
> >
> >>
> >> So science and power are acting on the same subject, but in opposite
> >> directions.
> >
> > Not power - politics.
>
>
> Wealth, position, personal relations, strength, knowledge, fame and a
> few other features could make a person influential.
>
> The set of influential people are now named 'power'.
>
> Politicians often have power, but not necessarily they alone.
>
> E.g. the Pope is not a politician, but is certainly influential.

Of course he's a politician. He's the head of state of a nation.

> >> But history is science and science tries to find true stories, whether
> >> or not the politicians like them. Power, money, influence and ideology
> >> are not scientific categories, hence usefulness of a certain finding is
> >> not the aim of science, but truth.
> >>
> >> If we apply scientific methods to the history of monotheistic religions,
> >> we would research similarities and historic developments over many
> >> millennia and over different regions, countries, cultures and languages.
> >
> > No such study could be made because it would be a study of belief, not
> > fact.
>
>
> The subject in question was a hypothesis of the German Islam scientist
> Karl-Heinz Ohlig.
>
> He had researched history of the early Islam.
>
> He found out something interesting: that the Islam was derived from a
> certain form of early Christianity, which was common the region, which
> today is Syria.
>
> This was kind of sect, which is called now 'Arians' or 'Nestorians'.
>
> Their holy scripts were later the foundation for the Koran.

Do you have any other source confirming this hypothesis?

> They spoke Aramaic and they used the title 'mahmed' (in Aramaic) for
> Jesus. With translation to Arabic, this title was changed to the Arabic
> name 'Mohamed', but still meant Jesus.
>
> So 'Jesus' and 'Mohamed' are different names for the same person.

Wrong again.

[benj]

Atheists believe in lies. It's an essential part of evolootion and
"natural selection". Animals use fake behavior all the time to fool
predators. And thus, lies are equally valid for man as you well know and
practice all the time.

[Melzzzzz]

On 2016-09-16, Jeanne Douglas <hlwd...@NOSPAMgmail.com> wrote:
>
> Religion is ALL about the money.
>

Selling smoke for money ;p

--
press any key to continue or any other to quit

[Thomas Heger]

Am 16.09.2016 04:25, schrieb Jeanne Douglas:

>>>>
>>>> This would be in many cases in conflict with propaganda of the powers in
>>>> control, since those powers usually want to decide, what is correct and
>>>> what is not.
>>>
>>> That is called political pressure.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> So science and power are acting on the same subject, but in opposite
>>>> directions.
>>>
>>> Not power - politics.
>>
>>
>> Wealth, position, personal relations, strength, knowledge, fame and a
>> few other features could make a person influential.
>>
>> The set of influential people are now named 'power'.
>>
>> Politicians often have power, but not necessarily they alone.
>>
>> E.g. the Pope is not a politician, but is certainly influential.
>
> Of course he's a politician. He's the head of state of a nation.

Yes, in a way he's also head of a state.

But that is a rather small country, since you can walk around it in five
minutes.

His main purpose is being the head of the Catholic Church.

And this church is not a state and the believers in this particular
faith do not build a nation.

Since a few centuries the political power of the Vatican is reduced to
spiritual advise.

So I would not call the Pope a political leader.

>
>>>> But history is science and science tries to find true stories, whether
>>>> or not the politicians like them. Power, money, influence and ideology
>>>> are not scientific categories, hence usefulness of a certain finding is
>>>> not the aim of science, but truth.
>>>>
>>>> If we apply scientific methods to the history of monotheistic religions,
>>>> we would research similarities and historic developments over many
>>>> millennia and over different regions, countries, cultures and languages.
>>>
>>> No such study could be made because it would be a study of belief, not
>>> fact.
>>
>>
>> The subject in question was a hypothesis of the German Islam scientist
>> Karl-Heinz Ohlig.
>>
>> He had researched history of the early Islam.
>>
>> He found out something interesting: that the Islam was derived from a
>> certain form of early Christianity, which was common the region, which
>> today is Syria.
>>
>> This was kind of sect, which is called now 'Arians' or 'Nestorians'.
>>
>> Their holy scripts were later the foundation for the Koran.
>
> Do you have any other source confirming this hypothesis?
>

Actually I had similar ideas earlier after reading a German version of
the Koran in a 19th century translation.

I found it interesting, that the Koran apparently speaks to people which
are called 'Children of Israel', which Allah helped to flee from the
Pharao by splitting apart the Red Sea.

Common Muslims cannot read this, since the Koran is written in ancient
Arabic.

Arabic has a difficult system of writing, since the vowels are not
written. This allows to interpret the words in up to 30 different
meanings. And that could allow different translations.

Since German 19th century historians have no obvious bias towards any
interpretation, they are kind of 'objective' source for a valid
translation, while especially the Egyptians have a bias.

So my - naive - question was, if Jews and Muslims have something in common.

Actually there are a few things, that both religions share.

For instance they share the bizarre habit called 'circumcision'.

Also the set of holy scripts is somehow similar.

They both forbid the consume of pig and both have the obscure punishment
called 'stoning'.

Another stream of observations was related to the question, to where the
'Children of Israel' went after the passage through the Red Sea.

Actually Palestine was not an obvious target, since not located on the
other side of the Red Sea.

But how about Saudi Arabia?




TH

[Thomas Heger]

Am 14.09.2016 21:43, schrieb Christopher A. Lee:

>> We have here translations of translations. But as far as I know 'Christ'
>> came from a Greek word, which means 'follower'.
>>
>> And 'Jesus' came from Greek, too (see above).
>>
>> But the person in question spoke most likely Aramaic, was a Jew and
>> belonged to the sect of the Essener.
>>
>> Now the historian Karl-Heinz Ohlig wrote, that this person was also the
>> 'Mohamed' of the Koran.
>
> idiot.

I have just found this video on YouTube:

"The Suppressed & Hidden History of Islam"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dlXCrpKTt0

and here a quote from the description:

"Note by A2T-DoJtC: In SyroAramaic, father of Arabic, the word
"Muhammad" isn't a name but a *Title* defined as "The Praised/Anointed
One”, a SyroAramaic title reference to "The Christ" of the Bible ..."

TH

[The Starmaker]

a church is a hospitol for sinners...if you murder someone, and it
bothers you...you don't want to be stupid enought to confess to
the police...you confess to the church. It's a hospitol for...sinners.

Then you're free to murder someone else.

[Jeanne Douglas]

In article <e41a9j...@mid.individual.net>,

Thomas Heger <ttt...@web.de> wrote:

> Am 16.09.2016 04:25, schrieb Jeanne Douglas:
>
> >>>>
> >>>> This would be in many cases in conflict with propaganda of the powers in
> >>>> control, since those powers usually want to decide, what is correct and
> >>>> what is not.
> >>>
> >>> That is called political pressure.
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> So science and power are acting on the same subject, but in opposite
> >>>> directions.
> >>>
> >>> Not power - politics.
> >>
> >>
> >> Wealth, position, personal relations, strength, knowledge, fame and a
> >> few other features could make a person influential.
> >>
> >> The set of influential people are now named 'power'.
> >>
> >> Politicians often have power, but not necessarily they alone.
> >>
> >> E.g. the Pope is not a politician, but is certainly influential.
> >
> > Of course he's a politician. He's the head of state of a nation.
>
>
> Yes, in a way he's also head of a state.
>
> But that is a rather small country, since you can walk around it in five
> minutes.
>
> His main purpose is being the head of the Catholic Church.
>
> And this church is not a state and the believers in this particular
> faith do not build a nation.
>
> Since a few centuries the political power of the Vatican is reduced to
> spiritual advise.
>
> So I would not call the Pope a political leader.

If you choose to be wrong, I can't stop you.

> >>>> But history is science and science tries to find true stories, whether
> >>>> or not the politicians like them. Power, money, influence and ideology
> >>>> are not scientific categories, hence usefulness of a certain finding is
> >>>> not the aim of science, but truth.
> >>>>
> >>>> If we apply scientific methods to the history of monotheistic religions,
> >>>> we would research similarities and historic developments over many
> >>>> millennia and over different regions, countries, cultures and languages.
> >>>
> >>> No such study could be made because it would be a study of belief, not
> >>> fact.
> >>
> >>
> >> The subject in question was a hypothesis of the German Islam scientist
> >> Karl-Heinz Ohlig.
> >>
> >> He had researched history of the early Islam.
> >>
> >> He found out something interesting: that the Islam was derived from a
> >> certain form of early Christianity, which was common the region, which
> >> today is Syria.
> >>
> >> This was kind of sect, which is called now 'Arians' or 'Nestorians'.
> >>
> >> Their holy scripts were later the foundation for the Koran.
> >
> > Do you have any other source confirming this hypothesis?
> >
>
>
> Actually I had similar ideas earlier after reading a German version of
> the Koran in a 19th century translation.
>
> I found it interesting, that the Koran apparently speaks to people which
> are called 'Children of Israel', which Allah helped to flee from the
> Pharao by splitting apart the Red Sea.

So what you're saying is that the Koran has the same stupid myths as the
Bible. So fucking what?

> Common Muslims cannot read this, since the Koran is written in ancient
> Arabic.
>
> Arabic has a difficult system of writing, since the vowels are not
> written. This allows to interpret the words in up to 30 different
> meanings. And that could allow different translations.
>
> Since German 19th century historians have no obvious bias towards any
> interpretation, they are kind of 'objective' source for a valid
> translation, while especially the Egyptians have a bias.
>
> So my - naive - question was, if Jews and Muslims have something in common.
>
> Actually there are a few things, that both religions share.
>
> For instance they share the bizarre habit called 'circumcision'.

So what?

> Also the set of holy scripts is somehow similar.

So what?

> They both forbid the consume of pig and both have the obscure punishment
> called 'stoning'.

How is stoning "obsure"?

> Another stream of observations was related to the question, to where the
> 'Children of Israel' went after the passage through the Red Sea.

You mean the fictional journey that took 40 years in an area about the
same size as small state West Virginia? And that left not one shred of
evidence of millions of alleged Jews living for 40 years.

> Actually Palestine was not an obvious target, since not located on the
> other side of the Red Sea.
>
> But how about Saudi Arabia?

What the fuck are you talking about?