Atheism, not religion, is the real force behind the mass murders of history

the example was to show HOW he got backing from the American people to keep them from questioning his motives, wether good or bad. He used terrorism and the safty of this country as a 'fear factor'. Ans it worked, it was blasted all over the news as 'War On Terror'. Leaders use and have used tactics such as these for years throughout history. Wether or not the war was justified, is not the question. Or in quesstion. and Acourding to every source The lazy american has ie. the telivision Media, This war is called the war in iraq. The general public will and can confuse this with War against Iraq. I don't understand why you would come into a religious debate and debate about our current polotics. Do you have nothing to add to the subject at hand?

the example was to show HOW he got backing from the American people to keep them from questioning his motives, wether good or bad.

He used terrorism and the safty of this country as a 'fear factor'.

Ans it worked, it was blasted all over the news as 'War On Terror'.

Leaders use and have used tactics such as these for years throughout history.

Wether or not the war was justified, is not the question.

Or in quesstion. and Acourding to every source The lazy american has ie. the telivision Media, This war is called the war in iraq. The general public will and can confuse this with War against Iraq.

I don't understand why you would come into a religious debate and debate about our current polotics.

Do you have nothing to add to the subject at hand?

"Whether good or bad, your example was incorrect."
Not really i.e. It is what he told the American people.

"Have we been attacked since?"
no, and that is not in question here.

"It worked for you."
No it didn't

"So what were doin is nothing new"
no, wich explains my point.

"Your getting a little off track, wasn't it you that was just trying to justify it? Now it's not a priority?"
How was i justying the "war in Iraq"?

""Will and can" just like you did, right?"
I did nothing of the sort.

"If your got your politics wrong, what is to lead me to believe you got your religion right?"
religion is nothing more than an ideaology, the idea that there is a divine being that rules over you. There is no historical backing that can irrefutibly prove that there is a God. One has never shown. The human being Jesus, moses, paul, peter, ect. can be proven to have existed i.e. cesus and historical writtings. But that does not prove God exists.

"I got plenty as i'm sure you will find out."
well lets hear that then please. IF you want to argue polotics then please lets do so in the american polotics section. altho polotics are a huge part of religion also.

sorry i still don't know how to operate this site yet.

Not really i.e. It is what he told the American people.

no, and that is not in question here.

No it didn't

no, wich explains my point.

How was i justying the "war in Iraq"?

I did nothing of the sort.

There is no historical backing that can irrefutibly prove that there is a God.

well lets hear that then please. IF you want to argue polotics then please lets do so in the american polotics section. altho polotics are a huge part of religion also.

Wow, dude. You're totally wrong. What have you read? :scratchchin:

Who wrote the Gospels, Jews or Gentiles? No one knows, though scholars, on the basis of internal evidence, will venture various "ethnic" identifications. Though I was uncertain, in From Jesus to Christ I worked with an operating assumption that at least Mark and Luke were Gentiles. The author of Matthew is universally regarded as Jewish; for the last thirty or so years, especially after the influential work of Louis Martyn4, so also the author of John. Arguments for Luke can go either way, and second-century ecclesiastical tradition holds that the author was a gentile companion of Paul?s. The author?s fluency with the Septuagint, however, combined with the probable date of composition (late first century) incline me now to suppose that he, too, was a Jew: The Bible was a bulky collection of books ? scrolls, actually ? that would not have been circulating or easily accessible outside of a synagogue context in this early period.

What about Mark? Again, any answer is speculative. Ancient church tradition identifies the author as a Gentile, a companion of Peter?s in Rome. Many modern scholars likewise identify him as Gentile: he demonstrates little of the familiarity with Jewish traditions and scriptures that Luke and Matthew so conspicuously display, nor does he evince close (if hostile) relations with local synagogue communities in the way that John does. On this I have changed my mind: I had said that Mark was a Gentile; I now think that he, too, was a Jew. If Mark were a Jew, one colleague has observed to me, he was an extremely ignorant one. True. Ignorance of course is no respecter of persons or ethnic groups, and not everyone in the early movement could have Paul?s education. But the very early date of the Gospel?s composition (some time, I still think, shortly post-70), its scriptural underpinnings (evident especially in the Passion narrative), and the stimulus to compose given (again, I still think) by the Temple?s recent destruction all incline me to suspect that its author, too, was Jewish.

Why does it matter? In part, because the implied social and religious location of the author gives us a jumping-off point for speculations about his community -- whether it, too, were Jewish, Gentile, or some mix ? and thus for speculations on what they might have understood when hearing the Gospel. And such considerations can help when evaluating recent arguments made by some scholars that Jesus rejected and taught against the biblical laws of purity. A Jewish audience, for example, would have a more concrete understanding of Mark?s Jesus? command to the cured leper to "go, show yourself to the priest, and offer for your cleansing what Moses commanded" (Mk 1:44): the order would evoke for them the rituals of purification prescribed in Leviticus 145, and would also conjure the (now destroyed) Temple in Jerusalem, where such offerings had been made.

these paragraghs are in too much detail, i can't just highlight specific things, one paragragh introduces the next. here is an exerpt tho.

If you give the catholic church the honour of holding western civilisation together. Surely Islam has done the same. What the catholics were guilty of 'was' make the world catholic. Anything else is heresy. Rome created the rules. No one else, no matter how near the truth, were listened to.
Rome decided what gospels became the new testament. Many, which could have been more factual were either destroyed or forgotten.

If there is/was a God, I think he has gone on a sojourn for a few millenia, hoping when he comes back. We will have sorted this bollocks out.
Or, like the Greek Gods, faded into nothingness.

If not the leading theologians of the time, who would you say should separate truth from crap?

What? They compiled the Bible, at which point it became the collective word of God, based on common consensus among the Church leaders.

Who would you have compile it?

And there's hardly a lack of ludicrous Gnostic writings to read if you don't wat the Bible, just be aware that they were written around 30 years after their supposed authors died in many instances and there is no proof suggesting they are legitimate in just about every case.

In AD 38, the Church of Antioch was founded by James, Peter and Thomas in Antioch, Asia Minor. In AD 64, Pistic Christianity began growing by leaps and bounds when Nero began throwing Christians to the lions in the arena. Roman courts offered Christians an out: they could denounce their religion and go free. The Pistics refused and died for it. The Gnostics were horrified. They were faced with a veritable Jonestown horror in their midst. Their friends and neighbors were committing suicide by walking willingly into the mouths of lions. While Gnostics respected honesty, they respected life more, and they knew that the man who would brandish a sword at them was not interested in honesty, but only in their obedience. They became hated and scorned by Pistics for refusing to die with them.

Better advertising could not have been bought. No faith, no commitment, could have been more impressive to the spectators. The arena made converts by the droves, and it was Pistic Christians that they sought out to learn more about this powerful religion.

In Ad 325, the Roman Catholic Church was created by a pagan emperor named Constantine. It was only superficially a Christian Church. The First Nicean Council was assembled to work out the details. While it was supposed to have been made up of Christian elders from five major Christian centers (Rome, Athens, Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch), it also included elders of all the major Pagan religions of Rome. Bishops from the cults of Mithras, Tammuz, Oannes (Dagon), Ceres, Janus, Bacchus, Apollo, Osiris, Jupiter, and Constantine's own religion: Sol Invictus, were invited. It was Constantine's wish that all of the Pagan religions, then at odds with each other, creating unnecessary conflicts, be unified into one "Catholic" church. "Catholic" means universal. The proceedings of that council were conducted by Constantine with an iron hand, and one of the positions which he insisted upon, and got, was to make Pistis a doctrine of the new church. Gnosticism could not be tolerated, because it encouraged its members to question authority. Pistis was thus politically expedient, because it forbade questioning.

Compiled and editted as they saw fit, can you prove they didn't? Where is the proof that it is in it's pure form, how it was meant to be?

Nobody

Of course a guy splitting a sea, walking on water, changing water to wine, healing lepers, being hung on a cross dying and coming back to life is all perfectly logical...nothing ludicous there

and the traditions continue today. Modern Christanity both Catholic and Prodistant are littered with Pegan theology, imagry, even scripture







Hercules was also crucified on a mound, his last words? "It is finished"

remind you of anyone?



Here is Isis holding the dead God Horus, who was killed and resurrected, who was referred to as the "Lamb of God" by Egyptians





but I'm sure these are just coincidental...