The Myth of the Big Bang

ChristineM wrote:

<quoted text>
A perfect example of the Dunning–Kruger effect made the headlines yesterday here in the UK and will probably interest you.
During the 2009 G20 summit in London, a guy (Ian Tomlinson) innocently passing the demonstration was struck and floored by a policemen. He later died of internal injuries.
Freddy Patel, the pathologist assigned to his case claimed that Tomlinson died of natural causes, heart problems.
Further medical reports said he had actually died from an injury to his liver that caused internal bleeding and then cardiac arrest. A further 67 failing were identified in Patels examination of Tomlinson
He was struck off the medical register yesterday for acting with deficient professional performance.
Patel still claims he has none nothing wrong, there was nothing wrong with his work, his examination was correct and valid and sees the additional examinations as a waste of time.
It should be noted that Patel has previously served 2 previous suspensions for similar offences including “dishonesty and omitting key findings after examining the body of a murder victim who he said had died from natural causes”

Wow. Thanks for that.

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
Wow. Thanks for that.

Big coincidence, I heard it on the news yesterday and your post brought it back, I thought you would be interested

Ben_Masada wrote:

<quoted text>
----------
What you have succeeded to do with this post of yours above, was only to inform me that you don't know the ABC's about Judaism on the one hand; and on the other hand, that you belong with the literal interpretation club with zero idea of metaphorical language.
Ben

I have found that Jews, as well as Christians, only take something as metaphorical if it suits their purpose.

The Torah is full of wonderful examples of metaphor, but when it comes to proving that one is correct (Whether Jew or Christian), most revert to a literal interpretation.

I don't see you as any different from Christians in this area.

Ben_Masada wrote:

<quoted text>
------
The only thing substantious you have said above is that you do not know. I think the only thing you know is that the probability for the existence of a Creator for the universe is impossible, but only
because you have a grudge against that probability based perhaps on
your emotional insecurities of some sort.
And as Paul is concerned, I am sorry to say, you also don't know the ABC's about him. But that is easy to see why. You are somehow afraid to open the Bible and read about him. If you can get through that fear, check the book of Acts in 11:26. That's when and where Christianity started.
It was about 30 years after Jesus had been gone. It was in the city of Antioch. There was there a synagogue of the Jews, cared for by Barnabas, where Paul spent a whole year. At the end of that year the members started being called Christians because Paul would preach about Jesus as Christ. That's where and when Christianity was born.
You must read lady, to know these things.
Ben

'Emotional insecurites' would mean having to believe in that which you can't see in order to live life without so much fear so I think you have that backwards.

Paul was an unhappy and apostate Jew. He latched onto the story of Jesus and made a religion out of it. It was not a religion based on Jesus' teachings, but on the 'out' Paul saw as being opportunistic at the time. He no longer had to live by the strict Judaic laws. He no longer had to be a good and honest person because he taught forgiveness by just asking for it rather than truly being repentant. It's all a hoax, believed for 2000 years by people who haven't taken the time to study the NT, much less the origins and history of the Torah/OT.

Once someone starts studying what was said in the Torah, they know that the 'Christ' myth is impossible according to the Bible Christians claim to follow.

Very Cynical Person wrote:

<quoted text>
Were the one that stated that christianity had nothing in common and or any relationship with Judaism.
You are the ones that believe in the same bible (old testament) with variations between the two.
The whole damn religion of both is metaphorical analogy of myths intertwined in mystical beliefs.

----

Except for the historical part, you are right, the whole thing is metaphorical and must be interpreted as such. Now, about being myth, it is considered so only by those who need theists to preserve their faith in talking serpents. This sort of theists and those who need them as such are both unable to understand metaphorical language.

Ben

Ben_Masada wrote:

<quoted text>
------
Prove to me what previous religions Judaism is coming from? Open our Scriptures and quote to me what you think you understand and I will tell you what you don't know. Just don't bring Christian anthropomorphism to me. Atheists love theists who are members of the literal interpretation club for the jollies they can get from.
Ben

I was a Christian for over 50 years. Finally, the contradictions and unanswered questions made me start studying. You're right when you think I am not an expert on Judaism, but then I didn't claim to be an expert.

If you're not one of the 'Jew because my parents are Jews', then I could probably learn a great deal from you. But don't pretend for a moment that I am stupid or that I have no knowledge whatsoever about your beliefs or your holy book because that's just your ego speaking.

Your God is also the God of the Christians, so I do not see your deity in any better light than I see the same God of the Christians. Yet, I still continue to study because I want to know the truth about what I was lied to about and bought into for so many years.

ChristineM wrote:

<quoted text>
There you go acting all christrian again, willingly discounting scientifically proven facts in favour of a guess and assuming (very christian) that someone who does not think like you must be emotionally insecure. Well done, christianity suits you.
Wrong. The god idea is a guess of currently at least 28 to 1 against (probably a lot more (you like probability)) and rising all the time. Even true christians who actually have faith in an omnipotent god existing will only give odds of between 25% and 67%. You like them odds?
I am sorry to say you are wrong again. Saulus was the leader of a peaceful hebrew sect in opposition to the far bigger Judus led bunch of terrorists. The contemporary records show this from multiple sources. Forget the babble book, it’s full of lies, try reading the Roman archives, the works of the christian leader the canon of Marcion. The account of the plot of emperor Titus and Josephus. So many sources to tell you that you are wrong.
Yes about 30 years after Saulus had assisted the Romans in capturing the leader of the Fourth Philosophy. The Fourth Philosophy were a terrorist group and their leader was arrested for crimes of terrorism and murder, crucified, his guard bribed and he was released, seen walking around and died, probably of blood poisoning from the nails a few weeks later. You now that person as jesus. A lot can happen to a man in 30 years. Honey, I have read but I did not just leave it at the babble book, I have also read supporting and contradictory documentation and the contradictory information is far more substantial and corroborative than anything in support of the babble
Tell me who was the original leader of the other group of god followers who where combined with Sayulus’s lot some 200+ years later to make the recognised group knows as christians? Don’t bother looking in the babble, it’s not there, in fact it actually lies about it.
Another question, you claim to be Hebrew, who does the Tanakh say was the father of jesus?

------

You are terrible mistaken about me, lady. Of all the post above, I am going to tell you about two things: The first is that I have read all the books of Josephus and they do not contain a single word about Jesus, except for forgered text added by the Church in the 4th Century in order to fish for some credibility in favor of the historical Jesus, which even Pilates later in retirement was asked about a miracle worker called Jesus of Nazareth that he had crucified and he - Pilates - was set wondering: "Jesus... Jesus of Nazareth... No, I can't remember him." This is from the book "The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity" page 21 by the Christian scholar and Catholic Historian John McManners. What!!! The only case when Pilates had to wash his hands to justify himself from the blood of a crucified would not remember him? The only case when Pilates was forced by the Jewish authorities to crucify a Jew would not remember his name! The bottom line is that the whole issue about Jesus is suspictious to have even taken place
at all.

And the second thing is about your question of what the Tanach says was the father of Jesus. The Tanach does not say anything about Jesus. So, next time you have a question about the Tanach, at least, read it first.

Ben

Ben_Masada wrote:

<quoted text>
-------
I do not act like a Christian. You see that because that's what you want to see. You wish I were of the kind of theists who believe
in talking serpents and gods walking in the Garden of Eden. But that jolly you won't have from me.
Ben

I just see how you represent yourself as above others...that same holier-than-thou attitude of fundamentalist Christians. It's not attractive.

You could probably be enlightening to those who are not Jewish, if you spoke in such a way that people were willing to have a meaningful conversation with you. But you don't and therefore most people are not willing to have any type of dialogue with you.

nanoanomaly wrote:

<quoted text>She's an idiot and best ignored.

You just can't stand it when someone talks to someone you don't like. Too bad you have no control over that. That's probably the story of your life...a total lack of control of yourself and your surroundings.

Get past it and act like a human being and people will stop treating you as you treat them.

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
It's the other way around. I am the self-proclaimed expert, and you don't know squat about the bible.
Ask me anything about your bible and I will tell you what it means. If your opinion is different than mine, well, that's because you don't know the bible, and I do.
See how easy that was? You are now officially declared a biblical simpleton. Now don't you feel better with all of that weight off of your shoulders?
--------
Actually, I have a growing list of reasons that various religites have given me for why they think that they can understand phrases like "In the beginning" better than I :
[1] I took the scripture out of context. It means something other than what it says (context and implied meaning never supplied).
[2] I don't understand literary criticism
[3] It's an allegory, not literal.
[4] It's literal, not an allegory.
[5] Scripture is only transparent to those with a child's perspective
[6] Scripture is only transparent to biblical scholars
[7] I am not filled with the Holy Spirit
[8] That's the mystery of it all. "God works in mysterious ways"
[9] Man's mind is too puny to grasp the immensity of God's truth and justice.
[10] You were obviously never a "true christian"
[11] You don't have enough faith. You have to believe to understand.
[12] You can’t criticize the bible because you don’t believe or understand it.
[13] Why do we think we can pretend to know God?
[14] Scripture always interprets scripture
[15] Ever heard of biblical hermeneutics?
[16] You are not TRULY with truth and sincerity seeking God.
[17] You have to know how to translate Hebrew and Greek
[18] You are using a completely unsupportable transliteration of Scripture
[19] You have clearly not studied the ancient peoples who wrote those things or you would not come up with the conclusions you have.
[20] It takes humility to understand the Bible

I have heard and been told all these things. Usually it is after I or someone else explains something that actually is in context, or of a historical nature.

I'm not an expert. It's just that I have the ability to learn without the confines of having to believe instead of learn. It took a long time to get there, though.

Ben_Masada wrote:

<quoted text>
----
Except for the historical part, you are right, the whole thing is metaphorical and must be interpreted as such. Now, about being myth, it is considered so only by those who need theists to preserve their faith in talking serpents. This sort of theists and those who need them as such are both unable to understand metaphorical language.
Ben

So why don't you just explain the metaphor of the talking snake rather than just type out totally derogatory verbiage to those you seem to think are so much more stupid than you?

Don't you think telling them the meaning would be much more conducive to discussion than your current fundamentalist Christian approach?

Ben_Masada wrote:

<quoted text>
------
You are terrible mistaken about me, lady. Of all the post above, I am going to tell you about two things: The first is that I have read all the books of Josephus and they do not contain a single word about Jesus, except for forgered text added by the Church in the 4th Century in order to fish for some credibility in favor of the historical Jesus, which even Pilates later in retirement was asked about a miracle worker called Jesus of Nazareth that he had crucified and he - Pilates - was set wondering: "Jesus... Jesus of Nazareth... No, I can't remember him." This is from the book "The Oxford Illustrated History of Christianity" page 21 by the Christian scholar and Catholic Historian John McManners. What!!! The only case when Pilates had to wash his hands to justify himself from the blood of a crucified would not remember him? The only case when Pilates was forced by the Jewish authorities to crucify a Jew would not remember his name! The bottom line is that the whole issue about Jesus is suspictious to have even taken place
at all.
And the second thing is about your question of what the Tanach says was the father of Jesus. The Tanach does not say anything about Jesus. So, next time you have a question about the Tanach, at least, read it first.
Ben

First of all, it's 'Pilate', no 's' at the end, or 'Pilatus' in Greek.

Pilate is also not mentioned in the Tanach either, and does not contain anything about Jesus' life or even his birth (except by those who used the Jewish scriptures to invent the Christ). So you are correct, asking you about what the Tanach says about the father of Jesus shows that the person is fully indoctrinated into the apologetics of the Christian faith and has no knowledge of the Tanach whatsoever.

Christianity has a double-edged sword on their hands when it comes to 'the father of Jesus'. First, in the very first book of the NT, they give Jesus' line of heritage back to David as proof that he his father was of that line to prove he's the awaited Messiah. Then they say his father was God, but cannot give a lineage of God back to David. They gloss over this obvious anomaly by stating that either that it's the true line of Jesus and people who aren't Christians can't understand it because they don't have the holy spirit, or they claim that it is Mary's lineage. Either way, Jesus could not have been of the line of David if he was fathered by God.

Christians further complicate the matter by making Jesus God himself. That would mean that God had sex with a mortal and then was born as himself to himself. Nothing in Christianity makes sense when you stop and think about it.

That said, I do think that a militant, itinerant Rabbi named Jesus actually lived and tried to teach people how to use the Jewish teachings to the advantage of good of its adherents rather than just applying the laws. Christians also forget that Jesus WAS a Jew, taught the Jewish teachings and nowhere in the Bible is seen to have said that his listeners were to abandon the Jewish teachings. Nowhere.

On top of that, they have made Jesus the God of the OT, but refuse to believe that he is the God of the OT who committed atrocities such as killing off all the inhabitants of earth but for 8 people, claiming a 'New Covenant'. The OT quite clearly says that God's covenant with the Israelites was 'for all time' and would never end.

Like I said before, the contradictions and lies of Christianity are numerous and one cannot be a Christian without ignoring the things you don't like or understand within the Christian teachings. You have to turn off your brain to do so.

ChristineM wrote:

<quoted text>A perfect example of the Dunning–Kruger effect made the headlines yesterday here in the UK and will probably interest you.

During the 2009 G20 summit in London, a guy (Ian Tomlinson) innocently passing the demonstration was struck and floored by a policemen. He later died of internal injuries.

Freddy Patel, the pathologist assigned to his case claimed that Tomlinson died of natural causes, heart problems.

Further medical reports said he had actually died from an injury to his liver that caused internal bleeding and then cardiac arrest. A further 67 failing were identified in Patels examination of Tomlinson

He was struck off the medical register yesterday for acting with deficient professional performance.

Patel still claims he has none nothing wrong, there was nothing wrong with his work, his examination was correct and valid and sees the additional examinations as a waste of time.

It should be noted that Patel has previously served 2 previous suspensions for similar offences including “dishonesty and omitting key findings after examining the body of a murder victim who he said had died from natural causes”

Maybe he considers anybody not dying of supernatural causes as dying of natural causes?

Aerobatty wrote:

<quoted text>
Maybe he considers anybody not dying of supernatural causes as dying of natural causes?

Now there's something to think about.

But...

From what 'supernatural' things do people die? I'm sure that guy could answer. I wonder if he ever put 'Demonic possession' as one of his causes of death.

ChristineM wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you really that stupid? Is it going to be written in the scriptures “we are a cloned religion so believe in our word”
There is no documented evidence, but there are similarities with many older religions, worshipping one god was a short lived Egyptian idea of the “Aten”. The Israelites were used to help build the city that was dedicated to that belief system. The Jewish faith began to rise soon after the collapse of that religion. Coincidence? There is no proof either way, it is likely but that does not mean it did or did not happen that way, it means there is no proof.
Many of the hebrew beliefs are based on the earlier Zoroastrianism, again the one god idea crops up.
Originally the Israelites were polytheists, the Tanakh and hence the OT refer to it. It is unknown whether the Akhenaten influence or the Zoroastrianism cults influenced them. Whatever, your own (current) god in exodus 20:3 admitted that there were other gods and proved his selfishness. However the full monotheistic conception of god did not come until Isaiah 43:10-13
The creation myth was wide spread throughout the east and south for thousands of years before Judaism as was the flood myth stemming stories from the black sea area and north African coast
Honey, literal interpretation is all there can be anything else is guesswork and made up BS. Sorry you don’t like that but that’s the way real life is.

-------

Where were you when you asked if I am that stupid, in front of the mirror? Never mind.

Listen Christine, when the Egyptians came about with their idea of
"monotheism" it was by the time of Pharaoh Akhnaton, aka Amenhotep
IV in 1375 BCE. When Abraham founded Jewish Monotheism it was in 1921 BCE. How could he have been influenced by Akhnaton? Hardly. Besides, the "monotheistic" god "Aten" was the sun, or represented by the sun; a visible physical body in the universe. The Monotheistic idea of Abraham and ours today is of an Incorporeal Divine Entity Creator of "Aten"; hardly comparable to as we have from Isaiah 46:5. "Whom would you compare Me with, as an equal, or match Me against, as though we were alike?"

Now, for Soroastrianism, this Iranian religious system was founded in 600 BCE rather as a kind of a trinity of a supreme deity, Ahura Mazda, and two cosmic struggles between a spirit of good, Spenta Mainyu and a spirit of evil, Angra Mainyn. This system is more akin to the Christian trinity than to Jewish Monotheism. Besides, they would worship fire as pagans used to in the stone age.

And for the creation myth and the so-called flood, almost every culture at the time had a version of its own. And to look at them as myth, when we don't have a better option to offer, we might as well add the myth of the big bang which some cosmologists of commonsense do admit it as a myth that could be discarded with time.

Yes honey, I agree with you that literal interpretation is the real
problem that makes a fool of all of those who can see only twice that 7 is found within 77. Why? Because they see only with the eyes of their flesh.

Ben

ChristineM wrote:

<quoted text>
Yes you do, not only that, you argue and write very much like a fundamentals christian.

-----

You do the same honey. They are not many who write so much like you. Good! From now on, I'll pick up just a statement or two from your posts to reply.

Ben

ChristineM wrote:

<quoted text>
The faith in the concept of probability?- you mean a guess?
There you go again putting your own interpretation on biblical writing, whassup is the biblical writing not good enough for you? It was not written for you to interpret as you will but to teach a concept, not your concept but that of bronze age man
It’s called scientific observation. Rather like you are dedicated to the scriptures but with certain observed facts added to make it more plausable.

---------

What do you mean, that I should not approach the Scriptures with a scientific mind? The Scriptures were written in poetic form. Poetry
cannot be interpreted literally. It would be laughable.

Ben

ChristineM wrote:

<quoted text>
The faith in the concept of probability?- you mean a guess?

------

No, I mean possibility. It is possible that it could be thus if another option is not feasible.

Ben

nanoanomaly wrote:

<quoted text>She's an idiot and best ignored.

-------

No, please, don't say that. She simply needs to be understood.

Ben

It aint necessarily so wrote:

<quoted text>
It's the other way around. I am the self-proclaimed expert, and you don't know squat about the bible.
Ask me anything about your bible and I will tell you what it means. If your opinion is different than mine, well, that's because you don't know the bible, and I do.
See how easy that was? You are now officially declared a biblical simpleton. Now don't you feel better with all of that weight off of your shoulders?
--------

Oh yes, thank you for having transferred all that weight from my shoulders unto yours.

Ben