Goodbye Atheism

gbee

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Yes, we’re all exactly the same.

And James Randi debunking spoon-bending is exactly the same as Uri Geller.

And Penn and Teller are exactly the same as people who claim to actually do magic.

And Phil Plait is exactly the same as believers that the moon landing was faked.

There is no difference between any of them.

I would not see it that way, Uri Geller was a consummate showman, no worse than Most Haunted today.

Never heard of Penn & Teller and there was a plan to cover the failure of the moon landing, and it goes with Pearl Harbor and 911 and for the same reasons ~

Michael Nugent

gbee wrote: »

I would not see it that way, Uri Geller was a consummate showman, no worse than Most Haunted today.

Never heard of Penn & Teller and there was a plan to cover the failure of the moon landing, and it goes with Pearl Harbor and 911 and for the same reasons ~

Okay, I'll phrase it more generally.

People who make extraordinary claims that are unsupported by reliable evidence, and people who debunk those claims by exposing the lack of reliable evidence, should not be treated as if they are doing the same thing.

recedite

nagirrac wrote: »

Mental health specialists agree that serial killers are sociopaths, which is a disorder of personality and character. Lack of empathy is typically understood as not being aware of other people's feelings (as in Aspergers). The evidence seems to suggest that not alone are serial killers aware of other's feelings, they may have a heightened sense of empathy which is part of the thrill of killing for them.

Serial killers are more than sociopathic, they are psychopathic. What evidence is there that they have "a heightened sense of empathy"?
While Aspergers types have difficulty picking up on subtle cues from other people that are necessary before they can empathise, sociopaths and psychopaths have no such difficulty. They can easily recognise the emotional state of another, but they just don't give a fcuk.
Two completely different things which the much quoted simple statement "a lack of empathy" fails to convey.

nagirrac wrote: »

I have no idea why the writer or writers of the Book of Revelation attributed the passage you refer to to Jesus, given that it does not appear in any of the 4 gospels.......

The "children" referred to in the text and one has to read the full text and indeed the full New Testament to get the context are the "followers" of Jezebel, the methaphor for sexual depravity in the Old Testament. It has nothing to do with killing kids.

Are you saying Revelations is somehow a lesser scripture than the 4 gospels, or even an invalid one?
What is your basis for accepting only some parts of the Bible?
Why not just accept the word of the Bible, instead of always re-interpreting it into something else? (That last one is a rhetorical question; we all know some bits are just not socially acceptable in modern times, but please answer the other two questions)

MisterEpicurus

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Contrast approximately 4,000 likes and continuous positive discussions on our Facebook Page, approximately 1,500 members of our Facebook Group and similar positive reaction, to the occasional criticism of our name on this discussion board.

I was supposed to mention this earlier in the thread but might as well rake it up now.

You can't seriously take Facebook Likes and members seriously, I mean check this out;

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Sean-Quinn-is-an-irish-legend-we-support-him/110325058985239?fref=ts

Over 8,000 support a crook from supposedly 'rational grounds'.

So yeah, goes to show that facebook likes mean nothing if they can't critically examine the nuisance that they believe in.

nagirrac

recedite wrote: »

Serial killers are more than sociopathic, they are psychopathic. What evidence is there that they have "a heightened sense of empathy"?
While Aspergers types have difficulty picking up on subtle cues from other people that are necessary before they can empathise, sociopaths and psychopaths have no such difficulty. They can easily recognise the emotional state of another, but they just don't give a fcuk.
Two completely different things which the much quoted simple statement "a lack of empathy" fails to convey.

Sociopaths and psychopaths are the same as any trained psychologist these days will tell you. The distinction is how scientists historically believe the condition arose, some believed environment and upbringing caused the behavior (sociopath) and some believed it was due to an organic brain disorder (psychopath). Sociopath is the common term used today, and there is general agrement it is due to abuse, neglect or trauma during childhood.
I agree with you on empathy as it related to Aspergers and furthermore most people with Aspergers overcome this by learned behavior. My comment that sociopaths have an enhanced sense of empathy in terms of fully understanding the feelings of others and enjoying them is based on papers I have read that make sense to me. The empathy issue though overall is kind of secondary.

gbee

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Okay, I'll phrase it more generally.

People who make extraordinary claims that are unsupported by reliable evidence, and people who debunk those claims by exposing the lack of reliable evidence, should not be treated as if they are doing the same thing.

But in many cases they do exactly that. And should, should be the optimum word, in this thread I have not seen the difference.

The Moon Landing is probably the best example where 'debunkers' actually went further in proving not only the possibility but probability of a fake. For me, my conversion was the pathetic Myth Busters attempts, it proved to me, my eyes and my reasoning just how easy it was to fake, let alone how easy it was to fake in the 60s.

I'm a star-child, a piece of stardust, and I think that's my new adopted name, I don't want association with AI. Like Artificial Insemination, Artificial Intelligence ~ you're welcome to it.

Michael Nugent

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

You can't seriously take Facebook Likes and members seriously, I mean check this out;

http://www.facebook.com/pages/Sean-Quinn-is-an-irish-legend-we-support-him/110325058985239?fref=ts

Over 8,000 support a crook from supposedly 'rational grounds'.

So yeah, goes to show that facebook likes mean nothing if they can't critically examine the nuisance that they believe in.

Are you seriously suggesting that the type of people who like a page called “Sean Quinn is an irish legend & we support him!!!” (with a lower-case i for Ireland, and three exclamation marks!!!),

and who post incoherent misspelled textspeak, and comments like “shut ur mouth ya gomey c**t go suck some c**k for a living chubby cheeks,”

are likely to be the same type of people who like the Atheist Ireland page?

The fact that more people can like emotive quasi-trolling nonsense, than like serious advocacy work, does not reflect badly on the people who like the serious advocacy work.

MisterEpicurus

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting that the type of people who like a page called “Sean Quinn is an irish legend & we support him!!!” (with a lower-case i for Ireland, and three exclamation marks!!!),

and who post incoherent misspelled textspeak, and comments like “shut ur mouth ya gomey c**t go suck some c**k for a living chubby cheeks,”

are likely to be the same type of people who like the Atheist Ireland page?

The fact that more people can like emotive quasi-trolling nonsense, than like serious advocacy work, does not reflect badly on the people who like the serious advocacy work.

I agree with everything you've just said.

My point is that you can't rely on ordinary folks as highly superior reasonable people. I doubt the intelligence of 99% of people.

gbee

MisterEpicurus wrote: »

. I doubt the intelligence of 99% of people.

ERGO, God, The Roman Catholic Church, The President of the United States of America, Pearl Harbour, 911 and John F K the Great Depression, Oil Crisis in the 70s and Taxes stopping global climate change. :rolleyes:

Oh, and the superiority of SOME Stardust Children, formerly known as atheists, of which I am one proud member.

Zombrex

gbee wrote: »

ERGO, God, The Roman Catholic Church, The President of the United States of America, Pearl Harbour, 911 and John F K the Great Depression, Oil Crisis in the 70s and Taxes stopping global climate change. :rolleyes:

Oh, and the superiority of SOME Stardust Children, formerly known as atheists, of which I am one proud member.

You appear to be suggesting that it is plausible that the moon landings were faked. That would, to put it mildly, be a stupid idea given the thousands of people who worked on the Apollo projects, and continue to work with the materials recovered from the moon and the instruments still left up there.

gbee

Zombrex wrote: »

You appear to be suggesting that it is plausible that the moon landings were faked. .

Of course it is, plausible, in relation to the 99% intelligent question, you have to be in the 1% to join me as a Stardust Child.

Religion/Government/Government/Religion all rely on the 99% questionable intelligence factor. They each have implausible scenarios that they repeat routinely and in your face.

nagirrac

recedite wrote: »

Are you saying Revelations is somehow a lesser scripture than the 4 gospels, or even an invalid one?
What is your basis for accepting only some parts of the Bible?
Why not just accept the word of the Bible, instead of always re-interpreting it into something else? (That last one is a rhetorical question; we all know some bits are just not socially acceptable in modern times, but please answer the other two questions)

First of all I am not a theologian nor a practicing Christian (just so you understand where I am coming from personally). I am an agnostic scientist who among many other interests has a broad interest in philosophical and spiritual matters. I disagree vehemently with people who interpret something that was written 2000 or 4000 years ago literally and live their lives according to that literal interpretation and worse expect others to live their lives that way. That is clearly nonsense.

However that does not mean that people cannot hold spiritual views and be reasonable people with good intent. Most people I know who hold spiritual views are not influenced by literal translations of ancient documents but by what they believe personally.

As for your questions I think most Christians or at least the ones I know would say the 4 gospels are the core teachings of Jesus Christ i.e. the closest to what he actually said. As these were all written 50 -100 years after the fact and handed down from original eye witness accounts I am not shocked they do not agree on everything nor indeed that there appear some inconsistencies.

I don't personally accept much of the bible at all in terms of my personal beliefs. I take it for what it is, the Old Testament written 2500 to 3500 years ago is an interesting history of the Jewish people. As for the New Testament I find the gospels given when they were written and the environment in which they were written impressive moral and ethical documents that one can learn from. No more or no less than I find the accounts or writings of Aristotle, Hinduism, Buddhism and other spiritual teachings interesting and informative.

Zombrex

gbee wrote: »

Of course it is, plausible, in relation to the 99% intelligent question, you have to be in the 1% to join me as a Stardust Child.

Religion/Government/Government/Religion all rely on the 99% questionable intelligence factor. They each have implausible scenarios that they repeat routinely and in your face.

So you think it is plausibe that the US, British, Austrialian, Russian and Chinese governments all conspired in 1969 to fake a US moon landing, a conspirarcy that would have to have involved thousands of people at the time and would still involve thousands of scientists across the globe up to today including all scientists involved in or using the current Lunar Reconnaissance Orbiter (LRO) which recently digitally photographed the Apollo landing site.

Yeah ... I think you fall into a certain percentile gbee, but it is not the most intelligent 1%, I think you have it the wrong way around

gbee

Zombrex wrote: »

So you think it is plausibe that the US, British, Austrialian, Russian and Chinese governments all conspired in 1969 to fake a US moon landing,I think you have it the wrong way around

No. I was a 14 year old schoolboy in Redbarn Caravan Holiday Park in Cork in that summer, it was my proud and over-joyous privilege to watch at something like 2 am in the morning when the average 14 year old would have been in bed at about 9 or ten the previous evening.

I was a space nut.

After the summer I was back at school, now remember the year, and they were saying it was a fake, I lost friends as I did not believe them.

So I ask you, where were you?

recedite

nagirrac wrote: »

I disagree vehemently with people who interpret something that was written 2000 or 4000 years ago literally and live their lives according to that literal interpretation and worse expect others to live their lives that way. That is clearly nonsense...............
Most people I know who hold spiritual views are not influenced by literal translations of ancient documents but by what they believe personally............
As for your questions I think most Christians or at least the ones I know would say the 4 gospels are the core teachings of Jesus Christ..........

See, the problem here is that you are looking at some ancient documents, supposedly the sacred and literal truth, and then cherrypicking only the bits you like.
The Book of Revelation seems a bit wacky, with all that fire and brimstone and "the end is nigh" stuff, so you disregard it. Anything else that seems inconsistent with your beliefs you dismiss as "taken out of context", or "only a metaphor".
Why not be honest, and say you have certain beliefs in the supernatural, but admit you have no rational basis for those beliefs, least of all what is written in an old book.
I agree that there are a few gems of wisdom in holy books, but most of what's there is hearsay, superstition and general nonsense. Pretty much what you would expect to be written in those times, and by those people (the followers).

nagirrac

Michael Nugent wrote: »

Matthew 15:3-4

Jesus replied, "And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death.’ "

Nice try, but sorry you'll have to try again. There is nothing here to suggest Jesus was referring to children and furthermore in the context of the overall passage he is clearly talking about how adults should take care of their parents and not just donate money to their rabbis. I don't believe there is any evidence that the Jews ever stoned a child to death, but perhaps you can find it. I believe there are only a few instances of stoning in the Old Testament and the practice had stopped among Jews before the time of Christ. The Jews were actually quite enlightened with regard to capital punishment given that it is still practiced in many countries today. It was a Jewish philosopher who said it was better to free 1000 guilty persons than put one innocent person to death, something that is still quoted 1000 years after his death.

The bigger point however is that Christians in 2012 are not in the habit of stoning their children to death (although the thought entered my mind a few times:)). This is what is insane about Dawkins and Dawkins disciples attacking religion in general. The great majority of Christians are not fundamentalists and do not believe literally what was written 2000 or 4000 years ago. They are influenced by the broad teachings of Jesus Christ and by their own beliefs. No amount of bashing them over the head with nonsense about fairies at the bottom of gardens will change their beliefs.

pauldla

nagirrac wrote: »

Nice try, but sorry you'll have to try again. There is nothing here to suggest Jesus was referring to children and furthermore in the context of the overall passage he is clearly talking about how adults should take care of their parents and not just donate money to their rabbis. I don't believe there is any evidence that the Jews ever stoned a child to death, but perhaps you can find it. I believe there are only a few instances of stoning in the Old Testament and the practice had stopped among Jews before the time of Christ. The Jews were actually quite enlightened with regard to capital punishment given that it is still practiced in many countries today. It was a Jewish philosopher who said it was better to free 1000 guilty persons than put one innocent person to death, something that is still quoted 1000 years after his death.

The bigger point however is that Christians in 2012 are not in the habit of stoning their children to death (although the thought entered my mind a few times:)). This is what is insane about Dawkins and Dawkins disciples attacking religion in general. The great majority of Christians are not fundamentalists and do not believe literally what was written 2000 or 4000 years ago. They are influenced by the broad teachings of Jesus Christ and by their own beliefs. No amount of bashing them over the head with nonsense about fairies at the bottom of gardens will change their beliefs.

Let those among you who is without sin cast the first stone, even though we haven't actually stoned anyone since before I was born. And the disciples were confused, and said "What are you talking about, Lord?"

nagirrac

recedite wrote: »

See, the problem here is that you are looking at some ancient documents, supposedly the sacred and literal truth, and then cherrypicking only the bits you like.
Why not be honest, and say you have certain beliefs in the supernatural, but admit you have no rational basis for those beliefs, least of all what is written in an old book.

That's terribly condescending. If you truly believe there is not much to be learned from "old" books then you have a long way to go yourself in your education. My beliefs are based on what I have read and what I have experienced. The teachings of Eastern religions would be the most influential on me personally and the practice of meditation has taught me more about myself and the power of the mind than anything else in life. Like everything else you have to put in the work to get the benefit.

gbee

nagirrac wrote: »

The bigger point however is that Christians in 2012 are not in the habit of stoning their children to death (although the thought entered my mind a few times:)). This is what is insane about Dawkins and Dawkins disciples attacking religion in general.

OK, Christ was one person. Christianity is a concept of living life, not much displaced from atheism in fact or Buddhism for that matter

What is wrong is the Holy Roman Catholic Church, its origins which are not in fact Christian at all, baring they took the ideology and the Jews being the father of all, at least most of the modern religions, all based on lies

Best thing we do now is wipe out the last 2,000 years, restore our calendar and look the future without religion, with womans' rights, without paedophilia clubs, with free minded children who will solve our global and intergalactic problems

Michael Nugent

nagirrac wrote: »

I wholeheartedly agree kids can be raised without religious instruction and taught good morals and ethics. That's how I have raised my kids. Unfortunately society is not made up of just "normal balanced members" so the worry is when kids get no teaching at home or in school where do their morals and ethics come from?

If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that the two possible sources of children being taught good morals and ethics are (a) through religious instruction at school or (b) by their parents at home outside of school.

But there is of course a third option (c) that they are taught good morals and ethics by having, on the school curriculum, a subject that teaches good morals and ethics independently of religious instruction.

In fact, the Irish constitution says that is the right and duty of parents to provide for the “religious and moral, intellectual, physical and social education of their children”, while the state shall “require in view of actual conditions that the children receive a certain minimum education, moral, intellectual and social.”

The distinction here is clear: parents have a duty to provide religious and moral education, but the state shall require that the children receive a certain minimum level of moral education. The state has no function in the provision of religious education.

What should be happening is that the state should be enforcing the requirement that all children get a minimum level of moral education. And, as per the Constitution, that is a distinct issue separate from religious education.

So there should be, however it is incorporated into the curriculum, a mechanism whereby children can have a moral education class that is not based on religion but on universal principles, like justice and compassion and empathy.

Then you have religion, and there are two aspects to religion. There is education about religion, which children should have access to, and then there is education that a particular religion is true and that is what they should have the right to opt out from.

There is also a further Constitutional distinction between religion and morality. In the Constitutional section on religion, it says that the profession and practice of religion is guaranteed subject to public order and morality.

So morality supersedes religion in the Constitution. It’s not even that they are distinct but on the same level. It is that the practice and profession of religion is subject to morality.

So morality should be the main focus of the type of education that you have expressed a concern about. And then religion should be taught, within the subject of morality, as one of the ways that people believe that they get morality. But it shouldn’t be on a par, and it isn’t, either in terms of human rights law or even in terms of our own Constitution.

At the moment, if parents choose to exercise their constitutional right to after their child out of religious education (and assuming that the school actually allows them to vindicate that right, which does not always happen), then the state is failing in its duty to that child to ensure that the child receives a certain minimum level of moral education.

Lucy8080

o.k. i ve had a post removed! i dont blame the mods.

I wrote it from the position of trying to be an ethical atheist. It led to censorship....which doesnt surprise me....nor should any mod be blamed for it!

If its reinstated , ill defend it! but, i suspect, most atheists wont like what is being asked of them!


IF not reinstated, i'm o.k. with the mods decision.

Sarky

What the devil are you on about now?

Lucy8080

Sarky wrote: »

What the devil are you on about now?

If the post is reinstated maybe your question will be answered.

Observation sarky, what is a scientist without observation?

I hope you are not prejudiced by something akin to a religous position! A belief mayhap,contempt even,prior to investigation!

There is nothing in the post removed that would offend an "ethical atheist"! yet , something offended enough to have it removed from an AA forum!

Michael Nugent

nagirrac wrote: »

A perfect example of the lunatic fringe I spoke about in an earlier post who quote a few words from the bible with no understanding of what the words mean or their context. First of all if one were interested in what Jesus had to say I would start with the 4 gospels and not with the Book of Revelation. I doubt you have such interest though and are more interested in scoring points using as irrational an argument as a fundamentalist Christian does.

If you ever bothered to speak to someone knowledgable on scripture as opposed to taking your knowledge on scripture from Richard Dawkins you would know that the meaning of the text in question is that children refers to followers and Jezebel refers to the devil or evil. When Jesus talks about death he is talking about spiuritual death. It has nothing to do with killing kids.

Okay, so you have started by calling me a perfect example of a lunatic fringe, suggesting that I have never bothered to speak to someone knowledgeable in Scripture, and suggesting bizarrely that I take my knowledge of scripture from Richard Dawkins.

Then you have asserted without qualification that, in Revelation, when Jesus says he will kill the children of Jezebel with death, (a) Jezebel refers to the devil or evil, (b) the children of Jezebel refer to followers not children, and (c) when Jesus talks about death he is talking about spiritual death.

I don’t have time to go through a lot of Bible commentaries just now, so I will base this post on the commentaries of the theologians Albert Barnes (who was known for balancing different interpretations) and Adam Clarke. There are, of course, many other commentaries, but these happen to be the two closest to hand as I write this.

(a) Jezebel in Revelation does not refer to the devil or evil. It refers to a specific woman in a specific city who was causing problems for the then developing Christian church in that city. Barnes says: “Who the individual here referred to by the name Jezebel was, is not known.” Clarke says: “Although we do not know who this Jezebel was, yet from the allusion we may take it for granted that she was a woman of power and influence in Thyatira.” He adds that some early manuscripts refer to her as the wife of the Bishop of the church in Thyatira.

(b) The children of Jezebel in Revelation could mean either children or followers, but favouring the second interpretation (followers) depends on interpreting fornication as meaning only idolatry. So that is two layers of interpretation, one upon the other, taking us further away from the natural meaning of the words for no rational reason. And killing children for the sins of their parents is nothing unusual in Biblical morality.

• With regard to fornication, Barnes seem comfortable with a literal interpretation, while Clarke disagrees but for no good reason. Barnes says that: “The harlot’s bed and the sickbed are thus brought together, as they are often, in fact, in the dispensations of Providence and the righteous judgements of God.” Clarke says it does not literally mean fornication, because: “it is too gross to suppose that the wife of the Bishop of this church could teach fornication literally.” This Lord Denning style "appalling vista" judgement says more about Clarke’s sensitivities than the meaning of the words.
  
• With regard to children, Barnes says: “It has been made a question whether the word “children” here is to be taken literally or figuratively. The word itself would admit of either interpretation; and there is nothing in the connection by which its meaning here can be determined. If it is to be taken literally, it is in accordance with what is often threatened in the Scriptures, the children shall be visited with calamity for the sins of parents, and with what often occurs in fact, that they do thus suffer. For it is no uncommon thing that whole families are made desolate on account of the sin and folly of the parent.”

(c) When Jesus is talking about death, it is beyond reasonable doubt that he is talking about a physical death, and not a spiritual one. Clarke describes it as: “That is, I will certainly destroy her offspring and memory.” Barnes says: “The reference in the word “death” here would seem to be some heavy judgement, by plague, famine, or sword, by which they would be cut off.”

You will certainly find other theologians, seeking to paint Jesus in a kinder light, who favour the strained multi-layered nicer interpretations that you have asserted this passage to mean. To some extent, there are as many interpretations of the Bible as there are theologians. However, in the context of the book of Revelation, which was written as a stand-alone book, there is nothing to suggest that we should paint the Jesus of that book in a kinder or nicer light.

You seem happy to accept whatever interpretation fits with your general preference that Jesus was a nice chap, regardless of the obvious layers of strained interpretations that this requires, and to dismiss other interpretations as being inspired by either a lunatic fringe or by Richard Dawkins. The reality is that the Bible story contains many versions of the Jesus character, each written for different purposes and aimed at different audiences, some of which portray Jesus meek and mild and some of which portray a vengeful borderline psychopath.

To help understand the New Testament stories better, read them in the sequence in which they were written, instead of the sequence in which they appear in the Bible. You will see how a human apocalyptic Jewish preacher gradually evolved into being part of a newly-invented Christian God. And you will see how, even from the very earliest stages, the process of reinterpreting older writings to suit new narratives helped to shape a chameleon-like Jesus character, that was suitable for whatever propaganda purposes the Church needed at any given time.

.

nagirrac

Michael Nugent wrote: »

If I understand you correctly, you are suggesting that the two possible sources of children being taught good morals and ethics are (a) through religious instruction at school or (b) by their parents at home outside of school.

I agree with your post and my position is and always has been that a specific religion should not be taught in schools but should be replaced by secular teaching. I live in the US and see the effects of no moral or ethical guidance whatsoever and when religion was dropped form the public school curriculum nothing replaced it and you are left with a generation of kids with literally no moral compass.

Michael Nugent

nagirrac wrote: »

I agree with your post and my position is and always has been that a specific religion should not be taught in schools but should be replaced by secular teaching. I live in the US and see the effects of no moral or ethical guidance whatsoever and when religion was dropped form the public school curriculum nothing replaced it and you are left with a generation of kids with literally no moral compass.

Well, that is obviously a problem that needs to be addressed. But the answer should be introducing the teaching of morality and ethics, not introducing the teaching of religion. As I think we agree.

nagirrac

Michael Nugent wrote: »

To help understand the New Testament stories better, read them in the sequence in which they were written, instead of the sequence in which they appear in the Bible. You will see how a human apocalyptic Jewish preacher gradually evolved into being part of a newly-invented Christian God. And you will see how, even from the very earliest stages, the process of reinterpreting older writings to suit new narratives helped to shape a chameleon-like Jesus character, that was suitable for whatever propaganda purposes the Church needed at any given time.
.

The Book of Revelation is a very difficult book to interpret and does not seem to fit well with the rest of the New Testament in the opinion of many bible scholars. Although most Christians regard it as prophecy I tend to agree with Elaine Pagels but have to admit she is the only detailed source I have read. It makes logical sense to me that it was written after the Jewish war of 66 CE when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans. The early Christians were obviously distraught over this and divided into numerous groups so I agree with Elaine Pagels that it is mainly a rant against Rome and other early Christian groups. I am very skeptical in general of early Christian writers who claimed direct revelations from Jesus after his death as the author of the Book of Revelations clearly does. There are many other books from the period with similar claims that did not make it into the New Testament.

There seems to be no clear historical link between the writer of the Book of Revelation and Jesus and very little mentioned in the book that is common to the gospels. As for the Jezebel character clealry Jesus could not have commented during his lifetime on a character who emerged after his death at the time of the early church. The author claims his revelations came directly from Jesus but I would find such revelations very untrustworthy. If Jesus had truly mentioned a Jezebel I feel he would be referring to the Old Testament Jezebel as a methaphor for evil.. but that's just my opinion.

Michael Nugent

nagirrac wrote: »

The Book of Revelation is a very difficult book to interpret and does not seem to fit well with the rest of the New Testament in the opinion of many bible scholars. Although most Christians regard it as prophecy I tend to agree with Elaine Pagels but have to admit she is the only detailed source I have read. It makes logical sense to me that it was written after the Jewish war of 66 CE when Jerusalem was destroyed by the Romans. The early Christians were obviously distraught over this and divided into numerous groups so I agree with Elaine Pagels that it is mainly a rant against Rome and other early Christian groups. I am very skeptical in general of early Christian writers who claimed direct revelations from Jesus after his death as the author of the Book of Revelations clearly does. There are many other books from the period with similar claims that did not make it into the New Testament.

There seems to be no clear historical link between the writer of the Book of Revelation and Jesus and very little mentioned in the book that is common to the gospels. As for the Jezebel character clealry Jesus could not have commented during his lifetime on a character who emerged after his death at the time of the early church. The author claims his revelations came directly from Jesus but I would find such revelations very untrustworthy. If Jesus had truly mentioned a Jezebel I feel he would be referring to the Old Testament Jezebel as a methaphor for evil.. but that's just my opinion.

I agree with most of your analysis here.

I don’t believe for a moment that the actual Jesus (insofar as the Biblical Jesus may be based on an actual person or persons) ever said anything to anyone after he died.

I believe that everything in Revelation was made up by its author or authors, primarily John, probably around the time you suggest, from about 60 to 90 CE.

Like you, I am very skeptical in general of early Christian writers who claimed direct revelations from Jesus after his death.

Most notably, this includes Paul, who in effect founded what evolved into today’s Christianity.

robindch

Lucy8080 wrote: »

o.k. i ve had a post removed! i dont blame the mods. If its reinstated , ill defend it! but, i suspect, most atheists wont like what is being asked of them! IF not reinstated, i'm o.k. with the mods decision.

You've been warned many times in the past that if you couldn't write a post in comprehensible English, that it would be deleted. Your post from 0330h yesterday was completely meaningless, so it was deleted. No hard feelings.

If you'd like to contribute here by posting things that mean something and are written in English, then please do -- we're all ears!

Zombrex

robindch wrote: »

You've been warned many times in the past that if you couldn't write a post in comprehensible English, that it would be deleted. Your post from 0330h yesterday was completely meaningless, so it was deleted. No hard feelings.

Rule number one of A&A ... don't post when drunk