Oliver with all Roman records handed down through monasteries and Byzantium and Egyptian Gnostics, with all the records of Judea’s surrounding states , of all the discourse amongst writers at the alleged time of Christ not one mention of Christ is made. Letters concerning Jesus that make up the New Testament were written by people that had never met Jesus. Jesus if he existed never put pen to paper himself. The first mention of Jesus outside of the occult letters which make up the New Testament came from Tacitus some time between AD 68 and AD 117. Tacitus refers only to Christian involvement in the great fire of Rome and Nero’s response. The reference to Jesus is only that he is the founder of what Tacitus describes as a ‘deadly superstition’ and ‘depraved’ and ‘shameful’. Still harsh considering Tacitus admits Nero did not have the actual arsonists prosecuted but any Christian would do.

We must keep in mind that Christianity was not the same superstition as it was after Constantine and Christ was not the same idol that Christians worship today. In its early period Christianity was a diversity and amalgam of religions and Jesus was not always human, but also animals and demon like creatures depending on the Christian sect.

Constantine chose to amalgamate the core belief of the superstition – Judaism and the cult of Mithras (Chrisos) with the conversion of the cult of Jupiter to the cult of Jehovah.

There is no argument that Christianity is a Constantinian design constructed for purposes of population control. The Old Testament suffers the same fate. It is known that the Hebrew Bible is a rework of the Law of David by Ben Sera to appease the cult of Moses in times of desperate civil conflict not unlike Iraq. A good example is Moses flight to Egypt which passed unrecorded by anybody until Sera. Even the Egyptians apparently had never heard of Moses or a great Jewish exodus.

Christianity ethnically cleansed Europe and rewrote history to accommodate superstition.

West,
you place me in a dilemma. On one hand i have to detest your deplorable penchant for placing your own ignorant bias on others
'I have observed that Christians actually do not believe in god at all. That subconsciously Christians know that God is just a product of imagination. Aside from the fact that god , his nature and abilities , his views and his motives is limited to the intellect of the believer and the believer must on some level know all they say and chose to believe is a product of their own imagination there is a concrete indicator that this is so.'
'The reason is because they know subconsciously that god is impossible. If god was possible there would be no reason why a rock, a screwed up piece of paper or even secularism itself was not god.'
'Secularism, like good science and atheism is not understood by Christians and this is why they present a weird and contorted argument. Simply they cannot understand systems that are not organised by emotional bias.'
'Braindrain you made two conscious misrepresentations to try and spin superstition as somehow valid'

ALL of those statements are true only, and because, of your twisted misunderstandings based on your own emotional bias.

And then I have to congratulate you on your later fairly skillful representation of the errors of the 'christian' and 'judaic' 'religious mythologists' who desire only to possess power over a community group.

You represent in one person the utter correctness and total innaccuracy of ALL humans in one clearly observable phenomenon.

Thank you - now i understand the dilemma (that is not one) perfectly!

While we live on Earth, we are spiritual beings entirely consumed by 'real' world physicality, and we battle to make sense of such Truth. Some have the necessary wit and insight to see 'deeper' than others.

None of us has the ability to see all truth. Only the truth our limited evolution allows each one of us.

P.S. Secular is literally 'thought not from the Clergy' make of it what you will.

West,

Thank you for your informative reply.

When I have looked into the matter of sect, I have found it had to push back before c. 50-60.

So, that I can place correct emphasis MYSELF when is similar discourses in the future, can I say:

1. Pilate's records of the period DO exist now.
2. Parsing THOSE records shows no indication the Jesus trial.

What I am getting at is, imagine the Iliad is lost to History. One cannot say Homer did not write about the Cyclops in the Iliad. As the Iliad does exist NOW, we can say, there is mention of the Cyclops, but, no Fred Nerks of Jesus Christs mentioned. See my point?

Even if JC is not god or in a godhead, but, instead a historical person or some sort of composite, we owe our understanding of historical events to refined towards the ascertaining the "tight" circumstances.

Braindrain what exactly is this spirituality that you claim everybody has? Does spirituality mean something other than ego? Because you claim everybody has it and yet I dont have it , most people I know dont have it and those that I know who claim it change the subject when asked what it is. Is spirituality a self constructed delusion like soul or God? Is spirituality simply paranioa - the 'feeling' god exists or the feeling the believer has a 'soul'? These are not rhetorical questions.

In discussion concerning superstition I keep in mind that those who believe in god are denialists. Denying reality, history, the nature of their superstition and denying the validity of their claims. Everything from the Bible to the existence of god and heaven is presented as an enigmatic mystery by Christians yet Christians will inform you of everything from what heaven is like to what god thinks. If anyone has actual proof of god to base their argument on Id love to hear it. Alas all that has been said in support of god and Christian validity so far is regurgitaed dungeons and dragons role playing. I understand that some people dont grow out of their monsters under the bed and teddy becomes Christ the saviour. Still no excuse to let religious beliefs spill into the real world into the public realm.

West, Oliver, BrainDrain.....

There is something generous and of value in offering a testimony to an experience, an encounter, an illumination of a thread of liberating knowledge, a new found peace and joy in a troubled life, or a new energy in a lethargic, comfortable life. Whether contributed by a learned professional or an enquiring man/woman without learned status, simply seeking truth and willing to pass it on in the spirit of collaboration in the great task of knowing. Whilst always willing to acknowledge that we may be wrong.

Contributions of accusatory bile delivered in peusdo intellectual language reflect sadly a hardened heart and soggy abusive intent oozing from perverse prejudice. Your hostility towards people of faith does you no credit.

Yebiga your latest contribution was interesting and in gratifying contrast to the aforementioned.

You conclude, "But make no mistake, secular humanism which balances the demands between the individual and community has powered all of mans' progress during the last 500 years. Its reassertion will make religion as we know it redundant.".

The flourishing of the individual has its roots in Christian thought underpinned by its theological exposition in Imago Dei. Our Western history is full of great individuals who stood up to civil and religious authority and the mob in response to religious mob control.

To me secular humanism has seen its time pass. Vale. Its action and consequences have acted, as have other events and movements preceding it over the last 2000 years, to enrich Christianity's deep soil in readiness for the further flourishing of faith more enlightened, aware and focussed. Indeed, its retreat will make religion as we know it redundant. Have you not got the gist of Sell's work?

Dear Boxgum,

I feel no hostility towards you or Sells. Just the sames, were I to provide counsel on swimming in the poluted waters of the sacred Ganges, I would recommend, don't.

When a guest in a Catholic church, I genuflect when passing crossing the altar and have worn a skull cap in a synogue and taken my shoes off in a temple. Respect for the situation. However, I suspect many potestant Christians would NOT do the same, herein, NOT showing respect to the beliefs of others.

--- Assuming you are a Protestant, do YOU genuflect in RC churches?

Please have a new look at the "How Does God Exist?" thread, it should be evident, I do not have specific religionists in my sights. Rather, I put it, one should draw on many bodies of knowledge, when assessing situations/beliefs: Sells does not do this, instead, he uses limited resources. He has a depth of knowledge, but seemingly not a breadth of knowledge. If he does have the latter, it is somehow suspended, regarding the study of religion.

Moreover, in a non-hypocritical manner, I have asked West to justify some claims. My last post, above.

"The rise of secular religion" has been "rising", since medieval times. The move from Eclasia to Dominations in Religion, as the notion of diminishing Church power was addressed.

Further, Sells STILL hasn't explained, why the attributes of a Christian are to be accepted for the Christian godhead but rejected as mythologies, elsewhere. This response doesn't fit. Surely, a REAL GOD would not copy the profile of mythical gods, when Its supreme purpose is to be known and have Its sacrafice known.

Lastly, "How Gods Exist," as an architecture is known. The Christian god is not differentiated. Pointing reality out is not "against" faithful, as such. It is History.

In this frame, this Forum presents the opportunity for knowledge discovery, reflection, refreshing re-evaluation and re-assessment.

We can all learn from critical re-assessments and from the broader canopy of knowledge, including Sells, you, West, BD, Relda et al. The Game is not to become arrested by preconceptions.