<Deliberately setting out to undermine the faith of believers in their foundation document is like drowning puppies. It may be possible to justify intellectually, but it doesn't make a difference to the expression on the children's faces as they watch you do it.>

I would have likened it more to children finding out there wasn't a Father Christmas. Children grow up. It is about time that religious adults did the same.

I agree this davidf that religion has done intense harm to the human race. Faith? Believe what I tell you without any support or evidence solely because I tell you to believe. It is worse than that. Believe what I tell you even though the evidence is that what I tell you is total rubbish. Dare I suggest cognitive dissonance?

There is grief in all passing. I am certain that for some ex-Christians that in giving up their fairy tale there will be sadness at their loss. But is giving up a lie a loss?

But if anyone is truly seeking answers getting religion out of the way is a major step forward. Nobody will find God in Christianity because Christianity is godless. In Christianity 'God' is only an image created to support the claim to authority based on Gods will. Christianity has no more way of knowing 'Gods will' than anyone else.

Hitler was (correctly) vilified for his crimes against humanity. But we continue to argue about Christianity whose crimes against humanity far exceed anything Hitler thought of.

And what is the reason for not ditching Christianity? From the posts here the main reason seems to be anything was better than nothing. To millions of starving Germans after the Great War Hitler was better than nothing.

If the Abrahamic fairly tales (Christianity/Judaism/Islam) is the best the human race can come up with to believe in then the human race really does not have much going for it.

As I have said before, this is not directed at Christians as people, but against the Abrahamic system of control, manipulation and fraud

Daviy, You state that Herod the great died in 3BC. I'm not sure that it is proven. I have seen very good arguments for 4BC, 3BC and 1BC.

When I last looked into this many years back 4BC was at that time the generally accepted date.

Can you point to where your information is proved?

I have found these reference sites although there are many more - how did you settle on 3BC?

http://www.hermetic.ch/cal_stud/ph01.htm

http://home.comcast.net/~murrellg/Herod.htm

http://www.ewtn.com/library/scriptur/chrdat.txt

http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/p_greetham/Wisemen/chron2.html

http://www.biblicalchronology.com/herod.htm

Pericles: Please allow these three statements to be burned into your grey matter.

MOTIVE : Honesty from preachers, churches & religions!

GOAL : Greater understanding and a questioning mind, so Christians and others might be better informed, so that they can focus more on their faith and spirituality, and less on a book, that if read properly and taught honestly, is full of problems for believers.

METHODOLOGY : WHICHEVER I CHOOSE

Trust me : I live with the consequences of this thread every day... I have to read the dribble you and csteele type...lol

Pericles, Two questions I wanted to know.

Why is an atheist so interested in this subject? Haven't you made your decision?

What is your definition of an atheist?

Your persistence in wondering why Christians aren't entitled to some honest answers staggers me.

And your comparing a discussion on biblical matters to drowning puppies is weird.

Seeing you can make that comparison couldn't I compare religions with mushroom farming. Keeping them in the dark and feeding them compost?

Why are you so happy to keep them uninformed/misinformed and unquestioning? What do you gain from pretending to be on their side?

Not so sure, davidf

>>Drowning puppies cannot be justified intellectually since there are less painful ways to dispose of animals, and one doesn't have to do it in the face of children.<<

I thought it was a rather appropriate analogy, on both counts.

One, there are less confrontational ways to address the shortcomings of religious beliefs. And two, it can be accomplished in a manner that is not overtly designed to inflict public humiliation.

>>However, faith in religion has done intense harm. It has inspired oppression, conquest, torture and massacre.<<

The danger here is that the label of oppressive, torturing, massacring conquistadors is applied to anyone with religious leanings. Which you know, of course, is ridiculous.

>>Losing religious faith can bring a sense of loss. It can also bring a feeling of joy and liberation.<<

As far as I am concerned, religious belief is something that is a freedom to be enjoyed by consenting adults, without interference from do-gooders offering them feelings of "joy and liberation".

[Somewhat ironically, "joy and liberation" echo the promises made by religious evangelists. How about that.]

OP2, you continue to misunderstand simple words like "motive".

>>MOTIVE : Honesty from preachers, churches & religions!<<

That isn't a motive OP2.

It is a possible (although highly unlikely) result of your persistent niggling and needling.

But it isn't a motive.

Let's imagine for a moment that you murder someone. If the detective asks "what was your motive for killing this person?", it would not be sufficient to say "so that he is dead".

Your motive for the action would be something along the lines "I didn't like his face", or "he trod on my toe."

Once again. Why are you doing this? What's your motive?

You ask:

>>Why is an atheist so interested in this subject?<<

I am motivated to voice my opinion on this forum by an intense dislike of attacks, of any type, on any religion. The fact that I am also an atheist has no bearing whatsoever on this personal view, since I don't speak for anyone except myself.

You can add an inability to count, OP2, alongside your inability to answer simple questions.

>>Pericles, Two questions I wanted to know.<<

I counted at least four, possibly six or even seven, depending upon your definition of the word "question"..

>>Why is an atheist so interested in this subject?<<

See previous post.

>>Haven't you made your decision?<<

If you mean "am I sure that I am an atheist?" the answer is yes, I am sure. And I have been since I was around ten years old.

>>What is your definition of an atheist?<<

My definition is someone who rejects the notion that there is a God. Fairly normal.

>>...couldn't I compare religions with mushroom farming. Keeping them in the dark and feeding them compost?<<

Strictly speaking, that's two more questions, although you left out the question mark in between them so I suppose you could count it as one.

Yes, of course you may do so, if that is your opinion. That is what opinion forums are for, after all.

What I have been commenting on is your bully-boy tactics. Where you use your questions to bludgeon Christianity into a position of submission. Where you try to force it to say "yes yes, OP2, you are right, there are inconsistencies in the Bible", and then fall at your feet begging forgiveness for being so misguided.

It's the same tone of voice that the whack-a-mozzie brigade use when "discussing" the Qur'an.

I dislike it just as much.

>>Why are you so happy to keep them uninformed/misinformed and unquestioning?<<

That's not a question, it's a statement with a question mark at the end. You're fond of those. But I will say, that it is not up to you to decide what others may or may not believe.

>>What do you gain from pretending to be on their side?<<

Another non-question. For the record, a) I'm not pretending anything, b) I'm not on anybody's "side", I am simply voicing an opinion and c) the only thing I gain is a vague sense of having done the right thing in defending liberty against tyranny.

Hi OP2

In my book 'What I have Written' I stated the death of Herod the Great as 3BC based on,

Keller, Werner. The Bible as History. Hodder & Stroughton, 1975

I no longer have a copy of Keller to check. If someone offered evidence that the date was between 4 BC and 1 BC I would not dispute it. The essence is that the Bible refers to 'Herod' as if it where one person when there where three 'Herods'.

I tend to want to understand the essence rather than the detail. As soon as it degenerates into detail it becomes volume upon volume of details that completely bury the essence. This is what tends to happen in OLO.

It becomes like a murderer pleading not guilty of murdering his mother-in-law on Wednesday the 3rd of November because he had actually done it on the 4th. This is the reason why the police charge is 'on or about.' So Herod the Great died 'on or about' 3 BC.

Nothing changes. He still died. And there where still three Herods during the life of Jesus.

I don't think Christians are misinformed. How could they miss the information unless they simple do not want to know? If that is the case there is not much to be done.

It is a pity because I would like to see the end of the insanity of Christianity/Judaism/Islam. I would like to see the end of it because it has caused so much suffering in this world, and continues to do so. And all the suffering happens with 'God' as the excuse which is the ultimate blasphemy

Pericles,

>>Unlike your alternative version of the crucifixion, there is no evidence - even circumstantial - of a link between Jesus and the stuff that was written about him.<<

There may not have been any evidence prior to 1947, but the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls changed everything. Even though Christian scholars have tried desperately to prove that these were all written 200 years before Jesus and now a Jewish scholar, Rachel Elior, says that they were not even written by Essenes, but by Sadducees in the 2nd century BCE, I accept that the relevant scrolls, called the pesharim, have been shown by Barbara Thiering, from internal evidence, to have been written in the 1st century CE. I also accept that she has shown that the two main characters in these scrolls, the Teacher of Righteousness and the Wicked Priest, refer to John the Baptist and Jesus respectively.

>>In fact, given the significant discrepancies between versions, is not more likely that there was no written history at all, merely word-of-mouth campfire stories? If such a scribe existed, and did indeed do his scribing as you... err, describe, would you not expect a greater degree of similarity in the stories?<<

Given that in these scrolls the writers used the pesher to reveal the hidden, contemporary meaning of OT scriptures, Jesus would have been well acquainted with this method. The discrepancies and contradictions in the Gospels are a signal to the discerning reader to look for a hidden meaning, and by applying the pesher Dr Thiering has revealed this meaning and all the discrepancies and contradictions disappear.