dawnbreak wrote:
I don't know what i am.
I don't like organized religion but I quite like jesus
I also at times of trouble ....look to the skies and ask for help.
So I can't be an atheist then can I?
Perhap I'm just agnostic?
G'day Dawnbreak.
Which 'Jesus' ?
Josephus, the first century historian, mentions 19 different ‘Jesus’ characters … for example, Jesus ben Phiabi, Jesus ben Sec, Jesus ben Damneus and Jesus ben Gamaliel. Yet there is no recording of any ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ … maybe because Nazareth didn’t exist prior to the second century.
www.jesusneverexisted.com/surfeit.htm
Many of the 38,000 + christian denominations claim that 'Jesus' actually is 'God' ... the whole 'Trinity' trip. Now if we accept this possibility, then 'Jesus' is 'God' and what 'God' does in the bible can also be attributed to 'Jesus'.
Interestingly enough, 'God' / 'Jesus', who is supposedly all loving, in the bible kills over 2 million people (plus everyone except Noah and his family in the great flood - which scientifically is a ridiculous notion as there isn't enough water on the planet to cover every mountain range), while the supposed evil entity, 'Satan', is recorded as only having killed 10 people.
Here's a snippet from The Papal Billions, by the author Tony Bushby, that explains how the christian religion got its biblical text and new deity 'Jesus' ...
"It was Emperor Constantine who created Christianity, and how he did it provides an extraordinary story, one that has been constantly suppressed by Vatican censors (Confessions of a Vatican Archivist). Church records note that among presbyterian factions, 'strife had grown so serious, vigorous action was necessary to establish a more religious state' (Life of Constantine, iii, 26-8, Bishop Eusebius Pamphilius of Caesarea, c. 335) but he could not bring about a settlement between rival god-factions. Constantine 'never acquired a solid theological knowledge' and 'depended heavily on his advisers in religious questions' (Catholic Encyclopedia, New ed. xii, p. 576, passim). They warned him that the presbyter's religions were 'destitute of foundations' (ibid) and needed official stabilization. Constantine saw in this confused system of fragmented dogmas the opportunity to create a new and combined State religion neutral in concept, and protected it by law. When he conquored the East in 324 he sent his Spanish religious advisor, Osius of Cordoba, to Alexandria with letters to several bishops exhorting them to make peace among themselves. 'For as long as you continue to contend about your various gods and insignificant questions, it is not fitting that a portion of God's people should be under the direction of yourjudgement, as you are divided among yourselves' (Life of Constantine, ii, 69-71; Bishop Eusebius Pamphilius of Caesarea (c. 335), N&PNF. i, 516-7).
The mission failed and Constantin, probably at the suggestion of Osius, then issued a Decree commanding all presbyters and their subordinates 'be mounted on asses, mules and horses belonging to the public, and travel to the city of Nicaea' (Theological Tracts, On Councils, Vol. 3 (of 6), London, 1791) in the Roman Province of Bithymia, a country of Asia. They were instructed to bring with them the testimonies ('nonsense vellum', Celsus) they orated to the rabble, 'bound in hide' (The Catholic Encyclopedia, Addis and Arnold, 'Council of Nicaea', 1917) for protection during the long journey, and surrender them to Constantine upon arrival in Nicaea. Their writings totalled, 'in all, two thousand two hundred and thirty one scrolls and legendary tales of gods and saviours, together with a record of the doctrines orated by them' (Life of Constantine, ii, p. 173, Bishop Eusebius Pamphilius of Caesarea (c. 355), N&PNF. i, p. 518, Prof. S.L. MacGuire's trans, Salisbury, 1921).
Thus, the first ecclesiastical gathering in history was summoned and today it is known as the Council of Nicaea. It was a bizarre event that provided many details of early clerical thinking and presents a clear picture of the intellectual phenomena prevailing at the time. It was at this gathering that Christianity was born, and the ramifications of decisions made at that time are difficult to calculate. Because Constantine was a sun-worshipper, he instructed Eusebius Pamphilius to convene the first of the three sittings on the Summer Solstice, June 21st, 325 (Catholic Encyclopedia, New ed, i, p. 792), and it was 'held in a hall in Osius's' palace (Ecclesiastical History, Bishop Louis Dupin, i, p. 598). When speaking of the conclave of presbyters gathered at Nicaea, Sabinius, Bishop of Hereclea, who was in attendance, said in an account of the proceedings:
Excepting Constantine himself, and Eusebius Pamphilius, they were a set of illiterate, simple creatures who understood nothing.
(Secrets of the Christian Fathers, Bishop J.W. Sergerus, 1685, reprint 1897)"
Pages 21-22.
"The Church admits that vital elements of the proceedings at Nicaea are 'strangely absent from the cannons' (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley Ed., iii, p. 160) and we shall see shortly what happened to them. However, using records that endured Eusebius, 'occupied the first seat on the right of the emperor and delivered the inaugural address on the emperor's behalf' (Catholic Encyclopedia, Farley Ed., v, pp. 619-620). There were no british presbyters at the council (Catholic Encyclopedia Farley Ed., xv, p. 582) but many Greek delegates. 'Seventy eastern bishops' represented Asiatic factions (Ecclesiastical History, Bishop Louis Dupin, Vol. i, p. 598), Caecilian of Carthage traveled from Africa; Paphnutius from Egypt, Nicasius of Die from Gaul and Dommus of Stridon made the journey from Pannonia. Important for our story is the fact that a large number of Nabatean Arabs were in attendance, and they were lead by Simon of Petra. Shortly we will learn how his name appeared in the New testament.
It was at that puerile assembly, and under cult conditions, that a total of 318 'bishop's, priests, deacons, sub-deacons, acolytes and exorcists' (Apology for Christianity, Dr. Richard Watson, 1796) gathered to debate and decide upon a unified belief system that encompassed only one god. By this time a huge assortment of 'wild texts' (Catholic Encyclopedia, New Ed., 'Gospel and Gospels') circulated amongst presbyters, and the supported a great variety of Eastern and Western Gods and Goddesses; Ares, Apollo, Hermes, Atermis, Zeus, Athena, 'the Sun and the Moon (Acts of Phillip, 1:1), Mars, Jove, Mithra, Krishna, Bel (Baal), Attis, Odin, Tammuz, Indra, Promethius, Hurcules, Janus, Sin, Doinysius, Bacchus, Jupiter, Diana, Alcestos, the Divine Julius, Serapis, Isis, Osiris.
Up until the Council of Nicaea, Roman aristocracy primarily worshipped two Greek gods, Apollo and Zues, but the great bulk of common people idolized either Julius Caesar or Mithra. Caesar was deified by the Roman senate after his death (d. 15th March 44 B.C.) and subsequently venerated as the Divine Julius. The word 'saviour' was affixed to his name, it's literal meaning being, 'one who sows the seed', i.e. a phallic god. Caesar was hailed as 'God made manifest and universal Saviour of human life', and his successor, Augustus was called the 'ancestral God and saviour of the whole human race' (Man and his Gods, Homer Smith, Little, Brown and Co., Boston, 1952). Emperor Nero (37-68), who's original name was L.Domitius Ahenobarbus, was immortalized on his coins as the 'Saviour of mankind' (ibid). Because the Divine Julius was Roman Saviour and 'Father of the Empire', he was considered god among the Roman rabble for more than 300 years. He was the deity in some Western presbyters texts, but was not recognised in Eastern or Oriental writings.
Constantine's intention at Nicaea was to, 'create an entirely new god for his Empire' (Confessions of a Vatican Archivist) that would unite all religious factions under one deity, and presbyters were asked to debate and decide who their new god would be. Delegates argued among themselves, expressing personal motives for inclusion for particular writings that promoted the finer traits of their own special divinity. Throughout the meeting, howling factions were immersed in heated debates, and the names of 53 gods were tabled for discussion; 'As yet, the new God had not been selected by the council, and so they balloted, in oder to determine the matter; for one year and five months the balloting lasted' (God's Book of Eskra, xlviii, 26-53 Prof. S.L MacGuire's trans, Salisbury, 1921).
At the end of the time, Constantine returned to the gathering to discover that the presbyters had not agreed on a new deity, but had balloted down to a short list of five prospects, namely, Caesar, Krishna, Mithra, Horus, and Zeus. Constantine was the ruling spirit at Nicaea and he ultimately decided upon the new god for them. To involve British factions he ruled that the name of the mighty Druid God, Hesus (crucified in Britian and later restored to life), be joined with the Eastern saviour - god, Krishna (Krishna is Sanskrit for Christ), and thus a caricature, or the personification of an ideal, Hesus Krishna, would be the name of the new Roman God. A vote was taken, and it was with a majority show of hands that both divinities became one god ... 161 to 157. Following long-standing heathen customs, Constantine used the official gathering and the Roman Apotheoses Decree to legally deify two deities as one, and did so by democratic consent. A new God was proclaimed and 'officially ratified by Constantine' (Acta Councilii Niceni, Colon, 1618). That purely political act of deification effectively, and legally, placed Hesus and Krishna among the Roman Gods as one individual composition. That abstraction leant earthly existence to amalgamated doctrines for the Empire's new religion, an wen the letter "J" was introduced into alphabets around the ninth century, the linguistic relic of the name became Jesus Christ."
Pages 23 - 25.
The Papal Billions
Tony Bushby
... and there's more, so much more, that shows the religious beliefs to be fabrications molded from earlier stories. For instance, the flood myth ...
The flood myth motif is widespread among many cultures as seen in the Mesopotamian flood stories, the Puranas, Deucalion in Greek mythology, the Genesis flood narrative, and even in the lore of the K'iche' and Maya peoples of Central America.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deluge_%28mythology%29
Yet, even disregarding the Old Testament and the tales it tells (such as Jonah living for three days inside a fish), what evidence do we have for the biblical 'Jesus'. The only 'evidence' (and I use that term in its loosest sense) that is claimed for the existence of the biblical 'Jesus' is the god-spells ... ooops, gospels. Here's a short clip from the documentary The God Who Wasn't There ...
... so no first-hand accounting for the biblical character known of as 'Jesus'. The 'Catholic Church' even admits that they don't know who actually wrote the gospels and therefore can't verify the authorship of them, let alone the accuracy of the stories within them.
How about we examine the claims that 'Jesus' was the 'messiah' ...
1) Matthew 1:23 says that the 'Messiah' would be called Immanuel, which means "God with us". Yet no one, not even his parents, call him Immanuel at any point in the bible.
2) The Messiah must be a physical descendant of David (Romans 1:3 & Acts 2:30). Yet, how could Jesus meet this requirement since his genealogies in Matthew 1 and Luke 3 show he descended from David through Joseph, who was not his natural father because of the Virgin Birth.
www.evilbible.com/jesus_false.htm
So really, who is this 'Jesus' character portrayed within the christian religion and christian religious texts ?
Anyway, to answer the thread title, I do not consider myself an atheist. At most, I would state that I am non-theist. 
