Pete

Scary scenario. Luckily we don't get that so much except when Abortion and Gay rights is mentioned. However, they do not have a majority anymore. It's more so in Northern Ireland. Yet,we do get Bishops sitting in the house of Lords. I have seen some of the people from the US bible belt and think it would be awful to live there. When I went to New York and got a taxi through Queens the drivers had evangelical sermons on his radio night and day, he proudly told us. I thought talk about brainwashing.

I had hope to point out the main Socialist/Communist groups. Democratic socialism is responsible for giving us the national health service, schools, work rights, and pensions and many positive things across Europe. Communism scares me whether its state Capitalism or Trotskyites. Russia/China is not something that we feel comfortable with. Like religion it's there way or no way.

Communism is a difficult one as it means something different according to the country. For China and Russia to a lesser extent it is just organising the country as if one big factory with the dictatorial leaders at the top and a pretence that it is some how democratic. In the UK the communist party has reshaped itself as a Socialist party trying to redistribute the wealth so everyone gets a share. I am not a member because it still supports Russia and China in many ways. However it has moved as it used to celebrate Stalin in the 70s and now criticizes even Putin. Other socialist parties vary between the Trotskyites who want all out revolution and democratic socialism which supports businesses and Capitalism. Although although the later is secular it's not against anyone's freedom of religion and is ruled by the electorate. Its main concern is the 20 trillion pound tax avoidance and the fact everyone else is suffering Austerity. It does not seek revulsion and has criticism of both Russia and China. The biggest party Labour Is a bit like the Democrates. So if it is a religion I am not sure how you would define it. For some maybe and for others not so. The Trotskyites I feel maybe as they believe that everything will be wonderful if they destroy Capitalism and as far as I see is that they want to be in charge. They are rigid in their politics and get angry if challenged. I think that makes them a bit like a religion. Its complicated.

That makes sense ✌ If you can't prove it. You cannot see it or see it reacting to other things then there is no evidence that it is there. So what is the point of putting mythical properties on it. It does not make it more convincing.

It just got the more the argues go on the more tenuous and oddball it all gets and you step back and think this is ridiculous. Well that is what happened to me. I have talked about slavery, killing non virgin wives, and killing neighbouring towns all because a preacher was preach a differing message, killing your children for following a differing religion and Paul's real lack of engagement with those who met Jesus and all this gets justified. He even swaps sayings by Paul as sayings by Jesus. I am sure he will come back but I got to see the religion through him and it all got so difficult to swallow until I realised I just cannot be part of this and realised I was agnostic.

Yet, even that evidence is flawed. Dan won't agree but the whole thing contradicts in my view. If an all powerful god wanted to pass on a message using this book then they made a really poor effort.

Dan said -The scriptures are the best evidence of themselves. I had to laugh at that comment because I believe they are the best evidence that it is a nonsense. I mean we have an edited and rewritten and altered set of gospels written by who knows who and many letters by people who never met this Jesus. If you take the story of Robin Hood which has also been written many times and film makers have told many versions of the tale and yet, the story is fiction and you would probably, rich or poor, have been robbed by outlaws in Sherwood forest but the story is still false and there is no evidence that Robin ever existed. Robin Hood never existed. The story is no evidence that he did. Now the gospels are no evidence that Jesus existed or the gospels are true.

The bible is no conclusive evidence at all. It gathers from afar. The dating is from the areas they first appeared and the style and location of the scribes. Most comes from what is modern day Turkey and Rome. There is no evidence that anyone in the NT ever met Jesus and books like Peter's 1&2 are thought of as later frauds. James is possibly a connection and his view differs from that of Paul. I don't expect it to mention 75AD because it's not about the persecution ofJudaism and is about the legend of Jesus. Sorry Dan I don't accept your view or analysis or you turning a no religion section of the forum into you pulpit. It was arguing you witch finally convinced me Christianity had no foundation beyond myth and bible worship.

Other than not believing in a god there is nothing that connects one atheist to another. How that can be described as a belief system I don't know. Many don't believe Santa Claus is real. Under that definition that must be a belief system too. No, it is more like some want atheism to be seen as a religion as they share. That to me is a nonsense. I mean, how do you have a belief system in something you don't recognise exists to have a belief about?

It is often a piece of fundies logic to say the bible is true so all history and science must be bent around it. Luckily, most historians and scientists are not convinced of this argument.

No scholar worth their salt believe the gospels were all written by 75 AD. If we say that the crucifixion was around 30-33 AD. Then it took another 30 years for mark to be written. 60 years for Matthew and then Luke to be written. Around 80-90 years for John to be written and Acts is thought to be well into the second century. There are later and a little earlier dates, but none think they were all written by 75 AD.:- https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gospel Therefore some of Paul's writtings were ealier than some of the gospels. Mark's gospel may have been before 75 AD but that is thought to have originated in Rome and not Jerusalem. I believe Dan your figures are another attempt for fundies to twist the history to confim what they want to believe. Now I am not denying that there were other churches with varying opinion but I am saying the Roman Empires church forced their view upon they and decided what was to be accepted or not. They then crushed what they deemed not acceptable to them. They set about stating what is to be believed or not. That was also backed up with violence.

Dan your missing in the first century that there was differing views. If not what was paul Railing against. The gospel writers have no traceable connection with the disciples and the gospels were modified, edited, and rewritten many times over the years since being written. The names of the gospels were added later. No one knows who the authors of Mark and Matthew were. All you have is a theory they may have connection. Luke and John, are Paulian influenced There were followers who stay as judaism, others liked Paul and others still disagreed with Paul. Some saw Jesus as god, some as just a teacher, some as a man who was one of many so called prophets. No, it was the church of rome who put what was to be the official or not. They then killed opponents and exiled others to die and just left to rot in the dessert. Rome killed everyone who lived in Jerusalem in 75AD. So there are no witnesses. It all comes down to your chosen belief and nothing more. Even among the founding fathers there was a frustration at the constant gospel changes and that the originals were lost. Destroyed by the scribes. You have a belief and that is all

I am not conflating anything. All churches have evolved from the church in the Roman empire. The RCC is the reminent of the Empires church. Much has grown from many differing opinions to that of which the church authorises. Even the nature of Jesus was a debate. Was Jesus God or the receptical of God, or was he still man and God spoke three him? These were debated and then resolved often with violence. Hence the belief that Jesus was God and Man evolved. Belief in Salvation has also developed. Belief that you need to be in gods church on earth or belief in scripture and more later only belief in Jesus came to the fore or all of the above. I know the later was Paul's view but his view was not the only view in the early days. You can say what you like about your view but it is just an evolutionary conglomerate of history and church synthesis. The produce of many voices and debate and many times violence.

There is a lot of power over believers and profit. Some of the church that established the bible never were short of, even to this day. In the past they could even bring down kings and queens by coordinating their loyalist fellows. Some king endured a whipping just to apologise to the Roman church. They were for a long time the biggest force in Europe and North Africa. Why would they make this up? Because the church profited from it. I give one example. When they were building the Vatican they came across a skeleton. Without further proof and evidence the Pope declared it was Peter and this added credibility to the church and loads of tourists. The skeleton could actually be anyone.

It is likely that Paul did exist and I am sure some of the disciples did exist. Paul never met Jesus or had much to do with the disciples. My comments are about no one having conclusive proof how they died. I also don't trust the writers of the bible to be accurate in their views. Hence I don't trust the bible. When you look at James and Paul they don't exactly gel. Also many scholars don't believe Paul some his letter and Peter 1 and 2 are not thought written by Peter. It's a mess. I know some believe it all but I don't support this. If Jesus did exist, what his message was is not proved by the NT.

There is also no evidence of the deaths of the disciples. John for instance. Many who do believe think that the John the disciple, John the gospel writer, John the letter writer and John of Revelations are different people. Such as the lack of actual knowledge of the disciples and their lives. As for the book of Acts I believe it is a complete work of fiction to include Paul. It even contradicts Paul. Any report of their deaths has to be questioned in the light of no evidence for any of it.⁸ What acts does show is the ability of the church to create stuff. I agree though that the Church did persecute people who disagreed from the start and well beyond the middle ages.

All Jews and Christians were persecuted in the first and second centuries. It was after Constantine that the church and Constantine persecuted anyone who had a differing take on Christianity and especially the Jews.

Dan 😴😴😴 This is your belief. You have no proof of any of it being fact. Yet, you talk as if fact. All this shows more evidence that you cannot prove anything.

Yet, that contradicts the bible. Paul had a man brought back life after he fell out of the window and Peter healed people. Are we saying some parts are true and not others or is Dan saying it's all true. Not that I really want to know.

It's just hype and drama. If your saying Jesus was the son of god and he was killed you can't just say that was it. I know lets say the dead walked, the sky darkened and the temple curtains tore and oh! Let's also say he rose again. There that will grab their attentions and is fitting a god. Don't worry what the Jews in Jerusalem say, they are all dead in 74 ad. because Rome killed them all.

Outside of the bible there is no record of this. So I guess even the Jews did notice dead walking or indeed the darkness. There is a lot of this hype and traumatizing in the bible. Jesus talking to the 5000 for example. This was pre megaphone days. The most I have spoken too was 200 without a megaphone and even then there were people who did not here me and Jesus is then recorded as feeding them all. I just don't see it myself

So basically your saying only those who believe it happened saw some zombies and none other than bible writers record this. Crazy stuff.

And it has been proved Josephus and Tacitus to be doctored entries. As for your talk on Religion, people are free to talk about why they don't believe in a none religious forum but preaching it is religious. That is religious.

Same here. I thought it more liberal and then I saw them burn a young girl alive because she went to church. I hate some religious people.

I am not interested in a new religion. Consequences religions just seem to control freaks.