Your Name Here=Harvey wrote:

Programs which question established views and sciences
should be applauded because it means reviewing and
questioning what is taken for granted....

Except that these made for tv, phony, docudramas, do no
questioning, they just tell the believers what they want to
hear. Most, if not all, of these pseudo documentaries give
real science only a few seconds in an hour program. Balance
is not in their vocabulary, there's no money in it.

Revolutionary new items can come about by re-analysing
what has been accepted and branch out in a new science,
in what was previously thought of as being impossible or
silly.

Highly doubtful.

Where do you draw the line on skepticism, and proof?

At proof.

Are all religions to be discarded because there is never
adequate proof for their basis of belief?

Yes. Duh!

Are the bible and other ancient documents to be regarded
merely as fiction, since there are so many outrageous
claims in them which cannot be proven to be true.

Yes.

Should the view that there is no life in the hereafter be
taught in schools because there can never be any
reasonable proof that life exists beyond death.

Of course. Why would you even need to ask such questions?
--
David V.

UDP for WebTV

In article <Q-Cdnf6Wo5k7cUfdRVn-uw@sti.net>,

Your Name Here=Harvey wrote:

bv_schornak wrote:

David V. wrote:

bv_schornak wrote:

Erich von Däniken was the first who spoke about
these things. Some of his thesis' are obvious,
some are nonsense, as he did admit later on
himself. To pretend we're the only intelligent
species in this Universe is closing our eyes.

Pretending aliens have visited here is even more
nonsensical.

I'm not really sure about that. Some strange things
could be explained with alien visitors...

Not until you find direct, empirical, evidence of those
visitors.

- why shouldn't there be other species on a higher
"level of development" than the Homo Sapiens?

That's a strawman argument.

Do you think we are the only intelligent lifeform in
this Universe?

That's just another strawman argument.

Seen from this point of view, many ancient
writings will make more sense. But it is damned
hard to give any proof for these theories...

The reason it's hard to find evidence, or proof, is
because they are not theories, but conjecture
based on an a priori assumption.

I agree: It is speculation.

It's worse than speculation. It's pure junk science.

But von Däniken tried to keep it on a scientific
base.

He did no such thing.

His conclusion is questionable - he was too much
biased by his own ideas.

His motives, science, intelligence, and veracity, are
all questionable.

The problem with any serious researcher showing interest
in the unexplained, is that they put their career on the
line.

Which is a lie. That's what scientists do is research the
unexplained. Now if they start investigating the fanciful
conjecture of the ufo nuts and their ilk, yes, your career
is on the line.

The classic case for this is Dr Morris K Jessup - he
wrote 'UFO and the Bible' and 'The Case for the UFO'....

Yes, that is a good example. People erroneously assumed
because the guy claimed he had a doctorate that he knew what
he was talking about. Since no one UFO has been discovered,
or any evidence of one being here has been discovered, and
the bible is purely a religious text containing mythology it
is useless as a source for anything else but that, his
credibility and sanity, has been, and should be, questioned.

This can happen in archeology as mentioned in the TV
documentary 'Forbidden Archaeology'.....

True again. Any scientist, or researcher, involved with
those types of shows should be run out of town.

However with children growing up with science fiction
being a stable entertainment interest, the scientists of
tomorrow (as of now onwards) will be familiar with the
concept of finding ancient technology on earth...

And once they get an education those fantasies, and lies,
fade away.
--
David V.

UDP for WebTV

Programs which question established views and sciences should
be applauded because it means reviewing and questioning what is
taken for granted. Just something has been believed in for so long,
does not necessarily mean it is the correct view.
The established view gets established over time, by people not ripping
it apart and analysing it so very closely.

Revolutionary new items can come about by re-analysing what has been
accepted and branch out in a new science, in what was previously thought
of as being impossible or silly.

Where do you draw the line on skepticism, and proof?

Are all religions to be discarded because there is never adequate
proof for their basis of belief?

Are the bible and other ancient documents to be regarded merely as
fiction, since there are so many outrageous claims in them which
cannot be proven to be true.

Should the view that there is no life in the hereafter be taught in
schools because there can never be any reasonable proof that life
exists beyond death.

bv_schornak wrote:

Erich von Däniken was the first who spoke about these
things. Some of his thesis' are obvious, some are
nonsense, as he did admit later on himself. To pretend
we're the only intelligent species in this Universe is
closing our eyes.

Pretending aliens have visited here is even more nonsensical.

Seen from this point of view, many ancient writings will
make more sense. But it is damned hard to give any proof
for these theories...

The reason it's hard to find evidence, or proof, is because
they are not theories, but conjecture based on an a priori
assumption.
--
David V.

UDP for WebTV

In article <cb2jj3$rsd$01$1@news.t-online.com>,

Roger Pearse wrote:

Your Name Here=Harvey <you@somewhere.not.aus> wrote in message

news:<%sKAc.3143$NA1.323564@news02.tsnz.net>...

In article <94210c86.0406181024.74062e7a@posting.google.com>,
jwsheffield@satx.rr.com says...

Your Name Here=Harvey <you@somewhere.not.aus> wrote in message

news:<EioAc.2962$NA1.307618@news02.tsnz.net>...

In article <94210c86.0406171042.13171e94@posting.google.com>,
jwsheffield@satx.rr.com says...

Your Name Here=Harvey <you@somewhere.not.aus> wrote in message

news:<Jb7Ac.2866$NA1.293798@news02.tsnz.net>...

In article <94210c86.0406161133.3f12c510@posting.google.com>,
jwsheffield@satx.rr.com says...

bv_schornak <

news:<cai8qp$ops$06$1@news.t-online.com>...

Jim Sheffield wrote:

bv_schornak <

news:<cag9m2$me2$03$1@news.t-online.com>...

Yep. We dumb pagans are stupid enough to read some additional
literature to get informed, e.g. the Nag Hammadi scrolls. Try
"The Treatise of the Great Seth". There Jesus reports himself
about his crucifixion.

Why should we suppose these documents -- codices, not scrolls -- have
anything to do with Jesus?

The content is telling so? Perhaps you should read these
texts, first - I gave a link to the genuine translations
in one of the previous postings. After _reading_ them we
may discuss what is wrong with their contents.

Unfortunately - the Church never could
get these scrolls, they survived the big cleansing during the
councils.

No such events occurred. In the manuscript era, when any reader could
be a writer, such things were pointless. Edicts were published
sometimes, but there is no evidence they were effective. Censorship
of this kind had to wait until the inventing of printing and the
Spanish Inquisition.

The Spanish Inqusition was a local phenomenon. They only
resumed what others did before. The Inquisitors were not
Christians, I guess?

BTW: These scrolls were lost 150 A.D., years before
your quoted documents were written.

The Nag Hammadi volumes are 4th century or later. Evidently these
texts were not 'lost' in 150AD -- many probably weren't even written
then.

All twelve sites I've visited to find a translation were
lying about the date? This is the _official_ website for
the library: <http://www.nag-hammadi.com/index.html>.

BTW: Irenaeus (120 - 203 AD) mentions these documents in
a letter - how could he _know_ them if they were written
220 years later???

Irenaeus of Lyons circa 180 A.D. and Tertullian of Cathage circa

200
A.D.

refuted the ancient heretics, they pointed out the unity of the
texts of the churches as opposed to the heretics and dared people
go to the ancient churches to see if they were correct. Today, you
can go to your local Bible society and check out the ancient

versions

for yourself.

How can you get a genuine version of a text - if it was
falsified 1,800 years ago?

It is easy to allege forgery. I prefer evidence.

Do we need more evidence than your reply? The leaders of
the Church were not much different, they also made facts
match to their credo.

[Side note: You had all possibilities to get information
about the topics in this sub-thread. Therefore I assume,
that your _false_ statements are written intentionally.]

The only known genuine texts
which survived the "update" of the Church were found in
Nag Hammadi and Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls - some of them
disappered misteriously after they were deciphered).

This is all nonsense, I'm afraid. The Nag Hammadi texts never
belonged to the church, while the Dead Sea scrolls form part of
Judaism, not Christianity. Conspiracy theories about the latter are
all nonsense -- read up the recent court cases (online) about them to
find out what was going on.

You surely have a link? Google did not find them while I
was searching data for that reply. BTW - we are speaking
of scientific (historical) data, nothing else!

Good question! Any one text can be forged, but when you get
different texts in different languages and different areas.
it is a different story. As a matter of fact, Nag Hammadi
documents supports, the work of Irenaeus circa 180 A.D. on the
gnostics. Tertullian of Carthage circa 200 A.D. writes against
the perpetual virginity of Mary. Bishps Cyprian, Firmmian, Novation,
and others write against the Pope all of the second century. The
Coptic texts of Southern and Northern Egypt differ in the Northern
has the woman in Adultery, the Southern does not. In the Churches
of the East, only the little Melikite Church of Gallilee supported
Rome. Churches, such as the Marionites, joined Rome during the
first Chrusade for protection. The great Aramaic Peshitta doesn't
have the women in Adultery, Revelation, Jude II Peter, I + II
John. In Fact, the Fourth Council of Carthage told il papa that
Revelation was received from the Fathers. Your theory that Rome in

the

4th century changed all the texts of the Churches doesn't fit
the facts. I really suggest that you go to your local Bible Society
and check out the ancient versions for yourself. You could also
read the 10 volume Ante-Nicean Fathers(i.e. that is befor Nicea 325

A.D.)

it is published by Eerdams and is also on the web.

What the church didn't agree with, they burned.

Evidence?

And they burned whatever ancient texts they could get hold of, and

burned

them too.

Evidence? You perhaps don't know that almost all classical literature
that survives was copied by the church? Including Julian the Apostate
and Petronius?

So it was easier for them to "update" some genuine texts
with their own "truth"? Most of the world's cultural do-
cuments were destroyed because of their "Pagan nature" -
by Christians, not by those called "Pagans".

This applied to anything the church didn't agree with.

I think you confuse the medieval church with modern atheist regimes,
who did indeed pursue such policies. Indeed I have been told that the
Soviet tyranny issued one of its history books loose-leaf, so updates
could be made! (I hope it's merely a joke..)

It's not a joke. They learned well from others.

Cultures and libraries of new territories.

They wanted complete and total control.

This is hopelessly anachronistic, and indeed rather hateful. Such
structures did not and could not exist in the looser-knit societies of
the ancient world.

Of course not - the Egyptians never destroyed everything
reminding of Amenhotep IV (about 1350 years before Rabbi
Jesus started to battle the Roman occupation forces). It
wasn't common practise to erase all traces of people who
was declared to be "un-persons" in ancient societies. It
makes me wonder why I reply to someone trying to fool me
and all other readers of this NG...

Strange that they were persecuted in setting up their own church,
and when in power, excecuted their own persecution.

So much for spirituality and godliness.

In view of the tens of millions killed by atheists in the last hundred
years, so much for atheism.

A good excuse for murderers: "I did it, because they all
kill people out there..."

Unfortunately, I do not support the killing of any human
being. Neither Christians nor anyone else (your Atheists
were followers of both - the Christian and Anti-Theist -
ideologies in reality) has a right to kill a human!

Stange the attacks against the pope weren't burned and we do
have quoes of Celsus and Porphyry of Tyre. The fact is areas
such as Persia and India would have been impossible for any
Church to remove all documents. When the teachers of the schools
of Greece left, they published no tracts refuting the four Gospels in

Persia.

In fact there was no way all texts against Christianty could be
destroyed. Why don't you read what I suggested, so your responses
fit the empirical evidence better. I don't care what you believe,
I want to see your evidence.

A good question.

Probably your "arguments" are not really good, otherwise
you would have replied to the follow ups of this post...

I was thinking specifically of the South America with the Spanish there,
where christian missionaries burned much of the Aztec culture and
history -

Surely. But here we're talking about the Inquisition. They did the
same to Christians, you know.

No one was talking about the Inquisition - except you.

and this was fairly standard of christian missionaries in general for a
long time, not only for that part of the world.

Nonsense. Don't state these lies as fact, unless you choose to
encourage hate and violence -- only a few years ago Hindu fanatics
burned an Australian missionary and his family to death as they slept
in their Landrover, while mouthing similar slogans.

See above. One crime does not legalise _any_ other crime
commited later on. Perhaps you shouldn't post such BS to
talk.philosophy.humanism (where a human's life is valued
much higher than _any_ ideology)?

One really can't ignore what happened in history, as regards the times
in which the bible has passed, nor what was done in the name of god, the

bible

and the church. How ordinary folk were not allowed to even read the

bible,

and for the bible to translated into English, so that common people could
read it? That was not sensible to do at all.

It is quite sensible if you're a government. Christians, of course,
objected.

People could neither read nor write until the compulsary
schooling was adopted (in the 18th / 19th century in the
German kingdoms).

And you have the holy wars to account for, whereupon bloodshed was
shed for many many years and as many lives lost. All for what?

Mostly for power, you know. Is every politician who claims to be
'green' sincere? If not, do you suppose that politicans who claimed
to be 'Christian' were?

How many humans were killed by those "green" politicians
because they wanted to increase their might? Christians,
the "chosen elite of humanity" (as they title themselves
too often) did - the ratio only can be calculated if you
use the "greens" as dividend, otherwise the "devision by
zero" message pops up...

I'm sorry I don't have exact dates and figures for you, etc.
But they are all documented and recorded in the history of this planet,
that is readily found.

Indeed it is... Unfortunately it doesn't altogether chime with what
was posted above.

Must be the case, if you pick the oldest posting in this
thread and reply to three people at the same time?

I was born and raised in Rhode Island where the Puritan Roger Williams
declared religious liberty for all. Read Foxe's Book of Martyrs' that
tells of the Christian fight against the Inquition, but when atheists
like Stalin and Mao got power they made the Inquisition look good.
The fact is you sre dodgeing the issue, The Bible was what defeated
the Caears and il papa. The Bible is opposed by all tyrants. Atheusts
like Stalin and Mao were against it. The Bibles of the Coptic Churches
of Egypt, the Aramaic Peshitta of the Assyrian Church, the Armenian Bible,
the Greek Bible, and others of Churches that never came under the yoke
of Rome kept the Faith alive during the dark ages. It was the tanslation
of the Greek Bibles of Erasmus that agree about 95% with the texts of
the Greek Churches that caused the Reformation. Yes, this is history
that you are avoiding. Now! Name the ancient Resonse to Irenaeus of
Lyons circa 180 A.D. and Tertullian 200 A.D.!

No, I don't think the bible or christianity saved the whole world,
that it caused as much trouble as it helped.

In what way? Human beings screw each other. That has always been the
case. The bible tells them not to.

Yep, it's always the others who did it - we have a clean
slate, of course. The Japanese would call this behaviour
"bu rei"...

And it is keeping us - humanity from developing further into real
spirituality and awareness of all things.

This complaint is extraordinarily vague!

That is: You don't understand it. For me it makes sense.
Maybe "Harvey" will explain his words.

Realisation of truth is to be aware of all things - using the bible
as your one and only source, is not reliable, same with the viewpoint
of christianity. It is not the way and light as claimed.

I'm afraid this sounds like hippy nonsense to me, but you're welcome
to define and defend whatever might be meant by these vague words.

It has the stench of blood - as all exclusive ideologies
tend to have.


Greetings from Augsburg

Bernhard Schornak

True awareness or spirituality crosses all borders - and has allegiance
with nothing, except truth. If you're searching for truth and the bible,
with christianity - you may not like the answers that come up.

Of course killing people is against all laws, and using god as an excuse
to kill makes the crime, still a crime.

The USA is not correct in invading Iraq (the reasons they used for invasion
was not valid) and neither are the insurgents right to kill the invaders
who are only there for a short time.
Iraq never had stability in the first place, nor peace --- it was a country
in which thugs or brutal power ruled.
I know bringing this up, is completely off tangent, but such issues do
come up with discussing bible history and christianity - how such issues
were fudged by bringing religion into it.

That religion was hijacked a long time ago for power and control -
no matter what religion was present.

In article <cb2jj3$rsd$01$1@news.t-online.com>,

Roger Pearse wrote:

Your Name Here=Harvey <you@somewhere.not.aus> wrote in message

news:<%sKAc.3143$NA1.323564@news02.tsnz.net>...

In article <94210c86.0406181024.74062e7a@posting.google.com>,
jwsheffield@satx.rr.com says...

Your Name Here=Harvey <you@somewhere.not.aus> wrote in message

news:<EioAc.2962$NA1.307618@news02.tsnz.net>...

In article <94210c86.0406171042.13171e94@posting.google.com>,
jwsheffield@satx.rr.com says...

Your Name Here=Harvey <you@somewhere.not.aus> wrote in message

news:<Jb7Ac.2866$NA1.293798@news02.tsnz.net>...

In article <94210c86.0406161133.3f12c510@posting.google.com>,
jwsheffield@satx.rr.com says...

bv_schornak <

news:<cai8qp$ops$06$1@news.t-online.com>...

Jim Sheffield wrote:

bv_schornak <

news:<cag9m2$me2$03$1@news.t-online.com>...

Yep. We dumb pagans are stupid enough to read some additional
literature to get informed, e.g. the Nag Hammadi scrolls. Try
"The Treatise of the Great Seth". There Jesus reports himself
about his crucifixion.

Why should we suppose these documents -- codices, not scrolls -- have
anything to do with Jesus?

The content is telling so? Perhaps you should read these
texts, first - I gave a link to the genuine translations
in one of the previous postings. After _reading_ them we
may discuss what is wrong with their contents.

Unfortunately - the Church never could
get these scrolls, they survived the big cleansing during the
councils.

No such events occurred. In the manuscript era, when any reader could
be a writer, such things were pointless. Edicts were published
sometimes, but there is no evidence they were effective. Censorship
of this kind had to wait until the inventing of printing and the
Spanish Inquisition.

The Spanish Inqusition was a local phenomenon. They only
resumed what others did before. The Inquisitors were not
Christians, I guess?

BTW: These scrolls were lost 150 A.D., years before
your quoted documents were written.

The Nag Hammadi volumes are 4th century or later. Evidently these
texts were not 'lost' in 150AD -- many probably weren't even written
then.

All twelve sites I've visited to find a translation were
lying about the date? This is the _official_ website for
the library: <http://www.nag-hammadi.com/index.html>.

BTW: Irenaeus (120 - 203 AD) mentions these documents in
a letter - how could he _know_ them if they were written
220 years later???

Irenaeus of Lyons circa 180 A.D. and Tertullian of Cathage circa

200 A.D.

refuted the ancient heretics, they pointed out the unity of the
texts of the churches as opposed to the heretics and dared people
go to the ancient churches to see if they were correct. Today, you
can go to your local Bible society and check out the ancient

versions for yourself.

How can you get a genuine version of a text - if it was
falsified 1,800 years ago?

It is easy to allege forgery. I prefer evidence.

Do we need more evidence than your reply? The leaders of
the Church were not much different, they also made facts
match to their credo.

[Side note: You had all possibilities to get information
about the topics in this sub-thread. Therefore I assume,
that your _false_ statements are written intentionally.]

The only known genuine texts
which survived the "update" of the Church were found in
Nag Hammadi and Qumran (Dead Sea Scrolls - some of them
disappered misteriously after they were deciphered).

This is all nonsense, I'm afraid. The Nag Hammadi texts never
belonged to the church, while the Dead Sea scrolls form part of
Judaism, not Christianity. Conspiracy theories about the latter are
all nonsense -- read up the recent court cases (online) about them to
find out what was going on.

You surely have a link? Google did not find them while I
was searching data for that reply. BTW - we are speaking
of scientific (historical) data, nothing else!

Good question! Any one text can be forged, but when you get
different texts in different languages and different areas.
it is a different story. As a matter of fact, Nag Hammadi
documents supports, the work of Irenaeus circa 180 A.D. on the
gnostics. Tertullian of Carthage circa 200 A.D. writes against
the perpetual virginity of Mary. Bishps Cyprian, Firmmian, Novation,
and others write against the Pope all of the second century. The
Coptic texts of Southern and Northern Egypt differ in the Northern
has the woman in Adultery, the Southern does not. In the Churches
of the East, only the little Melikite Church of Gallilee supported
Rome. Churches, such as the Marionites, joined Rome during the
first Chrusade for protection. The great Aramaic Peshitta doesn't
have the women in Adultery, Revelation, Jude II Peter, I + II
John. In Fact, the Fourth Council of Carthage told il papa that
Revelation was received from the Fathers. Your theory that Rome in

the 4th century changed all the texts of the Churches doesn't fit
the facts. I really suggest that you go to your local Bible Society
and check out the ancient versions for yourself. You could also
read the 10 volume Ante-Nicean Fathers(i.e. that is befor Nicea 325

A.D.) it is published by Eerdams and is also on the web.

What the church didn't agree with, they burned.

Evidence?

And they burned whatever ancient texts they could get hold of, and

burned them too.

Evidence? You perhaps don't know that almost all classical literature
that survives was copied by the church? Including Julian the Apostate
and Petronius?

So it was easier for them to "update" some genuine texts
with their own "truth"? Most of the world's cultural do-
cuments were destroyed because of their "Pagan nature" -
by Christians, not by those called "Pagans".

This applied to anything the church didn't agree with.

I think you confuse the medieval church with modern atheist regimes,
who did indeed pursue such policies. Indeed I have been told that the
Soviet tyranny issued one of its history books loose-leaf, so updates
could be made! (I hope it's merely a joke..)

It's not a joke. They learned well from others.

Cultures and libraries of new territories.

They wanted complete and total control.

This is hopelessly anachronistic, and indeed rather hateful. Such
structures did not and could not exist in the looser-knit societies of
the ancient world.

Of course not - the Egyptians never destroyed everything
reminding of Amenhotep IV (about 1350 years before Rabbi
Jesus started to battle the Roman occupation forces). It
wasn't common practise to erase all traces of people who
was declared to be "un-persons" in ancient societies. It
makes me wonder why I reply to someone trying to fool me
and all other readers of this NG...

Strange that they were persecuted in setting up their own church,
and when in power, excecuted their own persecution.

So much for spirituality and godliness.

In view of the tens of millions killed by atheists in the last hundred
years, so much for atheism.

A good excuse for murderers: "I did it, because they all
kill people out there..."


Unfortunately, I do not support the killing of any human
being. Neither Christians nor anyone else (your Atheists
were followers of both - the Christian and Anti-Theist -
ideologies in reality) has a right to kill a human!

Stange the attacks against the pope weren't burned and we do
have quoes of Celsus and Porphyry of Tyre. The fact is areas
such as Persia and India would have been impossible for any
Church to remove all documents. When the teachers of the schools
of Greece left, they published no tracts refuting the four Gospels in

Persia.

In fact there was no way all texts against Christianty could be
destroyed. Why don't you read what I suggested, so your responses
fit the empirical evidence better. I don't care what you believe,
I want to see your evidence.

A good question.

Probably your "arguments" are not really good, otherwise
you would have replied to the follow ups of this post...

I was thinking specifically of the South America with the Spanish there,
where christian missionaries burned much of the Aztec culture and
history -

Surely. But here we're talking about the Inquisition. They did the
same to Christians, you know.

No one was talking about the Inquisition - except you.

and this was fairly standard of christian missionaries in general for a
long time, not only for that part of the world.

Nonsense. Don't state these lies as fact, unless you choose to
encourage hate and violence -- only a few years ago Hindu fanatics
burned an Australian missionary and his family to death as they slept
in their Landrover, while mouthing similar slogans.

See above. One crime does not legalise _any_ other crime
commited later on. Perhaps you shouldn't post such BS to
talk.philosophy.humanism (where a human's life is valued
much higher than _any_ ideology)?

One really can't ignore what happened in history, as regards the times
in which the bible has passed, nor what was done in the name of god, the

bible and the church. How ordinary folk were not allowed to even read the

bible,

and for the bible to translated into English, so that common people could
read it? That was not sensible to do at all.

It is quite sensible if you're a government. Christians, of course,
objected.

People could neither read nor write until the compulsary
schooling was adopted (in the 18th / 19th century in the
German kingdoms).

And you have the holy wars to account for, whereupon bloodshed was
shed for many many years and as many lives lost. All for what?

Mostly for power, you know. Is every politician who claims to be
'green' sincere? If not, do you suppose that politicans who claimed
to be 'Christian' were?

How many humans were killed by those "green" politicians
because they wanted to increase their might? Christians,
the "chosen elite of humanity" (as they title themselves
too often) did - the ratio only can be calculated if you
use the "greens" as dividend, otherwise the "devision by
zero" message pops up...

I'm sorry I don't have exact dates and figures for you, etc.
But they are all documented and recorded in the history of this planet,
that is readily found.

Indeed it is... Unfortunately it doesn't altogether chime with what
was posted above.

Must be the case, if you pick the oldest posting in this
thread and reply to three people at the same time?

I was born and raised in Rhode Island where the Puritan Roger Williams
declared religious liberty for all. Read Foxe's Book of Martyrs' that
tells of the Christian fight against the Inquition, but when atheists
like Stalin and Mao got power they made the Inquisition look good.
The fact is you sre dodgeing the issue, The Bible was what defeated
the Caears and il papa. The Bible is opposed by all tyrants. Atheusts
like Stalin and Mao were against it. The Bibles of the Coptic Churches
of Egypt, the Aramaic Peshitta of the Assyrian Church, the Armenian Bible,
the Greek Bible, and others of Churches that never came under the yoke
of Rome kept the Faith alive during the dark ages. It was the tanslation
of the Greek Bibles of Erasmus that agree about 95% with the texts of
the Greek Churches that caused the Reformation. Yes, this is history
that you are avoiding. Now! Name the ancient Resonse to Irenaeus of
Lyons circa 180 A.D. and Tertullian 200 A.D.!

No, I don't think the bible or christianity saved the whole world,
that it caused as much trouble as it helped.

In what way? Human beings screw each other. That has always been the
case. The bible tells them not to.

Yep, it's always the others who did it - we have a clean
slate, of course. The Japanese would call this behaviour
"bu rei"...

And it is keeping us - humanity from developing further into real
spirituality and awareness of all things.

This complaint is extraordinarily vague!

That is: You don't understand it. For me it makes sense.
Maybe "Harvey" will explain his words.

Realisation of truth is to be aware of all things - using the bible
as your one and only source, is not reliable, same with the viewpoint
of christianity. It is not the way and light as claimed.

I'm afraid this sounds like hippy nonsense to me, but you're welcome
to define and defend whatever might be meant by these vague words.

It has the stench of blood - as all exclusive ideologies
tend to have.

True awareness or spirituality crosses all borders - and has allegiance
with nothing, except truth. If you're searching for truth and the bible,
with christianity - you may not like the answers that come up.

Of course killing people is against all laws, and using god as an excuse
to kill makes the crime, still a crime.

The USA is not correct in invading Iraq (the reasons they used for invasion
was not valid) and neither are the insurgents right to kill the invaders
who are only there for a short time.
Iraq never had stability in the first place, nor peace --- it was a country
in which thugs or brutal power ruled.
I know bringing this up, is completely off tangent, but such issues do
come up with discussing bible history and christianity - how such issues
were fudged by bringing religion into it.
That religion was hijacked a long time ago for power and control -
no matter what religion was present.