Pope resigns: An atheist's reflections

[emperorjohn]

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:

<quoted text>
Well, historically speaking, popes typically died of unnatural causes, i.e. poison and thelike.
Some were not so lucky as that, and were murdered by more violent means.
There are stretches where murdering of the previous pope was the best way to become pope yourself-- and many popes (and not a few would-be popes) used that very method.
Of course-- there were also times where there were multiple popes at once.
One has to ask: which one was the infallible one? You cannot have all of them being infallible-- so how to determine which one?
Here's a suggestion: take the New Testament literally, and have them each ingest deadly poison, as the bible commands. And the real pope will live while the imposters are justifiably killed.
In fact, I'd say this would be an excellent test of all current popes, bishops & cardinals too....

Marozia, the female senator of Rome, murdered her fair share of popes who also were her lovers and puppets. She finally installed a puppet pope who was a son of hers before she was imprisoned b her elder son, Alberto.http://en.wikipedia.or g/wiki/Marozia
Her grandson, son of Alberto, is one your list of the most corrupt popes http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pope_John_XII#Ch...

[Givemeliberty]

Well that is true. What's the world's largest exclusive all gay men club?

The Vatican

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:

<quoted text>
Not so fast:
First, they'd have to lower the minimum age to 10 or so ...
... which would be superior to Islam's Muhumud, who married a 6 year old...

[Imhotep]

Eagle12 wrote:

<quoted text>
Since you refuse to leave a reference to your claim. How about if I do that for you.
Virtually all modern scholars of antiquity agree that Jesus existed, and biblical scholars and classical historians regard theories of his non-existence as effectively refuted.[
The term "Christ myth theory" is an umbrella term that applies to a range of arguments that in one way or another question the authenticity of the existence of Jesus or the essential elements of his life as described in the Christian gospels. Among the variants of the Jesus myth theory, the notion that Jesus never existed has little scholarly support, and although some modern scholars adhere to it, they remain a distinct minority; virtually all scholars involved with historical Jesus research believe that his existence can be established
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_J ...

PS: there were many Jesus'

Let's remind ourselves: Jesus Christ The Legend did some pretty remarkable things. His 'ministry' was a pretty public affair. Many of his tricks were of no particular value (cursing a fig tree?); some would have had disastrous consequences for innocent third parties (remember that herd of 2000 suicidal pigs into which he cast demons? Surely that ruined somebody else's living?).

But certainly, by such 'miracles' he convinced his disciples and the multitude that he was the Messiah, right? Turning a jug of water into wine may have been trivial but resurrecting oneself from death was no mean trick.

But if we are to 'believe' that these stories relate real events what is to be our criteria for acceptance? On what basis should we accept any of this as 'fact' rather than fancy?

--

Meeting for the first time in March 1985, the Jesus Seminar has periodically brought together dozens of university scholars and gospel specialists representing every shade of Christian thought, plus a few Jews and atheists.

In their initial study, the scholars collected more than 1500 versions of approximately 500 Jesus parables, aphorisms, dialogues, and stories written during the first 300 years of Christianity.

After 6 years of debate and reflection the consensus was that 82% of the words attributed to Jesus were fake.

In phase two, between 1991 and 1996, the Jesus Seminar considered 387 versions of 176 'Jesus events'. Their conclusion: 84% of the activities attributed to Jesus were bogus.

[Bob of Quantum-Faith]

emperorjohn wrote:

<quoted text>
It is funny that the Jews were blamed for the death of Christ, but not Italians. After all, it was Roman soldiers who hanged him. Oh wait, Rome is in Italy. Rome was the capital of the Catholic church. We see how selective the Christians are when they choose to hate.

Indeed.

Up until after the 1960's, according to the church, it was okay to hate people of color, as "god made them to be slaves" and other theological bullsh7t.

Nowadays, it's not >quite< acceptable to hate "those people", so they thrashed around a bit, and discovered... teh gays.

These days, the chief pariah of the church is the gays.

Of course, "those mexicans" (or worse) are a close 2nd.

And with the rise of Islamic Terrorism? Muslims are the new "people-to-hate".

The church feeds on hate-- it >>requires<< hate in order to thrive.

Fear is the twin of hate too-- it's used to keep the sheeple quiet as they are fleeced and later-- slaughtered.

... meh.

Religion: the engine of hate & fear since Ogg the First.

[Bob of Quantum-Faith]

Givemeliberty wrote:

Well that is true. What's the world's largest exclusive all gay men club?
The Vatican
<quoted text>

*sigh*

If only they were openly gay.... the world would be a lot happier place...

... don'cha think?

:D

But all those repressed feelings... makes for very unhappy folk.

It's no wonder His Pope-ums never smiles, or when he does, it look like he's trying real hard not to sh7t his pants...

[Bob of Quantum-Faith]

Imhotep wrote:

<quoted text>
PS: there were many Jesus'
Let's remind ourselves: Jesus Christ The Legend did some pretty remarkable things. His 'ministry' was a pretty public affair. Many of his tricks were of no particular value (cursing a fig tree?); some would have had disastrous consequences for innocent third parties (remember that herd of 2000 suicidal pigs into which he cast demons? Surely that ruined somebody else's living?).
But certainly, by such 'miracles' he convinced his disciples and the multitude that he was the Messiah, right? Turning a jug of water into wine may have been trivial but resurrecting oneself from death was no mean trick.
But if we are to 'believe' that these stories relate real events what is to be our criteria for acceptance? On what basis should we accept any of this as 'fact' rather than fancy?
--
Meeting for the first time in March 1985, the Jesus Seminar has periodically brought together dozens of university scholars and gospel specialists representing every shade of Christian thought, plus a few Jews and atheists.
In their initial study, the scholars collected more than 1500 versions of approximately 500 Jesus parables, aphorisms, dialogues, and stories written during the first 300 years of Christianity.
After 6 years of debate and reflection the consensus was that 82% of the words attributed to Jesus were fake.
In phase two, between 1991 and 1996, the Jesus Seminar considered 387 versions of 176 'Jesus events'. Their conclusion: 84% of the activities attributed to Jesus were bogus.

Indeed. In excess of 80% is a flat lie?

That right there?

The fact that experts in the field have concluded more than 80% of the bible with regards to Jesus is, in fact, bullsh7t?

Is proof that there are NO gods behind ANY of the bible.

Since (according to the True Believers™ at least) it is so very, very critical to get the message correct?

Then no self-respecting god who CARED would have permitted an 80% bullshyt content in his book.

Right?

Right-- so that right there proves the bible is not backed by gods of any sort.

And without the bible?

What do Genuine Christians™ have left?

Are there non-biblical references, during his life, of Jesus and what he stood for?

Nope.

In fact, the tiny non-biblical references that do exist, say nothing about what he stood for! And they are 100 years too late, besides.

So.

Without the bible? Genuine Christianity™ is ... bankrupt.

As bogus as that 80%....

[Imhotep]

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:

<quoted text>
Indeed. In excess of 80% is a flat lie?
That right there?
The fact that experts in the field have concluded more than 80% of the bible with regards to Jesus is, in fact, bullsh7t?
Is proof that there are NO gods behind ANY of the bible.
Since (according to the True Believers™ at least) it is so very, very critical to get the message correct?
Then no self-respecting god who CARED would have permitted an 80% bullshyt content in his book.
Right?
Right-- so that right there proves the bible is not backed by gods of any sort.
And without the bible?
What do Genuine Christians™ have left?
Are there non-biblical references, during his life, of Jesus and what he stood for?
Nope.
In fact, the tiny non-biblical references that do exist, say nothing about what he stood for! And they are 100 years too late, besides.
So.
Without the bible? Genuine Christianity™ is ... bankrupt.
As bogus as that 80%....

True Believers™ have serious problems with logic and reason.

We know ALL of the Bible is 'hearsay evidence' written and conceived decades after the alleged event.

Then the history student finds these Supposed Jesus witnesses:

Josephus - Born 37 CE
Phlegon - Born about 80 CE
Tacitus - Born 56 CE
Pliny the Younger - Born 61 CE
Suetonious - Born about 69 CE
The Babylonian Talmud - 200CE
Lucian - Born 125 CE
Phlegon - 2nd century

How exactly are these guys witnesses to something that happened before they were even born?

Hearsay isn't admissible in court for a reason. ;)

Tacitus was born in 56 CE, more than two decades after the alleged execution.

In fact, his writings about Jesus were done in 116 CE. This cannot be anything but 3rd hand (if not 4th or 5th) retelling, and the historical validity of the tale is therefore nil.

Since he was the first to write about it, where did he get the info? Surely not from earlier writings, right?

"Do not pass by my epitaph, traveler.
But having stopped, listen and learn, then go your way.
There is no boat in Hades, no ferryman Charon,
No caretaker Aiakos, no dog Cerberus.
All we who are dead below
Have become bones and ashes, but nothing else.
I have spoken to you honestly, go on, traveler,
Lest even while dead I seem talkative to you."
~Ancient Roman tombstone

[Givemeliberty]

Not to mention secular historians at the time were able to see, meet and document properly Jesus Ben Strada the Egyptian sorcerer messiah. That chump we have secular documentation for! But this walking on water miracle man who raised from the dead? Nothing.

Imhotep wrote:

<quoted text>
True Believers™ have serious problems with logic and reason.
We know ALL of the Bible is 'hearsay evidence' written and conceived decades after the alleged event.
Then the history student finds these Supposed Jesus witnesses:
Josephus - Born 37 CE
Phlegon - Born about 80 CE
Tacitus - Born 56 CE
Pliny the Younger - Born 61 CE
Suetonious - Born about 69 CE
The Babylonian Talmud - 200CE
Lucian - Born 125 CE
Phlegon - 2nd century
How exactly are these guys witnesses to something that happened before they were even born?
Hearsay isn't admissible in court for a reason. ;)
Tacitus was born in 56 CE, more than two decades after the alleged execution.
In fact, his writings about Jesus were done in 116 CE. This cannot be anything but 3rd hand (if not 4th or 5th) retelling, and the historical validity of the tale is therefore nil.
Since he was the first to write about it, where did he get the info? Surely not from earlier writings, right?
"Do not pass by my epitaph, traveler.
But having stopped, listen and learn, then go your way.
There is no boat in Hades, no ferryman Charon,
No caretaker Aiakos, no dog Cerberus.
All we who are dead below
Have become bones and ashes, but nothing else.
I have spoken to you honestly, go on, traveler,
Lest even while dead I seem talkative to you."
~Ancient Roman tombstone

[Bob of Quantum-Faith]

Imhotep wrote:

<quoted text>
True Believers™ have serious problems with logic and reason.
We know ALL of the Bible is 'hearsay evidence' written and conceived decades after the alleged event.
Then the history student finds these Supposed Jesus witnesses:
Josephus - Born 37 CE
Phlegon - Born about 80 CE
Tacitus - Born 56 CE
Pliny the Younger - Born 61 CE
Suetonious - Born about 69 CE
The Babylonian Talmud - 200CE
Lucian - Born 125 CE
Phlegon - 2nd century
How exactly are these guys witnesses to something that happened before they were even born?
Hearsay isn't admissible in court for a reason. ;)
Tacitus was born in 56 CE, more than two decades after the alleged execution.
In fact, his writings about Jesus were done in 116 CE. This cannot be anything but 3rd hand (if not 4th or 5th) retelling, and the historical validity of the tale is therefore nil.
Since he was the first to write about it, where did he get the info? Surely not from earlier writings, right?
"Do not pass by my epitaph, traveler.
But having stopped, listen and learn, then go your way.
There is no boat in Hades, no ferryman Charon,
No caretaker Aiakos, no dog Cerberus.
All we who are dead below
Have become bones and ashes, but nothing else.
I have spoken to you honestly, go on, traveler,
Lest even while dead I seem talkative to you."
~Ancient Roman tombstone

Exactly right.

If Jesus was all that?

Someone-- SOME one somewhere would have written it down....

... I mean, really.

The Romans were avid record-keepers-- we have ancient records describing the sale of ... olive oil. Yep-- we have records of ancient Roman grocery lists... that date to the alleged time of Jesus.

Yet this "jesus" character was so unremarkable that not ONE Roman thought to make a note of it?

LMAO!

[Bob of Quantum-Faith]

Givemeliberty wrote:

Not to mention secular historians at the time were able to see, meet and document properly Jesus Ben Strada the Egyptian sorcerer messiah. That chump we have secular documentation for! But this walking on water miracle man who raised from the dead? Nothing.
<quoted text>

Exactly.

You'd have thunk, that an actual...

... <ahem> "god"...

... would've made more of a splash ...

Especially considering how gay Jesus acted.

Seriously-- we ought to have Jesus' fabric choices at a bare minimum.

...!

(and I apologize in advance to anyone who is gay, and who is offended by this joke-- I meant no offense to gays. As for you jesus-worshipers? As Kathy Gifford would say, "suck it"...)

[Bob of Quantum-Faith]

Dammit-- I meant Kathy Griffin, the comedian and self-proclaimed atheist.

... meh.

[Bob of Quantum-Faith]

This:

" http://www.youtube.com/watch... ;

[Sherlayne]

emperorjohn wrote:

<quoted text>
It is funny that the Jews were blamed for the death of Christ, but not Italians. After all, it was Roman soldiers who hanged him. Oh wait, Rome is in Italy. Rome was the capital of the Catholic church. We see how selective the Christians are when they choose to hate.

I've always said that too. The Italians did the actual killing, I don't care who ordered it.

[Givemeliberty]

Not to mention if some Jewish Wiz kid showed up at the temple and dazzled the Rabbis with his knowledge it would have been documented by Jewish sources. Rabbis lived to document and celebrate things like that.

So either it didn't happen or was greatly exaggerated.

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:

<quoted text>
Exactly.
You'd have thunk, that an actual...
... <ahem> "god"...
... would've made more of a splash ...
Especially considering how gay Jesus acted.
Seriously-- we ought to have Jesus' fabric choices at a bare minimum.
...!
(and I apologize in advance to anyone who is gay, and who is offended by this joke-- I meant no offense to gays. As for you jesus-worshipers? As Kathy Gifford would say, "suck it"...)

[Bob of Quantum-Faith]

Givemeliberty wrote:

Not to mention if some Jewish Wiz kid showed up at the temple and dazzled the Rabbis with his knowledge it would have been documented by Jewish sources. Rabbis lived to document and celebrate things like that.
So either it didn't happen or was greatly exaggerated.
<quoted text>

Yep.

[swerty]

So the Pope has resigned due to 'advanced age'.

Well put.

We do live in an age that's too advanced for Popes

[Bob of Quantum-Faith]

swerty wrote:

So the Pope has resigned due to 'advanced age'.
Well put.
We do live in an age that's too advanced for Popes

Indeed we do.

[Sherlayne]

Bob of Quantum-Faith wrote:

<quoted text>
Indeed.
Up until after the 1960's, according to the church, it was okay to hate people of color, as "god made them to be slaves" and other theological bullsh7t.
Nowadays, it's not >quite< acceptable to hate "those people", so they thrashed around a bit, and discovered... teh gays.
These days, the chief pariah of the church is the gays.
Of course, "those mexicans" (or worse) are a close 2nd.
And with the rise of Islamic Terrorism? Muslims are the new "people-to-hate".
The church feeds on hate-- it >>requires<< hate in order to thrive.
Fear is the twin of hate too-- it's used to keep the sheeple quiet as they are fleeced and later-- slaughtered.
... meh.
Religion: the engine of hate & fear since Ogg the First.

Bob - so good to see you again! And what a smart, TRUE post! And don't forget the "Christian" fear of Jews. So many Christians honestly believe all Jews are doomed to hell. Such ignorance, huh?

[Bob of Quantum-Faith]

Sherlayne wrote:

<quoted text>
Bob - so good to see you again! And what a smart, TRUE post! And don't forget the "Christian" fear of Jews. So many Christians honestly believe all Jews are doomed to hell. Such ignorance, huh?

Hi, Sherlayne-- I am doing well.

I hope the same for you and yours?:)

Good to see you post.

[the gospel of hey zeus]

and lo, hey zeus came out of the desert, after 30 days, and went to tijuana, to take in a donkey show.

amen.