Christian Atheism

Demonstrate how you can overcome your nature.

This should be interesting.

Regards
DL

 

A god should be defined as, and should exemplify, the the epitome of moral good and the best rules and laws to live by.

That is why I point out that even the Jesus you like, had genocide with his Armageddon planned for us.

You do not seem to have noticed that Armageddon makes Jesus look quite evil.

Right?

Regards
DL

 

My nature is to be awake at night. Thats where my personal circadian rythym will settle if I allow it to. But I choose to be awake in the day so I can do my job and pay the bills. It requires more than a little effort.

 

I wouldn't rely on rumors of giant skeletons as evidence for Goliath, and definitely not as "proof" that this character existed. Gigantism is a known phenomenon, of course, so there is no reason there could not have been the rare person of great stature at whatever time Goliath supposedly existed; in fact, based on evidence, we should expect such people to have existed. Establishing this would in no way prove the existence of Goliath in particular, however.

The gospels do not accurately predict any events after the time they were written. What they and the book of Revelation seem to do, rather, is describe past events as though they were prophesied and part of a plan. Thus, for example, Jesus is purported to have predicted the destruction of the temple and purportedly offers an alternative to replace it, which is himself and the heavenly kingdom. This is why I postulate that Christianity was conceived to replace Temple Judaism in the wake of the crisis created by the destruction of the temple. It also inspired apocalyptical writings, where Rome was compared to Babylon (an obvious historical parallel) in Revelation, though not by name. That is what you get when you combine writings from different authors, though -- you get the pro-Roman gospels in the same holy book with the anti-Roman Revelation (or Apocalypse), which described "Babylon the Great" with imagery that very clearly refers to Rome. And no, Rome's eventual fall does not show that Revelation made accurate future predictions.

One other small thing -- one of the epistles predicts the end of times being imminent. It is one of the defining characteristics of Christianity that it is an apocalyptic religion that expects an imminent end of this world and return of Christ. As far as I recall, this is not in the Gospels at all, but it appears in the other NT writings, which shows different ideas and intents between those writings and the (canonical) gospels. Anyway, the epistle I have in mind is 1 John, which says:

2:18 Dear children, this is the last hour; and as you have heard that the antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have come. This is how we know it is the last hour.​

The gospel writers gave Jesus a history and made him flesh and blood. They are the only canonical texts to do so, with others not referring to Jesus as a man who came and preached, but as a divine figure. The gospels also have fundamental disagreements about alleged events and make some obviously false claims, such as Herod allegedly having a bunch of children slaughtered. I've heard that the gospel rendition of Pontius Pilatus is also pretty uncharacteristic of him and of Roman practice, and of course there is no evidence to corroborate the claims.

Returning to Revelation, Revelation 12 has a neat set of passages that I think nicely illustrate the true nature and significance of Jesus by pointing pretty clearly to his astrological origin:

12 A great sign appeared in heaven: a woman clothed with the sun, with the moon under her feet and a crown of twelve stars on her head. 2 She was pregnant and cried out in pain as she was about to give birth. 3 Then another sign appeared in heaven: an enormous red dragon with seven heads and ten horns and seven crowns on its heads. 4 Its tail swept a third of the stars out of the sky and flung them to the earth. The dragon stood in front of the woman who was about to give birth, so that it might devour her child the moment he was born. 5 She gave birth to a son, a male child, who “will rule all the nations with an iron scepter.” And her child was snatched up to God and to his throne. 6 The woman fled into the wilderness to a place prepared for her by God, where she might be taken care of for 1,260 days.​

Usbible.com compares Mary Magdalene to the constellation Virgo (and Joseph to Boötes, but he doesn't factor in here) just as it compares Jesus to the sun itself. Well, you can see the nativity story retold here in astrological imagery -- as Mary the virgin gave birth to Jesus, so the woman clothed with the sun gives birth. As Herod tried to find and destroy baby Jesus, so the dragon waits to devour the woman's child. As Mary and Joseph fled with baby Jesus, so her child "was snatched up to God" and "the woman fled into the wilderness." But you also see an interesting difference here, where Jesus remains on earth in the gospels while he is "snatched up to God" in this story. It would seem that even the author Revelation had no notion of Jesus living an earthly life. Being divine, he is imagined in terms of the sun and other celestial objects. The sky was an object of worship in ancient times and that's where the gods lived, after all, and of course it also gave people "signs" of things to come. Of course, it was the first calendar humanity had, but that came with a lot of religious associations as well, and people imagining that astrologers could read the future from the movements of the stars and planets; baby Jesus is visited by Persian astrologers (the "magi") in at least one of the gospel stories, too, which seems to be a nod to Persian astrology and an attempt to lend credibility to the story of Jesus. The OT has its share of astrology, of course, but that's only worth a mention as an example of how important astrology was to ancient religions and cultures.

Then there is how the gospels (except, perhaps, for that oddball John) seem to follow the Zodiac in the course of alleged events for Jesus, making his alleged earthly history a veiled celestial one. I suppose you could say that just as he was supposedly a divine figure disguised by flesh and blood, so his true celestial (solar) nature is disguised by the allegory of his faux earthly history. I refer to the Unspoken Bible website for the tantalizing details about this:

https://www.usbible.com/astrology.htm

Especially the Gospel Zodiac: https://www.usbible.com/Astrology/gospel_zodiac.htm

 

We really don't understand each other, based on your replies, which generally do not respond to whatever words of mine, you have quoted. This "response," above, is a case in point. Note you do not explain what it is about my quote, that says to you that our, "premises are very different." Nor do you offer even the most rudimentary delineation of how our two premises differ. What possible elucidation of your views do you believe you have provided, in your post? Short as it is, it is actually a wordy way of saying nothing more than you see things differently than I do.

Here is our initial misunderstanding, still ongoing. I completely agree that how a philosophy is enacted, is generally a more pragmatic thing to focus on, than on the ideas, in the abstract. So then, when considering any part of a practice which deviates from its initially-promoted concepts, the only reason to bring up the philosophy "on paper," would be to differentiate the two. But that is not what you do, here:

Pisa said↑
Human beings are far from perfect. Our own nature stands in the way of achieving such high levels of morality and brotherly love as one would expect from a follower of Jesus. The standards set by Jesus are too high, unrealistic. Failure to achieve as expected when expectations are too high leads to frustrations, self-flagellation, self-deprecation, greatly influencing behavior and level of happiness.
<End Snip>

As you can see, you are specifically criticizing Jesus' teachings, themselves (I have underlined what I am referring to, for your ease in following my argument). I initially commented that I believed you had a faulty understanding of Jesus' teachings, that is, that you were substituting Christian philosophy, for that of Jesus. You have been responding (as in your emboldened text, above) that you wish to focus on the religion, as it is practiced; seemingly acknowledging that this differs from Jesus' teachings (which were greatly built onto, by the religion). If that is so, the corrective measure would be, for example, to say, "the standards set by Christianity are unrealistically high." But you have not admitted that this is what you really meant. That is why I commented, in my last post (which you are supposedly addressing here) that it seemed odd that you would so resist acknowledging this.

If, instead, you do believe that the specific teachings of Jesus set an unrealistically high bar, then that is your assertion for which I am challenging you to present your case. Instead, though, you keep coming back to some version of, Jesus' intention is not your interest, but rather, Christianity in practice. Yet you will not revise your statements, in which you name Jesus' teachings as the source of the problem, with Christianity. You are trying to have your cake, and eat it too.

This is not complicated, and you have no excuse to avoid responding, other than not really wanting to have a discussion with me, about this. Either: A) you confirm that what you really had intended to say, was that CHRISTIANITY'S standards are too high, which you understand are not the same as the standards promoted by Jesus, or, B) you stand by your earlier claim, by supporting it, through enumerating these unrealistic expectations, set by Jesus.

Your replying, yet again, by doing neither of these two, I will interpret as your choosing:
C) you are not interested in having a conversation in which you will be expected to under-gird your various, grand contentions, by citing anything to back them up; in other words, not interested in actually participating in a debate of the topic.

I had much more of your quoted material to comment on, but I have decided, mid-reply, to first find out if you are a horse that just does not want to drink from this thread's well.

 

I did not want to go as deeply into this discovery, which I only threw in as an additional example, as you are now forcing me. The way I heard about this, is that there was a special on this archaeological discovery, on either the National Geographic Network, or on PBS. Neither of these is in the habit of doing specials on scientific discoveries that turn out to be wildly speculative. I did not watch it, however, so I was going by just the opening of the show, which gives a preview of what is to come, and the impression I got was that there are some archaeologists tying this giant skeleton, which had received a hero's treatment, in death, to the story of Goliath. I think the name inscribed in its coffin, or whatever, actually WAS "Goliath." I realize it is not proof-positive of the account; it only shows that the biblical account is a credible story, that is, that there is no reason to dismiss it as just a myth which, nevertheless, prior to this, mainstream "scholarship," has.

If you were to gain anything beneficial from my mention of the discovery, it would be to ask yourself why the ancient account had been thought of as merely a fancy of the biblical authors-- not by explaining to me why it is not anything that I should find especially notable. Unless I am misreading you, you seem to be saying that of course, this confrontation between David & Goliath, was never beyond the realm of possibility. So would not the logical verdict, in lieu of evidence (prior to this discovery) be to not come to a verdict, on the story's veracity? Yet that is not how the "authorities," in this field, handled the matter. This shows that scientists can have as strong a bias as anyone else, which is a valuable thing to understand. You should keep that in mind, regarding the arguments presented for this theory, you have been supporting, of a totally imagined character of Jesus-- mindful, both with respect to the author's potential mis-weighting of "evidence," (or lack thereof) as well as your own predilections.


This was only intended to be the opening of my reply but, since I had accidentally hit, "reply," I am going to post just this much, now, and continue with the rest, in a separate post.

 

I am taking your post, piece by piece, so forgive me if you later come to the point I am now going to reiterate, from my original post. Why would the insertion of some remarks into their narratives, for the purpose of making Jesus seem more prescient, suggest that, therefore, the rest is probably fabricated, as well? This is how myths grow, as I also mentioned in that first reply. Nevertheless, that does not mean that myths (especially concerning personages) are utterly imagined fantasies. They tend to all start from a place of truth, which then gets elaborated upon, and exaggerated. What you are describing here, fits that same pattern.

Did Herakles perform all the labors & wondrous acts as were ascribed to him-- almost certainly not. But that there was an extraordinarily strong man who was the original seed for this myth, there is no reason to doubt.

I think it is an erroneous method, to judge the New Testament as a single brainchild, when it was not originally created, that way. That is, one must already accept your "conspiracy theory"-- forgive the term, but I think it fits, with the specifics this theory proposes-- to think of the NT as having a foundation of something other than disparate sources. In your touted theory, ironically, it is almost as if Paul had precognition, to know that his letters would be seized upon, by others, to follow his lead with their prequel versions, in the Gospels. It was these Gospels, after all, which did more to spread the renown of Christ, than did Paul's letters, which only circulated among communities of pre-existing believers. The epistles were certainly very important, in keeping these communities together, & focused, but the literature that really promoted the religion to new followers, were the Gospels. And yet this theory is that Paul actually started the religion, but left it for others, strangers, to fill in most of the narrative details? Honestly, this does not strike me, as particularly plausible.


So, as I implied, I would rather focus on the Gospels and, of course, Paul's letters, without bringing Revelation into the discussion, if that is possible. (If Revelation were a crucial piece to enable the rest to fit, I would see this as a weakness in the overall theory). The New Testament that I used to have, had very good footnotes, however, so I know of Luke, for example, incorporating things that were specifically meant to appeal to non-Jewish peoples. I was also made aware of a lot of the symbolism, in Revelation. That this symbolism was particularly intended for the people of that time, makes it extra-tragic, that so many, today base their expectations of our future, on that text. I know, for instance, that in the Hebrew alphabet, letters are all associated with numbers, and that the number 666, far from being the prediction of someone in the future, is the numeric total for the Emporer Nero, who was a particularly cruel persecutor of Christians. As you say, this was written to give Christians the belief that they were living in the End Times, that they only needed to hang in there for a little while, and they would be rewarded (or would suffer, if they failed to hold to the Christian tenets, when times got tough). It is not unlike the phoney carrot that a personal trainer, or workout partner, might offer, in saying, "just three more reps," merely to add to that number, when you only had one more to go. I did find your bringing up of this as an innate characteristic of Christianity, as an interesting idea to explore, but which deserves its own treatment. As far as your Paul-originator theory goes, though, does that apocalyptic element exist in his writings? In the later-recorded Gospels, Jesus does talk about the Last Judgement, but not as something imminent, except in the quote from John, you mention,which does not ring any bells for me. But I am getting ahead of your quotes, now, so ending here will give me the chance to look it up, before continuing in my next reply.

 

You were raised Catholic in a religious environment in a free society, I was raised atheist in a secular Jewish home in a dictatorship. You were taught to believe - still do - that Jesus' teachings are good. That's your main premise. My main premise is that Jesus' teachings are not what they seem to people whose premise is that Jesus' teachings are good.

Unlike you, I've experienced up close and personal the consequences of a social experiment based on lofty ideals. I grew up in one of the former communist countries in Eastern Europe. I'm too well aware of the differences between theory and practice, and of the dangers posed by ideals and idealistic people with very good intentions.

Of course it's not what I do. It would be wrong to do so. I know - I don't suppose, I don't think, I don't imagine, I just know - that failure to deliver as promised must be due to a fatal flaw in the theory itself, namely that something in that theory goes against our nature, our desires, our abilities. There's no way to create an infrastructure to apply a flawed theory in such a way that it never deviates from its initially-promoted concepts. It's also horribly wrong to create an infrastructure designed to apply a theory, any theory, in such a way that it never deviates from its initially-promoted concepts, because human societies are dynamic and change is unavoidable.

My point is that it's very hard to tell the difference between Jesus' teachings - the original doctrine - and later additions by scribes with agendas. The resulting bedlam does not a coherent philosophy make.

My other point is that Jesus' teachings - what remained of them between polemics and bows to the secular Roman authorities - are fundamentally flawed. They're eerily similar to the "new man" theory of communists. The goal in both cases is to change how people think in order to achieve some higher level of existence. The underlying assumption in both cases is that people must be hammered into perfect beings in order to achieve a higher level of existence. Another underlying assumption is that this is the only way to achieve a higher level of existence. The most obvious flaw though is dividing human beings into categories according to their attitude to the teachings - identity politics avant la lettre.

As I already mentioned, my problem is lack of spare time. I have a life that keeps me away from the keyboard longer than I'd like.

Hopefully I'll find the time to answer more of your questions.

 

Now we're getting somewhere!

Thank you for answering my question, directly, so that I could understand your viewpoint. I do not think, however, your theory is truly applicable, to the way things worked out, with Christianity, without maintaining that it was impossible for anything to have gone any differently, with the initial philosophy of Jesus-- even had Paul not come along to mold the religion in his own image, or if Constantine had never elevated Christianity's position, etc. I think you probably believe this, though you cannot provide any proof of it: it is an article of faith, something self-evident, to you. But, of course, nothing provable. However, I will give it some thought, to come up with specific concepts which disprove your presumed truth.

For now, though, I will also speak, like you, of general ideas. And if your theory were true, then timing, for example, would have no effect on the results of an idea. You must recognize that, as a principle, THIS is clearly flawed. Timing often plays a big role in why some ideas tank, and others succeed-- including some which had, when they'd previously been attempted, failed.

Your fatalistic philosophy would also dictate that the people who end up leading a movement, would have no major bearing on the ultimate result. Again, to me, this is obviously a fallacy.

I don't think this is, as a general rule, true either. By Jesus's philosophy, I am referring only to direct quotes of his words, in the Gospels. Regardless that, theoretically, it isn't a negative that can be proven-- that nothing quoted to Jesus actually came from someplace else-- I am stipulating the philosophy in the New Testament, of the words ascribed to Jesus, as his philosophy. But that does not cover a lot of the ideas that became fundamental to the religion and its doctrine. Even the central doctrine of the Trinity, is nothing that Jesus spelled out, other that mentioning that he had, "come," from the Father, and having mentioned that his apostles would be visited by, "the Holy Spirit." But this idea that those entities were three faces of the same unity, is the product of later theologians, based on the "pagan," trinity traditions. The sacrament of Confession, still part of Catholicism, if not Protestantism, has nothing to do with anything Jesus said. Purgatory. Even the concept of ORIGINAL SIN, which is such an essential part of Christianity, is really vastly extrapolated. And so forth.

To return to your initial posit, that a negative result can only be an indictment of the original conception, l let's look at your emboldened words, above, which say that the MIXING of ideas, in Christianity, create an incoherent philosophy (which is part of its problem). But if we accept your idea, then Christian philosophy, even without any additions to the simple principles of Jesus, would still be incoherent, right? Or, it would not be so incoherent, but this would make no difference? This is saying that whether or not the philosophy is coherent, is irrelevant to how it turns out. So there is no difference between coherency & incoherency? This is not a logical argument, you are making.

Let us apply it to analogous things, outside of religion. A military strategy, for example. So would you contend that a good battle plan always succeeds, regardless of its execution? But cannot that execution vary? So how could that not affect the result? Have there not been battles that seemed lost, but which were turned by the actions of one particular leader (Alexander the Great; Spartacus; etc.)? Conversely, have not poor command decisions not snatched defeat out of the jaws of victory? Think even about a game plan for an American football game. Does who plays quarterback, leading the offense, not make a difference? You get the idea (I hope).

I'm going to hold off, on your comparison between either Christianity or Jesus's philosophy, and the Communist "new man," theory. If you could provide some details about this Communist philosophy though, it would be very helpful.

 

Mormons believe that our consciences and higher nature are the light of Christ, an endowment that we bring to life with us as a spiritual aid from heaven rather than a natural part of our physical creature. So essentially, I suppose then that every human who has no religious affiliation, knowledge of or belief in God, might be considered a Christian Atheist.

 

Have you ever considered that the David & Goliath story is just a metaphor for how the smaller number of Israelites/Hebrews/Jews were able to defeat the more numerous and powerful Gentiles with God's help? The story illustrates the First Commandment in action -Exodus 34:11-16.

You made some good points about the astrology. It might even be able to make a connection between the 12 apostles and the 12 months of the year.

 

I know several agnostics and atheists that regularly attend some kind of church service so they "fit" in. I didn't read all the details on this label but it sounds like something like that. For some reason, people think non-believers are amoral and Satan worshipers which is simply not true. A kid I grew up with started kidnapping stray animals and sacrificing them. I distanced myself from him as we grew up because he was into some strange stuff. I also worked with a woman whose bf would pick up stray animals and they would kill them and drink their blood. Atheism simply means holding no believe in a supernatural ruler (or whatever variety) of the Universe. All that other garbage is just spread around so believers (in whatever Sky Daddy) can feel superior and self-righteous.

If you had Wonder Woman's "Truth Lasso" I bet you'd be surprised how many people you know don't actually believe any of the stuff they espouse. Orange Jesus was anti-vax his whole life until he wanted his name on the vaccines. He was a Democrat until her want to run for office. He was an atheist until he had a crowd cleared out for a fake photo shoot in front of a church and he's anti-American despite molesting our flag on camera. So, you see, it's not that hard to convince countless people of total BS. All one has to do is go through the motions, say the right buzz words and they get people falling over themselves thinking they are the Sky Daddy reincarnate. It's not a bad gig. He's pulling in millions a month for doing nothing other than being a lying jack@ss.

 

There are actually two different separate atheist churches in my city, if you can believe it.
I don't know if they have a difference in doctrine.

 

who are you to tell us how G/god should be defined?

who are you to choose what is morally good for the world?

There is nothing immoral about homophobia, nor misogyny, everyone is entitled to their own determination s to what is moral as long as it does not cause injury to another.

Looks to me like you want to take over the world, even declare yourself a god

 

Well, according to the biblical fairy tale, people are as knowledgeable about good and evil as the God character is. So, why should people have to look to the God character to find out what is moral? After all, you just acted like God yourself when you classified certain behaviors and acts as moral in your comments.

 

If you define "Good" as whatever God wants or demands, then God is the ultimate good by definition, no matter how many atrocities he calls for and no matter what malicious things he stands for. It is all "good".

That's how twisted it gets when equating morality to obedience to power.

 

I dont recall seeing that, cite it please, so we can all see the source of your claim.

 

Try Genesis 3:22-23 (ERV) =
“22 The Lord God said, “Look, the man has become like us—he knows about good and evil. And now the man might take the fruit from the tree of life. If the man eats that fruit, he will live forever.”

23 So the Lord God forced the man out of the Garden of Eden to work the ground he was made from.“

 

Jesus was a god, he didn't start anything. Paul didn't establish Christian rituals and beliefs, his was just one of many Christian sects.

Let's not forget that a Gnostic was a candidate for Bishop of Rome in the second century CE, almost a century after Paul's death, and Gnosticism surely wasn't established by Paul. Marcion wasn't following Paul's teachings either, neither did Montanists, or Arianists. That Paul's writings were chosen for the canon wasn't his doing, he was dead at the time. But there are many rituals and beliefs Paul probably never heard about and would have been horrified by some of them, like worshiping bones of dead saints.

Christianity was never monolithic, rituals and beliefs vary from one denomination to another. Catholics follow Paul and other texts closely, while Orthodox value tradition over texts.

 

Sure, there were different sects mentioned in the Bible but none of their rituals or teachings are described in the Bible, like the ones credited to Paul are. The reality is that, based on the biblical fairy tale, Paul established Christianity. Jus because countless other con men started their own businesses from it doesn't make that less true.

 

A fascinating tale, and one of many examples of the Bible putting obedience over morality. If Adam and Eve don't know good from bad until they eat the fruit of knowledge of good and evil, then they can't have known it is good to obey God, and this is purely about obedience.

 

One thing I forgot to mention about David and Goliath, actually, is that this site even has a starry explanation for that story. Specifically, he compares it to Perseus and the story of his slaying Medusa. This is, in part, because part of the story has David decapitating Goliath and holding his head up, and that is a very familiar image.


&
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_with_the_Head_of_Goliath_(Caravaggio,_Vienna) <-- painting

versus

David and Goliath
In the house of Aries is the constellation Perseus which shows the image of a man with a sword in one hand and a decapitated head in the other. The popular telling of David's triumph leaves out a gory detail. (1 Sam. 17:1-54)

The Philistine Goliath was said to be about ten feet tall. He had a bronze helmet, a coat of mail that weighed almost a hundred pounds. He had armor on his legs and a shield. His spear weighed eleven pounds.

When the Philistines and the Israelites were first assembled at their lines ready for battle, Goliath went to the front and challenged the Israelites to choose one to fight him in battle. The winning side will be the master, and the losing side the servant.

For forty days the giant came forth and issued his challenge, but none of the Israelites had the nerve to take him on.

Because of his youth, David was not a soldier. On the fortieth day, when David was bringing some food to his brothers and the soldiers, he heard Goliath's challenge. When David went to Saul to volunteer, Saul was understandably skeptical. But David convinced him that his experience at killing lions when they invade his flock, qualified him; Goliath is no different. Saul was persuaded.

On the day of battle, Saul wanted to put his armor on David, but he refused; he wasn't used to it. All he needed was his pouch with five smooth stones and his slingshot. As he and Goliath drew closer, David took out a stone and slung it, striking the Philistine in the head. The giant fell flat face on the ground and died.

Afterward, David took out Goliath's sword and cut his head off. Afterwards, the Hebrews chased the Philistines, killing many and plundered their camp. David took Goliath's head back to Jerusalem and put his armor on his tent.

51Then David ran and stood over the Philistine, and took his sword and drew it out of its sheath, and killed him, and cut off his head with it. When the Philistines saw that their champion was dead, they fled. (1 Sam. 17:51)​

Source: https://www.usbible.com/Astrology/stars_of_david.htm

He also questions the existence of David the same as he does Jesus (and Moses):

Historicity
As much as Israel is one of the most archeologically researched nations in the world, very little of what is in the Bible can be confirmed. The only evidence of the existence of David comes by way of two separate inscriptions of a Davidic dynasty; nothing can be found about David personally. There is much to doubt.

I'm quoting the findings of "The Bible Unearthed" by Israel Finkelstein and Neil Asher Silberman.

"For all their reported wealth and power, neither David nor Solomon is mentioned in a single known Egyptian or Mesopotamian text. And the archaeological evidence in Jerusalem for the famous building projects of Solomon is nonexistent.

"The most optimistic assessment of this negative evidence is that tenth century Jerusalem was rather limited in extent, perhaps not more than a typical hill country village.

"In fact, it is highly unlikely that this sparsely inhabited region of Judah and the small village of Jerusalem could have become the center of a great empire stretching from the Red Sea in the south to Syria in the north.

"There is absolutely no archaeological indication of the wealth, manpower, and level of organization that is required to support large armies-even for brief periods-in the field.

"There is hardly a reason to doubt the historicity of David and Solomon. Yet there are plenty of reasons to question the extent and splendor of their realm.

"Archeologically we can say no more about David and Solomon except that they existed-and that their legend endured.

"There is no compelling archaeological evidence for the historical evidence of a vast united monarchy, centered in the land of Jerusalem that encompassed the entire land of Israel.
​

The Legend
So what are we left with? There is nothing outside the Bible that tells us about David. There is no evidence of a united Jewish kingdom. No evidence that Jews dominated anybody outside their borders. Even so, the Jewish people continue to believe that theirs was a great kingdom, because of David. The proof can be found in the turmoil in Israel today, where Zionist supporters are at war to restore the glory days that never existed.

The legend of David starts when this shepherd boy was chosen by the prophet Samuel to become the next king of Israel to succeed Saul. David's notoriety began when he killed the giant Goliath with a slingshot. When Saul gave him command of an army, David's overwhelming victories made Saul jealous. Saul's jealousy grew to such a rage, that David had to flee for his life.

When Saul died in battle he was replaced by two kings, David over Judah and Ishbosheth over Israel. David started a civil war and eventually became king over both kingdoms until his death forty years later.

His people glorified him because of his military conquests. Some of his victims were castrated, sawed in half, chopped with axes and burned in ovens. He was a traitor against his own people, a bandit, a homosexual, an adulterer, liar, extortionist, betrayer, exhibitionist and murderer. When he broke God's law, even God didn't care.

Astrology
Typical of other biblical legendary heroes, the life of David was written according to the motifs of the Zodiac. As said before, there is only indirect evidence of an historical David. His exploits reflect more on the character of those who wrote about him and of those who believe in him, than of his personal character.

For some reason, he doesn't get the full twelve zodiac house treatment of a sun god like Moses and Jesus. It could be because there was such a human.

...​

 

All true. In fact, I think the secret o BSing people is understanding that people are generlly self-BSing. You just spout what they want to hear and they will convince themselves that you're right. Trump never has to back up what he says and never makes an effort to do so. Same in (other) religions.

 

The Bible does not teach morality, it teaches complete obedience and total loyalty to the Boss (God, the chief priest, the emperor, the king, the family father).
The only major character who did exactly as he was told to do without whining was Noah. He was given an apparent impossible task and didn't have a clue as to how he was going to get it done but he got to work and did it, without whining about it. And, when he was finished, he killed a lot of the animals he had saved and had a giant barbecue. He also got falling down drunk and never did anything of importance again. Even the Jesus character whined and cried like a baby and he was supposedly God (or God's baby).

The Bible is like a military code of conduct for civilians where the people are instructed to obey their rulers in all things without exception. That makes sense because the Bible as a book was written in the 680s-early 690s as a counter to the Islamic Koran written by Uthman's committee. Previously, the Christians relied upon oral stories and a few tattered manuscripts. They didn't have a complete collection of their fairy tale in one source. So, when the Muslims produced the Koran as a single volume the Christians had to produce their own propaganda book to inspire the troops. When the priests got up and told the troops to go crazy on the enemy and kill all of them they could cite the Bible stories as such things being God's will and therefore OK. That model is still followed today.

 

And it rules out Divine Command Theory as a basis for morality, at least for those who believe the Bible. Yet that's the theory they flock to the most. If Adam and Eve knew God's commands, but they didn't know good from evil, then morality can't be based on God's commands.

I spoke with a Rabbi once who had an interesting take: if you read the Genesis story (well, stories), it lists off all of the things he creates, and then he calls it all "good" . . . but he didn't create "good." There's a tree of knowledge of good and evil . . . but no story of God creating good and evil.