Discrediting Insider Religious Knowledge Condensed and Itemized (in several pictures with text here) for Swift Public Consumption
   Presenting the secular side--what must have happened from the secular point of view--so religion won't be able to run roughshod over the public nearly at will

    To see my facebook page, Atheist Standards For Children, here is the link:
New, posted on 10/3/13:

Gradual Development of the Judaistic Concept, and its Male-Female Dynamic

Please note: Toward the beginning of this will be the first of two segments discussing the male-female component. The second segment on that will come at the end. The roles of men and women are changing a good bit these days, while the observations made here relate to some long-held roles in that area. Keep in mind also wh...en reading how that both Christianity and Islam are Judaistic in their natures, but Christianity much more so than Islam.

Why women regarding the Judaistic form known as Christianity are so influential: Women are of course the mothers of all humans, both males and females. That means that when children are young, the philosophical preference of the mother will usually be forced on her child or children. So how does that happen?

A mother will feel social pressure from others who aggressively market the most widely accepted religious concept in her area; and will also feel pressure from others who are influenced by those who aggressively market it by their willing reinforcement and approval of her and her children adopting it—which pressures her to make a statement or statements to her child or children endorsing it. Then all she needs to do is keep taking her child or children to church where they will be compelled to make a profession of faith. This is the most effective way to perpetuate the religion since children, more often than not, are close to their mothers and trust them, even as children come from their very bodies and have been carried inside them for nine months, not carried by males, which generally causes mothers to take more special interest in them than any male. It's become a strategy of Judaistic religion in the form of Christianity to use that to not just hold gained territory but to spread influence.

Males are also pressured by females to be religious since most men want a female, while acceptance of her religion is so often a prioritized criterion for obtaining them. Therefore, many of those men who probably wouldn't have chose to be religious—since the problems with religious faiths are so numerous whenever a person does much cumulative accounting of them—will still end up going along with a Judaistic type religion like Christianity anyway.

However, many women do manage to avoid the trap of religion. Yet religion seems to target women a little more than men overall because of a general difference in the male and female makeup, while the roles of males for such a long time in the past was to potentially be a bit more bellicose as a protector and/or skeptic of many potential dangers in the world, when the role of most females, who must be the primary caregivers for their children, was to be more sensitive, tender, and accepting, generally speaking.

How the Judasistic concept formed, the goals of its design, look rather easy to outline to me. First the public, or at least those who could afford to, once offered sacrifices to something (they didn't know what) which might be over them, something which was potentially controlling whether they would get needed rain or not, and whether there would be a volcanic eruption nearby or not, or an earthquake, etc. Therefore, offering a respectful animal sacrifice to whatever might be in control of all that could make a difference, they must have thought. This would be the pre-Abrahamic concept of a God or gods over the Earth in some parts of Canaan, not to mention a similarity to that which once existed in Central and South America.

To bring that stage to a close, the architects of Genesis one decided to put that superstitious fear to political use. All they would have needed to do would have bee to write a creation story and give that superstitious idea of God far more definition, as well as authority over all—which authority could be indirectly channeled back to them, or at least put to very good use by them and their descendants, it was hoped. For creating all things would imply ownership, therefore something from every person would be owed to it, which was perfect for providing the system its needed psychological one leg up on everyone, right from the start.

Once they perfected their creation story, and began to use it along with many additional stories that were cognate or germane in relation to that first one, they could begin to channel all of that superstitious fear of the unknown, having to do with animal sacrifices being offered at times, toward this portrait of what would become the deity of the Israel Nation.

One indispensable aspect of the Judaistic concept concerns how its deity is placed over all mere men by it being shown, through those many stories that would follow that creation one, to be capable of working miracles or doing wonders! For it wouldn't be enough to simply have a Supreme Being that creates the world and then disappears. That wouldn't be useful nor instructive, not really. That beginning and/or creation story must be linked to many more like it which add useful definition—miracles which must be woven into lots of realistic sounding stories. And realistic sounding stories containing miracles was perhaps the greatest achievement of this type of literature by certain influential Jews, who in writing those were sly enough to get people to actually believe in miracles when none had ever happened during their own particular times—did not happen during their own times for very good reasons, that is, as explained by this literature. For there were some long periods, it says, in between those magical moments, some periods in which their God was said to have been silent or inactive; which of course implied that in later periods, like the one we are now in, or in others leading up to our time, that either of those might be one of those silent periods in which God simply isn't that active for whatever reason (which is actually cover for the story of Moses, and several others, being complete fiction).

Those authors knew very well how critical it would be to do a great job when it came to creating their contrived realism, that their stories would need enough realism so that they couldn't be easily dismissed, which would have taken a great deal of work and much thought by those authors, which is why those Judaistic concepts have succeeded as they have. Of course not all literature of that particular genre succeeded in that way, which is why several Jewish religious books were not included in the collection that gained canonical approval... and later three chapters of Daniel were also removed from appearing in Protestant Bibles since those would have reflected poorly on the rest of the Bible as a whole, by their lack of sufficient realism as those were far more obviously contrived—removed from Protestant Bibles only, however, since the public actually reading the Bible for themselves, not the clergy only, is what caused the Protestant Reformation. That realism aspect is the key thing, even though you must have a creation story for how we got here first, including miracle stories to make all of this seem authorized and potentially useful, since without realistic sounding details neither of those other two could have held on like they have, which stories have all been viewed by most of the public in the West, at least in the United States until now, as factual information when most of what's contained in those books is fiction.

So we have a creation story followed by various miracle stories embedded in realistic sounding details, which basics have been adopted by Christianity, and by what's left of Judaism, and some of it has been used in the rise of Islam—all of which branched from those most central Judaistic concepts, which include that stage where sacrifices were being superstitiously offered to who knows what, which stage can be read about in the Old Testament, because that really couldn't be avoided. Of course that stage is de-emphasized and played down, yet it's still there. For offering animal sacrifices had been so important to some of the ancestors of these people, for so long, that following their creation story they felt the need to soon make a new animal sacrifice system to be conducted in their new temple which they hoped would be built.

Judaism was a relatively early attempt to tell its public in Canaan that it shouldn't steal from nor kill other humans, etc.—that their people also should be sober as in not get drunk, and that they shouldn't be overly or constantly concerned with sex. Offered as the common man's religion, instead of merely another arcane or esoteric belief system of the elite or ruling class, by that the religion did achieve wide appeal even though it was indeed used by the ruling class–the elites in Israel and then later by Rome. Because of that wide appeal, which is due a great degree to that built-in religion-of-the-common-man concept, it's entered the psyches of the public in every place it has spread, which makes that aspect brilliant architecture as well.

Going back now to human prehistory in relation to the concept of sin. It's not hard to find today, or at any stage in human history leading up to this one, examples of human nature being similar to that of the animals of other species. Since we came from ancestors that were much like many of those other species, some of that nature that's in them, being in us as well, should be expected. And those least desirable social aspects were a big part of what the general Judaistic concept was targeting also, attempting to remove some of those with its fear and guilt ideas about sin. But do various animals sin? Just look at what most all species do: They find niches to exploit available resources, which are so often other animals. They attack, they deceive, they devour: and so have humans, potentially far more in the past. Just imagine what it was like living in Europe during the times when various groups of barbarians made their livings by raiding other groups. And why did the Mongols feel a need to invade the Middle East (as there are so many more examples that this point goes without naming more)? So was that sin? If so, then what was Israel shown to do in that respect so many times via its own literature? Oh but when Israel did it, if they actually managed to invade even one tenth as much as they are alleged to have done by their literature, they were merely doing a needed job of killing people that the land was wishing to “vomit” from it (check Leviticus 18:24-25) because those people, it says, were so vile!

A human environment of much more killing and raiding would have caused a religion with thou shalt not kill, thou shalt not steal, and thou shalt not commit adultery, to become very attractive, no matter which nation set it forth, and no matter whether its stories were true or not. Adopting a Judaistic religion, therefore, is more of a pragmatic remedy for the potential ills of mankind acting too much like their animal relatives when it comes to killing, stealing, and wanting to have lots of sex. I do believe in good social conduct, but I do not believe that adopting falsehoods to achieve that is the proper answer. For there are too many negatives from religion for a time like ours, too many of those for us to continue attempting better human behavior by means of those type beliefs and instructions.

Meanwhile, the males of the human species tend to be more pluralistic sexually, since females, before the advent of effective birth control, always had to be concerned with procuring the optimal conditions for raising their offspring, which has led to the eventual adoption of monogamy spreading, as pressure has been applied to more and more males to comply with that MO, which is another reason that Judaistic concepts tend to be more attractive to females than males. Yet the rise of that type of religious thinking has gone on to create much economic activity surrounding it, which kind of activity has gone on to attract more and more males as well. -DL

Posted on 9/22/13:

All Velocity is Relative

Two cars traveling at 60 mph relative to the ground on a straight stretch of highway side by side would be moving 0 mph in relation to one another. So would two cosmic particles moving side by side that were sent out from the same source side by side while traveling through space. In fact a single photon, or a proton, or even something much larger, if those could be accelerated to 670 million mph or so, if the space they were moving through was completely empty of all other particles—or any stars, planets, or moons—it could not be detected that they would be moving at all since all velocity is relative to another body or object as a reference point.

Now if one of the two cars mentioned above were parked on that straight stretch of highway and the other one were moving at 60 mph relative to the ground, those two cars would have a relative velocity of 60 mph since the parked one has a a relative velocity of 0 mph in relation to the ground. Then lastly, if the two cars were heading toward one another at 60 mph relative to the ground—their velocity reference point—on a collision course that collision would have a 120 mph impact.

The same is true with all other objects, particles, and light, which either a red or blue shift in the light from galaxies is possible in relation to our location as a reference point. For the velocities those galaxies are moving either away from us, causing red-shifted light, or toward us causing a blue shift in their light, happens by those galaxies moving away from ours at a certain velocity or moving toward us at a certain velocity, much like those two cars. If their velocity, whether away from us or toward us, is great enough the arrival of photons is changed, since those moving toward us would makes the spaces between the arrivals of photons shorter while those galaxies moving away from us elongate those spaces between the photons arriving.

This applies to supercolliders as well. Two protons (hydrogen nuclei) sent in opposite directions around its gradually turning loop via the assistance of strong magnetic fields, and with a boost from radio waves to help raise their velocity as well, both objects are moving at some 99% of the speed of light (some 670 million mph) relative to the ground toward one another due to those gradually turning tunnels and the ability of a magnet field to steer those around. When those protons collide, never mind photons here, their relative velocity produces a 198% of the speed of light collision which will cause those protons to come apart and send out light while doing so.

So what is the speed of light then? It's been assigned a value of 670.6 million miles per hour or 186,282. 397 miles per second. So what is dictating a certain level of velocity for visible light from stars or lightning, and from other things here such as heated metals or light bulbs? In stars it's the compression of electrons that repel on another, which avoidance raises their velocity as their shells are compressed in next to their nuclei where they begin colliding into particles held by attraction on or near their surfaces sending those out at their velocity. That velocity would be consistent and dictated by that mechanical situation. Lost particles sent out as radiation are quickly replenished so more can be sent out since the strength of the attraction to replace them produces high velocities in the recharging of those location just over or on the surfaces of nuclei. There would be a small stall while reloading however while other atoms are sending out radiation during that interim so that the light from the star is ongoing or continuous. The light sent out during a lightning strike would work similarly since collisions send out those photons as well and the transfer of electric current causing those is in that speed-of-light velocity range also. In heated metals that glow orange or red, the electrons are not compressed like in a star, only that heating speeds those up to light speed which sends out photons and other radiation particles by those collisions with enough velocity to be detected as both heat and light. An incandescent light bulb employs the use of electric current, which once again flows in that speed-of-light velocity range. When the amount of current is great compared to the size of the small wire in the bulb those collisions into visible light and other radiation particles is tremendous and those must quickly recharge by attraction to those areas very similarly to how that happens in greatly compressed atoms inside stars; except once again no compression of electrons is involved.

Posted on 9/17/13:

Momentary Light Compared to Continuous Light

A container completely evacuated of atoms contains trillions upon trillions upon trillions of photons and other subatomic particles that are comparatively at rest compared to those
which are moving at speeds high enough to be detected. The container of atoms cannot shield nor keep subatomic particles out since they are so small, as they can move in between atoms
and find their own equilibrium in relation the number outside the container compared to the number inside the container. If so, that would throw off a number of scientific interpretations
presently being used. Please check out how this would work.

Light as matter works because by moving your eye, or camera lens, a mere 1/64 of an inch you have just moved it through a field of billions if not trillions of photons and other larger
subatomic particles. When a particle is broken apart in a supercollider many of its smaller constituents coming out of that collision move at the *speed of light colliding into those at-
rest photons sending those out in every direction since photons are the most susceptible to acquiring the velocity of that high-speed small particle that was just broken apart from a
larger particle made up of many smaller particles, while accelerating a photon is the easiest since it has the smallest mass, as other subatomic particles with greater mass resit being 
accelerated more by their slightly greater mass. This conforms to the laws of everyday physics regarding how all regular things/objects have been observed, and would show how the
micro world is analogous to the macro world in most, or at least the vast majority of, respects. The greater resistance of objects with greater mass to being accelerated, in comparison
to objects with lesser mass, is called inertia by the way—a simple concept which would apply here.

Notice also that those two particles broken apart in a supercollider, which collide into photons and other subatomic particles sending those outward, quickly slow down due to those colli-
but would keep right on going like continuous light. Meanwhile, continuous light from a light source works by its leading photons, with their high velocity, making paths for others behind 
 them while many of those on the leading edge of continuous light get knocked down therefore don't reach the straight-line destination as those behind them will.

*When two objects are sent toward one another at near the speed of light relative to the supercollider's walls (which walls are not moving, as visible light would meanwhile have a mini-
mum speed which lets it become visible), those objects in relation to one another would be moving much faster than typical light speed since velocity is always relative. Therefore,
those particles sent out from supercollider collisions should typically be of higher velocity than minimum light speed, while adjusting the coloration (relative to the wavelengths com-
bined with any velocity variations) can be accommodated by computer software designed for that. -DL
See More
2Like · ·
  • Kim Karson and 5 others like this.
  • If Matter Were Eternal I just have a fundamentally different interpretation, is all. I use the same reasoning methods in this area which freed me from religion eventually. I look
  • for contradictions, inconsistencies, discrepancies, and disharmony, which is what needs to be used in the case of religion also. Both scientific cosmology--the study of the
  • material universe and its potential origin--and religion concern ontology, which is what this is ultimately about. I do come at all of this as an outsider, yes, and have been trying
  • to explain how physics would work if light and radio, etc., were all matter also--using trial and error to see if that might work, which after some seven years of attempting that and
  • eight years since my official deconversion from Christianity, I think it is turning out to work.
  • If Matter Were Eternal More on the explanation of light from stars as streams of photons: The turning off and on of light arriving here from a star would appear to me to solve that
  • light as a wave problem, show that they are actually particles/matter. At great distances, that visible light from the most distant stars in our galaxy, you would have the problem
  • of the streams of photons always spreading farther and farther apart the greater the distance is that is traveled by them, which would then limit the amount of light information
  • far too much. But if light from the most distant stars arriving here were small individual streams sent out in different angles from each location on that star's surface, which small 
  • momentary streams turn off while another one next the last one turns on, that would fill in the gaps in information delivered by that light while giving the appearance of being
  • an inscrutable wave only or entirely.

Posted on 9/15/13:


Posted on 9/4/13:

Pith Ball Electroscope, Capacitance, Magnets, and Electroplating Explained without Negative Charge (This is long but necessary)

Note: Before launching into this, something about lightning and electrical panels needs to be mentioned here. A few years ago Discovery Channel ran a program on lightning. Some
powerful high-speed cameras had just been used to observe lightning strikes, and by that we learned that some lighting actually moves up from the Earth into clouds instead of always
moving from cloud to cloud or from cloud to Earth as it was formerly assumed. This applies to how electrical panels work. For if there is no negative charge, and charge contrast is the
real cause of current moving through a conductor to any given destination, then the deficit charged side of an electrical panel, with its line leading back to the input side of the
generator's magnet (as DC principles would apply because AC is DC electric current that merely switches directions 60 times per second), that line leading back to the input side
of that magnet
would have a deficit in charge in relation to the Earth's overall charge, which side would then receive its electric current from the Earth 50% of the time when 120 volts is being drawn
from an regular outlet in the U.S. Then when 240 volts are being drawn, the current would always move through the wire from the output side of the generator's magnet toward the input
side of its magnet, i.e. its current from that line leading to the generator would move toward the other of those two lines that extend from the generator. Then as 120 volts are being
drawn from the output side of the magnet (during one of those 60th of a second periods in which it would have that particular orientation), the current would be flowing from that line
(or leg) into the ground/Earth, as no negative charge would need to be involved.

Proceeding on: Carbon and oxygen are conductors of electricity because they have several surface protons located on both poles of their respective nuclei, with both type atoms having
a symmetrical arrangement of four protons on each, while carbon has four neutrons under each of its four polar protons and oxygen has five neutrons under its two sets of four polar
protons. [That conclusion has been drawn based on the recent configuring of nuclei, up to potassium, which I did during 2012, which my applying a completely practical and
commonsensical exercise while doing that harmonized surprisingly well with the periodic table, which greatly enhanced my trust in the scientific work done in that area]. So a graphite
pencil, which would be made of pure carbon, does conduct electricity. And though a woody pith ball's molecular structure must prevent it from being a conductor, its carbon would still
hold a certain amount of electric charge, which in atoms that charge appears to be dictated by the amount of an electric photon loading that hovers next to, close to, or just over the protons
of those nuclei, but not over their neutrons so much, which I will explain a bit more about the difference between protons and neutrons in a later paragraph.

Before interpreting some well-known empirical observations that deal with electricity, please allow me to explain how I envision electrons and an electric particle loading area/zone
over nuclei: First, next to atom nuclei, that envelope of electric photons, just mentioned, would be hovering. Then a shell containing 4-particle radio units—four charged photons that
are joined—would be next, which orbit. The second shell of orbiters would contain 7-particle neutrino electrons. Then 28 (or perhaps up to 50)-particle betas would be in the third shell
and would orbit also. Lastly, just a few positrons—each having as low as 80, but possibly as high as 120, charged photons—would inhabit the fourth and most outer shell of those nuclei
that are large enough to desire that type of shell... as the location of each shell out from nuclei would be dictated by their inner uncharged (or low charged) photons, within the electrons,
being attracted to all of the stronger positive photons within a nucleus; which are also drawn together by the attraction between the stronger positives on the surfaces of electrons
attracted to the uncharged and low charged photons that are contained within a given nucleus since contrast in charge would be the cause of that attraction, while all of them have
surface higher middle positives that force them to keep some distance between them (which I will explain more regarding what was just stated in this last clause as well).

[Two special notes: Keep in mind that science has been telling us that the beta particle of radioactivity is an electron. Yet higher middle-charged photons would be needed for
electron microscopes to enhance the visual properties of the substances being viewed by those, even as beta electrons wouldn't be what is coming out of an electron microscope and
entering the lenses of our eyes then bouncing from our retinas. Secondly, If protons and neutrons have 15 positrons connected, with positrons perhaps containing some 120 total
charged and un charged (or low charged) photons joined (as 15 joined would make a sphere)—with all or most having other electrons attached to some of those valleys that would
exist between positrons—then the mass of a proton would be just over 1800 times that of a single electric photon, that is if electric photons have been mistaken as representing all
electrons, which resulted from the thought that electric current is electrons when that current should be middle-charged individual photons instead... while 1 to 1840 has been the
accepted number for electron-to-proton mass proportions.]

The ability of the electric particle loading zone to vary is what would make transfers of electric current possible. And many kinds of nuclei and/or elements are capable of holding
more electric loading in that area than the usual or typical subatomic particle environment offers them, which environment around nuclei can be altered by a magnet combined with
turning  to stir up those areas next to nuclei, which induces an intensified loading process of that particle that is flowing in and out of a magnet. Or that environment can be altered by
passing  along hydrogen next to the oxygen in regular air, which is how fuel cells work, which in principle employs the same sort of dynamics a turning a generator's rotor. Then
there is that electric loading which builds up in clothing from a clothes dryer turning, which uses friction once again, as that extra electric loading comes from drying and turning
since the absence  of water is important since water conducts electricity also, whereas its presence in the form of a significant amount of liquid or vapor would allow that increased
electric loading to  bleed off into the atmosphere's gas atoms as quickly as that turning would wish to build that up. Moreover, rubbing your feet back and forth across a carpet in the
winter, when the  weather is dry, will build up an electric loading that feeds across your entire body, which buildup can then be quickly discharged into something that has enough
charge contrast within its electric particle loading zone next to its nuclei since that loading wishes to be shared between what could be the majority of objects that come into direct
contact; and that can even  jump between two objects when contact hasn't been made if those are placed in close enough proximity—which jumping seems to display for us how
electric loading is shared from nucleus to nucleus within an object as well.

[Note: A pith ball electroscope isn't used to discharge static electrical buildup by a spark like an object being touched just mentioned above, and is considered an insulator which is
apparently due to how its carbon is structured with the other atoms in its molecules, which structuring isn't conducive to electrical buildup nor transfer. So the pith ball has to do
with contrasting charged objects attracting, not transfers of electricity.]

Some objects can gain increased electric charge by rubbing them against something fairly soft and porous, which is just like rubbing feet back and forth on a carpet, friction again,
which is not only analogous to the turning of a generator's rotor next to a magnet but to clouds moving aggressively while coming into contact with other clouds, and is once again
analogous to the fuel cell's hydrogen channeled through air. However, copper and zinc have a natural contrast in charge that is shared from zinc to copper without any need for gyration,
with other such natural contrasts in electric loading between materials leading to most of the common smaller batteries we use. Meanwhile, the attraction between a pith ball electro-
scope and a charged object has apparently been the primary reason why science has been believing that a negative charge versus positive charge must cause of electrostatic attraction,
whereas two positives would create a repel, with the latter of those two interpretations being correct as long as the two positive charges are strong enough.

Let's compare electrostatic attraction to magnetic attraction: Magnets attract and stay attached by being hemmed in by their fields of electric photons flowing in and out of their two
poles. When two magnets are joined using one of two optional orientations, a larger magnet will essentially be made by the combination of those two since that flow will begin to
encircle both hemming them together by its ongoing directional force. The same is true of iron's attraction to a magnet. Since iron doesn't put out its own magnetic field, either side
can attach and will extend the size of the magnet also as it gets hemmed to the magnet's flow in essentially the same way, which flow must readily move through iron's molecular
type structure, which element must also have right type of nuclei which want more of that electric loading—a desire that is never satisfied by their surfaces uniting. Then two magnets
repelling happens whenever two output or two input sides are placed together since that flow's electric photons repel one another while that orientation is an attempt to reverse it,
which flow is powerful, and by that you can feel the power of the mutual repel between electric photons combined with the force of the draw exerted from its electric particle
zone immediately adjacent to its nuclei—which in the case of a magnet that zone has been been starved to some extent by some form of radiation output having previously scoured it
below what would be its minimum loading, which flow circulating around and through its poles is attempting to restore. But the photons coming in are too plentiful and they arrive
too fast therefore always knock ahead each one that previously just arrived which works to keep them continually circling by entering its north pole, streaming on through next to the
magnet's lined-up nuclei, and then exiting from its south.

The pith ball's insulator qualities must have allowed the material to serve as the first and most primitive way for observing contrasting electrical loading visually using objects typically
loaded by friction. But the attraction between the pith ball and a rubbed, or static electric loaded, object would be due to a different reason than the cause of magnetic attraction
and attachment. Furthermore, contrast in charge would be what causes particles, like single charged photons, to attract and attach to make larger subatomic particles, not by some
having a negative charge and some a positive charge. Creating a contrast in charge must be how metal plating is achieved also, typically by dipping an electric conducting metal into
a bath that contains another conducting metal that has been dissolved, with an amount of electrical current applied to that liquid to raise that liquid's dissolved metal's charge, which
works if the  metal in the bath has been reduced into small enough atom groups so those can attach to the other metal, which looks like the same dynamic that's causing attraction
between an object  with a buildup of static electricity and a pith ball, which is ultimately a loss of a couple of electrons. For if the locations of atom shells are determined by electron
size and/or type, with each kind finding its own distance out from a nucleus, and if an electric photon zone or area also exists next to nuclei, then increasing the loading in that electric
particle zone should cause perhaps two electrons, which are much larger than a single electric photon, to drop off, since a nucleus' capacity for electrons would be lessened by an atom
gaining additional electric photons. If so, then electrons would be lost as whole units, which in most all cases ought to create an attraction by a small deficit of electron type particles
since a nucleus' attraction to other nuclei and electrons wouldn't be fully satisfied.

At this point please note how alphas—helium nuclei—crash into electrons in a cloud chamber causing a cloud to form as a loss of electrons forces gas nuclei to mutually attract
much  more than just previous to that, which the drawing together of gas nuclei is responsible for that opacity of the cloud, which is one of several things that tell us how nuclei are
naturally attracted to one another, as well as to electrons, and thus have a capacity for electrons which they seek to maintain. Moreover, extra loading to the electric particle area
over a nucleus wouldn't address that attraction just prior coming from electrons to a nucleus, which once again comes from an electron's inner uncharged or low charged photons being
drawn to the positives covering the surfaces of a nucleus' protons and neutrons, and vice versa (while neutrons would have more positives covering their surfaces than protons would,
which are  needed to stabilize their additional uncharged particles under those higher positives on the surface, which positives finish off protons and neutrons [electron surfaces also]
with some needed repel to end excessive attraction—which greater number of uncharged type photons inside neutrons are needed to stabilize their center particle, which is the highest
charged positive photon of all, which then requires more middle positives on neutron surfaces to stabilize those, which that extra surface repel and greater inner attraction coming
from its greater number of uncharged type photons is what makes neutrons misbehave when not surrounded by enough protons). Therefore a tiny amount of electron / electric particle
deficit, which isn't being filled with quite enough electric photons (and by those not performing the exact same function as electrons), would by the loss of a couple of electrons—as
the larger whole units they are when compared to photons—appears to cause a pith ball to be attracted to an excessively charged object, and would perhaps be the same dynamic
behind electroplating.

Then lastly, the reason a capacitor can hold additional electric charge would seem to be basically for that same reason—a couple of lost electrons from each atom in that case as well—
as two closely placed but separated metal plates would be charged to contrasting levels, which a couple of lost electrons in the higher charged plate ought to create a holding effect on
that higher charged plate's electric particle loading by its nuclei having an increased attraction to the other plate. In that relationship, the attraction from one side should cause both sides
to want more yet nothing can be shared, while gas atoms, which could bleed off some current, have also been removed from in between the two plates. -DL


Posted on 9/1/13:

Antimatter Versus Matter, an Error, Then Proof of a Profuse Subatomic Environment

It appears that protons and neutrons would be made of several joined positrons, with a neutron actually having a higher charged photon in its most central positron than a proton has,
which is what makes neutrons incompatible with other neutrons so that nuclei with too many neutrons are unstable since they apparently...
begin to bang against one another which
causes radioactive particles to be sent out from them as seen in radioactivity's most basic example, tritium, with its two neutrons and one proton. Helium, however, with its two protons
and two neutrons is able to keep those two neutrons still: helium-4 is stable.

Certain nuclei will eject positrons which are used in PET scans. The patient that is to be scanned drinks some contrast containing the radionuclides which have been prepared to eject
some positrons, which how those nuclei are prepared I won't include here. Those radionuclides attach to glucose molecules in the contrast and so are by that spread throughout most
of the body where they emit positrons which travel one millimeter then collide into a beta electron inside the patient's body where both the electron and positron annihilate—meaning
break apart spilling their smaller constituent particles back into the surrounding environment. When that happens two gamma photons are sent in opposite directions, which gamma
particles/photons would be the red and red-orange particle (as those have been classified by me using their degree of positive charge by means of graduating colors) within the center
of both the positron and beta electron, with the positron containing the red photon which has a slightly higher charge than the red-orange that's in the middle of the regular electron,
while those positrons and electrons have enough relative velocity in those collisions so that their center particles meet as those units are breaking apart. When they meet their strong
positive-to-positive repel quickly sends them in opposite directions, which in the PET scan they appear to be channeled by the magnetic field that's sent through the patient, which helps
them move in an organized manner that can be translated into imaging.

The reason a magnetic field should channel gamma photons is because that particle of magnetic fields (which is also used to generate electricity), even though it's a lower positively
charged photon, would have enough charge to repel gamma photons, which repel would help herd those in a pattern for imaging, or that is what appears to be going on to me.

Along with this please note that the beta particle—a common electron—is a natural product of radioactive decay, which output does not need any preparation of its nuclei as how the
positron emitters used for PET scans always require. Nor is any prep needed to have alpha particle emissions—i.e., helium nuclei—which are also emitted naturally. So please note
that protons or neutrons, or perhaps both, apparently hold some beta electrons either on or fairly near to their surfaces.

The reason the beta and positron break apart when colliding at those velocities would concern the presence of too much positive charge in the locale of such a crash, which breaks
their smaller particles apart thus creating too much disorganization for those to reconstitute; therefore the two gamma photons fire off and the rest should make some smaller basic
collections like 4-particle radio units or 7-particle neutrinos that aren't detected due to their low velocity/energy. And what is right now considered a few other matter and antimatter
paired particles (which the electron and positron are seen as one example of that) annihilatingshould work in a very similar way, while the exception of quantum entanglement
apparently pulls its particle mate from the surrounding subatomic particle environment by mere demand since a vacuum would be full of subatomic particles since those can't be
blocked by any container made of atoms.

Now please compare all of that to what happens in combustion. In combustion, whether the slow burning type or an explosion (as customary explosions are combustion subjected
to containment), atoms are blown apart, which quickly reconstitute on their own by making the most natural molecules from the proportion of those single atoms, just separated, being
offered to one another. They quickly join to the most attractive counterpart atoms, according to the proportions of those being offered, and do so on their own; therefore a certain
amount of reconstituting might happen with subatomic particles as well—which may uniquely apply, in some way, to those unusual observations made with regard to quantum

But making a suggestion about quantum entanglement isn't a primary concern of mine as of yet, since it's the things that we can deduce much more certainly, or those things that
fit exceptionally well and make plenty of sense, which should be accepted and then built upon, like how some electrons are apparently contained in nuclei... and then the positron
and electron, whose surfaces should be covered with what are essentially electric photons and/or UV photons—i.e., middle charged photons (not neutral nor negative since this system
has no negative charge)—which positives would mutually repel enough to help scatter those in the event of a collision like those which occur in PET scans, since the surfaces of both
particles being covered with those should mean that the positron and electron aren't really matter versus antimatter counterparts but simply two particles with lots of mutually
repelling particles on their surfaces, which have some even stronger repelling photons or single particles in their centers.

The Subatomic Environment Portion: Alpha moves a short distance in a cloud chamber and makes a wide line. Beta moves many times as far and the line is thin. To see a gamma
cloud in a cloud chamber you have to have a pretty large chamber because it travels outward pretty far before making its small short faint line, which would be mainly caused
by the disturbance of its strong positive photon slowing down and so disrupting a certain number of gas atom electron areas—not by collisions as with the big alpha particle
hitting and knocking off electrons, but by its very strong positive charge.

A gamma photon would easily swerve from electrons in gas molecules for quite a distance avoiding collisions, much the same as the higher charged constituent within visible light,
also photons, are able to veer from electrons in transparent materials. A gamma photon eventually slows because it's continually colliding into subatomic particles, then finally it's
going slow enough to offer a disturbance, due to its high positive charge, to a few gas molecule electron areas which causes its faint cloud to form at the end of its trek.

You need to think of the beta particle and gamma photon as similar to a meteor the size of a grain of sand passing through Earth's profuse atmosphere of gas atoms and molecules.
Such a meteor is small but able to maintain its course by its high velocity through that thick environment, by its momentum in a given direction, or what could be called its directional
energy. So many gas molecules are poised to prevent the meteor's straight passage! Yet it has enough velocity to maintain its straight course as it plows right on through all of those.

In a cloud chamber, the alpha and beta, and to some extent the gamma, appear to be moving rather slowly in subatomic particle terms. You can watch the little clouds form rather
slowly as those streak through. It's as if everything were specially prepared for humans to observe in slow motion. While one might pose that we are simply seeing the after effects
of where such particles have just passed through, which is correct, those particles are still slowed down a great deal by a profuse subatomic environment in much the same way that
a small meteor is slowed down by gas molecules in Earth's atmosphere; and they are both traveling thousands of miles per hour which is analogous as well. -DL

Posted on 8/9/13:
Is an Alternative to the Big Bang Theory a Legitimate Possibility?

About six years ago, as I was formally decoverting you might say—which process officially started for me about eight years ago after years of beating my head against the wall
trying to make religion truly believable in relation to everything I had observed somehow—I saw how the Big Bang Theory seemed too conducive to religion with... regard to its
most basic concepts by it allowing matter to pop into and out of existence by it not being eternal therefore incapable of actually being annihilated [annihilated here meaning that it
could be caused to no longer occupy space] instead of it much more simply being dispersed into its smaller constituents. At that time I was beginning to see how some religious people
could try to capitalize on the Big Bang Theory's concepts and make the Bible still seem true to far too many who don't care enough about what good research is really like when
there is no way whatsoever that religion should be viewed as possibly being true anymore.

So many people are difficult to guide, yes, and too often prone to behavior that isn't considered desirable, even harmful to themselves and others, which is cause for great concern
or even alarm. But is that really enough to keep religion going indefinitely? Should that be enough to let it keep lording over so many human psyches and propagating itself so widely?
I don't think so.

The only evidence I have seen for a Big Bang universe is spreading galaxies and background radiation, both of which could be explained with eternal matter periodically spewed
from a source collection which has phenomenal gravity reaching very far out into space and thus able to pull galaxies back to it and cause that spreading or apparent expanding
that's been noted by way of modern telescopes. This involves what black holes contain since a source collection would be a black hole—a collection of photons or matter in its
most basic and/or earliest form which get charged to different levels under compression, which particles are also separated into individuals by such a massive collection's unspeak-
able gravitational force. When those move out into space in two opposing directions as an eruption—with the distortion from spherical particles into much more unnatural cube
shaped individuals (to different degrees depending upon depth), with that being the impetus for one of those expulsions—varying levels of positively charged particles would then
interact to make protons, neutrons, and electrons [there would be no negative charge per se], thus atoms, planets, stars, and galaxies. That background radiation puzzle piece would
also fit well into this model. -DL

New, posted on 8/9/13:

Evolution: Anathema to Religious Enchantment

People want enchanted lives, and why not? Enchantment is of course part of the packaging offered by religion, which must include a way to both categorize and put blame on all
problematic or insubordinate humans—some way to get rid of them—which is critical to the potential for enchantment through each of the three Abrahamic religious programs.

ntment in this life, of course, doesn't come to most religious people, only a perception that they are receiving special individual care or treatment that supersedes anything
bad they might be experiencing physically. Therefore explanations are needed which teach their subscribers to cope, while an afterlife is viewed as the place and time
for eventual satisfaction, especially in many cases when suffering predominates the here and now.

To doubt or criticize that potential to enter into religious enchantment now, at least mentally, is seen as robbing life of its potential poetry, which is how most of the public here in the
US still sees it. To try to replace that with giving a good deal more respect to evolutionary processes is therefore, in principle, despised as base, churlish, or even predatory, which
many inherited human instincts are what religion abhors in everyone it needs to discard as inimical to that promised future universal blessedness it hopes to offer to everyone.

Evolution, which works well for plants and animals by culling unsuccessful forms, as it also reinforces those strongest and most desirable traits, is by principle rejected by religions
as far too crass and below what humans should be, even though finding a mate that is strong and beautiful has long been a built-in human inclination that our industrious and
opportunistic species—a species which developed a prolificity of advantages that went exponential—has eventually become. Yet altruism (even though I'm still much in favor
of that) and spirituality must now wipe away all of that so “righteousness”—far better thinking and behavior—will finally come. It may be time to better sort out how to do that. -DL

Posted on 7/11/13 (a better edited version of this, along with three more that are important, are coming in August 2013):

This is part of a series that is essentially complete now. I'm planning to have this one printed out to put it on many doors in KC with two fairly similar ones that I think will be effective.
The reason why I have worked on an approach to physics along with this type material for the past seven or eight years is because I think reality has no spiritual realm whatsoever and
my approach to physics would disallow that possibility. I don't like any explanations that seem magical now.

Absurdity Folder: NT Miracle Criterion No Longer Applies
Have Others Observed This and Made Some Notes Also?
(Part 5 of Coping with Evil and Other Problems)

The New Testament claims miracles happened in the first century and not exclusively through Jesus, while the kind of seeing and hearing that he must have given (to fulfill prophecies)
would have been the metaphoric/spiritual type—spiritual understanding as explained in Isaiah 6:9-10 & 44:18, also Jeremiah 5:21, which emerges as a theme in the Gospels (in
Matthew 13:13-15, Mark 4:12, Luke 8:10, and John 12:40) which are the kind of Bible places that let a bit of the cat that really happened out of the bag.

The New Testament claims Jesus' disciples (later called apostles), including some other early Christians, worked miracles also; and did so rather similarly to Jesus after he was gone.
And there is much reason to believe—if one takes several NT statements seriously about this—that miracles were to continue happening after Jesus' initial apostles were gone. But
what would have been the purpose for Jesus working miracles in the first place? Wouldn't the performance of miracles be predicated on a person being closely associated with a
Supreme Power; therefore those who work real miracles must not be pretenders, which should make miracles an excellent way to tell which ministers are genuine in our time as well?

But here is the first clue that something about this is very much awry. Curiously, Matthew 7:21-23 doesn't follow that logic by making the case that miracles are the gold standard
for determining which ministers are of God and which ones aren't, DESPITE THE NEW TESTAMENT PROFFERING THAT AS THE CRITERIA USED TO SHOW JESUS
CAN FAKE MIRACLES; and despite the NT proffering miracles as the means to verify Jesus' agenda continuing through the agency of his disciples also; as Matthew 7:21-23 depicts
Jesus telling some who seemed extraordinarily sure they were real Christians to "depart" from him... thus enter everlasting torment—some who “prophesied” and “cast out devils”
in his name, and even performed other “WONDERFUL WORKS.” So why would the criteria for determining that Jesus was special, including the criteria for demonstrating his
disciples/apostles were the correct ones, be set aside or suddenly change? And what are we supposed to do today when we might choose the wrong minister or group—thus the
wrong belief/faith—and accordingly end up in hell? For why would Jesus, or his heavenly Father, not realize how difficult it would be for people in the future to find a veritable min-
ister from him? So how could God fail to realize that those who want to take his Bible seriously—anyone who wants eternal life w/ morality (and pays careful attention)—would be
forced into a stultifying religious maze due to the high likelihood of falling prey to the errors of false teachers, therefore end up in hell? For the full sense of this, please check how
the NT attempts to address this telling and extremely discrediting issue in Jude 3-4, 2 Peter 2:1, and Titus 1:9-11.

Next fast-forward from that early Christian period to the four or five decades leading up to the present: Baptists have long had churches where miracles are never expected, much like
other Protestants. For members customarily pray for God to intervene, and sometimes he does (some believe) and other times, for whatever reason, he doesn't, with prayer having
roughly a 50% chance of success. And today, following the affects of the charismatic movement—which was a 20th century outcome from the Pentecostal Church movement which
started around 1900—only on rare occasions will a church having the name Baptist emphasize miracles as ongoing, which would be a church hybrid, which distinction is important.

Now consider a run-of-the-mill Baptist church from roughly 45 years ago, one that invites people to accept the Christian gospel for their salvation from hell, and to address that bent
toward sin which Baptists claim all humans have, which church typically baptizes all of its respondents. Keep in mind, once again, that no miracle event of any kind is ever expected
in this kind of church. Those who attend only read how the New Testament describes such incidents of the past and then hypothesize that even though some acts like that appeared
to have been performed by Jesus and his disciples, such miracles are no longer necessary since the entire point now is to help as many souls to be saved from sin and hell as possible,
which Baptists overwhelmingly view as Christianity's most important feature!

Yet the New Testament does indicate in several ways and in numerous places that miracles should continue after Jesus and his apostles are no longer present. Therefore in the 2,000
years since Jesus, when Catholicism (which was Rome's and its successors' state church for well over half that era) may or may not have carried the torch for authentic Christianity...
when no small number finally broke away to start their own kinds of churches [in a time when people needed some means for recognizing which form of Christianity served as the
religion's bona fide standard-bearer, as opposed to those which failed to properly represent it, so that people would be able to pick the correct minister/group—which, by the way,
would be the group that best “contends for that faith which was ONCE DELIVERED to the saints," meaning the real thing... i.e., that form of the Christian Religion which Jude 3
claims was DELIVERED to the saints DURING THE FIRST CENTURY, which first-century standard happens to rule out Catholicism as ever having carried the torch for authen-
tic Christianity, according to the NT's own criteria])... were the religion somehow based on unadulterated history. So that setting aside of how either the presence or a lack of
miracles indicates one group is of God and another one isn't, must be a bait and switch tactic?

Now think back some 40 years from the present to when Pentecostals and the charismatic movement were beginning to infiltrate the ranks of other churches while trying to show the
world what New Testament Christianity is really supposed to be—how that miracles should be frequent occurrences, according to a coupling of some salient NT implications with
an adequacy of clear statements that propound that as both axiomatic and factual. Back then charismatic believers were wanting Baptists, like myself, to speak in tongues and become
fans of their ministers who seemed to work miracles—aggressively pushing that on Baptists who believed they were already saved... which you would think that ought to lead some
of those target Baptists to begin wondering what in the world is really going on, therefore start questioning whether their salvation was suddenly not as important, and whether
Baptist ministers might not be bringing true salvation to sinners after all, since miracles were never present in that kind of church. So what if God's verifiable presence does end up
requiring some signs and wonders? If so, would the ministers accompanied by those amazements be the genuine type, therefore real salvation should come via their agency also,
instead of through Baptists, since Baptists virtually never display any deducible evidence for demonstrating God as most assuredly being with them? Do you now see what kinds of
problems the Bible ends up creating by its omnibus of falsehoods—falsehoods that are impossible to reconcile with reality... including many absurdities that we have been allowing
all kinds of ministers, fresh from their colleges and seminaries, to completely ignore and proceed with impunity?

Lastly, fast-forward 17 years from 40 years ago—from 1973 to 1990—a year in which three charismatic minsters were exposed as frauds on national television by the ABC News
magazine, Primetime Live; and many more of that same type have been additionally exposed since then... all while Baptists do remain quite powerless. So what's someone who
wishes to believe in everlasting life and embrace high morals supposed to do? Well, at least most Baptists are somewhat wary of being overly pretentious.

This, and several more issues that are similar, should lead us to conclude that the story of Moses is absolute fiction, and that Jesus never worked even one real miracle... while those
who wrote the New Testament were carrying forward those same sort of social engineering practices initiated by the Abrahamic religions' first architects—the authors of Genesis,
Exodus, and Leviticus... and that no God of any kind exists whatsoever. -DL

Check these facebook pages for more: Secular Solidarity, Atheist Standards For Children, Atheists Who Love, Reaching The Evangelical Mind, If Matter Were Eternal; especially
Parts 4, 5, and 6 of this series.

Posted on 6/18/13:

Religion Within the Context of Human Development—Organization/

Bipedalism and the use of some primitive tools came first, followed...
by an expansion in the number of tools designed for many more purposes; then came tools to erect impressive
structures and large buildings, to fashion boats or small ships, to provide water conveyance and new weapons, etc. Meanwhile early writing required hieroglyphics, followed by
cuneiform; and finally alphabets were created to provide maximum utility by dividing each spoken word into phonic segments that correlate with written symbols called letters.

A flourish in religious development was next, mainly to facilitate people working together well, and to do so in larger groups than before, which requires something for compel-
ling individuals to conform—a basis for order or some consistent means that the public can begin organizing around, which early Judaism was meant to provide. But competing
concepts for how best to accomplish that would have arisen also. And whatever it was that might be employed, it would have to be presented as the truth, which meant it would
need to be extremely well crafted, that is, if it were to have much chance of being effective—which is why, today, in the face of an enormous amount of evidence against the
factualness of Judaistic literature, most still can't gain mental freedom from its superincumbent grip.

Christianity's original leading form was essentially Judaism which had been much improved; then Catholicism was a customization of that, so that by the first half of the fourth century,
at least according to Rome, Christianity looked like a good upgrade from Paganism... and then before the end of that same century forced conversions, ordered by Theodosius The Great,
were being imposed. Which practice continued under others such as Charlemagne, then morphed into the Inquisition of the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, which impelling was ex-
pressed by the Spanish Inquisition of the sixteenth through nineteenth centuries also. Protestantism, however, still managed to emerge during that time: For some influential Catholics
began to protest that Catholicism clearly failed when compared to the New Testament standard, while hoping and hypothesizing that if Christianity were practiced correctly (according
to its scriptures) then the Hebrew Creator might be well pleased—assuming, of course, that the much storied Hebrew deity was unabashedly for real. Meanwhile, the rise of Islam
in the seventh century helped many Arabs who were living in that arid Middle Eastern region to unite, therefore become more organized so they could begin working together far
more effectively—which is the real reason (or secret) why Islam has been so successful. -DL

Please check out the following facebook pages: Atheist Standards For Children, Atheists Who Love, Reaching The Evangelical Mind, Secular Solidarity, and If Matter Were Eternal

Posted on 6/5/2013:

A Swiss Army Knife God, Temporarily Required?
 Monotheistic Architecture, The Whys and Hows
(Part 4 of Coping with Evil and Other Problems)
It was decided by the Abrahamic religions' earliest architects that discovering truth wasn't important, only that their followers wouldn't cause trouble. The main problem
with that is how this kind of religion can't be effective unless it calls itself “the truth”— which then opens the door for some of its most improbable aspects attaining a
factual status despite appearing to be fabrications—like as if believing that certain of their most questionable elements is good for us therefore those might be veritable
in some way, and as if believing those are true is a test for our faith that must be passed before a person can cross over into, or enter, a romantic experience of the super-
natural... all of which is asserted by the Bible as being genuinely possible. For how many times do young people growing up in church need to be told that with God
“faith is counted for righteousness,” all while “blessed,” said the majestic Jesus, are those who “hunger and thirst after righteousness?” While the act of believing that
several of these religions' elements are true—which means those would still be true today—can lead to some very serious personal problems. But for the sake of under-
standing the predicament of those architects, let's attempt to put ourselves in there shoes for a time to see if maybe we can find something that will inspire a small amount
of sympathy.
Why Use Religion: People need reasons for doing things—for them to be and/or behave in some given way. Some of earliest architects of the Abrahamic religions ap-
parently assessed the general human condition, then added together everything they considered to be its negatives (or liabilities), particularly any problematic patterns...
then thought to themselves: “What can be done to help remove each of those detriments—to make things BETTER FOR ALL HUMANS while, of course, improving
those political opportunities in our region?”
Abrahamic Monotheism, Development and Progress: Next, everyone is needing to know how we got here. So where exactly did humans come from? Is there perhaps
something powerful presiding over all of us, that is causing various occurrences to happen according to some criteria or set of standards? If there is, then does an entity
like that control the weather? Does it give, as well as hold back, needed rain for our crops? So it must control flooding also, including destructive tornadoes and hurricanes.

If that's the case, should we offer such an entity some animal sacrifices periodically—out of that increase we accrue from the land, since protein is typically preferred
over mere fruit or grains—do so to improve the chances that such an entity will bring us favorable conditions, as opposed to hardships and disasters? And if things get
really bad, would offering that Being the most precious thing we have—one of us, a human as the ultimate sacrifice—cause it to have compassion on us when it comes
to so many threats? Who knows? Perhaps we have offended this Being without even realizing it, which circumstance might require some costlier sacrifice to assuage or
appease his anger.
A New Stage: We should now begin writing about how this entity created all things, that when doing so he had a special plan for man or the human race, since written
language has become far more advanced by employing letters instead of only pictures, which immensely broadens the scope and depth of what we can describe or explain.
Great idea! Meanwhile, each person needs to feel indebted to this creator entity which we will claim created the world and everything in it, including the Sun, moon, and
stars—which power to create will give him/it the needed authority to tell every person what to do and think. Everyone will be required to comply with what this deity says,
otherwise they should be punished; and at times some may even need to be killed. This is how to impose social order; even as having some means of order is, without
question, an absolute necessity. Therefore were are providing a great service to humanity!
If this entity did create the world and all life, that implies both design and a certain desired outcome, therefore it would have to know the future and be able to accomplish
goals... which would also mean that if he ever spoke through a human, like we are doing for him now—if he speaks through some of us again in the near future—then an
important theme would be his ability to foretell events before they happen, which feature should become an ongoing method whereby he demonstrates his vast superiority
over humans since people chronically fail when trying to predict the future.

So of those human negatives and liabilities that were assessed, which would be the most derogatory pattern—something our creator deity might be able to help change? It
could very well be that proclivity that so many have regarding their sexual behavior, a propensity to have casual intercourse with a potential partner for no greater reason
than a momentary urge or impulse, which pattern produces many children who, of course, have a mother but no father—no father to help provide for as well as guide them.
Which adverse pattern can spread exponentially so that too many children will be ensnared by neglect and poverty since responsibility for them will fall entirely on their
mothers—that massive responsibility to raise, train, and guide them; to secure a home and fix many things; to very importantly bring in food and clothing along with anything
else that might be needed—while each of those tasks must be done over and above the regular work required for an adequate income... as the enormity of so many tasks is
typically too much, therefore results in neglected children living in a state of indigence, in a time when all were expected to be self-reliant.

Such a condition would compel those children to become thieves, then greatly increased violence would follow—all of which would have grown from unrestrained sexual
conduct in a time before birth control. The early architects of the Abrahamic religions would have viewed this potential pattern with acrid disgust as they began to ponder
its remedy—the need for a certain amount self-restraint implanted in each individual... which architects would have customized the nature of their deity to supply what
they felt would be indispensable inculcation. It was either that or else too many would simply do what comes most natural in relation to those human facets which evolu-
tion has gradually enhanced—natural behaviors that include people taking a needed item or anything of value; that uninhibited, opportunistic, instinctive and libidinous
breeding; both of which would be followed by frequent fighting with competitors. [If religions have misunderstood evil then it needs to be explained in natural terms en-
tirely.] For the powerful human species, without some sort of governing philosophy accepted by the public at large—which religions have been attempting to provide—
our prehistoric version would have relied on brute force to implement a more basal social order, similarly to how breeding buffalo or wild sheep have continued to use that
pattern, including every kind of deer, cat, bear, seal also walruses, hippos, and elephants... while giraffes, zebras, wild horses and asses, cattle, gazelles, gorillas, lions,
caribou, elk, ibex, markhor, musk ox, antelope, milu, rhinos, plus numerous kinds of birds, also many species of fish, do the same—each of which go through breeding
intervals (most of them annually) while not having one perennial mate, where the right to breed is decided by strength and the winners collect a windfall of sexual
partners. Welcome to prehistoric human social order (which pattern was carried forward so that it appeared in the Bible stories of Abraham, Jacob, Gideon, David, and
especially Solomon) while order was indeed maintained in the past, just not the type that's now viewed as acceptable in the West—order which has been established upon
a different kind of basis now, which area religions have hoped to define and explain. That transition is clearly seen by the acceptance of polygamy (or polygyny) in the
Old Testament (or at least as it was allegedly practiced by several of its more important figures) followed by the New Testament and Roman influences leading to com-
pulsory occidental monogamy.
The potential for a human sexual free-for-all could have been the number one reason why Abrahamic religions were formally developed through the introduction of Genesis,
Exodus, and Leviticus—which behavior, without question, was seen as something that was needing to be prevented—to prevent humanity, at least in the view of those early
 authors, from spiraling into squalor, chaos, and perpetual violence. This is why marriage was, and still is, an important part of a successful human society (despite how it's
dawned on many now that having a lifelong companion is wonderful even if not imperative)—simply because marriage requires adults to take ownership of, or essentially
 to become responsible for, their own biological children, which pattern is critical to a successful human progeny— even as elephants serve as a good example of how more
extensive training is needed by offspring of some of the more complex species. For elephants pass along a larger than typical amount of knowledge to their juveniles, which
also entails temperament training, so that they will be able to succeed also; as those individuals wouldn't be able to last were they somehow separated prematurely and left
to their own instincts—all while handling human sexual instincts through training, including requisite teaching in many more areas, isn't so much a moral question as it is
a life quality and success or failure issue. Yet the strategy of religion has been to turn such concerns into moral issues because that's been a primary means whereby it gains
control of people (by infiltrating its listeners' minds with various fears and apprehensions). But even though we can drop religious trepidations now, we still need a healthy
amount of self-restraint implanted within each new human individual.

Knowledge of that aforementioned sex-drive problem has led to vast numbers taking religion for granted as something necessary, therefore by extension people have assumed
that it must be true somehow. And up to this point I know of no-one who has attempted to explore this topic from this particular naturalistic/evolutionary perspective or angle,
or at least I haven't seen anyone focusing on what religions have provided being meant to address some of our most basic human instincts—instincts that served many individ-
uals well in the past when things were far more primitive—all while religions have managed to train most of us. Abrahamic Religions have even provided most of our social
norms from its behavioral strategy meant to address this problem area which it has not understood, wherein guilt (with a heavy emphasis placed on guilt) and praise have rein-
forced desired behavior; as opposed to better and more extensive training followed by virtually no emphasis n guilt.

Religious training must have coined the word “adultery” and made it a sin, which curriculum is also why the words “whore” and “slut” have carried such negative connota-
tions. The word “bastard” falls into that same category, which words have served as a way to stigmatize behavior seen as extremely harmful and undermining to maintaining
a healthy human culture, even though a few of those religious concepts were apparently needed. For in a time before birth control, how in the world would anyone have con-
vinced the general public to pull back from their inherent drives or natural instincts without urging them with something coercive like the threat of a religious punishment
in an afterlife, coupled with enough stories and explanations to furnish a complete program? For where there is no guiding standards whatsoever, no accepted philosophy of
any kind, people will too easily fall back on merely looking out for number one, plain and simple, while religions have at least attempted to connect us to one another in some
positive ways while warning us that some grave consequences are possible, even if several of those warnings have been off and many of its potential negatives were over-
blown. Religion has served a few useful or helpful purposes nonetheless.

People are generally more tolerant today than ever before, and many no longer take the existence of some entity who created us for granted as how so many in the past once
did. So if many more people began to realize that no entity who allegedly created us is actually presiding over us, that there is no-one there whom we owe any sort of worship
or adoration to, we must still address certain human problems that have grown out of our physical evolution in particular, in view of what humans can potentially be together
now if we adopt a much more informed self-restraint than religion could ever hope to provide. And the public needs to know the true source of such difficulties also, that we
have drives and instincts which have arisen from our evolution and nothing else, how those do not come from any spiritual entity named Satan.
Dissecting a topic like this, one that's been taken for granted as if everything about it is well understood already, seeing this as too basic even though it's still approached far
too often through a strategy entrenched in theology, reveals how religion has apparently entered most human psyches rather deeply, which shows just how engrained so much
of it has become; though a certain level of social order has, indeed, been achieved by applying it. We should admit, therefore, that some parts of religious training are not com-
pletely void of merit. But even though much of it has become engrained in the West, several Abrahamic religious elements should, however, raise some enormous red flags
that alert us to the fact that there is no way a rather large percent of those could be true. However, social structure which has helped humans to organize and behave better has,
generally speaking, come through religion up to this point.

[Note: Sometimes people become religious because they may tend to be a bit gloomy, or perhaps they want to belong to a loving and supportive group; or they may feel bad
about their own thoughts failing to help mold them into an ideal kind of person, one who is both happy every day and consistently good to others, while hoping religion might
inspire them to do better. Oftentimes religious people do encourage one another to work on a number of things that will help them to be better people, all of which is very
understandable, which is religion at its best. But if people could do those kinds of things without a belief in afterlife, without Christianity's tempestuous end-of-the-world
component, and without any of those vengeful and intolerant features which manage to emerge in the New Testament also, then all of that would be fine. But removing those
items would mean it would no longer be a religion.]

[Note: Religion has actually changed humans permanently in certain respects, I believe. And even without religion, were humans still capable of reaching our present level
of advanced civilization, there seems to be something strong genetically which has been built into us, a part of us that will gladly be faithful to a person's mate in a very mon-
ogamous way, with the only requirement for that being that the person must be utterly fascinated with their partner. Finding that would have to be absolutely great for any-
one who does, if of course they have what it takes to keep that fascinating person happy. But situations like that aren't as common as most might wish to think, which ends up
thrusting more than a few of us into some sort of breeding or mating kind of limbo.] -DL

Posted on 5/13/2013: 

Why the Big Bang Theory is False (in Review)

1. Asteroids, comets, and meteors—broken pieces of planets and moons that have collided after being lost from white dwarfs—would not exist without smaller stars
having gone through billions of years of star lifetimes before expanding into red giants to lose the majority of their mass, then becoming exceedingly small as white
dwarfs. In order for those... broken pieces of rock and ice to exist, much more than 13.7 billion years would be required.

2. Supernovas blow up into very tiny pieces/objects, thus are not responsible for the existence of asteroids and comets.

3. Hydrogen naturally makes H2 when or wherever large amounts are present—hydrogen does not make H3, H4, H5, H6, etc.—even as it's the least likely of all gases
to coalesce/condense into stars, planets, and moons.

4. Some nebular dust would come from supernova explosions, but much of it would have come from the loss of mass that smaller stars experience as each goes from
being a red giant to a white dwarf—which process again takes too long for the Big Bang's time line of the universe.

5. Hydrogen and helium spectral lines are observed coming from stars, thus it is hypothesized that stars contain hydrogen and helium and that supernova explosions
are needed to get those two atoms' small individual nuclei to overcome the resistance offered by their orbiting electrons; as those explosions, it is hypothesized, would
cause those to suddenly jump together to make the larger nuclei of heavier elements. But this is not the way atoms and molecules behave on Plant Earth since they
naturally combine constantly without explosions.

6. Hydrogen and helium spectral lines are observed coming from star surfaces, but since hydrogen and helium are the lightest of the elements their tiny gas atoms
and/or small molecules would be the lightest, thus they would be the least affected by a star's gravity therefore would naturally rise to the surfaces of any star where
they are seen, which means that many heavier elements are under or below them within all stars. (If I left religion based on good cognition in relation to a great num-
ber of observations made over a long period of time, then I cannot take that same type of cognition process, which helped release me from religion, and then apply it
while reviewing the Big Bang Theory so that I will be able to accept it.)

7. Gravity would very easily cause what's been observed and then termed expansion of the universe's galaxies, which is seen via the red shift of light that's been not-
ed between virtually all other galaxies and ours. If the universe has one main matter collection, what gradually became its source black hole by nothing more than the
gravity that is exerted from all matter attracting other matter—i.e., eternal matter, thus it has always existed and has always had mass—then eruptions into space from
that collection would periodically occur due to a build up of pressure caused by compression, which is the same essential dynamic that causes eruptions from many
moons and planets. Those periodic eruptions from a source collection would then move out into space much like a high velocity fountain—a fountain whose matter
(much the same as higher velocity fountains on Earth) begin to slow and spread due to the gravity that is pulling on it from that collection behind it. That spreading
would constitute what we observe as the galaxies expanding, which is actually spreading. Then regarding the formation of those galaxies: Subatomic particles would
coalesce naturally into various atoms (and then molecules also) on their own when spewed into space, due to charge contrasts between subatomic particles, which
variations of charge would be due to a certain amount of distortion retained (after springing almost all the way back into perfect spheres) in each depending upon
how much compression those individuals endured in the depths of that source collection. Then regarding the galaxies that are farther away speeding faster away from
ours, which also appears to be expansion (and is why dark energy has been hypothesized under the Big Bang model): As galaxies slow, like the matter in a fountain
slows and then turns back toward the Earth, so would those galaxies. For groups of galaxies that have been spewed in prior eruptions would be far enough ahead,
within their returns to the source collection, to have increased their velocities much more than those later spewed galaxies that are far behind them—much as the
man who recently jumped from a high altitude balloon (since his drop time was a much extended) sped up to over 800 mph. -DL


Posted on 4/9/2013:


My series on the historical Jesus is the result of some 7 1/2 years of research after my deconversion (also based on learning before that which led to my deconversion).
I have been heading in this same basic direction on this issue ever since beginning to study the matter immediately after my deconversion; and have also felt fortunate 
to have picked up some good pointers from scholars that I had initially heard on some educational type programs having to do with that topic. However, I now need
to credit the Vridar blog that now I read most every day. For there were three items which helped me get to this point in my historical Jesus research and Neil Godfrey
of the Vridar blog is the one who mainly helped me to understand what's explained in the following three items, which I feel are essential to the issue: (1) How that
the Testimonium Flavianum in Josephus' works is an interpolation, no doubt, and most likely one done by Eusebius; (2) How also in that same Book 18 of Josephus'
Antiquities of the Jews, where it says "who was called Christ" that was an interpolation also which was most likely added by the same person who added the TF, since
that was talking about an entirely different Jesus and James (who had places within the temple), not the Christian Jesus and James--which then leaves the rest of
Josephus' works seeming to be much, or even exactly, what those appear to be, therefore reliable on many, many things, which we should be glad to realize that I think,
which is how I take all of that; (3) Then Neil also recently helped me to learn that John the Baptist's execution is dated to 36 CE, according to Josephus' works, which
is some seven years after what would have been the most likely crucifixion date for Jesus--all of which was needed to have my Constructing The Real Jesus Series in
the form it now is and therefore reads. And it's great now, in my view, to have what I think is a very good scenario in place for what I think most likely happened behind
the formation of Christianity. More details could be filled in, of course, but I'm essentially happy with having what I feel to be a very good set of the basics that have
been put together now regarding this issue. -DL      

Here is a link to the Vridar blog: http://vridar.wordpress.com/2013/03/14/scholars-rationalizing-and-paraphrasing-the-christian-myth/    

New, posted on 3/27/2013:

Constructing The Real Jesus Series #10

On Psychological Evidence & First-century Persecution

The recent surge in energy from the mythicist camp in the historical Jesus debate may force a number of historicists to reevaluate what they have to this point, then come
out with some new and perhaps even stronger arguments for their more widely adopted stance, which could result in more headway made in solving the puzzle from the
historicist viewpoint.

What immediately follows was written previously, was essentially a prelude to this segment: One huge factor that mythicists are missing in the historical Jesus debate is
called psychological evidence, while the definition of psychological is "of the mind." Psychological evidence might be explained in the following way: When a court
wants to convict someone (or a group of individuals) of a crime without the help of firsthand witnesses, they will first need to show: (1) Motive (which is of the mind),
then (2) Wherewithal or ability to commit the crime (that's also largely of the mind), including (3) Opportunity.

Yet what sort of crime is being alleged by unbelievers as having been committed? Answer: Fabrications consisting of fact mixed with fiction (while mythicists allege it is
fiction entirely) that has been offered to the public as accurate accounts of real historical events.

So has there been any damage caused by this alleged crime? Answer: Widespread acceptance of a man named Jesus—as a deity who worked miracles—not only clouds
overall perceptions of what's real, as a seriously held belief it's caused too many to focus on unreal things like the fiction of his return, some to even hope the world ends,
which belief has repeatedly caused collateral, emotional, and psychological harm to many. Helping those with a self-control problem or a negative outlook, including
anger or indifference toward others, via reasons condensed from falsehoods doesn't justify our endorsement of this.

Who do historicists suspect as the perpetrators who fabricated more than a few Jesus miracle stories as history? Answer: Jesus' disciples.

And who do mythicists suspect to be the perpetrators who fabricated miracle stories about Jesus then offered them as history? Second through fourth-century Roman
citizens who were apparently wanting to upgrade the empire's official religion using concepts derived from previous ancient cultures, to manufacture a completely myth-
ical Jewish person-deity named Jesus (or else some Jews fabricated this Jesus for Roman consumption).

What were the potential motives (from the historicist point of view) held by Jesus' disciples? There looks to have been some three, or as many as five, facets of motive
primarily involved: (a) To pay tribute to Jesus who offered himself as a sacrifice to fulfill Jewish messianic prophecies, prophecies such as Isaiah 53 (with Isaiah 53
serving as concrete evidence for this—since, first of all, the writing really does exist—is part of the Dead Sea Scrolls which are dated to between 150 BCE and 70 CE,
even that chapter in the Great Isaiah Scroll corresponds accurately with the Christian Bible's version); (b) To save Jesus' mother from the stigma of having produced a son
who turned out to be a false prophet... one who had, for one thing, railed against the religious leadership in Jerusalem—both Pharisees and Sadducees—with his disciples'
response after Jesus' death being to meet all of this confidently and head on, even if in a couple of respects doing so was a little repulsive by them being pretentious
(however, this response would have been much preferred over cowering to others for the rest of their lives as having been so wrong about the person they had loyally
followed, which decision was quite possibly seen by them as a question of their very survival due to some common social dynamics in their time—or more simply put:
so that Jesus' disciples could save themselves from the stigma of having followed a deluded and grandiose false prophet also); (c) To continue admiring Jesus (the
person who had united them) by utilizing his inspiration, strengths, insights, as well as his determination and self-control under pressure—use all of that to not only
acquire new followers but hopefully pass on some of Jesus' best traits to others, which their succeeding with this would have, of course, elevated their own personal
status many times over while also being one of the more desirable ways to obtain needed income to live on.

What were the potential motives (from the mythicist point of view) held by the Romans who were wanting to replace Paganism (or else the motives held by some
Jews who created this completely mythical religious product which they were hoping to sell to the Roman Empire)? This religious product would have been an
upgrade from the current forms of Judaism that existed in their day as well as something better than Paganism; while those who created the religion should also
be able to empower themselves by it [yet that's pretty tough to pull off if you don't already have an historical Jesus whose story can be improved, shaped, and custom-
ized in whatever ways seem necessary].

What about the wherewithal or ability to commit this crime, as seen by historicists? (a) Paul's writings exhibit extensive theological talent in the Jew's Religion within
his epistles, which epistles are replete with references to previous Jewish texts that can be checked at any time, along with many involved theological explanations
which demonstrate his substantial work or investment in the topic, which someone who had not acquired that kind of expert knowledge would have easily been dis-
missed by others, sent away, and discouraged by constant rejection; (b) If Jesus saw himself as the Jew's Messiah, he would have studied Jewish messianic prophecies
and then formed a plan for himself based on those, and would have passed his interpretations along to his disciples who would have become competent at applying
Jesus' interpretations and methodology... so that his disciples, in time, would have become proficient at creating good miracle stories about Jesus—stories which were
germane to the miracle stories in the Old Testament—so that if any of Jesus' disciples didn't actually write any of what appears in Mark, they at least least could have
advised or otherwise influenced many who wrote the Christian movement's best New Testament literature.

So what would be the wherewithal/ability for this crime, as seen by mythicists? This is so improbable that we could almost assume that the theological expertise with
Jewish scriptures needed to produce the Gospels—including what was required to produce the caliber of the other books found in the NT—didn't exist outside of those
religious entrepreneurs who had followed Jesus' concepts. To find out just how improbable it would have been for anyone else to have produced those, a person would
need to spend several years immersed in all of the themes, repeating threads, and extensive references in the primary source Judeo-Christian type literature, to see just
how hard those would have been for any outsiders to produce. It would have been impossible. Besides, who person is going to study something so extensively when
they do not actually believe in it? This is why someone almost needs to have been a theist for a significant number of years in order to have acquired enough in-depth
understanding/insight into both Jewish and Christian scriptural orthodoxy first... so that such a person can eventually see into what must have been behind the formation
of Christianity. For when you read, and then over time you start to understand, what so many of those authors were trying to say theologically, in that way a person can
begin to peer into the philosophical workings of those various authors' minds... which is important for exploring what, historically speaking, must have truly occurred;
and we presently have plenty of literature from former times serving as available evidence for researching and deciding most things of that nature.

Opportunity to Commit the Crime as Seen by historicists: The real followers of Jesus would have had the opportunity for all of this as well as the funding needed to give
them the freedom and/or time to develop what the nascent Christian movement would need in order to succeed as a new religion, plain and simple.

Opportunity to Commit the Crime as Seen by mythicists: How would anyone have been able to last when developing all of this without having some funding in place to
do so? And if there were no real Jesus, therefore no real followers of Jesus either, then what could have motivated anyone to continue trying to create such a product when
the payoff wouldn't have come during their own lifetimes, even as no-one would have invested in such a venture with such a low likelihood of success either? There
was no opportunity therefore, for anyone except Jesus' disciples to attempt this particular kind of theological product.

The above reasons aren't the only ones that weigh heavily on what really happened. For those who don't mind researching Jewish messianic prophecies, including various
apocalyptic Jewish and Christian passages which directly relate to those, do so in conjunction with any and all tangible evidence that's now available—if all of those are
compared in relation to their themes (which not only reveals what their authors were thinking but also hoping to emphasize)—none of that can be explained under the myth-
icist position.

Addendum on Persecution in Relation to Dating the Gospel of Mark: Regarding an hypothesis I was recently apprised of, formed or else learned by a highly respected
scholarly person in this area, on what seems to have been perceived as a low likelihood that Christians faced persecution during the first century, thus the date of the 
NT's first Gospel might need to be pushed to the beginning of the second century—based on how Christian persecution is mentioned in Mark 4:17, 10:30, and 13:9—if
the early Christian movement garnered some 1500 followers after a perceived outpouring of Jesus'/God's spirit (after some 500 had waited and prayed together, as advised
by Jesus conspiring disciples)—an “outpouring” which apparently came on a day when a strong wind, or squall line, abruptly arrived, which was interpreted as the proph-
esied outpouring of God's spirit spoken of in places like Joel 2:28... then an original number of 500 loyal followers of Jesus looks to have turned into some 1500, possibly
 even more... which would have been variant believing Jews from the established forms of Judaism in their day—which new version saw the temple as no longer necessary
by it having been replaced with better spiritual realities that came with a new and better covenant, as the NT temple had become the believers themselves, who had God's
spirit inside them (both as temples individually as well as them making up a temple collectively)... combine that with their leader ( i.e., Jesus) having railed on the Pharisees
and Sadducess (all while challenging the status quo or any current leadership has typically been dangerous for anyone--anywhere, anytime)... such variance would have
produced some serious resistance to that new movement, therefore would have resulted in Christians being persecuted—the result of others detesting what their movement
was attempting to do. That kind of resistance to the Christian movement would have occurred very early on once the group became organized enough to be seen as up
and running, which then fits very well with an early date for the Gospel of Mark—the Gospel product of Jesus' disciples centered in Jerusalem—which seems to me would
have been written between 60 and 67 CE. Also regarding early Christian persecution: Paul's epistles, which would have been written between circa 42 to 58, additionally
discuss persecution, as well as resistance, to the Christian movement—presented in them as something that for all practical purposes was constantly occurring during his
time, as mentioned in Romans 8:17; 8:35; 12:14; including 1 Corinthians 4:12; 15:9; then 2 Corinthians 4:9; [NOTICE PARTICULARTY 2 Corinthians 4:10-11]; next
Galatians 1:13; 1:23; 4:29; 5:11; 6:12; 6:17; also Philippians 3:6; 3:10-11; 1 Thessalonians 2:15; 1 Timothy 1:13; and 2 Timothy 2:12; 3:12. -DL

Posted on 3/21/2013:

Constructing The Real Jesus Series #9

John & Luke Machiavellian, Not Paul, and John the Baptist's Role

There is a way for Paul to have genuinely believed, and much better reasons for why Jesus wasn't a lunatic. Number 4 in this series, called Did Jesus Believe In Miracles,
explained how Jesus viewed each messianic prophecy describing sight as given to the blind and hearing to the deaf, e.g., w...hat Isaiah 42:6-7 depicts, as not requiring
him to perform any miracles since those places in Isaiah and Jeremiah denote spiritual understanding instead of physical healing—a metaphorical application that's ex-
plained in places like Isaiah 6:9-10, 44:18, and Jeremiah 5:21—which meant that Jesus was under no pressure to work any miracles, which if he felt the need to deceive
anyone on that it would have seriously discredited him. That means all Jesus would have needed to do was preach a few years, make a few symbolic gestures related to
certain messianic prophecy selections, incite the authorities to execute him for sedition, then wait to see if God would miraculously raise him from the dead... and if so
then discover the full range/extent of what messianic power would be like. And if Jesus were here today, were it possible for him to come back and tell us what really
happened, he would most likely say that he tried, according to what his nation's religious scriptures seemed to be calling for, including what his mother and many country-
men were hoping for—the coming of a “Deliverer” of some sort. He would then go on to tell us that what he did was in relation to a plausible scenario and he gave it his
best shot... and since nothing happened that ought to tell each one of us that certain authors who wrote in behalf of his religion early on in the Israel timeline must have
fabricated Moses' story and a few others, and that miracles must never really occur. Then if he could stay on a few more years he'd become an atheist after having found
out the hard way that atheism is correct.

There are two ways to take Paul: Either Paul fabricated his conversion story to foist his way into a relatively new Christian movement as one of its special leaders, once
Paul found the new form of Judaism more substantial than he first realized—doing that in view his skills related to the level of religious training he had received—
or else the immense pressure he was under trying to serve the God of Israel correctly led to him having a mini nervous breakdown wherein he hallucinated a vision of
Jesus speaking to him. The latter would work since when writing in the first person, as my friend Edward Babinski recently pointed out, Paul never explained in any of
his epistles the details of that vision. Then when you couple that with Paul's understudy/protege, Luke, (after Paul was gone) realizing Paul's conversion story wasn't
impressive enough to maximize evangelizing nor to silence critics—much as Jesus' disciples realized Jesus' true story wasn't impressive enough to win new converts,
therefore was needing some heavy duty enhancements—Luke then depicted Paul's conversion in that sensational way it appears in Acts, which would then make Paul an
innocent party in the Christian conspiracy. Yet what about Luke and John? What did they do and why?

John looks as though he may have, in fact, stood by Jesus' mother during the crucifixion, much as how that's described in his Gospel, which would fall within a pattern
that the earliest Christian leaders appear to have had—a desire to utilize as much factual and/or historical information as possible. So John would have stood by Jesus'
mother as his Gospel claims, perhaps as the disciple who did love Jesus the most therefore he assumed Jesus loved him the most in return. John would have taken care
of Jesus' burial in the tomb as well as moving his body after three days had passed, which was done by John in his own interest, yes, but also in behalf of the rest of the
disciples who had fled; thus he provided for himself, as well as them, what he considered to be a magnificent business opportunity and worthy cause, too, once everyone
agreed to come on-board with his plan... which they unanimously did. For what do you do for a man and his family after he had just intentionally given himself up as a
sacrifice for his nation, and even the world, did so in view of fulfilling a messianic vision that was endorsed by and found within his own nation's scriptures, part of
which is in Isaiah 53? Even though Matthew omits John's presence near the cross when Jesus died, if he was standing by Jesus, then moving between him and his mother,
would that really have been a bad thing for him to do? Would that have been bad of John in view of Jesus having sincerely believed in some of his own people's most
highly esteemed prophecies and national aspirations? If that is how it happened, I don't think you can be too hard on John after all, since once he and his fellow dis-
ciples had made the decision to press on after Jesus, doing that primarily in tribute to Jesus, at first at least, then there would have been no turning back no matter what
came afterward. It was a dilemma that John would have faced, similar to some extent to that dilemma which Jesus had faced, except Jesus' disciples, if successful at this,
would enjoy a much longer season of basking in the affection and reverence from any followers they might manage to win.

Luke did much the same for the movement as John, doing so at first in view of Paul as his mentor, and then later in deference to the other disciples that Luke would have
come to know and appreciate as their involvement increased. They were on the same team, the same side, and Luke did whatever he could to help. And had Luke not
written Acts, the movement might have very well floundered. So Luke apparently embellished not only Paul's conversion story to help with the goals and purposes of that
main group, but when writing that early “history” of Christianity he included anything else that he noticed needing to be addressed in relation to whatever came up, since
Luke was apparently those leading Christian brothers' good bud.

If John the Baptist's ministry initiation date was roughly 23-24 CE, and if his simplistic repentance and baptism approach was gaining crowds... when Jesus was just about
to begin, John's popularity would have drawn Jesus, too. People liked John's message because it wasn't complicated and seemed to have moral authority. For many like
someone they feel they can count on, someone who practices what they preach while perhaps linking them to a noble power above. That's been a big seller, especially
when that person doesn't seem to have any motives to procure personal wealth/funding, so that a good portion of the public might have said the following about someone
like John: “Why does he do this? He may very well be a genuine speaker for the Hebrew God!” That, of course, didn't make it so, but John would have enjoyed all of that
recognition just the same, while he however no doubt genuinely believed in what he was doing.

The early Christian movement could not have ignored the success of John with the common folk, therefore John was needing to be explained as well as included in what
they were doing—even if John knew little, perhaps nothing at all, about Jesus. I think it does look as if Jesus initiated his ministry by being one who was baptized by
John; yet all of those other descriptions of that event in the Gospels looks like pure fiction.

Jesus would have most naturally preached a gospel related to 2 Samuel 7 primarily, thus would have employed the word “kingdom.” But knowing both JtB's message and
his significance, Jesus would have incorporated the way John enjoined the public to “repent” after observing that, especially since that message had already been tried and
was working so well for John. But far more important was how the message of repentance fit a main theme within the scriptures. Besides, how would the kingdom of God
come to anyone who wasn't sincere, pure, and devoted? These were most likely the kinds of things Jesus meditated on during his time in the desert, for whatever length that
was while making final mental preparations for how he should go about presenting himself to Israel, as not only their Messiah but the most important prophet ever. Thus
baptism would have been endorsed by Jesus and so became a part of Christianity early on. On these conclusions regarding baptism and John, and what Jesus would have
routinely preached—in relation to so much on this topic that we are confronted with—this seems to me like the most likely true scenario, and has been reached while apply-
ing Occam's razor, which I'm satisfied with at this time. (Wikipedia/Occam's razor: “states that among competing hypotheses, the one that makes the fewest assumptions
should be selected.”)

Posted on 3/19/2013:

Constructing The Real Jesus Series #8

Authors of the Gospels Indicated By Theme and Primitiveness

While writing this I was made aware, from a very reliable source, that John the Baptist's execution occurred in 36 CE—while Jesus' death appears to have been in
29—according to the account of John the Baptist in Josephus' Antiquities of the Jews, ...Book 18. Now since Paul mentions baptism a number ...
of times in his epistles,
with Paul's epistles seen here as having come between 42 and 58, that means baptism must have been practiced by the early church, which to me indicates that even
though the time of John's execution must have been collaboratively fudged in the our Gospels, if John's ministry were something on the order of twelve years in duration,
counting his time in prison, that would have resulted in an active period between 24 and 36 CE. If so, then Jesus could have very well been baptized by John just as
Jesus was launching his ministry; and he may have gone into the desert after his baptism to fast for some length of time similarly to what the NT Gospels somewhat
unitedly intimate as one detail of their Christian narrative(s). And had Jesus been baptized by John as an unknown, which looks correct to me, then that would explain
why several followers of John the Baptist—as that group which acquired the designation Mandaeans—are shown to have unequivocally rejected Jesus as the Messiah
(which is one small yet significant irritating problem for the Christian faith). On that check Wikipedia/Mandaeism: “Mandaeans maintain that Jesus was a mšiha kdaba
'false messiah' who perverted the teachings entrusted to him by John”... all while Jesus would have seen himself as needing to satisfy/fulfill a far greater range of
messianic prophecies than John would have ever cited or emphasized, many of which he probably never even considered. For John seemingly focused the bulk of his
attention on those many places in Jewish literature that continually berate their own people as the reason God allowed other nations to routinely gain the upper hand
over them, which repeating theme in the prophets always claims such occurrences were God's response to the sinfulness of the Jewish people—that he was chastising
them—which of course was nothing more than a theological excuse for the actual impotence of the Hebrew deity, since it doesn't truly exist.

Continuing on to the Gospel of Mark: The perspective of Jesus' main group of followers after he died would have been that of the Gospel of Mark—who were the book's
true authors, or at the very least its consulting specialists—despite its fictitious elaborations. They were not experts in Jewish law but quite good at applying/interpreting
messianic prophecies, which is exactly the area Jesus would have instructed his hand-picked and personally-trained disciples to focus on; even as they would have
looked into the Old Testament via that specific approach or angle, which perspective fits perfectly with what can be seen in Mark's Gospel. They were not professionals,
yet were unabashedly determined after gaining enough community support from the original followers of Jesus [perhaps 500 who prayed and waited with them at first
after Jesus had left, until a strong wind finally came one day as many began to speak in tongues as a sign that something profoundly spiritual had occurred, which number
most likely grew to upwards of 1500 in Jerusalem during those early years, which would have been enough to underpin the movement economically] so they could
have time to work on perfecting their new trade for many years to come. More on that psychology of the Jerusalem group of Jesus' close followers as the authors of Mark
can be read in the #7 post of this series, and more will be considered as additional important factors are encountered.

Luke is different from Mark in a number of ways, yet based on Mark's framework it's the only Gospel to develop an exact concept of mechanics regarding how Jesus'
gospel would work to save people from hell. To prepare for that, please check a continuing thread that can be seen in the following four verses while paying special
attention within those to the next five English words—“repentance,” “works,” “worthy,” “fruits,” and “meet”—in Matthew 3:8; Luke 3:8; Luke 24:47; Acts 26:20; mean-
while Luke 3:10-14 is also integral to this. Referring to the Greek is not needed for understanding the main point for this, which should be so plain that it's easy to take
for granted or possibly even ignore. But please don't miss what Luke was trying to do as I believe he authored both Luke and Acts due to a certain continuing theme
in both, which will be fully explained in the next five paragraphs.

The third Gospel of the New Testament, in my estimation, does appear to have been written by an associate of Paul's named Luke since what's in this paragraph and the
next four is a good explanation for some short, nonetheless, major points that come when Luke and Acts are conflated. It's first of all interesting that Luke, who is shown
as a companion of Paul's, did not parrot Paul in his Gospel. Luke instead saw a need to clarify what his friend had said: For Luke would not have wanted his mentor
to in any way be misconstrued, while the Christian movement was also needing certain tangential theological concepts headed off before those created big problems. Luke
must have noticed Paul balancing out a number of his own seemingly fringe and/or unorthodox statements, some that had the potential to be problematic, which statements
Paul made about salvation being 'all of grace with no requirement for works' as how Ephesians 2:8-9 and much of Galatians, including Romans, assert. Yet Romans 2:6-7
and 1 Corinthians 6:9-10 counterbalance that for Paul, even as Romans 2 and 1 Corinthians 6 show an ENORMOUS CONTAST from a belief that salvation comes en-
tirely by grace without any 'works' being required whatsoever—which properly quantifying that looks like a major objective of Luke's, to show Paul as never intending to
advocate an anything-goes/antinomian Christian approach when Luke wrote Luke 3:8 and Acts 26:20, which two verses connect Paul to John the Baptist by showing
Paul as essentially proclaiming the same message as John. For if Christians took Paul the wrong way, i.e., if Christians began to think that no evidence whatsoever for
salvation was required, such digressive ideology—seen by Christianity's best thinkers as ruinous heresy—could have eventually DISCREDTED THE ENTIRE RELIGION
since one of its key elements is the final judgment of all men that will determine everyone's destiny. In that final judgment, the sheep and goats (aka saved and unsaved) a
re divided in the end, which if there were no observable or objective basis for dividing them—meaning if evidence in the form of what had actually occurred wasn't
the basis for that process—then no-one would be capable of agreeing with God's decisions on who passes into eternal suffering as opposed to who enters everlasting
paradise, which would result in no-one having the capacity to genuinely praise God as having performed perfect justice, which problem would have then made a mockery
of the religion thus led to its demise instead of it gaining further acceptance or continuing on with its cultural ascension. It was that potential problem which would
have created some confusion that Luke's Gospel was meant to theologically rescue the religion from, which he hoped to accomplish by his work of harmonizing John
the Baptist's message with Paul's—which as a theist I used to have a great deal of respect for Luke's feat of theological consolidation as if it might have somehow been
factual, by that simplification bringing a certain degree of measurability to the Christian gospel in relation to salvation so that ministers could carefully assess or test whether
they were doing things correctly, which is what led to my own deconversion. (There is a brief allusion to the Christian gospel having led to my transition to atheism in
my second book—Religion, Sex, and Philosophy—which exactly how that worked cognitively I didn't attempt to explain at that time. This explanation about Luke's Gospel
is one of my very best efforts so far at trying to help others to understand why that happened.)

To smooth out what seemed like a serious overemphasis by Paul's writings saying salvation was 'all of grace and not by works', Luke 24:47, which is Luke's version of
BEGINNING AT JERUSALEM”... with repentance presented by Luke as consisting of concrete and/or measurable actions that concern real observable behavior (i.e.,
human deeds/actions that actually occurred so that those could be accurately chronicled or recorded in certain books by God's angels, and then brought forth later during
the final judgment of all people) even as 'works' are also what John the Baptist is shown telling various would-be penitents what they should do—actual deeds that were
called “fruits [or works] worthy of repentance” mentioned in Luke 3:8, which works are meant to be empirical evidence of repentance having occurred, such deeds as
what's listed in Luke 3:10-14—that specific list of things that JtB directed people to do). What's in Luke regarding JtB looks like it was shaped, in this particular instance,
to correct Paul's overuse of his “works” idiom (though Mark, Matthew, and even John all mention JtB, too, while placing John as subservient to Jesus even though John
almost certainly never endorsed Jesus as how the NT Gospels describe, yet none of those other Gospel authors customized John to Paul in the way Luke did), which
idiom by Paul was, however, innocently employed by him to combat the corrosive, confusing, and negative affects coming from Judaizers—Paul's competitors—who
advocated the need to obey a certain set of the less significant laws in the Old Testament.

Furthermore, the second chapter of the Book of James reinforces what Luke was trying to do when James, in thematic concert with Luke, declares “faith without works
is dead, being alone,” which shows how other early Christian theologians were wrestling with that exact same matter. Matthew 7:21-23 looks to have been another
attempt to correct the same issue (written prior to Luke)... except how that place in Matthew serves to undermine the security (i,e., psychological comfort) that a Christian
would need to have in relation to his or her sincere belief being efficacious for obtaining salvation from what's become a widely held concept of impending doom—a pall
of potential eternal torment which Christianity declaimed as having passed over the whole of the human race. From there, Revelation 20:12-13 goes a long way toward
trying to explain how some “books” that receive ongoing entries from angels contain records of actual deeds by every person who has ever lived, books by which every-
one will be judged “according to their works” which chapter 20 of John's apocalypse attempts to convey—which is much the same as what Paul states that in Romans
2:6-7, however. Then Revelation 20 describes “another book” that is called the “book of life” which is supposed to contain the names of each and every person who will
be saved—even as its names, we are told in Revelation 17:8, were written there “before the foundation of the world”—so that the “book of life” serves to represent the
foreknowledge of God since he must know all things in order to be God, and if not then nothing whatsoever that is contained in this entire scenario has any possibility
to work... which the existence of such foreknowledge is why miraculously prophesying the future is shown possible including predestination being essential. These
were among the most important concerns facing Paul and the authors of the four Gospels—as well as the authors of other books in the New Testament—and as such were
among the main issues being wrestled with by the top Christians in that day; while discovering who wrote these books relates very much to those issues the potential
authors of the Gospel were most heavily engaged in.

Here is more about the importance of Acts 26:20: Luke shows John the Baptist preaching a repentance message (before Jesus appeared on the Judean/Galilean scene),
with John telling a multitude (with the word “multitude” in Luke 3:7 swapped for “Pharisees and Sadducees” in its parallel verse of Matthew 3:7) to “bring forth therefore
fruits meet/worthy of repentance” in Matthew 3:8 / Luke 3:8. Luke then looks as if he wrote a compendium or summary statement relating to those in Acts 26:20 & 22,
which ties those three places—Matthew 3:8, Luke 3:8, and Acts 26:20—together as a way to explain how the gospel can pragmatically save people from hell—that is,
get that job done in relation to a person's responsibility—his or her so-called “end of the bargain” [you might say] for them to actually be saved when it's all said and
done—by Acts 26:20 showing Paul explaining to King Agrippa that he had been traveling to several cities across the Roman Empire to tell people that “they should
REPENT, and turn to God, and do WORKS WORTHY OF REPENTANCE” (which to modern Christians that may not sound too much like Paul, with its hardcore
repentance/behavioral gospel message, which close to 100% of Evangelicals today have managed to miss—to not link John the Baptist to Paul via Matthew 3:8, Luke 3:8,
Luke 24:47, and Acts 26:20)... as those same four words in Luke 3:8 and Matthew 3:8—“fruits meet for repentance”—(while Luke 24:47 uses the same kind of termin-
ology) is then transferred to Acts 26:20, the synonym “works” is substituted for “fruits” to read “works worthy of repentance” there so that in the viewpoint of Luke
no-one who wonders about this issue should be able misinterpret how a behavioral aspect or element MUST be contained in the gospel in order for it to be capable
(by some method of distinguishing between what pleases God and what doesn't please God in relation to people's responses to the gospel)... capable of demonstrating
how salvation is successfully executed for everyone to see, so that the job of helping at least some people arrive safe and secure in heaven occurs; also so that God can
somehow be seen as just. Or else what in the world is the point? Is this nothing more than some sort of gruesome and pointless entertainment for God? Since for so many
there would be no chance of having a good outcome? Is that real justice? Looks like a man-made national deity to me, which I'm certain enough about to bet my future
on with no fretting at all.

Moreover, to clarify Paul then, or perhaps even correct him a little, Luke ends up making a code that must be obeyed so that a given person or persons will be saved, which
shows salvation as being fairly mechanical by relying on empirical observations, which also ends up making it a bit too similar to salvation by obedience to the Old Testa-
ment Law (which Paul mentioned as being something that was impossible in Romans 9:32 as well as Galatians 2:16 & 3:10)... while the Christian behavioral criteria, how-
ever, would be both much less complicated and supposedly far less difficult, which is apparently what the Gospel authors—and perhaps even Jesus (had he not been so
preoccupied with various messianic prophecy details, mostly those that might concern his sacrificial death) including those authors of Isaiah and Jeremiah who wrote about
those kinds of changes from the OT law needing to come one day—must have ultimately been aiming for. So there would have to be a tangible criteria for salvation so that
if someone were baptized, as how the first portion of Matthew's Great Commission (Matthew 28:19) instructs, yet that person didn't follow up his or her baptism with
enough sincerity by emulating Christian precepts/teachings, then such a person's baptism would in the end be rendered ineffectual or meaningless... even as such a mechan-
ical salvation process that includes books whereby all justified people are judged/separated from the evil/unjustified people by their works written down in those books
(which separation happens after the end of the world), such separation that is based on empirical observations would unfortunately turn into a theological nightmare when
it comes to any deathbed conversion, and would also have been a big problem for the thief on the cross making it into paradise. Yet the gravity of that whole situation should
lead all honest Christians to make an effort to explain that danger (to new potential coverts)—that danger of so many Christians not making it to heaven due to so many
not sufficiently following through with their actions, ACCORDING TO THEIR SCRIPTURES. Yet explaining that to anyone who is about to become a new Christian
would most likely result in that prospect changing his or her mind since most who adopt Christian faith wish that mere baptism or a profession of faith will take care of bus-
iness with God and thus result in a feeling of them being safe and secure with nothing any longer to fear. Of course some who merely get baptized or make a profession
of faith, and then follow that up by essentially doing almost nothing further for God or his church, may not, however, mind chipping in some sort of offering on certain
special occasions, while others will become devoted enough to tithe, which the latter seems to have become the main objective or ultimate goal of the Christian theolog-
ical system... even though the historical Jesus, as a serious believer, would most likely not have wanted what he did to have turned into something that's so steeped in
collecting offerings.

Matthew now looks to me as having been written by a person with the same name as its Gospel, also, after I've had more time to reflect on that; or perhaps was a person
who had a small group helping him. But it seems more likely to me that it's the product of a very talented person who worked on that individually; though he would have
checked with Jesus' leading disciples about how things were looking as it was coming together, I believe. Matthew was someone who was mainly wanting to give the
religion a more sophisticated presentation than Mark, while Matthew was based on Mark's framework in much the same way as Luke, except Matthew wasn't meant to
clarify Paul or give the Christian gospel an appearance of having some sort of empirical mechanics in place for how its gospel and salvation would work and/or be dis-
pensed. Rather, it was intended to dress up Mark's overly pragmatic and much too primitive presentation, while Mark was a no-nonsense and very business-like product
as you would expect--no-nonsense and business-like for a work describing lots of fabricated miracles, that is--from a group of Jesus' closer disciples who were untrained
in the professional sense yet conservatively concerned with things like loyalty, maintaining a theological tenor that was as similar to Jesus' as possible while absorbing
OT storytelling methodology by allowing its influence to shape what ended up in their final Christian Gospel product.

Even though the author of Matthew doesn't appear to have been one of Jesus' main disciples, he still would have had a certain number of his own impressions regarding
however many times he encountered Jesus. And Matthew knew, most definitely, what kind of authority for the movement Mark's Gospel represented (which he deferred
to by incorporating so much of it)... by that Gospel having come from the highest ranking group of Jesus' followers—the group in Jerusalem—which group was greater
in stature than the tandem of Paul, Luke, and Barnabas, as well as more eminent than the Christian outpost where John was no doubt accompanied by a certain number
of followers (though John, I feel very sure would have begged to differ when it came to playing second fiddle to the Jerusalem Christians, even though he did however
make sure his Gospel wasn't actually discordant with Mark, or else the movement would have been unable to replicate itself via continual expansions like it has—that in
loyalty to the people he had followed Jesus next to for three years he managed to keep himself in check by deferring to them when it counted.

So Matthew would have admired Jesus more from a distance as someone who was not one of Jesus' innermost followers. Matthew would have just happened to be one of a
very small handful of Jesus' followers (and quite possibly could have been the only one) who happened to be a professional and poetic also, which is why his Gospel was
eventually placed ahead of Mark within the New Testament's book chronology, so that Christianity could get off on the right foot, as it were, with everyone who might begin
reading its New Testament compilation, so that most everyone in the future, who were essentially potential converts, might form a favorable first impression of it due to its
competency and/or literary prowess, even as Matthew was intended to give the religion some polish.

The Gospel of John is very interesting and I do think it was written by its namesake as well. For me, that has to do with certain continuing themes throughout the Gospel
of John, including John's epistles, and Revelation, which because of those book's commonality regarding those I do think John wrote all three—much as Luke and Acts
contain certain continuing themes. One primary theme of John's that repeats in each of those has to do with obeying the commandments of God, which anyone must admit
is kind of vague, which theme doesn't actually work out theologically, by the way—which theme would have arisen from John while he was viewing himself as the fore-
most leader of the conspiracy (which feeling very well may have lasted from the time Jesus died until John's death as well), while the others in the cabal most likely didn't
give him the respect he felt owed after having originally taken the reins in that role alongside Jesus' mother at the crucifixion while expressing his full support, then his
dealing with the logistics of where Jesus' body would be buried, and after three days moved. To me, there appears to have been a slight rivalry between him and the
rest of the disciples regarding who was best suited to give Christianity its main theological thrust or emphasis in relation to various Gospel miracle stories, a number of
real sayings and parables of Jesus that were used, and many sayings and parables that would be customized to sound as if those had come from him in the portrait his
disciples would make—a rivalry that would explain why John was always producing his own very unique versions as well as why he took the risk of writing
Revelation. He must have thought of himself as being just that good, I believe. He definitely had a giant ego.

Regarding John's obeying-the-commandments-of-God theme, look at how many times John refers to commandments—an emphasis which he fallaciously thought could
bring theological harmony to Christianity: viz. John 14:15 & 21; John 15:10; 1 John 2:3 & 4; 1 John 3:23-24; 1 John 5:2-6; 2 John 6; Revelation 12:17; Revelation 14:22;
Revelation 22:14. While Luke worked on a behavioral criteria that every real Christian must meet, John thought obeying God's commands would serve as the required
evidence for showing whether individuals were either real or false Christians. But which commands were you referring to, John? The Ten Commandments? Obeying the
sabbath was one of those, which Jesus was shown to have set aside? What about taking seriously and/or paying close attention to the second commandment, which would
make the people around most anyone irate, even bother seriously religious people? That doesn't work, John. Needing to pick and choose between commandments is
one of many clear indications that the Abrahamic religions are most certainly, and without question, utterly man-made. 

Hypothetical dates for the Gospels and other critical NT books with their authors' envisioned ages:

Mark: 60-67 (by the primary group of Jesus' disciples at Jerusalem, group established in 29 CE; ages 50 to 60)

Matthew: 72-75 (by a well educated Matthew, also a disciple that was not close to Jesus; age 70 to 73)

Luke: 82-85 (by Luke, who was a companion, spiritual understudy, and protege of Paul's; age 67 to 70)

John: 82-85 (by John who liked to call himself the disciple “whom Jesus loved”; age 72 to 75)

Revelation: 86-89 (also by John who was one of Jesus' most prominent disciples; age 76 to 79)

Acts: 88-93 (by Luke, the technician who desired concrete gospel/salvation mechanics; age 73 to 78)

Paul's Epistles: 42-58 (who had the self-described epithet: apostle “born out of due time”; age 47 to 63)

Posted on 3/15/2013:

Constructing The Real Jesus Series #7

Could Mark's Author Lie in Behalf of a God Who Commands No False Witnessing?

This question is possibly the biggest reason why suggesting the four Gospels aren't true history won't register nor compute with nearly every Christian. For how could
Mark (most Christians seem to individually cogitate) in behalf of the One who made each of us including all other ...
life forms—then follow that by commanding no
lying, stealing, or killing—straight-facedly fabricate each miracle story of Jesus? For how could anyone suspect that the author of Mark could have been so split in his
thinking, yet was still somehow capable of producing meaningful and persuasive literature? Therefore questioning that seems misdirected, perhaps even heinous—as
heinous is what Paul suggests about such challenges in Romans 1:19-20.

[An extra credit question here: Why is it that Islam and Christianity want everyone to submit to them so badly? So what are the true dynamics behind that pattern? By
the way: I don't really fault the historical Jesus for that. What's needed is the right scenario and then things will not only begin to fall into place, but everything about
this will start making sense as well, which is the main reason why mythicists are wrong about a historical Jesus—because fathoming what that scenario might be is right
now beyond them.]

Here's the beginning of a believable sketch that would have precipitated that peculiar form of writing found in the four Gospels: There was a real Jesus who thought he
was the Jew's Messiah, therefore he read messianic prophecies, which required that he be literate. [On Jesus being literate: How could anyone hope to be a teacher—
especially a teacher of what's found in religious scriptures—without that person first being a reader? For without reading, how would he ever debate religious leaders?
And if he couldn't debate religious leaders then who in the world would ever want to follow him?] Continuing: If Jesus' mother, and then Jesus a bit later, felt that a
Messiah was needed in their time—[This scenario is between braces for the sake of trying to shorten or condense it, also so readers will see where it begins and
ends.] {a prophesied “Deliverer” according to Paul's Epistle to the Romans, chapter 11 verse 26, which Paul claims Psalm 14:7 and Isaiah 59:20 foretold someone,
even as a host of other such writings also prophesied a glorious and powerful future leader of Israel, which then prompted anticipation in many residents of Judea:
1) So that it would have been natural for many Jews to both muse about and discuss that prospect since under their concurrent predicament no small amount of Hebrew
productivity as tax was being channeled to Rome; 2) Then combine that backdrop with an illegitimate pregnancy resulting from the fault of a male (perhaps a traveler
passing through) who made insincere promises to Jesus' mother; 3) Next from Mary's perspective: So why not find someone like Joseph who would want her without
hesitation, do so to save herself in a culture she risked being stoned as unwed and pregnant, by telling an eligible man (one also hoping for a coming Messiah) that she
had been impregnated by God with a child who was to be the son of David alluded to in 2 Samuel 7 (while crossing her fingers, hoping her 50-50 chance the child
would be male might secure Joseph's connubial continuance, and if not then hopefully her good looks might accomplish that); 4) Then from Joseph's perspective: If her
child could somehow be the real Messiah (since their God had a reputation of being a miracle worker who did impossible things), a person who would free their
nation from its chronic subjugation while he ushered in the messianic age, that was a chance Joseph couldn't pass up when the gain of a substantial and intelligent wife
was included}—so that by such conditions the table for all Christianity has since become would have been set. Furthermore, none of the authors of the three synoptic
Gospels, regarding the absence of Jesus' biological father—which aspect concerns Matthew and Luke, as Mark on that is essentially mute—would have needed to alter
that kernel of truth; just explain how and why it was necessary the Messiah would seem to have been fatherless, which problem Mary had already solved. Yet the question
still remains: How could the author/authors of Mark present fiction as if it were history with a straight face in behalf of a God who never condones lying? Doesn't that
seem like something impossible to psychologically reconcile within the authors of not just Mark but the rest of the Gospels?

That early Christian cabal, which started all of this after Jesus' messianic concepts had been debuted and absorbed by it, would have consisted of the original close
followers of Jesus—men who had been trained on how to interpret prophecies by him, who wasn't only talented but very convincing... while he didn't just believe it
all himself, he believed it even when drawing his final breath. Then what seemed like the braver or brasher of his followers, yet the more innovative and more clever
of them also--combined with no small amount of pressure since they had the choice of being the sops who had followed the executed Jesus who thought he was a prophet,
or instead become the confident new leaders of a new and better form of Judaism—they essentially put their heads together soon after his death (after he had failed to
revive on the third day as had been expressed and expected by Jesus before his crucifixion) to make a decision about what they should do next (in view of their years
spent with Jesus coming to an abrupt end). These followers clearly admired Jesus no small amount—his rare combination of determination, intensity, and self-control,
combined with deep insights and personal charms. In their view, the consummate Messiah couldn't have been anyone but Jesus since to them he had no peers. So they
discussed whether they should take what Jesus started to the next level, and then they collaborated to act as if he had indeed risen as he had expected.

That skeletal frame that was the real person Jesus, his followers could flesh out as if giving tribute to the gritty man who offered himself up as a sacrifice to God for
the world (since he sincerely thought his death was for his nation, perhaps even the world—after assimilating the teachings of his elders as if those were true instead
 of inscrutable deception—which resulted in complete loyalty and sincerity in his approach) while his disciples would need to include in their accounts as many facts
about him as possible if they hoped to simultaneously honor the real Jesus as they embellished those enough so a fair portion of the public might be deeply impressed...
if, of course, those accounts were all tastefully wrought. It was that profound admiration still resonating within his closest followers, coupled with their unanimous
decision to press on, and their agreement to support one another, which created the kind of psychological coziness necessary to sufficiently undergird each participant
emotionally. Besides, if they were to succeed they would be propelled to an intoxicating status similar to what's enjoyed by rock stars, at least with their converts or fans.
So there was no way to keep them from pressing on since the prospects of obtaining such copious significance and approbation were much too prodigious for the vast
majority of humans, when faced with that, to walk away when there's a realistic chance. But to clearly see why that happened you must also factor in how these young
men were the ones who had the stick-to-it-iveness to follow Jesus continually for three years, some for perhaps even longer, which showed they were the type that was
not easily stopped or prevented, which was strengthened by their having been trained to not give up... while some of Jesus' lesser talented followers, including some who
didn't fit in quite as well after Jesus was gone, apparently went off on their own (perhaps a pair or two) to try their own hands at creating Gospel stories (which stories were
initially expressed orally)—that type that were written a bit later but failed to make the cut, like those examples in the Nag Hammadi Library.

Once again, the reason the person(s) who wrote the Gospel of Mark could fabricate like that was because the group had made an unanimous decision to keep going, also
because they gave one another ample moral support... yet they still believed in their teachings very much as well—with either most or a significant percent originating
with Jesus, which they saw as good doctrine and felt Jesus deserved to have those continue. Besides, what else would they teach in behalf of the one who founded this
by his teachings while unifying them? [That emphasis placed on the importance of Jesus' words is seen across the entire New Testament, as in 1 Timothy chapter 6 Paul
does the same, which emphasis must have originated from the way Jesus' disciples felt about those... which they must have considered that the best tribute to him would
be for them to use many of those.] Moreover, each of these conspirators believed in what Jesus stood for rather completely, even after he failed to rise again, since
besides their great admiration for him those were the currency of training for each one of them. However, to turn the best of his residual influence into what was needed
so that his story wasn't expunged from human memory would require circumspect elaborations that were in keeping with numerous messianic prophecies, including
additional guidance coming from the Old Testament's carefully crafted miracle stories. The Old Testament would have to flow into the New naturally and they had that
example of what the Old contained to help them shape the new. And very importantly, just as Jesus had genuinely shown, Judaism had turned into a hypocritical joke
with its Pharisee sect, while the Sadducces didn't believe in a spiritual realm (thus no afterlife) yet were running the temple—all while there simply wasn't any available
religious options which favorably compared to what Jesus had said and done... while idolatrous Paganism, which was detestable to the Jews, certainly wasn't one.

The stories in Mark were not created by a single author; nor were the contents of Matthew, Luke, or even John. Those stories were the cream of the crop of what had been
developed by those original insiders who had been close to Jesus, who could frame him as they felt he deserved, as Mark's compilation of those stories came after enough
of them had been imagined, developed, discussed, and refined; then shared in sermons. Mark's Gospel is most likely then a collaborative work overseen by several of Jesus'
closest disciples [For WHO ELSE would have created the best or most tastefully composed Gospel stories?]. Then after they were completely pleased with a building collec-
tion of those, they then made sure the best were written down in that first edition of Mark, which was also compiled during or following the time John split off on his
own yet remained a trusted ally—while Thomas seems to have left, too, since he may not have fit into the main group well enough so became a Christian entrepreneur who
developed his own customizations (based on those variant writings associated with his name, which also would indicate he left that group fairly early).

If Jesus' closest disciples (John not included) created the best set of his fictitious stories to affix to a set of actual facts about Jesus—with Jesus' true story, once again,
serving as the main framework for those attachments—and with his closest disciples having been roughly between ages 19 and 30 during Jesus' teaching and/or discipling
period, that would have given them some 30 years to produce a decent collection of stories so that the Gospel of Mark could have been initiated circa 60 CE when those
disciples would have been around 50 or 60. It is reasonable to suspect that 30 years was plenty of time, under those conditions, for Jesus' closest followers to amass what
we now find in Mark's Gospel. Therefore, at this point I still feel there is enough to believe the first of the New Testament's four Gospels was under construction between
60 and 67 CE, with Matthew and Luke following between 70 to 85, even though there is far more to consider yet. But so far that kind of time line seems plausible, even
cogent for more than a few reasons.

When first beginning to consider all of this, I could see within the New Testament's pages themselves that John seemed to be the chief Machiavellian culprit behind the
historical conspiracy which spawned Christianity, that he looked like its ringleader when all of it was first taking shape. I then tried to explore the idea that either most,
or even all, of the other disciples of Jesus might not have realized Jesus hadn't really risen, ut I have gradually come to understand how that would have been an impossibility
since each of the best miracle stories were most likely (almost certainly) created by that central group, which means that each one who personally witnessed Jesus' teaching
period would have had to know most assuredly those miracle stories were false—despite most of those sounding pretty good in relation to the portrait of him they devel-
oped—stories that were also germane with the wonders described in the Old Testament. For it was hard for me to imagine, rather soon after my deconversion became formal,
that some of my (up till then) favorite Bible authors/theologians had blatantly lied in such a way. Yet each of those who followed Jesus would have known he did not truly
rise from the dead since any Gospels produced in their day would have contained falsified miracles that could not have escaped their observation... which as a former believer
that has been an amazing realization to come to terms with and digest.

Regarding the mythicist position on this: The Gospels contain too much, they are too intimate, they require expert knowledge of the Old Testament; they are works of great
affection. There is no way to come up with works imbued with each of those elements—despite those containing bounteous fiction—without there having been a real Jesus
who was in a number of ways very similar to what those portray. And no one but Jesus' disciples could have created that cream of the crop set of Gospel stories that were
finally assembled in those books known as the four Gospels. The job done on those, even with a certain number of problems, were too expertly performed for an outsider—
someone not part of their group—to have accomplished. And every Christian who has ever considered those stories might somehow be true knows that about them as well.
They are the real deal when it comes to much of what Jesus was like with those having come from his real disciples in a labor of love (though those disciples were no doubt
simultaneously in it for themselves)—despite a large percent of what's in the Gospels being fictional/mythical—is what has made all of this so aggravating to sort out. -DL

Posted 3/12/2013: 




Posted on 3/6/2013:
Constructing The Real Jesus Series #6

Crosschecking Christian Textual Accuracy Via Masoretic Texts and the Dead Sea Scrolls

The Codex Sinaiticus enters the debate over whether an historical Jesus existed since it reveals the fact that books in the earliest Christian Bible received some level
of tampering. The first site linked to in this article tells us about the Septuagint (OT part) portion of that early codex being highly modified from how its text was first
entered (in the fourth century), which would obviously relate to whether any messianic prophecies were tampered with also, which is why I'm presently checking as many
of those prophecies in the Dead Sea Scrolls as possible (which scrolls are dated between 150 BCE and 70 CE). My instincts tell me that Jewish messianic prophecies
could not be changed in that early Christian Bible—the CS—since the Jews, who did not accept Jesus' Messiahship, would have effectively guarded over those... which
prophecies, in my estimation, likely supplied a blueprint to a literate would-be Messiah (a believable historical Jesus) regarding what he should attempt in his time.
But if everything ends up being nothing more than textual helter-skelter, as the mythicists presently suggest, then we may as well all give assent to their postmodern
approach on this. http://codexsinaiticus.org/en/

The Codex Sinaiticus—essentially the first “official” Christian Bible—was hand copied, so its production was labor intensive while its materials were expensive also,
therefore if any small error(s) were made when its text was first entered, a decision would need to be made about whether to discard one whole leaf with whatever work
was put in that page... which problem could have lent to some errors that were originally made having been corrected, then some imperfect pages kept rather than dis-
carded. According to the Codex Sinaiticus Project website, at least three different scribes were involved in what's found in the CS, since the styles of three (or even four)
entirely different people can been seen, as at least one person, or even two, added certain things later, with some of those changes being more dramatic in nature than
others... which of course causes some of us to take pause and wonder whether Roman Catholic leadership, for the sake of religious expediency, took liberty to alter even
the more purely Jewish parts of the CS, which is also enough to cause many to seek out any available EARLIER Christian or Hebrew writings to see what kind of alter-
ations may have been made in the CS from those more original forms.

The next included link goes to what is written in the Great Isaiah Scroll (a 24'-long Essene text roll or scroll)—a page showing all 66 of Isaiah's chapters having been
carefully translated from Hebrew into English by Fred P. Miller—which roll is a part of the Dead Sea Scrolls as found in caves near Qumran between 1947 and 1956.
After reading Mr. Miller's introduction and translation key at the top, I then checked the messianic prophecies contained in chapters 29, 35, 42, 53, and 61 as that Great
Isaiah Scroll showed them, and saw no distinct or noteworthy differences from what presently exists in the common Christian Bibles of today... which verses in Isaiah,
by the way, match up rather well with what's contained in the Masoretic version of Isaiah also, is what the translator's notations said regarding that... as Mr. Miller goes
on to explain that the Mosoretic texts come from a stricter tradition of Jewish text preservation than what was maintained at Qumran (despite the Masoretic tradition's
earliest extant texts only dating back to between 600 and 1000 CE)... which tradition, however, (in my estimation once again) by not accepting Jesus' Messiahship
would have maintained their own texts (including their messianic prophecies) in the forms those originally occurred—just in case anyone wonders whether Christians/
Catholics might have meddled with those prophecies hoping to boost their evangelizing abilities, which we should of course be wary of.

The Qumran texts—which employed their own particular Hebrew dialect (according to Mr. Miller)—apparently served the pragmatic interests of the Essene cult at
Qumran; yet accuracy was still well maintained overall, or at least in those areas that most relate (again in my estimation) to what a literate historical Jesus most likely
 thought, did, and said. So up to this point at least, Jewish messianic prophecies look to have been well preserved in relation to what those originally said. Besides,
once those books were made available to the public in any way, shape, or form, it would have no longer been easy for anyone to make changes in those texts... which
is a significant difference between the Hebrew books which had been around for a good while before a number of Christians within the Roman Empire made a decision
about what collection of books should gain official approval before being offered more publicly—which going fully public with a selection of approved books did
not occur until John Wycliffe (in the 14th century) translated the Bible into English, which lengthy delay is something pretty amazing for us to imagine today. Yet be-
sides that safeguard of full public exposure however, when it came to both Jewish and Catholic priests for that matter—i.e., priests who were typically preoccupied
with liturgy and not theology—most, if not all, would have still been exposed to their religion's basis literature, all while most would have also needed to be sincere
believers or else each of those religions would have risked the problem of provoking whistle-blowers, which problem would have served to help prevent illegitimate
and/or undue alterations in their religious texts. -DL

Posted on 2/19/2013:

Constructing The Real Jesus Series

Messiah Blueprint and Self-fulfilling Prophecies

The Old Testament's messianic prophecies were the blueprint for the Jewish Messiah. For if anyone were to imagine himself as being that nation's MUCH-LONGED-
FOR coming great leader and mighty conqueror, those prophecies described what that person must do and what he must be like—all of which represented a confl
ence of WHAT WAS BEING LONGED FOR by that chronically subjugated nation, therefore WHAT WAS BEING IMAGINED by that nation's prophets with respect
to their future leader... and then for anyone who felt they might have what it took to be that person, WHAT THAT PERSON MIGHT ACTUALLY BE LIKE.

Those prophecies, more than anything else, describe a Jewish conqueror who would bring an extravagantly copious prosperity and peace to the Israel Nation, even
beyond those descriptions of David's and Solomon's reigns; and this time it would apparently need to include the purpose for man, or human beings, on the Earth as
well as everlasting life somehow being delivered to humans. That's what was LONGED FOR by these prophecies and that was what they have called for. Of course
if Jesus received enough education to become literate, due to some innovative efforts to secure that for him by his mother, then he would have been able to read
quite a number of those prophecies in what would have been the Greek Septuagint collection of the Jewish scriptures... and then he could begin to form his plans.

If so, he would have run into a fairly difficult problem soon enough: Not only was the great Messiah of Israel supposed to be a great conqueror, but someone who was
similarly great was supposed to die as a sacrifice for the nation, including that sacrificial death being for what could even become extra-Jewish nationals. For at least one
of those prophecies of the future described such a sacrificial death (Isaiah 53) while Jeremiah 31 says that the first covenant God made with the Jews would be replaced
by another covenant that would become permanent and would be much better—which all had to be factored into his plan as Jesus began to read these passages perhaps
in his late teens and then continued to read those throughout his twenties... all while forming his plan from the blueprint of what all of those prophecies described. This is
how prophecies like this become self-fulfilling: For people like Jesus, which do pop up once in a while, of course not with the regularity of much more typical type people,
can feel they have a responsibility or duty to discharge in relation to his people's greatest aspirations and so that person begins to put some sort of plan into action.

But how in the world could prophecies about a mighty conqueror be harmonized with one of those prophecies that's about someone who is also great dying an abusive
death—i.e., while seeming to have no impulses or at least no expressions of retribution as that's described in Isaiah 53—at the hands of his enemies? How could that
work? So were two different great persons supposed to come in Israel's future? Then this eureka moment must have occurred to him: The Messiah would come as a
lowly person initially, preach his wisdom to the people, which doing so is described in some of those prophecies, then following that die as the nation's sacrifice. That
would be the first part of the scenario. For coming as a lowly person would also be something easy to fulfill, just like dying as a sacrifice by provoking Rome and
the Sanhedrin with messianic statements of grandeur that would be interpreted as treason or sedition, would be easy to bring on at the appropriate time—that is if one
can bravely face the pain of that kind of death. But if it's God's will then that pain will only be temporary... Then he would come back as that Mighty Conqueror Messiah
after he rose from the dead, to conquer whoever was disobedient and evil while humans could at that time also begin a palpable entry into eternal life! Voila! Everything
would fit! By that everything would be harmonized and all of those messianic aspirations by his people would finally be answered; and Rome would get off their backs!
So maybe the God of Israel does live after all! And Maybe he did, in fact, inspire all of those prophecies! Ingenious! And so everything can in that way be fulfilled even
as there would be no other way for all of those prophecies to fit together if they are certifiably divine, viz. genuine.

Of course those who wrote all of those messianic prophecies were simply trying to wrap their heads around what a great future Jewish leader would be like, and many
wanted to contribute their ideas to that portrait. And whoever wrote Isaiah 53—while that book of 66 chapters most likely received ongoing entries by Israel insiders,
and then later by its priests (in much the same way Daniel looks to have been written over the course of 2 ½ centuries, with Daniel being composed between circa 250
[or perhaps as late a 200] and 65 AD)—those authors were most likely wrestling with the debut of a temple sacrifice system via the first appearance of the *Pentateuch
in circa 630 BC under Josiah, as described in 2 Chronicles 34:14-33.

* For more on that: The first three books of the Pentateuch were most likely envisioned by some associates of David around 1000 BC; then the work on those would
have begun under Solomon, his son, in circa 960 BC, which the enormous effort of writing those could have lasted till 660 BC, and then at least Genesis through
Leviticus were finally debuted some 30 odd years after that—in 630 BC under Josiah which debut looks to have been reported in 2 Chronicles 34 (all while Bible
“history” apparently has a habit of employing half-true storytelling). A little more on this: Numbers and Deuteronomy are essentially redundant in relation to Exodus
and Leviticus, and there are reasons to believe (based on patterns in how those were written relating to authorship) that a couple of the books of the Pentateuch may
have been produced by the Northern kingdom of Israel, which was a competitor to the Southern kingdom of Israel, which this excerpt from my first book produced
in 2006, The Turning Tide, refers to: “Those four [authors of the Pentateuch] are now described [by scholars] as 'J,' 'E,' 'D,' and 'P'... [while] 'J' was the one who always
used the name Yaweh [for God], 'E' was the one who used the name Elohim [for God], 'D' the one who wrote Deuteronomy, and 'P' was a priest.” For you can't really
solve the puzzle of the real Jesus without knowing how earlier Jewish history must have realistically unfolded first. One more note on this: The prophecy cited by the
NT, and perhaps by Jesus also in this case, regarding him rising from the dead on the third day, is Hosea 6:1-3, which isn't necessarily a messianic prophecy at all,
but was used for that purpose anyway... sort of like how Peter in Acts chapter one is shown using Psalm 109:17 to refer to the fate of Judas, which passage in that Psalm
indicates the meaning intended had a far more general application. -DL

Posted on 2/13/2013:

No Historical Jesus Whatsoever Creates These Absurdities which Include Certain Travesties

1. The Big Problem of Roman Emperors Persecuting Christians and One Example Christian Concept: Listed here are the dates of the reigns of each emperor who
persecuted Christians, though their persecutions didn't last for the duration of most of those. Nero (54-68), Domitian (89-96), Trajan (98-117), Marcus Aurelius
(161-180), Decius (201-251), Valerian (253 -260), Diocletian (284-305), and Galerius (305-311) all persecuted Christians. So if the Jesus Christ character was
constructed in its entirety by Romans wanting a new religion some 300 years after Jesus' alleged lifetime in the 1st Century then what beliefs about Jesus were
being held by those many Christians in a period spanning those three centuries in order to cause many of them to be persecuted by Rome? Even how Christians
should properly view the Trinity, which perhaps got much more ironing out in the 4th Century, was already being explained in books that came much earlier, books
that would become the New Testament... while the Trinity, for example, definitely wasn't plagiarized from any previous culture, even as most NT books either refer
to or allude to the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost; yet it apparently was a bit difficult to standardize just how such a deity could be characterized as God, which
by the religion's narrative he would have still had to be in heaven while Jesus was on Earth... and then you would also need an invisible spirit deity who would be
with Christians after Jesus left. So there you have the Trinity, a uniquely Christian concept that was pragmatically formed well before the 4th Century. And even
though Christianity is indeed a conspiracy, it's not of that scale which some have recently been suggesting. For if we atheists lose the argument of Christian Religion
validity by allowing a no-real-Jesus-ever-existed concept to commandeer the movement, by that we risk being hamstrung from having the ability to reach a vast
number of Christians (and more especially potential Christians) about the actual falsehood which this religion is.

2. The Big Problem of Josephus' Writings of History: If the 125-word (in English) Testimonium Flavianum (which praises Jesus as being the Christ or Messiah) was
written by Josephus, then he was a kook and anything he wrote can't be trusted, which those who purport that no-real-Jesus-ever-existed concept need people to buy
into regarding Josephus before anything else so they will be able to mislead them into believing they have done enough homework on this topic. (But in their defense,
they are unaware that their homework is deficient on this topic.) Before thinking or buying into that, please consider that the rest of Josephus' works are the genuine
article—carefully pored over and written out by that man himself! Yet sometime around 300-325, Eusebius (or another who was much like him), apparently com-
missioned new copies of Josephus' works be produced having that Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18.3.3, capsule included. If so, then Josephus' account of John the
Baptist was most likely very accurate, and what he wrote about James the brother of Jesus was most likely accurate as well, which if the brother of Jesus actually
existed then the no-real-Jesus-ever-existed concept quickly collapses. So they need to discredit all of Josephus to get away with suggesting that, which is a travesty.

3. The Big Problem Due to the Existence of the Nag Hammadi Library: The Nag Hammadi Library contains a list of over 50 lower quality early Christian books that
were found in a sealed jar or pot in the Upper Nile region of Egypt in 1945. These were early books by authors trying to interpret who Jesus was and what his story
was supposed to mean, which were the type of books that the Catholic clergy once customarily burned while favoring that collection which the Council of Nicaea
(in the year 325) and subsequent councils, essentially decided would serve as that religion's belief standard. In other words, what these lower quality books contained,
even though some liked them during the early Christian time, wasn't considered to be of the required quality needed to inspire the widespread trust in the religion that
its clergy was aspiring for it to procure... with the Roman Empire following behind that inner group of theologians who were at that time making all of the decisions in
such matters. Not only does much of the Nag Hammadi collection appear to have most likely come from the middle to latter part of the 1st Century, but several of those
are attestations to the existence of real people who were named Peter, Paul, John, Philip, Thomas, and James. And why, if the no-real-Jesus-ever-existed scenario is
true, did the Catholic clergy apparently destroy most all of those lower quality books (except perhaps only this few that were found hidden in a clay pot in Egypt), if
that clergy invented Jesus entirely like that scenario proposes? For apparently, the Catholic clergy didn't like how certain individuals or groups were believing in Jesus,
which for the no-real-Jesus-ever-existed scenario to be true would require others inventing him from thin air as well... or as I believe that there was indeed a real
person behind all of these stories. So which view do you think is more realistic? Without question it's much easier to believe that a real Jesus existed—one who
thought he was the Jew's Messiah, just like many other would-be Messiahs who were described by Josephus during his 1st Century time, which that occurrence of
would-be Messiahs was reported as being fairly common then. But the no-real-Jesus-ever-existed advocates would tell you to completely disregard Josephus, simply
due to one small redaction that was most likely added (or entered) under Eusebius' direction (since that short paragraph also appears in three of Eusebius' writings
verbatim)... which dismissing Josephus in such a way looks quite uncalled for.

4. The Big Problem of How Messianic Prophecies Are What Molded the Christian Narrative, Therefore Not Plagiarism of Former Cultures: Isaiah 61:1-3 is the
messianic prophecy which says that Jesus (or whoever the Messiah would be) would preach to the meek while also essentially giving the concept of a gospel
message to the entire New Testament. Isaiah 29:18-19, 35:5-6, and 42:7 say that the Messiah would be a healer who would open the eyes of the blind, the ears of
the deaf, heal the lame, and cause the dumb to speak—and that the poor would be his primary audience. 2 Samuel 7:12-17 tells us that the Messiah would come
from the lineage of David, that he would build God's house or temple (in the New Testament, that temple is taken to mean the Church/church instead of an actual
brick and mortar type building, also that God would chastise offending people in God's preordained/predestined body, i.e., members of that body), since he surely
wouldn't chastise Jesus who's held as perfectly sinless, and that this Messiah's throne would last forever... which also, by the way, means that its subjects (its people)
would live forever—thus the NT's eternal life concept. Most all other messianic prophecies are almost certainly an outgrowth or further development from what's
found in 2 Samuel 7. That he is in some ways analogous to the Sun is found in Malachi 4:2. One of the main things he would say while on the cross is claimed to
come from Psalm 22:1. Isaiah chapter 53 says that he would die as a sin sacrifice for the whole nation, which later is to include the whole world, or at least those who
were predestined by this all-knowing God to be saved. And there are many more prophecies considered messianic which are thought of as contributing bits of informa-
tion to the story of Jesus as the Messiah so that even the historical Jesus himself probably had a number of those in mind as well, which he would have needed to make
a few arrangements for so that things went as those prophecies described, at least with regard to a certain number of their key notes. This is all uniquely Jewish and
Christian for the most part, or the vast majority of it anyway, even though some foreign concepts may have helped shape some of the Jewish concepts several centuries
before Jesus; but the Romans of the 3rd or 4th Centuries certainly did not write Psalms, Isaiah, Malachi, 2 Samuel, Deuteronomy, Jeremiah, etc. Then Jeremiah 31
contains a prophecy about a new covenant replacing the old one—i.e., the NT replacing the OT—which is referred to in Hebrews [most likely written by Paul]; and
Deuteronomy 18 contains another major messianic prophecy about the Messiah being in many respects like Moses, which prophecy is, by the way, alluded to many
times in the Gospel of John. Even how Jesus returns one day is supposed to be derived from Jewish messianic prophecies, which I won't bother to go into any more of
those right here since that should be enough to make the point. The no-real-Jesus-ever-existed concept, which tells us that the Romans created Jesus entirely from
thin air to become their empire's new God/god by them plagiarizing from other ancient cultures, that hypothesis doesn't take into account what any of these messianic
prophecies contain... whereas most serious Christians have acquired a decent level of knowledge about a good number of these prophecies and so think the religion
is legitimate based on those; but each can be shown as natural Jewish aspirations in relation to the predicament of their subjugated nation.

5. The Big Problem of Paul's Epistles Being Far too Genuine: The apostle Paul is another huge problem for the no-real-Jesus-ever-existed concept, which concept
apparently holds Paul's letters to the various churches he allegedly started as being complete fiction—supposedly created in the 3rd or 4th Centuries just to get a
needed replacement for Paganism. That hypothesis might work with some who have never read Paul's epistles much, but not me. I won't even bother to explain too
much about this one since anyone familiar with the detailed problems that Paul faced and tried to address in his letters, regarding those churches—how those were
very involved and in great detail—it would be impossible for a clergy from any time to create those out of thin air. To anyone who knows Paul's writings well, to
suggest that someone else after him created those would look preposterous! However, with a historical Jesus whose story was greatly embellished, which is what I
believe, Paul most certainly would have needed to fabricate his own conversion story in order to inject himself into the new religion as a person who had a divine
commission to become one of its leaders, which essentially made that a business decision by Paul in relation to his training, expertise, and apparently narrowing
options during that early Christian time.

6. The Problem of the writings of the Church Fathers, dating back to Clement of Rome (who flourished in AD 96), shows how Christian thought developed from its
inception and then moved ahead... as Clement was then followed by other similar leaders of the religion, namely: Ignatius of Antioch (35-110), Polycarp of Smyrna
(69-155), Tertullian (160-225), Iranaeus of Lyons (fl. in 180), Clement of Alexandria, Origen of Alexandria (185-254), Asthanasius of Alexandria (293-373), John
Chrysostom (307-407), Hilary of Poitiers (300-368), and Augustine of Hippo (354-430); and there are several more whose writings are available today to those who
want to take the time to see how Christian thought continued to evolve or develop from the 1st Century through the 5th Century regarding those mentioned here—all
of which started from the existence of a real person who was named Jesus, as well as a real person named Peter, a real person named John, a real person named
James, and a real person named Paul, including a few more. I know atheists would like the easiest and quickest route for making this false religion please go away—
the simplest way possible to dismiss it—but to claim that the Romans invented Christianity in the 3rd or 4th Centuries to replace their empire's Paganism will not
work since that cannot hold up. -DL

Posted on 2/5/2013:


Posted on 2/1/2013:


Posted 1/5/2013:

This is a grassroots type idea that anyone is free to use.

The best name for it that I can come up with so far is Altruistic Secularists (shortened from Secular Altruistic Organization, which was kind of long as well as awkward).
If anyone else tries this they may be able to come up with a better idea for what to call one of these.

As things presently stand, such a group would qualify for tax
exempt status, and the wages paid to any full-time or part-time administrator of one would also qualify as tax
exempt in the U.S.(is what I have been told).

The recommended donation from regular attenders and supporters (for building costs, utilities, full or part-time income paid to an administrator), would be 3% to 4% of
net income, rather than the 10% of gross income which is almost demanded via guilt by theistic organizations, which a great deal of the money given to those is wasted
I'm afraid. There would be no guilt about how much anyone contributes, or whether some contribute at all, which would be each person's own decision as they decide
what they can afford and how much it happens to be worth to them. No plates would be passed, only a donation box at the rear of the meeting hall. Donations are not man-
datory to attend and people would be encouraged to attend even if they don't contribute, or if they would like to hold off by not contributing for a while.

This would be a weekly meeting, presumably on Sundays, followed by a meal for anyone who wishes to stay—a potluck that's primarily for those who bring something
and wish to stay and visit, but is also for anyone needing a meal as well as any newcomers who are wanting to see what this is all about. This weekly meeting of secularists
needs to become a routine occasion that people attend whenever they can or wish to—having a simple, basic, or no-nonsense structure that people find comfortable, one
which doesn't disrupt anyone's life.

Those who attend would be atheists and agnostics (aka non-theists), also humanists, freethinkers, as well as any theists who might be interested in checking one of these out.

Ideally, the meeting portion of this weekly occasion would include a progress report of some kind regarding secularism, also a slot for a live music number when available,
followed by some sort of interesting educational presentation that typically doesn't last too long. Then as funding allows later, special speakers could be brought in, which
might last a little longer, perhaps one and one half hour max for those meetings, and perhaps as little as a half hour as the minimum when things are just getting started
and there is no paid administrator as of yet. Each group could of course customize their own program. There could be Q&A sessions as well, also topics brought up for
debate to serve as the program for some of these meetings. Videos could be used at times, of course.

Having weekly meals together would be a great way to develop new friendships with like-minded people and some who attend may even find a mate.

Ministers who presently serve by officiating in religious services would be encouraged, simply by the presence of these groups, to deconvert and then apply their talents
in an organization such as this, if they can establish one and get it to succeed.

Right at first when the numbers are small, those who meet would have to be patient, get the word out about it with a little advertising, perhaps fliers, so that others who
wish to can join in until the group becomes self-sufficient financially.

Political causes would be tolerated in these of course but those are not necessarily part of the main curriculum which would be more purely just about life as a non-theist...
since many would not want to hear about several things that are much more political in nature, or about personal preferences or persuasions too much: things like vegetar-
ianism needing to be adopted by everyone, or the United States military is a bad idea and completely unnecessary, or for one of these to allow lobbying for legalization
of certain drugs to become one of the major themes. But the members of each can of course decide what they like and what direction to take regarding various things, make
their own version of one of these organizations. But to me, staying more purely with the main thing--non-theism--would be important.

The administrator of one of these would also be on stand by, or have their phone number posted on the sign so that he or she can be reached during the week when away
from the facility, as they would need to be ready to assist people who come for help--help them to find the services for any physical needs they may be lacking, as well as
find where to go to address emotional or mental problems. Each administrator would need to be proficient at helping those who are in desperate straits to get the help
they need in their particular area or location. And those who attend these meetings will also know who they should call (there group's administrator) if they know of some-
one who has fallen into a dire situation so that guidance or help can be delivered.

Posted in 12/22/12:
I post material now on three topic facebook pages: Atheist Standards For Children, Atheists Who Love, and Reaching The Evangelical Mind. This was written primarily
for Atheist Standards For Children on Saturday, December 22nd.  

Posted on 12/2/2012:
What Good is Something that Shouldn't Be Taken Seriously? (My story in much detail)
Also: The Christian Religion's Biggest Theological Achilles Heels, Including
How I Could Be Certain When Leaving it that There Was No Real God There
By Doug Littrell (So others can see what length I went to regarding this topic to be sure)

In the summer of 1976 , at age 19, after having lived one year in a log ca...
bin near a Forest Service boundary in a scenic area of Montana, I was back in my home state after having bought four wooded acres in south Missouri. My goal in
Montana—besides the hiking, fishing, hunting, and exploring—was to buy a small plot next to the mountains. And though a certain kind rancher wouldn't sell that
type of spot he did allow me to fix up and live in a 70-year-old cabin for the time I was there. After returning to Missouri, the price of $350 per acre for a small rustic
parcel was a good one.

Back in those days I was wanting outdoor adventures but also trying to keep my Christian faith and the commitments I previously made during the youth drug-sex
 revolution that was increasing in intensity and sweeping across the country, being alone while taking advice from the Bible about how the world was evil therefore
needing to pass away, and about how a person shouldn't let others lead them into doing careless and sinful things against God. Even though I loved the outdoors,
but since Missouri had no mountains like Montana, I began to find it difficult to remain alone. I attended one tiny Baptist church, the minister of which was my boss
at a fishing tackle store in Osceola, but only two or three attended, which seemed terribly fake and was so incredibly boring that I began to lose my faith, and as
a result started to become seriously lonely. When thinking back to my years as a kid in Sunday school class, I remembered how phony that seemed also, but our
preacher in those days was able to deliver interesting sermons which would involve our emotions which then captured my attention for several years... until the people
there wanted to replace him with someone better, which led to a church split when I was 17. Then in the next few years my mother would separate from my father
on my advice (from the Bible), which caused him to become an Evangelical Christian to save his marriage, and soon they attended a small new Baptist church which
split from our original one, and I attended it myself a little later (in 1979 and 1980) after having found a young Christian woman to marry.

On those rural wooded acres in south Missouri (in 1976, at age 19 and as of yet unmarried), as my faith was leaving me, I remembered reading how Jesus said that if
someone asked God for bread or a fish that he wouldn't give them a stone or a serpent. So I thought I would ask God, just as urgently and seriously as I could, to come
visit me so that my faith wouldn't vanish, and since there are many NT verses that used that type of language; therefore the request would be a good one. (This prayer is
critical to my entire story, so please take note of it.)

Two weeks later a Christian friend named Eddie turned off the gravel road into my red river rock driveway. We had both been zealous Christian friends before my
trip to Montana, or I should say that he was very zealous and always encouraged me to be more like him in that way. Eddie had a rough upbringing but was a fairly
recent convert who was immediately directed to read classic Protestant literature, which he did constantly when he wasn't doing carpentry work, while my reading
going back as a teenager had always been the Bible itself, and far and away the New Testament much more than the Old.

With Eddie showing up like that out of the blue, only two things were possible in relation to my request about my faith that was urgently offered up to God: Either Eddie's
arrival was God's answer to my desperate and rather specific prayer, or his visit was a sheer coincidence. I decided to very determinedly explore the possibility that Eddie's
appearance was a deliberate interaction from God thus the answer to my prayer—perhaps being how God does such things these days, as how my mother and the Bible
would sometimes say. Eddie said that he would be back in two weeks having two more young men with him (with one being his boss) to pick me up on their way to
Star City, Arkansas, where a Bible conference would soon take place. Two weeks later and after joining them in the car, Eddie talked about the greatness of one minister
who was going to be speaking there, named Conrad, the entire way to that small south Arkansas town, and I began to consider the remote possibility that perhaps God might
really be in all of this.

During the first evening, after Conrad spoke, even though I didn't feel the religious sensitivities any more that I once felt when listening to my childhood minister, I went
forward to kneel and pray to renew my commitment to God which also showed respect for Conrad as one of God's special servants... and in doing so trembled, making
the effort to reach within myself as deeply as possible with the best sincerity I could summon. However, going forward to kneel and pray or make a commitment wasn't
customary there, I found out, which made me look pretty foolish to some even though the NT itself mentions trembling in a positive way.

Then after my expression of determined renewal things began to get complicated, meaning the rest of what's contained in this story. Instead of going back to my trailer
on that four acres I went on to the Kansas City area to work with Eddie and his crew since I was needing company so badly. But when still at the conference, I was ready
to do anything the people there told me to do and read anything they recommended that I read... but by then I was, however, certainly no Bible novice, which being
treated like a novice is how someone like me would most likely be taken in that kind of situation. I got a copy of each of Conrad's books and another man's books who
wasn't present yet was highly recommended—Ralph Woodrow. So I began to read all of them, and Ralph's really got my attention. He had excellent historical knowledge
and seemed to have a photographic memory when it came to the Bible, while his bibliographies were very impressive; he was a real scholar. He mostly debunked false
Christian beliefs about Christ's future coming and the end of the world—debunked things which the Bible didn't actually teach yet somehow managed to become incredibly

Regarding Jesus returning and the end of the world, the minister of my youth had never preached on that topic, but there was a time when he allowed a traveling evan-
gelist to deliver what was beginning to become a popular message on that topic, which neither my mother nor I had ever heard before... and I remember my mother
exclaiming after that service in the foyer, “Anyone who believes that would have to be crazy” (when she was about 42 and I was 12). For little did we know, without help
from someone like Ralph Woodrow, that recent changes (with recent this time meaning 19th Century changes that were eventually absorbed widely during the second
half of the 20th Century) had occurred in Evangelicalism due to the flakiest kind of Bible scholarship that anyone should ever imagine (flaky that is, if anyone would
simply check many repeated emphasized statements in the NT)—changes written by John Nelson Darby and then published later as footnotes in Bibles by C. I. Scofield.
For it's the Bible's end-of-the-world related material that will expose this religion for what it really is as much if not more (yet in my opinion far more) than anything else.

First, if Christianity were genuinely correct in its claims and assertions so that its own NT Bible statements were important enough to pay careful attention to, as if they
conveyed meanings which were actually true, then one of the things it clearly says is that Christians living in the end time should be prepared to suffer persecution and
go through difficult testing (refer to: 2 Timothy 3:12, Matthew 16:24-25, Acts 14:22, 2 Corinthians 4:10-11, 1 Thessalonians 2:2, Revelation 6:11, Rev. 12:11, Rev. 13:7
&10, Rev. 14:13, Rev. 16:6, Rev. 17:6, Rev. and 19:2, Rev. 20:4) as you cannot take one remark by Paul, about how some Christian believers will be translated (or
 raptured in 1 Thessalonians 4:17) instead of having to face death, as negating all of those NT places that emphasize the need to prepare for testing and suffering, even
as many of those places even indicate that your eternal destiny depends on your doing that properly (here is another one like that: 2 Timothy 2:12). For if Christianity
 were true, then according to its own statements those who would be translated (or raptured) would almost have to be the Jews in the end time that Romans 11 prophesies
are to be “grafted in” (v.v. 23-25) to also believing in Jesus just before the wicked masses of the Earth come up to encircle the “camp of the Saints” or Jerusalem (as
described in Revelation 20:8-9), so that they are taken up just before being killed by that mob... and then fire comes down to burn up all of those enemies (which that place
in Revelation also says, since we are taking a look at the Christian book's own declarations here—written statements which Christians don't even pay close attention to or
know what it really says, or try to see how it would all have to fit together if a real intelligent and actually living deity were behind it). But many Evangelical ministers,
 since Darby's dispensationalism became popular, don't check such things against their own Bible's statements and just use that rapture teaching as a marketing tool, as a
way to prod people into wanting to become Christians, or else to help them like being a Christian more than before, by letting them think that they might never have to die,
all when the NT is full of warnings to believers about grave difficulties to endure when the Christian end of the world begins to unfold [which, of course, it actually never
will, I eventually found out, which you, too, will see why if you keep reading], which means these ministers are both foolish as well as unfaithful with respect to their own
material, which if they studied it well at all they would have to know better (instead of just continuing to use its crafty hooks like an illegitimate business would). Then
the same specious ministers who misrepresent that very important aspect (important if the religion true) also teach that everything stated in the Christian Religion's end-of-
the-world passages is literal, which would be both extremely unrealistic and utterly preposterous, which Ralph Woodrow shows how both figurative language has very often
been used and he has exposed the rapture idea thoroughly as well—quite concretely (i.e. if anything at all in religion could be termed concrete) from a believer's perspective.

Perhaps the most important thing of all, however, which modern Evangelicalism (again, were Christianity actually true), in order to have its relatively new and very
popular end-time scenario, is how to get that in place the Christian gospel itself, according to its own statements, must be dismantled—i.e. what its salvation message is
supposed to contain—which that modern Evangelical theological claptrap, called dispensationalism, literally destroys. So after Ralph Woodrow had already addressed
the falsehood of the entire dispensationalist theological system in one of his first books, I followed that up by writing a typed letter (typed by my wife) to Conrad, in
Louisiana, about the seriousness of this in the Fall of 1978 from Granby, Missouri, since I had found clear NT statements, on my own, about that which would not allow
John Nelson Darby's idea to be considered, even for one second; yet the vast majority of Evangelical ministers are still trained under its theology today. It's an absurd
situation, the knowledge of which I had to carry around within me for many years while continuing to try to be a genuine Christian, one who kept my commitments.

At this point, don't worry about Catholicism, as if it could resurrect itself in comparison to this kind of discrediting of Evangelical Christianity. It can't, and Ralph
Woodrow went to great lengths to discredit Catholicism in several of his books, and made many, many valid points. For if Christianity were somehow true then someone
would have to arise to fulfill the “little horn” of Daniel 7 also, and Ralph thought (as a believer) that the line of popes fit that role within the scheme of Bible prophecy
(were Christianity somehow real and true), which that “little horn” would be the same as what Paul called the “man of sin” (in 2 Thessalonians 2:3) except Ralph's view
was that it was a line of men instead of just one person, which kind of helps it to fit if you want everything to somehow harmonize and make some sort of sense. But with
Ralph also being what's called an Amillennialist (meaning that he believed the thousand year reign of Jesus was, which is mentioned in Revelation 20, had already been
initiated—the defeat of Satan by the death of Jesus on the cross caused Satan to some extent be “bound” by that) which meant that the thousand years were nothing but
a figure for a long period of time, not a literal thousand years... but with that a person has to start doubting the entire thing as bogus, which I realized back then as I was
reading it, but still pushed on thinking that a place like the Seventy weeks Prophecy might provide enough evidence in Christianity's favor to continue.

Ralph wrote on the Seventy Weeks Prophecy also and showed how dispensationalists said the prophecy wasn't about Jesus but about a future antichrist instead. In 1979
I used Ralph's bibliography to look into the matter extensively, for myself, by buying and then studying two books listed there: one by Phillip Mauro and another titled
Chronology of the Old Testament by Martin Anstey, which men held that Jesus was the object of that bigger-than-life prophecy (instead of antichrist). After researching
Daniel 9:24-27 satisfactorily, I decided that it was enough to continue on as a Christian. I delved into that specific prophecy much deeper than Ralph, Mauro, or Anstey,
however, yet we all did hold the same position. I drew a time-line explanation of the prophecy on a chalkboard in my home to dissect each of its parts and shared all
of that in the Bible studies I was teaching back then, which my mother, father, two brothers, and a few friends attended for a couple of years.

When the rules of the game, according to God, are that you must believe in order to make things happen, that that sort of faith is what God likes and that he will work in
those cases since that kind of faith pleases him, then my believing that something would happen to get things straightened out in Christendom became part of my test
of all this. For many years I was forced, because of what I knew, to remain disgusted with Evangelicalism, yet I still had go to church and stomach many things the best I
could while hoping for better things down the road—in a time when it seemed like almost no one was being loyal to what God's book directed that we were supposed to be
doing and saying. Despite all of that I tried to have giant faith just in case God wanted to use me to help get those things that were amiss corrected in our time. That was a
lot of faith! Let me tell you.

Fast forwarding: My wife, myself, along with our three children, moved to Wyoming in 1987. When our relatively new Baptist minister in a small Wyoming town but-
chered the Seventy Weeks Prophecy a couple of Sunday evenings after he had been our minister for a year or so, I could no longer remain quiet about any more while wait-
ing on my ministry, that is if I had any self-respect at all and really meant to keep my commitments (I was 35 in 1992). For if God had answered my earnest prayer in 1976
by sending me to Conrad and giving me Ralph's books, then this looked to be the time in which I was needing to step up. So I wrote out my explanation of the Seventy
Weeks Prophecy for him to read, and also took that as my cue that my children might now be old enough so that I could fit the criteria for a minister found in 1 Timothy
 3, thinking that maybe my going through the agony of hearing such sophism about the Seventy Weeks as being God's sign that it was time for me to stop waiting and to start
writing out what I knew and become active, and perhaps things might start happening... and meanwhile I was needing to revisit lots more Old Testament prophecies about
the future very carefully and finally draw up my own end-time conclusions. Perhaps it was my time to be ordained as a minister, one with real authority who followed things
correctly and did exactly what the NT directed, or at least was someone who was faithful to it all since perfection of course remains an impossibility for humans. For as a
true believer, who knew all of this, you would think that at least God would have to be wanting someone who pays attention and is faithful to everything his book says
(the NT) to step up. When I started writing and was trying to believe everything God said, make it come true according to his rules—one being our needing to believe all of
it so that needed things will happen—soon after, my wife, who was the daughter of theologically dispensational Baptist missionaries, divorced me. It's a long story but I'm
now living back in the Kansas City area in order to be nearer to my children, after having moved back 16 years ago, during March of 1997.

Even though I have gradually been turning into an atheist ever since September of 1996, which was after that summer's visit from my children, when I realized they weren't
going to come back with their mother, even though they wanted to but that was reversed after they arrived back home... in 2005, which was the year my mother died, I
began to write my expose' of Christianity, but after two months I was pulled back into turning it into my theological attempt which I never got to complete because of my
divorce—thwarted by that ten years before 2005. The reason I got pulled back into trying that was because as I began to explain everything about the Seventy Weeks Prophecy
in that expose' as well, among many other things, which prophecy had played such a huge role in my life and thinking... and back then I didn't realize yet that it was a fraud
produced between 60-70AD—part of a book (Daniel) that was a work in progress over some 2 ½ half centuries, originally by Jewish priests then later by descendants of
Jewish priests who had been ousted from their posts via bribery. Before 2006 I had thought that Daniel 9 was perhaps a real prophetic miracle, i.e. an actual divine feat of
foretelling, which then reeled me back in to making my theological attempt. Since I hadn't, as of 2005, come to that realization about Daniel yet, the religion still had me in
it hooks due to that one prophecy. So I reverted from an expose' to producing my theological attempt along with my eschatology, to present that to Conrad who might then
ordain me after all of these years of us knowing one another fairly well. But by then Conrad was 76 and ready to retire. For so many years I thought God must be wanting
so many wrongs righted therefore he would be pleased and so let Conrad know, as I thought what I was dong might be acceptable to both God and him. But Conrad
rejected what I had written and sent to him during the late spring early summer of 2005. But I kept refining different things and would send him more, but still he rejected
me. Conrad and I had plenty of history since I used to attend his four-day Bible camps every quarter for a number of years, and even preached at one of those during the
summer of 1994. So if the religion was true then these preparations which had been made over many years might allow something that was genuinely from God to
potentially occur, I thought.

Meanwhile, I sent the same writings to Ralph Woodrow, who was roughly 10 years younger than Conrad, and he seemed receptive. For me, I thought that my loyalty to what
God's NT says, my expression of sacrificial faith for him, my years of waiting to have my family in order so that everything would fit the NT criteria for minister (found in 1
Timothy 3)—for a genuinely authorized minister—was enough so that maybe God would actually use me if he were truly there. And while Ralph seemed to be at least
interested, Conrad remained resolutely opposed. Every time Conrad wrote back in one of his short letters he became firmer and firmer. Meanwhile, I had sent Ralph $33,000
in the form of a cashier's check, asking him to publish as many books as he could of what I had written so that word about this could get out. But he sent the check back
and said that he would take another direction in these matters (I had never met Ralph in person, like I had Conrad, but I had bought all of his books and corresponded with
him several times over the years also).

Finally, when returning from a trip with my oldest son after hiking in the mountains of Wyoming in late August of 2005, I told my son that whatever Conrad's next letter
said that would be the final word on this matter. That was because this was all based on whether or not God actually answered my prayer which was uttered from my
four acres in 1976, whether Eddie's coming and my finding Conrad and Ralph was an actual answer or interaction in response to that, or if that had been a mere coin-
cidence when Eddie showed up. Of course Conrad's answer was no, and I knew that I had done my very best, that I couldn't do anything more, and so I knew then that
my perception that I had a responsibility toward God to discharge in relation to the state of Christianity was nothing more than my imagination. For how could God not
care about his gospel being correctly discharged or that so many were being duped about what the New Testament said was an ultra-serious matter—their own eternal
well-being during end of the world? It took about 1 ½ more years and after writing my first book, one in which I tried to objectively rehearse everything fairly, before I
began to officially call myself an atheist.

Posted on 11/27/2012:
Some of my true story which needs to be told, not buried as directed in the way anyone like this would be if they were listening to a Christian minister each Sunday: 

Don't Forget to Hate Yourself and the World: Unwise and Unholy Psychology 

Because we [some of us] are sinful [a large percent of us are actually very competitive which is typically mixed with a lack knowledge early on, i.e. stupidity]
Christianity tells all of us hardcore human beings to hate both ourselves and the world (John 12:25 & 1 John 2:15) [the perfect remedy!!] since the world is
cursed and tends to cause strong desires [lusts for lots of different things]. This is how the religion gets control of some who are more inclined to be rowdy
[through their mistakes due to ignorance and an instinctual type impulse which is followed by embarrassment which religion then wants them to feel guilty
about in relation to its deity], which testosterone drive [typically testosterone] can be redirected toward impressing others with preaching instead [since many 
that are that type become preachers] which is one oft advertised way to gain admiration and become important, while praise and importance are things that
are craved by all who think they may be one of the viable competitors out in the world. Preaching is one way to channel that kind of energy and derive some
of the biggest and most basic human psyche needs and/or payoffs.

Nothing at all about that impresses me now, even though at one time I wanted to become a minister also, except become one that would help it to be what its
own book said it was supposed to be, get that system's biggest wrongs corrected so that its own instructions would be carefully followed, even as God must
have been wanting someone to do that... since, if heaven is worth hating myself and the world for [sacrificing most everything I liked mentally and guarding
over my loving or liking things in general—against materialism—like my mother always worried about while being advised on that by radio preachers who
wanted her to be able to afford giving regular offerings to them] then what good would it do in the end if I were only one more phony and all of this was still
somehow true, except just very difficult to get it correctly done?

Here's what Proverbs—written by the “wisest man who ever lived”—says. Here is what it tells a young man to do: “Forsake not the law [words] of your mother:
Bind them continually upon your heart and tie them around your neck. When you go, it will lead you; when you sleep, it will keep you; when you're awake, it
will talk to you... to keep you from the evil woman... lust not after her beauty in your heart...” (Proverbs 6:20-25). No, don't ever, ever lust after any of those
beauties since Solomon was wanting to add any that were like that to his harem of “seven hundred wives and three hundred concubines.” Those kind are off limits.
Beauty is sinful also, at least most of the time, the Bible seems to tacitly say.

My mother got a book that contained Solomon's Proverbs only from one of her radio preachers when I was a teenager and she then gave it to me. She told me
to read it, that I was needing wisdom very, very badly. See how this racket works? This is only one example: Many women, like my late mother, listen to these
whacked out testosterone-sublimated ego-trip preachers, i.e. mothers who do things like tell their boys to read what Solomon wrote, i.e. Solomon who wrote that
young men are to listen very carefully to everything their mother says—their mother then who listens to those preachers and gives them offerings... all of that
while for fifteen years of my childhood my dad was thinking like a somewhat aimless atheist (his own version of atheism after his denomination's minister in our
town had become an atheist, my dad doing it secretly or unofficially)--my dad who didn't weigh in too much on anything. These are the sort of things that
humanity is up against when it comes to this issue. There is some female-to-preacher unholy bonding going on that's misleading children. You don't need religion
to tame unruly children.

Posted on 11/13/2012:

What Christian Things to Keep and What to Dump

1. Loving others [generally speaking] as ourselves [a good rule of thumb]. Keep

2. Don't be concerned with providing for yourself [offered generally as if this is for everyone while the apparent implication is that misters will be taken care of]
(Matthew 6:25). Dump

3. Demons exist. Dump

4. Looking at a woman is the same as adultery for a man (Mat
thew 5:28-29). Dump

5. Consider your family members enemies for Christ's sake if you have to (Matthew 10:34-36 and Luke 14:26). Dump

6. Belief itself will make things happen. Dump

7. Watch and pray about the coming end of the world (Luke 21:35-36). Dump

8. Keep both Jesus' and God's commandments. (Matthew 28:20, John 14:15, and 1 John 2:3-4) [generally emphasized as if those are some sort of perfect unit—not clear-
ly defined, too nebulous when people's eternal destinies are said to hinge on this. There are all sorts of difficulties and contradictions when all of that is carefully checked].

9. Keep Jesus' teachings [hating your family if need be, cutting off your hand, or putting out your eye, for emphasis, is too extreme... belief causes miracles, demons
existing, and worrying about the end of the world are all very coercive also wrong and unhealthy (Matthew 28:20 and John 8:51). Dump

10. Being rich is essentially bad (Luke 6:24, 1 Timothy 6:9, and James 5:1 etc.) [A minister will find another verse or two and say, “Here, the Bible doesn't teach that
being rich is bad,” but then why was possession of riches being bad a theme emphasized repeatedly in the New Testament?—which is a clear example of another contra-
diction and shows the religion as man-made which is ever so apparent when things are checked. Jesus most likely made some real statements against the rich during his
time, but after some forty years passed following his time, ministers watching how many potential followers found it pretty difficult to give of their precious resources—
earned by hard work, great care, and frugality—appears to have caused this theme to mutate to become more aggressive through increased empahasis as the Gospels
were being written, in order to get followers to looosen up much more with their money, therefore give more of it to them—God's representatives. It's like saying:
“Here, if you give a lot to God then God will reward you, and so go out and get more... you can do it! through faith!!” which is all supposedly good since God and
faith are associated with this giving... all while that is really much more like, “Here, give me that, now go out and get more,” much like a person who is under the heavy
 hand of some criminal boss who has blackmailed him or her through some weakness in the person that's been exploited to turn that person into his defacto slave. Dump

11. Help those in need as you can. Keep

12. Baptism. Dump

13. Repentance/faith/justification gospel. Dump

14. Communion. Dump

15. The practice of playing or singing beautiful music. Keep

16. Christmas. Keep, except as a secular holiday

17. Easter. If enough people like the Easter Bunny then Keep

18. Attending weekly gatherings. If some like this tradition then Keep but reorganize the curriculum a great deal

19. Sending some, at times, to help places hit by disasters. Keep

20. Supporting shelters for the homeless. Keep

21. Supporting low-cost or free items for the poor. Keep

Posted on 11/4/2012:


Humans need to do things that are healthy, need to raise their children successfully, need to get along socially, and need other people. Most need a mate, need to under-
stand what's real and what isn't, need helpful innovations, need knowledge, need entertainment, need acceptance and love.

What's outlined in the following should not be how any of those needs are obtained. Selling the idea of spiritualism, via the existence of a spiritual realm, even though
that became popular, utterly fails to stand up to testing and needs to be exposed for what it really is. Tricking ourselves to be better people isn't the best road to take. And
what better way to expose this than by using that example religion which some two billion people presently accept? The possibility of having an eternal spiritual realm
isn't worth accepting any of the following since all of this does more harm than it does good.

BIBLE TENET: Our God is the only real God; all others are false.
ITS SEEMINGLY DESIRED NET EFFECT: Many people will learn to trust the representatives of this one only.

BIBLE TENET: You will be punished forever if you don't accept this God.
ITS SEEMINGLY DESIRED NET EFFECT: People are coerced to think that accepting and supporting this God's representatives is the only way to avoid afterlife suffering.

BIBLE TENET: All evil in the world is the result of a conflict between this good God and his spiritual realm enemy, that despite being unseen that enemy is ultimately
behind ever single negative thing.
ITS SEEMINGLY DESIRED NET EFFECT: People will relate anything they consider negative in the world—an undesirable government, mean animals, poison, thorns and
thistles, etc.—as integral outcomes of this religious explanation.

BIBLE TENET: Not believing in this God is a sin, one worthy of eternal punishment.
ITS SEEMINGLY DESIRED NET EFFECT: People will be intimidated into accepting this.

BIBLE TENET: This clash of opposing spiritual beings, which clash has grown to include humans, will one day result in the more powerful of the two being forced to
destroy the lesser one with most people, including the Earth.
ITS SEEMINGLY DESIRED NET EFFECT: People who accept this God's representatives will think they are on the winning side or team, which will make them feel like
winners since most everyone likes to win and have their enemies hurt if not annihilated (even though Christianity says, “love your enemies”)... which can carry over to
seeing anyone who challenges this belief as letting God's enemy take control of them to help the enemy, therefore they are just like him and essentially need to be killed, as
many almost can't wait for God to kill everything that is bad so that their paradise will finally come (in this way much like Islam).

MODERN CHRISTIAN TENET: … but if that is too negative for most to become too concerned about (it turns out after time has passed), then accentuate the positives only
and try to ignore all those places in the NT which become hyper regarding that topic: just keep repeating God is love... love, love, love, peace, joy, love, and faith is good.
ITS SEEMINGLY DESIRED NET EFFECT: If its representatives make it seem harmless and helpful only, instead of arising out of so much conflict, this will bring in
more people along with their offerings so that those representatives gain more prestige and have more to enjoy during the times they live.

BIBLE TENET: The fear of God is needed and good, and will last forever (refer to Psalm 19:9, Philippians 2:12, Romans 3:17-18, and Revelation 14:6-7 ) [NT contradicts
itself on this].            
ITS SEEMINGLY DESIRED NET EFFECT: Getting people to fear causes them to hesitate, back down, and submit—and can help prevent bad behavior too.

BIBLE TENET: Fear may not be so perfectly healthy after all, therefore perfect Christian love “casts out fear” (1 John 4:18) [NT contradicts itself on this].
ITS SEEMINGLY DESIRED NET EFFECT: If resorting to double talk is required to keep this going then its representatives will do what they must. If people listen to them
each week then they can smooth things like this over so perhaps most will never notice.

BIBLE TENET: The gospel that saves people from eternal torment is supposed to include all of Jesus' words and you are supposed to keep and/or obey them (Matthew 28:20,
Matthew 24:35, Mark 13:31, John 8:51, 14:21&23, 15:10, 1 Timothy 6:3-4) [Evangelical theology contradicts this].
ITS SEEMINGLY DESIRED NET EFFECT: Saying this about Jesus' words make the religion look like it has backbone, means what it says, is therefore reliable as if it really
did come from an all-wise and all-powerful creator deity.

NINETEENTH CENTURY THEOLOGICAL ALTERATION: No, Jesus' words were/are for the Jews only.
ITS SEEMINGLY DESIRED NET EFFECT: Changing that, even though NT statements of emphasis strictly forbid it, lets the religion continue and keep adding members
who give money but never check on any of this—who just trust the minister, which gives him prestige and money, when this is actually an incredibly poor job done by him
and many others since this is an enormous red flag that discredits the entire religious system.

BIBLE TENET: God wants 10% of your money.
ITS SEEMINGLY DESIRED NET EFFECT: His representatives get a nice slice of that.

BIBLE TENET: God wants you to be generous with your money.
ITS SEEMINGLY DESIRED NET EFFECT: His representatives get more offerings if you are generous.

BIBLE TENET: God wants you to be liberal with your money when it comes to the needy.(There are no budgets to stay within when it comes to God since he provides
miraculously for everyone, e.g. Matthew 6:25-26 and Luke 6:35.)
ITS SEEMINGLY DESIRED NET EFFECT: His representatives look like advocates for the needy—a good PR move. As a result, you take care of the needy for them and
tend to give more offerings also.

BIBLE TENET: Being poor makes it much more likely that you will go to heaven instead of hell. (Luke 6:24, 16:19-25, 18:24, 1 Timothy 6:9, James 5:1, etc.)
ITS SEEMINGLY DESIRED NET EFFECT: You will let go of your money and hand it over to them thinking you will benefit in a life after death for doing so (but that
never comes).

BIBLE TENET: God is love. [NT contradicts itself on this]
ITS SEEMINGLY DESIRED NET EFFECT: His representatives appear to be teachers of pure love only—good PR move.

BIBLE TENET: … yet God is also a vengeful “consuming fire” (Hebrews 12:28-29) [This is a NT contradiction].
ITS SEEMINGLY DESIRED NET EFFECT: You are intimidated therefore more submissive to his representatives so they can dominate and/or lord over you, pad their
huge egos while covering that with phony expressions of humility (part of the con).

BIBLE TENET: You can know with certainty that you are going to heaven [NT contradicts itself on this].
ITS SEEMINGLY DESIRED NET EFFECT: This is an important part of selling it since without that promise not many would join.

BIBLE TENET: … meanwhile, some will feel very sure that they are going to heaven yet end up in hell (e.g. Matthew 7:21-23, etc.) [NT contradicts itself on this].
ITS SEEMINGLY DESIRED NET EFFECT: This helps keep you in a slight state of intimidation, therefore more responsive—easier for its representatives to manage
and control. This is also extremely important so that foolish looking Christian groups can be dismissed as separate from the more sophisticated groups, thus those who
embarrass the religion are going to hell... so that people don't look at those kinds of Christians as examples of actual negative outcomes arising from what the religion
teaches, so that the religion isn't discredited by any who make it look bad.

BIBLE TENET: God wants you to be virtually nonsexual [the Bible contradicts itself on this]... or meanwhile since the NT relies of OT messianic prophesies give the
illusion of it being authorized, then if you are important enough to God and possibly take some risks in his religion's behalf, and may seem somewhat successful doing
that, then God may reward you with multiple wives or sexual partners (some of its baiting for deluded people who take this religion very seriously, e,g. Isaiah 4:1).
Besides Psalm 37:11 promises that if you “delight yourself in the Lord he will give you the desires of your heart,” which such a person may just be wanting the right
woman for himself... but hey if God might be wanting to give such a person a harem instead, and since every prophecy must be fulfilled (according to Jesus in Matthew
5:17-18), well then what is a man who believes all of this is real supposed to do? If he is a person who wants to get his gospel perfectly correct and delivered just as it says
that's supposed to be done, plus wants see God interacting again like the Bible says he once did? Which apparently would bring the end of the world due to spiritual conflict
raging over God being pleased and having so much success in the world? And so what then is a person who seeks to be perfectly loyal to God (in relation to everything
he is posed to have said via his spirit through prophets) supposed to do?
ITS SEEMINGLY DESIRED NET EFFECT: While promised sexual fidelity is indeed valuable to both partners for most people, hyping that will make the religion more
attractive to most. But baiting aggressive type A males into becoming involved in the religion's behalf can be useful as well. Nice.

BIBLE TENET: If anyone goes to hell it's their own fault for not believing [NT contradicts itself on this].
ITS SEEMINGLY DESIRED NET EFFECT: Everyone else, not God, is to blame for any unpleasant outcome.

BIBLE TENET: God predestined every person to either heaven or hell (e.g. Romans 9:11-13, Ephesians 1:11, etc.) [NT contradicts itself on this].
ITS SEEMINGLY DESIRED NET EFFECT: God is seen as in control of everything and having planned everything since for him to be the Creator he would have to be that
powerful as well as know every single thing.

BIBLE TENET: God is in control of the weather and uses it to make examples of some so that others will fear him, reverence him, worship him only, and of course not do
evil things which he is supposedly concerned about according to his ancient spokespersons and many modern day representatives. [But isn't that hyped concern about evil
more of a smoke screen than anything, to get people to submit to him by way of submitting to his spokespersons, sort of a red herring which has long been used?
ITS SEEMINGLY DESIRED NET EFFECT: Some events can be framed in a way so that people will be intimidated and start going to church where they can be solicited
for offerings.

A CHRISTIAN TENET TO DIMINISH THE ABOVE PROBLEM FOR THE SYSTEM: God's ways are higher than our ways and so can't be understood by us, therefore
we shouldn't be judgmental about anything: always be merciful and and help people, just tell them that God/Jesus is love (like them) and then invite them to church
when you can [NT contradicts itself on this].
ITS SEEMINGLY DESIRED NET EFFECT: That's the way to play it safe and the religion looks better—a good PR move.

BIBLE TENET: Jesus wants you to get emotional and ramble off some gibberish and call that a miracle, since this is the NT's sign of the Spirit of God entering someone.
ITS SEEMINGLY DESIRED NET EFFECT: Appealing to emotions is a good hook. Getting people to invest their emotions is appealing to a great number of people and
many will come back for more emotional type activity. (If you believe it's real then you're supposedly pleasing God with your faith since he loves faith.)

BIBLE TENET: The gospel is supposed to include all of the difficult sayings of Jesus so that everyone knows how hard it really is to be saved (e.g. Luke 14:26-33)
[Evangelicalism contradicts this].
ITS SEEMINGLY DESIRED NET EFFECT: Such statements make it look hardcore as if it adheres to strict standards that can't be altered, which for many that makes it
seem more credible before passing on mentally and forgetting, while they retain that impression of credibility only. (Inserting some of this type material into the
Gospels, even though contradictions were created, made them more effective since so many will respond to religious intimidation.)

PAST LOTS OF CONTRADICTORY MATERIAL (three examples of contradictory statements to this are Matthew13:20-21, 13:22, and Colossians 1:23): Salvation
happens in a mere moment and you can never lose it once you are born again, or think you were born again or look like you were born again.
ITS SEEMINGLY DESIRED NET EFFECT: This makes it easy for people so that large numbers can be brought in to support these churches and their ministers, despite
what many places in the NT, like Luke 13:23-24, say... as the concept is to get people to continually think about all of the religion's nice stories only instead of them
checking into any of these hard facts which will discredit all of it.

Posted on 11/2/2012:


Some have cited the Roman Empire falling in 476, but it actually continued far into the future in a more fragmented form; or at least so many of its Christian elements
remained which became its identification mark. Around 312 Constantine converted to Christianity after years of influence from his mother who had years before that
become a Christian convert. By 325 Constantine directed a Council at Nicaea to be convened, where a collection of the day's leading Christians would begin hammering
out Rome's official version of its leader's newly adopted religious faith--one which eventually would or should be imposed, it was thought, on all future citizens (e.g.
several centuries later, during the years of the Inquisition, simply varying from that official version, or openly questioning it, meant torture and death for many). Then
by 380, Emperor Theodosius declared the Catholic Church as the only legitmate Imperial religion, and soon after doing that the empire implemented forced conversions
to it, from Paganism or anything else the people might have held. [How is anyone going to understand today's Christianity well at all, what it really is, without first
investigating this important part of its development and actual history?]

I wonder if Constantine's mother Helena, who traveled to Palestine in 326-28 to find Christian relics and designate special religious locations, had her own theory of the
political usefulness of Christianity to the empire... if she, as a powerful person, realized she could freelance a great deal in its behalf. Before hers son's conversion she
had apparently listened to some who were promoting it and then decided that she liked a number of the things it taught, or at least liked several of those over the em-
pire's former religion, which was known as Paganism. Even so, being an official kind of person from Rome, as she was, for her to designate and link certain places and
objects to the religion's stories was a very crafty move on her part, which helped this new religion replace her empire's former one.

Posted on 11/1/2012:

Posted on 10/29/2012:


Woman-to-Woman Competition Dynamic or Out-of-Control-Boy/Man Syndrome: Less that perfectly attractive women who want submissive husbands see religion as a
helpful, whether true or not, because it can be used to browbeat one's man in case he ever looks admiringly at another woman.

Out-of-Control-Children Dynamic: Religion wants all children
to listen to its stories, the vast majority of which are false, which according to its behavioral theory those
stories will instill its desired sensitivities, its brand of sentimentalism, as well as the best rules to live by.

Out-of-Control-Girl/Woman Syndrome: The main fear here is that a girl will be out of control sexually, will not care enough about herself and then produce neglected
children who don't receive enough needed constructive guidance or direction. Religion employs the term “whore” to characterize this potential problem. Religion sees
itself as absolutely necessary for limiting this huge potential problem for society, even if it employs falsehoods in its quest to achieve that. This is the real reason why the
Catholic Church doesn't approve of contraception since contraception takes away peoples' need for religion to address this issue as well as removes the religion's hyper
fears and coercion in relation to sex. It wants the problem to continue so its system will still be seen as necessary. Religion likes to be needed for at least something.

Occupational Momentum Dynamic: Mothers (typically speaking) who admire the ministers they listen to each week, often hope that a son of theirs might become one too,
and boys often wish to please their mothers. Then after a significant investment in college and seminary, even if all sorts of information is learned, and observations are
made, along the way which create doubt in the factual credibility of the religion, and as maturity comes, it's then too late to make a change because the investment is too
great, therefore most turn a blind eye to many things they probably noticed and simply cultivate the religious ethos in the most successful way they can while teaching their
listeners to follow the same pattern. Ministers like this hope the benefits of keeping something false so highly esteemed and going forward provides society more benefits
than any negatives which might come from doing that.

Afterlife Suffering/Bliss Myth that Instills Fear Dynamic: In the minds of most of religion's adherents, this is how they so often feel justified in spreading the system's
falsehoods, and think they should have great energy in doing so since they see everyone as being in grave danger therefore see themselves as helpers, even very important

The Life Could Not Have Arisen Without Miraculous Oversight Dynamic: Any philosophy, even science, must have a view of the origin of life, the Earth, Sun, and stars so
that people might wish to subscribe to it. It appears that all religions were required to offer explanations of that, just so they could be something that people might wish to
embrace. Writing a brief poetic explanation was a way of trying to quickly move on from that topic into the business of gaining control of the people, at least when it
comes to the three Abrahamic Religions.

Note: Any atheist who thinks that an anything-goes attitude can somehow work for society provides no help at all when it comes to assisting with religion's crumble and
fall. That kind of attitude only helps those who speak in religion's behalf to still see what they do as necessary to human culture succeeding.

Posted on 9/14/2012:
What's at stake are natural type explanations from bottom to top. Quantum mechanics does not have natural type explanations even though so much work has been put into that. If negative charge does not exist then a great deal of work has been invested and/or built upon a flawed fundamental concept. Spherical electron shells is not a natural concept, for one thing. That's not how the natural world around us works each and every day. And if we continue to give unnatural explanations homage then religion will enjoy itself ruling over the minds of most humans since our physics aren't actually better than religious explanations—both BS/magical. I hate magical explanations now with every fiber of my being. What's at stake is removing religion from the minds of human beings, for good, for the rest of mankind's time and/or existence on planet earth.

Religion is a pest to the true well-being of the human mind, which needs to be wiped out, not by violence, but through cognitive means, and I would love to help further that cause. Time travel, wormholes, dark energy, warped space, a big bang, a singularity or speck that everything arose from, spherical electron shells, including light that isn't matter, will not help with that... nor will we get to the bottom of the true nature of the universe while believing in any of that.

Any priesthood that essentially says, “ The universe and existence can't be understood in purely natural terms, therefore trust what we say about all of that” I unreservedly reject. It's a matter of principle. I nevertheless understand well one of the main reasons that religions were created—to alter human instinctual aggression, to make humans more manageable, better social citizens—but I thoroughly reject its falsehood and artificialness. All of this is related, even as an all-natural universe-matter model is intrinsically and/or inherently related to that.

Posted on 7/31/12:


THE PROBLEM: After viewing and/or observing so much utter subjectivity offered as takes from all sorts of spiritual-realm-minded people in behalf of religion's suggestions about the reality of that, I wanted to begin distancing my own mind from the negative effects of being subjected to that type of malarky that's been or become so rampant (to an a
lmost intolerable level by now)--no longer try to create and/or make my own take or version of that somehow seem as if mine could still be the true one so that could still seem valid... do that for myself
and perhaps anyone else who has also become sick of trying to make that work, as how so many of us have been trained since childhood to do so in behalf of that being the only way that humans can be good or have any potential for good... which led to my own personal concept that all matter could have actual substance and be impossible to annihilate, with no beginning or end, therefore could be eternal.

A LITTLE EMPIRICAL INDICATON ON THIS FROM OUR NATURAL SURROUNDINGS ON THAT ABILITY BY MATTER... AT LEAST FROM HOW ITS OFT-VIEWED NATURE INITIALLY GIVES THE APPEARANCE OF NEVER UNERGOING ANNIHILATION FROM EXISTENCE: 1) In regular everyday observed combustion, all of the matter constituents are retained or remain in existence, as all of those are only converted to other forms of matter, i.e. into individual atoms and/or other molecular arrangements than what those were in just before the combustion occurred; 2) In explosions the matter is shot outward, without any annihilation also since it is that matter moving outward at a high rate of speed colliding into other matter which causes the damage incurred on those surroudings. If any of the matter were annihilated during such an explosion then no damage would be imposed on those surroundings.


ON THE BASIC NATURE OF SPACE AND MATTER: When starting out with this concept in the Fall of 2007, a few basic things had to be decided about what an eternal particle of matter would be like, things like how it would occupy a certain volume of space and actually represent existence itself, since space would be nothing or simply emptiness--location...
s in relation to however much matter exists while space would be those locations in between matter--where there is an absence of matter. And if only matter and space exist, then light would have to be matter also, which is why the photon of light would appear to be matter at its smallest unit level. And if space is the nothingness in between matter's various units--variously sized units of variously charged particles or its individual singles--it would also appear to be limitless, which it must almost have to be since having an end to it presents much greater difficulties to reconcile, even as that emptiness would need to extend to infinity... despite how infinity is very hard for humans to come to terms with, yet an end to it remains much more difficult to conceptualize. It appears that the unexplainable limitlessness implication from the universe has been used to indicate the existence of a limitless intelligence presiding over it all... but many goofs by those hypothesized deities have been around long enough so that each one can be dismissed as imaginary.


SO WHAT'S LIGHT AND HEAT THEN? One of the things that must be solved about light, under an eternal matter system such as this, is what causes matter to glow at times: Can a particle of matter actually become hot and glow? And if so then what is that means of conveyance of that glowing from that matter to something that can pick up that message of glowing across a certain amount of distance between the two? By January of 2008, while brainstorming on all of this while writing Endless Cycle Universe, and having a great deal of fun doing so myself since I was officially no longer religious since October 2005—therefore was now free to think in such terms—I felt forced to adopt the concept that matter, too, was the means of conveyance of that message of glowing between what would typically be a hot object and an eye that is observing it... even as had I not, by good fortune watched the then brand new PBS program on Absolute Zero, I think I would have taken a wrong turn at the beginning and not offered too much of value (except for that gravity-driven matter cycle drawing that was already placed early in the book's pages) as I was then forced by my own matter-and-space-only concept to begin looking for how matter only could accomplish not just the activity at the object which glows but the means of conveyance of that message about that activity to the eye. I decided from what I saw on that NOVA program that objects cooled to near absolute zero had their electrons slowed down to nearly stall, which became one huge component of this concept ever since... so that electron orbit velocities are actually what atom temperature consist of, which has a bearing on how molecules join and in what way their electrons orbit, as while doing this I would then have to take another view than what's widely accepted about such things at this time. But I had nothing to lose and this was incredibly interesting. And one more key thing had to be concluded from that, which I sill hold to as true, that a particle of matter can never actually be hot—that any heat is simply the friction or the interaction of matter against matter, via subatomic particles moving at high rates of speed relative to one another and larger objects nearby. Of course by this a personcould come into contact with some extremely high velocity electrons orbiting their nuclei in a given substance and that would cause the electrons in your skin to be more energized also—to heat up—and may even do some damage. Right now most think such a system being true is an impossibility... meanwhile I'm having a great deal of fun envisioning each of its aspects, while not really wishing to offend anyone. Just think of it this way: I think working on this, since I'm so interested in it (which some find this disgusting for their own given reasons) is doing the human race a great deal less damage than my still trying to think Jesus actually rose from the dead which includes what we should or must do order to get ready for his return and the end of the world.



Here are couple of excerpts from recent discussions and/or arguments that were made this past week, 7/4 to 7/19, which several of us had on facebook regarding the following topic:
Whether Vegetarianism is a Requirement of Modern Human Morality:

Regarding the topic of a potential relationship between vegetarianism and modern human morality, in the general sense, there is a poison toad that has overrun Australia, that I've not heard lately whether they have controlled it satisfactorily as of yet, which is a hideous animal to humans and most all terrestrial species--tends to destroy them all--and jellyfish overpopulation is a big problem right now as well... while conservationism is the very best form of human morality when dealing with most problems in the practical sense. I think a few too many of us tend to get just a bit insulated from many practical realities, like how several human population numbers in areas of Africa and Asia are so utterly dependent on fishing, which fish numbers can be controlled through conservation in the sea and in lakes so those can keep on producing great numbers of fish as long as we don't overdo it by taking too many, which factors should result in an optimal population of humans also... just like right now worldwide himan population numbers depend on oil production to provide large-scale farming, shipping, and trucking of food products as how we do that at this present time. Furthermore, when it comes to human morality, the Amish community does not believe in ever killing another human no matter what--are pacifistic--but in the great 1985 Harrison Ford movie, Witness, even an old diehard Amish man realized toward the end of the movie that the safely of his people and his own grandchildren meant that he would resort to using a gun if he had to in order to stop the bad people who were trying to kill them in their quest to get to Harrison Ford's character and silence him from exposing to the public some who held fairly high offices in the legal system who were involved illegal activities on the side. By the way, my facebook friend who has a degree in Biology told me yesterday that he doesn't know any biologists who are vegetarians since biological studies lead people to take the conservationism approach.

Vegetarianism as morality reminds me of something that happens to have been accurately reported by the New Testament--Phariseeism (or Pharisaism), where people have been wishing to impose their own set of "moral" values on others when it's not a holistic approach but is ideological callisthenics and/or contortions around principles that we do not need to suject ourselves to since human happiness and liking ourselves--with part of that meaning that we must try to be as moral as we can be, too, yet remain practical about it also--requires (since we tend to be pretty strict about that kind of thing now) us humans to harmonize many things that come at us from many directions, imposing a number of pressures on us, which harmonizing process hopefully results in us being the best, most practical, and happiest humans that we possibly can be.


Posted on 7/5/2012: How my life relates to whether or not I believe in the Big Bang is as follows: For me, I was somewhat forced to accept a false man-made scenario or narrative for most of 44 years of my life--from age 4 to age 48--which was an unlikely one but I was told that believing it was good and doubting it was bad even though I didn't actually like how those who were controlling its information were guiding it (not doing so according to nor carefully following its own major statements, for one thing)... but I couldn't get free from it because it told me that I needed it to be moral and that I was bad (which message my mother apparently liked being communicated to her sons lest she lose control of them and so one or more of them became a criminal or embarrassed her somehow)... and so I found a way to test this belief system over the course of a few decades with regard to myself seeking to become a genuinely authorized minister of it in light of the horrendous religious environment in Evangelicalism during the 1970s and 80s which I had to endure and try to still believe in this somehow as true due to my commitments to it... all of which led to my own family of five breaking up due to a divorce which came in 1995 (separation in 1994). I followed through with my test to see if a real God (one supposedly over the entire universe) of the Bible wanted me to pursue being his minister or sort of spokesperson, do that as correctly as someone would if they gathered how they should attempt that from the major statements made by its book's New Testament, all while overlooking several things in it that seemed like flaws yet thinking Jesus still somehow rose from the dead anyway and that God's message was also still somehow communicated though the Bible adequately with regard to what he wanted to be done, the future, etc. I was actually beginnning to turn into an atheist in September of 1996 (after my kid's second summer visit, when I lived in Wyoming), as I realized after my kids visited me that summer that the family would not be getting back together since they wanted to but their mother quieted that desire by bribing them with new video games after they got home (back in the Kansas City area)... and so my family would never get back together which was what I wanted more than anything else in the world, except I was always told by the Bible that God's will was more important than what I wanted, which his will always had to be factored into everything while I was seeking to sincerely believe in him and also become one of his approved/genuine ministers, the likes of which I never really found but did have two ministers who were about 25 years older than me who seemed honest, smart, and sincere enough so that I did respect them enough to give the belief system this shot. After all of that, it's not easy for me to accept that everything that exists came out of a speck less than the size of an atom--another stupid idea from man--just because people so far couldn't see a way for eternal matter, instead of God, to cause red shift and background radiation, both of which my eternal matter gravity-based system solves. I don't trust other human beings pushing anything like that, but do like how many things we humans can now do through our scientific learning. It seems to me that a few too many humans either want a bit too much admiration, either by being seen as associated with a perceived deity, or by claiming they know more than they really do.

The next piece on messianic prophecies was new on June 28th and will be moved to a new page called Debunking Christianity, that will replace Truth Is't So Politcal, in a few days.
The content that was on the Truth Isn't So Political page has now been moved to the bottom of Social Essays 2010-2011 at 

                                                                                 THE  TRUE  NATURE  OF  MESSIANIC  PROPHECIES 

Genesis 49:10, The First (Jewish) Messianic Prophecy: “The scepter shall not depart from Judah nor a lawgiver from between his feet until Shiloh come; unto him shall the gathering of the people be.” This is shown to have come from Jacob when prophesying over his twelve sons just before dying, which is found in the next to the last chapter of Genesis. Bear with me as I set up what I believe is the most likely historical scenario of real events that occurred behind the early portion of the Bible's narrative and this prophecy, which without establishing first there is no way to penetrate into what these messianic prophecies actually are or were meant to be. Even so, only one true historical scenario is behind the Bible's purported events and will actually work and fit in each and every case. That's one of the goals for the rest of my life, by the way: to piece together what almost has to be that one true scenario—from Genesis to Revelation, which if I'm lucky, completing that will take about twenty or so years. Please refer to the New Project page at http://www.endlesscycleuniverse.com where 26 chapters of Genesis have already been completed, which was written during January of 2011.

As mentioned several times in a number of places (while I won't give my many reasons for this right here as those will have to unfold in various ways at different times), I see a real Abraham, Sarah, Ishmael, Isaac, Rebekah, Jacob, Rachel, Esau, including several of the sons of Jacob as real historical characters, only that their stories were glamorized for the political purposes of those who wrote Genesis circa 1000-900 BC. I see no historical son of Jacob who was named Joseph since his character was produced as novelists would do in order to tell a fictitious story about how their nation's deity would dominate one of their region's greatest political rivals, that being Egypt. Along with that, the Ten Commandments and various other awkward commands of the Jewish text (e.g. the sabbath had to be set aside by the New Testament to cover for that realized goof made by its original authors... even as no longer would that command to kill homosexuals on the spot apply either, per Leviticus 20:13 “They shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them”... including those mistaken laws about what animals could be eaten, which also had to be altered by the NT... [primarily so that desired custom of giving 10% of the people's incomes to the Hebrew deity's reps could be transferred to Christian ministers, which is what this is mostly about as much or more than anything else]), and all sorts of other miscalculations on the utility and helpfulness of people making all of those animal sacrifices while following too many tedious rules, was all done based on their social hypotheses regarding what would it take to get their people (people in their area who would not have all been blood relatives) to congeal and make good obedient citizens, which was an exercise in multitasking alongside that main objective of acquiring national fame via what was by and large a work of literary fiction. So there would have been no real Joseph, or Moses, Aaron, Joshua, Gideon, Samson, or Elijah, however a real David and Solomon, including several others that have been mentioned since all of this was initiated in light of their people becoming a significant geopolitical entity that actually had its first king, with that being David around 1000 BC. Of course David's story was greatly enhanced and/or romanticized as well.

So what about Genesis 49:10 in light of this kind of scenario for the Bible's early history? Well if Jacob existed, which I would argue that he did, then how many sons did he really have if Joseph was fiction? To me, he very well may have had eleven, but that seems to have possibly been embellished as well... so we might estimate more like six or seven, perhaps even eight sons—a number auspiciously and conveniently rounded up to twelve once Joseph was added since the more the merrier as more sons would give the impression of greater importance. Yet if Jacob really did exist then he must have been a fairly important family patriarch to those who carried his bloodline forward, therefore he may very well have had ten or so real sons. But the first messianic prophecy fails to be a very impressive one. Yet I do think that Jacob really did utter it over a real son named Judah when Jacob was old and not too long before he died. But the prophecy is more commonsensical that anything else, because all that it basically says is that Judah was the best natural born leader of the bunch, so a tradition that his sons after him would be leaders of the clan also should naturally continue until a special person was born from another branch of the family who obviously possessed greater leadership skills than anyone else, whereupon that role would then be transferred to that person. Jacob's statement over Judah seems like someone hedging his prophetic bets. Religious people who would come along later would, of course, try to tease a lot more out of this than is really there, doing so while using the word “shiloh” or phrase “gathering of the people,” but this prophecy doesn't really say too much at all yet is about kings and/or leaders, at least of their family clan.

Deuteronomy 18:15-19, which is the Second (Jewish) Messianic Prophecy, was supposedly uttered, as well as written, by Mose... of course Moses meanwhile never existed. But this is an interesting messianic prophecy seeing how it is directly alluded to three times in the Gospel of John: in John 1:21, 1:25, and 7:40, while it's also cited in Acts 3:22-23 and 7:37. So what does it state and what were the intentions of its authors who produced it at least several decades if not more than a full century or two after David's son Solomon's time? All this prophecy is saying is that we—that group, a line of priest authors, who produced Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy (no matter how many there were or how broad of a period of production time it may have actually been)—since, we, that group created the character Moses (who was the most ideal yet realistic seeming human leader their nation could possibly have) it would naturally follow that their nation would need another great leader, one which the nation could look forward to as well. This prophecy is also the one which introduces the idea of a coming judgment that will be carried out by their great Messiah leader who will also function as a priest, prophet, and king (as Moses is shown to have done). And it's this messianic prophecy, along with the next one, which sets up that imagery which is depicted in places such as Daniel chapter 2 and chapter 7.

Deuteronomy 18:15-19: “The Lord thy God will raise up unto you a prophet, from the midst of you, of you brethren, like unto me [Moses] unto him you shall hearken [i.e. you need to listen to him]... I will raise them up a prophet from among their brethren, [with God doing the speaking here] like unto you [Moses], and will put my words in his mouth; and he shall speak unto them all that I shall command him. And it shall come to pass, that whosoever will not hearken [or listen] to my words which he shall speak in my name, I will require it of him.” It becomes very apparent that the architecture of the Gospel John—with all of those seemingly strange sayings attributed to Jesus about his how his words were so important and not merely his own, etc., etc.—that all of that was constructed around a frame attempting to show how Jesus fulfilled this prophecy in Deuteronomy.

Next is the Third (Jewish) Messianic Prophecy, 2 Samuel 7:12-13, aka Nathan's prophecy to King David: “And when your days are fulfilled [David's], and you sleep with your fathers, I will set up your seed [or offspring] after you, which shall proceed out of your bowels [from your body] and will establish the throne of his kingdom forever. He will build a house for my name, and I will establish the throne of his kingdom forever.” Here, of course, is the basis for that synoptic Gospel verbiage “kingdom of God” and “kingdom of heaven,” which is supposed to have some sort of unmistakeable ring of divine authority. In fact the basis for the entire Christian Religion stands upon Jesus being the one who fulfilled the Jew's messianic prophecies, a theme which is reiterated over and over in each of the four Gospels and Acts. This is how the religion can assert itself as the official representative of the Hebrew deity—one presented to the public as the Creator of us all. In this prophecy David is to be the bloodline from which the Messiah would come. Solomon was his son and is shown to have built the first temple that the Babylonians destroyed, both of which I believe are factual/historical events. And even though Solomon looks to have really built the Jew's first temple, he however died just like his father David, therefore didn't live “forever” as the leader of an eternal kingdom would be required to do. That idea of the Jew's kingdom lasting forever is also rooted in the belief that their deity is alive and actually doing things therefore must live forever. By the way, I have no problem seeing a real historical Nathan coming in before a real historical David to pronounce this prophecy since all of that makes perfect sense and appears to fit. Daniel chapter 7, which was most likely written between 250-200 BC, makes great use of the idea of that “throne” which is mentioned in Nathan's prophecy—makes that throne extremely glorious as well as quite intimidating. To see that go to Daniel 7:9-10, and then imagine a young Jesus reading this passage that was most likely part of the Septuagint, which it appears to me that he had access to—had access especially if his mother had told him that he already was, or was going to become (after an some sort of initiation, baptism perhaps) his nation's hero/messiah. Those words in Daniel were designed to reel in minds like his with visions of intoxicating power, as its crafty priest authors knew precisely what kind of writing to produce for that kind of purpose, as such ideas would help them with that always pertinent and unavoidable issue known as job security.

Daniel chapters 8 through 12 were written in another language from the one that Daniel chapters 1 through 7 were, in those copies of Daniel that are part of the Dead Sea Scrolls, which indicates that chapters 8 though 12 were copied into scrolls [thus added] at a later time and had different authors than chapters 1 through 7 while much of what's contained in the latter five chapters lacks that quality which is found in the book's earlier chapters. But chapter 9, particularly verses 24-27—The Seventy weeks Prophecy—is an exception since it was done with fairly amazing precision in several ways, though a bit awkward with its time period divisions. But I don't consider it to be one of those more legitimate type messianic prophecies, but a forgery messianic prophecy that was produced after Paul had faded from the First Century scene—most likely written about the same time as the Gospel of Mark or perhaps in response to Mark a year or so later, which I now set Mark as having been written circa 66-67 AD (instead of around 60 AD), written during the First Jewish Revolt when it would not have taken any geniuses to realize that the Romans would overcome the Jews and eventually take down both their temple and city, even as both Mark and Daniel 9:24-27 try to predict this, with the latter appearing to be a Messianic prophecy with Pauline trappings. Oh how convenient to write a book's chapter that looks like prophecy after the events have occurred, by simply copying that new part into fresh scrolls! I have been thinking for quite some time that Daniel 9 was produced in concert with that early Christian effort known as the Gospel of Mark, and that they both conveniently prophesied the destruction Jerusalem and its temple since their authors wouldn't have been able to resist that available power grab through their new religion which that developing situation regarding Jerusalem offered to them as the Jews were entering into war with the Romans. And so the collaborative work of Daniel chapter 9 would have been written circa 68-69 AD (instead of the early 60s as I hypothesized formerly) as I now see how the start of the First Jewish Revolt, having been initiated in 66, would have helped Mark make a calculated gamble of showing Jesus predicting the downfall of the temple and Jerusalem which would have been used to give the religion a huge boost in the eyes of those who read that Gospel before the temple fell and then lived on past that time. So Mark appears to have been written around 66-67 AD, in my opinion. (One more thing: The Jews were more formidable than I previously gave them credit for also as they surprised the Romans by their military success at the Battle of Beth Horon, which came before the Romans decided to send what seems to have been nearly their full armory and most skilled soldiers against then, which the Romans for many years afterward were extremely proud of the result. So the Jews turned out to be among some of Rome's greatest tests of military strength and prowess after all. Interesting.)

Besides all of that and once again more directly concerned with messianic prophecies, for anyone to want his or her nation to come out on top, in relation to the rest of the world, that is nothing at all new! In fact that idea is a rather worn out one by now, wouldn't you say? But it's that idea which all messianic prophecies are based upon, all while you are always going to have some enemies who do not like your particular nation's guy being on top, which means your messianic tale will have to somehow deal with conflict—enter heaven for the good and compliant, hell for the bad or non-compliant, as well as end-time or end-of-the world type conflicts that cause “blood” running down the street to a depth of some “horse bridles” and the such like (Revelation 14:20). Meanwhile Nathan's prophecy is apparently based on the thoughts of those who pondered Genesis 49:10 and Deuteronomy 18:15-19, but it doesn't however turn out to be all that insightful ultimately either since its theme is actually a very old and trite one, as just explained. Regarding all of those other messianic prophecies, that are primarily takeoffs from Nathan's prophecy, most developed ideas of a grand future time for Israel that would be suitable for an eternal king finally arriving—after there nation has been conquered, subjugated, and scattered for most of its history. And it's that literature that put hope within its people for a great future time that would keep their identity to be be seen as a unique one, which idea is alive until this day... all while most of the rest of us have become mixtures of various kinds of folks therefore have lost our links to one distant and specific national past.

Among all of the other Jewish messianic prophecies that came after Nathan's, I can only think of one that is rather unique and especially inventive: Isaiah 53. When you look at Isaiah 53, you first of all need to understand what kind of clout the fellow named Isaiah appears to have had around 700 BC (who is reported to have lived or prophesied between 739 and 681 BC [But you will see that according to this kind of scenario that at least some or all of Isaiah is going to look like it wasn't written or spoken by person named Isaiah after all, even as Daniel most assuredly never existed.]), how that Isaiah seemed to be free to criticize his own nation's relatively new sacrifice system and was already looking for better practices, policies, and reforms. Bear in mind that the Book of Isaiah follows that pattern which all other Jewish prophets also followed, that one of blaming anything that goes wrong in the nation on the sinfulness and stupidity of the people. But he actually criticizes their own new sacrifice system in Isaiah chapter one, if you pay close attention to verses 10-17, which state: “To what purpose is the multitude of your sacrifices unto me? Saith the Lord: I am full of the burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fed beasts: and I delight not in the blood of bullocks, or of lambs, or of he goats... Bring no more vain oblations; incense is an abomination unto me; the new moons and sabbaths, the calling of assemblies, I cannot, away with, it is iniquity, even the solemn meeting. Your new moons and your appointed feasts my soul hates: they are trouble unto me; I am weary to bear them [kind of moody seeming, like a petty man, for an eminent, all-knowing, all-powerful deity who never needs to change his mind, wouldn't you say?]...” Once again, Isaiah appears to put the blame for his God feeling this way about the sacrifices and other religious observances on the people, because they are so sinful, but actually he (or a group of leaders and priests) was most likely trying to get out ahead of some bad press (i.e. spreading public opinion) that was arising due to the debut of the regulations and demands that were being placed on the people by their nation's new sacrifice system sometime after the temple had been built and then just after Book of the Law had been debuted by being “surprisingly” discovered in the temple a number of years later (refer to 2 Chronicles 34:15-31)... as the people are shown previous to that scripture debut to have not been observing all of these rites and rituals, and so those would have been needing to be implemented in Josiah's time (which reign the Bible shows to have been from 640-609 BC), once again after that book was “surprisingly” found in the temple (which story is also presented in 2 Kings chapters 22 and 23). If that date for Josiah's reign is correct (which I would tend to accept the dates for the kings of Israel following David's time as fairly factual since I have no reason so far to doubt most of those) then the Book of Isaiah would have either been redacted after Isaiah's time or simply edited in as needed by an insider group of priests who created the character, Isaiah (which the latter is what I'm now starting to believe)... all according to the realistic scenario described above which is also being developed further right here. So you apparently can't take Isaiah's book as even being from a person named Isaiah, even as the redacting process by priests, with or without some hired scribes, would have been going on already (even as the pattern of falsifying their literature to their own advantage had already been started well before Josiah's time)—if of course the dates for Josiah's reign are correct and Isaiah was a fictitious character that was created during or just after Josiah's time, as someone they were needing to pencil in. So the the Books of Moses would have been debuted in what occurred behind what's written in 2 Chronmicles 34, which was the debut of that sacrifice system, which came after the temple had been completed, which would have created a huge PR problem for those who were attempting to keep order or be in charge, all of which now seems to be why Isaiah chapter one was written. Therefore, who knows how many sacrifices were actually ever offered?

So Isaiah chapter one looks like an “official” way to use literature to set aside what had been planned (but wasn't too good in the practical sense) by the authors of the Books of Moses before those practices had actually started, (while deciding for sure if all of this fits is going to require a good deal more thought and research by me). But those are the possibilities which does relate to exactly what all of those messianic prophecies actually are. And whoever did write Isaiah 53, it was a person who was apparently doing a large amount of innovative thinking in this area, someone who knew that the sacrifice system that had been designed by their nation's earlier insiders to facilitate their political or agenda wasn't going to work for the nation as well as those authors/social architects had hoped, apparently not too well at all. Or at least that's what I'm gathering from this right now. And so by the time Isaiah 53 was penned it looks like one more messianic idea or possibility was being thrown onto a growing heap of Jewish messianic prophecies, just to give their people one more option—an actually realistic idea involving one of their men taking on the role of being a symbolic sacrifice for the nation since their enemies would always be willing to oblige by killing any would-be or emerging great leader of Israel, or so it must have seemed, which is the innovative political part of this one which was added to all of that Swiss Army knife assortment of other messianic ideas (so Isaiah 53 may have very well been added after the Babylonian Captivity)... even as their rather soon realized elephantine and/or far too cumbersome sacrifice system could then be somehow replaced by something much better. Even so, Isaiah chapter one certainly expresses no praise at all for that sacrifice system... and so goes, as well, any alleged fulfillment(s) of any messianic prophecies at all... while anything written about a great future time or kingdom with glory, happiness, fabulous peace, and great abundance could be ascribed to a future time that will never be realized—heaven or some sort of millennium on earth—while that sacrifice part could also be easily shown to have come from Israel's oppressive enemies who would kill any would-be messiahs who might gain much popularity or a significant number of followers. Therefore, Isaiah 53 was like giving the nation a backdoor way out, a sort of relief valve in relation to all of those other more demanding and auspicious messianic prophecies that would need to happen, since those needed to have an actual great political leader or king, one who causes everything good and wanted to happen, even as that finally falling perfectly into place would be forever impossible... and from all of that Christianity is fascinatingly false result.


Buy a copy of Religion, Sex, and Philosophy for $7, which expresses the early stages of a former Evangelical Chistian finally allowing himself to think freely about many different things.
Shipping is included to locations within the United States. Click the button just below to order a copy.

Buy a copy of Endless Cycle Universe, not because it's flawless but because it shows the beginning stages of how this universe and matter concept was launched, by a person who was just
beginning to allow himself the freedom to explore physics and cosmology. This July 2008 edition is now reduced from $15 to $13, which price includes shipping within the United States.
Bear in mind as you begin to read this book that this was an extremely exciting exercise of free thought for me--a huge adventure--and that since posing those basic universe mechanical
ideas, along with my with ideas of charge, attraction, and repel, I have gone on to give years of daily research to physics and cosmology/astronomy to see whether these concepts can hold
up in the face of what has been observed scientifically so far. And bear in mind as well that my basis concept to begin this book came from two things: 1) my own personal study of the
behavior of two magnets, and 2) my beginning to intently watch scientific television in October of 2005, as these concepts began to form and take on this shape after absorbing what I had
seen in those two respects between October 2005 and October 2007, as the writing of this book was initiated in November of 2007. Click the button just below to get a copy.


A earlier version of Endless Cycle Universe, that was printed in May of 2008, which is a bit smaller size and not as well edited is also available for $8.50 and also includes shipping within
the United States. The original tables which lay out exactly how the paritcles in this system would get charged and relate to one another--from being strongly attracted to mildly attracted,
to indifferent, on down to having mild repel and some strong repel--are in these two Endless Cycle Universe editions and are worth taking a look at. These tables have never been published
on any of my websites, not as how those originally appear in the books... with the percents of the strongest attraction possible assigned to the relationship between each of the variously
charged particles (with their possible charges being from no charge on up to the very strongest of the positives, a system with no negative charge which seeks to explain the same things
as that presently held interpretive model seeks to do so while using negative charge) while percents of the strongest possible repel are assigned to certain of those particle relationships as
well--all having been done in a way [after having gained my freedom from religion to do so] to make the whole system's values flow smoothly and uniformly while following those rules
of charge, attraction, and repel which are also laid out in the book. These tables and explanations are unique and worth checking out. Click the button just below to order your copy.



                                           The Defining Moment For My Entire Life and/or Why I Was Raised to Be a Baptist:

   Having been born in December of 1956, my family hit a crisis about 1960 or shortly thereafter. The church my family had been attending, one in the Christian Church denomination
   (which is type of church my father had been raised in) had a pastor who decided to become an atheist. This happened in Blue Springs, Missouri--my hometown.

   That pastor went right on being the pastor while my mother couldn't imagine our family continuing to go there. I don't remember my father ever making any comment about it but my
   mother had attended a Baptist church a few times as a child and apparently believed that she wouldn't be able to successfully raise her four sons without the help of a church providing
   moral guidance, which seems to be the main reason why churches exist—because mothers don't want to any of their children to turn out to be criminals, while having your
   children well churched has looked like the best way to prevent that from happening.

   I think I was four and that my next older brother was six, when the Baptists came around one summer promoting Vacation Bible School, which apparently seemed like something worth
   trying. Besides, how could something called “school,” done for a week or so in the summer, be bad? Well the next thing you know my brother makes a profession of faith and needs
   to be baptized... and my next older brother, who was eight, decided to be baptized as well—and even my dad joined in (but on the inside I now think my dad, like his Christian Church
   pastor, had become a bit of an atheist, only secretly).

   At four years old (maybe 5, but I think I was four) I didn't want to be left out, so I asked if I could be baptized along with them. The pastor said, “Well he is awfully young, but all you
   have to do is say that you believe in Jesus,” and so I said that I did and got to be baptized as well. I knew it was serious to say something like that, so I even began to listen in church
   right after that. And then one day the preacher read from the gospels about demons getting inside some people and taking them over... and I wondered afterward if demons really existed
   and how would a person be sure to protect oneself from letting any of them get inside of you. Man, this was pretty weird! And so what are the rules for whether or not someone lets
   them get inside you? And other such thoughts I began to ponder, especially at night in the dark while lying in my bed, and so very often couldn't sleep.

   Regarding this absolutely true story, it's interesting that in 1960 or 61 that this same problem of believers, even ministers, turning into atheists was already beginning to happen. I now 
   see it as a defining moment for my entire life. (Note: That Christian Church pastor's name was Lee Hankins. This was written on 6/14/2012)




My response to a comment directed toward my statement posed on 4/25 (just below), a comment from an educated person on this topic at facebook (4/26/2012): Thanks again. I have been a little busy this morning trying to speak to a few evangelical minds. I saw your comment notification during the night but waited until I could catch up on a few other things before I looked at it. I realize that whatever cosmological approach is to be apprehended by the minds of objective individuals during our time that we all must heavily rely on the work that has been put into quantum physics and the astronomy done by scientists who believe that everything started with a Big Bang. I rely on much of their work as well. I do this more as a hobby or therapy after having been dominated by a religion which would not let me, in prior times, think in these sort of terms. I enjoy doing this and feel that the universe may actually operate like how I am suggesting. I've had my times of frustration with those who are so dogmatic about the Big Bang Theory as well, but with my limited mathematical capabilities I continue to plow ahead with this and enjoy doing so. I'm not trying to be disrespectful toward the scientific community with this, but I evaluate old experiments conducted years ago for myself to see if my approach might work in interpreting some, if not all, of those. This system I have come up with, the main concepts of this were initiated in a book which I did in 2008, is about matter having no negative charge, as the book and my websites allege that negative charge is a misinterpretation rooted in an early misunderstanding of the fields, or particles, that move in and out of (or circulate through) magnets. This system alleges that no negative charge actually exists and that what is presently being called neutral charge is a mid positive, with lower positives on down to an uncharged ground (uncharged by being undistorted by avoiding extreme compression inside the largest of black holes) with anything below a mid positive is presently being interpreted as having negative charge, but pragmatically by how those interact with the stronger positives (those particles that are above that middle charge level). With this there is no need for anything to go in and out of existence—to be annihilated or spring up from nothing into something. By this approach the photon of light represents the smallest digit of matter (tiny balls—matter's universal and original homologous form) and charged versions of those (by those being within a large source black hole and becoming distorted by extreme compression) turns many of those into strong positives which interact by being attracted to ground (uncharged) and other ground-like or low positive charged particles, to produce atoms, etc. For this to work as a never ending cycle there has to be a way the strong positives get rehabilitated back into being uncharged particles like they were before the source collection accrued more and more particles to become so very large via gravity. That rehabilitation would occur by the collective gravity coming from all of the other particles in the black hole, which would, over billions of years, cause an individual particle become more perfectly spherical again and therefore have no charge—until or unless it eventually gets covered over by enough other incoming/returning particles so that it gets compressed into a strong positive once again, and then comes out as such when the giant goes into one of its spewing modes (spewing powered by collective flex-back of compressed spherical particles into more cube-shaped particles, flexing back fromthat cube shape due to them wishing to be more spherical (more natural) once again—a battle between gravity and that collective flexing which results in expulsions when the collection is large enough by having accrued enough material, which mode would last perhaps two billion years each time. The charges would be stronger near the center and no charge in most of the particles near the surface, and then in between the center and the surface the particles would have every level of in-between charge... so that as they come out they have room or space to begin interacting to make atoms, with some repelling but most attracting, and others being indifferent. The basics of how this would work was initially laid out in my book, Endless Cycle Universe... though when I first started to develop the idea I made some amateurish and/or rookie mistakes about the velocity of the various types of radiation and had to return to that in the material on my websites a couple of years ago in order to get that cleared up so this would still look like it could work. My main thing, however, is to help people to not become religious and to leave one (a religion) if they are presently in one. Thanks for your comments, i.e. essentially your messages to me on this.

Written for gravitycentereduniverse.com on 4/25/12: Why accept that matter blew up miraculously to then move outward directionally, as opposed to seeing matter as always having existed instead of God/god--if redshift (which is really the only reason I have found for why a Big Bang Theory was developed) can be explained with an endlessly cycling universe which gathers its matter due to the property of gravity then builds compression on that gathering's core so that seasons of expulsion or eruption come which send matter out into space in two opposing directions? Which matter--subatomic particles--collect into protons, neutrons, electrons, atoms, planets and stars which make galaxies via gravity... which galaxies respond to that original source gathering's gravity much like a comet by turning back and then speeding up to eventually get reincorporated back into that source collection? And if what is now interpreted as matter annihilation is actually composite particles dispersing back into the surrounding subatomic environment (which many types of subatomic particles reside around all atoms yet are invisible due to their lack of velocity and/or energy), instead of matter going out of existence, then why would there be any problems with this type of interpretation? In fact, it may be the most plausible view to take regarding the universe.

                                 The purpose for the following picture is explained just below it.

 The following coversation on facebook, which is regard to the photo that is posted just above, shows why I have rejected the Big Bang Theory and have looked for another universe
explanation, because I think the Big Bang Theory gives theists too much ammunition, lets them stay in business when they should be folding. Wafa Crawford posted the above
picture which was followed by the comments between us that are shown just below.

Doug Littrell Do you believe in God, Wafa?
  • Wafa Crawford Yes I do > I believe my post above confirms that!
  • Doug Littrell That's why I believe that matter has always existed instead of God, which would explain all of that. To do so I had to develop another universe model on my own, different from the Big Bang... I have some websites about it, wrote a book on it, and have two websites dedicated to the theory now, which I have worked very hard on for about
  • four years after the book. Personally, I tested the Chistian Religion and found out it was false. So what's left after that? Islam? I don't think so. Hinduism? I don't think so. Buddha
  • was a good guy but people after him tried to make him into almost a deity.
  • Wafa Crawford God doesn't have a religion... I BELIEVE IN GOD!!!!
    "My religion is very simple. My religion is kindness." Dalai Lama
  • Wafa Crawford Doug, I don't judge, that's part of my strong belief in God. I live and let live > I'm not on this earth to prove anything to anyone! :)
  • Doug Littrell Kindness is good but doesn't require an overseeing intelligence. If matter always existed you don't need everything to pop up out of nothing like a miracle. That's mainly why I don't accept the Big Bang Theory.
  • Doug Littrell Can I copy this thread and post it for all of my friends to see, Wafa?




The essays, books, and websites have been produced by
James D. Littrell of Kansas City

How will you know the nature of the future without knowing the nature of the universe? And how will you know the nature of the universe without studying it?
         An Up-to-Date
      Social Philosophy


            Practical Physics t
I attack whatever to me looks wrong or bad for us by writing about it, offer suggestions, and celebrate life as much as possible
Leave your note at the bottom of the  page, or you can email me at Doug @endlesscycleuniverse.com.


Regarding the book, Endless Cycle Universe, keep in mind how it was a discovery process for me after having given myself almost entirely to studying theology for most of three decades while waiting on my qualitfications for being a minister to develop, which included patience (some waiting) and certain character traits that were suppoosed to be evident first according to the criteria mentioned in 1 Timothy chapter 3--certain character traits, that is, along with my carefully studying the Bible including the most pertinent areas of history related to that. Endless Cycle Universe poses a basic matter system from the ground up, one in which matter would be eternal instead of God. There were many aspects of physics at the time that I was needing to be exposed to in order to present that approach in every way that it should be done, and so the book contains a few small errors (just two that I'm aware of, like the speed of certain types of radiation [i.e. radio waves] along with my explanation/diagram for the underlying mechainsm behind why a magnet circulates a certain type of particle [i.e. a magnetic field])... which are small errors when those are compared to the book's scope or overall scheme. And the book's main basic theses I still stand by today. It's a fun book to read.


 To buy a set containing all four books (second editions), with an additional discount from the already discounted individual book price, click the buy now button. Shipping is free in the U.S. To buy books individually, go to the add to cart buttons on the Books, Photos, Etc. page. You can pay with a regular credit card without having a PayPal account. Simply click 'Don't have a PayPay account?' in the window which comes up after you click the buy now button.

To donate to this cause, to express your financial support for this needed exercise of free speech, click the donate button... and thanks. Religion needs to be kept in check by a test like that one which has been described here, with regard to what it claims... which is the only way it can really be disproved. And the universe's matter truly does appear to be eternally extant instead of God. You can donate with a regular credit card without a PayPal account. Simply click continue next to 'Don't have a PayPal account?' in the window that comes up after you click the donate button.

Website Builder