Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Julio · 08-28-2010, 03:24 AM

This “vision” of the evil apparition walking over the waters hadn’t been the first under those circumstances; fishermen were fearfully aware of it, on occasions of storms while out fishing in the night.
The tragedy they feared the most was when the God of the Jews let this horrendous ghost snatch a fisherman or two to drown them in hatred and revenge.
The next day, the whole village would be told about the tragedy, and run to the synagogue to thank Jehovah for the ones that escaped the jaws of that Sea Monster!
OK, they were now partners with a Saviour, who called them fishers of men, no longer of simple fish.
But the terrain where they were going to catch men with their religious nests had to sometimes return them to a real sea, and subject them again to that horrendous Spectre that regularly snatched some of them.

What the sea fishermen
In their life dread the most
Is the wrath of that diabolical ghost.

Naturally, then, the agony and crying of the twelve, when they imagined the Malignant Foe was coming back for some of them.
Other stronger men had before cried in that same sea dragged down to their death by the Invisible Satan.
“No; it’s me, the Lord; don’t be afraid!”
Oh, no, Master!
Do you think it’s funny to play the Devil with us!
Come on, why didn’t you shout from the shore “I’m coming! It’s me!”, and then you came!
Why would you walk over the waves without forewarning us?!
Really!!
You scared the hell out of us!
It’s not nice!
You could have done this miracle some other time IN THE DAYLIGHT so that we would be notified in time!

Chili · 08-28-2010, 06:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julio

An important lesson:
The most striking “spiritual” statement one gets from this “miracle” has a tremendous bearing on the future characterisation of the apostles:
the import subliminally reflected in the fearful cry “It’s a spirit!”.
Nothing is of greater psychological value to define the intellectual immaturity of those “apostles” than that scream.
Sure it has to be sacred scripture.
Imagine twelve men, supposedly of the highest moral integrity, frenetically rowing without direction in the dark of the night, with the wind howling around their ears, wet and cold, suddenly “seeing” a ghost walking over the water in their direction to frighten the hell out of their souls.
Imagine their agony and scrambling in fear.
Those men were going to be the pillars of the faith, the spiritual giants of the church, the saints on its altars; but the evil spirits of the sea knew their cowardice and superstition, and would not let them out of their constricting fear of the dark.
They would in an instant lose, so terrified were they, all the spirituality recently acquired at miracle stunts by the Master, and cry in unison:
“It’s a spirit!
It’s a spirit!
It’s a spirit!
Virgin Mary, deliver us!!”

Right, so they are pointing at the essence of man wherein we are man in the created image if God that so is beyond our human condition wherein the light of common day illuminates us. It is in this light that the shepherds were created during those first 38 years as the strongholds of Joseph the wily Jewish enterprenuer who was called a carpenter to show that he was an active creator of things and so co-creator with the unknown source that inspired him the do so.

To recognize Jesus in the absense of the light of common day as converted shepherds into disciples requires them the recognize the divine spirit as their primary sourse of origin (first order enthymeme) and so be consolidated with him (here called Jesus) and be the fullness of Jesus-the-man.

Mary will do that because she is the sum total of our luminous that gives us the halo as saint in heaven and so it is important that our pilars of faith stand tall in the light of common day. Mary here is the woman who presides over the Tree of Life from where all good things come into being as it was 'she who struck at the head of the lesser serpent' of Gen. 3:15 (there called Eve and here now Magdalena) who in her turn struck at our heel as human to motivate us to created these so called shepherds that here now are raised into the TOL to be our strongholds in heaven to come.

Mary, then, is the Lady of the dark (greater serpent above), while we are human and is set free to meet us at the gate of Purgatory (we call it), to be our light in the absence of the light of common day. In the end this just means that we journey purgatory by intuition wherefore then the diciples must be on board and you will see later that they are not crucified with Jesus-the-Jew. I actually think that Mary is encountered in our Beatific Vision, at least, she was in several examples that I read about.

Please note that 'in the dark' here means in the absence of the conscious mind where sun rays are converted into light. Iow, they were going by the celestial that is also in the absence of the light of common day, which then is the only place where Jesus can be seen. Point of interest here is that it is not possible to fish in the celestial sea in the light of common day or we would be able to make our subconscuious mind the subject of our inquiry (and would not need a mirror to look into our own face, Snow While would say).

Chili · 08-28-2010, 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julio

You could have done this miracle some other time IN THE DAYLIGHT so that we would be notified in time!

It is only from oblivion that miracles appear to exist and there is noting super in nature beyond good as it is (Gen.1:31).

Doug Shaver · 08-28-2010, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julio

I've been banned from more than 20 in Portuguese alone!

Whatever floats your boat. I'd rather brag, if I were going to brag, about how few I've been banned from.

Julio · 08-28-2010, 09:53 PM

The faithful apostles were nothing but a bunch of superstitious individuals believing in walking spirits!
How sad that we after all have clear evidence in the gospels that Jesus’ disciples were never prepared mentally or spiritually for the intended task ahead.
On the other hand, how disastrous of Jesus to perform this weirdest “miracle” with no other value than to reveal the sort of men he was surrounded by.
Jesus would have been very unwise in his immature nature if he had performed this totally useless and unnecessary stunt to scare the hell out of his disciples; but we assure ourselves that such a “Jesus” never existed, and his “miracles” never happened.
What spiritual lesson can we derive from this saddest incident, therefore?
NONE.
Is it then sacred scripture?
Oh, yes, you bet it is.
It is very important scripture in the gospels and vital evidence to analyse the character of those “pillars” who would later be the foundation of one of the most aggressive and dangerous religions in the world.
MILLIONS upon millions of INNOCENT victims perished or were slaughtered in the name of that Christ and his superstitious “directors”.
It’s at this “miracle” that Jesus can be accused of messing the disciples’ life with unnecessary exhibitionism.
His wisdom failed him badly at this occasion, like in several other ones.
He failed by sending the disciples to the other side during the night, forgetting that the wind would arrive and could capsize the boat and goodbye the holy squadron.
Next, he failed by spending needless time inland praying and forgetting to pray for the security of the boat.
Had he prayed, “Father, let them have a safe trip” no turmoil would have happened, for his prayer would have been heard.
It’s right here at this junction in his “ministry” where we can confront Jesus with a hard question: what was he praying about for EIGHT HOUR that night, if he didn’t pray for his disciples’ safe trip?!
What was more important than to save twelve giants of the coming faith from drowning?
Was he praying for the salvation of the Eskimos and forgot the protection of his sacred crew nearby?
Or was it that he prayed for them but the “Father” denied him the answer in order to also take part in the FUN with the disciples’ superstition?

Chili · 08-29-2010, 06:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Julio

The faithful apostles were nothing but a bunch of superstitious individuals believing in walking spirits!
How sad that we after all have clear evidence in the gospels that Jesus’ disciples were never prepared mentally or spiritually for the intended task ahead.
On the other hand, how disastrous of Jesus to perform this weirdest “miracle” with no other value than to reveal the sort of men he was surrounded by.
Jesus would have been very unwise in his immature nature if he had performed this totally useless and unnecessary stunt to scare the hell out of his disciples; but we assure ourselves that such a “Jesus” never existed, and his “miracles” never happened.
What spiritual lesson can we derive from this saddest incident, therefore?
NONE.

The task ahead is to is regenerate the mind and body into the fruit of the vine and know exactly who we are as the body and blood of Man without attachments or desire to be other than I AM. This would be like an aged wine that is permamanent and so is why the disciples are the water added to the wine to be the life that Jesus made. Kind of like being a new wine and new skins without the yeast of the pharisees to which we were enslaved, or similar a cultured pearl to be set free that was created out of the dust called Judaism.

Quote:

Is it then sacred scripture?
Oh, yes, you bet it is.
It is very important scripture in the gospels and vital evidence to analyse the character of those “pillars” who would later be the foundation of one of the most aggressive and dangerous religions in the world.
MILLIONS upon millions of INNOCENT victims perished or were slaughtered in the name of that Christ and his superstitious “directors”.

The Gospels take place in purgatory (Galilee) which is where religion ends instead of begins and it is those who think that this is where it begins who will slaughter in the name of Christ. These are those engaged in "the great commision" that was ordered in Matthew by Jesus' brother while in Luke Jesus said 'while showing his wounds': "As the father has send me, so I am sending you" . . . and thus bearing the stigmata.

Here again it amounts to 'bible reading' that leads people astray from God and so also from the goodness of God and that is why wars are fought in the name of religion.

Quote:

It’s at this “miracle” that Jesus can be accused of messing the disciples’ life with unnecessary exhibitionism.
His wisdom failed him badly at this occasion, like in several other ones.
He failed by sending the disciples to the other side during the night, forgetting that the wind would arrive and could capsize the boat and goodbye the holy squadron.
Next, he failed by spending needless time inland praying and forgetting to pray for the security of the boat.
Had he prayed, “Father, let them have a safe trip” no turmoil would have happened, for his prayer would have been heard.
It’s right here at this junction in his “ministry” where we can confront Jesus with a hard question: what was he praying about for EIGHT HOUR that night, if he didn’t pray for his disciples’ safe trip?!

He prayed that they may be all things to all men and they had to go the the other side to be all things to all men since wide waters are as deep as they are wide. They so were the homecoming of himself and be temple that was to be raised.

Julio · 08-30-2010, 02:35 AM

John is, of the three accounts, the shortest with seven verses.
Mark has eight and Matthew twelve.
Is there a “spiritual” lesson in this disparity?
Yes, of course.
And that is that we cannot trust the accounts.
Luke, who wasn’t a disciple of Jesus, naturally omits this “story” for the simple reason that it happened in the dark, with no “eyewitnesses”.
He was honest enough to remove it from the collection of fables he selected, because he said right at the outset of his production that ALL the material he got was obtained from “EYEWITNESSES” [in the ministry], anonymous at that, don’t forget.
Perhaps he was tempted to include the legend in his bestseller, but he was intelligent enough to realise that we would CATCH him quickly red-handed with lies.
However, where did Mark get his version of the “events” if he positions it inconspicuously between the longest narration of Matthew, which includes the story of Peter walking over the water towards Jesus, and the shortest of John with the minimum fuss and detail to dispatch it as fast as possible to the realm of the incredible?
Well, Mark, like Luke, wasn’t a disciple.
Thus, naturally, he also heard it later, decades after it “happened”, from whom we don’t know, and by now we don’t care.
It is a “divine” characteristic of the sacred scriptures NEVER to disclose the source of the report, but insisting every word is god-breathed and profitable for teaching [what, we don’t know], sort of policy (1 Timothy 3:16).
That is, here comes Mark, presumably the first to write it in scripture form, telling us one of the most incredible stories of Jesus’ life without the honesty to disclose to the future readers whence he got the details.
Are we, intelligent as we are, supposed to believe the superstition of Mark and/or the other canonical writers?
Of course not, we aren’t.

Julio · 08-30-2010, 02:43 AM

John’s account is rather interesting, when compared with Matthew’s.
It is apparent that the disciples left the shore when it was already dark.
That would have been utterly stupid, unless they knew the crossing would be quick.
But suddenly the wind came and started howling and tossing the little boat around, and soon the rowers couldn’t control it anymore.
The other accounts put it that by three o’clock in the morning (fourth watch of the night) they were still rowing “in the middle of the sea”, but who knows where they were in the dark, with that much wind?
That is, they had been out there in the sea now for some EIGHT HOURS, unable to arrive at the other side.
With all that wind no beacon of fire could be held on the beach, and also by the end of the first quarter all were sleeping and quiet in the surrounding villages.
I’m sure they quickly forgot about the multiplication miracle the previous afternoon and by now were instead, terribly exhausted, cursing the elements and praying to all saints for a rescue.
I imagine Peter, the foul-mouthed that he was, spitting blasphemies against the Greek god of the winds for that turn of events.
Meanwhile, totally oblivious of the danger his bodyguards were facing in the sea drama, Jesus was filled with the Spirit speaking in tongues somewhere in the mountain.
That’s why his Father couldn’t help the “sacred college” escape the wrath of the sea, for he could not understand what Jesus was praying all about.
It is still the same today: you go to a Charismatic or Pentecostal church where two hundred members pray together in tongues rebuking, casting out and binding the Devil but he is back free every Sunday!
Now, in terms of miracles, the real one was to keep the little boat afloat and save the Holy Twelve from drowning, which would have dire consequences for the “Sacred Magisterium”!
Nevertheless, wouldn’t have been even a better miracle if they arrived on the other shore without a scratch, and avoid disclosing to the readers of the Bible all the superstition those “servants” of the Lord were constricted with?
Again, the Lord failed in his miraculous endeavour, for this particular “miracle” wasn’t altogether necessary.
If Jesus performed miracles to assert his Godhead to the Twelve, and convince them of his divine powers, WHY didn’t he walk over water that morning, in the clear light of the day?
Something smells rotten in this miracle, friends.

Julio · 08-30-2010, 02:49 AM

Matthew found an extra dramatic episode to add to his version, which the other two reporters didn’t include: the challenge Peter put to the Lord and its consequences – six more verses of extra hogwash.
If they later read it they would be flabbergasted with the exaggeration, for John being present in the boat couldn’t at all recall the incident [and he had an excellent memory, capable of remembering Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane word-for-word while tired and sleeping – John 17].
I can imagine John, upon reading Matthew’s report for the first time, exclaiming in horror, “Where the hell did this dude get Peter walking over the water?!”
Peter, who was going to become the Head of the Church, a foul-mouthed character, who would, after walking with the Lord for THREE YEARS, never reform his manners in front of women, by using unclean language to deny the master THREE TIME, is here portrayed as the most superstitious of them all.
After eight hours of exhausting rowing, when he saw Jesus “walking” over the water, after first screaming that it was a ghost coming to torment them, is so scared and traumatised that he challenges IT to do a most stupid thing: “Lord, if it is really you, tell me to come to you on the water.”
How brainless, really!
Imagine that it wasn’t Jesus but indeed the evil, cold and ferocious Spirit of the Dark where there is no Light.
Peter would drown quickly and no more Peter the First; the Church would be stuck!
Well, I guess that would have been a good thing, don’t you?
Imagine this world without this and the other “Peters”, a world without the Roman Catholic Church, and its well-documented history of crimes with millions of innocent victims slaughtered to uphold God’s divine attributes – mercy being a popular one.
Just imagine how wonderful the world would be today, without religion scarring the landscape, a world where science and progress would have developed centuries earlier, where we would have reached the moon five hundred years ago.
It was this Prophet’s Church that seven centuries later started a fight with the other Prophet’s Mosque that has not ended up to now; with MILLIONS of innocent casualties.
Why, then, we ask, didn’t Jesus let Peter drown?
That was a crucial instant when Jesus would have revealed sufficient wisdom on behalf of humanity, but failed.
Judas would have been a better pope.
But the Lord was also looking for religious applause, unfortunately, to be made a god of sorts, the Messiah that was going to come to bring peace on earth and good will among men – so were singing the deluded angels thirty years earlier on at his birht (Luke 2:14).
One could even say, with respect, in this scenario, why wouldn’t [that] Jesus drown together with Peter too?…
Oh, the whims of destiny, and the failures of the gods!

Julio · 08-30-2010, 11:43 PM

This miracle occupies an entire chapter in John’s gospel (9:1-41).
But right at the outset of its description we collide with a most distressing proposition in the words of Jesus.
The disciples asked him who had sinned in the case of that unfortunate child born blind.
Would you in the whole universe ever guess the TERRIBLY disingenuous answer Jesus was going to offer them?
Oh, heavens, the gods!
“Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him”, verse three.
THE WORKS OF GOD, in what God’s name?!!
Why wouldn’t God WORK, WORK, WORK and WORK to prevent blindness when the first blind child was born in this terrible planet of many gods?!!!…
There was only one case at the time to WORK on! Oh, Jesus, the nonsense, the nonsense, the nonsense!
That God you followed had never been born, dear healer.
A God that was still working to prevent blindness in the year when you were born could not be serious!
You were taken for a ride, and in foolishness you spent your short days on earth.
As if we could exclaim: Jesus, the fortune of one INNOCENT child the Father blinded to prove his powers!
No, it is not possible; it’s simply not possible God would be so morally blind!
He had said some other occasion that a child is born innocent, (Matthew 18:6, 19:14) but here he EXCUSES his Father of taking an innocent child and let him be born BLIND for the purpose of demonstrating how powerful his Son would be in doing miracles!!
Would this situation ever be true, ever be true, ever be true, be true, be true?!…
Oh, the gods of the christs!…
Why didn’t this bizarre Jesus stand against this weird “Father” who molests babies bringing them to life BLIND?!!
Why wouldn’t this Jesus scream to his god:
“NO! NO! NO, FATHER, PLEASE, NO!!!
Babies are born innocent!
Don’t blind them!
NO FATHER, NO!!
Give me any other task to do but healing born blind children; please Father, I cannot stand such an injustice!!!
I detest using children as guinea pigs to demonstrate my healing powers!!
Please, Father, anything but that!
I’ll die TWICE on a cross but to hurt innocent children for a commercial stunt is too much for me!
I can’t bear it!”

08-28-2010, 09:53 PM	#105
Julio Banned Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Johannesburg Posts: 5,187	Superstition The faithful apostles were nothing but a bunch of superstitious individuals believing in walking spirits! How sad that we after all have clear evidence in the gospels that Jesus’ disciples were never prepared mentally or spiritually for the intended task ahead. On the other hand, how disastrous of Jesus to perform this weirdest “miracle” with no other value than to reveal the sort of men he was surrounded by. Jesus would have been very unwise in his immature nature if he had performed this totally useless and unnecessary stunt to scare the hell out of his disciples; but we assure ourselves that such a “Jesus” never existed, and his “miracles” never happened. What spiritual lesson can we derive from this saddest incident, therefore? NONE. Is it then sacred scripture? Oh, yes, you bet it is. It is very important scripture in the gospels and vital evidence to analyse the character of those “pillars” who would later be the foundation of one of the most aggressive and dangerous religions in the world. MILLIONS upon millions of INNOCENT victims perished or were slaughtered in the name of that Christ and his superstitious “directors”. It’s at this “miracle” that Jesus can be accused of messing the disciples’ life with unnecessary exhibitionism. His wisdom failed him badly at this occasion, like in several other ones. He failed by sending the disciples to the other side during the night, forgetting that the wind would arrive and could capsize the boat and goodbye the holy squadron. Next, he failed by spending needless time inland praying and forgetting to pray for the security of the boat. Had he prayed, “Father, let them have a safe trip” no turmoil would have happened, for his prayer would have been heard. It’s right here at this junction in his “ministry” where we can confront Jesus with a hard question: what was he praying about for EIGHT HOUR that night, if he didn’t pray for his disciples’ safe trip?! What was more important than to save twelve giants of the coming faith from drowning? Was he praying for the salvation of the Eskimos and forgot the protection of his sacred crew nearby? Or was it that he prayed for them but the “Father” denied him the answer in order to also take part in the FUN with the disciples’ superstition?

08-30-2010, 02:35 AM	#107
Julio Banned Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Johannesburg Posts: 5,187	Three accounts John is, of the three accounts, the shortest with seven verses. Mark has eight and Matthew twelve. Is there a “spiritual” lesson in this disparity? Yes, of course. And that is that we cannot trust the accounts. Luke, who wasn’t a disciple of Jesus, naturally omits this “story” for the simple reason that it happened in the dark, with no “eyewitnesses”. He was honest enough to remove it from the collection of fables he selected, because he said right at the outset of his production that ALL the material he got was obtained from “EYEWITNESSES” [in the ministry], anonymous at that, don’t forget. Perhaps he was tempted to include the legend in his bestseller, but he was intelligent enough to realise that we would CATCH him quickly red-handed with lies. However, where did Mark get his version of the “events” if he positions it inconspicuously between the longest narration of Matthew, which includes the story of Peter walking over the water towards Jesus, and the shortest of John with the minimum fuss and detail to dispatch it as fast as possible to the realm of the incredible? Well, Mark, like Luke, wasn’t a disciple. Thus, naturally, he also heard it later, decades after it “happened”, from whom we don’t know, and by now we don’t care. It is a “divine” characteristic of the sacred scriptures NEVER to disclose the source of the report, but insisting every word is god-breathed and profitable for teaching [what, we don’t know], sort of policy (1 Timothy 3:16). That is, here comes Mark, presumably the first to write it in scripture form, telling us one of the most incredible stories of Jesus’ life without the honesty to disclose to the future readers whence he got the details. Are we, intelligent as we are, supposed to believe the superstition of Mark and/or the other canonical writers? Of course not, we aren’t.

08-30-2010, 11:43 PM	#110
Julio Banned Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Johannesburg Posts: 5,187	Healing the born blind This miracle occupies an entire chapter in John’s gospel (9:1-41). But right at the outset of its description we collide with a most distressing proposition in the words of Jesus. The disciples asked him who had sinned in the case of that unfortunate child born blind. Would you in the whole universe ever guess the TERRIBLY disingenuous answer Jesus was going to offer them? Oh, heavens, the gods! “Neither hath this man sinned, nor his parents: but that the works of God should be made manifest in him”, verse three. THE WORKS OF GOD, in what God’s name?!! Why wouldn’t God WORK, WORK, WORK and WORK to prevent blindness when the first blind child was born in this terrible planet of many gods?!!!… There was only one case at the time to WORK on! Oh, Jesus, the nonsense, the nonsense, the nonsense! That God you followed had never been born, dear healer. A God that was still working to prevent blindness in the year when you were born could not be serious! You were taken for a ride, and in foolishness you spent your short days on earth. As if we could exclaim: Jesus, the fortune of one INNOCENT child the Father blinded to prove his powers! No, it is not possible; it’s simply not possible God would be so morally blind! He had said some other occasion that a child is born innocent, (Matthew 18:6, 19:14) but here he EXCUSES his Father of taking an innocent child and let him be born BLIND for the purpose of demonstrating how powerful his Son would be in doing miracles!! Would this situation ever be true, ever be true, ever be true, be true, be true?!… Oh, the gods of the christs!… Why didn’t this bizarre Jesus stand against this weird “Father” who molests babies bringing them to life BLIND?!! Why wouldn’t this Jesus scream to his god: “NO! NO! NO, FATHER, PLEASE, NO!!! Babies are born innocent! Don’t blind them! NO FATHER, NO!! Give me any other task to do but healing born blind children; please Father, I cannot stand such an injustice!!! I detest using children as guinea pigs to demonstrate my healing powers!! Please, Father, anything but that! I’ll die TWICE on a cross but to hurt innocent children for a commercial stunt is too much for me! I can’t bear it!”

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

08-28-2010, 03:24 AM	#101
Julio Banned Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Johannesburg Posts: 5,187	This “vision” of the evil apparition walking over the waters hadn’t been the first under those circumstances; fishermen were fearfully aware of it, on occasions of storms while out fishing in the night. The tragedy they feared the most was when the God of the Jews let this horrendous ghost snatch a fisherman or two to drown them in hatred and revenge. The next day, the whole village would be told about the tragedy, and run to the synagogue to thank Jehovah for the ones that escaped the jaws of that Sea Monster! OK, they were now partners with a Saviour, who called them fishers of men, no longer of simple fish. But the terrain where they were going to catch men with their religious nests had to sometimes return them to a real sea, and subject them again to that horrendous Spectre that regularly snatched some of them. What the sea fishermen In their life dread the most Is the wrath of that diabolical ghost. Naturally, then, the agony and crying of the twelve, when they imagined the Malignant Foe was coming back for some of them. Other stronger men had before cried in that same sea dragged down to their death by the Invisible Satan. “No; it’s me, the Lord; don’t be afraid!” Oh, no, Master! Do you think it’s funny to play the Devil with us! Come on, why didn’t you shout from the shore “I’m coming! It’s me!”, and then you came! Why would you walk over the waves without forewarning us?! Really!! You scared the hell out of us! It’s not nice! You could have done this miracle some other time IN THE DAYLIGHT so that we would be notified in time!

08-30-2010, 02:43 AM	#108
Julio Banned Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Johannesburg Posts: 5,187	John’s account is rather interesting, when compared with Matthew’s. It is apparent that the disciples left the shore when it was already dark. That would have been utterly stupid, unless they knew the crossing would be quick. But suddenly the wind came and started howling and tossing the little boat around, and soon the rowers couldn’t control it anymore. The other accounts put it that by three o’clock in the morning (fourth watch of the night) they were still rowing “in the middle of the sea”, but who knows where they were in the dark, with that much wind? That is, they had been out there in the sea now for some EIGHT HOURS, unable to arrive at the other side. With all that wind no beacon of fire could be held on the beach, and also by the end of the first quarter all were sleeping and quiet in the surrounding villages. I’m sure they quickly forgot about the multiplication miracle the previous afternoon and by now were instead, terribly exhausted, cursing the elements and praying to all saints for a rescue. I imagine Peter, the foul-mouthed that he was, spitting blasphemies against the Greek god of the winds for that turn of events. Meanwhile, totally oblivious of the danger his bodyguards were facing in the sea drama, Jesus was filled with the Spirit speaking in tongues somewhere in the mountain. That’s why his Father couldn’t help the “sacred college” escape the wrath of the sea, for he could not understand what Jesus was praying all about. It is still the same today: you go to a Charismatic or Pentecostal church where two hundred members pray together in tongues rebuking, casting out and binding the Devil but he is back free every Sunday! Now, in terms of miracles, the real one was to keep the little boat afloat and save the Holy Twelve from drowning, which would have dire consequences for the “Sacred Magisterium”! Nevertheless, wouldn’t have been even a better miracle if they arrived on the other shore without a scratch, and avoid disclosing to the readers of the Bible all the superstition those “servants” of the Lord were constricted with? Again, the Lord failed in his miraculous endeavour, for this particular “miracle” wasn’t altogether necessary. If Jesus performed miracles to assert his Godhead to the Twelve, and convince them of his divine powers, WHY didn’t he walk over water that morning, in the clear light of the day? Something smells rotten in this miracle, friends.

08-30-2010, 02:49 AM	#109
Julio Banned Join Date: Sep 2008 Location: Johannesburg Posts: 5,187	Matthew found an extra dramatic episode to add to his version, which the other two reporters didn’t include: the challenge Peter put to the Lord and its consequences – six more verses of extra hogwash. If they later read it they would be flabbergasted with the exaggeration, for John being present in the boat couldn’t at all recall the incident [and he had an excellent memory, capable of remembering Jesus’ prayer in Gethsemane word-for-word while tired and sleeping – John 17]. I can imagine John, upon reading Matthew’s report for the first time, exclaiming in horror, “Where the hell did this dude get Peter walking over the water?!” Peter, who was going to become the Head of the Church, a foul-mouthed character, who would, after walking with the Lord for THREE YEARS, never reform his manners in front of women, by using unclean language to deny the master THREE TIME, is here portrayed as the most superstitious of them all. After eight hours of exhausting rowing, when he saw Jesus “walking” over the water, after first screaming that it was a ghost coming to torment them, is so scared and traumatised that he challenges IT to do a most stupid thing: “Lord, if it is really you, tell me to come to you on the water.” How brainless, really! Imagine that it wasn’t Jesus but indeed the evil, cold and ferocious Spirit of the Dark where there is no Light. Peter would drown quickly and no more Peter the First; the Church would be stuck! Well, I guess that would have been a good thing, don’t you? Imagine this world without this and the other “Peters”, a world without the Roman Catholic Church, and its well-documented history of crimes with millions of innocent victims slaughtered to uphold God’s divine attributes – mercy being a popular one. Just imagine how wonderful the world would be today, without religion scarring the landscape, a world where science and progress would have developed centuries earlier, where we would have reached the moon five hundred years ago. It was this Prophet’s Church that seven centuries later started a fight with the other Prophet’s Mosque that has not ended up to now; with MILLIONS of innocent casualties. Why, then, we ask, didn’t Jesus let Peter drown? That was a crucial instant when Jesus would have revealed sufficient wisdom on behalf of humanity, but failed. Judas would have been a better pope. But the Lord was also looking for religious applause, unfortunately, to be made a god of sorts, the Messiah that was going to come to bring peace on earth and good will among men – so were singing the deluded angels thirty years earlier on at his birht (Luke 2:14). One could even say, with respect, in this scenario, why wouldn’t [that] Jesus drown together with Peter too?… Oh, the whims of destiny, and the failures of the gods!

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.