M.S.: I have a few issues with this perspective, if you'll grant me the time...

If the Bible (let alone the countless other "holy texts" which exist) are "not supposed to make sense" until "GOD FIRST DRAWS US" but "WHEN GOD DOES , THEN AlL OF A SUDDEN WE

START TO HUNGER FOR THE WORD..AND WANT TO KNOW THE TRUTH...WHEREAS

WE NEVER DID BEFORE...."

then they are of little use to the common man. If I were the CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE and had a particular interest in a species of hominids on an unassuming planet in a nondescript galaxy (one of BILLIONS which I had created in that first week) then I would make it a priority that all these "Humans" with their vast array of cultures and belief systems... I'd make myself known to all of them (not just a particular tribe of illiterate desert-dwellers), since I'm supposed to love them all... surely my Intervention would spare centuries of bloodshed?!

Hardly.

You may have moved a pawn but saying you "just put all you atheists into checkmate" is rather like... hell, a theist saying he "just put all you atheists into checkmate" after offering a smidgen of a fraction of an argument to counter the centuries of evidence and reason which has piled up against his mythological beliefs (apologies for being redundant but this was the only apt comparison).

PS: I haven't checked this thread in a couple of days & didn't expect it to run for 13 pages, so forgive me if it takes a while to catch up. Thankya

You cannot be serious. "Yah" is one of the first sounds made by babies so that somehow lends weight to the ancient Hebrew sky daddy myths? Since virtually all babies make "Maa" and "Paa" sounds does that lend credence to the Himbala People's claims of the Great God Maalak? Or the Urushk culture and their Paalaa'm creator stories?
NO!
And not least of all because I just invented these people and their gods!
Babies babble. Their nonsense does not reveal any great mysteries even if the sounds they make happen to coincide with established words - there are only so many sounds the human mouth can make; naturally similar sounds will appear again and again.

If I'm bittter then it is an aftertaste of a supposedly "all-loving" creator who sits back and watches generation after generation persecute, torture and murder specimens of his own creation, subjugate women and those of "lesser races", treat animals with cruelty, and perpetuate the ideology of superstition Vs reason - without once deeming it worthwhile to intervene and show "His children" the way. If such a Lord exists then you'd better believe I'm bitter! What rational person would not be embittered by such a cruel and heartless master?

Getting back on topic: "The cross does not show up in the followers of Messiah untill around Constantine"

Yet it shows up much earlier than the Judaic "Messaiah myths" as I have explained in earlier posts. The primitive Christ followers latched on to the Celtic Cross (using the massive coincidence of their "saviour" being crucified - as if "He" was the only human being in existence to ever be crucified; a common form of torture by the Romans) as a means to convert the "heathens" of Europe to their rapidly spreading new religion.
It is a coincidence of form that the "crucified messiah" happens to bear resemblance to the ancient pagan symbol of the heavens. For a 21st century person to ignore this fact is beyond incredible; it is wilful ignorance.

Again, I ask: which is the TRUTH, Derekkye? The Jewish version? The Muslim version? Christian? - all these "truths" are derived from a common set of mystic "truths"; the ancient Hebrews plagiarised their "sacred" texts from pre-existing mythology.
I put it to you that IF there were an Almighty Creatory of the Universe then He would have the foresight to reveal himself to ALL the peoples of the Earth in order to spare mankind from thousands of years of religious difference, war and genocide. WTF would a "benevolent God" sit back and watch the horrendous brutality we inflict upon our fellow man "in the name of the Lord"!!??!
If I were this "Master of the Universe" I would certainly do a better job of watching over my flock than this "Yawheh" has supposedly done for the past few aeons. Are we to accept that "God" has no common sense (something he granted to his creation, yet he himself lacks?!)?!

So the recent solar acitivity (the strongest it's been in a whole SIX years!) has produced some beautiful northern lights much further south than usual.
Is this a portent of future destruction? Or a minor blip on the solar scale? Only time will tell, I guess...

I'm with the other posters who have no idea what you're trying to convey in this broken English

Are you saying "God made life but no one was satisfied, but then he gave us brains and everyone was happy because everyone thought they each owned the best brain"?

If so I am curious; I have never encountered this interpretation of scripture. When, in your interpretation, was this distribution of brains?

True, in some obscure way "they happened". The "Moses" character was based on the life of an earlier man, who in turn was based on another, and renamed in the Hebrew style (all sharing common themes: hidden at birth, set adrift in a river, discovered and raised by the very people he would one day free his people from).
The "Jesus" character, while certainly based partially on the acts of an actual man has been so distorted, retconned and exaggerated as to bear little resemblance to the political activist he actually was.

That's cool, believe what you will. What I asked was: do you believe that these... "plot elements" (for want of a better phrase) were original and unique to the Christian stories? (ie: do you realise that these motifs were borrowed from earlier belief systems?)

You don't honestly think that the "Jesus" character was the only person to ever be crucified, do you?
You don't believe that the "born of a virgin - had 12 followers - was betrayed, died and was resurrected" motif was unique to the Christian mythos do you?!

And so the conquest was succesful.

Has everything to do with it (jeez, is there an echo in here?). Imagine the early followers of Jesus trying to spread their newly invented religion to the "heathens" of Europe - let's suppose these heathens used... hmm... the McDonalds logo as the symbol of their superstitions. Along come these newfangled Christians with their fancy new "cross" logo; the heathens aren't going to like that much!

In all seriousness dude, pick up a history book. You'd be amazed!

Which written word is the truth (there are many)?
Which God is the author (there are many)?

Actually it has everything to do with it. The early Christian invaders adopted the pre-existing symbol of the cross to make the cultural infiltration easier. There are celtic crosses here in Europe which predate the Christian takeover.

Why is it that so many theists have a problem with the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection as proposed by Darwin?
Why is it so hard for them to accept that after a few thousand years of development mankind began to use the brainpower granted them [by God?] to observe the natural world and develop an explanation of the origin and evolution of biological beings using reason, logic and evidence - rather than the guesswork and superstison of primitive desert-dwellers who knew far less than their descendants would?

Why should a 7000(?) year old theory be held accountable to a 150 year old theory? It was forgivable of primitive Man to believe in Geocentricism, since from our perspective is does indeed appear that the heavens revolve around a static Earth. Now we know the truth about our planet's position in the cosmos - but we do not grant the theory of Geoncentricism the same respect that we do of Creationism, yet we now have far better explanations for the origins of life than those hypothesised by ancient Hebrews. So why is it that modern-day theists easily accept that our planet orbits around a star yet find it so difficult to acknowledge that humans are just another species of animal? Why believe in gravity but not evolution?

The Christian Cross is definitely derived from Paganism - pre-christian-invasion sites here in Britain (and elswere in Europe) show undeniable evidence of this.
The cross (four cardinal points) surrounded by the circle of the Zodiac (primitive observation of the night sky - astrology, which in time evolved into astronomy) was appropraited by early Christians (12 heavenly signs reconfigured into 12 apostles; the Sun, who undergoes a death and rebirth, becomes the "Son" - just as numerous other primitive religions had a Son, born of a virgin who dies and was reborn) who recognised that adoption, rather than oppression, was a more efficient way of conquest; hence why we have the Christian festivals at midwinter and spring equinox - nowhere in the Bible does it say Christ was born in winter and died in spring. These were clearly pagan festivals adopted by christianity.
That any sane person living in the 21st century provided with this abundance of evidence can still take on faith the claims and guesswork made by prehistoric Hebrews is beyond ridiculous.

That's what I read.

Thanks to everyone who is contributing to this discussion

I'm slowly getting through all posts, sorry I don't have the time to address every point.