OLD testament vs. NEW testament
Donating = Loving
Bringing you atheist articles and building active godless communities takes hundreds of hours and resources each month. If you find any joy or stimulation at Atheist Republic, please consider becoming a Supporting Member with a recurring monthly donation of your choosing, between a cup of tea and a good dinner.
Log in or create an account to join the discussions on the Atheist Republic forums.
As i said earlier the beginning is an indeterminate period of time. How long did the beginning last? I did not say the first day was 13 billion years. We’re you present to observe there were no waters? I’m glad we’re talking about feelings. It seems you are feeling very angry at a god that you don’t believe in. My belief in God is based on historical evidence, eyewitness testimony, logical arguments, and personal experience. Christianity is testable. You could read books like Cold Case Christianity written by a former atheist homicide detective, I don’t have enough faith to be an Atheist by Dr. Frank Turek. Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis to give you an idea of what I’m referring to.
I've been to the Baptist bookstore and have no interest in bullshit propaganda books.
Science has proven that there was no water for billions of years of the Earth's beginning. I'll trust science.
Were YOU present to see jesus? See how absurd your question is?
Your belief isn't based on historical evidence because there isn't any historical evidence of a god. There are no logical arguments either. As for eyewitness testimony, at best, there is only secondhand ambiguous hearsay testimony and none that can or is verified. Most accounts of the christian early years were written some 300 years after the fact.
Dr. Frank Turek a political hack.
C.S. Lewis a nothing writer UNTIL he wrote exclusively for an evangelical audience...worthless.
There is no such thing as a former atheist. Someone may claim to be an atheist but they are a believer inside just looking for an excuse to come out.
I am not mad at a god. There is no god to be mad at. My style is blunt. If you can't handle it tough!
And OH YES, christianity certainly is testable and it has failed every single test of logic there is. That is why it relies on faith because it has no proof.
Well mykob you’re mistaken. If you don’t want to educate yourself I can’t force you out of ignorance. You are wrong on the dating of the gospels and early Christian writings. Why do you trust or have faith in science? Science doesn’t say anything, scientists interpret data to come to a conclusion on what the data means. Why don’t you take ownership of your mind and attempt to objectively read unbiased sources of data at least rather than have blind faith in science. Your attitude seems to be that what you are currently ignorant of must be wrong even though you don’t know what the wrong information is. Do some research on Bart Ehrmann a liberal skeptic scholar as well as others who affirm minimal facts such as the historicity of the life, death by crucifixion, and later appearance of Jesus of Nazareth. Refuting or disproving Christianity would take much research and study on your part. Far easier to refuse to even look at the evidence.
AJ777
WHO THE FUCK DO YOU THINK YOU ARE?!
A person like you bases your whole fucking life on a myth that has ZERO evidence of being true and you have the fucking audacity to call me ignorant.
I am not wrong about the "writings" about the bible. I have had this debate before. The "bible" was written in 325 ADE.
Why do I trust science? Well, science adheres to a strict code of investigation. Science doesn't have a predetermined outcome, it accepts the facts. Science isolates variables. Science verifies every finding, is peer-reviewed by independent sources. SCIENCE HAS CREDIBILITY. You can't say that about "faith."
Your sources are HIGHLY biased. For cryin' out fucking loud! Bert Ehrmann is a religious studies professor at a religious school. He isn't a "liberal skeptical scholar" as you suggest! You think he MIGHT have a bias? Ya think?
And you can stop the condescending BULLSHIT " Why don’t you take ownership of your mind and attempt to objectively read unbiased sources of data at least rather than have blind faith in science."
I don't have "blind faith" in science asshole. I trust information that has been properly scrutinized!
You think that I haven't researched christianity? That is so far off base it isn't even funny. Almost every atheist including me exhausted every avenue before we FINALLY rejected the myth that is christianity.
This last post of yours just personifies how dishonest you are.
The Old Testament which is the first part of the Protestant Christian Bible was written starting in around 1400 BC most scholars think genesis or job was the first book. The last book most scholars agree was written is revelation in the New Testament around 90AD. Maybe you’re thinking of the council of Nicea which occurred in 325 AD. I’m not trying to offend you by using the word ignorant. It just means you’re lacking in knowledge on a subject. I lack knowledge on many subjects. Sometimes when we think we know something our pride makes it difficult to admit when we are wrong. If you truly think there is zero evidence pointing to the truth of Christianity you are either not being honest with yourself or have not seriously studied the evidence. Try the case for Christ by Lee Strobel.
It is possible that the Torah was written before the first century, but that is where it ends. There is nothing and I mean nothing that is written down (that anyone has found) of the new testament that dates to the first century. If you have found anything, that isn't a fake, please submit it to Harvard Divinity for inspection. I'm sure you'd get a Nobel Prize.
Lee Strobel, yet another KNOWN christian propagandist. Do you have any CREDIBLE authors or are they all christian propagandist?
Actually, whoever we may give to you as credible, you automatically trash them because they don't agree with your view. Bart Ehrman for example is agnostic atheist. Or Tim O'Neill. Both are atheists who disagree with your view on the Bible and Christianity and the Council of Nicaea. And you prefer to rely on internet memes for your information.
Bert Ehrmann is a professor of christian studies, he isn't an atheist! Tim O'Neill is an AMATEUR historian and not a very good one at that. I doubt very much if he is an atheist!
Bart Ehrman:
http://www.beliefnet.com/columnists/blogalogue/2008/04/why-suffering-is-...
Tim O'Neill
https://historyforatheists.com/about-the-author-and-a-faq/
And you're a better historian than either of them?
@JoC
Yeah, I saw those sights and they don't prove that they are atheists. They are scam pieces that every scam artist puts out. It's the old trick, "I was an atheist but now I believe in god" bullshit.
Bert Ehrmann is a professor of religious studies. He could not even have that job if he was not a devout believer.
Tim O'Neill is an amateur historian working an angle to become famous.
Both are dubious and have no credibility. They interject bias in all their works.
So don't rag me about gleaning information off of the internet. That is all you do.
"Bert Ehrmann is a professor of religious studies. He could not even have that job if he was not a devout believer."
That is simply not true.
Bert Ehrmann is an evangelical writer who is also a professor of religious studies @ University of North Caroline Chapel Hill.
His credentials"http://religion.unc.edu/_people/full-time-faculty/ehrman/". Notice that he graduated from Wheaton which is a religious school.
The claim was made that Bert Erhmann is an atheist. I proved that he is not. Plain and simple CybLN
I'm sure you mean Bart Ehrman...not Bert Ehrmann. Bart Ehrman self identifies as an agnostic atheist.
https://ehrmanblog.org/am-i-an-agnostic-or-an-atheist-a-blast-from-the-p...
As to your second claim that he cannot hold the job he does without being a devout xtian, can you provide a recourse for that conclusion?
Do you know of ANY professor of Religious Studies in the USA that is not a theist? Bet you can't find even one.
Here's one: Bart Ehrman
Mykcob4, so are you saying that what you thought you knew about the dating of the Bible might be incorrect? Ever heard of the Dead Sea scrolls?
@AJ777
The Dead Sea Scrolls are not the bible. Nowhere near.
The "bible" wasn't created until 325ADE. Read other threads and you can see the whole issue played out.
mycob4, please please, educate yourself by some means outside of YouTube or the internet in general on the council of Nicea, what was written on the Dead Sea scrolls, the dating of these papyri and scrolls, and the dating of the New Testament. Where is the evidence for your claim?
You fucking arrogant moron AJ777. The dead sea scrolls don't say a fucking thing about jesus!
Psalm 51. Among other places that mention Jesus. Much of the Old Testament is in the Dead Sea scrolls. Jesus is God who is mentioned a few times in the OT. Dated to between 300BC to 100 AD. If you meant there are no New Testament fragments then I think you’re right.
"jesus" is NEVER mentioned in the dead sea scrolls. Also, you might want to find out when the letter "J" was invented. The old testament refers to the coming of a messiah, there is no proof that that ever happened. The Jews don't believe it happened either.
And you think I need an education....yeah right!
I did not say the word Jesus appears in the Dead Sea scrolls. I said He is mentioned. Read psalm 51 and tell me who it’s talking about. The Christian understanding is that Jesus is God who inspired the entire Bible, appeared in the burning bush, and in the fiery furnace. I did not mean to imply that you are under educated in general, just in Christianity.
I'll let you guess what we think that is worth.
I guess the hope was there would be some form of respect for one another's opinion but I guess that's gone. I mean it's not like this is a debate forum where ideas can be freely expressed and challenged... oh wait.
Ideas? Opinions? They are only worth the facts that back them up. You can't prove your god. You have nothing to back up anything that you claim.
I guesss I was not clear enough that god condones slavery...
You really need to read your bible your exodus verse is about stealing slaves ( someone's property) that's why you will be put to death! Also explain this...
“"When a man strikes his slave, male or female, with a rod and the slave dies under his hand, he shall be avenged. But if the slave survives a day or two, he is not to be avenged, for the slave is his money.”
Exodus 21:20-21 ESV
http://bible.com/59/exo.21.20-21.esv
Exodus 21:16
Whoever steals a man and sells him, and anyone found in possession of him, shall be put to death. ESV
Seems pretty clear to me even from the context the word is man not servant or slave. The Hebrew word is iysh which means man or person.
EXODUS 21:20-21
Anyone who beats their male or female slave with a rod must be punished if the slave dies as a direct result, 21 but they are not to be punished if the slave recovers after a day or two, since the slave is their property.ESV
This does not condone beating, but describes what is to be done to a person who does beat their slave or servant. Nowhere does it say masters beat your slaves.
So if we both pulled ESV versions why two different wordings???
“And if a man smite his servant, or his maid, with a rod, and he die under his hand; he shall surely be punished. Notwithstanding, if he continue a day or two, he shall not be punished: for he is his money.”
Exodus 21:20-21 ASV
http://bible.com/12/exo.21.20-21.asv
“When a slave owner hits a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner should be punished. But if the slave gets up after a day or two, the slave owner shouldn’t be punished because the slave is the owner’s property.”
Exodus 21:20-21 CEB
http://bible.com/37/exo.21.20-21.ceb
““If a person beats his male or female slave with a stick so severely that he dies, he is to be punished; except that if the slave lives for a day or two, he is not to be punished, since the slave is his property.”
Sh'mot (Exo) 21:20-21 CJB
http://bible.com/1275/exo.21.20-21.cjb
““If a slave owner takes a stick and beats his slave, whether male or female, and the slave dies on the spot, the slave owner is to be punished. But if the slave does not die for a day or two, the master is not to be punished. The loss of his property is punishment enough.”
Exodus 21:20-21 GNBDK
http://bible.com/431/exo.21.20-21.gnbdk
“If a man strikes his male servant or his female servant with a rod so that he or she dies at his hand, then he shall surely be punished. Nevertheless, if he survives for a day or two, then he shall not be punished, for it is his money.”
Exodus 21:20-21 MEV
http://bible.com/1171/exo.21.20-21.mev
“And if an ish strikes his eved, or his amah, with a shevet (rod), and he die under his yad; he shall be surely avenged. Notwithstanding, if he continue a yom or two, he shall not be avenged; for he is his kesef.”
Shemot 21:20-21 OJB
http://bible.com/130/exo.21.20-21.ojb
See we can do this all day
And you still can’t see it.
@AJ777
he sees far better than you.
Pages