Theists are Insecure

[chi pan]

i don't need to do the rest of them, if one passage is not credable from that biased site, then obviously others will be as well. if you think you can prove the bible wrong by looking at a couple passages, then you should agree with this logic

[Voltair]

There are many times where the Bible is quoted and at times ripped out of its context by atheists. Please keep in mind though that many people who have arrived at atheism do know their Bibles very well. I am not claiming to know the Bible backwards and forwards but I do have an okay background with it and there are others here who probably outclass me in their knowledge of it.

I don't know of any atheist that takes a couple of passages and then simply dismisses the Bible. There are some who don't really bother investigating it because it hasn't been proven to be reliable enough to them in order to look at. My own dismissal of the Bible comes from understanding some of the history behind it and more importantly a lot of other issues related to its history.

This would include lack of corroborating sources, the uncertainty in when certain things were written, the time gap between the events and the recording of those events. Also the possibility of legends developing over the course of the 30 year period or so (conservative dating estimate I believe) before the first gospel was written etc.

One thing that will help in your discussions here with people is to do some lurking around the older posts here. If you are here to learn from others I would encourage you to go to the back of the forum pages here and start reading through relevant threads. There has been a lot of different discussions/ideas shared here. You don't need to respond to these older threads either as that would necro them back but a lot of time/energy has been spent discussing this and is stored on the forum.

You may also notice that people around here are pretty abrasive about Christianity. A lot of people here have had a lot of experience/time devoted to discussing this issues and can get frustrated when they see people making the same points they have refuted in the past time and time again. This is also why it is a good idea to read the older threads in this forum.

I am not saying people are going to be rude no matter what but remember this is the atheist playground and you have come in to play in it :p

[ElDinero]

i don't need to do the rest of them, if one passage is not credable from that biased site, then obviously others will be as well. if you think you can prove the bible wrong by looking at a couple passages, then you should agree with this logic

I thought you were leaving. That was a fast return.

Firstly, I'm not trying to prove the Bible wrong. I'm trying to prove YOU wrong, and succeeding.

Secondly, I think it's interesting that through your argument, you've actually ended up arguing that if a couple of passages from the Bible are wrong, then the whole thing is wrong, which is pretty hilarious. You've said that if one thing is not credible, then that invalidates the rest of it. So if someone can find ONE thing from the Bible that is not credible, where will that leave you exactly? This was a really stupid road for you to go down, so I won't mind if you want to attempt an embarrassing backpedal.

[Forsaken]

and don't call Jesus a demigod, he is not a greek myth.

Right, he is a Christian Myth.

I thought you were leaving. That was a fast return.

Firstly, I'm not trying to prove the Bible wrong. I'm trying to prove YOU wrong, and succeeding.

Secondly, I think it's interesting that through your argument, you've actually ended up arguing that if a couple of passages from the Bible are wrong, then the whole thing is wrong, which is pretty hilarious. You've said that if one thing is not credible, then that invalidates the rest of it. So if someone can find ONE thing from the Bible that is not credible, where will that leave you exactly? This was a really stupid road for you to go down, so I won't mind if you want to attempt an embarrassing backpedal.

ElDinero got him there.

[Shell B]

Jesus was a human sacrifice. Game over.

[LarissaAnn]

Damn! You beat me to it Shell B

[Faith No More]

...God never condones human sacrifice.

Except for his one and only son, right?

Edit: Apprently she beat me to it too.

[chi pan]

"This would include lack of corroborating sources, the uncertainty in when certain things were written, the time gap between the events and the recording of those events. Also the possibility of legends developing over the course of the 30 year period or so (conservative dating estimate I believe) before the first gospel was written etc"

do you really see any historical document that covers all gaps in history? no we cover gaps by pooling in historical sources written by many historians. keep in mind, the bible is the work of many documents and not all the jewish documents made the old testimate. they made the bible as a religous document not a historical one, therefore some historical texts were discluded when they put the bible together.

"One thing that will help in your discussions here with people is to do some lurking around the older posts here. If you are here to learn from others I would encourage you to go to the back of the forum pages here and start reading through relevant threads. There has been a lot of different discussions/ideas shared here. You don't need to respond to these older threads either as that would necro them back but a lot of time/energy has been spent discussing this and is stored on the forum."

good idea i'll look into it.

"Firstly, I'm not trying to prove the Bible wrong. I'm trying to prove YOU wrong, and succeeding."

really? you think you're proving me wrong by throwing sites at me that are clearly biased? even if i were to prove every single passage on that site is missrepresented, then you still would just way whatever b/c you don't care about the truth, you just want to prove you're right and everyone else is wrong. why don't you read these passages for youself; if i spoonfeed you everything, you son't learn a thing.

"Secondly, I think it's interesting that through your argument, you've actually ended up arguing that if a couple of passages from the Bible are wrong, then the whole thing is wrong, which is pretty hilarious. You've said that if one thing is not credible, then that invalidates the rest of it. "

actually i said by your logic, if you would have read my post thoroughly. i do not agree with this logic however if you do, then at the same time you must agree with what i used b/c it uses the same logic.
" Jesus was a human sacrifice. Game over."

human sacrifice? no he was God's sacrifice of his son who in fact was more than human. he came as the flesh of a man however his soul was not. in the bible animal sacifice was sufficient to cover the sin's of a man however God did away with this in sending his only son as a sacrifice for everyone. he was not sacrificed like a sacrifice but exicuted like a man. if you pay attention, sacrifices are burnt and jesus was not burnt.

[Voltair]

If this were simply a matter of secular history I would agree with you that the lack of corroboration is not surprising. What we are talking about here though are supernatural events. In our day and time and even in recent history there has been no proof that supernatural/miracle events can happen besides some attributions.

So when a document is claiming that something happened that seems to not exist in reality it is going to raise red flags. If Christianity is truly guided by the divine creator of the universe than it should not be too much for him to provide an easier way to see that the Bible is true. A divine hand in it should make it a lot less difficult unless that divine hand is intentionally trying to make things difficult.

[Erinome]

i agree with this, but is it also wrong to keep some as you give some away?

What would Jesus keep?

and don't call Jesus a demigod, he is not a greek myth.

1. Don't tell me what to call Jesus. I'll call him a fucking shit stain on the panties of the world if I want.

2. Jesus is a myth, and hasn't ever been proven otherwise, and therefore, by definition, he is most certainly a demigod.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demigod

When the ancient Greeks worshiped and feared Zeus, he wasn't a myth. He was a god. Kinda like your god, but less demi, yet equally as real.