mcdaddy Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 And why do you want to start with the NT? You seem to want to avoid the OT like the plague. It's because the OT is complete and utter bullshit, and you know it is. The nt is mostly nice Jesus cuddling kittens, but if you throw out the OT, the NT becomes irrelevant, as Jesus is supposed to be the OT messiah. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antix Posted June 26, 2012 Author Share Posted June 26, 2012 OK, I will start with the OT this week, I will be back on soon to give you an update, also I will have questions (especially with some funny things in genesis) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CDFree Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 OK, I will start with the OT this week, I will be back on soon to give you an update, also I will have questions (especially with some funny things in genesis) Why don't you read it every day? Is that not what Christians are supposed to do? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 I would start with Leviticus and Deuteronomy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CDFree Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 I would start with Leviticus and Deuteronomy. RFLOL Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 They're by far the most fucked up. You'll see the bronze age thinking very quickly. It CANNOT BE from a universe creating, all good deity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 Well maybe not by far. A lot of others are horrible too. Namely judges and kings. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Yalta Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 Why have you never read the complete Bible? Tried about 10 yrs ago, but the OT is quite boring and I am not one of those christians who says I got an orgasm from reading Numbers. I do need to read it in its entirity though I cracked up when I read that! Makes me wonder what Numbers is about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mcdaddy Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 Thats actually pretty funny. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lunaticheathen Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 Actually, Numbers isn't really significant. It will just bore you to death. I've never read more than a page from Numbers before I wanted to stab my eyes out. Then again, Genesis pissed me off enough to leave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam5 Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 The nt is mostly nice Jesus cuddling kittens, but if you throw out the OT, the NT becomes irrelevant, as Jesus is supposed to be the OT messiah. Great point. Also Jesus is supposed to be the OT God incarnate. So... according to Christian theology- Jesus orders the Israelites to kill "everything that breathes" in Canaan, including women and babies. Jesus/God tells Moses to stone disobedient children and that rape victims should marry their rapists. No person in a sound mind believes any of this.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raoul Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 Actually, Numbers isn't really significant. It will just bore you to death. I've never read more than a page from Numbers before I wanted to stab my eyes out. Then again, Genesis pissed me off enough to leave. I like that - 'stab my eyes out'. Same here. And, in fact, back when I was doing the xtian apologetics the atheists would tear us a new one almost every time by citing something in the ot while I and others kept trying to steer them to the nt. Gee, I wonder why? LOL 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raoul Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 Ask me a specific question and I will be happy to answer. Okay, I'll go for it. When Jesus said he didn't come for the 'righteous' and that the 'healthy have no need of a physician', whom was he referring to? Good question, considering he came for everyone. That is my take on it You didn't answer the question. By saying he came for everyone you are inferring 'everyone' had the need for salvation. But yet he referred to some as already righteous. Once more - were there people that were righteous without the need for a savior, the cross, the blood, and all the other psychologically disturbing crap the xtian church pushes down our throats today? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raoul Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 And to the original poster over here who claims to be an xtian but not as bad as all those other 'horrible' xtians: You said you believed the bible to be 'god breathed'. Oh really? Perhaps you might wanna check out some of Bart Ehrmann's writing regarding your god breathed book. Bart began as an orthodox, fundamentalist xtian who believed it to be right out of the mouth of god. He studied at Moody and other xtian places in order to become the perfect xtian. He even learned the ancient languages - Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek along with newer languages of French and German in order to study everything he could regarding those god breathed texts. Bart is now an agnostic/atheist. Know why? He began finding errors in various manuscripts so he began studying the history of the bible making done. Along the way he found out things like the time an English believer, also intend on proving the word of god to be true, did his own thing (back in the 16th/17th centuries). The Brit collected 100 of the BEST manuscripts in order to create a better bible. Unfortunately, he found over THIRTY THOUSAND errors in the 100 manuscripts. He, along with others including Bart discovered that your god breathed book had been totally corrupted by the orthodox (ie: fundies) in order to push certain doctrines down everyone's throats! Examples - in Corinthians where Paul allegedly said he doesn't allow women to preach - that was put in at a later date because the Greek words used along with the style of writing was totally dis-simlar to the rest of the book. Or where Paul allegedly said 'abstain from sexual immorality - not an exact quote because I don't have a bible here. The word for sexual immorality was never in the earlier manuscripts Bart studied. The actual word was 'evil' ie: abstain from evil. But how many pulpit pimps have used 'sexual immorality' to go after our gay citizens? God breathed? Hardly! Even the so-called atonement death of Jesus was put in later manuscripts or changed from the original intent in order to shove the guilt crap down all of our throats! So when you say you believe it's god breathed then you are also saying that practically everything else written by anyone else is god breathed including this note to you. Care to comment about that? 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antix Posted June 26, 2012 Author Share Posted June 26, 2012 Ask me a specific question and I will be happy to answer. Okay, I'll go for it. When Jesus said he didn't come for the 'righteous' and that the 'healthy have no need of a physician', whom was he referring to? Good question, considering he came for everyone. That is my take on it You didn't answer the question. By saying he came for everyone you are inferring 'everyone' had the need for salvation. But yet he referred to some as already righteous. Once more - were there people that were righteous without the need for a savior, the cross, the blood, and all the other psychologically disturbing crap the xtian church pushes down our throats today? Everyone sinned except christ, therefore he had to come for everyone. Although the righteous he refers to are the ones truly seeking God, everyone has sinned. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antix Posted June 26, 2012 Author Share Posted June 26, 2012 And to the original poster over here who claims to be an xtian but not as bad as all those other 'horrible' xtians: You said you believed the bible to be 'god breathed'. Oh really? Perhaps you might wanna check out some of Bart Ehrmann's writing regarding your god breathed book. Bart began as an orthodox, fundamentalist xtian who believed it to be right out of the mouth of god. He studied at Moody and other xtian places in order to become the perfect xtian. He even learned the ancient languages - Aramaic, Hebrew, Greek along with newer languages of French and German in order to study everything he could regarding those god breathed texts. Bart is now an agnostic/atheist. Know why? He began finding errors in various manuscripts so he began studying the history of the bible making done. Along the way he found out things like the time an English believer, also intend on proving the word of god to be true, did his own thing (back in the 16th/17th centuries). The Brit collected 100 of the BEST manuscripts in order to create a better bible. Unfortunately, he found over THIRTY THOUSAND errors in the 100 manuscripts. He, along with others including Bart discovered that your god breathed book had been totally corrupted by the orthodox (ie: fundies) in order to push certain doctrines down everyone's throats! Examples - in Corinthians where Paul allegedly said he doesn't allow women to preach - that was put in at a later date because the Greek words used along with the style of writing was totally dis-simlar to the rest of the book. Or where Paul allegedly said 'abstain from sexual immorality - not an exact quote because I don't have a bible here. The word for sexual immorality was never in the earlier manuscripts Bart studied. The actual word was 'evil' ie: abstain from evil. But how many pulpit pimps have used 'sexual immorality' to go after our gay citizens? God breathed? Hardly! Even the so-called atonement death of Jesus was put in later manuscripts or changed from the original intent in order to shove the guilt crap down all of our throats! So when you say you believe it's god breathed then you are also saying that practically everything else written by anyone else is god breathed including this note to you. Care to comment about that? I will start reading the Bible today again when I get back from work this evening and am willing to discuss with the site members as I have questions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raoul Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 everyone has sinned except christ... That's exactly the answer I was hoping you'd say. Congratulations because you have fallen into one of the debating traps I was taught by my atheist opponents decades ago! LOL Yeah, you're a freaking fundy allright. You cite that freaking garbage which, by reference, can also include innocent children. Well pilgrim, hate to break it to you but you're merely citing almost a singular verse which Isaiah allegedly said and was quoted by Paul and others. Maybe Isaiah was having a 'bad hair' day? Nope because if you went on from that SINGULAR verse in Isaiah and read the REST of the chapter you would see that he was speaking ONLY about Israel and that he even made allowances, later, for righteous Jews! And regarding Christ as being sinless - then why did he challenge the person who called him 'good teacher' by saying ONLY one person was good - god. Also, that verse put in about him being without sin was put in centuries later by the orthodoxy to push his alleged diety. I'll be all eyes to see your response now.. (G) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
raoul Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 I will start reading the Bible today again when I get back from work this evening and am willing to discuss with the site members as I have questions. and I'm sure many of us will be more than happy to help you with your bible lessons since you obviously lack alot of the biblical exegisis and heumeneutics required to know anything about the lessons it might or might not offer to folks. Just a reminder though - this site is titled 'EX- christian' which means most, if not all of us, have heard it all before and have found it lacking to say the least. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 You didn't answer the question. By saying he came for everyone you are inferring 'everyone' had the need for salvation. But yet he referred to some as already righteous. Once more - were there people that were righteous without the need for a savior, the cross, the blood, and all the other psychologically disturbing crap the xtian church pushes down our throats today? Everyone sinned except christ, therefore he had to come for everyone. Although the righteous he refers to are the ones truly seeking God, everyone has sinned. There's lots of ways to attempt to interpret this. I had always read it as irony. He said it in response to the Pharisees who were challenging him eating with tax collectors and prostitutes. It's like saying to them "you have your own reward", which is their self-righteousness. The repeated theme of the Pharisees is a maligning of them as all clean on the outside yet full of rot on the inside. "I didn't come for you since you are so righteous already". This said however, I find the whole doctrine of blood shed for sin remission to be only meaningful to those who imagine God as some primitive deity that needs to be appeased by blood sacrifices. Don't you find that a bit odd of a way of understanding God? I always had. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antix Posted June 26, 2012 Author Share Posted June 26, 2012 everyone has sinned except christ... That's exactly the answer I was hoping you'd say. Congratulations because you have fallen into one of the debating traps I was taught by my atheist opponents decades ago! LOL Yeah, you're a freaking fundy allright. You cite that freaking garbage which, by reference, can also include innocent children. Well pilgrim, hate to break it to you but you're merely citing almost a singular verse which Isaiah allegedly said and was quoted by Paul and others. Maybe Isaiah was having a 'bad hair' day? Nope because if you went on from that SINGULAR verse in Isaiah and read the REST of the chapter you would see that he was speaking ONLY about Israel and that he even made allowances, later, for righteous Jews! And regarding Christ as being sinless - then why did he challenge the person who called him 'good teacher' by saying ONLY one person was good - god. Also, that verse put in about him being without sin was put in centuries later by the orthodoxy to push his alleged diety. I'll be all eyes to see your response now.. (G) Can you point out one single verse showing Jesus sinned? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antix Posted June 26, 2012 Author Share Posted June 26, 2012 You didn't answer the question. By saying he came for everyone you are inferring 'everyone' had the need for salvation. But yet he referred to some as already righteous. Once more - were there people that were righteous without the need for a savior, the cross, the blood, and all the other psychologically disturbing crap the xtian church pushes down our throats today? Everyone sinned except christ, therefore he had to come for everyone. Although the righteous he refers to are the ones truly seeking God, everyone has sinned. There's lots of ways to attempt to interpret this. I had always read it as irony. He said it in response to the Pharisees who were challenging him eating with tax collectors and prostitutes. It's like saying to them "you have your own reward", which is their self-righteousness. The repeated theme of the Pharisees is a maligning of them as all clean on the outside yet full of rot on the inside. "I didn't come for you since you are so righteous already". This said however, I find the whole doctrine of blood shed for sin remission to be only meaningful to those who image God as something that needs to be appeased by blood sacrifices. Don't you find that a bit odd of a way of understanding God? I always had. Yes, that is wierd that there is a blood sacrifice requirement Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 Yes, that is wierd that there is a blood sacrifice requirement By weird I assume you mean it doesn't jibe with you either? Kind of goes against what your heart tells you? I found this so-called "heresy" during the years Christianity was trying to figure out what should be the truth to teach as Christian doctrines for all of humanity in all generations (ironic isn't it?), to be more a more reasonable understanding of humanity and the place of Jesus in Christian faith: http://atheism.about...st_pelagius.htm Let me know what you think. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Thought2Much Posted June 26, 2012 Share Posted June 26, 2012 everyone has sinned except christ... That's exactly the answer I was hoping you'd say. Congratulations because you have fallen into one of the debating traps I was taught by my atheist opponents decades ago! LOL Yeah, you're a freaking fundy allright. You cite that freaking garbage which, by reference, can also include innocent children. Well pilgrim, hate to break it to you but you're merely citing almost a singular verse which Isaiah allegedly said and was quoted by Paul and others. Maybe Isaiah was having a 'bad hair' day? Nope because if you went on from that SINGULAR verse in Isaiah and read the REST of the chapter you would see that he was speaking ONLY about Israel and that he even made allowances, later, for righteous Jews! And regarding Christ as being sinless - then why did he challenge the person who called him 'good teacher' by saying ONLY one person was good - god. Also, that verse put in about him being without sin was put in centuries later by the orthodoxy to push his alleged diety. I'll be all eyes to see your response now.. (G) Can you point out one single verse showing Jesus sinned? Yup. When Jesus cast the demons out of Legion, and he sent them into the pigs. He didn't have to send them anywhere after they were cast out of Legion, but he knew before he cast them out that they wanted to go into the pigs. As God, he knew exactly what the pigs would do when the demons entered them. Someone owned those pigs. Did Jesus compensate the owners of the pigs? No. That is willful destruction of someone's property and source of income. That's a form of theft, no? Oh, but anyone who owned pigs was probably just a yucky Samaritan, or something, so I guess it didn't matter anyway. EDIT: This is just the first one that came to mind for me. There might be others. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antix Posted June 26, 2012 Author Share Posted June 26, 2012 everyone has sinned except christ... That's exactly the answer I was hoping you'd say. Congratulations because you have fallen into one of the debating traps I was taught by my atheist opponents decades ago! LOL Yeah, you're a freaking fundy allright. You cite that freaking garbage which, by reference, can also include innocent children. Well pilgrim, hate to break it to you but you're merely citing almost a singular verse which Isaiah allegedly said and was quoted by Paul and others. Maybe Isaiah was having a 'bad hair' day? Nope because if you went on from that SINGULAR verse in Isaiah and read the REST of the chapter you would see that he was speaking ONLY about Israel and that he even made allowances, later, for righteous Jews! And regarding Christ as being sinless - then why did he challenge the person who called him 'good teacher' by saying ONLY one person was good - god. Also, that verse put in about him being without sin was put in centuries later by the orthodoxy to push his alleged diety. I'll be all eyes to see your response now.. (G) Can you point out one single verse showing Jesus sinned? Yup. When Jesus cast the demons out of Legion, and he sent them into the pigs. He didn't have to send them anywhere after they were cast out of Legion, but he knew before he cast them out that they wanted to go into the pigs. As God, he knew exactly what the pigs would do when the demons entered them. Someone owned those pigs. Did Jesus compensate the owners of the pigs? No. That is willful destruction of someone's property and source of income. That's a form of theft, no? Oh, but anyone who owned pigs was probably just a yucky Samaritan, or something, so I guess it didn't matter anyway. EDIT: This is just the first one that came to mind for me. There might be others. I could argue Jesus was not crucified yet, thus the old law was still in effect and eating pork was forbidden for jews. Also, why could the pigs not have been wild? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
antix Posted June 26, 2012 Author Share Posted June 26, 2012 Yes, that is wierd that there is a blood sacrifice requirement By weird I assume you mean it doesn't jibe with you either? Kind of goes against what your heart tells you? I found this so-called "heresy" during the years Christianity was trying to figure out what should be the truth to teach as Christian doctrines for all of humanity in all generations (ironic isn't it?), to be more a more reasonable understanding of humanity and the place of Jesus in Christian faith: http://atheism.about...st_pelagius.htm Let me know what you think. Yes it is kind of weird and I do not doubt christianity saying we all have a sinful nature, but as for evil, I do not see that. I see more christians being way more eveil than the non religious. Why a blood sacrifice? But then again, cain felt the same way Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts