Why I’m no longer a Christian

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#444567 Feb 13, 2013
karl44 wrote:
<quoted text>think it over

nothing kills belief as fully as education
Lol...

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#444568 Feb 13, 2013
McStomp wrote:
<quoted text>You believe the whole Bible? Haha. Does that include all the wrong parts and all the contradictions, too? Weird.
There are no wrong parts. I'm sorry you don't understand it.

Since: Mar 10

Trussville, Alabama

#444569 Feb 13, 2013
Juicylu wrote:
<quoted text>
There are no wrong parts. I'm sorry you don't understand it.
So bats are birds then?

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#444570 Feb 13, 2013
Mr Wiggley wrote:
<quoted text>
It works on criminals in prison...sort of...
Yes, preying on the fears of other animals can easily sell snake oil, that should be the first clue that there's something wrong with religion. ;)

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#444571 Feb 13, 2013
Xcntrik InVidor wrote:
<quoted text>
Here is a question that I've wanted to ask biblical scholars for years.
In ancient apocalyptic literature, a "famous" person of the past is typically identified as the author of the text. This gives the writing both age and authority. I am not aware of a single apocalyptic writing where the author was actually the person to which the writing is attributed, except one.
Why should one consider that ApocJohn would be any different?
I'm not a biblical scholar, but I play one on Topix.

This writer was writing to a large audience -- the churches of Asia Minor.

Assuming his audience would understand who he was and would not confuse him with being the son of Zebedee, then he had to have been well known.

John the Presbyter seems to have fit that bill.

And if George the Sinner and another writer whose name I've forgotten were correct and there was an early tradition that the Apostle John died in Jerusalem before the fall of the temple at the hands of an angry mob, it might have been a given who this John was and his name carried weight.

OK. maybe we should call Ehrman and get the real answer.

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#444572 Feb 13, 2013
Duststomp wrote:
<quoted text>Which one?
If you're referring to Revelation vs. the Apocryphon of John, the Apocryphon is a 2nd century text written by someone pretending to be the Apostle John.

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#444573 Feb 13, 2013
Juicylu wrote:
<quoted text>
Great article but posting Science will just confuse him even more :)
Sour grapes.

Demonic texts -- that was a hoot.

“xcntrik.wordpres s.com”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#444574 Feb 13, 2013
Juicylu wrote:
<quoted text>
Great article but posting Science will just confuse him even more :)
Projection.

“xcntrik.wordpres s.com”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#444575 Feb 13, 2013
Juicylu wrote:
<quoted text>
There are no wrong parts. I'm sorry you don't understand it.
A Christian that is ignorant about their own Bible.

Big surprise, huh!

“xcntrik.wordpres s.com”

Since: Mar 07

Location hidden

#444576 Feb 13, 2013
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not a biblical scholar, but I play one on Topix.
This writer was writing to a large audience -- the churches of Asia Minor.
Assuming his audience would understand who he was and would not confuse him with being the son of Zebedee, then he had to have been well known.
John the Presbyter seems to have fit that bill.
And if George the Sinner and another writer whose name I've forgotten were correct and there was an early tradition that the Apostle John died in Jerusalem before the fall of the temple at the hands of an angry mob, it might have been a given who this John was and his name carried weight.
OK. maybe we should call Ehrman and get the real answer.
Except that didn't actually answer the question.

Wanna see it a little differently?

Why should the criteria for determining authorship of RevJohn be different than all the other apocalypses who attribute the writings to notable characters from a previous time.

Take Daniel for instance; one of the few books in the Bible that can be comfortably dated to within a couple of years, c. 164. The margin of authorship between the character and the writing is greater, but the idea is the same.

RevJohn is the only apocalypse that I am aware of where some* try to argue that because the author claims to be John (any John), he is considered the actual author.

I think that just like Daniel, RevJohn as pseudepigrapha should be entertained.

Are you familiar with any other ancient apocalypse where the attributed author is considered* the actual author?(*aside from conservative apologists, of course)

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#444577 Feb 13, 2013
Xcntrik InVidor wrote:
<quoted text>
Except that didn't actually answer the question.
Wanna see it a little differently?
Why should the criteria for determining authorship of RevJohn be different than all the other apocalypses who attribute the writings to notable characters from a previous time.
Take Daniel for instance; one of the few books in the Bible that can be comfortably dated to within a couple of years, c. 164. The margin of authorship between the character and the writing is greater, but the idea is the same.
RevJohn is the only apocalypse that I am aware of where some* try to argue that because the author claims to be John (any John), he is considered the actual author.
I think that just like Daniel, RevJohn as pseudepigrapha should be entertained.
Are you familiar with any other ancient apocalypse where the attributed author is considered* the actual author?(*aside from conservative apologists, of course)
I think I posted something similar not too long ago.

Ehrman in Forged treats the author as legit, if I recall, but does not go into any detail, again that I recall.

In looking at it in light of Ehrman holding that it wasn't pseudepigrapha, I see his point and can construct a case that a well-known John actually wrote it with no fraud intended.

That doesn't make it so. But I think it is possible.

I also don't know that all apocalypses were pseudepigrapha. I'll take your word for it. But comparing Rev. just to other apocalypses may artificially limiting. Why are they different from letters or gospels or other texts when it comes to such material?

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#444578 Feb 13, 2013
may artificially - may be artificially

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#444579 Feb 13, 2013
Chess Jurist wrote:
Let's see now, texts rejected in the canonization process were demonic just a few posts before, but now that you realize one that was rejected nevertheless is quoted in the canon, it is merely extra-biblical.

And I understand exactly what the Bible is: It is a varying collection of texts written over about a thousand years by many authors -- men who sometime used false names to give their text authority they otherwise would not have carried; men who copied from other men and freely modified what they copied when it suited them, men who sometimes added to existing texts or deleted from them.

The Bible, in its various forms, represents decisions by yet other men about what to include or exclude in their collections of "scripture" written by earlier men, knowing full well that some of the texts they included were bogus.

Origin, who as Tertullian thought highly of Enoch, just as the author of Jude must have too, recognized 2 Peter as a popular fraud. A text ostensibly written by a man who is described in Acts as uneducated, a text that copies wholesale from Jude, and a text that all non-theologically motivated scholars (and many who are theologically motivated) recognize as exactly what Origin thought it was.

Men writing disparate and conflicting thoughts in numerous texts over roughly a thousand years and chosen from other texts with much rancor and disagreement by yet other men, and now argued over by men and women who all think they have the holy spirit guiding them.

That is your Bible.
Wow. That's a really long post.

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#444580 Feb 13, 2013
Chess Jurist wrote:
Let's see now, texts rejected in the canonization process were demonic just a few posts before, but now that you realize one that was rejected nevertheless is quoted in the canon, it is merely extra-biblical.

And I understand exactly what the Bible is: It is a varying collection of texts written over about a thousand years by many authors -- men who sometime used false names to give their text authority they otherwise would not have carried; men who copied from other men and freely modified what they copied when it suited them, men who sometimes added to existing texts or deleted from them.

The Bible, in its various forms, represents decisions by yet other men about what to include or exclude in their collections of "scripture" written by earlier men, knowing full well that some of the texts they included were bogus.

Origin, who as Tertullian thought highly of Enoch, just as the author of Jude must have too, recognized 2 Peter as a popular fraud. A text ostensibly written by a man who is described in Acts as uneducated, a text that copies wholesale from Jude, and a text that all non-theologically motivated scholars (and many who are theologically motivated) recognize as exactly what Origin thought it was.

Men writing disparate and conflicting thoughts in numerous texts over roughly a thousand years and chosen from other texts with much rancor and disagreement by yet other men, and now argued over by men and women who all think they have the holy spirit guiding them.

That is your Bible.
Oh and for all your writing and semantics, you still don't seem to know what the Bible is. I'll tell you, it is The Word of God dearest, only words approved by God are in it.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#444581 Feb 13, 2013
The Worlds Biggest Lie wrote:
<quoted text>
You obviously didn't read the entire post. I stated that in both scenarios they will be deficient of either a father or a mother. There can be no denying this fact. But because of money, votes, and vice our no good polititians continue to place children in harms way. Some say this even constitutes as child traficking to place a child into a home where two people forfeited the natural ability to conceive a child and forfeiting the parenting process entirely. There's no way around it except for the fact that this govt is owned and run by the decadent devil himself. And it is. Just ask the Muslims.
But what can be shown is that it doesn't matter. Kids grow up just fine even with same sex couples as parents. In fact, kids with loving and nurturing same sex parents will do FAR better than kids raised by negligent or abusive biological parents.

Since: Jul 08

Columbus, OH

#444582 Feb 13, 2013
Juicylu wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow. That's a really long post.
Juicylu wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh and for all your writing and semantics, you still don't seem to know what the Bible is. I'll tell you, it is The Word of God dearest, only words approved by God are in it.
Ya'd think BibleGod could do better than pretending an illiterate fisher wrote a letter that was in fair measure swiped from the author of Jude.

“No Allah: know peace”

Since: Jun 07

A sacred grove in Tujunga, CA

#444583 Feb 13, 2013
Chess Jurist wrote:
<quoted text>
I think I posted something similar not too long ago.
Ehrman in Forged treats the author as legit, if I recall, but does not go into any detail, again that I recall.
In looking at it in light of Ehrman holding that it wasn't pseudepigrapha, I see his point and can construct a case that a well-known John actually wrote it with no fraud intended.
That doesn't make it so. But I think it is possible.
I also don't know that all apocalypses were pseudepigrapha. I'll take your word for it. But comparing Rev. just to other apocalypses may artificially limiting. Why are they different from letters or gospels or other texts when it comes to such material?
It was not pseudopigraphia for the simple reason that the author merely identifies himself as "John of Padmos" without trying to claim that he was the apostle John or the author of GoJohn.

Oh and for anyone else reading this that wants to learn about the Bible and where & how it came to its current form, I highly recommend several of the books by Bart D, Erhman.

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#444584 Feb 13, 2013
Janitor Of The LORD wrote:
<quoted text>I wasn't the one debating. I had already stated several times that I do not follow church doctrine and dogma so the entire thing is irrelevant to me. I don't focus on details that change nothing now or later. The big picture is much clearer.
Amen <3
What does man have without God? Arguments with and about man, misery and anger too it seems.

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#444585 Feb 13, 2013
Snevaeh legna wrote:
<quoted text>I had a Fig tree growing up. Didn't need much care, and it was fun picking, peeling, and eating them right off the tree!:)
Oooh... I'd love a Fig tree :D Nice to see you sweets <3

Since: Dec 12

Yes, I'm an Atheist.

#444586 Feb 13, 2013
McStomp wrote:
<quoted text>See, Ego Christian, there you go lying again. He wasn't trying to "prove her quote false". Why Ego Christians always fall into the same pattern?
Why do trolls always repeat themselves and never make any sense?

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Christians cannot debate with ATHEISTS 12 min Truthiness 439
Secular Humanism VS Christianity 19 min Truthiness 13
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 23 min RADEKT 284,462
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 36 min Clearwater 87,841
Where can i buy ecstasy in dundee?? ASAP (Feb '13) 2 hr DundeeDank 2
Profitional massage for girl in Sohar (oman) (Jan '15) 3 hr Funny life 33
The Future of Politics in America 3 hr Scaritual 134
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 9 hr kent 665,093
Prove there's a god. (Mar '08) 11 hr nanoanomaly 977,190
More from around the web