The Atheist Experience

I have shown you otherwise. Look at Ananias and Sapphira. Look at the widow with two mites. Look at the widow who gave Elijah the last of her food.If you think Jesus' teaching doesn't apply to everybody, YOU need to show otherwise.

Perhaps later. I need to leave for work. But if what you say is true, then what Jesus advocates is too much for me and most of us to handle. As I said, I fear to be broke.

I wish you would follow up once in a while and think things through instead of bringing up the same old same old over and over again.

quote:

---

Well, you have some sources of your own I guess, they certainly aren't the ones I trust. There should be no reason for an Aramaic version of the NT that I know of, it was written in Greek, and while fragments of many translations exist I don't see why an Aramaic translation would be of any importance one way or another.
The Textus Receptus is the best compilation of manuscripts as attested by all the scholars I trust.

​

If you want to read the best scholar on the subject in my opinion, read Dean John William Burgon, "Revision Revised" and "The Last Verses of Mark" and he's written many others.

---

My biggest problem is that there are NO (original) ARAMAIC (or Hebrew) LETTERS OR FRAGMENTS OR ANYTHING.It would be nice to have something that is not late European stuff (some of the European texts are fairly early though, but not too impressive, as they mostly consist of letters of Paul, a shadow in history that we don't know a lot about, except that he never met Jesus).I admit that my "problems" could be (possibly) described as more of an "archaeology problem", but this is still serious.I have no confidence that this stuff we have for a "Bible" is from anybody remotely connected to Jesus.This is a "problem", right?Can you admit that nobody, really, "knows Jesus"?Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

So you wanted me to scroll down to the last sentence, which is this one. When you stick in a word like "really" you introduce so many different possible ways of understanding what you are asking it makes it rather hard to answer. But we are told in the New Testament that what God wants of us is to KNOW Him, and those who believe, and read the Bible and pray, in fact do know Him, though knowing Him will be a project for all eternity, not something easily accomplished.The more the debates go on here at EvC the more I find myself pulling back to my simple traditional belief passed down through the conservative Protestant lines. I trust those in the conservative traditions who have studied the history of the Bible manuscripts and concluded it is to be trusted. I'm convinced particularly of the trustworthiness of the KJV as I've understood the revision of 1881 to have been a terrible hoax on the Church, making use of corrupted manuscripts. Read the Bible and believe it, that's the wise thing to do, all the carrying on about languages and different authors is just a distraction. Trust it, read it, believe it. Period.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No, I cannot admit that. I dont count on the accuracy of source material to allow me to pray. jar may rightly ask how I know who I am praying to, but I have Faith that God chose to reveal His omniscience to humanity through the character of a man. Even if I dont know exactly waht the true recorded character may have been in the original manuscripts, it is irrelevant because i believe He lives today and that anything that I get wrong about Him through study, he will correct and enlighten me through prayer. Granted the Jesus whom I imagine exists is mostly thought up by me, but you must remember that I also believe he actually exists and is actually communing with me. Thus, I trust that by humbling myself in prayer, he will correct my misconceptions about Him.(and myself)

That's ironic. You put the source ahead of the message but you don't trust the source of the source.

Noted. I've always been curious about you and your beliefs. The only feedback that I get around here concerning you is your likes on various posts by others... but its nice to have you around...believe it or not. Our issue here is Why Atheism?I would argue that Jesus is potentially more acceptable...(at least here in the US) than would be Vishnu, Allah, Coyote, FSM, or anything that Stan Lee or Ray Bradbury could dream up.Atheism seems appealing only in that it appears to be the most rational choice among those who are convinced that all gods are human creations. Critics could say that Believers by definition are willfully deluded. And yet you are rightfully proud of missionaries within your own family! So my questions to you, Taq:

Will belief always be around? Or will humanity either outgrow the need (or God simply shows up undeniably)?

​

Why do you personally stick around EvC? Is it the people here? Is this sorta like an online social club? After all, we endlessly discuss the same things: Religion/Evolution vs Creationism, and Trump.

---

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. ~RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith

​

You can "get answers" by watching the ducks. That doesn't mean the answers are coming from them.~Ringo

​

As the fear of God is the beginning of wisdom, so the denial of God is the height of foolishness.
? R.C. Sproul, Essential Truths of the Christian Faith

Says you. You argue that the characters originated in the book. I argue (according to belief) that the characters always existed...before books were conceived. So we come at it two different ways...Faith vs Evidence. The old argument.In other words, my belief s that the source of the source exists even if the book had never been written. Hard to believe, I know. Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.

No. You said it. I was just pointing out that it was ironic. No you don't. You believe that the characters always existed. You assert that the characters always existed. But you have never made a substantive argument to back up your beliefs and assertions. Evidence always trumps faith. See the story of Thomas.

What possible argument could I use? Scripture itself backs it up, but you likely question that source as well. In essence, you stand defiantly asking God Himself to give you a good argument and He is silent before you. The enemy then whispers in your ear "See? He doesn't exist. Quit worrying about it!" I have no evidence. I have no argument. I simply believe. I would challenge you, however, to give me a good argument for why throwing the messenger away is rational. In the meantime, I will agree with you that Yes. Yes, we must do it all ourselves.

The first thing you need to understand is that, "I believe..." is not an argument. Well, you're the one who rejects scripture, remember? I'm the one who has to keep pointing out to you what it actually says. Where on earth do you get that nonsense? I'm asking YOU for an argument. You're not God. There is no enemy. Been there, done that, done it again and again and again. The T-shirt has been washed so many times it's almost disappeared.I've even given you an example to show that in real life YOU put the message before the messenger: You don't throw your bills away and worship the mailman. You know how stupid that would be.

These three examples were of the poorest of the poor. In those times, when one was poor they literally only had two mites, if that...and a lone jar of oil with no food banks or food stamps to fall back on. Very few people in N.America approach that level of poverty. I dont think Jesus expects me to give all I have. If so, I literally would be homeless. All that I have is my apartment...which really belongs to Moms trust and which may need to be sold in order to care for her. The rents in Denver these days are astronomical. I have no savings. I only live on the gracious income brought about through my job. Thank God He let me get that back. I lost it in 2016 if you recall. I am 60, diabetic, losing sensation in my legs and feet, I have sleep apnea, I'm getting weaker with age and my blood sugars are too high. If you think that Jesus expects me to keep giving more away, you have a hard argument---especially since you are an unbeliever. What is He gonna do to help me? What more can I do apart from helping the homeless guy under the tree next to my work? You seem to advocate that a follower of Christ needs to willingly embrace a life of poverty. Even though I'm not rich, I sometimes feel as if I should be the rich young ruler, seeing as how I'm white and "privileged" according to some on this forum. In a way, our world is undergoing a great leveling. It used to be the rich, the aspiring middle, and the poor (which are always with us) Thanks to fate, we now still have the rich and the upper-middle class, and we have a vast ocean of poor...of which I am the wealthiest of. BFD. I feel anxiety and fear of ending up under a bridge. I simply would die.

quote:

---

The more the debates go on here at EvC the more I find myself pulling back to my simple traditional belief passed down through the conservative Protestant lines. I trust those in the conservative traditions who have studied the history of the Bible manuscripts and concluded it is to be trusted.

---

How old is the earth?(more than 1900/2000 years, right?)How old is (any form of) "Christianity"?Keep in mind the FACT that Augustine was, in 388-431 A.D., still attacking those who thought there was land on the other side of the earth (mono poles or something) - that is, a "new world" not mentioned in the Table of Nations of Genesis. It was a major controversy, over 1000 years later, to "discover" the Americas and the Native Americans when SCRIPTURE FAILED TO MENTION BOTH!Jesus did not have any existence before 2000 years ago, and the (later) written "records" of him did not spread too far for a very LONG time after he died.Christianity came long after the earth, and humans, existed.Look at your even later example, Faith:Your reliance on Protestant offshoots - of a VERY recent Roman Catholic church (the RCC did exist longer back in time, but Protestants are offshoots of a recent Roman Catholic Church, which itself came from a developing religion that is very LATE IN EARTH'S HISTORY) - show us that you are isolated in time and place.Faith, here is what I feel:Your religion is a product of a modern European culture, and the old religion of Jesus did not get so much as a public hearing outside of Syria. You don't even have a Hebrew Gospel of Matthew to show me (or the world). China never got the Gospel According to the Hebrews. Neither did England, of all places. England only ever has Roman Catholicism or the later Anglicans. These old "Celtic" legends are a myth, btw (the "pure church" stuff and associated fantasies).Edited by LamarkNewAge, : No reason given.

I do often have a hard time figuring out what on earth you are getting at, and this post is such an occasion. I'm going to respond to your last paragraph now though and possibly come back to the rest later: That is ridiculous. The religion of Jesus is Christianity and we get it from the biblical accounts. Even the RCC had the main outlines of it buried in their pagan superstitions and God made sure His own found the truth there. But the Protestant Reformation recovered the whole Bible and restored the whole religion of Jesus to us. The surrounding culture has no part in this, it all comes from reading and absorbing the Bible, and as a matter of fact it was the other way around: the Bible, the accounts of Jesus, transformed the culture of Europe. Why would I want to? The gospels were all written in Greek. Since they don't speak Hebrew in Chine what would be the benefit of having a "gospel" in Hebrew, whatever that is? Again, no reason I know of why they should. Well I strongly disagree. And if you look it up on Wikipedia you'll find that Christianity was established very early in England, only along with so many pagan religions it didn't emerge as dominant until later. There was no Roman Catholic church at that time, and when the church did get established it was indeed the Celtic Church. Do you consider St Patrick to be a myth too?. Because he was an English Christian in the early fifth century who became a missionary to Ireland, establishing a very strong Celtic Church there. He died in Ireland in 461 AD. Later "missionaries" from the Roman Church forced their version of Christianity on the British Isles at swordpoint, killing the whole early Celtic Church. Now we see St. Patrick depicted as a Catholic Bishop in that ridiculous pointy hat, but in reality he was a very rough guy who lived in extremely primitive conditions as a missionary, a missionary representing the CELTIC church, having no relation whatever to Roman Catholicism.Ten years ago I wrote a blog post based on a book I'd read about Patrick which presented a very tough and admirable man instead of the fancy-robed "bishop" image the RCC turned him into.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.