Hey Guys,

So I'm just looking to brush up on my knowledge regarding Christian beliefs so that I'm better prepared to explain my position of disbelief when the discussion arises (it has been a much more common topic around the house than I'd like, especially being the sole atheist of the family). I have some general questions mainly concerning timelines, tailored beliefs and context of things relating to the Bible. Any insight or helpful links would be greatly appreciated. Alright, so here's what I'd like more info on:

1) Does the Bible condone slavery? Every Christian that's confronted with this seems to flat out deny that it does, stating that those "slaves" were people who volunteered themselves to serve.

2) Over what period of time was the Bible written?

3) What's the story of Abraham killing his son?

4) Who are Cain and Abel?

5) What misogynist things does the Bible say about women?

6) Why don't Christians like to follow the Old Testament?

7) What has the Bible "predicted"?

8) Does the Bible have any racist implications?

9) Who was Mary Magdalene and what was so special about her?

10) What other religions does the Bible "borrow" from?

Thanks in advance! <3

Tags: abraham, atheism, bible, context, debate, god, jesus, misogyny, questions, racism, More…women

Views: 2853

Reply to This

Replies to This Discussion

The first Chapter of Genesis was written by the Priestly Source, in captivity in Babylon in the 6th century BCE, with the intention that this, more ethereal creation story, would replace the more anthropomorphic one originally composed by the Yahwist Source  400+ years earlier, in Jerusalem. The Redactor, however, who combined all of the three sources into the book of Genesis, and falsely attributed it to Moses, chose to include both versions.

Frankly, Gen 1 lost me after the 4th word --

RE: "Might I humbly suggest" - I've yet to see you do ANYthing humbly, so yes, it would be a special treat!

Well, it is hypothesized that... 

Let's not get too carried away by declaratives when we're talking about establishing patterns of authorship from relatively scant evidence like the use of Elohim.

Just keeping you humble. ;-)

Did I mention that I get a lot of such information from your people, the Catholics?

I've long since given up ever seeing any likelihood of you ever being humble, and I certainly wouldn't waste any personal effort on such a futile project.

You are Professor Robert aren't you? Why the new moniker, Bob?

I wonder how many books and papers and theories get tossed aside by people unwilling to read past the first line.

If the work is presented as nonfiction, the first line can say a lot.

"You are holding in your hands what is, in my experience as an astrologer and teacher for over twenty years, simply the best book available on the subject."

Toss it. 

The first chapter of Genesis is a Hebraic poem.  We're supposed to think it's rational to reject an entire work because we want every line of every poem that we read to be realistic?

I reject the claim that God exists because there is no evidence. No Bible must be read to explain this quite rational position. I stated this clearly so the rest is academic.

I disregarded the Bible as evidence of the claim that God exists, not as a work of literature. It makes the claim in line one: God exists. It asserts this as true, poem or not.

You disregard that I ask for evidence and falsely attribute to me that I want every line of every poem I read to be "realistic"? That's how I recognized you, Robert: intellectual dishonesty paired with the patently absurd.

Might I humbly suggest that it's a better choice to read the poem as a poem, or story as it was intended, rather than being an overly prosaic fundamentalist? 

As a means of determining the truth of the claim that God exists, it is not. 

Besides, if we are going to be all picky about things, to reject a theory we must falsify it or decide it is not useful.   In order to do that, I expect we first have to take the time to actually understand the theory.

Burden of proof, Bob. It's not up to me to falsify the claim that God exists. It's up to the claimant to prove the claim is true. Failing in that-- time after time-- I reject the claim.

He went from "Professor Robert" to "Dr. Bob" because some thought the original title to be a bit pretentious, neglecting to realize that pretentious is, as pretentious does.

I see.

So others suggested that 'Professor Robert' seemed like an attempt to impress and affect greater importance than is actually possessed. Robert responds by swapping one honorific for another and shortening the name to Bob.

Humility personified.

That's quite the howler, Mr. Arch!

"What's in a name?"

Yes.  Why don't you change your name to "squashed hedgehog"?  "Archaeopteryx" sounds a little ... childish and resentful. 

I don't really see that your condition is improving, Paynton, have you considered changing your meds, or at least increasing your dosage? Do you often think of squashing hedgehogs? About how often, on average, would you say? Does anything in particular provoke these fantasies? Does god tell you to do it?

Oh, I found your song --

@Simon Payton;

"Why don't you change your name to "squashed hedgehog"?  "Archaeopteryx" sounds a little ... childish and resentful. "

Simon...Simon...Simon...it isn't the name that matters in the case of Professor/Dr Robert/Bob, it's the fact that the guy behind the name keeps changing it.

Ask yourself Simon 'why did he change it?', give it some thought.

Since I ran across Paynton's poster, I understand him a lot better --


"because some thought the original title to be a bit pretentious"

Speaking for myself only, I didn't think the name was pretentious, I did however think the poster was indeed pretentious.

Somewww.some.com.ico" class="smarterwiki-zc-image-img" alt="" />Some Records, a United States record label


© 2015   Created by umar.

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service