Religion

Secular writers I’d recommend Bart Ehrman or Elaine Pagels and Christian maybe Tom Wright to start off with.
Why would Matt debate people he probably is in agreement with? Surely the main question is : Does a god or gods exist? I don't get why you think it's important to be able to debate the NT. The easiest god to dismiss in all of this IS the god of the Bible. The Abrahamic Christian god, or whatever name you want to give it. I think we're on two different pages here to be honest. You seem to be specifically interested in the history of the NT and that's not what those debate shows are about.
 
Secular writers I’d recommend Bart Ehrman or Elaine Pagels and Christian maybe Tom Wright to start off with.
Marcus Borg is very readable too. He did a book with Tom Wright where they both laid out their views on a variety of themes side-by-side. The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions I think it was called. The comparison between Borg's more progressive Christianity and Wright's more conservative views makes for a very interesting read.
 
Last edited:
Why would Matt debate people he probably is in agreement with? Surely the main question is : Does a god or gods exist? I don't get why you think it's important to be able to debate the NT. The easiest god to dismiss in all of this IS the god of the Bible. The Abrahamic Christian god, or whatever name you want to give it. I think we're on two different pages here to be honest. You seem to be specifically interested in the history of the NT and that's not what those debate shows are about.
How can you disprove the God of the Bible if you don’t understand the Bible? The problem I’ve seen consistently with this thread is people thinking they’ve got it all figured out when they’ve blatantly not read it, and if they have read it they’ve not read it enough to understand it. If you’re going to try and disprove Christianity, Islam or Judaism you need to at least know the religious books of these faiths inside out.

Why do you think the Abrahamic Christian God is the easiest to dismiss? I’d actually argue the fact that Jesus very likely existed historically and the fact Muhammad did definitely, it gives those to faiths more credence. How you disprove them is inconsistencies across scripture and getting a sound argument together to pinpoint the inconsistencies.

Roman, Pagan and Greek Gods are the easiest to disprove, as they often claim there’s a god for each natural event that we know isn’t true.

We’re on two different pages alright, you think Matt Dillahunty debating that Jordan Peterson is worth any time whatsoever. The reason these people don’t debate scholars is because they’d get embarrassed.

Non Christian scholars debate each other all the time, the reason is they may disagree on particular claims made in the New Testament.
 
Last edited:
Marcus Borg is very readable too. He did a book with Tom Wright where they both laid out their views on a variety of themes side-by-side. The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions I think it was called. The comparison between Borg's more progressive Christianity and Wright's more conservative views makes for a very interesting read.
I respect Wright because he’s unapologetic in his beliefs and is strong willed. I don’t agree with him obviously on many points but his writing is very good. But yes you’re right, Borg is also very good.
 
How can you disprove the God of the Bible if you don’t understand the Bible? The problem I’ve seen consistently with this thread is people thinking they’ve got it all figured out when they’ve blatantly not read it, and if they have read it they’ve not read it enough to understand it. If you’re going to try and disprove Christianity, Islam or Judaism you need to at least know the religious books of these faiths inside out.

Why do you think the Abrahamic Christian God is the easiest to dismiss? I’d actually argue the fact that Jesus very likely existed historically and the fact Muhammad did definitely, it gives those to faiths more credence. How you disprove them is inconsistencies across scripture and getting a sound argument together to pinpoint the inconsistencies.

Roman, Pagan and Greek Gods are the easiest to disprove, as they often claim there’s a god for each natural event that we know isn’t true.

We’re on two different pages alright, you think Matt Dillahunty debating that Jordan Peterson is worth any time whatsoever. The reason these people don’t debate scholars is because they’d get embarrassed.

Non Christian scholars debate each other all the time, the reason is they may disagree on particular claims made in the New Testament.
rubbish man, the be all and end all is not these books, every day life and everything that happens and has happened are the tools to decide if the god of the bible is likely or not or at the very least worth following
and as stephen fry eruditely put it

 
rubbish man, the be all and end all is not these books, every day life and everything that happens and has happened are the tools to decide if the god of the bible is likely or not or at the very least worth following
and as stephen fry eruditely put it


Again, this is an argument made by someone who doesn’t understand or hasn’t read the New Testament. It’s a valid argument of course why so much suffering and it’s why Ehrman denounced his faith nearly 30 years ago. However Jesus is quoted in the Bible by saying “you will suffer (have trouble depending on version) in this world”. The Christian version of God says the world has been corrupted by evil and that’s why suffering happens.

Theists believe that God is an omnipotent being outside of space time. It’s impossible to prove such a being doesn’t exist if God really doesn’t. That’s why we need to disprove it via textual criticism, inconsistencies within the holy books and archeological finds.

It’s a very difficult task and just writing it off as Fry has there and has Dillahunty does or Dawkins or anyone else that’s not studied scripture isn’t going to help.
 
How can you disprove the God of the Bible if you don’t understand the Bible? The problem I’ve seen consistently with this thread is people thinking they’ve got it all figured out when they’ve blatantly not read it, and if they have read it they’ve not read it enough to understand it. If you’re going to try and disprove Christianity, Islam or Judaism you need to at least know the religious books of these faiths inside out.

Why do you think the Abrahamic Christian God is the easiest to dismiss? I’d actually argue the fact that Jesus very likely existed historically and the fact Muhammad did definitely, it gives those to faiths more credence. How you disprove them is inconsistencies across scripture and getting a sound argument together to pinpoint the inconsistencies.

Roman, Pagan and Greek Gods are the easiest to disprove, as they often claim there’s a god for each natural event that we know isn’t true.

We’re on two different pages alright, you think Matt Dillahunty debating that Jordan Peterson is worth any time whatsoever. The reason these people don’t debate scholars is because they’d get embarrassed.

Non Christian scholars debate each other all the time, the reason is they may disagree on particular claims made in the New Testament.
Nonsense.

I am not trying to disprove anything. All I am saying is I DON'T BELIEVE IT, and I don hot have to have fully read and understood the bible, or any other religious text for that matter in order to form my opinion on religion.
 
Again, this is an argument made by someone who doesn’t understand or hasn’t read the New Testament. It’s a valid argument of course why so much suffering and it’s why Ehrman denounced his faith nearly 30 years ago. However Jesus is quoted in the Bible by saying “you will suffer (have trouble depending on version) in this world”. The Christian version of God says the world has been corrupted by evil and that’s why suffering happens.

Theists believe that God is an omnipotent being outside of space time. It’s impossible to prove such a being doesn’t exist if God really doesn’t. That’s why we need to disprove it via textual criticism, inconsistencies within the holy books and archeological finds.

It’s a very difficult task and just writing it off as Fry has there and has Dillahunty does or Dawkins or anyone else that’s not studied scripture isn’t going to help.
see again you say "quoted" as if it actually happened, you have and furthermore no one has any idea if it really did get said
think your mask is unravelling if i'm honest
why can't you get past the fact the bible is just a collection of stories, the old testament barely has any credibility anymore as most of it is just plain daft
the new testament just because you try and shut me down with your soundbite doesn't mean i cant debate it, i know enough about it through my background and i have enough ability to re read the bits i need to, so will you just stop this high and mighty stance you take
textual criticism of the bible is the minutiae and in no way does it make any of it true if you decide something is one way or the other
the omipotent god claim is not on the shoulders of the non believer to prove it doesn't, it is squarely on those who do to present good reasons why,
if they say it does, well then show me, i'm all eyes and ears ,always have been
 
Nonsense.

I am not trying to disprove anything. All I am saying is I DON'T BELIEVE IT, and I don hot have to have fully read and understood the bible, or any other religious text for that matter in order to form my opinion on religion.
I wasn’t really talking about people who just don’t believe the universe was created by intelligence. I was talking about those who make claims about Christianity when they haven’t read it.

You should read religious texts if you’re going to form an opinion of that religious, otherwise we’re celebrating ignorance.
 

Don't have an account? Register now and see fewer ads!

SIGN UP
Back
Top
  AdBlock Detected
Bluemoon relies on advertising to pay our hosting fees. Please support the site by disabling your ad blocking software to help keep the forum sustainable. Thanks.