We eagerly await the arrival of more baseless assertions to counteract the "fancy lurnin"

 

(edit: beat by minutes) 

 

 

Well, Guvna, I'm glad I make you laugh.

I care not about your age. I induce how much you've read by what knowledge you display. I could always be wrong. Perhaps you'll prove it so.

Oh, I didn't realize I had to produce my own book before I am considered literate. Sorry I upheld literary standards by citing that which I have read instead of plagiarizing it. Perhaps you'll find it in your heart to forgive me.

Lots of assertion. Are you ever going to make with the contrary evidence?

Yes, all gods have vague similarities. Horus is not much like Kali, though. That's probably why nobody's written about the similarities. Did I seek to prove that Horus and Jesus are the same, REV? Or, did I say that there were earlier instances of almost all the elements of the bible story?

All I have to prove is that there are earlier stories with similar plot lines and themse. That is my premise. Are you going to refute it, or just blather on about my intellect and reading ability?

It doesn't matter. All of the articles I quoted acknowledged these and many more incarnations of Horus. If you'd read all of them, you'd have noticed that the last one even mentioned how the various myths converged after Amenhotep applied it to himself and his family. Again, my premise, which I have demonstrated thoroughly, is that there are previous precedents for the Jesus story. Would you like to refute this, or continue to demonstrate that the stories aren't identical, which I never claimed in the first place?

You twit. It's right there at the bottom of the page.

You mean this Ward Gasque?

 

Dr. Gasque is President of Pacific Association for Theological Studies. He has graduate degrees from Fuller Theological Seminary (B.D., M.Th.) and Manchester University in England (Ph.D.). He has dedicated his life to making good theology available to all of God's people. A co-founder of Regent College in Vancouver, Canada, he has also been a visiting scholar at Princeton Theological Seminary and the University of Lausanne (Switzerland). He has written two books, edited four collections of essays and more than 20 commentaries; he has also published nearly 200 articles and many book reviews. He is the New Testament editor of the multi-volume New International Biblical Commentary (Hendrickson), and has served as an editor-at-large of Christianity Today.

http://www.koinos.org/faculty.htm

You mean the guy with a doctor of theology, who spreads god's word? You mean the guy who is not an Egyptologist, who went so far out of his way to ask ten whole Egyptologists what they thought? I wonder if his samples were biased, perhaps.

Again, though, even allowing Doctor Christian Theologian his non-expert opinion, so what if he had four and not twelve? He had disciples, did he not? A clear parallel, and a clear predecessor of the myth. Again, REV, this is what I have tried to demonstrate. You have not refuted it.

I have come on here stating nothing more than the fact that there are some similarities. I am honestly quoting the websites available, and providing links so that anyone interested can follow the links and the authors to their heart's content.

You mean, it would be all over the world, just like it's all over the world that evolution is a proven fact.

Oh, wait.... 60% of Americans don't believe in evolution. They believe in Jesus...

 

 

Simmo, I wouldn't ordinarily bother with this debate with REVLyle. I don't mind telling you that I'm doing it for your benefit. I'd like you to notice the difference in the two sides. One of us has made an assertion and then backed it up with evidence... lots of it.

Another of us has spent at least 75% of his time simply asserting that he's correct and attacking my literacy and intellect, and chiding me for doing exactly what any good researcher does -- quoting my sources! When he has produced "counter-evidence," it's been from a theologian who is not qualified to produce such evidence, and who would certainly not be considered an unbiased source.

If you've read my essays on critical thinking yet, what do you think of his evidence? All that bluster, and only one reference, and a non-qualified theologian at that!

I wonder why he felt the need to attack Rook, who is not even involved in this debate, and who I have not quoted?

Simmo, this is the way virtually all atheist-theist debates I've ever seen have gone. Where there's smoke, there's fire, as they like to say on the news.

 

I will admit I didn't even read all the junk you wrote (copy/pasted) I have read it before.  You lose credibility when you bring up the Temple of Luxor.  Look, even though I very much disagree with Richard C. Carrier as far as theology goes (since he is an outspoken atheist) even he says concerning the Temple of Luxor - "In conclusion, the Luxor narrative has some parallels with the Christian narrative, but also with dozens of other narratives that would have been more familiar to the Christians (such as those surrounding Alexander the Great), though none present a complete or particularly startling parallel."

I really am not going to waste anymore of my time on this junk.  I have read and researched and the facts that you propose and other Christ mythers offer simply are not there.  Please feel free to read all of Richard Carrier's article at:

http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/carrier_luxor_inscription.htm

Hamby - it is time that you simply own up to the fact that this argument can't hold water.  It is fabricated for the purpose of putting forth Christianity as false and simply another myth.  It is not truth.  Even though I disagree with Carrier, at least he's honest in saying this is not the proof that many would like it to be.

Cpt, you were kidding, right?  You aren't seriously making this objection, are you?

I really don't want to spend twenty minutes of my life refuting such a silly argument.  Please tell me you're kidding.

 

Hamby wrote:

You mean the guy with a doctor of theology, who spreads god's word? You mean the guy who is not an Egyptologist, who went so far out of his way to ask ten whole Egyptologists what they thought? I wonder if his samples were biased, perhaps. 

 

Come on Hamby - reading comprehension - you can do it.

He asked 20 Egyptologist and 10 responded.  He never presents himself as the expert Egyptologist.  I am surprised that it would bother you anyway.  Rook presents himself as an ancient text expert and yet I see nothing behind his name and when asked for credentials, he refuses.  You bore me with your idea that only Christians are biased.  Old argument and worthless, as if those who want to disprove Jesus Christ are not biased.

You wrote:

You twit. It's right there at the bottom of the page.

Great, we are calling names again.  So far I am kiddo and twit . . . nice.  Perahps you ought to count to 10 before you post.  Where on your post is the quote from Glenn Miller or Ward Gasque?  It simply is not there.  You did not copy them because it did not support your argument.  I wasn't talking about the web site reference.  You didn't present all the information.

The problem that you have is that you only quote secondary sources.  You go to the internet and copy what others have written.  Anyone who has done research - and I have - alot of it - knows that primary sources are what you go for.  For instance:

Would you please show me where, for instance:

(Primary source) that Horus taught in a temple.

(Primary source) that Horus was baptized.

Where are the Egyptian writings that we have that says these things?  If we have come to these conclusions, then where are the sources that have led to these conclusions?  What has actually happened is that we have read the Bible and we are superimposing scripture onto the story of the Egyptian myths.

Here is the synopsis of what is true:

Most of the above 'similarities' simply vanish, become irrelevant, or contribute nothing to the argument for some alleged 'identical lives' assertion for Horus and Jesus. To further highlight this, let's look at the thumbnail sketch of Horus' life given in Encyclopedia of Religions, s.v. "Horus":

"In ancient Egypt there were originally several gods known by the name Horus, but the best known and most important from the beginning of the historic period was the son of Osiris and Isis who was identified with the king of Egypt. According to myth, Osiris, who assumed the rulership of the earth shortly after its creation, was slain by his jealous brother, Seth. The sister- wife of Osiris, Isis, who collected the pieces of her dismembered husband and revived him, also conceived his son and avenger, Horus. Horus fought with Seth, and, despite the loss of one eye in the contest, was successful in avenging the death of his father and in becoming his legitimate successor. Osiris then became king of the dead and Horus king of the living, this transfer being renewed at every change of earthly rule. The myth of divine kingship probably elevated the position of the god as much as it did that of the king. In the fourth dynasty, the king, the living god, may have been one of the greatest gods as well, but by the fifth dynasty the supremacy of the cult of Re, the sun god, was accepted even by the kings. The Horus-king was now also "son of Re." This was made possible mythologically by personifying the entire older genealogy of Horus (the Heliopolitan ennead) as the goddess Hathor, "house of Horus," who was also the spouse of Re and mother of Horus.

"Horus was usually represented as a falcon, and one view of him was as a great sky god whose outstretched wings filled the heavens; his sound eye was the sun and his injured eye the moon. Another portrayal of him particularly popular in the Late Period, was as a human child suckling at the breast of his mother, Isis. The two principal cult centers for the worship of Horus were at Bekhdet in the north, where very little survives, and at Idfu in the south, which has a very large and well- preserved temple dating from the Ptolemaic period. The earlier myths involving Horus, as well as the ritual per- formed there, are recorded at Idfu."

Notice how "almost identical lives" Horus and Jesus had (smile):

• There is no mention of the more striking claims of similarity made by the CopyCat authors (such as resurrection of El-Azar-us), even though such items would surely be noteworthy in books in the Western world(!);
• This sketch does not even REMOTELY look 'almost identical' to the life of Jesus Christ! To look at this and make claims of 'majority overlap' would be ridiculous in the extreme.
• The alleged similarities (which MUST be present to even START the argument about borrowing, remember) are so weak and so dwarfed by the differences between the two figures, as to leave us wondering why anyone brought this argument up in the first place...

You can read more at:  http://www.christian-thinktank.com/copycatwho2.html

You must not read what I write.  I do not respect his work - but you guys do and even he is saying y'all are full of it when it comes to the Temple of Luxor.  That is my only point.  Hamby didn't like that I used a Christian source, Ward Gasque, because he is biased so I use one of your own people and evidently that is not good enough either.  Oh yeah, this is the rational response.  Never looking for truth. . . just taking a position against God.

So, he had the opinion of 10 Egyptologists.

You haven't noticed the extensive bibliographies in his works? I didn't realize you had to have a PhD to write. Why are we talking about Rook? I didn't cite him, nor did you.

Kiddo was name calling. Admitted. You are a twit. It's an observation of fact. NA NA NA NA NA NA.

Are you satisfied that I'm a name caller? Good. Now you have something to make yourself happy about losing the real debate.

I didn't realize I'm required to quote everything on a page. I quoted what was relevant. I didn't require that quote because it didn't contradict anything I was saying, nor did it add to my argument.

My link to the webpage with the quote was the last thing on my thread, right where links ought to be.

Would you like me to photocopy books and post them online so you can have your primary sources? I quote what is available. Each one of my citations led straight to a source that you are free to read. The books cited have bibliographies, including primary sources.

REV, I cited all of this. I'm terribly sorry I cited books that have their own bibliographies, and not the bibliographies themselves. They are simply not in full text form on the internet. You'll have to do your own reading. I'm sorry.

You haven't once even acknowledged that you understand my original statement. Try going back and reading it again. I never said that Horus' life was identical, or even parallel to Jesus'. I said that there are precedents for nearly all of the elements of the biblical myth, including Jesus. I have demonstrated this, and all you've done is cite Christians who say, "The similarities aren't exact enough to draw a parallel."

Fine, REV. The point doesn't have to be conceded because it was never in contention. There are precedents. There are differences, too. Lots of them. That's how myth evolves.

There are many elements in the life of Horus that don't line up with Jesus. Are you happy?

There are many elements in the life of Horus (in its many versions!) that are reminiscent, even strikingly similar, to that of Jesus. SIMILAR, REV. You know the word, right? The stories are not identical. There are similarities. THAT IS MY POINT.

You mentioned Horus, and blithely dismissed the claims of similarities. I cited numerous sources affirming the existence of similarities. That is all. You have not refuted this. You have simply cited Christian sources who say the similarities are not strong enough for their liking. This does absolutely nothing to my point.

The charts I posted are conglomerates. Admitted. They are taken from vastly different accounts of Horus over many centuries. Admitted. Not one story of Horus contains even a third of those elements. Admitted. THIS IS NOT MY POINT, NOR IS IT RELEVANT. Most, or all, of those elements, are present in at least one version of the Horus myth, and all of these myths predate Christianity.

QED

 

 

You're right.  It is getting pointless.  Until you demonstrate a basic comprehension of my actual premise, it's not doing any good to respond to you.

 

I've already answered that question in other threads, and it's not relevant to this discussion.

Until you can adequately explain to me what my point is, I'm not going to bother with you.  I don't know how else I can state it, and you seem incapable of understanding it.

We can't very well debate if you don't even know what you're arguing against, can we?

 

 

No, he wants you to explain it back to him to demonstrate that you grasp his point.

Your words here demostrate that you most likely aren't able to follow his point... 

You are quite correct BGH, I have been spectating through this ongoing conversation. It's obvious that I would need to take a lot of time to do my own research into this and many other issues that I have expressed concern about. I have always had doubts about my faith, which I am sure all Christians have at some time or another, however have been reasonably content to go along with my life maintaining these beliefs as a way of explaining my existence, purpose and my eternal future. I realise that there is much about Christianity that makes no sense, and that is what I am trying to explore. As I have stated before, I still want it to be true, but am having a hard time being convinced that it is.

Simmo, 

Let me address a couple of things that I have seen already.  I am not going to attempt to defend my position to every single person who disagrees with me.  Of course they disagree - I am a Christian and they are Atheists. 

I now have a guy, BGH, who says I am like a cornered animal and that I am struggling to defend my faith.  I simply stated what the Bible says about those who say there is no God - they are fools.  I believe the Bible, the question is - do you.  Again, I am not saying that they are not intelligent - but the beginning, just the beginning of wisdom, is the fear of the Lord (Psalm 111:10)  I do easily defend my faith and I use scripture to do just that.  Already I have been criticized for that as well.  If I was not secure in my faith - why am I on their turf.  I still believe.  No problem here.

AND OF COURSE Todangst decides to join the conversation.  I can tell this guy really appreciates me.  He attacked me before and challenged me to read Rook's stuff - which you know is a lot of stuff - I begin to pick it apart just looking at one simple issue - which took three days of debate and Rook finally conceded.  I didn't hear from Todangst again until now.  BY THE WAY, would you tell Rook I am still waiting for him to correct his "Biblical Contradictions" - I think 5 months is enough time to delete an error.  BUT OF COURSE - again the issue here is not truth - it is anti-theism.

You asked for websites against the Egypt - Christ myth thing:

http://www.tektonics.org/copycat/copycathub.html

http://singinginthereign.blogspot.com/2007/07/zeitgeist-movie-is-christianity.html

http://www.frontline-apologetics.com/carrier_luxor_inscription.htm (This is one of their guys - an atheist)

http://www.rationalchristianity.net/copycat.html

Let me assure you that none of these sites will meet their approval because according to them only their links are unbiased and credible - YIKES.

You are correct in your thought that your kids would not know Christ unless you or someone told them about Jesus.  Romans 10:4 - How then will they call on him in whom they have not believed? And how are they to believe in him of whom they have never heard? And how are they to hear without someone preaching?

But there is another statement that Hamby made that is just plain false.

He wrote:  Simmo, they were born not believing in a god. If it had never been taught to them, what would their beliefs be? You got it. Atheism. They're old enough to understand that some people believe that there's a god, but there isn't really one. It's kind of like Santa Claus, except that a lot of adults believe it. That's it. Simple.

Again that is in direct opposition to God's word and the observable world.  Every single culture, every single people group we have ever encountered worshipped something.  We have never stumbled into any group in any part of the world that did not worship.  It is a universal truth.  Why is that - BECAUSE there is something in man that causes him to desire a relationship with God.  Even though their worship was misdirected - as Hamby shows us with worship of who knows how many gods - they still worshipped.  Your kids would worship something no matter what - you and your wife have been correct in teaching them the truth.  Jesus Christ is THE truth.  I wrote it and I have no doubts about it.

What this site is about is suppressing that truth.  Read Romans 1. 

18For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. 19For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. 20For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. 21For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

What Paul is writing is that all these guys and gals know there is a god, but they are actively suppressing that truth and exchanging it for a lie.  How do they know - God has shown it to them but they refuse to believe.  Not only do they refuse to believe they suppress what they know to be true.  Why do you think they are investing so much time in this website.  This is an active pursuit.  If they really thought there was no god - then just go on with your life without him - but they can't.  They must be actively suppressing the truth.

So what do these guys worship - ask them.  Many of them they are simply worshipping themselves
(their minds).  Again just like the passage - they are claiming to be wise - but they are fools.  The wisdom of which I speak is not my own - but the wisdom of God. 

If you would like for me to address your issues - I would be more than happy.  I love preaching the Word of God and I love to teach it to people.  My goal in even being here is to help some see the truth.  If I can help you, all of this would be worth it.  Just let me know.

Rev, do you believe that everyone MUST worship something? Why do you feel that if someone does not worship your god, they must therefore worship something else? Why do you project this need for worship onto the whole of society? 

 

How do you know this is the wisdom of god? If you say because it is in the bible, how do you KNOW the bible is the word of god? 

 

It was a very good dinner! Thank you so much for asking. Jambalya + Steak + Peppers + Gigantic Bowl = Delicious, delicious, delicious. Jambalya is the best thing that ever happened to rice.

 

*ahem*

 

My response was weak? Try looking at the one you just typed. Here is every reason why it sucked:

 

1) "Very weak response". <---No reason why is given. We're not just going to take your word for it.

2)  I am not using the Bible to prove the Bible - although it does that quite well --- All the stories about Santa Claus do a good job of proving their own truth, too. I predict you will refuse to understand why those two statements ARE the same thing, exluding the value you place on one over the other.

 3) And you end it with the traditional theist ad hominem. Do you see this, simmo? He has accused hamby and me of having no reading comprehension. That means you shouldn't trust anything we say. Obviously. Because we're so illiterate and everything.

Simmo - First, I commend you on coming here and expressing your doubts.  I wish I had done that much sooner in life than I did, but thankfully, I have a very patient and understanding friend.

Second - Can you tell me what your faith does for you and where did it come from?   

 

1) I'm not of the position that science/evolution in themselves absolutely disprove the existence of a god or that a belief in a god is not at all compatible with science. But evolution does contradict the literal interpretation of the bible. If you don't practice a literal interpretation, that's just opening up an entirely new problem.

I'm with RD on this one. It's possible to interpret the bible in such a way as to reconcile religion with science, but that seems more like a delusional optimism than anything. It's a slippery slope to climb.

 

2) I'm not making general statements about theists based on what REV is saying. I'm making those statements based on what I've seen other theists say and do in my own experience. Actually, my comments tend to be about Christians only, so using the word "theist" there is probably a bad word choice, you're right.

I also concede that not all Christians will act that way, since I have met a few who were more open-minded, but it rarely happens.

I understand why you don't like the generalizations, and I agree with you. I'll make it a point to be more specific about the positions I bash. 

 

 

Well, I can't speak for the creators of this site, but if I understand correctly, they actually enjoy having a more relaxed atmosphere for debates around here. We may act a little bizarre sometimes, but everyone on the internet does that.

(Normal Person + Anonymity + Audience = ? )

 

As far as dark clothing and death imagery go, I'm not sure that I've noticed that. There is nothing inherently wrong with dark colors. Tuxedos are black and those are not considered to be satanic. Some people just prefer dark clothing over light clothing. I have a lot of black clothing of my own, but it's simply a matter of color preference and nothing more.

As for the site itself being of a dark color, that is probably because staring into a computer monitor is a lot like staring into a light bulb. It's not especially good for your yes. Black backgrounds with white text hurt your eyes less.

As for the skull in my display picture: It has nothing to do with death really. It's a non-human skull and it's ceramic. It was a gift to me from a high school teacher I had a good relationship with. While taking picture for another site, I had the fake skull sitting there on my desk, so I snapped a shot. It also had a Hamlet reference as a caption, but I removed it when I made it my avatar.

The reason I chose the particular picture as my avatar and the reason I also chose the name Archeopteryx was because I am very interested in evolution. I am by no means an expert or an evolutionary biologist, but I think it's interesting to read about.

So when you look at it, don't think "death". Think "archeology" and see if it makes a difference. =)

 

The term theists can mean so much, so I have no idea what you believe.  But I will simply say - It is ridiculous to think that a Christian will debate the important things of this life without the Bible.  I am only labeled a theist by this site.  I am specifically a Christian.  I do not begin to say that I represent all theists. 

I will say that I appreciate the question posted by BGH, but it is a trick question.

How do you know this is the wisdom of god? If you say because it is in the bible, how do you KNOW the bible is the word of god?

God's Word (The Bible) is the Word of God and therefore either God is a fool in what He says and he knows nothing, which would negate Him being called God or the very words of God (Scripture) contains the eternal wisdom of God.  This latter is most certainly true.  Does the Bible say that it is the word of God - sure it does.  The beginning of the written word of God is the 10 commandments.  The Bible states that it was written with the finger of God (Exodus 31:18).  Other books were written by men whom God commanded - Examples include Isaiah 30:18 and Jeremiah 30:2 and in the New Testament 1 Corinthians 14:37.  So God used men to write His Word.  Therefore, the Bible contains the words that God wanted to tell man.

So the Bible states that it is the Word of God.  Of course, you want proof outside the Bible to prove the Bible is God's word.  In essence, what you are asking is:  Isn't there a "Book A" that states that the Bible is true or God's word?  Since the Bible is not allowed to defend itself in your eyes, where is that other book?  So if there was "Book A" and I quoted it to support the validity of scripture, you could easily respond:

1.  If God inspired "Book A" why isn't it in the canon of scripture?

2.  If it is NOT inspired by God, then why should we simply trust what a man or woman wrote? 

 

There is no way I can answer that question to your satisfaction.  You either trust it or not.  Y'all do not.  I do. 

Hey Todangst, this is exactly what you did last time (attack me and bring nothing to the conversation).  Good to see you again.  I think you failed to read what I posted earlier.  Let me write in simple sentences for you.1.  I read.2.  I confronted Rook.  (Let me know if I am going too fast for you)3.  Rook conceded.4.  Todangst was quiet afterward 

I wonder if you could do #4 again.

 

No, what I actually did was point out how you managed to fuck up what Hamby said: he was trying to get you to represent his argument accurately.

 

No, I read it.

But without the ability to accurately demonstrate reading comprehension.

I didn't do it the first time. I really don't care if Rook conceded some issue to you, particuarly on your 'say so'. There's nothing for me to be 'silent about' in the first place.

 Now, can you get on with working out your blunder here: your inability to grasp Hamby's point? Or do you need even simpler sentences?

 

 

I would like to randomly point out that regardless of the fact that anything was conceded by Rook at any point, that still has absolutely nothing to do with the conversation at hand, and I don't think anyone is yet aware why that keeps getting brought up.

Rook agreed with you about the translation of a word, so that means you are automatically right about everything? I don't see the point in continually bringing that up.

 

Also, I don't think you did get his point.

 

Hamby: "Biblical themes were around before the Bible was written. Here are some stories where biblical themes can be found."

 

REV: "None of those stories are the same as Jesus."

 

Point missed.

 

You're need to boost your ego is rather pathetic, but this is the internet after all...

 

Anyway, not sure why you thought it was funny, seeing as you're only asking me to accept that my friend conceded some minor issue.

Perhaps being right is something so new and exciting for you that you can't contain yourself?

 I questioned your ability to follow a point. I still do.

 

Then you were trolling when you avoided doing what he asked?

Why not just represent his position accurately then?

Oh, and if you are so concerned for substantive debate, why didn't you respond to my other post?

 

I'm going to respond to several different posters here, though it'll mostly be directed at simmo...everyone else, look for your name

I, too, was quite "born again" and raised more-or-less christian. At the age of 7 or 8 I was made to go to church/sunday school, by 14 I was a Young Earth Creationist. I then went more and more liberal, and questioned everything. It tooks a long time for me to go atheist, and I finally did 3 years ago (thank no-god) It is a tough process. I'm 25, and haven't told my parents yet, for fear of ostracization. You may wish to look into the Old Testament as well. Much of it seems to have been copied from Canaanites and Sumerians/Babylonians, particularly the Creation Story, Noah's Ark and Job. Look up the Ugaritic Texts for some background on the Canaanite end of things, google "the epic of Gilgamesh" for the Babylonian/Sumerian version of Noah's Ark. There's also evidence that the Canaanites ripped off their Creation story from the Sumerians. Look up Sumerian mythology on google for evidence on that (sorry I'm not much more help, I can't recall any sources off hand) This has been addressed earlier in the thread.A good question that may sway you into the "prayer can't heal" side is this: has a human who has lost a limb ever grown it back? With or without being prayed over, has it happened? This is not an argument for the truth of the religion. One can take the morality of the good parts of the bible without believing in the deity of it. I must heartily disagree. Both were in favour of slavery. Paul was in favour of making women second-class citizens, and had a near-phobia of sex, which is evident in his rules regarding it (I, for one, would not want to restrict my sexual relations as much as Paul demands, and I don't think it's especially healthy to restrict yourself in this area. I realize not all of us are especially sexual, but some are, and those people being restricted can have very negative side effects). Jesus required his followers to adhere to a rather draconian version of the Mosaic code-which was anything BUT moral-upon penalty of hellfire, leaves no room for change in the religion, and seemingly condoned spousal abuse by claiming one could only divorce in the case of adultery. Also, Paul and Jesus disagreed on one fundamental aspect of Salvation. Jesus said that people could only get into heaven by adhering to the Mosaic Code to the fullest, while Paul said that only ethnic Jews had to, and then saying that the law is abolished. This is a contradiction. Not an argument for the truth of the religion. Besides, with a few minor exceptions, those morals are followed by all humans. Furthermore, we find similar moral codes in other social animals, thus suggesting an evolutionary reason for morality.
I will remind you that the largest charities and humanitarian organizations in the world today, outside of the Red Cross/Red Crescent/Red Swastika and Salvation Army, are primarily secular. So you can lead a moral life without religion.

I must tell you that those who would leave your side when you leave the faith are not true friends. Changing your belief system is a big thing, and people need support during that time. Those who leave you when you leave your faith are simply conditional friends, nothing more, and you're likely better off without them. I lost many friends over my atheism, and contnue to do so. Recently a long-time friend told me, essentially, to never speak to her again after a short discussion on evolution and whether it should be taught in school. She said something to the effect of "if you want to believe we came from monkeys and lead a sinful life, fine, but don't force my kids to believe it" and then told me off.

I do agree, however, regularly attending church when you don't believe is not cool, and not honest. It's also cowardly. Whatever you do, if you abandon your faith, you should notdo this.

I fully understand. During the last year or so of my christianity, I KNOW I caused a lot of doubts, because I actively questioned EVERYTHING. I felt very bad, for a while, but I figured that it is so hard to change peoples' minds on things that I probably wouldn't with my questions. It was eventually the Ugaritic Texts which made me drop the religion (it was not the only objection I had, but it was the clincher) and I brought this up to christian friends as well. My last few churches were quite liberal, and accepted such questioning-with limits. I'm guessing you're in a fairly conservative church (correct me if I'm wrong). What I've noticed is christians are fine with others questioning aspects of the belief, such as contradictions in the bible, but it's rare to find one who will tackle the tough questions. It's sad.

Kelly, we shouldn't be trying to deconvert the guy. We should answer his questions, reply to his concerns-but not actively try to recruit him into atheism. Let's let him make up his own mind.

You too, pineapple. Let's leave the proselytyzing to the christians and muslims.

This is a stereotype. While there certainly are these types, it's more likely that you know of them because of their outspoken nature than anything else. That said, I think you may misunderstand Satanism. There are 2 types of Satanism. There's Satanism, which is essentially hyper atheism-anti theism combined with a worship of the individual, the self. There's also Theistic Satanism, as in people who actually worship Satan. These people probably number in the dozens worldwide, if there are any at all. (There are those who say they worship Satan to scare off fundamentalists, however...) Black masses, Satanic rituals and the like are just medieval rumours spread by the Catholic Church to stamp out opposition. That said, I personally wear what I feel like (currently a lime green shirt and jeans) and never try to put on a dark persona, except to mock goths. I have been "shocking" before, but only to launch a non-violent attack radical religious people, and always within reason. For example, I make YouTube videos, and one I made recently was directed at a Messianic Jew who was spreading hate speech against homosexuals using the bible [he has since taken down his homophobic video]. He wasn't far from calling for their execution. My video is here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F2Td_TDSX_8 The image is intentionally shocking (though it's YouTube appropriate, so no nudity involved), and some bad words were used in the songs, but it was, I believe, adequate, given the circumstances. He's a deist. http://www.deism.com/

 Panentheist, and no particular religion
 

 

Fine, I'll play nice.