So here it is, The Atheist New Testament

Discussion in 'Religion and Ethics' started by Thete, Feb 1, 2012.

  1. Thete
    Offline

    Thete Bachelor of Theology

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2012
    Messages:
    32
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Location:
    Finland
    Ratings:
    +3
    Please give me any feedback you have. I already know I'm lacking - all! - sources, but I'm working on it. The link is below the picture.
    [​IMG]

    The Atheist New Testament

    Feel free to comment, thank you!

    PS. can anybody guess where that picture is taken?
     
    Last edited: Feb 1, 2012
  2. konradv
    Offline

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    22,539
    Thanks Received:
    2,554
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +5,659
    What was the reason for putting the year of birth as 4 CE? It's well known that there was an error in the calculation of the original year of Jesus' birth, in particular because it's known from historical sources that Herod the Great died in 4 BCE. However, the ANT doesn't mention Herod at all. What was the rationale behind putting the new date about 10 years later than the usually accepted time window?
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  3. Mad Scientist
    Offline

    Mad Scientist Deplorable Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23,934
    Thanks Received:
    5,211
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +7,676
    God doesn't exist but your Atheist Bible is based on the Bible isn't it? You fail at the start.

    And why the Bible? Why not the Koran or the Hebrew Bible?
     
  4. konradv
    Offline

    konradv Gold Member

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2010
    Messages:
    22,539
    Thanks Received:
    2,554
    Trophy Points:
    280
    Location:
    Baltimore
    Ratings:
    +5,659
    It's an Atheist "New Testament". The Hebrews don't have one and the Muslims have a "Newer Testament". :cool:
     
  5. Ringel05
    Offline

    Ringel05 Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2009
    Messages:
    40,135
    Thanks Received:
    7,991
    Trophy Points:
    1,830
    Location:
    El Paso, TX
    Ratings:
    +17,234
    Whatever floats your boat. :dunno:
     
  6. Mad Scientist
    Offline

    Mad Scientist Deplorable Gold Supporting Member Supporting Member

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2008
    Messages:
    23,934
    Thanks Received:
    5,211
    Trophy Points:
    270
    Ratings:
    +7,676
    There's no God nor need for religion, yet he makes a "religion" about it by creating an "Atheist Bible". :confused:
     
  7. Thete
    Offline

    Thete Bachelor of Theology

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2012
    Messages:
    32
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Location:
    Finland
    Ratings:
    +3
    God may as well exist.

    Because I specialize in the New Testament.
     
  8. Thete
    Offline

    Thete Bachelor of Theology

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2012
    Messages:
    32
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Location:
    Finland
    Ratings:
    +3
    There are many natural and biological needs for religion. The religious mind works on natural sociobiological mechanisms. That's why religion exists almost everywhere.
     
  9. Old_Liberal
    Offline

    Old_Liberal Member

    Joined:
    Jan 20, 2012
    Messages:
    78
    Thanks Received:
    11
    Trophy Points:
    6
    Location:
    South
    Ratings:
    +11
    Only a fool says there is no God.

    Understand, I am not saying God exists, or doesn't exist. Only human arrogance would assume he "knows" the answer to this question. An intelligent man sees the absurdity of such a statement.

    Personally, I see Christ and the Buddha as being the same. The difference is the culture and the language of the culture. And no doubt that Christ used Judaism as the means to convey his teachings, and even used that tradition. It was in fact what they might perhaps could understand, although I doubt any actually did. That they were waiting for his return in their lifetimes shows they did not "get" his teachings. HIs return was to be a spiritual one, not a physical one. The kingdom is within he taught. The followers apparently never understood him, but instead relied upon jewish tradition for understanding. That was where they made the mistake.

    With that said, I do think some people actually understood his message. I think they were left by the wayside when the new religion was organized. It seems the orthodoxy of Paul is what any additiional texts had to reflect, instead of the various other sects of understanding at that time.
     
    • Thank You! Thank You! x 1
  10. Thete
    Offline

    Thete Bachelor of Theology

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2012
    Messages:
    32
    Thanks Received:
    3
    Trophy Points:
    1
    Location:
    Finland
    Ratings:
    +3
    Well said.
     

Share This Page