Total Posts:33|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Atonement - NOT!

Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 6:52:16 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Atonement is to rectify a situation; to correct it, fix it, or repair it. So how is anything "atoned" for by the death of a Jew 2,000 years ago (if one even believes that story)?

Larry breaks into Howard's house, assaults Howard, rapes his wife, steals his valuables, and later "finds Christ". We are told that through the death of Jesus, Larry's sins have been atoned for.

Is Howard's wife unraped?
Do Howard's injuries miraculously heal over-night?
Are Howard's possessions returned to him?
Does Jesus repair the damage to Howard's home?
If Howard dies from his injuries, is he miraculously resurrected?

Just exactly what was fixed, repaired, corrected or replaced by the death of a Jew in ancient Rome?

The death of Jesus is not about atonement, it is about the barbaric belief that a needless death is somehow corrective to a God who is unable to forgive.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
sovereigngracereigns
Posts: 585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 7:27:23 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/22/2014 6:52:16 PM, Beastt wrote:
Atonement is to rectify a situation; to correct it, fix it, or repair it. So how is anything "atoned" for by the death of a Jew 2,000 years ago (if one even believes that story)?

Larry breaks into Howard's house, assaults Howard, rapes his wife, steals his valuables, and later "finds Christ". We are told that through the death of Jesus, Larry's sins have been atoned for.

Is Howard's wife unraped?
Do Howard's injuries miraculously heal over-night?
Are Howard's possessions returned to him?
Does Jesus repair the damage to Howard's home?
If Howard dies from his injuries, is he miraculously resurrected?

None of those things are accomplished by the atonement Christ made.

That wasn't the purpose of the atonement.


Just exactly what was fixed, repaired, corrected or replaced by the death of a Jew in ancient Rome?

The atonement reconciled sinners to God.

It satisfied the justice of God, while enabling him to justly pardon guilty sinners.

And if you think that's not fair, then you're saying you don't need atonement.

And if you die thinking that, you'll go to Hell.

All for whom Christ died will, at some point in their life, be made to see that they need Christ's atonement.

And God will assure them that Christ made full atonement for their sins, and they will rest in his finished work and believe in him.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 7:34:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/22/2014 7:27:23 PM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 8/22/2014 6:52:16 PM, Beastt wrote:
Atonement is to rectify a situation; to correct it, fix it, or repair it. So how is anything "atoned" for by the death of a Jew 2,000 years ago (if one even believes that story)?

Larry breaks into Howard's house, assaults Howard, rapes his wife, steals his valuables, and later "finds Christ". We are told that through the death of Jesus, Larry's sins have been atoned for.

Is Howard's wife unraped?
Do Howard's injuries miraculously heal over-night?
Are Howard's possessions returned to him?
Does Jesus repair the damage to Howard's home?
If Howard dies from his injuries, is he miraculously resurrected?

None of those things are accomplished by the atonement Christ made.
Then there was no "atonement". Christians don't seem to understand what the word means.

That wasn't the purpose of the atonement.


Just exactly what was fixed, repaired, corrected or replaced by the death of a Jew in ancient Rome?

The atonement reconciled sinners to God.
That didn't "atone" for anything. To "atone" means to fix the problem. None of the actual problem was fixed, and God - despite his amazing conceit and persecution complex - was not the victim.

It satisfied the justice of God, while enabling him to justly pardon guilty sinners.
So if someone harms someone else, it "satisfies justice" to kill an innocent person?

And if you think that's not fair, then you're saying you don't need atonement.
No, I'm telling you there is no "atonement". None of the damage done, has been rectified.

And if you die thinking that, you'll go to Hell.
Says you and your silly stories. And even many "Christians" don't believe that... any more.

All for whom Christ died will, at some point in their life, be made to see that they need Christ's atonement.
But that's just the problem. You say Christ died for them, and yet it does nothing for them. It's just another needless death.

And God will assure them that Christ made full atonement for their sins, and they will rest in his finished work and believe in him.
Again, "atonement" means to make amends for the damage done. If Howard is still injured, his wife is still raped, his home is still damaged and his property is still gone.... then there has been no "atonement"!
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
sovereigngracereigns
Posts: 585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 7:48:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/22/2014 7:34:18 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/22/2014 7:27:23 PM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 8/22/2014 6:52:16 PM, Beastt wrote:
Atonement is to rectify a situation; to correct it, fix it, or repair it. So how is anything "atoned" for by the death of a Jew 2,000 years ago (if one even believes that story)?

Larry breaks into Howard's house, assaults Howard, rapes his wife, steals his valuables, and later "finds Christ". We are told that through the death of Jesus, Larry's sins have been atoned for.

Is Howard's wife unraped?
Do Howard's injuries miraculously heal over-night?
Are Howard's possessions returned to him?
Does Jesus repair the damage to Howard's home?
If Howard dies from his injuries, is he miraculously resurrected?

None of those things are accomplished by the atonement Christ made.
Then there was no "atonement". Christians don't seem to understand what the word means.

That wasn't the purpose of the atonement.


Just exactly what was fixed, repaired, corrected or replaced by the death of a Jew in ancient Rome?

The atonement reconciled sinners to God.
That didn't "atone" for anything. To "atone" means to fix the problem. None of the actual problem was fixed, and God - despite his amazing conceit and persecution complex - was not the victim.

It satisfied the justice of God, while enabling him to justly pardon guilty sinners.
So if someone harms someone else, it "satisfies justice" to kill an innocent person?

And if you think that's not fair, then you're saying you don't need atonement.
No, I'm telling you there is no "atonement". None of the damage done, has been rectified.

And if you die thinking that, you'll go to Hell.
Says you and your silly stories. And even many "Christians" don't believe that... any more.

All for whom Christ died will, at some point in their life, be made to see that they need Christ's atonement.
But that's just the problem. You say Christ died for them, and yet it does nothing for them. It's just another needless death.

And God will assure them that Christ made full atonement for their sins, and they will rest in his finished work and believe in him.
Again, "atonement" means to make amends for the damage done. If Howard is still injured, his wife is still raped, his home is still damaged and his property is still gone.... then there has been no "atonement"!

I told you that the atonement reconciled sinners to God.

How many times do I have to repeat that?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 10:02:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/22/2014 7:48:04 PM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 8/22/2014 7:34:18 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/22/2014 7:27:23 PM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 8/22/2014 6:52:16 PM, Beastt wrote:
Atonement is to rectify a situation; to correct it, fix it, or repair it. So how is anything "atoned" for by the death of a Jew 2,000 years ago (if one even believes that story)?

Larry breaks into Howard's house, assaults Howard, rapes his wife, steals his valuables, and later "finds Christ". We are told that through the death of Jesus, Larry's sins have been atoned for.

Is Howard's wife unraped?
Do Howard's injuries miraculously heal over-night?
Are Howard's possessions returned to him?
Does Jesus repair the damage to Howard's home?
If Howard dies from his injuries, is he miraculously resurrected?

None of those things are accomplished by the atonement Christ made.
Then there was no "atonement". Christians don't seem to understand what the word means.

That wasn't the purpose of the atonement.


Just exactly what was fixed, repaired, corrected or replaced by the death of a Jew in ancient Rome?

The atonement reconciled sinners to God.
That didn't "atone" for anything. To "atone" means to fix the problem. None of the actual problem was fixed, and God - despite his amazing conceit and persecution complex - was not the victim.

It satisfied the justice of God, while enabling him to justly pardon guilty sinners.
So if someone harms someone else, it "satisfies justice" to kill an innocent person?

And if you think that's not fair, then you're saying you don't need atonement.
No, I'm telling you there is no "atonement". None of the damage done, has been rectified.

And if you die thinking that, you'll go to Hell.
Says you and your silly stories. And even many "Christians" don't believe that... any more.

All for whom Christ died will, at some point in their life, be made to see that they need Christ's atonement.
But that's just the problem. You say Christ died for them, and yet it does nothing for them. It's just another needless death.

And God will assure them that Christ made full atonement for their sins, and they will rest in his finished work and believe in him.
Again, "atonement" means to make amends for the damage done. If Howard is still injured, his wife is still raped, his home is still damaged and his property is still gone.... then there has been no "atonement"!


I told you that the atonement reconciled sinners to God.

How many times do I have to repeat that?

Not at all. Repeating it is pointless because it doesn't answer the question. God isn't the victim!

If you punch me in the nose, and Dr Obvious goes and jumps off a a cliff, it does NOTHING to heal my nose. So there is no atonement. And if people do harmful things to each other, and Jesus hammers himself to a cross and hangs around there until he dies, it doesn't do anything to account, reconcile, repair, correct, or rectify the harm done to people, by people. And in order for "atonement" to occur, the actual damage would have to be fixed, reconciled, repaired, corrected or otherwise amended to provide restitution.

If I break your window, costing you $100 in repairs, and then I hand my brother $100 for him to keep, did I "atone" for breaking your window? You need to spend a little time with a dictionary and learn what these words actually mean. Christianity has you so messed up that you can't even grasp the concept of making amends anymore. If I harm Douglas or damage what is his, then I need to make amends with Douglas, not Troy, not Alfred, not Steve, not Jennifer, not God and not God's alter-ego, Jesus!... Douglas. If I cause harm/loss to Douglas, then for "atonement" to occur, I have to make amends to Douglas. Anything else is not "atonement".
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
sovereigngracereigns
Posts: 585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 10:29:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/22/2014 10:02:38 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/22/2014 7:48:04 PM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 8/22/2014 7:34:18 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/22/2014 7:27:23 PM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 8/22/2014 6:52:16 PM, Beastt wrote:
Atonement is to rectify a situation; to correct it, fix it, or repair it. So how is anything "atoned" for by the death of a Jew 2,000 years ago (if one even believes that story)?

Larry breaks into Howard's house, assaults Howard, rapes his wife, steals his valuables, and later "finds Christ". We are told that through the death of Jesus, Larry's sins have been atoned for.

Is Howard's wife unraped?
Do Howard's injuries miraculously heal over-night?
Are Howard's possessions returned to him?
Does Jesus repair the damage to Howard's home?
If Howard dies from his injuries, is he miraculously resurrected?

None of those things are accomplished by the atonement Christ made.
Then there was no "atonement". Christians don't seem to understand what the word means.

That wasn't the purpose of the atonement.


Just exactly what was fixed, repaired, corrected or replaced by the death of a Jew in ancient Rome?

The atonement reconciled sinners to God.
That didn't "atone" for anything. To "atone" means to fix the problem. None of the actual problem was fixed, and God - despite his amazing conceit and persecution complex - was not the victim.

It satisfied the justice of God, while enabling him to justly pardon guilty sinners.
So if someone harms someone else, it "satisfies justice" to kill an innocent person?

And if you think that's not fair, then you're saying you don't need atonement.
No, I'm telling you there is no "atonement". None of the damage done, has been rectified.

And if you die thinking that, you'll go to Hell.
Says you and your silly stories. And even many "Christians" don't believe that... any more.

All for whom Christ died will, at some point in their life, be made to see that they need Christ's atonement.
But that's just the problem. You say Christ died for them, and yet it does nothing for them. It's just another needless death.

And God will assure them that Christ made full atonement for their sins, and they will rest in his finished work and believe in him.
Again, "atonement" means to make amends for the damage done. If Howard is still injured, his wife is still raped, his home is still damaged and his property is still gone.... then there has been no "atonement"!


I told you that the atonement reconciled sinners to God.

How many times do I have to repeat that?

Not at all. Repeating it is pointless because it doesn't answer the question. God isn't the victim!

If you punch me in the nose, and Dr Obvious goes and jumps off a a cliff, it does NOTHING to heal my nose. So there is no atonement. And if people do harmful things to each other, and Jesus hammers himself to a cross and hangs around there until he dies, it doesn't do anything to account, reconcile, repair, correct, or rectify the harm done to people, by people. And in order for "atonement" to occur, the actual damage would have to be fixed, reconciled, repaired, corrected or otherwise amended to provide restitution.

If I break your window, costing you $100 in repairs, and then I hand my brother $100 for him to keep, did I "atone" for breaking your window? You need to spend a little time with a dictionary and learn what these words actually mean. Christianity has you so messed up that you can't even grasp the concept of making amends anymore. If I harm Douglas or damage what is his, then I need to make amends with Douglas, not Troy, not Alfred, not Steve, not Jennifer, not God and not God's alter-ego, Jesus!... Douglas. If I cause harm/loss to Douglas, then for "atonement" to occur, I have to make amends to Douglas. Anything else is not "atonement".

No, your problem is with GOD.

You have sinned against GOD.

And you need an ATONEMENT for those sins.

All your ridiculous red-herrings won't alter that one bit.

Now, I'm tired of playing games with you, Beastt.

If you think the atonement Christ made is insufficient for your sins, then go ahead and meet God without Christ.
You will be judged on the basis of your works and found guilty, and cast into eternal hellfire.

But if you will confess your sin, and believe in Jesus Christ, believe that HE is sufficient to SAVE YOU, then you will be free from sin's curse, and be reconciled to God, and be justified in God's sight for ever.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2014 10:43:39 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/22/2014 10:29:38 PM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 8/22/2014 10:02:38 PM, Beastt wrote:

If I break your window, costing you $100 in repairs, and then I hand my brother $100 for him to keep, did I "atone" for breaking your window? You need to spend a little time with a dictionary and learn what these words actually mean. Christianity has you so messed up that you can't even grasp the concept of making amends anymore. If I harm Douglas or damage what is his, then I need to make amends with Douglas, not Troy, not Alfred, not Steve, not Jennifer, not God and not God's alter-ego, Jesus!... Douglas. If I cause harm/loss to Douglas, then for "atonement" to occur, I have to make amends to Douglas. Anything else is not "atonement".

No, your problem is with GOD.
No, my problem is with you, and your problem is that you don't understand what "atonement" means.

You have sinned against GOD.
Sorry, don't know him, never met him, never did anything to him, and have never been instructed by him.

And you need an ATONEMENT for those sins.
When I have done wrongful things, they have harmed people, plants or animals. I've never harmed God. God is supposed to be omnipotent but you think I harmed him?

All your ridiculous red-herrings won't alter that one bit.
I've not presented any red herrings. Don't go hanging labels you can't even define.

Now, I'm tired of playing games with you, Beastt.
It's not a game. It's simply the accurate observation that what you're calling "atonement" is nothing of the sort. It's just pointless killing.

If you think the atonement Christ made is insufficient for your sins, then go ahead and meet God without Christ.
Christ didn't make any atonement. His "gesture" (assuming he ever existed or died willingly), was no more useful or appropriate than the standard suicide.

You will be judged on the basis of your works and found guilty, and cast into eternal hellfire.
Because that is what you believe. People can read "The Three Little Pigs" and believe it too. Hopefully, they're intelligent enough to keep those beliefs to themselves.

But if you will confess your sin, and believe in Jesus Christ, believe that HE is sufficient to SAVE YOU, then you will be free from sin's curse, and be reconciled to God, and be justified in God's sight for ever.
1. I don't need salvation.
2. According to your Bible, the wages of sin is death.
3. Death is permanent.
4. Jesus didn't stay dead (according to the story)
5. Since Jesus didn't stay dead, the wages of sin were not paid
6. The wages of sin also include eternal separation from God (Hell in most versions)
7. Jesus rose to thrive with/as/aside God (again, according to the story).
8. So Jesus has not paid ANY of the wages of sin, for himself or anyone else.
9. So if the Bible is true, the wages of your sin have not been paid
10. Leaving you in the same boat with me.

Capisce?

Now... since the death of Jesus did nothing to correct any harm ever done to any victim of wrong-doing, how does it constitute "atonement"?
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
sovereigngracereigns
Posts: 585
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 2:00:31 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/22/2014 10:43:39 PM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/22/2014 10:29:38 PM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 8/22/2014 10:02:38 PM, Beastt wrote:

If I break your window, costing you $100 in repairs, and then I hand my brother $100 for him to keep, did I "atone" for breaking your window? You need to spend a little time with a dictionary and learn what these words actually mean. Christianity has you so messed up that you can't even grasp the concept of making amends anymore. If I harm Douglas or damage what is his, then I need to make amends with Douglas, not Troy, not Alfred, not Steve, not Jennifer, not God and not God's alter-ego, Jesus!... Douglas. If I cause harm/loss to Douglas, then for "atonement" to occur, I have to make amends to Douglas. Anything else is not "atonement".

No, your problem is with GOD.
No, my problem is with you, and your problem is that you don't understand what "atonement" means.

You have sinned against GOD.
Sorry, don't know him, never met him, never did anything to him, and have never been instructed by him.

And you need an ATONEMENT for those sins.
When I have done wrongful things, they have harmed people, plants or animals. I've never harmed God. God is supposed to be omnipotent but you think I harmed him?

All your ridiculous red-herrings won't alter that one bit.
I've not presented any red herrings. Don't go hanging labels you can't even define.

Now, I'm tired of playing games with you, Beastt.
It's not a game. It's simply the accurate observation that what you're calling "atonement" is nothing of the sort. It's just pointless killing.

If you think the atonement Christ made is insufficient for your sins, then go ahead and meet God without Christ.
Christ didn't make any atonement. His "gesture" (assuming he ever existed or died willingly), was no more useful or appropriate than the standard suicide.

You will be judged on the basis of your works and found guilty, and cast into eternal hellfire.
Because that is what you believe. People can read "The Three Little Pigs" and believe it too. Hopefully, they're intelligent enough to keep those beliefs to themselves.

But if you will confess your sin, and believe in Jesus Christ, believe that HE is sufficient to SAVE YOU, then you will be free from sin's curse, and be reconciled to God, and be justified in God's sight for ever.
1. I don't need salvation.
2. According to your Bible, the wages of sin is death.
3. Death is permanent.
4. Jesus didn't stay dead (according to the story)
5. Since Jesus didn't stay dead, the wages of sin were not paid
6. The wages of sin also include eternal separation from God (Hell in most versions)
7. Jesus rose to thrive with/as/aside God (again, according to the story).
8. So Jesus has not paid ANY of the wages of sin, for himself or anyone else.
9. So if the Bible is true, the wages of your sin have not been paid
10. Leaving you in the same boat with me.

Capisce?

Now... since the death of Jesus did nothing to correct any harm ever done to any victim of wrong-doing, how does it constitute "atonement"?

Look man, if you're determined NOT to understand, then I won't bother to keep explaining.
But keep in mind that you were determined NOT to understand.

You can't blame me if I just stop explaining.
I don't have time for your childish games.

Ask me again, when it comes from a desire to know the truth.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 3:48:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/23/2014 2:00:31 AM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 8/22/2014 10:43:39 PM, Beastt wrote:

Now... since the death of Jesus did nothing to correct any harm ever done to any victim of wrong-doing, how does it constitute "atonement"?

Look man, if you're determined NOT to understand, then I won't bother to keep explaining.
I understand what you're saying. You're saying that Jesus dying on the cross as a substitute for people who have actually committed a wrongful act against another person is "atonement".
And I'm explaining to you that "atonement" means that the harm you have done has been corrected. Since no one can harm God, damage his property, rape his wife, steal his money or in any other way bring harm to him, the only "atonement" possible or appropriate is to undo the harm brought to other people. And Jesus didn't do that, therefore, no "atonement" has been made.

But keep in mind that you were determined NOT to understand.
No, I DO understand. I understand what "atonement" means, I understand what Christian doctrine claims, and I'm showing you (not just asserting), that the proper definition for atonement does not fit in the context used by Christian doctrine. No atonement has been made unless the one harmed has received compensation, correction, reparation, etc. And no one harmed God.

You can't blame me if I just stop explaining.
But I will understand that the reason you stopped explaining is because I didn't swallow a false explanation and continued to point out that the explanation you are offering is inconsistent with the meaning of "atonement".

I don't have time for your childish games.
You are the one who insists that my eternity, your eternity and the eternity of every other person on the planet, to have been on the planet in the last 2,000-years, and ever to be on the planet, rests on the proper understanding of this doctrine. So for you to suggest that it's a game is rather ironic.

Ask me again, when it comes from a desire to know the truth.
Perhaps it's time for you to start to consider that I'm backed by the proper definition for "atonement" which I showed you. I'm backed by the Bible's claim that God is omnipotent, which suggests that we cannot bring harm to him. And if we cannot bring harm to God, then we cannot atone for the harm imposed upon God.
The problem is that you're beginning to see that Christian doctrine doesn't make sense. It's a loosely constructed story which simply does not hold up, even to casual scrutiny. And while you still believe the threats employed to assure that you never even engage any critical thinking skills which might allow you to see the fraud, you fault me for doing precisely that, and showing you the rationality of that critical assessment.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 3:55:16 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/22/2014 6:52:16 PM, Beastt wrote:
Atonement is to rectify a situation; to correct it, fix it, or repair it. So how is anything "atoned" for by the death of a Jew 2,000 years ago (if one even believes that story)?

Larry breaks into Howard's house, assaults Howard, rapes his wife, steals his valuables, and later "finds Christ". We are told that through the death of Jesus, Larry's sins have been atoned for.

Is Howard's wife unraped?
Do Howard's injuries miraculously heal over-night?
Are Howard's possessions returned to him?
Does Jesus repair the damage to Howard's home?
If Howard dies from his injuries, is he miraculously resurrected?

Just exactly what was fixed, repaired, corrected or replaced by the death of a Jew in ancient Rome?

The death of Jesus is not about atonement, it is about the barbaric belief that a needless death is somehow corrective to a God who is unable to forgive.

Oh look, MORE creative writing where the Christian concept f atonement is not actually mentioned ONCE. Even though this douche has already been pointed out why atonement is necessary (you cannot repair all damage) and why forgiveness is needed (which goes both ways) to move on with life.

Nope, in typical Hatfield and McCoy mentality, which he denies, he is stuck on what happens when someone wrong you and cannot repair the damage. What happens when someone acknowledges the wrong? Apologizes? Attempts to make reparations as best he can?

Well, the Lord will forgive a genuinely contrite spirit.

An atheist will hold a grudge and attempt to create a debt to exert control and exploit you for eternity.

Yet its the Christians who advocate forgiveness, in our doctrine, in this situation (particularly knowing that we are human and will make mistakes requiring forgiveness at some point) who eschew forgiveness?

As for history, if Beasty, in all his self proclaimed education, cannot figure out what the ancient Jewish ritual of atonement is, and is still practiced by Jews mind you, and that Jesus is the fulfillment of this Jewish tradition ... well, then he is exactly as ignorant as he appears to be.

Beyond reason this one.
bulproof
Posts: 25,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 4:49:42 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/23/2014 3:55:16 AM, neutral wrote:
An atheist will hold a grudge and attempt to create a debt to exert control and exploit you for eternity.
You must mean god. Remember what you believe? God made you a sinner and is holding a grudge until you suck his minor appendage, if you don't then you will be tortured for eternity.
Maybe you should have a talk to your favourite paedophile and have a brush up on what it is you believe.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 5:10:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/23/2014 4:49:42 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/23/2014 3:55:16 AM, neutral wrote:
An atheist will hold a grudge and attempt to create a debt to exert control and exploit you for eternity.
You must mean god. Remember what you believe? God made you a sinner and is holding a grudge until you suck his minor appendage, if you don't then you will be tortured for eternity.
Maybe you should have a talk to your favourite paedophile and have a brush up on what it is you believe.

Oh look, ANOTHER atheist making crap up about Christianity without a citation.

Christians want people to suck cocks!

BRILLIANT atheists! BRILLIANT!

No idea why you are the least trusted people on the planet.
bulproof
Posts: 25,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 5:13:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/23/2014 5:10:50 AM, neutral wrote:
At 8/23/2014 4:49:42 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/23/2014 3:55:16 AM, neutral wrote:
An atheist will hold a grudge and attempt to create a debt to exert control and exploit you for eternity.
You must mean god. Remember what you believe? God made you a sinner and is holding a grudge until you suck his minor appendage, if you don't then you will be tortured for eternity.
Maybe you should have a talk to your favourite paedophile and have a brush up on what it is you believe.

Oh look, ANOTHER atheist making crap up about Christianity without a citation.

Christians want people to suck cocks!

BRILLIANT atheists! BRILLIANT!

No idea why you are the least trusted people on the planet.

You need to get out of your cell.
Septicland isn't the planet.
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 5:15:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/23/2014 5:13:53 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/23/2014 5:10:50 AM, neutral wrote:
At 8/23/2014 4:49:42 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/23/2014 3:55:16 AM, neutral wrote:
An atheist will hold a grudge and attempt to create a debt to exert control and exploit you for eternity.
You must mean god. Remember what you believe? God made you a sinner and is holding a grudge until you suck his minor appendage, if you don't then you will be tortured for eternity.
Maybe you should have a talk to your favourite paedophile and have a brush up on what it is you believe.

Oh look, ANOTHER atheist making crap up about Christianity without a citation.

Christians want people to suck cocks!

BRILLIANT atheists! BRILLIANT!

No idea why you are the least trusted people on the planet.

You need to get out of your cell.
Septicland isn't the planet.

Last tie for this troll today.

For every atheist whining about quality contributions and how they hate insults nd the lack of civility, here is the reality of your 'standards' EVERY DAY, to EVERY religious poster on the forum. 7,500 examples of the behavior you want to condemn everywhere but among your own ranks.

THIS is the atheist idea of discussion? Civility? Science and reason?
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 5:17:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/23/2014 5:10:50 AM, neutral wrote:
At 8/23/2014 4:49:42 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/23/2014 3:55:16 AM, neutral wrote:
An atheist will hold a grudge and attempt to create a debt to exert control and exploit you for eternity.
You must mean god. Remember what you believe? God made you a sinner and is holding a grudge until you suck his minor appendage, if you don't then you will be tortured for eternity.
Maybe you should have a talk to your favourite paedophile and have a brush up on what it is you believe.

Oh look, ANOTHER atheist making crap up about Christianity without a citation.
If you wanted to give directions on streets you were familiar with, would you need a citation?

Christians want people to suck cocks!
That's news to me but... if you say so.

BRILLIANT atheists! BRILLIANT!
It's about time you recognized that fact, thank you!

No idea why you are the least trusted people on the planet.
Because untrustworthy people automatically distrust anyone who opposes them.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 5:20:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/23/2014 5:17:22 AM, Beastt wrote:

Because untrustworthy people automatically distrust anyone who opposes them.

Again, do you understand the concept of a standard atheist?

You fail entirely, while claiming you care about civility, ... well, hell, its not even a failure, you are actively using a troll to attack people in a nakedly personalized way ... while somehow claiming that this is about anything other than your animus based on someone countering your bigoted attacks on religion?

No an is going to stand there and listen to someone 'honestly' get their theology wrong, nor indeed leave stupid claims of SLVERY and RAPE unchallenged.

What personality dysfunction makes you think that those claims facilitate anything other than strong rebuttals?

Right, its called flame bait, not discussion. Its all you got.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 5:23:03 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/23/2014 5:15:52 AM, neutral wrote:
At 8/23/2014 5:13:53 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/23/2014 5:10:50 AM, neutral wrote:
At 8/23/2014 4:49:42 AM, bulproof wrote:
At 8/23/2014 3:55:16 AM, neutral wrote:
An atheist will hold a grudge and attempt to create a debt to exert control and exploit you for eternity.
You must mean god. Remember what you believe? God made you a sinner and is holding a grudge until you suck his minor appendage, if you don't then you will be tortured for eternity.
Maybe you should have a talk to your favourite paedophile and have a brush up on what it is you believe.

Oh look, ANOTHER atheist making crap up about Christianity without a citation.

Christians want people to suck cocks!

BRILLIANT atheists! BRILLIANT!

No idea why you are the least trusted people on the planet.

You need to get out of your cell.
Septicland isn't the planet.

Last tie for this troll today.

For every atheist whining about quality contributions and how they hate insults nd the lack of civility, here is the reality of your 'standards' EVERY DAY, to EVERY religious poster on the forum. 7,500 examples of the behavior you want to condemn everywhere but among your own ranks.

THIS is the atheist idea of discussion? Civility? Science and reason?

No one (at least no one I've seen), is suggesting you can't debate openly and aggressively. But there is a rather wide gap between debating and simply seeing how many insults you can sling. And I have to tell you, Neutral, I rarely see anything but the latter from you. It gives the distinct impression that you don't really have any actual arguments to present.

And while you wish to complain that I'm misrepresenting Christian doctrine (one of your fall-backs), you're lucky that I've had a helpful Christian here from the very start of the thread to confirm that Christianity teaches exactly what I suggested it to be teaching.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 5:27:14 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/23/2014 5:23:03 AM, Beastt wrote:

No one (at least no one I've seen), is suggesting you can't debate openly and aggressively. But there is a rather wide gap between debating and simply seeing how many insults you can sling. And I have to tell you, Neutral, I rarely see anything but the latter from you. It gives the distinct impression that you don't really have any actual arguments to present.

And while you wish to complain that I'm misrepresenting Christian doctrine (one of your fall-backs), you're lucky that I've had a helpful Christian here from the very start of the thread to confirm that Christianity teaches exactly what I suggested it to be teaching.

Then WHY are you not calling bully boy out? Your standard douche.

And when someone lists the doctrine straight from the doctrine, and you stand there and deny it anyway? When every post you make is laced with insults, when you find yourself in aggressive BS arguments with every religious person on the forum, and have to start thread about burying a hatchet that apparently does not exist.

Take a look in the mirror - because unlike you, you cannot list even a single statement about atheism thatI routinely make that is wrong. Not one.

You are in no position to judge others about behavior, and the fact that you openly use bully boy, with 7500 contributions that violate YOUR standard of judgement, as a weapon, in the past two days against both Ana and myself alone, is pathetic.

Again, I'd love to discuss, but only Envy seems capable of even the pretense from atheists on this forum.
bulproof
Posts: 25,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 6:09:00 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/23/2014 5:27:14 AM, neutral wrote:

Take a look in the mirror - because unlike you, you cannot list even a single statement about atheism thatI routinely make that is wrong. Not one.
Here's two straight from you.
among your own ranks.
atheist communities.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 6:16:06 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/23/2014 5:27:14 AM, neutral wrote:
At 8/23/2014 5:23:03 AM, Beastt wrote:

No one (at least no one I've seen), is suggesting you can't debate openly and aggressively. But there is a rather wide gap between debating and simply seeing how many insults you can sling. And I have to tell you, Neutral, I rarely see anything but the latter from you. It gives the distinct impression that you don't really have any actual arguments to present.

And while you wish to complain that I'm misrepresenting Christian doctrine (one of your fall-backs), you're lucky that I've had a helpful Christian here from the very start of the thread to confirm that Christianity teaches exactly what I suggested it to be teaching.

Then WHY are you not calling bully boy out? Your standard douche.
I've not called anyone out.

And when someone lists the doctrine straight from the doctrine, and you stand there and deny it anyway? When every post you make is laced with insults, when you find yourself in aggressive BS arguments with every religious person on the forum, and have to start thread about burying a hatchet that apparently does not exist.
You've tried this tactic before. Explain to me that if I interpret what Hitler did, rather than reading his propaganda word-for-word, I'm mis-stating his doctrine. You can't seem to grasp that Christian doctrine is presented to sound as squeaky clean, kind, loving and compassionate as possible. But if you look at the reality, it's nothing of the sort. I'm reporting on what it actually teaches, rather than what it CLAIMS to teach. Do you understand that claims aren't always honest? You - of all people - should.

Take a look in the mirror - because unlike you, you cannot list even a single statement about atheism thatI routinely make that is wrong. Not one.
You keep claiming that atheism is a set of standards. It's one standard - a lack of belief in gods.

You are in no position to judge others about behavior, and the fact that you openly use bully boy, with 7500 contributions that violate YOUR standard of judgement, as a weapon, in the past two days against both Ana and myself alone, is pathetic.
It provides some interesting insight into your psyche to see that you have images of these huge conspiracies against you. I know you simply bat away at anything contrary to your distorted views, but I have NEVER contacted any other user, and asked them to come assist me in regard to a debate with you, or with anyone else. I'm sure you don't believe this but I'm well more than capable of handling you without the slightest hint of help.

Again, I'd love to discuss, but only Envy seems capable of even the pretense from atheists on this forum.
That is your opinion. I fully disagree.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 6:21:52 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/23/2014 6:16:06 AM, Beastt wrote:

I've not called anyone out.


Standards atheist, do YOU know how they work? DO you understand what they are?

Definition of standard: something used as a measure, norm, or model in comparative evaluations.

A: You ARE calling me out, and Ana, and Fatihah, etc., ALL over this forum, based on the observation that there is rude and unproductive comments.

B: you ignore your own actions in this regard.

C: You are not only ignoring the forum's biggest and least productive troll, you are actively encouraging him by weaponizing the constant stream of insults as weapons against people - further entrenching the very behavior you ostensibly reject.

Conclusion: You don't ACTUALLY give a crap about the standard of civility.

As I keep telling you atheists, so long as you encourage bully boy, any pretense that you care one whit about civility and actual discussion is moot - you obviously do not care. Furthermore, the few who actively weaponize his behavior are even MORE hypocritical when they call others out on the behavior. When they subsequently deny they are even doing it?

Well, that's in its own category of blatant hypocrisy.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 10:25:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/22/2014 6:52:16 PM, Beastt wrote:
Atonement is to rectify a situation; to correct it, fix it, or repair it. So how is anything "atoned" for by the death of a Jew 2,000 years ago (if one even believes that story)?

Larry breaks into Howard's house, assaults Howard, rapes his wife, steals his valuables, and later "finds Christ". We are told that through the death of Jesus, Larry's sins have been atoned for.

Is Howard's wife unraped?
Do Howard's injuries miraculously heal over-night?
Are Howard's possessions returned to him?
Does Jesus repair the damage to Howard's home?
If Howard dies from his injuries, is he miraculously resurrected?

Just exactly what was fixed, repaired, corrected or replaced by the death of a Jew in ancient Rome?

The death of Jesus is not about atonement, it is about the barbaric belief that a needless death is somehow corrective to a God who is unable to forgive.

Though restitution can be an atonement, atonement isn"t restitution. To atone is to set at one, bring into concord, reconcile, unite in harmony: a. contending persons. But to recompense is reparation or restitution made to another for some wrong done to him; atonement or satisfaction for some misdeed or offence.

So no, atonement isn"t restitution why would you think atonement is restitution? Not in the definitions of the English used in the day that the scriptures where translated into English, which is what I have posted. Maybe you are using the American usage of the English language which can be confusing when reading something like the KJV. Or you just don"t have a clue , which is more likely to be true.

Individuals are intrusted with certain abilities by virtue of being born into the world, how is it God"s fault men can"t handle it?

You must be an American, the only time restitution is required in the justice system is when lawyers can share in that. Like divorce or accident. In the Torah there would be restitution or death or both, of some sort, for crimes committed against one"s neighbor. But not so in the US of A.

Anyways, the Lord God of Israel requires that some make it right between themselves and their neighbor before expecting things to be well between them and their God.
bulproof
Posts: 25,295
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 10:30:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/23/2014 10:25:20 AM, DPMartin wrote:
At 8/22/2014 6:52:16 PM, Beastt wrote:
Atonement is to rectify a situation; to correct it, fix it, or repair it. So how is anything "atoned" for by the death of a Jew 2,000 years ago (if one even believes that story)?

Larry breaks into Howard's house, assaults Howard, rapes his wife, steals his valuables, and later "finds Christ". We are told that through the death of Jesus, Larry's sins have been atoned for.

Is Howard's wife unraped?
Do Howard's injuries miraculously heal over-night?
Are Howard's possessions returned to him?
Does Jesus repair the damage to Howard's home?
If Howard dies from his injuries, is he miraculously resurrected?

Just exactly what was fixed, repaired, corrected or replaced by the death of a Jew in ancient Rome?

The death of Jesus is not about atonement, it is about the barbaric belief that a needless death is somehow corrective to a God who is unable to forgive.

Though restitution can be an atonement, atonement isn"t restitution. To atone is to set at one, bring into concord, reconcile, unite in harmony: a. contending persons. But to recompense is reparation or restitution made to another for some wrong done to him; atonement or satisfaction for some misdeed or offence.

So no, atonement isn"t restitution why would you think atonement is restitution? Not in the definitions of the English used in the day that the scriptures where translated into English, which is what I have posted. Maybe you are using the American usage of the English language which can be confusing when reading something like the KJV. Or you just don"t have a clue , which is more likely to be true.


Individuals are intrusted with certain abilities by virtue of being born into the world, how is it God"s fault men can"t handle it?

You must be an American, the only time restitution is required in the justice system is when lawyers can share in that. Like divorce or accident. In the Torah there would be restitution or death or both, of some sort, for crimes committed against one"s neighbor. But not so in the US of A.

Anyways, the Lord God of Israel requires that some make it right between themselves and their neighbor before expecting things to be well between them and their God.

So what did atonement mean when the English translation occurred and citations are needed?
What did atonement mean when it was written, with citations?

You don't get to redefine words to make them say what you want them to say.
DPMartin
Posts: 1,096
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 1:59:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/23/2014 10:25:20 AM, DPMartin wrote:
At 8/22/2014 6:52:16 PM, Beastt wrote:
Atonement is to rectify a situation; to correct it, fix it, or repair it. So how is anything "atoned" for by the death of a Jew 2,000 years ago (if one even believes that story)?

Larry breaks into Howard's house, assaults Howard, rapes his wife, steals his valuables, and later "finds Christ". We are told that through the death of Jesus, Larry's sins have been atoned for.

Is Howard's wife unraped?
Do Howard's injuries miraculously heal over-night?
Are Howard's possessions returned to him?
Does Jesus repair the damage to Howard's home?
If Howard dies from his injuries, is he miraculously resurrected?

Just exactly what was fixed, repaired, corrected or replaced by the death of a Jew in ancient Rome?

The death of Jesus is not about atonement, it is about the barbaric belief that a needless death is somehow corrective to a God who is unable to forgive.

Though restitution can be an atonement, atonement isn"t restitution. To atone is to set at one, bring into concord, reconcile, unite in harmony: a. contending persons. But to recompense is reparation or restitution made to another for some wrong done to him; atonement or satisfaction for some misdeed or offence.

So no, atonement isn"t restitution why would you think atonement is restitution? Not in the definitions of the English used in the day that the scriptures where translated into English, which is what I have posted. Maybe you are using the American usage of the English language which can be confusing when reading something like the KJV. Or you just don"t have a clue , which is more likely to be true.


Individuals are intrusted with certain abilities by virtue of being born into the world, how is it God"s fault men can"t handle it?

You must be an American, the only time restitution is required in the justice system is when lawyers can share in that. Like divorce or accident. In the Torah there would be restitution or death or both, of some sort, for crimes committed against one"s neighbor. But not so in the US of A.

Anyways, the Lord God of Israel requires that some make it right between themselves and their neighbor before expecting things to be well between them and their God.

What was it that I posted there? Oh yea "To atone is to set at one, bring into concord, reconcile, unite in harmony: a. contending persons. " and that is the OED def.

To atone could be whatever would make, let us say peace, between injured parties which doesn"t have to be restoration, but would be suffice for such to come into a agreement of peace between to warring parties, or nations. Any act or offering could be, unconditional surrender, release of prisoners, land, so on so forth, but wouldn"t come close to restoration of injuries and losses.

Hence in the case of Jesus Christ, the atonement is suffice to the Creator and Judge to make it well between the Creator and Judge for those who seek to have peace with their Maker.
irreverent_god
Posts: 1,378
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 2:25:47 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/22/2014 7:27:23 PM, sovereigngracereigns wrote:
At 8/22/2014 6:52:16 PM, Beastt wrote:
Atonement is to rectify a situation; to correct it, fix it, or repair it. So how is anything "atoned" for by the death of a Jew 2,000 years ago (if one even believes that story)?

Larry breaks into Howard's house, assaults Howard, rapes his wife, steals his valuables, and later "finds Christ". We are told that through the death of Jesus, Larry's sins have been atoned for.

Is Howard's wife unraped?
Do Howard's injuries miraculously heal over-night?
Are Howard's possessions returned to him?
Does Jesus repair the damage to Howard's home?
If Howard dies from his injuries, is he miraculously resurrected?

None of those things are accomplished by the atonement Christ made.

That wasn't the purpose of the atonement.


Just exactly what was fixed, repaired, corrected or replaced by the death of a Jew in ancient Rome?

The atonement reconciled sinners to God.

It satisfied the justice of God, while enabling him to justly pardon guilty sinners.

And if you think that's not fair, then you're saying you don't need atonement.

And if you die thinking that, you'll go to Hell.

All for whom Christ died will, at some point in their life, be made to see that they need Christ's atonement.

And God will assure them that Christ made full atonement for their sins, and they will rest in his finished work and believe in him.

No.
Logic and Reason are the precursor to Justice.
Faith and zealotry are the precursor to Folly.
Installgentoo
Posts: 1,420
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2014 3:10:04 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/22/2014 6:52:16 PM, Beastt wrote:
Atonement is to rectify a situation; to correct it, fix it, or repair it. So how is anything "atoned" for by the death of a Jew 2,000 years ago (if one even believes that story)?

It's not a question of believing, but looking at numerous ancient texts which all talk about Jesus being executed, and being a preacher in Galilee between 0AD-33AD.

If those accounts do not convince you then it seems you just have too much faith in your ideas to look at the evidence in a rational manner.
Beastt
Posts: 5,135
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2014 2:27:28 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/23/2014 3:10:04 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 8/22/2014 6:52:16 PM, Beastt wrote:
Atonement is to rectify a situation; to correct it, fix it, or repair it. So how is anything "atoned" for by the death of a Jew 2,000 years ago (if one even believes that story)?

It's not a question of believing, but looking at numerous ancient texts which all talk about Jesus being executed, and being a preacher in Galilee between 0AD-33AD.

If those accounts do not convince you then it seems you just have too much faith in your ideas to look at the evidence in a rational manner.

There are dozens of historians and theologians who aren't convinced by the measly credible evidence. And for what it's worth, Bayes Theorem - which is an objective algorithm and can't offer subjectivity - also remains unconvinced.

But hey... feel free to go ahead and pot this vast array of evidence. It can't take more than about 90-seconds to type out the entire list.
"If we believe absurdities we shall commit atrocities." -- Voltaire
neutral
Posts: 4,478
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/24/2014 5:09:56 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 8/24/2014 2:27:28 AM, Beastt wrote:
At 8/23/2014 3:10:04 PM, Installgentoo wrote:
At 8/22/2014 6:52:16 PM, Beastt wrote:
Atonement is to rectify a situation; to correct it, fix it, or repair it. So how is anything "atoned" for by the death of a Jew 2,000 years ago (if one even believes that story)?

It's not a question of believing, but looking at numerous ancient texts which all talk about Jesus being executed, and being a preacher in Galilee between 0AD-33AD.

If those accounts do not convince you then it seems you just have too much faith in your ideas to look at the evidence in a rational manner.

There are dozens of historians and theologians who aren't convinced by the measly credible evidence. And for what it's worth, Bayes Theorem - which is an objective algorithm and can't offer subjectivity - also remains unconvinced.

But hey... feel free to go ahead and pot this vast array of evidence. It can't take more than about 90-seconds to type out the entire list.

No Beasty there are not. There are NO professional period historians who openly advocate your opinion. The ONE possible exception is Robert M. Price ... who, not surprisingly works for ... not a university where standards matter ... but the Center for Inquiry, an atheist institution. Price's position, is stated as:

Deconstructing Jesus, Robert M. Price

"But if that happened, we could no longer be sure there had ever been a real person at the root of the whole thing. The stained glass would have become just too thick to peer through."

"Alexander the Great, Caesar Augustus, Cyrus, King Arthur, and others have nearly suffered this fate. What keeps historians from dismissing them as mere myths, like Paul Bunyan, is that there is some residue. We know at least a bit of mundane information about them, perhaps quite a bit, that does not form part of any legend cycle. Or they are so intricately woven into the history of the time that it is impossible to make sense of that history without them. But is this the case with Jesus? I fear it is not. The apparent links with Roman and Herodian figures is too loose, too doubtful for reasons I have already tried to explain. Thus it seems to me that Jesus must be categorized with other legendary founder figures including the Buddha, Krishna, and Lao-tzu. There may have been a real figure there, but there is simply no longer any way of being sure."

http://atheism.about.com...

That is quite a bit shy of outright claiming he was faked, and, in a rejection of historical processes, rather than seeking the truth and stating a case, essentially says, "We can't know!" Its a position that puts the analytical work of historians into grave questions. He further uses fallacious reasoning to assume, but not prove, that the existence of any similar religious narrative, no matter how uncommon, MUST be the source of the material in the gospels - its a position a bit like saying trees stole the color green from grass. There exists in his works not a single document or process in which the Apostles or Paul, would have spent the countless hours plumbing the depths of archives in religions they are hostile to, rather than establishing and running the church, and their missionary work. Its a tautology from start to finish.

Additionally, his books are published through Prometheus Books, started in 1969 by Paul Kurtz, specifically to promote anti-religious and 'secular humanist' ideologies, bypassing the traditional peer review and academic rigor that the rest of theological analysis is presented. He is, for the most part, simply ignored by the academic community as a charlatan.

Indeed, after Bart Erhman published his clarification on the historicity of Jesus, Price went into attack mode, widely embarrassing himself and questioning his 'objective/academic' basis.

"Maybe Price didn"t mean to lie, but this still strikes me as horribly irresponsible of him, making a serious accusation like that based on a second-hand report. This is something Price should have apologized for, rather than trying to defend his propagation of a falsehood. Falsehoods like this can do real harm, especially since it seems in this case that it got repeated widely before Ehrman could respond.

On a related note, there"s this blog post by Price where he claims that in Ehrman"s book "I am there painted as a blatant thought-criminal." Personally, I didn"t get that impression at all reading Ehrman. This all really does not reflect well on Price, though I was never a big fan of his in the first place."

http://www.patheos.com...

Indeed, the broader academic community, where the ACTUAL dozens of Period Historians, fully accredited and not working for ideological institutes, mostly dismiss Price - as they do others who have followed down his path:

"Contemporary New Testament scholars have typically viewed [Christ Myth] arguments as so weak or bizarre that they relegate them to footnotes, or often ignore them completely.... The theory of Jesus' nonexistence is now effectively dead as a scholarly question."

http://www.bede.org.uk...

If there is any doubt about the bizarre nature of the Christ Myth, one need look no further than Beasty. He continues to be on the side that historians sharply criticize by the dozens. He is on the side that, in Price's case, relies on innuendo and obfuscation, and no matter how masterful the presentation flowing from numerous universities that document the details of Christ, he ignores these and continues to consider those who follow these analytics as the 'unreasonable' ones.

The Christ Myth is a conspiracy Theory. Its no different than Bill Kaysing writing about the fake moon landing, and a small, and utterly intractable group of followers that simply cannot be swayed by reason.