Greetings From Earthling

[Earthling]

Hi everyone, I'm David, AKA Earthling and I like debate and discussion with Atheists on the Bible.

[Stevil]

With or against?

[Tank]

Hi David

Welcome to HAF.

Regards
Chris

[Earthling]

With or against?

Debating against, discussions with.

I was an atheist for the first 27 years of my life, I am now 45. Everyone I know in my personal life are atheists, with the exception of my mother who is a baptized Jehovah's Witness. I myself loath religion, and consider myself apolitical and irreligious; I never have and never will belong to any organized religion.

Eighteen years ago at 27 I began to study the Bible in order to debunk it and discovered instead that I believe it. Since then I have studied it carefully and would change my belief in it if I found reason for doing so. I never have. Part of the reason I like debating with Atheists is that they present a challenge in a perspective I wouldn't normally have the opportunity to visit otherwise, and also I think that it has something to do with my having more in common with them than believers, who generally I don't care for discussing the Bible and theology with.

Though not associated with any organized religion, and not actually a Christian, not having been baptized into any apostate Christian congregation, my beliefs are comparable to The Jehovah's Witnesses. Their removal of pagan influence such as the immortal soul from Socrates, the trinity from Plato, the cross from Constantine, hell from Dante and Milton, Easter from Astarte, Christmas from Dickens and the winter solstice, and the Rapture from Darby are in line with my thinking, though there are some disagreements I have with them as well.

Up until recently I was providing responses to The Skeptics Annotated Bible, with Steve Wells, it's owner, linking to my responses from the SAB to my website, The Pathway Machine. Though I still have those posted on my forum, I no longer do that and Steve is in the process of taking down all of the links since I took down all of the pages.

Right now my website is under construction and primarily used for me to tinker with.

[Earthling]

Hi David

Welcome to HAF.

Regards
Chris

Thanks Chris, Its good to be here.

[OldGit]

Welcome, Earthling.  I think you're going to be interesting!

[Stevil]

It will be interesting to discover what compelled you to believe in the bible. Do you believe in the stories of both the Old and New Testament?
Do you think your beliefs are based on emotions rather than cold facts?
Do you think knowledge is an inhibitor to faith?

[Too Few Lions]

welcome Earthling, it'll be interesting to hear your take on things. Personally I don't think there's much left of Christianity if you try and remove 'pagan' influences. The same goes for Judaism too, I think both were products of their time and borrowed much of their mythology and theology from earlier external religions, cosmology and philosophy.

[xSilverPhinx]

Welcome!

[Earthling]

Welcome, Earthling.  I think you're going to be interesting!

Well, I hope so, Old Git, thanks. Awesome avatar, by the way.

[OldGit]

Well, I hope so, Old Git, thanks. Awesome avatar, by the way

Thank you.  That was taken in 2008, just after I last washed.

[Earthling]

It will be interesting to discover what compelled you to believe in the bible. Do you believe in the stories of both the Old and New Testament?
Do you think your beliefs are based on emotions rather than cold facts?
Do you think knowledge is an inhibitor to faith?

I think what compels me to believe in the Bible is the archaeological support, the historical trustworthiness, eyewitness testimony, and the overall harmony of scripture from Genesis to Revelation. The terms old and new testament are misnomers, and not supported by scripture. The terms were taken from the Latin Vulgate translation of diathekes, 2 Corinthians 3:14 which actually should read "covenant" rather than testament. When the Latin testamentum appears at Psalm 83:5, for example, the Psalmist wasn't saying that God's enemies have "arranged a testament against him." Paul was saying that the Christian writings constituted a new covenant. The old Law covenant was a small portion of the pre-Christian writings as is evident by Paul's statement "whenever Moses is read." There is, in fact, no "new testament." The Bible is harmonious throughout.

My beliefs are based upon cold facts.

I don't think that knowledge is an inhibitor to faith, though I think that belief can be an inhibitor to knowledge. The Bible says that everlasting life depends upon the taking in of knowledge of Jehovah God and the one whom he sent forth, Christ Jesus (John 17:3) and it praises the skeptical efforts of the Beroeans who checked the scriptures to see if what they were being told was accurate. (Acts 17:11)

It also warns of "an operation of error" meaning that God will allow those who want to believe a lie to believe what they will. (1 John 4:1-3, 6)

[Tank]

Stevil and Earthing

What is the point of the 10 post rule is you're both going to ignore it 

[Ildiko]

My beliefs are based upon cold facts.

Oh dear. Well that about wraps it up for atheism then.

What is the point of the 10 post rule is you're both going to ignore it

Whoops, sorry Tank. 

[Too Few Lions]

I think what compels me to believe in the Bible is the archaeological support, the historical trustworthiness, eyewitness testimony, and the overall harmony of scripture from Genesis to Revelation. 

My beliefs are based upon cold facts.

My background's in archaeology, and it doesn't back up the Bible in any way shape or form. In fact it contradicts most of the OT narrative, and hasn't provided any evidence to back up the NT either. As for eyewitness testimony, the OT books were written centuries after any supposed events, and the NT books were written decades after, often 50 or more years. So I'm not sure you can say your beliefs are based on 'cold facts', but it'll be interesting to hear your take on these things.