OSC’s Atheist challenges readers to a street fight!

Ordinarily my chat history is long and varied, with many conversations going unpublished, largely due to time constraints, absent-mindedness or even the intimate nature of the conversation, since certain contacts are simply sharing something so personal that to reprint it publicly wouldn’t be appropriate of me. Nonetheless, certain conversation partners are beyond being ignored, in fact, they’re such fun, such an example of what not to do, that I’d be failing my brothers and sisters in Christ by not sharing our back and forth exchanges, enter slrman. An OAP with attitude, slrman writes on health, well-being, and atheism, which appears to have led to anything but an increased sense of well-being (they’re rather unhappy in print). Nonetheless, slrman isn’t prepared to take any gruff from believers in their twilight years, in fact, despite being into their seventies (or older), they’ve been challenging believers to fly anywhere in the world to meet him in mortal combat!

“I’ll pay your way here or anywhere else for you to have the opportunity.” “Come on craven cockroach,” They continued to another poster, sharing their private email so that they might continue privately abasing each other (I shouldn’t laugh). In candour, I’m not sure what’s gone wrong with the older generation, perhaps it’s to do with the 60’s, 70’s, the LSD, PTSD, MIB,* I’m honestly not sure why some of the more narky, self-referentially incoherent messages that come my way are from those who should be most wise.

men_in_black_08Anyhow, today’s conversations, as I’m sharing three, are from slrman’s blog and Done with religion’s website, everybody remember DWR? (My conversation with him here). They’re “Christian”, in some sense, although whenever I’ve tried engaging their views, their replies have been unresponsive and hard-hearted, in short, they’re not prepared to either discuss, nor even explain their viewpoint in any detail. Now, slrman, as you’re about to read, debates two “Christians” before exchanging messages with myself. They engage both Steve Burton (I dunno), and later DWR, and although they’re very open to writing lengthy conversations with both, slrman isn’t as happy to write to me (surprise surprise). These writers are rather bad-tempered, for which the more sensitive amidst you might want to duck and cover, whereas everybody else can simply chuckle to themselves.


[After questioning whether or not Jesus actually existed, slrman raises Steven’s mighty ire!]: Of course Jesus existed. Are you stupid or something? It is obvious Jesus existed. I think you are being willfully ignorant to provoke people. Not clever.

[slrman]: As I suspected, you are using a fake email. That’s evidence that you are an intellectual coward without the courage of your convictions.

Show us even one contemporary account of the biblical jesus [Sounds familiar, I’ve read people write likewise before].

Believing in something without any supporting evidence is willful ignorance.


[slrman]: If you had paid attention to this post, instead of believing only what you want to believe, you would understand that I have read the babble many times. That’s how I became atheist. Using the babble to probe the babble is a typical nonsensical tactic of the intellectually challenged. “The bible is true because it says it is true.” Yeah, real smart.

You probably can’t comprehend the irony of you calling me an idiot after you make such a ludicrous statement.

When are you going t stop hiding behind your fake email? That’s another sign of an internet coward and troll. Until you start using a real email and IP address all future post from you will be trashed. I have no more time to play games with people that are liars and cowards.

[Steve Burton]: I’ll beat you in the face for that

[slrman]: Tell you what, you lying coward. I’ll pay your way anywhere in the world so you can meet me and carry out your threat [Bring it on! No, no, that’s not an appropriate reply].

How typical. You are shown to be exactly what you are and, like most christians, you only response is threats.

You will continue to hide behind your fake ID and IP address so you will never have to put your pathetic skin at risk. What a disgusting human being you are.

[Steve Burton]: I might be a Christian but I have no problem beating up an atheist [<<< not an actual Christian born again by Christ’s Spirit].

[slrman]: Then accept my offer. Stop hiding and allow me to pay your way to carry out your threat. You’re being brave when your scrofulous skin is not at risk. How about when you are face to face with me?*


[Steve Burton]: You’ll wish you’d never been born

[slrman]: Big talk, but you’re still hiding like the cowardly little worm you are showing yourself to be. Now, put up or STFU [I’ve always found that insult very childish]. Until you accept my offer, I’ll delete your osts like the worthless cowardly BS they are.

[Steve Burton]: Ah, so you’ve backed down now? Shame, I was looking forward to pulping you

[slrman]: You stupid moron. How have I backed down? By offering to pay your way anywhere in the world so you can follow through on your threats? By using my real name, emails, and location?

You are the one hiding. Accept my offer and you can try to carry out your threats. But you will hide forever because you are a craven PoS.

Now, put up or everyone will know that you are exactly what I have said. Face me and try to “pulp” me.

[Steve Burton]: You forget, I will have God on my side. And you are too old to fight now.

[slrman]: Your god does not exist and I am not too old to fight a cowardly Jerk like you. So accept my offer. It will be fun – for me. For you, not so much.

Anywhere, any time, you chickenshit cockroach.

[Steve Burton]: He exists. It is you that does not exist, and you are way too old to be fighting. It would be carnage. I would break your brittle bones.

[slrman]: Keep hiding, creep. You are terrified of me . Use a real email and I will arrange for your ticket. If I don’t exist, why are you so afraid? If your horrid god exists, prove it. If you are not a cowardly cockroach, prove it.

Make good on your threats. You’re like a boasting schoolyard bully but a terrified little boy underneath.

Come on, try to break my bones. Talk is cheap. Skin in the game is much different.

Update on April 11: [Less than a day later]

It seems that this little frightened freak has decided to cut and run. No surprise their for me. The keyboard commandos always talk tough and bluster until they are called out so decisively they cannot respond unless they actually beg, borrow, rent , or steal some testicular fortitude and actually accept the opportunity to carry out their threats.

I’m sure this one will go to some religious reich site that knows nothing of this encounter and declare, “Victory, in the name of (insert some non-existent deity) !” So pathetic. Luckily for him, he is incapable of feeling shame for his actions.

[Steve Burton]: You are degenerate, noxious and depraved. I feel debased just knowing that you exist.

There you have it, Steve Burton, “the Christian”, pulping people in God’s name, honestly I’ve laughed myself silly having to read their tough guy exchange of good vs. evil, although for anybody of sense it’s just evil vs. evil, pride vs. pride. However, there’s another extreme, and while yes Steven’s messages read as both vain and comical, Done with religion’s contribution, more specifically, their disinterest towards lies about God, just reads as sad (Here we go again!)


[slrman began by writing]: Matthew 10:34 Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword. For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law. And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.

“Prince of peace?” I don’t think so.

[DoneWithReligion replies]: Thanks for your comment. I appreciate you taking the time to read and comment on my article.

[Now, I’m going to address DWR in just one minute, first however, my reply]: Household division, slrman, has very little to do with Jesus’ desire for people, and much more to do with the nation’s reaction to Christ’s true identity as Israel’s anointed king. To make an end of His people being found guilty of sin, thus preparing to usher in an age of unending peace and forgiveness, that would earn an individual no less than to be named “prince of peace.”*


To be honest, and speak Their reason for ministering, doesn’t mean Christ Himself is culpable for how angrily an unruly nation of people in rebellion against God might respond. To attempt to undermine someone’s peaceful character because They rightly discern how Their good would cause others to respond by evil would be akin to badmouthing someone as violent because they’ve decided to testify in court against the mob. To say to an upright man who’s willing to testify against evil: “hay ho, someone might get shot, shows how peaceful you are.” that’s just nonsensical. Would you not agree?

Briefly interrupting the flow of conversation, which can be blocked, as it’s about to go into DWR and slrman poorly making their cases while the other couldn’t care less. I’d not been aware of their conversation, since slrman, despite making out as though they’d replied to me, had written to DWR again, thus their “reply” didn’t show on my blog’s notifications. I’d only returned to Done with religion’s website because (upon reflection) their reply to slrman genuinely bothered me, just consider it yourself, whether wittingly or unwittingly, slrman had written an untruth about Christ’s very character, and DWR replied by writing “thank you”, they had slandered God, who DWR says he knows personally, and he replied by writing “thank you”. So, I’d returned to ask what I believed was an important question, that being: “how would you have replied if slrman implied your mother was violent, or your father, wife, you choose. Would you have written thank you if they had mocked or lied about your family?”

The greatest joy, and strongest proof of God, for my unconvinced friends who read, is that you can (if you would seek Him) feel the presence of God with you, They can be readily experienced, and that’s not to do with arguments, that’s not about showing God’s there, it’s about knowing God’s there. I’ve prayed, and although I haven’t always believed in Christian truth claims, I’ve always believed in God, They’re simply here. Can readers perhaps understand my disappointment at DWR now, because together (he and slrman) just allowed for a serious distortion to go uncorrected, in that, they aren’t merely causing readers to be misled, but they’ve both let slip a profane, vile insult against Jesus. Again, how would DWR reply if slrman wrote such filth against their family, oh you can insult my God, but don’t you dare write anything against my cousins, or sisters, or mother, or even same sex attracted people (DWR’s favourite hobby horse which they do defend!).

[slrman’s reply to me (which wasn’t sent to me) hereafter]: Christians say they believe the bible is “the inerrant word of god”. When someone shows that a passage that disputes their basic message, such as Matthew 10:34, they insist that it must be “correctly interpreted.” Are you saying that your god is so stupid he cannot be trusted to express himself clearly? That only “correct interpretation” by mere humans can be the truth.

I have noticed that such “interpretations” always change the selection to mean exactly what the interpreter wants it to mean. They they wonder why christians are so often subjected to mockery and disdain. Your “interpretations are insulting. They assume that others are as gullible as you need them to be. You either believe the bible is the inerrant word of god or that it is nonsense. To be taken even semi-seriously, you will have to choose.

[DoneWithReligion replies yet again]: The bible, inspired by God but written by men is not inerrant. It tells men’s views and leads us to God, but anything man has anything to do with will be flawed. Thanks for commenting.

[slrman]: Sorry, but many christians do insist that the bible is the inerrant word of god. If you say that it can be flawed by the errors of any, you are saying that none of it can be trusted.

That would easily explain the the contradictions (many), impossibilities, (Most) and the absurdities to be found. It would be better to dispose of this unreliable source and return to basics, of do good, and the only real sin is hurting someone else unnecessarily.

As it is, even the existence of your jesus cannot be proved. Show us even one contemporary example. Even the bible cannot. The first mention of any jesus in is the gospel of Mark written from 40 to 100 years after the alleged events. Often cited is Josephus, who was not even born until 36 or 37 CE. The text attributed to him have been denounced as forgeries.

Yes, better to stick to the simple logic of it is better to be good to people, tell the truth and avoid hurting someone when it is not required by circumstances such as self-defense.

[DoneWithReligion (always eager to agree with unbelievers who wish to destroy their beliefs) continues]: I agree. We cannot prove anything spiritual. It is only by faith. I choose to have faith in God and in Jesus. Follow Jesus example we are only to love God and love one another. We do not need all the judgment and condemnation and we do not need to force our views or faith on anyone. We can each choose what we believe and how to live. Thanks again for your comment.

[slrman]: “By faith?” Faith is accepting as true something for which there is no supporting evidence and maybe much evidence against it [To read a definition of faith which isn’t a caricature continue here]

There is zero evidence for any god nor for any jesus. “Love god?” Why? The god of the bible endorses, even orders, genocide, human sacrifice, torture of animals. and the denigration of women. If you also support those things, maybe you do love god.

This is the god that destroyed (according to the babble) 99% of all life on earth supposedly because some humans displeased him for doing exactly as he created them and knew they wold do. What did the animals and plants do to deserve this destruction? A loving god? not hardly, an immature, jealous (by his own admission) vengeful, demonic jerk. Luckily, there is no evidence that this god is anything but the invention of some egotists who want to control the thoughts, actions and speech of everyone else.

[DoneWithReligion]: I appreciate your views and opinion, yet what I write is my opinion and what I believe to be true. Although I do not block comments on my site [They have actually blocked and deleted my posts], I do not get into back and forth debates. So again, thank you for your comments and for taking the time to read the articles of someone whose views are different than yours.

[By now you’re probably hungry for something of substance to the conversation, as oppose to Steven’s bone crushing and DWR tickling the keyboard to anybody’s tune. With which, I’d returned to give DWR a piece of my mind for their limp defence of Jesus, only to find slrman had been pretending to write to me. First however, let’s recap slrman’s message]: Christians say they believe the bible is “the inerrant word of god”. When someone shows that a passage that disputes their basic message, such as Matthew 10:34, they insist that it must be “correctly interpreted.” Are you saying that your god is so stupid he cannot be trusted to express himself clearly? That only “correct interpretation” by mere humans can be the truth.

I have noticed that such “interpretations” always change the selection to mean exactly what the interpreter wants it to mean. They they wonder why christians are so often subjected to mockery and disdain. Your “interpretations are insulting. They assume that others are as gullible as you need them to be. You either believe the bible is the inerrant word of god or that it is nonsense. To be taken even semi-seriously, you will have to choose.



You believe whether or not the Bible is “inerrant” has been called into question by your refusal to read the relevant material in context? Are you stupid because I’m not reading your messages in context? Since you write “Are you saying that your god is so stupid he cannot be trusted to express himself clearly?” Now, rather than read your quoted words in light of what you’ve actually intended, I’m instead going to insist your words mean you’re propositioning DWR in an intimate manner. Perhaps you’re of the mind to disagree, perhaps you’re of the mind to write that’s an inappropriate way in which to interoperate your words, well, are you so stupid, so untrustworthy, as to not be able to communicate your message properly? Obviously my reading into your words things which aren’t there reflects badly upon you, you and not me.

To read Matthew rightly, in context, as its original author and speaker intended, that can be properly done by reading the nearby material, in addition to other methods of good hermeneutics, and that’s not merely true insofar as Bible studies are concerned, rather that’s true for simply reading online messages or cards wishing you a happy birthday (you’ve got to read in context).

Before jumping into Matthew 10:34, let’s read together Matthew 10:16-20: “I am sending you out like sheep among wolves. Therefore be as shrewd as snakes and as innocent as doves. Be on your guard; you will be handed over to the local councils and be flogged in the synagogues. On my account you will be brought before governors and kings as witnesses to them and to the Gentiles. But when they arrest you, do not worry about what to say or how to say it. At that time you will be given what to say, for it will not be you speaking, but the Spirit of your Father speaking through you.”

The above, which is in context to be read as prophetic, plainly reads as both referring to wrongful imprisonment, martyrdom (Acts 7:59), and judicial murder (2 Timothy 4 6-8). Christ even goes so far as to teach in the very same chapter “Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but cannot kill the soul. Rather, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell.” Therefore we’re reading absolutely nothing to do with either Jesus or Their followers using swords, behaving violently or subjugating anyone (in fact the opposite would be true). Are you insulting God as an inappropriate [communicator] because you refuse to read properly?

You’ve shared afterwards “I have noticed that such “interpretations” always change the selection to mean exactly what the interpreter wants it to mean.” Yet, that’s only true with regards to you! You’ve ripped Matthew to pieces in order to make Jesus appear violent in the eyes of the unwitting, you’ve misread Scripture so to make Jesus appear how you’d prefer Him to appear, you’ve changed clear sections of Bible text so to make its message appear how that you’d prefer. You’ve then wrote “They [then] wonder why christians are so often subjected to mockery and disdain.” I however don’t wonder, they’re subjected to mockery and disdain because of liars such as yourself, they’re subject to mockery and ridicule because you, you who have the nerve to write of stupidity and dishonesty, yet refuse [to] read books you dislike in context. You’ve twisted Matthew and Jesus’ message, in which Christ taught “Put your sword back in its place, for all who draw the sword will die by the sword.”

[slrman]: You evaded every question I have asked. Instead you attacked me personally. Your response tells me that you are a coward, mentally and morally as well as a liar and a fool. No. don’t complain, I am only observing your behavior as you have demonstrated it in your posts. Prove a single thing I have written is not true.

You theists always whine and complain (persecution!” whenever you are treated as you treat others.

Don’t bother replying, I will neither respond not even read anything else from a person that has demonstrated your behavior.

[I replied]: “Prove a single thing I have written is not true.”

Okay, you’ve written: “The first mention of any jesus in is the gospel of Mark written from 40 to 100 years after the alleged events.” Now, that’s untrue. Paul’s letters predate Mark’s Gospel. Have I gotten your attention yet, liar? Of course, that’s not to write you’re a liar with regards to your comments about Mark, I’d imagine that’s just you being ignorant.

[slrman]: You stupid person. In the babble the first mention is in the gospel of Mark. I challenge you to show me even one contemporary reference op any jesus. No, do not use the Josephus [Oh I shall use “the Josephus”].He was not even born until 36 or 37 CE. At that, his referenced to a jesus are strongly suspected of being forgeries. Theists have never had a problem with lying, as you have shown.

Now, please go away. I certainly am, you always ignore my direct questions because you cannot answer them. Again, prove anything I have posted is not true.

[oldschoolcontemporary]: Paul’s letters are part of the Bible, perhaps you weren’t aware. Their writings to the Corinthians, for example. This work is both a part of the Bible and predates Mark’s Gospel.

Now, there’s no “out” for my conversation partner in the above, as if you’re meaning to write Mark is the first book “in the Bible” which mentions Jesus, they’re mistaken, as if they’re going to insist they’re writing to mean in the standard order, then that’s Matthew, not Mark. Remember it’s Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. Or, if they’re meaning to write chronologically, as I’ve already stated, Paul’s letters predate Mark, that’s just common knowledge to people who’re involved with the text to any scholarly degree. If my buddy slrman means to write Mark is the first “Gospel” account amidst the four to mention Jesus, that’s accurate, however, that’s clearly not what they’re meaning to write, as they insist on adding info about Josephus into the mix, which shows very clearly they’re meaning to write about which works predate which chronologically (hence I’ve addressed chronology). Nonetheless, we may never read their rebuttal to my messages, because despite DWR insisting they don’t block messages, they then insisted they’re going to stop myself and slrman from continuing our discussion!


Let’s recap, DWR allows for writers to slander Jesus’ name and character as violent based upon obvious lies, lies which I’m able to smash into smithereens within one message, they’re unprepared however to allow for posts in defence of the Gospel because animosity might arise on account of the word. Didn’t Jesus teach about those kinds of people?!

That same day Jesus went out of the house and sat by the lake. Such large crowds gathered around him that he got into a boat and sat in it, while all the people stood on the shore. Then he told them many things in parables, saying: “A farmer went out to sow his seed. As he was scattering the seed, some fell along the path, and the birds came and ate it up. Some fell on rocky places, where it did not have much soil. It sprang up quickly, because the soil was shallow. But when the sun came up, the plants were scorched, and they withered because they had no root. Other seed fell among thorns, which grew up and choked the plants. Still other seed fell on good soil, where it produced a crop—a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown. Whoever has ears, let them hear.”*


The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?” He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. This is why I speak to them in parables: “Though seeing, they do not see; though hearing, they do not hear or understand. In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah: “‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding; you will be ever seeing but never perceiving. For this people’s heart has become calloused; they hardly hear with their ears, and they have closed their eyes. Otherwise they might see with their eyes, hear with their ears, understand with their hearts and turn, and I would heal them.’

But blessed are your eyes because they see, and your ears because they hear. For truly I tell you, many prophets and righteous people longed to see what you see but did not see it, and to hear what you hear but did not hear it.

“Listen then to what the parable of the sower means: When anyone hears the message about the kingdom and does not understand it, the evil one comes and snatches away what was sown in their heart. This is the seed sown along the path. The seed falling on rocky ground refers to someone who hears the word and at once receives it with joy. But since they have no root, they last only a short time. When trouble or persecution comes because of the word, they quickly fall away. The seed falling among the thorns refers to someone who hears the word, but the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth choke the word, making it unfruitful. But the seed falling on good soil refers to someone who hears the word and understands it. This is the one who produces a crop, yielding a hundred, sixty or thirty times what was sown.”

Oh, DWR allows for conversation, just so long as unbelievers aren’t in danger of throwing their toys out of the pram, and if they are, well, everybody just has to stop in their world, and if internet tough guys, IS or left-wing nut jobs protest, well, DWR is going to have to stop speaking (that’s just extraordinary). We’re not writing about Christians being murdered for their faith, or raped, or crucified, those things are real, those things are happening today, DWR however is “protecting” people from hearing the Gospel because they’re in fear of name-calling! Imagine if believers in the first century acted in this fashion, there’d be no Christianity today.

Regardless, in light of DWR abruptly ending our conversation, I’m gifted a great teaching opportunity for my readers here, in addition to an opportunity to invite slrman to justify their strange claims in the comments of OSC. So, let’s read into two challenges, one being to do with “contemporary sources” for Jesus’ life, in addition to another claim regarding Josephus’ antiquity of the Jews, they’re popular level claims online, let’s find out whether they’re able to stand up to some scrutiny.



Firstly, to you my buddy slrman, you’re who first brought up “persecution”, doing so in the form of when you wrote: “They [then] wonder why christians are so often subjected to mockery and disdain.” Are believers objects of disdain and mockery, as you’ve appeared to share? Probably, and more often than not that same hatred comes about based upon lies, very much like your lies.

Your methodology with regards to history, morality or even just reading the English language appears muddled and hampered by popular level confusion, furthermore, you’ve went so far as to share “even the existence of your jesus cannot be proved. Show us even one contemporary example. Even the bible cannot.” Why would you demand a “contemporary example” when no historian in the history of forever would discount an individual on account of such a criteria? The criteria of authenticity takes on many forms, historical fit, dissimilarity, embarrassment, yet, none being absent would cause historians to dismiss an individual’s very existence. For example, just because a report of some incident in your life isn’t embarrassing, that doesn’t mean it’s untrue.

To demand contemporaneous material, which you’re prepared to dismiss historic figures by, displays an incredibility superficial (even false) understanding of just how historic studies are carried out. In fact, the only way you could go about using criteria (like earliness) to deny existence (a totally unthinkable practice amidst high historic scholarship) would be to have already decided from the get go that the Gospel accounts, in addition to the remainder of the New Testament, were unreliable. You’ve prejudged such material guilty until proven innocent! Yet, people could always demand earlier and earlier attestation, for which nobody uses such criteria as disproofs of historicity. If you instead approach such material from the position of neutrality, like how Aristotle’s dictum demands, you would come away far more balanced than you are.

You’ve went on to attack Josephus, as if to write their material on Jesus were forged, although, that’s simply untrue. Josephus’ strong material regarding Jesus had merely been subject to “interpolation”, thus, later writers had touched up their material for various dishonest reasons, yet, how are scholars today aware of their tampering? Well, because they’re able to trace Josephus’ original thoughts about Jesus, in fact, Josephus’ material about Christ isn’t simply confirmed by the vast majority of textual critics (which undoes your claim), Josephus has also been shown to have written about Jesus’ brother in an uninterpolated passage of his histories!

Josephus doesn’t just confirm Jesus in an edited portion of their histories, but rather wrote about Jesus, Jesus’ brother (James) and John the baptist in an untouched portion. Nonetheless, both their material about Jesus, and about Jesus and the murder of Their brother, have been confirmed stylistically to belong to Josephus, moreover, they snugly fit into the general flow and themes of the texts themselves. You’re quick to dismiss Josephus because you’re prepared to jump to unwarranted conclusions regarding Jesus and Christianity. Tacitus also gives an interesting mention of Christ in their material on Rome’s great fire, nevertheless, when you drop your bogus objections to Bible material you’ll be at liberty to read our greatest material on Jesus’ life and ministry, even material containing eyewitness reports of Their life.

People couldn’t google their neighbour in those days, they couldn’t save to an online storage app their histories, we’re writing about people who scribed their views on highly perishable papyrus by candlelight, even people who shared life stories in either oral histories or oral traditions (big difference between both). In light of much of the above, your demands just become absurd, naïve even. You’ve continued regardless: “You either believe the bible is the inerrant word of god or that it is nonsense. To be taken even semi-seriously, you will have to choose.” Now, again that’s absurd, patently absurd. Atheists everywhere know that to defend Jesus’ honourable burial by Joseph of Arimathea isn’t to be confused with the defence of Jesus being born in Bethlehem, as they’re totally separate, totally distinct events. To write “If it’s not the inerrant word of god then it’s nonsense” now that’s nonsense! Basic understanding of the law of non-contradiction says what you’re writing is nonsense. You’re being so one dimensional.

You continued by yet another error: “The first mention of any jesus in is the gospel of Mark written from 40 to 100 years after the alleged events.” Firstly, Paul’s letters are within twenty years of Jesus’ death, you’re simply wrong about Mark being our earliest source. That’s something even amateur historians have long realized. Secondly, cap the j in Jesus, you’re embarrassing yourself. When, or if, you ever reflect upon just how obscure an individual Jesus actually was, and considering Their public ministry went for around three years, we’re blessed by far more material comparatively to Their life as opposed to most major figures of antiquity. In light of your poor methodology, consider:

1. There wasn’t sufficient time for legendary influences to expunge the core historic facts to do with Jesus’ life, death and public ministry.

2. Comparisons have failed to class or make our gospel accounts of Jesus analogous with folk lore or contemporary urban legends.

3. The Jewish transmission of sacred traditions was highly developed and reliable.

4. There were significant restraint on the embellishment of traditions about Jesus, such as the presence of eyewitnesses and the apostles’ supervision.

5. The gospels have a proven track record of historic reliability.

Your claim of “zero evidence” for either God or Jesus smacks of ignorance, that’s not an insult, but rather, I’m writing in the technical sense, as in you’re highly ignorant of facts to do with how proper historic studies are conducted, in addition to having deep ignorance as to how people define “evidence.” With which you’ve continued: “This is the god that destroyed (according to the babble)”, “the babble”, that’s how you’re accustomed to writing, seriously, “the babble”, you’re an adult man, a grown-up man, and that’s how you express yourself.

Oh the joys of being an internet atheist, a militant atheist, how fulfilling their lives must be poorly arguing and abusing people over subjects they’re disinterested in actually researching. Let’s not forget, slrman claims to have read the Bible multiple times, yet they’re unable to interoperate Matthew 10 in any accurate manner. I’d imagine every unbeliever of sense probably feels about him the same way I feel about Steven “I’ll punch your face for that” Burton, which means you’re held in very low esteem, sir. Whereas you invite people to fly out and wrestle you “skin to skin”, I’m simply inviting you onto OSC to again share your falsities in a comment’s section where your every untruth shall be utterly dismantled, and you’ll perhaps even learn a thing or two.

Your untruths aren’t your own, of course, “show contemporary sources” isn’t the fruits of your research, that’s not your idea, that’s a common untruth shared amidst militant atheists who’re too wrapped up in group think to form any opinions of their own, and it’s in that, despite your arrogance, and despite your inability to defend your slander, that I’ve engaged you. I’ve engaged you because your untruths are shared falsehoods of your entire militant community, enjoy having every one systematically debunked.

― T. C. M

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s