18 April 2009

Why Christian "Marriage" is Wrong

Christians claim that the Bible condemns gay marriage. It doesn't.*

The Bible says nothing at all about gay marriage. But it has plenty to say about Christian "marriage."

  1. The Bible says that Christians should not marry.
    (God doesn't want Christians to marry. We shouldn't either.)
    Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. 1 Corinthians 7:27
    For I would that all men were even as I myself.... I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 1 Corinthians 7:7-9

  2. But if a Christian man decides to get married (which he shouldn't), he can have more than one wife.
    If he take him another wife.... Exodus 21:10

  3. And if he doesn't like one of his wives (like if she's unclean or ugly or something), he can divorce her.
    When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. Deuteronomy 24:1

  4. If a Christian man gets married and then discovers on his wedding night that his new wife is not a virgin, then he and the other Christian men must stone her to death.
    If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate.... But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you. Deuteronomy 22:13-17
  5. Christians shouldn't have sex (even if they are married, which they shouldn't be).
    But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none. 1 Corinthians 7:29
    It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 1 Corinthians 7:1-2
  6. Christian parents must beat their children (which they shouldn't have, since they shouldn't get married or have sex).
    He that spareth his rod hateth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him betimes. Proverbs 13:24
    Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying. Proverbs 19:18
    Foolishness is bound in the heart of a child; but the rod of correction shall drive it far from him. Proverbs 22:15
    Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell. Proverbs 23:13-14
  7. Good Christians must hate their families.
    (If you abandon them for Jesus, he'll give you a big reward.)
    If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children,and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple. Luke 14:26
    And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life. Mattthew 19:29

  8. And kill their disobedient children.
    If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother ... Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city ... And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 21:18-21
    He that smiteth his father, or his mother, shall be surely put to death. Exodus 21:15
    He that curseth his father, or his mother, shall surely be put to death. Exodus 21:17
    For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him. Leviticus 20:9
    God commanded, saying, Honour thy father and mother: and, He that curseth father or mother, let him die the death. Matthew 15:4

  9. And kill their families, if they have religiously incorrect ideas.
    If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you ... Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die. Deuteronomy 13:6-10

  10. And finally, like Abraham (Susan Smith, Andrea Yates, et al.), Christian parents should be willing to kill their children for God.
    And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham, and said unto him ... Take now thy son, thine only son Isaac, whom thou lovest, and get thee into the land of Moriah; and offer him there for a burnt offering upon one of the mountains which I will tell thee of.... And Abraham stretched forth his hand, and took the knife to slay his son. Genesis 22:1-2, 10

*The Bible tell us to kill homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13). Dead people seldom marry.

201 comments:

1 – 200 of 201   Newer›   Newest»
matt311 said...

Quite the argument you've made, Steve. This, I think (were they to listen), puts the "Christian right" to shame.

And, anyhow, who are THEY to claim they represent "Christ"? The man was an apocalyptic prophet, not a gay-killing, all-knowing capitalist!

Baconsbud said...

I figure if any christians do read this, they will say this is all out of context. They won't go to the bible and check since deep down they know they will find it isn't taken out of context. I will have to remember this link so the next time I hear someone saying how important family is to the christian beliefs.

Bibhash Dash said...

excellent post...now i dont have to read the bible thru and thru to know how screwed up religion is....

but thanks for this wonderful confirmation to an uncertain belief system

StarCherub said...

Nice collection of verses. Yeah, some are not in the same context Christians would have them, but not every Christian reads things in context anyways. I know from experience that an idiot will take it literally and take it upon himself to make sure disobedient kids get killed. How do I know? My stepdad is an idiot and tried to kill my brother once, using his faith in the Bible as a reason. This after being brainwashed by the local fundamental baptist church. Thanks for uncovering more hypocrisy.

I am the wise fool. said...

Doh! You left off one of my new favorite marriage related passages: Exodus 21:2-5. It goes like this:

If the Hebrew servant's master provides a wife for that servant, the wife and any subsequent offspring belong to the servant's master.

It's good to be the king! :-)

sconnor said...

Jesus NEVER uttered a word about gay people. Jesus never talked about gay people, never questioned their actions and never denounced them as an abomination -- nothing, nada, zilch.

Now come to think of it, he also never dated women, he hung out with 12 other dudes, constantly and he had an inordinate foot fetish -- YOWZA!

John 13:1-15 "...and laid aside his garments...He took off his clothes? wh, wh, what?

...and took a towel, and girded himself...

Sexy!

...After that he poureth water into a bason, and began to wash the disciples' feet, and to wipe them with the towel wherewith he was girded..."Can't get enough of those gorgeous feet -- can ya' Jesus!

--S.

.:: zoo of the new ::. said...

I guess most Christians would just say that they did not need to follow the strict strictures of the Old Testament because Jesus had died for their sins in the New Testament; and therefore the old rules don't apply anymore.

Now if only they could apply this logic to the hateful passages against gay people in the Old Testament. But I guess being religious and being hypocritical are just two sides of the same coin.

Ra'anan (Ron) Schwarzmer said...

As a religious Jew, i can only speak for the Old Testament verses. As far as i'm concerned, anything after 2 Chronicles is pure fiction written between 100-250 years after his supposed death. That's another sermon for another time, and i want to mention a few things.

You're %100 correct! The Bible does not say. "Thou Shalt Not Be Gay"... it only says, "Thou shalt not commit the acts thereof"(laying with a man as with a woman, etc.).

Most of the verses you quoted from Exodus and Deuteronomy you do have out of context. When a son 'curses' his father, that doesn't mean "Piss off, old man!", it means something much more serious, like a public declaration. One really should read the Bible in the original Hebrew(no, it wasn't in Latin first), with the aid of a good Hebrew-English dictionary, to get a feel for the surrounding text. Then the context will be understood.

Steve Wells said...

Out of context, eh Ron?

There is no context that makes killing your family for their religious beliefs a good idea. (The same is true for the other verses in this post.)

But I bet it sounds a lot better in Hebrew.

It's time to stop hiding behind "context" and "language" excuses and either accept or reject the Bible based on its content. If you think its a good idea to stone to death a woman if she isn't a virgin on her wedding night, then the Bible the book for you. If not, you should reject it -- whatever the context and however nice it might sound in Hebrew.

sconnor said...

ron

...something much more serious, like a public declaration.
Yeah -- nothing like a public declaration that deserves a good-old fashioned public stoning where the child can be pummeled into a bloody pulp.

Tell me, ron, when your children were insubordinate and didn't obey you (like every normal child has done at one time or another) did you gather all the old-timers from the synagogue and chuck rocks at them until they were battered and bruised to a bloody mess, went unconscious and then slowly died?

Or does the context in the original Hebrew really mean lavish your children with hugs and kisses and bear with their waywardness?

--S.

Markus Arelius said...

Steve, great post.

A question: Are you receiving more comments from Christian believers and just not posting them? This is very provocative stuff that you're posting, and I'm just amazed more Christians/Jews aren't mobbing you on this blog with torches and pitchforks.

A comment: Christians I've met really do believe in the authenticity of the Bible as a whole. But they don't normally read the Bible thoroughly and are completely unaware of some of these barbaric passages. Sometimes they are aware of the passages, but shrug off the nasty bits as just the "law of the east". Sometimes they view these as the "consequences of sin", as if to say "Welp, see what happens when you don't follow God?".
And finally, the majority of Christians (especially pastors and catechism teachers) I know simply ignore Deuteronomy, stick to the New Testament (Jesus!) and cherry pick the G-rated verses, portraying them as 90% of the total biblical content.

I find frustrating and ineffective to ask Christian believers about these passages, because in the end most get angry and then hurt that you are asking them to question their personal beliefs. They react like you're not only attacking their intelligence, but endangering their souls in the process. Finally, the last defense is that Christians respond with "this is my private belief" and "you can't change my beliefs".

I find this all very interesting because there's a fear and hesitancy for many believers to think for themselves and ask hard questions about Christian dogma and their faith in the 21st century.

Yet, at the same time, Christians appear to have no difficulty going after non-believers with fervor, "attacking" their non-belief and wanting to otherwise legislate their private lives. Or they applaud other Christians who do this.

Steve Wells said...

Thanks, Markus.

I used to get quite a few Christian comments, but for some reason I haven't lately. I do try, though, to post every comment, unless it is just preaching.

The reason believers don't like to talk about the Bible (or most of it, anyway) is that they are deeply ashamed of it. How could any believer be proud of Deuteronomy 22:13-17, to take just one of a thousand examples?

C Woods said...

Another great post.

I have to believe one of four things:

1) Christians are illiterate so they never read the Bible
2) Christians can read, but chose not to read the Bible
3) Christians read the Bible, but they are all insane to believe it is the word of God
4) Christians read the Bible, but don't take it seriously, just go to church to "network" or get elected to public office

What do you think?

charlesh04 said...

I am a Christian and I have read the entire Bible many times. I have read these difficult scriptures and have had to really study them. I am a pastor of a church and I still don't understand everything. I have wondered why God asked Jewish people to do such terrible things to people. I also know that you really have to look at the original language and not the just the English versions. Many words have been misinterpreted from Hebrew to English or from Greek to English. I am not saying that "FIXES" all difficult verses though. You also have to read the Bible as a whole and not just verse by verse. Again I know this doesn't explain all the questions. I am not going to argue all the points made. All I can say is research more than those who want to prove things wrong. Even though the I believe the Bible is inspired by God I also believe it was written by fallible people. It was interpreted by fallible people. The main message of the Love of God how he has provide a way for redemption is still there. My faith is Him is not just based on the Bible. It is in the experience I have had with him personally and how much better my life is with him than is was without him. It doesn't make me made to see different opinions, it just makes me think and study more. I just ask you to do the same. Don't think the loudest people who claim to be Christians, are.

sconnor said...

charlesh04

I am a Christian and I have read the entire Bible many times. I have read these difficult scriptures and have had to really study them.
I am an atheist and I have read the entire bible many times. I also have done studies comparing KJV with CEV. I also have committed myself to reading EVERYTHING BY Bart D. Ehrman. Additionally, I have researched the original language for both the old and new testament. Hebrew alone has thousands of words we don't even know the exact translation for (these words are called hapax legomena) and the rest of the text is translations that is up to interpretation.

I am a pastor of a church and I still don't understand everything. I have wondered why God asked Jewish people to do such terrible things to people.

I have wondered that and why there are a myriad of sick, sadistic, atrocities commanded and committed by bible-god that left rivers of blood and mass misery and suffering that makes ALL earthbound genocidal manics combined pale in comparison.

I also know that you really have to look at the original language and not the just the English versions. Many words have been misinterpreted from Hebrew to English or from Greek to English. I am not saying that "FIXES" all difficult verses though. You also have to read the Bible as a whole and not just verse by verse. Again I know this doesn't explain all the questions.

Sure it does. If you were being honest, you would realize that what easily solves the problem and is the simplest explanation is: the bible was painfully written by fallible, superstitious, humans, who used the voice of god as their own to give it authority and credibility. No divine hand needed.

I am not going to argue all the points made. All I can say is research more than those who want to prove things wrong. Even though the I believe the Bible is inspired by God I also believe it was written by fallible people.

Brilliant plan god has there.

It was interpreted by fallible people. The main message of the Love of God how he has provide a way for redemption is still there.

That's preposterous!

God DID NOT take into account that a book (using difficult or vague texts, parables, poems, songs, dream imagery, switching from literal to non-literal) would be entirely impotent to pass along his sooooo important messages and that his messages would be interpreted or misinterpreted or perverted in a myriad of differing ways or discounted altogether.

How come your all-powerful god didn't take into consideration that his message couldn't possibly get to the masses, because of land barriers, water barriers, time barriers, language barriers, cultural barriers, etc? How come he didn't take into consideration that the majority of his earthly children wouldn't be bible believing christrians? More to the point how come your -- ALL-POWERFUL ALL-KNOWING CREATOR OF THE UNIVERSE GOD -- didn't take into consideration that the majority of his earthly children wouldn't be the specific brand of christianity that you or other christian groups profess?

God's plan is not reliable; it's wholly inadequate. Which means supposedly only a tiny minority will spend eternity in the arms of god while the majority of god's earthly children (the non-christian) will be tortured for the rest of eternity in the flames of hell.

The number of supposed lost souls -- throughout history -- because fallible human beings are NOT bible-believing, born-again, wrapped in the holy spirit christians (for ANY reason) is staggering.

Kind of makes you think why he created them in the first place?

God's (supposed) sh*tty plan for salvation is wholly negligent, grossly incompetent and completely impotent. And can only be believed by the most deluded of christians.

My faith is Him is not just based on the Bible. It is in the experience I have had with him personally and how much better my life is with him than is was without him.
You can NOT have a personal relationship with Jesus because he is NOT there personally. You have simply fabricated a massive delusion by idiosyncratically interpreting the words of ignorant, primitive, superstitious, story tellers who recounted possible non-supernatural events or tried to explain phenomenon with superstitious supernatural explanations, always embellishing and adding magic, and folklore -- using the supposed voice of god -- to push their own specific biased agendas, which now resides in the limited and irrational imaginations of christians like yourself who use these antiquated stories by shaping and perverting and interpreting (making it mean whatever you want it to mean) to push your own polluted christian agendas.

Bottom line, no one can assert with objective evidence, Jesus -- the man -- existed; let alone making the claim and prove with objective evidence he was the true, supernatural, resurrected, metaphysical son of god, as opposed to embellished, oral stories, eventually, written over time -- nothing but a piece of fiction, based on a possible, fallible, human, prophet or an amalgamation of several people and several earlier legends and myths.

What's more, personal experience is inadmissible. A person who is having the experience he is Napoleon does not make it true. What about ALL the other religions who express personal experiences as proof of their deity. Does the muslim who claims experiences with the mighty allah make it ANYMORE true? Does the muslim who claims her life is better with allah than without make the existence of allah ANYMORE true?

What you have is a subjective rationalization that has NO reference in reality, outside your willingness to attribute your own particular god-concept with your experiences. You simply settle for the flimsiest of supposed "proofs" (subjective personal experiences and subjective bloated rationalizations) that attest to your belief in a personal god-man -- Jesus

It doesn't make me made to see different opinions, it just makes me think and study more.

Good then chomp on this for a bit. Can you, please address these arguments?

1. If god, so loved his earthly children, then why would he relay his, all so important messages and the Good News, in a book, using difficult or vague texts, parables, poems, songs, dream imagery, switching from literal to non-literal, that could so easily be misinterpreted, perverted or interpreted, so many different ways?

2. If it was so important for God to save his earthly children, from the eternal flames of hell, then why did he put his message into a book that couldn't possibly get to the masses?

3. If the Bible is so important, how come only 30% of the world’s population is Christian, while the other 70% of the world’s population is another, non-biblical, religion or the non-religious? And out of the 30% of Bible-believing, Christians, there are thousands of separate sects and denominations that have varying and vast ideas about the Bible and how one is supposedly saved? (meaning his plan can only save a tiny minority -- hmmmmm?)

4. If your all-loving, god is using the Bible to get his, all important, message across and truly wanted to save us, you would think, an all-knowing, all-powerful god, could do a better job at delivering the crucial laws, commandments and messages to everyone, equally and clearly, but most certainly this is not the case -- why is that?

God's plan is seriously flawed and I would have to conclude the Bible and Christianity is a human construct, susceptible to fallibility and in your case gullibility and delusion, and there, really, is nothing gained from it, except an illusion of authority and the illusion of eternal life.

--S.

charlesh04 said...

It is sad to see that you seem so angry and attacking toward someone who you don't even know. You don't know my 30 years of life or how I have even got to this point in my life. You don't know my parents or how they raised me. You don't know my wife or my family and friends. You haven't seen the strugle or pain or tears that I have experianced in my life. You don't know even of that put yet you try to place me in some easily defined catigory as someone who is ignorant or stupid. I don't know your life either. I understand that it is not easy to believe because of all those things you said. I just know that I have had great freindships with Christians and non-Christians alike. I have worked with and befriended homosexuals. I have lived a very joyful and fulfilling life. I see God at work in my life in ways that couldn't be a fluke. If everything I believe ends up being a lie then I still had a good life. Loving others and treating people with respect. Caring for those in need. I can't explain way God chose to do the thinks that he did anymore that an ant can explain what we do. Anymore than my dog can understand what I do. I just trust Jesus. Who history proves really existed. Go do some research. I just trust that he knows whats best for me. You might think all this is a way of avoiding the difficult questions but I'm not. You seem so sure of yourself that you have things so figured out but you don't. YOU are a human just like me. You seem to be so sure that God doen't exist and his plan is so wrong. What would your plan be? Why would ha make man when he know most would go to hell? Love. He could have made us do what he wanted but he made us with the freedom of choice. To truly love you have to have a choice. I hate parts of the bible. I hate that the bible teaches that there is a hell. I have cryed and cryed about that. I wish it was different. That is one of the reasons I do what I do. If you really believed that people you knew could go to a place like that what would you do? Just don't be so quick to think you can put me in some box you have created just because you know a few Christians.

Baconsbud said...

charlesh04 I think you have misread what he is saying. He isn't attacking you but is making several point he is wanting you to address. I doubt he is attacking you personally but your reasoning.

I have to disagree with you on your dog not understanding you. He might not understand everything but he does understand a lot more then you give him credit for.

Where is this history that proves your Jesus existed? I have done research and all I have ever seen is he could have existed but then again he might not have. The problem is there isn't any real evidence that he existed but lack of evidence from that time period doesn't mean he didn't exist. I doubt you could prove someone did or didn't exist 300 yrs ago if he lived in an isolated area let alone a time when writing was exclusively for the religious and powerful.

If there is a plan why do so many say that evil exist. If your god has a plan then nothing can truly be evil.

You first say your god has a plan but then you say we have freedom of choice. I have never gotten an answer for how if our lives are already planned for us how can we have free choice or will. I know the usual answer is that we choose but god already knows how we will choose. When I hear this I then ask how is that free will. If you can see 2 possible answers to something but your god knows you are going to choice #1, do you really have free will then?

If I had a plan for human kind it would be to rid the world of the need for religion.

sdpsylence said...

Hey. I'm a Christian and I'll take a stab. First, I've been floating around for a while reading some of your posts and I like it. If our (Christians) faith can't stand up to intense scrutiny how strong could it have been in the first place. While some of your commentors seem to be here just for some hilarious Christian bashing you seem to honestly enjoy the discussion so here goes.

You are correct, there's nothing in the bible about gay marriage. The argument isn't really about that though it's a layered objection and really the argument is more a misunderstanding of premise then of an objection to union. To a Christian there's a difference between civil union and spiritual union. The latter is what most Christians mean when they refer to marriage. From a secular perspective there's no difference between getting married by a justice of the peace (civil union) or by a priest (spiritual union) but from a Christian perspective there is. The objection isn't to secular civil unions (i.e. marriage by law) the objection is to "spiritual union" between homosexuals. There's probably a lot of people who claim to be Christians who don't really understand the distinction. Personally, and in accordance to my faith, I couldn't care less if homosexuals want to get married by law. That's man's law so it doesn't really concern me religiously. If, however, homosexuals wanted to be married in a Church, i.e. participate in spiritual union that's a problem but its the same problem as two hetero athiests marrying in church. Spiritual union is a committment to one another "before God" and you simply can't be "joined before God" in an actively sinful relationship. Obviously this launches into an argument about why/if homosexuality is a sin but that's not really the focus of this blog so I'll simply say, according to Christianity, it is. You don't have to believe it just like you don't have to believe in Christianity but if you're a Christian this is one of the beliefs. The point I'm getting at (possibly poorly) is the actual objection gets lost by both sides. It's not an argument over gays and marriage, it's a miscommunication about the objection. By man's laws its perfectly okay to have premarital sex. By God's laws that's a sin. In the same sense by man's laws it can be perfectly legal for gays to marry, but by God's laws it's not okay. If one is gay and wants to get married in accordance with legal civil union laws (again, married by justice of the peace) that's fine if/when/where the law allows it. If, on the other hand one is gay and wants to get married by a priest as a spiritual union that's not okay because then one is subject to God's laws and according to God's laws homosexuality is not okay. Personally I think the whole issue could be diffused if everyone could just come out and say that the Christian definition of marriage and the secular definition of marriage is different but thats applies to hetero unions as well, thus it becomes a non issue. I think maybe a lot of Christians see it as an encroachment on "spiritual union". Maybe there are gay couples who would like to be "spiritually joined" but I would bet most could care less about "spiritual union" and would be fine being married by a J.o.P. As far as that's concerned it has nothing to do with Christianity so again, religiously I could care less. Have at it.

Now to address some of your verses...A lot of what you post as evidence is from the Old Testament so those questions shouldn't be directed at Christians but at Jews. Steve said "Sometimes they are aware of the passages, but shrug off the nasty bits as just the "law of the east" and another guy above said something about saying the "old laws" don't apply to us". Some may say that's a way to avoid the argument but like it or not it's true and biblically supported (see Act 15:5-11 for example). The "Law" was replaced by grace so those who believe that Christ was the son of God aren't bound by the "law". That said the Old Testament is important as a history of what Christianity was built on but for a "gentile" like myself it doesn't matter that I have a tattoo or eat pork or any of that other crazy stuff that applied (applies?) to Jews. I've often wondered myself that for the Jewish community, since they don't believe in Christ, thus the Law was never replaced by the new covenant, why don't they still make sacrifices, stone people etc. Technically they're still bound by the "Law of Moses", so technically if they don't still abide by those laws they're sinning against God. But I digress. Again that's a question for those of the Jewish faith. As far as some of the New Testament verses you've cited. Luke 14:26 and Matthew 19:29 are similar in meaning. The whole idea of faith is that God comes first no matter what. Even wife, mother, father, son, etc come second. If ever you're in the unfortunate position to have to choose between God and anything (yes family included) Christianity dictates that you choose God. There's no room for, I put God first except....If there's an "except" then you don't put God first. Now this may launch a big discussion about "why would God ever ask you to choose between Him and your wife or whatever" and I honestly don't have an answer for that because I've never seen it happen. The point is that nothing must be placed ahead of God no matter what or who it is. The wording may sound harsh but Christianity is a hard line with no room for equivocation not something to be followed when convenient or comfortable. I also know that a lot of people would say I'm trying to "interpret" or whatever and I'm not. If God were to actually appear and say kill your mom, yes I am supposed to do it (not saying I would, like all the others I am NOT a perfect person just because I'm Christian). The literal words in this case are true but an understanding of the nature of God also provides that He would not ask such a thing, so why worry about it. With that in mind while the literal is true (whatever God asks I must do, regardless of what is asked), the "interpretation" i.e. the point of the statement is more relevant. In fact (even though it doesn't apply) there's only one place where God asked a person to kill a family member and that was Abraham, who was stopped from doing so at the last minute. That story illustrates the point I've made. It was not a test of "you must kill someone for me" it was a test of "do you put your son before me" and Abraham did not. Again, I know the natural question might be "why would a loving God "test" people"...well that's off topic so write another blog about that and I'll do my best to respond.

The verses about God not wanting people to have a wife follow this same logic. It's clear in the bible that when you marry you are to be totally committed to your wife and the danger is that she will replace God at the top of your "list". To not marry is better because you don't risk putting her first and God second but if you "must" marry just be aware of that danger and make sure to do everything you can to keep God first. Ideally you wouldn't do anything that puts your relationship with God at risk so yes, ideally you won't get married. God understands that's unrealistic from a human perspective though (heck, he created us to enjoy personal relationships and he built us to really enjoy sex) so its allowed provided you're aware of the risk. This one's sort of a non issue actually. Again though you follow that up with a bunch of old testament stuff that doesn't apply to Christians only to Jews (multiple wives, divorce due to uncleanliness, etc). It's like abstinence over profilactics to avoid pregnancy actually. Abstinence means you're 100% not gonna get some girl pregnant, protection is 99%. Abstinence is not realistic so if you're not going to abstain, wrap your junk. Like it or not, though the protection is 99% that's not as good as 100%. So abstinence is perfectly safe but wrapping your junk'll do, just like living a life alone dedicated to God is best but being married and dedicated to God will do. However small the risk, the risk exists in the latter option in both situations whereas the risk does not exist in the former option.

The argument about beating children is kind of a non issue as well in terms of the focus of your blog. I'll qualify that by saying there's a difference between corporal punishment and abuse and abuse is never okay. That said, in both religious and secular circles the debate about spankings, etc rages on but it's not a purely "Christian" debate so I'm not sure why you're blogging about it. More of a psychology and child development issue then a religious issue, IMO. Yes the bible advocates corporal punishment as a form of discipline but there are plenty of secular sources that do the same. As far as Matthew 15:4 about killing children. Even literally that's not what it says. It says let them "die the death". Not "let you kill them dead". The Christian belief would be that death in the New testament is often not a reference to physical but to spiritual death, i.e. separation from Christ which is what this verse refers to. It's saying if your kids don't want to be Christian let them not be Christian. According to Christian faith that means they will not have "eternal life" thus they will "die the death". Agian though, even taken literally it says let them die, not kill them.

Also, it bears mentioning, no actual Christian "hates" gays. Just like we don't hate adulterers or murderers or cheaters or liars etc. We abhor sin but love and have compassion for the sinner (and acknowledge that we too are sinners so how can we hate someone if we are equally guilty). I understand that there's going to be an eternal debate about whether/why/if homosexuality is a sin but what is not up to debate is hatred of people as opposed to rejection of their actions. By extension if you see someone with a sign that says "God hates gays" or some other crap like that they are, by definition, not Christian no matter what they say, whether they go to church, whether they read the bible, etc. We are not allowed to hate anyone and we are not allowed to use the bible or our faith to judge others. Both are a mirror by which we are to judge ourselves but are never to be used as a weapon to beat people with because we've deemed them "sinners". Our personal relationship with Christ is our only concern. Others lives, decisions and beliefs are between them and God and none of our business. <- Any Christian who wants to argue that feel free and I'm happy to point out scripture that supports my statement and condemns the use of scripture to judge others or make assessments of others righteousness or villainy.

sdpsylence said...

Seems like a lot of your arguments are based on a faulty understanding of the nature of God/Christ. He's not a warm, fuzzy, tree hugging hippie that just wants peace and love so let's strike that misconception right there because you're right, if that's your starting point of "the nature of God", your gonna find a lot of things that are upsetting in the Bible. Jesus himself said in Matthew 10:34 "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword." (feel free to have field day with this one ;o) I should also state for the record, I'm not here to convert anyone because that's not my job. No where in the Bible does it say "go convert people". It says "spread the news" i.e. my only job is to talk openly about what I believe. Whether people accept it or not, believe it or not, is not my concern. So just so we're clear, I'm not here to prove myself right and you wrong. No one here is likely to change anyone's mind. The discussion is the point. So without further ado:

1. If god, so loved his earthly children, then why would he relay his, all so important messages and the Good News, in a book, using difficult or vague texts, parables, poems, songs, dream imagery, switching from literal to non-literal, that could so easily be misinterpreted, perverted or interpreted, so many different ways?

A: Contrary to popular belief in both Christian and secular circles God's salvation is not "revealed" to everyone (though everyone does the ability to "find" it). The whole point of the vagueness of parables, stories, lessons etc is so people can't casually come to Christ. Only those who actively seek Him/His salvation and have a legitimate desire to share a relationship with Him will know Him. Think of it as a "code" that only becomes translate-able through a growing relationship and dedication to Christ. It may seem mean or "un-loving" to you and you're welcome to that opinion but its a way of weeding out the "luke-warm" from the truly "hot". In short, you may not like the answer but the vagueness is on purpose.

2. If it was so important for God to save his earthly children, from the eternal flames of hell, then why did he put his message into a book that couldn't possibly get to the masses?

A: I'm not sure why you think that. Sure it's taken a long time but you can get a bible pretty much everywhere and in every language. Sure the pygmies deep in the congo probably don't have access but c'mon, we're in the internet age. It really is only a matter of time even if it does take another 1000 years. Can you clarify why you think the book "couldn't possibly get to the masses"?

3. If the Bible is so important, how come only 30% of the world’s population is Christian, while the other 70% of the world’s population is another, non-biblical, religion or the non-religious? And out of the 30% of Bible-believing, Christians, there are thousands of separate sects and denominations that have varying and vast ideas about the Bible and how one is supposedly saved? (meaning his plan can only save a tiny minority -- hmmmmm?)

A: Good point on sects/denominations. All that really is a bastardization of the original intent. Biblically the word "church" is defined as a small gathering of like minded individuals meeting privately to discuss and celebrate their belief in Christ as savior. The difference between sects/denominations is one of dogma, usually dogma that is wholly unsupported by scripture. In this sense the "business" of church has strayed from its original intent and is realistically not supported from a purely scriptural point of view. I personally don't attend a church for this reason, but I do meet with others who believe in God's word, in small private settings. Usually over beer. As far as your numbers, Christianity never claims to be popular and the bible explicitly tells us on several occasions that "true believers" will be the minority. It's not that it was designed to only appeal to few, it's that by its design and because of its requirements only a few will truly adhere to it in good faith. I think it was GK Chesterton (I could be wrong) who said "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting, it's been found difficult so not tried". I suppose the best argument I could make would be to pose an opposite question to you. If Christianity is so logically flawed and atheism so intellectually superior why are there far more individuals in America that identify themselves as Christian then there are that identify themselves as athiest/non-religious. Just saying, even from your point of view, right and popular - good and majority - etc ad infinitum are not always congruent. As for your parenthetical comment you're putting effect before cause. It's not that the plan "can" save only a minority. The plan "can" save every single person that ever lived or ever will live. The result though is that most people won't go for it so in reality it's not that it can't save everyone, it's that it doesn't. Sorry if you don't like that but them's the breaks as they say.

4. If your all-loving, god is using the Bible to get his, all important, message across and truly wanted to save us, you would think, an all-knowing, all-powerful god, could do a better job at delivering the crucial laws, commandments and messages to everyone, equally and clearly, but most certainly this is not the case -- why is that?

A: see answer to question one. God never claims to make it easy. He had the ability to just send a step by step guide but He didn't. Honestly I can't speak on behalf of God because I don't have the ability to but whatever the reason this is how he decided to do it. Agian, as previously stated, the bible is purposefully vague and again, a lot of people may not like that but I'd venture to guess their concept of God/Christ is not quite accurate. The disconnect is that one can't reconcile what they think is the nature of God and what they see in the bible. If the bible paints a different picture of God then people/Christians/priests/whatever paint for you, I'd defer to the Bible for the truth of God's nature. And again I'll restate, God is not the always peaceful, always wants to hug you, only wants to see you smile no matter what God that some people like to make Him out to be to make Christianity seem nice or easy or soft or whatever.

So with that - flame on, flame on-ers. :o)

sdpsylence said...

Baconsbud,

Where is this history that proves your Jesus existed?

Check this out: http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/science/10/21/jesus.box/index.html Not what I'd call concrete proof but compelling and, outside of the religious context, archeologically interesting.

sconnor said...

charlesh04

It is sad to see that you seem so angry and attacking toward someone who you don't even know.

You are confusing my bluntness and cutting through the bullsh*t (as it were) for anger. I can assure you I am perfectly content.

Now can you argue the points I made?

You don't know my 30 years of life or how I have even got to this point in my life. You don't know my parents or how they raised me. You don't know my wife or my family and friends. You haven't seen the strugle or pain or tears that I have experianced in my life. You don't know even of that put yet you try to place me in some easily defined catigory as someone who is ignorant or stupid.

And ALL that is irrelevant. I'm defying you to substantiate your claims. Now can you address my points?

I don't know your life either. I understand that it is not easy to believe because of all those things you said. I just know that I have had great freindships with Christians and non-Christians alike.

Again irrelevant. I have friends and family christian and non-christian alike. Please address my points.

I have worked with and befriended homosexuals. I have lived a very joyful and fulfilling life.

Yawn..........irrelevant. Your character and how joyful your life is irrelevant to the subject at hand.

I see God at work in my life in ways that couldn't be a fluke.

Care to share those ways? I'm sure I could come up with plenty of logical explanations. Furthermore other religions see a deity working in their lives as well. A voodoo doctor will attest that his juju and his god Eshu, in the sky, helped heal a sick native.

If everything I believe ends up being a lie then I still had a good life.

Irrelevant. Christians and non-christians have good and bad lives. Can you specifically address my points?

Loving others and treating people with respect. Caring for those in need.

Why the bio-epic? Yeah I concede you're a sweetheart of a guy -- also irrelevant to the discussion.

I can't explain way God chose to do the thinks that he did anymore that an ant can explain what we do. Anymore than my dog can understand what I do.

I just trust Jesus.


Right on faith. "Faith" is believing in something that has no objective evidence.
Muslims trust allah therefore allha exists!

Who history proves really existed. Go do some research.

Have already. Three years of research. Like I said there very well could have been a prophet named Jesus or an amalgamation of other people, legends and myths.

but history by its very definition would NOT claim magic, resurrections, talking snakes, scapegoats that magically erases sin, jewish zombies flying off into the sky etc. were credible. Furthermore, the supposed historical evidence for the existence of your god-man could be handily refuted here. I await your supposed definitive objective evidence -- waiting.............

I just trust that he knows whats best for me.

Faith again? Faith is a brain malfunction, where you abandon ALL critical thinking skills and the voice of reason, where you willingly, choose to ignore and bury logic, steeping yourself in ignorance, so you can believe, in the unbelievable. Sorry if I find your claim that you know Jesus knows what's best for you extremely unconvincing.

You might think all this is a way of avoiding the difficult questions but I'm not.

Yes; yes it is. You did NOT address my points. You conveniently ignored my arguments, which speaks volumes.

You seem so sure of yourself that you have things so figured out but you don't.

No I'll be the first to tell you I haven't got it all figured out.
I don't know if there is a god nor do you. You don't have ANY other special information that I don't already have.

YOU are a human just like me. You seem to be so sure that God doen't exist...

As an atheist I do NOT make a declaration that there is NO god. There very well could be a god but as of now I have NOT been presented ANY objective evidence for the existence of a deity, let alone an invisible omniscient entity that disguises himself as the metaphysical son of himself who tromped around a dessert some 2,000 years ago and magically erased sin, which if you telepathically let him know you believe in him he will give you your one way ticket to paradise. You sir are the one proposing ALL these extraordinary claims. You sir are obligated to substantiate these claims. Otherwise you are the equivalent of an insane man who declares himself to be Napoleon -- you both can't substantiate your extraordinary claims

"Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" -- Carl Sagan

"What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." -- Christopher Hitchens

...and his plan is so wrong.

Yep; that's the gist of my arguments which you refused to address. Care to take a stab?

What would your plan be?

Irrelevant. But if I created a world I wouldn't include unimaginable, vile suffering.
Misery like children being born with egregious birth defects who will never laugh or cry, never to love or feel love, while wallowing in their own waste, suffering for years, in a hospital or institution before they die. This is only one example of the hideous suffering that inflicts mankind. (check out Bart D, Ehrman's God's Problem How The Bible Fails To Answer Our Most Important Question -- Why We Suffer).

Why would ha make man when he know most would go to hell? Love.

I cringed when I read this. The cognitive dissonance relayed in this one sentence alone is astonishing. Absolutely boggling.

"...a God who could make good children as easily a bad, yet preferred to make bad ones; who could have made every one of them happy, yet never made a single happy one; who made them prize their bitter life, yet stingily cut it short; who gave his angels eternal happiness unearned, yet required his other children to earn it; who gave is angels painless lives, yet cursed his other children with biting miseries and maladies of mind and body; who mouths justice, and invented hell--mouths mercy, and invented hell--mouths Golden Rules and forgiveness multiplied by seventy times seven, and invented hell; who mouths morals to other people, and has none himself; who frowns upon crimes, yet commits them all; who created man without invitation, then tries to shuffle the responsibility for man's acts upon man, instead of honorably placing it where it belongs, upon himself; and finally, with altogether divine obtuseness, invites his poor abused slave to worship him!" -- Mark Twain
He could have made us do what he wanted but he made us with the freedom of choice. To truly love you have to have a choice.
There is no free will or choice, in the matter, when your God holds a gun to your head and says believe in me or I'll torture you, in the flames, of hell for an eternity -- that's not a choice, that's an ultimatum, from a sick, sadistic monster.

Your supposed, God is insanely insecure and morbidly petty, to send his earthly children to the flames of hell, simply, because they did not believe, know him, or because they concluded there was no objective evidence for his existence. I have to ponder, what's more pathetically horrendous, a God who will torture you, just, because you don't believe, in him/know him or the ignorant Christian who believes and condones God's actions?

I hate parts of the bible. I hate that the bible teaches that there is a hell.

So you've said.

I wish it was different. That is one of the reasons I do what I do. If you really believed that people you knew could go to a place like that what would you do?

And this gets to the crux of the problem. You have NO credence in this assertion. You don't know for a fact that this is a reality -- you simply believe. How can I rely on some fallible pastor who admits the bible is difficult to interpret. And to add insult to injury you also admit, "I can't explain way God chose to do the thinks that he did anymore that an ant can explain what we do. Anymore than my dog can understand what I do." Why would I rely on your interpretation of the spurious bible and the specific criteria for salvation, as the one and only correct truth, when you admit to being morbidly ignorant to god's ways
?

I'll tell you what, if Jesus exists, then Jesus knows, exactly, where to find me -- he can tell me, exactly, and concisely, everything he needs me to know, himself -- this way, I can be absolutely certain, what Jesus wants from me, and I don't have to rely on some fallible, deluded christian, that makes extraordinary, interpretive claims, he can't substantiate -- M-kay? This is also another answer to your question -- "What would your plan be?"


Just don't be so quick to think you can put me in some box you have created just because you know a few Christians.
Oh you're in the box. This is what years of debating christians, researching christians, interviewing christians has revealed. Now instead of resorting to diverging tactics where you argue inane topics about your character and the erroneous impression of my supposed anger can you address my arguments?

You might want to stick around someone above was trying to address my arguemnts.

May reason find you.

--S.

Baconsbud said...

Yes sdpsylence it is archeologically interesting but I doubt it is anything worth using as proof of Jesus as the shroud of Tulin( spelling might be off on this). I read this article when it came out and found it a vague as most things that claim proof of Jesus or god.

sconnor said...

Baconsbud

Yes sdpsylence it is archeologically interesting but I doubt it is anything worth using as proof of Jesus as the shroud of Tulin( spelling might be off on this). I read this article when it came out and found it a vague as most things that claim proof of Jesus or god.According to sdpsylence logic god purposefully made evidence for him vague and difficult. ROTFLMAO!

Bottom line, if there was objective evidence for the god-man jesus a theist would not need faith.

--S.

BTW -- it's Shroud of "Turin".

charlesh04 said...

sconnor

Go read "The Case for Christ" and "The Case for Faith" by Lee Strobel. Then Look up the videos of the people he interviews in those books. If you are really serious about it you will read these if you already have not. There are people who spend their lives to answer all you questions. It will take me a little longer than a few minutes it takes to type a responce to truly think about and answer your questions. They are at some level, not possible for me to answer anyway because you think faith is not relavant. I totally disagree. The Bible tells me that "without faith it is impossible to please God". Weather or not you agree with that is note my concern. You will have to take that up with God. I also pray and have prayed that Jesus will show up and talk to you. You also said that other religions have faith and experiance things that lead them to serve the god they serve. There are other spiritual forces at work in this world that are not God. You also through out the Bible, faith, or experiance as reasons for me to believe what I believe. How can you believe in anything with that kind of logic. You could very easily say that we don't even exist and everything we think is real isn't. Everything is just in our mind. We see what we want to see. There is no after life we just stop existing. If this is true then what is the point? Why even be on this message board wasting the little bit of time you have left when you could be having fun and living a great life with no eteral Consequences. You have somethings in you life that require faith. If you have never been to another country how do you know it exists? You base you belief on what people "you trust" tell you and video footage that could be fake. I have never left the United States and haven't even been to all 50 states. There are so many other examples like this. Faith is needed when it comes to my beliefs as well. You can have faith in the wrong thing. So I could be wrong in what I base my faith on. If I am then I haven't really lost anything. I don't have to live my entire life trying to prove or not prove there is a God. We all will find out sooner or later. As far as the really subject on marriage the person a few comments back had made most points for me. A family with a mother and a father that love each other have high success rate for raising children. When they get a devorse or don't love each other it gets worse. A single parent has a very difficult job as well. I personally think that a gay couple would be better for a child that many other situations. I would not want to see gays get marriage in a church but other than that they can do what ever they want. It's not like non-gay marriages have a great track record of success. 50%. At lot of people get marriage that shouldn't why stop gay people. Just to be clear I think Homosexuality is a sin. It is not anyworse than any other sin though. Gossip is just as bad. The reason I think being gay is a sin is for another discustion so don't ask me to prove it.

charlesh04 said...

Here a couple of questions. It Jesus didn't exists why would people give their lives for somthing that they knew was a lie? What would they have gained from it? They believe to the point of death. Even early Christian who would have recieved first hand information from those who claimed to walk with Christ. Why would they believe in somthing to the point of death. If they didn't have some very reliable information that would lead them to believe that he was a real person. I am not saying that history proves that Jesus was the son of God, it just proves that he existed. There is as much proof that he existed as many hisorical figures. We don't have the body but, that will never be found.
Second question. If the Old and New testament was just made up why include so many terrible things about the God the you call loving? Why include terrible thing your greatest leaders did? Just read about king David. Why include the difficult to understand things at all?

sconnor said...

sdpsylence,

My apologies if some of my arguments are repeated from earlier posts -- they are salient and germane.

Seems like a lot of your arguments are based on a faulty understanding of the nature of God/Christ.

Oh goody another christian who has the one and only truth. Tell me, sdpsylence, why should I value your interpretation of scripture over other christians interpretations -- why should yours have any validity?

BTW my arguments have NOTHING to do with a faulty understanding of god/christ. Your argument is a strawman.

My argument is dealing with the ineffectual use of a book to convey god's supposed message of salvation. So you have already lost the argument in this case.

But I will still entertain your misguided thoughts.

He's not a warm, fuzzy, tree hugging hippie that just wants peace and love so let's strike that misconception right there because you're right, if that's your starting point of "the nature of God", your gonna find a lot of things that are upsetting in the Bible.Irrelevant.

Never asserted god was a warm fuzzy, tree hugging hippie, etc.

Your god-construct is composed of scripture. You have created a concept of god with your own idiosyncratic interpretation of the bible. Now first please provide objective evidence that the bible is indeed the word of god as opposed to a spurious, collection of separate, unrelated, ancient stories, written by differing men, using the -- supposed, voice of god -- lending it a bogus sense of credibility, that came together, slowly, over time, that dealt with how a primitive, superstitious, people understood, what god meant to them, during their own specific, time period and their own specific culture.

When reading the bible, people are free to rationalize and interpret it (making it mean whatever you want it to mean), which gets us the perverted ideas, beliefs and agendas of so many different christian groups. Your god is nothing but a human construct -- a figment of your imagination, a definition, based on your myopic, interpretation of the bible and flights of fancy.

When christianity has one unified, unequivocal message, that all christians agree on and you can substantiate what you say, then you come on back and let me know -- you should probably be back in around -- never.

Jesus himself said in Matthew 10:34 "Do not think that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I have not come to bring peace, but a sword." (feel free to have field day with this one ;o)

My pleasure.

Luke 2:14 Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men.

John 14:27 Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you.

John 16:33 These things I have spoken unto you, that in me ye might have peace.

Acts 10:36 The word which God sent unto the children of Israel, preaching peace by Jesus Christ.

Jesus is confused.

I should also state for the record, I'm not here to convert anyone because that's not my job. No where in the Bible does it say "go convert people".
God says otherwise: he might not say the word "convert" but he makes it clear -- convert or be pummeled to death with rocks.

Dt.13:6-10 "If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers; Namely, of the gods of the people which are round about you ... Thou shalt not consent unto him, nor hearken unto him; neither shall thine eye pity him, neither shalt thou spare, neither shalt thou conceal him: But thou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people. And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die." -- Dt.13:6-10

2 Chronicles 15:13 Whosoever would not seek (convert) the LORD God of Israel should be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (emphisis added)

It says "spread the news" i.e. my only job is to talk openly about what I believe. Whether people accept it or not, believe it or not, is not my concern.

This seems disingenuous. So why talk about it? If you are not making an argument for salvation then what exactly are you doing? Don't you believe with ALL your heart that if someone does not accept christ they will not enter heaven? What other outcome can there be? Either someone believes you and converts or they don't. You are divulging information for a reason -- the only reason jesus would want you to divulge the good news would be for someone to accept the proposition -- to be converted, correct?

And besides I'm sure you are familiar with the great commission. It too doesn't use the word "convert" but it is clear Jesus wants all the nations to come to god (be converted)

Mathew 28:19-20 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost: (20) Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you always, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

Mark 16:15-16 Then he told them: Go and preach the good news to everyone in the world. Anyone who believes me and is baptized will be saved. But anyone who refuses to believe me will be condemned.

Luke 24:46-47 He told them: The Scriptures say that the Messiah must suffer, then three days later he will rise from death. They also say that all people of every nation must be told in my name to turn to God.

Tell me, sdpsylence, when Jesus says, "to be baptized" and "to turn to god" so that one can be saved can you think of a word that could be used in its stead?

How about convert? Notice Jesus wants ALL the Nations to know. If it wasn't for christians like you how could ANYONE be saved?

So just so we're clear, I'm not here to prove myself right and you wrong. No one here is likely to change anyone's mind. The discussion is the point. So without further ado:

1. If god, so loved his earthly children, then why would he relay his, all so important messages and the Good News, in a book, using difficult or vague texts, parables, poems, songs, dream imagery, switching from literal to non-literal, that could so easily be misinterpreted, perverted or interpreted, so many different ways?

A: Contrary to popular belief in both Christian and secular circles God's salvation is not "revealed" to everyone (though everyone does the ability to "find" it).

How can you make that statement -- it has NO reference in reality. Furthermore are you not contradicting yourself? How can one find "it" if "it" is not revealed to them in some way? And that's the point -- throughout history -- land barriers, water barriers, time barriers, language barriers, cultural barriers, etc segregated the worlds population from gods message of salvation.

The amount of people -- throughout history -- who have NEVER heard the message of salvation is staggering. And this doesn't even take into count the ones who don't share your particular interpretation and set of criteria for salvation.

The whole point of the vagueness of parables, stories, lessons etc is so people can't casually come to Christ. Only those who actively seek Him/His salvation and have a legitimate desire to share a relationship with Him will know Him.Brilliant plan! (massive sarcasm)

Again, for great spans of time, people could not even read those parables, stories, lessons etc. And when people started to read them they couldn't agree on one unanimous, unambiguous interpretation. see the dilemma?

Think of it as a "code" that only becomes translate-able through a growing relationship and dedication to Christ. It may seem mean or "un-loving" to you and you're welcome to that opinion but its a way of weeding out the "luke-warm" from the truly "hot". In short, you may not like the answer but the vagueness is on purpose.
OK -- so god delivers a book of his commandments and his special message of salvation but he has it written in such a way that ONLY the true christian believers can decipher it? Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, hahahahahahahahaha.

Can you see how you bolster my arguments? Now you have made the tiny minority who are supposedly saved even smaller. Because now you limit the "saved" to another set of criteria where you must be deeply devoted to a relationship to christ and if you are not you will not understand his message and you'll be weeded out, thereby NOT saved; thereby tortured for an eternity in the flames of hell.

Greeeeeat plan! (more sarcasm)

Congratulations, the majority of god's earthly children will be tortured for an eternity because they didn't believe in him the way you say they should believe in him. You have relegated your god to a torturer of souls.

Is your god so petty and so insecure that he will torture his earthly children in the flames of hell for an eternity simply because they didn't believe the way you do?

First besides pulling the "vagueness is on purpose argument" out of thin air, how exactly did you acquire this information. Second please substantiate how you were bestowed this information.

2. If it was so important for God to save his earthly children, from the eternal flames of hell, then why did he put his message into a book that couldn't possibly get to the masses?

A: I'm not sure why you think that. Sure it's taken a long time but you can get a bible pretty much everywhere and in every language.

Yeah -- NOW. What about All of god's children, throughout history? You need to put it into a historical contexts. You are ONLY thinking of the 20th and 21st centuries.

Sure the pygmies deep in the congo probably don't have access but c'mon, we're in the internet age. It really is only a matter of time even if it does take another 1000 years. Can you clarify why you think the book "couldn't possibly get to the masses"?You already answered the question: "Sure it's taken a long time." Right -- so ALL of gods earthly children who couldn't get god's message because of how long it took to get the bible (god's message) to the masses are doomed to be tortured in the flames of hell for an eternity.

Considering printing technology, lack of mass production (land barriers, water barriers, time barriers, language barriers, cultural barriers, etc) -- throughout history -- the first nineteen centuries, God's plan for getting his all important message across was lamely, conceived and ineptly, implemented. Again, billions and billions of souls were never given your reputed and unique interpretation of scripture, thereby casting them into the torturous, fires, of hell, for all of eternity. And now that it is more accessible, through the advances of technology, it can still be misinterpreted, perverted or interpreted a thousand different ways. Hardly an effectual plan of an all-knowing, all-powerful Deity.

3. If the Bible is so important, how come only 30% of the world’s population is Christian, while the other 70% of the world’s population is another, non-biblical, religion or the non-religious? And out of the 30% of Bible-believing, Christians, there are thousands of separate sects and denominations that have varying and vast ideas about the Bible and how one is supposedly saved? (meaning his plan can only save a tiny minority -- hmmmmm?)

A: Good point on sects/denominations.

Yep.

All that really is a bastardization of the original intent. Biblically the word "church" is defined as a small gathering of like minded individuals meeting privately to discuss and celebrate their belief in Christ as savior. The difference between sects/denominations is one of dogma, usually dogma that is wholly unsupported by scripture. In this sense the "business" of church has strayed from its original intent and is realistically not supported from a purely scriptural point of view. I personally don't attend a church for this reason, but I do meet with others who believe in God's word, in small private settings. Usually over beer.

Once again thank you for bolstering my premise. Didn't god (you know being omniscient and all) consider that his earthly children were fallible and they would splinter into 34,000 separate groups? All with different understandings; ALL with differing interpretations -- bastardizing his message? Didn't -- THE CREATOR OF THE WHOLE UNIVERSE -- take into account a fair share of his earthly children would stray from scripture? This is my MAIN argument: the bible is morbidly ineffectual at getting his message to everyone -- unanimously and unequivocally. Again thank you for strengthening my arguments.

As far as your numbers, Christianity never claims to be popular and the bible explicitly tells us on several occasions that "true believers" will be the minority. It's not that it was designed to only appeal to few, it's that by its design and because of its requirements only a few will truly adhere to it in good faith. I think it was GK Chesterton (I could be wrong) who said "Christianity has not been tried and found wanting, it's been found difficult so not tried".

Wow -- you do realize you are making my basic premise an impenetrable fortress?

I suppose the best argument I could make would be to pose an opposite question to you. If Christianity is so logically flawed and atheism so intellectually superior why are there far more individuals in America that identify themselves as Christian then there are that identify themselves as athiest/non-religious. Just saying, even from your point of view, right and popular - good and majority - etc ad infinitum are not always congruent.

You misrepresent my argument. You have resorted to argumentum ad populum (an appeal to the majority) -- I have NOT. This is a logical fallacy where you propose it is true because the majority believe it. At one time the majority believed demons were responsible for disease, seizures, mental deficiencies -- it didn't make it true. At one time the majority believed we were the center of the universe -- it didn't make it true.

My argument does NOT claim that just because the majority of the world is another non-biblical religion that means it must be true.

My main argument is: why didn't god consider that the majority of his earthly children --throughout time -- would be the non-bible believing, non-christians -- thereby supporting my argument: putting god's important message of salvation into a book is morbidly negligent.

As for your parenthetical comment you're putting effect before cause. It's not that the plan "can" save only a minority. The plan "can" save every single person that ever lived or ever will live.

Putting semantics aside -- my premise argues that the plan can NOT save every single person that lived or ever lived. Your statement DOES NOT correspond with reality. The FACTS are, people -- at NO fault of their own -- could not receive god's so important message of salvation because of REAL LIFE BARRIERS -- throughout time, land barriers, water barriers, time barriers, language barriers, cultural barriers, technological barriers etc. segregated god's massage of salvation from the masses.

Can you grasp this? Can you argue, specifically against this?

The result though is that most people won't go for it so in reality it's not that it can't save everyone, it's that it doesn't. Sorry if you don't like that but them's the breaks as they say.No, the reality is due to real life barriers (land barriers, water barriers, time barriers, language barriers, cultural barriers, technological barriers etc.) throughout time god's message of salvation could not get to the masses. God's plan is morbidly negligent. If he truly loved the world he would have instituted a viable plan, that could save EVERYONE.

Can you argue against that?

4. If your all-loving, god is using the Bible to get his, all important, message across and truly wanted to save us, you would think, an all-knowing, all-powerful god, could do a better job at delivering the crucial laws, commandments and messages to everyone, equally and clearly, but most certainly this is not the case -- why is that?

A: see answer to question one. God never claims to make it easy. He had the ability to just send a step by step guide but He didn't. Honestly I can't speak on behalf of God because I don't have the ability to but whatever the reason this is how he decided to do it.

What, are you nuts? -- you have been speaking on behalf of your god, the entire time. You use your interpretation of scripture to tell us what god really means is.....................

God never claims to make it easy.Again thank you for supporting my argument.

Agian, as previously stated, the bible is purposefully vague and again, a lot of people may not like that but I'd venture to guess their concept of God/Christ is not quite accurate.

Yes but the infallible all-knowing sdpsylence KNOWS he has the one true correct interpretation. Funny how that works, because ALL christian denominations will say the other denomination does NOT have an accurate concept of god/christ, too.

The disconnect is that one can't reconcile what they think is the nature of God and what they see in the bible. If the bible paints a different picture of God then people/Christians/priests/whatever paint for you,

My argument NEVER was about the misconceptions of god's character. My argument is the bible is a wholly inadequate and negligent to bring the message of salvation to everyone equally and unequivocally

I'd defer to the Bible for the truth of God's nature.

Yawn.........strawman.

You mean the bible where ANYONE can interpret it the way the want to (making it mean what ever they want it to mean) You mean the bible where you claim to have interpreted it the correct way? -- sdpsylence has the one and only correct interpretation of scripture! Additionally the character of god does NOTHING to refute my premise that the bible is completely negligent and ineffectual of saving everyone -- comprende?

Unless, of course, you readily admit your god (the one who loves the whole world) is a monster -- a sadistic torturer of souls.

This isn't a deity worth worshiping -- it is a vile repulsive deity only worthy of contempt, something to be despised and condemned.

I'll tell you what, if god exists, then god knows, exactly, where to find me -- he can tell me, exactly, and concisely, everything he needs me to know, himself -- this way, I can be absolutely certain, what Jesus/god wants from me, and I don't have to rely on some fallible, deluded christian, that makes extraordinary, interpretive claims, he can't substantiate -- M-kay?

And again I'll restate, God is not the always peaceful, always wants to hug you, only wants to see you smile no matter what God that some people like to make Him out to be to make Christianity seem nice or easy or soft or whatever.Except god said, "God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life" (John 3:16 NIV).

My premise: the bible is an inferior way of getting god's most important message of salvation to his earthly children which results in the majority of his earthly children to be tortured in the flames of hell for all of eternity. God supposedly loved us sooooooo much that he had a plan of salvation but according to your skewed logic he made it a vague puzzle, morbidly ineffectual, so only a select few could obtain it -- If that's love I wonder what hate would be?

Your premise: god is not what people think; he is not warm and fuzzy. Which is a strawman. You NEVER argued to the specifics of my arguments and you also strengthened my position by not only concurring the bible is inferior to get god's message across but also admitting god goes out of his way to make it difficult to obtain salvation -- thanks for that.

God being omniscient already knew the majority of his earthly children would be destined to be tortured for all of eternity in the flames of hell.

Why create them in the first place? The only answer I can come up with is god is a sadistic torturer of souls. What other reason could there be?

Or bible-god is nothing but a specious human construct.

When reflecting on your "character of god argument", the genocide, infanticide and all the atrocities -- in the bible -- commanded or perpetrated by your god, that caused the inexcusable, repulsive suffering of innocent children and babies and their ensuing deaths, demonstrates, the god of the bible, to be nothing more than a made up entity, painfully, constructed by fallible humans. This coupled with the christian doctrine of everlasting torture for those who don't believe in him, confirms god is nothing more than a human construct plucked from the minds of a primitive superstitious people, which now resides, solely, in the ignorant, limited, imagination of delusional christians. He is a mirror into human behavior, at its worst. Your god, possesses all the contemptible flaws of humanity, an apathetic monster, who makes all genocidal maniacs, combined, throughout history, pale in comparison -- a being who should be far above and immune to such abhorrent attributes, and should encompass the best of what humanity has to offer, on a level, at least, equaling the magnitude of the universe but sadly, in the end, your supposed god is a contemptible concept, built from human weakness, that is far, far, below us.

~The Christian’s Delusion Of Salvation~God -- who so loved the WORLD -- initiated a plan, of salvation, by sending his son, to be tortured, crucified and sacrificed, to save humanity. Sinful, fallible humanity -- who couldn't possibly save themselves -- in the end, must accept and believe in Jesus, so they can be saved and yet, the other 70% of the world -- at this moment in time not counting throughout history -- are other religions, the non-religious, or unbelievers, who are not bible-believing Christians. Didn't God consider his other earthly children, when he put his feeble, plan into action? Looks like Jesus' torturous, sacrifice was futile. God's inept, plan is incapable of saving everyone and hinges on the very ones who couldn't save themselves, in the first place. God’s plan for salvation is tragically flawed, wholly inadequate and morbidly negligent. The number of lost souls, throughout history, is monumentally, mind-blowing. Christianity is nothing but an illusion, which gorges itself, on gullibility and ignorance.

--S.

sconnor said...

charlesh04

Go read "The Case for Christ" and "The Case for Faith" by Lee Strobel. Then Look up the videos of the people he interviews in those books. If you are really serious about it you will read these if you already have not. There are people who spend their lives to answer all you questions.

Are you kidding me? What don't you get? I was once a christian but when I started to ask the tough questions I went to the books of Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell and their ilk. I found them to be highly unsatisfying, sophomoric and unconvincing.

It will take me a little longer than a few minutes it takes to type a responce to truly think about and answer your questions.

excuses, excuses, excuses.

They are at some level, not possible for me to answer anyway because you think faith is not relevant.

That's right because faith can be attributed to other deities like allah, which renders ANY of your arguments obsolete.

The Bible tells me that "without faith it is impossible to please God". Weather or not you agree with that is note my concern.

The bible doesn't tell you anything you must interpret it which is exactly what gets us all the perversions and misinterpretations.

You will have to take that up with God.

Would love to! Again if god exists, then god knows, exactly, where to find me -- he can tell me, exactly, and concisely, everything he needs me to know, himself -- this way, I can be absolutely certain, what god wants from me, and I don't have to rely on some fallible, deluded christian, that makes extraordinary, interpretive claims, he can't substantiate -- M-kay?

I also pray and have prayed that Jesus will show up and talk to you.

Arrogant aren't you? Like god/jesus needs someone to be a conduit. Jesus should know what predicament you have painted for me -- he doesn't need the likes of you telepathically letting him know what's going on.

You also said that other religions have faith and experiance things that lead them to serve the god they serve. There are other spiritual forces at work in this world that are not God.

More unsubstantiated claims. Please provide objective evidence for these spiritual forces at work.

My premise is: you attribute experiences to god and other religions attribute experiences to their deity. Both can NOT be substantiated with objective evidence.

You also through out the Bible, faith, or experiance as reasons for me to believe what I believe. How can you believe in anything with that kind of logic.

This is incoherent could you please try and make sense?

You could very easily say that we don't even exist and everything we think is real isn't. Everything is just in our mind. We see what we want to see. There is no after life we just stop existing. If this is true then what is the point?

Not making those arguments. This is a strawman because you can not substantiate your extraordinary claims. You must over-rationalize and diverge because you can NOT substantiate ANYTHING you say.

Why even be on this message board wasting the little bit of time you have left when you could be having fun and living a great life with no eteral Consequences.

Because I don't think I am wasting my time. I know you like to wallow in a bogus sense of authority but who the @#$% are you to tell me what I think is important or not? Just more diverging tactics.

You have somethings in you life that require faith. If you have never been to another country how do you know it exists?

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, hahahahahahahahahahahaha,

Lame apologetics 101. Again you must resort to a strawman because you can not substantiate your extraordinary claims. Your "country argument" is fallacious because it can also be presented as an argument for any deity existing -- you fail.

Furthermore we have REAL OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE for these countries existing (even if I have never been there). We have real-life maps and globes. We have real-life people who come from these countries. We have real-life documents such as photos and videos.

Point is the potential of you and I hopping into a plane to visit these countries are a high probable statistic.

What's the probability of you and I going to where your invisible omnipresent deity resides?

What's the potential of acquiring video footage of your invisible omni-present deity?

You base you belief on what people "you trust" tell you and video footage that could be fake. I have never left the United States and haven't even been to all 50 states. There are so many other examples like this.

Right -- the video very well could be faked -- this is a perfect example why FAITH is unreliable.

As far as TRUST is concerned this is different than FAITH. Trust is built up from reliable objective information presented over time that can be easily verified. Trust is confidence based on reliance. Discovery Channel and the History Channel must give us accurate information (about countries etc.) to the best of their ability otherwise they would lose their credibility.

FAITH (believing in something that has no evidence) is wholly unreliable.
Religion reinforces this inferior method of acquiring and processing information and claims it to be a virtue.

Using reason with advanced critical thinking skills is the only reliable way of obtaining and processing information. If the Discovery Channel informed you they found proof for an invisible Land of OZ, that you could go to through a trunk of the tree, would you use FAITH to believe in this information -- NO Faith is unreliable; you would be skeptical and you would have to reason this could NOT be TRUE.

Would you use faith by giving money to a guy on the street and after he took the money said wait right here and I'll get the merchandise for you right away?

NO of course NOT. That's because using FAITH (believing in something that has no evidence) is wholly unreliable.

I could care less if other places were verified. I want you to please provide objective evidence for the existence of your invisible omni-present god. But as of now you can only diverge by offering these bizarre rationalizations and lame pseudo-arguments.

Faith is needed when it comes to my beliefs as well.

So you've said.

You can have faith in the wrong thing.

Exactly; you have rendered faith unreliable and ineffectual -- thanks for that.

So I could be wrong in what I base my faith on. If I am then I haven't really lost anything.

You do if the muslims are right or if the Jehovah Witnesses are right ETC ETC ETC.

I don't have to live my entire life trying to prove or not prove there is a God.
To each their own.

Here a couple of questions. It Jesus didn't exists why would people give their lives for somthing that they knew was a lie? What would they have gained from it? They believe to the point of death. Even early Christian who would have recieved first hand information from those who claimed to walk with Christ. Why would they believe in somthing to the point of death. If they didn't have some very reliable information that would lead them to believe that he was a real person.

Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, hahahahaahahahahaahahaha.

Lame apologetic 101 again.

Why give up their lives? The same exact, reason, early Muslims gave up their lives, the same exact, reason, early Abrahamic Jews gave up their lives, the same reason early christian gnostics gave up their lives, the same reason, Tibetan Buddhists monks gave up their lives in 1959, Ancient Greeks, Ancient Egyptians, Early American Indians all gave up their lives -- all for the same reason, their deluded belief-system. Yes myth.

Why would muslims fly planes into a building, blow themselves up as a suicide bomber, why would they give their lives for something that they knew was a lie? What would they have gained from it? They, too believe to the point of death.

53 adults and 21 children died in Waco Texas under the supposed prophet David Koresh. They believed David Koresh was the messiah. The Branch Davidians explained clearly and confidently to the negotiators, why they chose, of their own free will, to remain with Koresh, during the stand off. Something definitely happened in Waco in the 20th century to cause such a stir and generate a whole new philosophy on religion. Koresh built up an entirely new theology called "The New Light" and to this day the Branch Davidians believe David Koresh will come back to earth.

David Koresh -- point was people follow people and will die for them, all the time. Nothing profound about the disciples dying for Christ -- it doesn't prove your point; it only proves people will die for their beliefs, including most religions.

I am not saying that history proves that Jesus was the son of God...That's right. And this is what renders your whole religion invalid.

...it just proves that he existed.It proves NOTHING of the sort. You are obligated to supply objective evidence for the existence of Jesus as opposed to embellished stories written over decades that relied on oral stories told over about a character named jesus that could very well be based on a human prophet named Jesus or an amalgamation of several prophets or people and several stories and legends. Good luck with that.

There is as much proof that he existed as many hisorical figures.

Right but historical figures also have been corrupted over time, stories about them have also been embellished and these historical figures don't claim supernatural magic and to be the metaphysical son of god. Go fish.

We don't have the body but, that will never be found.And your point?

Second question. If the Old and New testament was just made up why include so many terrible things about the God the you call loving?

Is English your second language -- this doesn't make sense.

Why include terrible thing your greatest leaders did? Just read about king David. Why include the difficult to understand things at all?And your point?

All you have is bloated over-rationalizations and strawmnen. Please provide objective for your personal god-man -- Jesus. Waiting.......................

--S.

matt311 said...

Crap, that's a long post.

I'm no longer a Christian, mainly from doing research and reading the Bible more carefully. My family refuses to accept my atheism, but I don't care; I believe that if I respect their beliefs, they should at least respect mine.

I enjoy the discussion that goes on here; everyone makes good points, I suppose, but only one person can be right in the end.

I'd say it's Steve.

Яша said...

As of lately I'm used to watch on the news women murdered over family honor, divorced women beheaded by their religious husbands, divorces by cellphone, polygamy, Oscar-winning children sold for $400 thousand, and children sent to terrorist missions to kill as many unbelievers as possible.

Oh wait, the people doing the aforementioned things aren't Xtians but Muslims, shame that they're a protected minority free of any kind of criticism or else you're a damn right-wing white supremacist racist nazi.

Яша said...

Half the quotes provided by the author of this blog are from the Old Testament, the Jews haven't killed unruly children since at least 1900 years, Christians probably never did it. Wanna know what religion is killing their children? Its name begins with "Is" and ends with "lam"

Яша said...

"Miss California didn't win because she's a dumb bitch" -Perez Hilton

This is what you're defending now, hatred toward anyone who dares to defy the politically correct establishment.

Steve Wells posts are full of blind hate, what was he abused by a priest? BTW I'm gay and an atheist.

sconnor said...

charlesh04

Oops -- should read: Please provide objective evidence for your personal god-man -- Jesus. Waiting.......................

sdpsylence said...

Great engagement. Here goes...

First a point of clarification: "According to sdpsylence logic god purposefully made evidence for him vague and difficult. ROTFLMAO!"
A: Actually God did not leave evidence at all for the very reason you stated, that if there was objective evidence there would be no need for faith. The path to salvation is purposefully vague and difficult and no where in the Bible is salvation claimed to be clear or easy.

"Oh goody another christian who has the one and only truth. Tell me, sdpsylence, why should I value your interpretation of scripture over other christians interpretations -- why should yours have any validity?"
A: By Christian belief the Bible is the "one and only truth". It's my view that it's not up to interpretation. Like you I'm quite literal in my reading of scripture. Obviously there is parable and metaphor used to relate an idea but the "facts" of the bible are to be taken literally. If my viewpoint has validity to anyone beyond myself that's up to each individual to decide and everyone, Christian or otherwise, is welcome to disagree.

"My argument is dealing with the ineffectual use of a book to convey god's supposed message of salvation."
A: My apologies that I totally missed this point in any of your arguments. Are you saying that a book is an ineffectual format, that the book itself doesn't effectively convey the message, or that the supposed message itself is faulty? Or perhaps all three?

"Now first please provide objective evidence that the bible is indeed the word of god as opposed to a spurious."
A: You know full well this is a fruitless path of debate. Non-believers have been asking this for 2000 years and Christians have been answering for 2000 years. You and I both know all the questions and all the answers and we both know there is no answer a Christian gives that a Christian doesn't believe and also no answer a Christian gives that would mean anything whatsoever to a non-Christian. Hitchens comment that ""What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." is ultimately useless as it goes both ways, that what can be dismissed without proof can be asserted without proof. I choose to table this question on the grounds that you, due to the research you've done, have heard any answer I might give so why re-hash it. What I will say however is that asking for scientifically objective proof of the religious is the actual straw man. Science answers how, while religion attempts to answer why. Like philosophy the answers to why will always be subjective and will differ from person to person. The point is, you can't has why something works and answer with how it works anymore than you can ask how something works and answer with why it works. Gravity would be a great example. We know the physics and mechanics of how gravity works but you'd be hard pressed to find a scientist that can answer "why is there gravity".

"When reading the bible, people are free to rationalize and interpret it (making it mean whatever you want it to mean)"
A: Correct, people are free to rationalize and interpret but that gets pretty hairy. One premise of Christianity is that it is supposed to change your life, you are not supposed to change it so it fits into your life. You are also correct in that the idea of interpreting, twisting, folding, tucking, etc. is what leads to denomination schisms.

"Your god is nothing but a human construct".
A: Again, I can't prove He exists and more than you can prove He doesn't. And again, this discussion has been had by people far smarter and more learned then either of us so why go there. Let's just both google the idea and read up on (again). There's nothing I could say on the Christian side you haven't heard before and nothing you could say on the non-Christian side I haven't heard. Ahh the eternal tango.

"When christianity has one unified, unequivocal message, that all christians agree on"
A: Umm, that'd be the Bible. Unified-check, unequivocal message-check. The third point is a problem. All Christians agree that the Bible is the unified unequivocal message of God. That said, yeah you're gonna find your looney bins that call themselves Christians and then bomb an abortion clinic, or (as stated in a previous post) call themselves Christians and then carry signs that say "God hates gays". This is more proof of human nature than a testament against Christianity and serves only to show us all that no matter what someone claims to be, every group everywhere is gonna have its ass-hats. Sadly there is no test or certification or qualifying test to Christianity. Sadly anyone is free to say they're a Christian and as you've already pointed out, many people who say their Christians have never even read the bible. How would they know if they're Christian or not? But sure enough since their parents were (or for whatever other reason they've deemed themselves so) they run around telling everyone they are regardless of all the evidence to the contrary.

"Jesus is confused."
A: The verses you've listed are qualifiers not assertions. Matthew 10:34 is the distinction that Christianity will break up peace. Your blog is proof of this (not saying you yourself are not peaceful) but by the nature of Christianity the necessary side effect is that there will be disagreement. People that don't believe and people that do will always be at odds (10:35-whatever are literal in describing this). The verses you've listed support that. Luke 2:14 is an offer, he's offering peace. You don't have to take it. John 14:27 pretty much the same thing and further makes the distinction that "not as the world giveth" i.e. not the worlds definition of peace. Making the distinction that the peace found through Christ does not mean being a Christian will translate into a rosy, peaceful life in "earthly" terms. Again, this is pretty literal. John 16:33 - the best qualifier you've listed "that in me ye might have peace". This further supports the assertions of Matthew 10:34. In Christ you will have peace. Without you will not, hence the "I came not to bring peace" because some will believe some won't and the two will be set against each other. He came to offer peace, through him, and never tried to sugar coat that the offer itself (scripture, christianity, etc) will fracture the world. This is in the same nature as physical death and spiritual death. There is peace in the world and peace in Christ and the two are vastly different concepts.

"convert or be pummeled to death with rocks"
A: Old testament. Ask the Jewish community this one. Christians are bound by the law of Christ not the Law of Moses because on Christ death and resurrection the Law of Moses was replaced in part so that salvation could be offered to the whole world, not just the descendants of Abraham. Show me an instance in the New Testament that advocates the killing of non believes and I'm happy to express it but these old testament arguments are the same as asking any European why they advocate slavery because some hundreds of years ago their ancestors had slaves. To Christians the Old Testament is a history book, not a legal code or a ruling on behavior.

"This seems disingenuous. So why talk about it?"
A: Because the great commission requires that I do so. Another reason is that you have a blog that poses questions. IMO that's an invitation for me to offer my perspective and here we are, talking about it.

"If you are not making an argument for salvation then what exactly are you doing?"
A: I am making an argument for salvation, just like you're making an argument that Christianity is an illogical fantasy based on nothing. Your decision based on the information I express is up to you. Weigh what I say and make a choice, but your choice is up to you as are any possible consequences. Same goes for me, I weigh what you say and must choose whether I agree or disagree and like you, I accept the consequences of not believing as you do.

"Don't you believe with ALL your heart that if someone does not accept christ they will not enter heaven?"
A: Yes I do believe that but if I could "save" someone why would anyone need Christ. I'm here to spread the news, it's Christ's job to do the saving, but Christ can't do the saving for someone who hasn't heard the news, which is where I come in.

"Either someone believes you and converts or they don't. You are divulging information for a reason -- the only reason jesus would want you to divulge the good news would be for someone to accept the proposition -- to be converted, correct?"
A: Yes I would assume the ideal situation is that everyone who heard accepted. Again, the actual saving/conversion is Jesus/God's realm not mine. If one has never heard the case for salvation then there is 0% chance of salvation because that person doesn't even know it's an option. By me speaking about my faith it opens an option that may not have evident. The rest is up to God. I would love to think everyone I talked to about Christ converted but again, it's not within my power to "save" anyone its only within my power to express to people that the option of salvation exists.

"Tell me, sdpsylence, when Jesus says, "to be baptized" and "to turn to god" so that one can be saved can you think of a word that could be used in its stead?"
A: no baptized is the correct word. Again old testament baptism was a dunk in the river. Upon creation of the new covenant baptism means baptized by the blood of Christ. It's no longer the prayer and the dunk that washes away sins, sins are washed away by the blood of Christ spilled on the cross. Your quoting of Mark 16:15-16 is a great example. It says, literally, go tell everyone that if you believe and are baptized you'll be saved. It doesn't say to make people believe and actually baptize them. Only to tell them that if they do they'll find salvation.

"How about convert? Notice Jesus wants ALL the Nations to know. If it wasn't for christians like you how could ANYONE be saved?"
A: You answered your own question. Jesus wants all nations to KNOW. If I were to be so bold as to "speak for Jesus" I'd guess he would want everyone to be converted, but I can't speak for Jesus so I'm left with the task before me which is to talk with the intent that everyone is aware of the option. Taking that option or not is between Jesus and the individual and is not my business.

Furthermore are you not contradicting yourself? How can one find "it" if "it" is not revealed to them in some way?"
A: As I said previously "it" is revealed through an ever deepening relationship with Christ. I guess I should make a clarification because there's the logic problem of not knowing to look for "it" if "it" is not revealed as something to be looked for. In other words how would one attempt to develop a relationship with Christ if it has not already been revealed as a relationship to be developed but this is more a matter of what "it" is. The short answer I would give would be that God reveals himself (possibly through a Christian "spreading the news", once the option is revealed, one can begin developing a relationship with Christ if they so choose, as that relationship grows through prayer, study, worship with friends, etc the path to salvation becomes more clear i.e. revealed). My apologies for not being more clear earlier. This was my intent in saying that everyone has the "ability" to find it but not necessarily the will to pursue it.

"Brilliant plan! (massive sarcasm)"
A: As I said a couple times before, people may not like it, but it is what it is.

"he has it written in such a way that ONLY the true christian believers can decipher it"
A: Once again you're putting effect before cause. One doesn't "decipher" it because one is a true Christian, in other words one doesn't become a "true Christian" and then gain the ability to "discern the path". One sees the light and thus is on the path to salvation. The point which you apparently missed is that you have to, in your heart, desire a relationship with Christ. This is the entire point of faith and dedication.

"Because now you limit the "saved" to another set of criteria where you must be deeply devoted to a relationship to christ and if you are not you will not understand his message and you'll be weeded out, thereby NOT saved; thereby tortured for an eternity in the flames of hell."
A: Hey I didn't set another collection of criteria, God did. You are correct though that one must be deeply devoted to a relationship with Christ in order to be "saved". As an aside, biblically speaking, hell means eternal separation from Christ. Flames and brimstone and little imps running around with pitchforks and all that are human constructs.

"Congratulations, the majority of god's earthly children will be tortured for an eternity because they didn't believe in him the way you say they should believe in him. You have relegated your god to a torturer of souls."
A: Kind of skewed in premise. First not the way I say they should believe. Everyone should develop their relationship with Christ on their own according to scripture. As you've pointed out several times, even among Christians the way one "should" believe is debated. My personal opinion is that's between you and Christ and I'm not sure I see any problem with having differences in individual relationships, so long as you are following Christ the way Christ and you have worked out. From a human perspective it's like my sister and I. we have totally different relationships with our father but the love, mutual respect, and reasonable obedience is in both. The fact that the relationship is expressed and practiced in different ways really doesn't affect to outcome. I guess what I'm trying to say is the methods may vary but the goals and the core foundations do not. If you go east a mile north a mile and west a mile and I go west a mile north a mile and east a mile do we not both end up the same place?

"Is your god so petty and so insecure that he will torture his earthly children in the flames of hell for an eternity simply because they didn't believe the way you do?"
A: That's a surprisingly cheap argument. Talk about straw man. If we're standing at a crossroads and I know that to the left is a mob of vicious killers and to the right there's a huge rockin' party and I say to you, dude, go right. If you don't believe me and you go left and get killed does that mean I've murdered you? No. In the same sense if God say, hey believe in me and you'll be partying for all time or don't believe in me and your headed for the pit, you choosing to not believe in him doesn't suddenly make him the torturer or the condemner. He made an offer. You chose not to take it. Your argument would make sense if you base it on the premise that God picks some and tosses others but that premise is false. God offers everyone the same deal. We choose whether to go right to the party or left to the pit.
Further, again, it's not about people believing the way I do. It's about people believing at all. It's about the offer but accepting the offer or not is fully your/everyone's choice.

"First besides pulling the "vagueness is on purpose argument" out of thin air, how exactly did you acquire this information. Second please substantiate how you were bestowed this information."
A: This is another topic on which multiple dozens of treatises on both sides of the argument has been written and I'm sure we both know both sides well so why rehash. That said the most direct and literal example I can offer is this: "the unspiritual man simply cannot accept the matters which the Spirit deals with—they don’t make sense to him, for, after all, you must be spiritual to see spiritual things. The spiritual man, on the other hand, has an insight into the meaning of everything, though his insight may baffle the man of the world…we who are spiritual have the very thoughts of Christ!" (1 Cor 2:14–16)
There's a pretty good essay (including the verse above) on this topic here: http://www.bible.org/page.php?page_id=3437
But again, I gather that you've read/studied everything that's expressed in the essay before and you don't agree. I do. In that we are at an impasse, as you again seem to be looking for a "how" answer to a "why" question. Since there will never bee such a thing why drag on a debate that others have already thoroughly discussed. Suffice it to say I agree with the assertions outlined in the essay and you don't. So be it.

"Yeah -- NOW. What about All of god's children, throughout history? You need to put it into a historical contexts. You are ONLY thinking of the 20th and 21st centuries."
A: See John 5:28,29: "Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."
Basically, and this is discussed in Revelation as well, all those that died before Christ lived are resting. They are not, biblically speaking, in heaven or in hell, they're simply in their graves. As part of the second coming they will be given the opportunity that all those in the 20th/21st century have, to hear the options and make a decision. Plus it bears mentioning that Christ died for all past present and future sins so the idea of Christ's blood washing away the sin of one's life is retroactive but its still up to the individual to choose to accept it or not and as I already said, those who didn't have the option back then, will in the future.

"Once again thank you for bolstering my premise. Didn't god (you know being omniscient and all) consider that his earthly children were fallible and they would splinter into 34,000 separate groups? All with different understandings; ALL with differing interpretations -- bastardizing his message? Didn't -- THE CREATOR OF THE WHOLE UNIVERSE -- take into account a fair share of his earthly children would stray from scripture? This is my MAIN argument: the bible is morbidly ineffectual at getting his message to everyone -- unanimously and unequivocally. Again thank you for strengthening my arguments."
A: Of course He knew. Sort of the definition of omniscient. Again I'll fall back on the idea that salvation is an offer. The only way to guarantee the salvation of all would be to remove free will so that acceptance of the offer would not be a choice and then we wouldn't be having this discussion would we? I would say your premise is flawed in that the message is available to everyone but each person must make his/her own choice about salvation. Is it effective in forcing everyone into a saving relationship with Christ through grace. Absolutely, but saving everyone was never the point. Offering salvation to everyone is the point and my personal opinion is that it does quite an effective job at offering salvation to everyone.

"Wow -- you do realize you are making my basic premise an impenetrable fortress?"
If your basic premise is that it would be better if everyone ever was saved then yeah you've got a solid premise. Again, it's a difference in approach. I would say it would be best if everyone accepted the offer and again, the only way your preferred method would work would be the removal of human free will, which would preclude faith, which would make religion pointless. The entire reason for free will with regards to Christ and salvation is that the onus is on the individual to make his/her own decision.

"My main argument is: why didn't god consider that the majority of his earthly children --throughout time -- would be the non-bible believing, non-christians -- thereby supporting my argument: putting god's important message of salvation into a book is morbidly negligent."
A: My apologies. I saw your argument as ad populum in that you seemed to be saying if the majority of the worlds population is non-Christian doesn't that mean they are right. God did consider that the majority would be non-Christian. That's why it's stated so often in scripture that the followers of Christ would always be a minority. Once again we start from a different premise. Correct me if I'm wrong but your argument seems to be that if Christ is "real" why not just clearly provide the proof and again, I would say then there would be no choice, so what would be the point.

"The FACTS are, people -- at NO fault of their own -- could not receive god's so important message of salvation because of REAL LIFE BARRIERS"
A: see response above, specifically 1 Corinthians 2:14-16. There is a clearly laid out plan for those who never had the chance to hear the options.

"What, are you nuts? -- you have been speaking on behalf of your god, the entire time."
A: Alright, semantics issue. Speaking on behalf of God and speaking for God are different things. I can't speak for God. As we've discussed, the great commission requires that I speak on His behalf.

"God never claims to make it easy. -Again thank you for supporting my argument."
A: If your argument is that salvation is difficult then yes, I'm supporting your argument.

"Yes but the infallible all-knowing sdpsylence KNOWS he has the one true correct interpretation. Funny how that works, because ALL christian denominations will say the other denomination does NOT have an accurate concept of god/christ, too."
A: Never claimed to be infallible or all-knowing. In fact one of the requirements of Christianity is to acknowledge that we are hopelessly flawed creatures given to mistakes. If this weren't true, we wouldn't need a savior. I disagree thought that all denominations will say the other does not have an accurate concept of God. There are differences in the practices and traditions of faith but I'd like to hear from Christians of any denomination to find out if there are differences in the concept of God. This is one area where denomination rarely makes a difference.

"My argument NEVER was about the misconceptions of god's character. My argument is the bible is a wholly inadequate and negligent to bring the message of salvation to everyone equally and unequivocally".
A: I've already made my case above. To summarize though I believe it's completely adequate to bring the message, which is different then saying it will bring everyone to salvation, which as we've already discussed, it won't due to the human capacity for deciding not to believe the message.

"I'd defer to the Bible for the truth of God's nature.
Yawn.........strawman."
A: You may find it yawn worthy but God and His nature are described at length in the Bible. You've read it so you know that. The point I'm making is there are a lot of things people write, both Christians and non-Christians that can't be found anywhere in scripture. My personal view of God is, is it in scripture or is it not. If it's not I don't buy it and it seems to me that some of your arguments only stand up if certain assumptions are made that can't be found in scripture.

"And again I'll restate, God is not the always peaceful, always wants to hug you, only wants to see you smile no matter what God that some people like to make Him out to be to make Christianity seem nice or easy or soft or whatever. -Except god said, "God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life" (John 3:16 NIV)."
A: Good verse but you missed the part where there's a requirement. He offers eternal life to anyone, but it requires that you believe in Christ.

"You NEVER argued to the specifics of my arguments and you also strengthened my position by not only concurring the bible is inferior to get god's message across but also admitting god goes out of his way to make it difficult to obtain salvation "
A: There are many things all over this site that point out that God is not warm and fuzzy and you've used scripture to support that he's not warm and fuzzy. Why repeat what you've already pointed out. And once again, "inferior to get God's message across" and "doesn't hand you salvation on a silver platter" are two different things. Plus God doesn't go out of his way to make it difficult, He simply doesn't hand you the answer. I'm sorry you don't like that.

As far as your second to last paragraph, you're basically asking the age old question, "if God is so great why do people suffer". And like many of your other arguments this has been covered. Clearly you've read all the responses others have made and have not accepted them so I won't waste your time by rehashing them here. The short answer is there is a purpose to everything God has done and will do. The problem is that answer is only relevant to those who believe in God and means nothing to those who don't. Knowing that why even bring it up, knowing that any answer I give necessarily has to be rooted in faith, a faith that you don't accept. That said, here ya go:

http://www.pbc.org/files/messages/3137/0234.html

To boil that link down: "This complaint that God is a God of wrath seems to picture him as being vengeful without reason, as being determined upon the destruction of men, but it is never so. God only destroys, only exercises his wrath when men have rejected his love. There is a way of escape and there has been all along. We need not face the wrath of God. No one needs to. God's whole purpose has been to call men's attention to that way so that they might take it. And that way is given here: "He knows those who take refuge in him."

But again, that answer will never satisfy a person who isn't Christian and realistically there can be no answer that would, because the only way to analyze the question is through scripture which you reject.

Cheers
~N

sdpsylence said...

Matt311 - "I believe that if I respect their beliefs, they should at least respect mine."

Agreed!

sdpsylence said...

Baconsbud - Yes sdpsylence it is archeologically interesting.

Didn't mean to present it as proof. I really did just think it was an interesting article. Funniest part was how the dude got this thing at an antique store.

charlesh04 said...

You talked about all the people who gave their lives. That is MY POINT! They really believe in what they are doing. The people who lived during the time Christ died or right after died for the belief that he was at least a real person. No one, in any case you gave died for something they new was false. They would have know Jesus was not a real person.

thebibleisstupid said...

David Koresh was a real person, and a bunch of people died for him. Jim Jones was a real person, and a bunch of people died for him. Bin Laden is a real person, and a bunch of people have died for him.

Just because you're a real person, and people are stupid enough to die for you, doesn't make you any kind of magic saviour.

sconnor said...

charlesh04

You talked about all the people who gave their lives. That is MY POINT! They really believe in what they are doing.

So like I said ALL this really proves is people die for their beliefs -- nothing profound.

Additionally this in NO way prove Jesus existed. It is a non-sequitur; a fallacious argument that purposes just because a person died for a belief then that supposedly means the person existed. Sorry doesn't fly.

When the muslims flew their planes into buildings because they believe the mighty allah commands them to perform jihad against the infidel christian and they will be rewarded with 72 virgins in paradise , then by your logic, allah exists.

The people who lived during the time Christ died or right after died for the belief that he was at least a real person.

Again that's a non-sequitur. People die for things that have NO reference in reality or for people who don't exist.

No one, in any case you gave died for something they new was false.
Duh. It is, however, evidence for people who die for deluded beliefs. Unless of course you believe allah exists or that David Koresh is the messiah.

Furthermore, I have posited that, perhaps, the character of jesus was based on a possible, fallible, human, prophet or an amalgamation of several people and several earlier legends and myths. It is simply a construct where superstitious people created (by embellishing and making up stories) a fictional messiah -- something palatable that early christians could believe in. In any case they did NOT know a real person they ONLY KNEW about what other people told stories about. Nothing but embellished stories based on hearsay.

They would have know Jesus was not a real person.

How could ANYONE have known if Jesus was real or not?

Do you even understand How the new testament was written? Although you may claim there were eyewitness you would have a difficult task of providing objective evidence that there were eyewitnesses, as opposed to (again) embellished stories written over time that were perhaps based on a prophet or an amalgamation of people and earlier stories and legends. Indeed the majority of the new testament was written by paul who never knew jesus. Besides Paul's extraordinary magical claim, of seeing Jesus' ghost on the road to Damascus, he was never an eye-witness of Jesus' life, ministry, or supposed magical resurrection. You would think the one who wrote the most about Jesus would have been the one who chummed around with him, but sadly no -- Paul only wrote (in the form of letters or "epistles") about Jesus some 20-40 years after Jesus' death. All Paul's writings are based on hearsay; stories told about Jesus.
The other supposed authors of the new testament wrote, well, after the supposed death of Jesus.

During Jesus' ministry, Jesus nor any of his apostles wrote anything down. I wonder why (for what should have been an awesome happening) none took the time to write about what occurred, at the time. And what, exactly, took them so long? Could it be that stories were told over and over again, in what is called the oral tradition, where people embellished the character of Jesus and painted him as a supernatural magic-man -- the Christ? Ahhh, what legends are made of!

What's more, the Gospels borrow heavily from each other and embellishments and the magical deeds of Jesus were added, as the stories were told and re-told. Each writer wrote during their own specific time period, adding differing ideas, that dealt with their own specific culture and the issues of the day.

What should be noted is, no one signed or dated the manuscripts and we have no original copies. In all cases we have copies of copies of copies, with thousands of mistakes between them. Several different people, some professional scribes and some illiterate scribes would make the copies. These were handwritten and copied and re-copied throughout the centuries. And of these copies, the authors attributed to the New Testament were just, best guesses by the church -- hardly a reliable source for the historicity of Jesus.

Have you ever played Telephone? You know, you get a long line of people, around twenty kids and you start at the beginning of the line and you tell a short but detailed little ditty, then the next person whispers it to the next person and on to the next and the next, until you get to the end and by then the story is unrecognizable, from it's original form -- now do that for several decades with superstitious people and see what you get.

The chronological order of the gospels are dated in this order:

1. 27-30 A.D. -- Death of Jesus
2. 30-60 A.D. -- Oral tradition
3. 50-70 A.D. -- Letters from Paul
4. 60-70 A.D. -- First edition of Thomas.
5. 70 A.D. -- The destruction of the temple; the fall of Jerusalem .
6. 70-80 A.D. -- Mark.
7. 85-90 A.D. -- Matthew.
8. 85-95 A.D. -- Luke.
9. 90-100 A.D. -- John.

Additionally, All the credible historians you could mention -- Tacitus, Suetonius and Pliny the younger (or the lesser known historians, Mara Bar-Serapion 73AD, Ignatius 50AD - 98AD., Polycarp 69AD - 155AD, Clement of Rome 160AD Tertullian 160AD - ?AD, Clement of Alexandria 215AD, Origen 185AD - 232AD, Hippolytus 236AD, and Cyprian 254AD) -- all wrote, well after Jesus' supposed death. Josephus was the earliest born, about seven to ten years after Jesus died and wrote his books 40-50 years later. This means they ONLY wrote about the mythical jesus based solely on hearsay. They do not in any way confirm the Biblical accounts or the historicity of Jesus.

Now, what's even more damaging is, there are zero writings from historians from Jesus' time. Not a single scribe, historian or philosopher who lived during the supposed time of Jesus wrote about, what surely would have been a monumental piece of history -- what with all his miracles, including healing and resurrecting the dead. The historians Seneca 4BC. - 65AD and Pliny the Elder 23? - 79AD never mention Jesus. Philo Judaeus 20BC - 50AD lived in Jerusalem during the supposed life of Jesus. Philo Judaeus, a Hellenistic Jewish philosopher and historian wrote volumes on the lives of Jews in and around the surrounding area and nothing is mentioned about the miracle-workin' Jesus the Christ. Go figure?

In closing ALL you have is a supposed character created and embellished over time that people died for. You have NO objective evidence for your god-man's existence.

You've got NOTHING but a MASSIVE DELUSION constructed from ignorance and the willingness to forgo reason to have faith in the most absurd of beliefs.

Take care to fully digest and comprehend the quote below -- you are the gullible person Thomas Jefferson is referring to.

Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the spot of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason and the mind becomes a wreck. -- Thomas Jefferson--S.

BTW I noticed you couldn't refute ANY of the other arguments I leveled against you. You got NOTHING.

thebibleisstupid said...

from sdpsylence:

The path to salvation is purposefully vague and difficult and no where in the Bible is salvation claimed to be clear or easy.-and-

Umm, that'd be the Bible. Unified-check, unequivocal message-check.A perfect example of how twisted your rationalization has become in your own mind. You say the bible is purposefully unclear, then you say it is unequivocal. The definition of "unequivocal" (from Webster) is "leaving no doubt: clear, unambiguous".

So which is it, ambiguous or unambiguous? You can only pick one.

sconnor said...

sdpsylence

"Yeah -- NOW. What about All of god's children, throughout history? You need to put it into a historical contexts. You are ONLY thinking of the 20th and 21st centuries."
A: See John 5:28,29: "Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."
Basically, and this is discussed in Revelation as well, all those that died before Christ lived are resting. They are not, biblically speaking, in heaven or in hell, they're simply in their graves. As part of the second coming they will be given the opportunity that all those in the 20th/21st century have, to hear the options and make a decision. Plus it bears mentioning that Christ died for all past present and future sins so the idea of Christ's blood washing away the sin of one's life is retroactive but its still up to the individual to choose to accept it or not and as I already said, those who didn't have the option back then, will in the future.
OK -- could you quickly clarify something for me, please? -- before I address the rest of your post.

Aside from your view, that you and your christian ilk are saved because you know you have the right interpretation of scripture and the correct criteria in order to be saved:

1. Are you saying that ONLY the people before christ lived will have a chance to choose?

2. Are you, also, saying that the dead and buried people throughout history who did not hear about christ or his message will have a chance to choose during the second coming?

3. Are you also saying that dead and buried people will get a chance to choose during the second coming even if they have heard of christ and his message but did not believe it or understand it or reasoned it it was invalid or they were raised in a different religion?

4. And another quick clarification: If hell is only a "separation from god" then is it the feeling of not being with god that is so bad, where you have to live for an eternity knowing you made the wrong choice? -- no blistering pain, no torture, no misery, no physical pain. What is it -- a longing? You feel bad because you might not be with some realitives. What's the downside, besides being separated from god?

5. The whole "separation from god explanation" is Catholic and I believe Christadelphian -- what religious group do you garner your beliefs from?

6. And aren't these indications (below) of what hell is going to be like?

The Son of man shall send forth his angels, and they shall gather out of his kingdom all things that offend, and them which do iniquity; And shall cast them into a furnace of fire: there shall be wailing and gnashing of teeth. Matthew 13:41-42

If thy hand or thy foot offend thee, cut them off, and cast them from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life halt or maimed, rather than having two hands or two feet to be cast into everlasting fire. Matthew 18:8-9

And it came to pass, that the beggar died, and was carried by the angels into Abraham's bosom: the rich man also died, and was buried; And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom. And he cried and said, Father Abraham, have mercy on me, and send Lazarus, that he may dip the tip of his finger in water, and cool my tongue; for I am tormented in this flame. Luke 16:22-24

"If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned." -- John 15:6

"The Lord Jesus ... in flaming fire taking vengeance on them that know not God ... who shall be punished with everlasting destruction." -- 2 Thessalonians 1:7-9

"The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God ...he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone ... And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever." -- Revelation 14:10-11

"The fearful, and unbelieving ... shall have their part in the lake which burneth with fire and brimstone." -- Revelation 21:8


I'll address your earlier post after I receive your clarification on this post.

--S.

sconnor said...

thebibleisstupid,

good catch!

sdpsylence: no where in the Bible is salvation claimed to be clear or easy.-and-

sdpsylence: Umm, that'd be the Bible. Unified-check, unequivocal message-check.
thebibleisstupid: A perfect example of how twisted your rationalization has become in your own mind. You say the bible is purposefully unclear, then you say it is unequivocal. The definition of "unequivocal" (from Webster) is "leaving no doubt: clear, unambiguous".

thebibleisstupid: So which is it, ambiguous or unambiguous? You can only pick one.

Silly christians always painting themselves into corners.

I can hardly wait to see the mental gymnastics that will be implemented to dig himself out of this one.

The bible is difficult, ambiguous and unequivocal -- hahahahahahaha.

The bible is unequivocally, ambiguous -- CHECK! LOL.

--S.

TexasAggie2012 said...

I am a 19 year old college student, so I am probably over my head but here it goes anyway.

Question: What is your purpose in life? Why would you be on this earth if you had no purpose? What's the point in living if there is nothing after this life to look forward to? There's got to be something to live for otherwise what we do here is pointless and you can do whatever you want.

I am at a point in my life where i question some things, including my faith in God, and I need some evidence. Then I just look around me and see all the beautiful things in this world someone created. I believe I should find who this person is and thank them for a job well done and the only one I could find to explain all this is God. You look in the Bible in Genesis and there it is God created everything. I know you could throw science at me and say there is scientific evidence that shows how a tree was made, but why does this tree grow, why does it soak up water, why does everything happen the way it does? Someone or something had to have done this and I am pretty sure the big bang could not have done this, with less evidence than the Bible. I am pretty sure we're not an accident, things happen for a reason.

Back to the real question at had gay marriage. I believe everyone's born into sin and that everyone can act on either sinning or doing what they believe is right. Everyone is born with the option of being homosexual, it's just choosing if you want to or not because you are given that choice. Some of it has to do with the people that impacted your life at an earlier age and while you grew up but you ultimately have the choice of being homosexual.

Thanks for the oppurtunity to express what I believe.

sconnor said...

texasaggie2012

Question: What is your purpose in life?

Whatever you choose? Do you want to be a humanitarian? Make people laugh? Help disabled children? Artist? Poet? The scientist who eradicates cancer? Or do you just want to live life?

Why would you be on this earth if you had no purpose?

There are other creatures on this earth besides sentient bi-peds. Take for instance the dung beetle -- it would seem its main purpose is to eat dung.

What's the point in living if there is nothing after this life to look forward to?

It's the ONLY life you got so live it to the best of your ability.

There's got to be something to live for otherwise what we do here is pointless and you can do whatever you want.
Really? If you found out today there was NO god would you go out on a rampage violating little children or go on a brutal killing spree at your local elementary?

Face it, there is NO ultimate meaning to life. Or, if there was, we don't know it -- so how can we reach a goal of ultimate purpose if we don't know what that goal is?

Plainly, if you have a life, live it, like its ALL you got!

My ten year old son had a massive heart attack related to leukemia. He suffered egregiously for months, only to die. He represents every child or baby who has suffered and died throughout time.

How could there be an ultimate purpose to life, when untold millions (children and babies) never even had a chance to experience life?

Some children are born into this world, with horrible deformities; they will never walk, talk, laugh, or cry. They will not think a single thought. They just wallow in their own waste and become a devastating burden to the family, and to our health care system, yet somehow these non functional humans suffer for years.

I am at a point in my life where i question some things, including my faith in God, and I need some evidence. Then I just look around me and see all the beautiful things in this world someone created.

If you can appeal to majestic mountains, pretty sunsets and fuzzy puppies as proof for an intelligent grand designer, then how do you explain, earthquakes, tornadoes, plagues, aggressive child-hood diseases, mental illness, genetic deformities, ETC. that leave death, horror and misery in their wake?

I believe I should find who this person is and thank them for a job well done and the only one I could find to explain all this is God.

Well, if you find him thank him for the great disease -- leukemia -- that ripped the life from my son. While you're at it thank him for ALL the other great NATURAL WONDERS I listed above. I know -- thank him for the marvelous design of the umbilical cord that was designed, in such a way, it could wrap around a babies neck, depriving her of precious oxygen, resulting in death or causing the baby to suffer for the rest of her life with severe physical and mental problems.

You look in the Bible in Genesis and there it is God created everything.

You do realize of course EVERY culture has creation myths -- right?

While we are at it, you do realize other creation myths existed before the creation myth in the Bible. The Genesis myth in Genesis 1 was written around 400 BCE, and Genesis 2-3, before that, around 850 BCE. The much older creation myths are the Babylonian Enuma Elish -- 1100 BCE, the Canaanite myth of Baal and Anat -- 1200BCE, and the Babylonian Epic of Giamesh, dating around 1750 BCE. You should check out the thousands of creation myths out there -- the bible is not unique in trying to deliver a story of where we came from.
(MYTH REFERENCES)(MYTH REFERENCES)I know you could throw science at me and say there is scientific evidence that shows how a tree was made, but why does this tree grow, why does it soak up water, why does everything happen the way it does? Someone or something had to have done this and I am pretty sure the big bang could not have done this, with less evidence than the Bible. I am pretty sure we're not an accident, things happen for a reason.How exactly, do you know this?

Considering god believers purpose god has always existed, then why is it so difficult for you to comprehend that the building blocks of life have always existed -- in one form or another -- and after eons of time (unimaginable spans of time) they coalesced into the reality we now know?

At one point in history we didn't know what caused volcanoes to erupt, droughts, tsunamis, rainbows, lightening, tornadoes, hurricanes, aurora borealis, comets, eclipses and on and on and on. Ignorant humans believed demons caused seizures and disease. There were all kinds of supernatural explanations -- including gods and silly superstitions -- for what turned out to be natural phenomenons. Just because science didn't have an explanation to these phenomenon -- at the time -- doesn't mean god "did it".

Point is, we don't know how it ALL came about. There is nothing wrong by admitting, we don't know.

Furthermore, positing god "did it" is one way of saying, you don't know. It's a lazy solution to a complex problem and ALL you are really doing is substituting one mystery for another.

Back to the real question at had gay marriage. I believe everyone's born into sin and that everyone can act on either sinning or doing what they believe is right. Everyone is born with the option of being homosexual, it's just choosing if you want to or not because you are given that choice. Some of it has to do with the people that impacted your life at an earlier age and while you grew up but you ultimately have the choice of being homosexual.
You chose to be heterosexual? I would love to know what exactly went into the thought process that allowed you to choose if you were to be straight or gay? For me I was simply attracted to women -- I sure as sh*t didn't make a cognizant choice between the two -- it was innate.

I also have to wonder how are you privy to this information? What I mean to say is did you just pull this information out of thin air? What are you basing your beliefs on? How exactly, do you know that every gay person made a conscious choice to be gay or (as it were) that every heterosexual made a conscious decision to choose to be straight?

--S.

thebibleisstupid said...

Question: What is your purpose in life? Why would you be on this earth if you had no purpose? What's the point in living if there is nothing after this life to look forward to? There's got to be something to live for otherwise what we do here is pointless and you can do whatever you want.This is such a common argument to attempt to rationalize the existence of god and the validity of the bible. It is fundamentally flawed.

Why would you be on this earth if you had no purpose? This is assuming everything has a purpose. I realize "just because" is not a satisfying answer, but you're going to have to get used to it, sometimes it's the right one.

Actually, you do have a purpose. That is to ensure the survival of the human species. We humans do that in incredibly complex ways by ensuring that we have adequate food, water, and shelter for those close to us, and ensuring that the earth remains fit for human occupation for the indefinite future. We also work to make our social encounters enjoyable, which encourages us to help our fellow man.

And before you turn my "survival of the human species" into an argument against gay marriage, let me head you off at the pass. Having babies is the easiest and least productive part of the human survival equation. Gay people contribute to society as much as anyone else. Since they are gay, they are not going to have children anyway, so whether they are married or not is irrelevant. However, they can grow food, invent life-saving drugs, or crack enemy ciphers during wartime to save Allied soldiers, all of which contribute to survival of the species.

And no, you can't do whatever you want. Many things you might want to do are detrimental to human interaction in one way or another, and are therefore illegal. I'm not going to argue that any specific law is or is not required for human survival, because clearly not all are. However, the reason we have societies, countries, and laws is because we determined a long time ago that we're more likely to survive as a larger society than a smaller one. The only way for these larger societies to function is to establish a system of laws.

Your fundamental flaw, one very common to bible apologists, is to assume just because you can't imagine it, or because it seems highly improbable, that it must be caused by god. There is a very small chance that you will win the lottery, but if you do, that doesn't mean god did it. It just means you won. Same with the formation of the earth and life. I admit, it seems highly improbable, given the "just right" conditions required for it to happen. But just because it did happen, doesn't mean god did it. Perhaps (and I think likely) some other life form has evolved somewhere else in the universe, and is struggling with the same questions. All I know is we got lucky in the all-universe lotto.

God no longer plays any kind of role in my daily life, but it really hasn't changed any of my goals or any of the ways I interact with my fellow humans. In fact, this is one reason I was finally able to let religion go, when I realized it meant nothing to me. However, that doesn't mean I don't have a sense of purpose. It's just that my sense of purpose is based on living, not on what happens after I die. I have everything to live for, I just have no religion to die for.

sdpsylence said...

"The bible is unequivocally, ambiguous -- CHECK! LOL."
A: Okay, this may frustrate you but you hit the nail on the head. This was a addressed in one of my previous posts. This time I'll expand the verse and go for 1 Cor 2:12–14: "Now we have received not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might understand the things freely given us by God. And we impart this in words not taught by human wisdom but taught by the Spirit, interpreting spiritual truths to those who are spiritual. The natural person does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are folly to him, and he is not able to understand them because they are spiritually discerned." So to directly answer your question, according to my belief, to one who makes his inquiry from a purely intellectual viewpoint, ambiguous, to one who adds spiritual dedication to intellectual inquiry clarity emerges, so yes both clear and ambiguous.

As an aside, dictionary.com lists two definitions for unequivocal.
1. not equivocal; unambiguous; clear; having only one possible meaning or interpretation
2. absolute; unqualified; not subject to conditions or exceptions

Surely (while you may not agree) you're not surprised that a Christian would argue that what is in the bible is absolute and that the instructions/rules/guidelines/messages/whatever are not subject to conditions or exceptions. To argue in some of your posts that Christians are prone to cherry picking verses that support their position while ignoring ones that don't is disingenuous if you, in turn, choose the definition that supports you and ignore the one that's fully in line with what I've said, which also sort of leads to "interpretation". A frustrating aspect of language even outside of the religious realm. I don't think your intent was to do this, just a misunderstanding I assume. I made the mistake of "interpreting" your use of the word in terms of definition 2, when in fact you meant definition 1. On the flip side you've interpreted my answer as rooted in definition 1 when in fact it was an expression of definition 2. Total digression from the rest of our discussion though. Just found it interesting.

Cheers.

sdpsylence said...

TexasAggie2012:
There's an interesting article here that addresses some of what your second paragraph touches on:
http://rationalchristianity.org/?p=19

and another one here:
http://rationalchristianity.org/?p=23
that discusses doubt and faith and the fact that doubt doesn't mean you don't have faith and faith doesn't mean you don't have doubts. A wiser man then me once said the only thing more dangerous then unanswered questions are unquestioned answers. Which is, I assume, why we're here having these discussions.

Baconsbud said...

texasaggie2012 if you believe that people have no purpose in life without god, I feel sorry for you. I have no god in my life but always have a purpose for it. None of my purposes for my life are earth shaking nor are they ones that will bring peace to the world. I live because I can live and think.

You said you have asked yourself questions about god but have you really? Did you look for the answers? Science explains a lot of things and if you deny the answers it gives you why do you use it at all in your every day life. I challenge you to quit using anything that came to us though scientific advances.

sdpsylence said...

1. Are you saying that ONLY the people before christ lived will have a chance to choose?
A: No I'm saying that everyone will have an opportunity to hear about Christ and decide what they believe. I was addressing your question about those who lived before Christ but scripturally, anyone who hasn't heard regardless of when they lived/died or where, will have the opportunity to accept or reject salvation. If they didn't have it during their "first" life they will during the resurrection discussed in Revelation (see Rev 20:5, for example).

2. Are you, also, saying that the dead and buried people throughout history who did not hear about christ or his message will have a chance to choose during the second coming?
A: Yep. Past, present and future, all will have the opportunity to decide for themselves.

3. Are you also saying that dead and buried people will get a chance to choose during the second coming even if they have heard of christ and his message but did not believe it or understand it or reasoned it it was invalid or they were raised in a different religion?
A: No, according to Hebrews 6:4-6 you only get to decide once. That doesn't mean that you can't live a life coming and going. Many Christians have lost faith and returned at least once, myself included. It means when your life is done what side of the line are you on. Whichever side of the line you're on, that's it. Raised in a different religion depends. Did they hear about Christ, i.e. have the option of accepting or rejecting or were they in a closed society where they never knew they had a choice? Depending on the answer, see my previous statements.

4. And another quick clarification: If hell is only a "separation from god" then is it the feeling of not being with god that is so bad, where you have to live for an eternity knowing you made the wrong choice? -- no blistering pain, no torture, no misery, no physical pain. What is it -- a longing? You feel bad because you might not be with some realitives. What's the downside, besides being separated from god?
A: Short answer. Who knows?

5. The whole "separation from god explanation" is Catholic and I believe Christadelphian -- what religious group do you garner your beliefs from?
A: I don't claim adherence to denomination because it invariably includes dogma not supported by scripture. There are verses either way, some indicate separation from God (1 thess. 1:9), some indicate physical torment (Matthew 10:28). I'll withdraw my previous assertion as its not an area of faith I've researched exstensively. For me, avoidance of Hell is not a reason for obedience, simply an ancillary benefit. There's also an apparent difference between Hades and Hell and both serve different purposes in different ways (I guess I've thought hades was the more physical and hell the more spiritual, but the distinction doesn't interest me enough to have spent time sorting out which is which and what happens where). Obviously I don't believe anything in the bible is unimportant but I definitely think there are more important things to dedicate my time in study and prayer to at this point in my spiritual growth.

6. And aren't these indications (below) of what hell is going to be like?
A: see answer above.

TexasAggie2012 said...

Science doesn't and can't explain everything. Why does gravity keep me here? Why doesn't it just turn off and let me go into space? Why does my body function the way it does, how I want it to move every time I want to do something?

Your fundamental flaw, one very common to bible apologists, is to assume just because you can't imagine it, or because it seems highly improbable, that it must be caused by god. There is a very small chance that you will win the lottery, but if you do, that doesn't mean god did it. It just means you won. Same with the formation of the earth and life. I admit, it seems highly improbable, given the "just right" conditions required for it to happen. But just because it did happen, doesn't mean god did it. Perhaps (and I think likely) some other life form has evolved somewhere else in the universe, and is struggling with the same questions. All I know is we got lucky in the all-universe lotto.

According to your lottery theory, gravity should turn off some time sooner or later by magic and we will all die. Hmmmmmm, no. Where's my proof, there's none.

sconner:

Now to explain why bad things happen to good people, you have humankind to blame for that. When God created the world, according to my beliefs, there was no sin and everything was good. Then humanity gave into the temptation and sinned and must be cut off from God because He is pure and can't have anything to do with sin. Humans decided their path, they CHOSE to do something wrong and these are the consequences we must deal with, disease, war, and everything else.

charlesh04 said...

sconner,
Ok, first of all I am sorry to here about your son. That had to be so hard to go through. My wife and I are expecting a baby girl in June. I can't imagine losing her like that. I don't know you but as a fellew human being I feel for you, even though we disagree about many things.

Back to the discussion.
You talk about proff of a God. You talk about Giving examples of the supernatural.
First let me make it clear. I have never used illegal drugs. I have taken a few over the counter pain killers, and a few perscribed drugs. Not very much at all. I have never had any problems with mental problems and my family has no history of any psychological problems at all. No crazy claims of any kind. As far as Christians go, we are pretty careful and conservative with supernatural claims.

When I was 16 I saw a vission. I was in my parents bathroom and felt a feeling like I hadn't felt before. Save the jokes. I am being serious. I then saw a vission on my parents sink countertop. I saw people or what looked like people were white. They all had their back to me and were lifting their hands. They were all facing somthing in the middle that was the base of something. The only difference was one woman or man with long hair. she was looking down and seemed to be crying. I saw this in that bathroom for about a year and it started to fad. The last time I looked I didn't see anything. It was gone. I couldn't even make out what I saw at all.
I am a normal person that never has things like this happen. How would you explain that.
I know some will think I am just making it up or crazy, but if I was going to make something up I would have made it a lot better.

The point and counter points about our opinions are great and have made me think. I am still going through your points. I just felt like sharing something beyond that.

Let the, your just crazy, comments begin.

-c

thebibleisstupid said...

I notice no one wants to include my blogger name in their response. Cool!

Science doesn't and can't explain everything. Why does gravity keep me here? Why doesn't it just turn off and let me go into space? Why does my body function the way it does, how I want it to move every time I want to do something?You have a very flawed idea of science. No scientist has ever claimed that science has all the answers. Indeed, one of the intriguing things about science is knowing it will NEVER have all the answers. There will always be something to discover. The bible, on the other hand, has fewer and fewer answers, until all that's left are logical anachronisms (like pretty much everything in Genesis).

The only people who try to claim they have all the answers are certain christians who point to the bible. Even when I was a believer, I never thought the bible had all the answers. It was when I discovered the bible has no answers, there was no longer a reason to believe. Given that the volume of scientific material far outweighs the bible, I will contend that science certainly has more answers than the bible.


According to your lottery theory, gravity should turn off some time sooner or later by magic and we will all die. Hmmmmmm, no. Where's my proof, there's none.
Your understanding of probability is also very flawed. (I hope you're not majoring in engineering there at A&M!). A future event with low probability has a low probability of happening (obvious, right? It should be). A past event which has occurred has a probability of happening of 100%.

Your gravity example is a silly strawman, and I'm not really sure what your point is, but let's say for arguments sake there is some probability of gravity stopping, say 10^-100 per year. If gravity doesn't stop this year, the probability of it happening next year is 10^-100. If it doesn't happen for 10,000 years, the probability of it happening in year 10,001 is 10^-100. If it happens in year 10,001, the probability of it happening in 10,001 is 1. The probability of it happening in 10,002 is 10^-100. Just because it happened in 10,001 is not evidence of god. Just because it didn't happen in 0-10,000 is not evidence of god either.

Before you engage on more discussion of probability, you need to pass the following quiz:

Say there is a lottery in which three digits (0-9) are randomly selected from three separate buckets, so each digit is independent of the others.
1. What is the probability that today's winning number (which hasn't happened yet) will match your single choice?
2. What is the probability that tomorrow's winning number will match today's winning number (which hasn't happened yet)?

It's not a trick question, but you should think about it. A local newspaper recently got #2 wrong.

TexasAggie2012 said...

There is a probability of 1/1000 for the first one and I am pretty sure the second is 1/1000. This has nothing to do with anything though.

But you still avoid the question, why is everything happening the way it is? Why is the universe as perfect as it is down to the smallest detail? You have faith that everything will happen the way it's supposed to.

Obviously you just read the Bible or skimmed it if you even did that. If you read it in depth and study it, you would see the answers are right there in front of you. And a good portion of science are theories with no proof of anything. However, there is proof everywhere in the Bible even though it was written by fallible people. God trusted these people with His word and they wrote it down the way He wanted it to be written.

Now here's a little quiz for you:

Now if the Bible is not true and all of this Christianity thing is a lie, why do so many people believe in it?

sconnor said...

When I was 16 I saw a vission. I was in my parents bathroom and felt a feeling like I hadn't felt before. Save the jokes. I am being serious. I then saw a vission on my parents sink countertop. I saw people or what looked like.....

Sorry personal experiences are inadmissible.

Other religions also experience unexplained apparitions that they attribute to their deity or other supernatural explanations.

What you experienced could very well have a natural explanation like some kind of neurological problem or a virus.

Point is just because we don't have an explanation doesn't mean it has to be a superstitious, supernatural explanation.

Furthermore this experience in NO way proves your christian god exists.

--S.

sconnor said...

texasaggie2012

Now to explain why bad things happen to good people, you have humankind to blame for that. When God created the world, according to my beliefs, there was no sin and everything was good. Then humanity gave into the temptation and sinned and must be cut off from God because He is pure and can't have anything to do with sin. Humans decided their path, they CHOSE to do something wrong and these are the consequences we must deal with, disease, war, and everything else.What a crock of sh*t.

That lame explanation might satisfy you but for me it is nothing but mythological hogwash.

It is not at all, clear, that suffering was caused by the fall or by satan. You seemed to have made assumptions based on recollection and declarations that do not come from the context of the story of Adam and Eve. I'm not sure how to approach this without sounding condescending, but I suspect you are getting your information from a slew of varying people. The ideas and notions you present come from christian doctrine or perhaps from the reading of apologetics. The one thing I am sure of, you are not coming up with your own ideas, from the actual context of the story. My accusation comes, specifically, from your understanding of Genesis with respects to the Adam and Eve story. You have added layers of interpretation to the text and you don't take into consideration the original authors intention, which suggests you have not read it in awhile, for yourself.

I suggest you take a closer look at the context of Genesis 2-3

1. There you will find no mention of sin, let alone original sin or the first sin.

2. The serpent is never referred to as satan.

3. Satan plays no part in the garden, nor in Genesis, nor in the Pentateuch.

4. There is however a snake that god created, albeit it a talking snake, that was created as a "sneaky" snake. Depending on your translation the snake could be, sneaky or devious, but the actual Hebrew word, "aruwm", means "mentally acute", "shrewd", or "sharp-witted" -- not deceptive.

5. Nowhere in Genesis does it say the snake tempted anyone.

6. In fact, in the details of the story, the snake is not deceptive he is acutely perceptive.

7. With this perception, he tells it like it is -- the truth.

8. He tells Eve, she will not die the day she eats of the fruit and that she will gain a moral knowledge. Low and behold she didn't die and now she knows right from wrong -- What a wise and truthful, talking, snake.

9. God lied and said, the day you eat of the tree of knowledge you will surely die. The snake said no you won't.

10. Nowhere does god tell Adam and Eve, what will happen to them, nor that by disobeying him, evil would take a foothold on our planet, causing humanity to suffer in cruel and inhumane ways, which he imposed, after they partook of the fruit. Nor does it convey a utopia, where suffering was non-existent.

11. God does not tell them it was unacceptable -- he does not tell them why they can not eat from the tree of knowledge, he just tells them not to, but then lies and says they will surely die the day they eat of it.

12. I know what you are thinking, so I'll head you off at the pass. To save god's reputation of not being a deceiver, you will surely say, What god really meant, was they would lose their immortality. Nowhere, in the context of the story, is it ever implied, that god bestowed immortality on Adam and Eve nor that immortality would be their destiny. For you to imply such a thing, you would be embellishing the context of the story and assigning layers of interpretation. So, god, after attempting to keep his children from gaining knowledge of good and evil, now wants to keep immortality for himself and whoever he is referring to, with, "us", as the last step of protecting his divinity from Adam and Eve, and humanity. So now he posts a scary guard with a flaming sword, in front of the tree of immortality, which shows a god with NO foreknowledge, because he could have posted the same guard in front of the Tree of Knowledge and supposedly, could have averted the catastrophic effects, to begin with.

13. Whatever you call it, "punishment" or "discipline" the consequences were neither compassionate, loving, fair, nor anything resembling constructive instruction. In fact god's action were more akin to an abusive, raging, father, who went nuts, punishing everything around him, including the snake and all snakes after that; he bestowed hatred between Adam and Eve and all their decedents, He multiplied the pain of birth, thus securing the plight for all women, and then, in a fit of misogyny and sexism, he further cursed Eve that, "although, I make you hate your husband and childbirth will be excruciating, you will lust for him and he will rule over you". And then, god, with all divine obtuseness, curses the ground, so that Adam and all males would suffer, with endless hard labor, just to eat.

14. Why would an omniscient god punish ALL snakes for what you believe satan perpetrated? Isn't that like punishing ALL cops, because a psycho disguised as a cop killed a bunch of people?

15. When delving into the story even further, one can understand that Adam and Eve were innocents, in the story and because they had not eaten the fruit of the tree of knowledge they would not have known of good and evil; right from wrong. They didn't posses a moral conscience, at the moment they disobeyed god and to imply they sinned and because of their ignorant choice, they allowed evil to take a foothold on our planet, causing all human-kind to suffer, is stretching and manipulating the authors original intent of the story. Again, nowhere is "sin" mentioned in the story and to extrapolate what these two ancient, innocent, people -- who without the knowledge of good and evil -- could possibly understand, that what they were doing by disobeying god, was wrong, could actually be considered a sin.

It's like an innocent child, little Johnny, who, while looking at the dazzling Christmas package and with the insistence of his "cunning", older brother, can't restrain himself and opens it, even after his mom told him not to open it, after she had left the room. Now, the mom comes back and curses little Johnny and declares, he will encounter pain, every time he breathes and at school he will sweat and toil and schoolwork will be extremely difficult, for the rest of his life and not only that, lil' Johnny, just unleashed evil and from now on all his relatives will suffer, for what he did, they will suffer in unimaginable ways, children will be burned to death, children will suffer for years with incurable diseases, His relatives will suffer horrible disasters and will be maimed, There will be blindness and deafness, brain tumors and leukemia, rape, murder and mayhem. The only difference with this analogy, compared to the Adam and Eve story, is little Johnny already possessed the knowledge of right and wrong.

16. What a just and merciful, all-loving god; only on closer inspection your god is a jealous megalomaniac, who unjustly punishes a naive couple, because they made an uneducated, unknowing, child-like choice, supposedly, allowing evil into this world, thereby, cursing the rest of God's earthly children to suffer horribly. And what is even more astonishing, you condone, these egregious actions and love him for it.

Deluded foolish myths -- it's what ignorant and gullible christians gorge on.

--S.

sconnor said...

sdpsylence

Are you also saying that dead and buried people will get a chance to choose during the second coming even if they have heard of christ and his message but did not believe it or understand it or reasoned it it was invalid or they were raised in a different religion?
A: No, according to Hebrews 6:4-6 you only get to decide once. That doesn't mean that you can't live a life coming and going. Many Christians have lost faith and returned at least once, myself included. It means when your life is done what side of the line are you on. Whichever side of the line you're on, that's it. Raised in a different religion depends. Did they hear about Christ, i.e. have the option of accepting or rejecting or were they in a closed society where they never knew they had a choice? Depending on the answer, see my previous statements.So let's get this straight -- the christ-denying Jews of the Holocaust, who suffered through unspeakable terrors -- there virtual hell on earth -- where families were torn apart, brutally beaten, burned alive, experimented on, starved and worked to death -- unimaginable vile, long-term mass, suffering -- they -- knowing the supposed christian message will now reside in hell?

The reason these people will be sent to hell for the rest of eternity, is because they were not born a bible believing christian like sdpsylence and they were not persuaded to believe in the preposterous notion that all you have to do, to be saved, is to legitimately seek jesus with all their heart and telepathically tell Jesus you accept him -- an absurd idea believed by the most brain-dead christians.

Also depending on your skewed vision of salvation, the after-life and the age of accountability, were the children saved, to be eternally separated from their christ-denying adult parents and family members?

--S.

Baconsbud said...

sconnor

That was a great explanation of the so called fall from grace. I will have to try remember that one.

texasaggie2012

I will try answering some of your question but doubt I will say anything that will be close to what you want to hear. Why is everything happening the way it is? If someone knew the answer to that do you think they would really come to blogs to explain it. You are asking questions like this because no one can possibly give an answer you can't say that doesn't explain it good. You try to avoid the weakness of your religion by trying to redirect the conversation.
I'm not sure how you can say the universe is perfect. Have you ever went to the NASA and other websites with info on the universe. I don't see anything perfect in the way the universe is. There might be small parts that are perfect as we define it but on the whole the universe appears very chaotic to me.

I don't have faith that everything will happen as it should. I know that there are to many different things that can change the outcome of any event. I do believe the sun will rise tomorrow morning but that doesn't mean it will.

I unlike other out here haven't read the whole bible. I was to sickened by the hate and anger to try finishing it. That is why I seldom use verses from it in my comments. The only thing I saw proof of in the bible was that hate and violence are the best ways to control people. Yeah I know you and others like you claim the NT is about peace and all but I don't see that peace being acted upon by most christians.

The last question is just a waste of tiome since you can say the same thing about any major religion. Remember more people don't believe the bible then does. By your logic you should be a catholic or a sunni muslim. Those are the two biggest religious groups. The truth is you should be a sunni muslim since it does have the most followers of any religious view.

sconnor said...

texasaggie2012

Obviously you just read the Bible or skimmed it if you even did that.

Oh I read it and have been researching it now for the past three years.

If you read it in depth and study it, you would see the answers are right there in front of you. And a good portion of science are theories with no proof of anything.Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahahahaaaaa! Complete nonsense. You have been hanging around too many feeble apologetic websites. Man! -- christians are gullible.

Now here's a little quiz for you:

Now if the Bible is not true and all of this Christianity thing is a lie, why do so many people believe in it?
And yet the other 70% of the worlds population are other non-bible believing religions. Billions of muslims practice the faith of islam -- therefore allah exists and its religion is true.
Fallacious argument.

Additionally, there are 34,000 separate christian groups, that have splintered, ALL with vast and varying ideas as to what christianity is all about, which makes ALL those minority organizations.

I'll tell you what texasaggie2012 when christianity has one unified unequivocal message you let me know -- M-kay? I'll see you sometime in around NEVER.

Doesn't matter anyway; trying to assert your religion is true because many people believe it to be true is a fallacious argument -- argumentum ad populum (an appeal to the majority). Just because many people believe it doesn't make it true. At one time the majority believed we were the center of the universe -- it didn't make it true. At one time, the majority believed the earth was flat -- it didn't make it true.

Anymore lame and infantile apologetics and bullsh*t bloated rationalizations?

--S.

TexasAggie2012 said...

sconner:

You first point is completely stupid and wrong because the title of the chapter in my Bible says "The Beginning of Sin."

Point 2: I never said the snake was satan.

Point 5: You're right it doesn't use the words tempted but the snake tells them the fruit looks good and that the will be like God. Hmmmmm, that makes me want to take a look at this fruit. The snake allures her and another word for that just happens to be tempting.

Point 6 and 7: Yes the snake does tell the truth but God told them to not do this one thing and they did so they must be punished.

Point 9: God did not lie, they died didn't they and I think God didn't mean literally to die physically but spiritually. God Made everything good for them and the one thing He told them not to do they did and it seperated them from God.

Point 10: Uhhhhh, there was no evil in the garden. There was now evil after they ate the fruit.

Point 11: Everyone does this. You tell your kid not to do something, they ask why, you reply just don't do it.

Point 12: God created man for his enjoyment, His plan was not for them to live forever because they were to be married have kids and their kids would be there for his enjoyment. He also created everything perfect so why would he want them to know the difference about good and evil when everything they could ever need is right there. God refers to himself as "us" because it is God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.

Point 13: So if your child did something wrong you would say "oh well kids will be kids" and smile and shrug it off? They disobeyed Him and did the one thing He told them not to do and they got punished for it. I have no clue where sexism has to come into play but God created woman for the man.

Point 14: No. I never said that satan was the snake.

Point 15: Again you are wrong. So if your child sets a house on fire on accident and it kills some people it's ok because he didn't know what he was doing. That is the lamest excuse I've ever heard.

Point 16: He told them what was right from wrong and they disobeyed them. They disobeyed His laws and He punished them. That's what everyone's does with their kids. They do something wrong they get punished but that doesn't mean the parents hate the children. They punish them out of love.

Your arguments are not good enough to amount to anything. I'm pretty sure all Christians have the same Bible too and if not please point me to the other ones so I can make an argument proving I am right and my God exists.

Baconsbud said...

TexasAggie2012

So you would punish children to eternal suffering if they disobey you? You say there was no evil in the garden before they ate from the fruit yet how can you explain the evil done by the snake? Isn't tempting someone to do wrong a sin and evil? Where did he say that if a child set a house on fire accidentally that it would be ok?

I pity whoever you date and even possibly marry. You sound as if you think women belong to men.

I would say you have never really looked closely at what you say. You and many that call themselves christians always have to make excuse why the bible is true. It is never god that does wrong it has to be what he made. I am glad I don't fall for those lines, makes life more fun.

TexasAggie2012 said...

baconsbud:

If I gave them everything they would ever want and everything they would ever need, yeah I would make them pay for what they did ruining a perfect world.

According to sconner the snake was just telling the truth.

He never said anything about the kid setting a house on fire. If you would've read my previous comment and what it was aimed at you would understand.

Women we created to be a companion to the man and serve them. It's the man's responsibility to take care of her and serve her also.

And I am not making excuses, I am stating what I believe is true. Do you not understand that God made everything good and since it got screwed up he can't be apart of it because He is perfect?

sconnor said...

texasaggie2012

You first point is completely stupid and wrong because the title of the chapter in my Bible says "The Beginning of Sin."
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, hahahaahahahaahahahahaaaa.


Subheadings were never part of the remaining manuscripts or the original bibles. They were added by MODERN day christians, who were adding layers of interpretation and embellishing the original context of the story. Again NOWHERE in the CONTEXT of the Adam and Eve story does it ever mention sin or original sin. Do try harder to comprehend, please.


Obviously, you have not studied how the bible came together.


Point 2: I never said the snake was satan.
Fine, the snake wasn't satan. But you mentally disconnect yourself with reality to believe in a mythical snake who has command of the human language. Only the most insanely deluded christians actually believe snakes can converse with humans. You suffer from arrested development.


Do you still maintain a child-like belief that the big bad wolf from the three little pigs was based on a real wolf who had command of the human language?


Point 5: You're right it doesn't use the words tempted but the snake tells them the fruit looks good and that the will be like God. Hmmmmm, that makes me want to take a look at this fruit. The snake allures her and another word for that just happens to be tempting.
Once again you are embellishing the context of the story.


The snake does not say the fruit looks good. He tells her the truth: that she will know good from evil; right from wrong. And please, explain to me exactly, how a person can be tempted who doesn't know right from wrong; good from evil? Waiting.................


Point 6 and 7: Yes the snake does tell the truth but God told them to not do this one thing and they did so they must be punished.
God said not to eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge but how could Adam and Eve know right from wrong without having that knowledge? Furthermore, god DID NOT tell them they would be punished. He never divulged ANY consequences, that would befall Adam and Eve (except the lie they would die that day) let alone letting evil take a foothold over humanity, where people will suffer egregiously with one unimaginable miseries after another. Your dipsh*t god punished ALL of humanity for an ignorant couples mistake -- a mistake that can hardly be blamed on them because they did NOT know right from wrong NOR did they know of the sadistically insane punishment your god was going to level on humanity -- ALL of his creation.


Point 9: God did not lie, they died didn't they and I think God didn't mean literally to die physically but spiritually. God Made everything good for them and the one thing He told them not to do they did and it separated them from God.
And if you want to use modern translations from contemporary bibles to support your "subheading sin argument" then try this on for size:


Genesis 2:15-17 (CEV) The LORD God put the man in the Garden of Eden to take care of it and to look after it. But the LORD told him, "You may eat fruit from any tree in the garden, except the one that has the power to let you know the difference between right and wrong. If you eat any fruit from that tree, you will die before the day is over!"


Point 10: Uhhhhh, there was no evil in the garden. There was now evil after they ate the fruit.
Show me -- in the context of the Garden of Eden story -- where it says there was NO evil in the garden and then show me where -- in the context of the Garden of Eden story -- does it say, evil would take a foothold on our planet, causing humanity to suffer in cruel and inhumane ways -- like natural disasters, disease and plague, genetic deformities, mental illness.


What's more you never addressed the specific point of #10. God NEVER told the innocent, ignorant couple, who didn't know right from wrong what the ACTUAL consequences were to be. They had NO idea that evil and horrible suffering would be the outcome nor could they understand the outcome because they didn't know the difference between right and wrong. CAN....YOU......UNDER.....STAND?


Point 11: Everyone does this. You tell your kid not to do something, they ask why, you reply just don't do it.
Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, hahahahahahahahahahaaa.


Don't presume to know how I teach my children. My children do KNOW the consequences of their actions. They know if they get in trouble, TV, PlayStation privileges will be taken away or they will be grounded, or other privileges will be snatched. I also use a proactive method by letting them watch shows like "Intervention", that can vividly show them the horrific realities of life, if they get addicted to drugs and alcohol, how it can utterly destroy a life.


I also reward good behavior with trips to the park and an occasional ICEE or a trip to the toy store. I routinely educate them what is appropriate and inappropriate behavior. I also use constructive criticism which is very beneficial. Furthermore my children DO possess a moral compass as opposed to the fictional couple in your fairy tale. Is ANY of this beginning to penetrate your thick skull?


Also, I would NEVER punish my children in hideous ways like your god did. What's more I would not punish future generations with hideous suffering because of something my children did -- you know, just like what your ALL-loving god did to the rest of humanity.


Point 12: God created man for his enjoyment, His plan was not for them to live forever because they were to be married have kids and their kids would be there for his enjoyment.


Where does it say that in the contexts of the Adam and Eve story? Do you just pull this sh*t out of your butt?


He also created everything perfect so why would he want them to know the difference about good and evil when everything they could ever need is right there.


Fine; so we are in agreement he didn't give them a moral compass -- they didn't know right from wrong. Then how can they be held accountable for their ignorant actions? You could have told them anything and they wouldn't know what they were doing was right or wrong, nor would they understand what repercussions were. This is why mythological stories are NOT to be taken literally -- too many inconsistencies.


God refers to himself as "us" because it is God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
Later embellishment from christianity. It is not part of the contexts of the story. Jewish scholars have a different interpretation. Do a little research will you.............


Point 13: So if your child did something wrong you would say "oh well kids will be kids" and smile and shrug it off? They disobeyed Him and did the one thing He told them not to do and they got punished for it.
Do you ever get tired of presenting stunted infantile analogies that are completely fallacious?


I would NEVER punish one of my children like the abusive and sadistic way god punished his children. The punishment doesn't fit the minor infraction and to reiterate, I would not extend the vile unjust punishment to future generations like your god did in the fictional account.


Additionally depending on the level of the infraction that one of my children committed -- yeah -- I might say, kids will be kids and shrug it off. If my young innocent child was enticed by a piece of christmas candy and couldn't resist herself and ate it, even, after I had told her NOT to -- sure I might blow it off. But I sure as hell wouldn't go ballistic like your evil god did and curse the rest of humanity with repugnant suffering.


I have no clue where sexism has to come into play but God created woman for the man.
It's because the bible was written by a fallible, male-dominated, patriarchal society.


Point 14: No. I never said that satan was the snake.


Again you ignore the specifics of my point. Your god Not only punished the fictional snake in question but then punished ALL snakes and the rest of humanity -- how is this fair?


Point 15: Again you are wrong. So if your child sets a house on fire on accident and it kills some people it's ok because he didn't know what he was doing. That is the lamest excuse I've ever heard.
You do realize that the law of the land does take into consideration the age and maturity of the child? If a four year old found a lighter and caught the house on fire you could not hold that child accountable because they did NOT understand the repercussions. The child would NOT understand what she/he was doing.


They same goes for the fictional couple in the Garden Story -- they did NOT know right from wrong. What don't you understand?


Additionally, there is a difference between accidentally doing something and doing something with malicious intent. The innocent characters in the Garden Story weren't even malicious. Even if they were malicious (which they weren't) the punishment of letting evil and misery into the world causing millions to suffer in unthinkable ways is still morbidly unjust.


Point 16: He told them what was right from wrong and they disobeyed them.


There you go again just making sh*t up. Where does he tell them what was right from wrong? He just told them NOT to eat from the tree of knowledge -- without ANY further elaboration. Even if he did tell them right from wrong they would NOT have understood it. I could tell a four year old it is wrong to run into a street but that doesn't mean they'll understand that command. The innocent ignorant couple from the Garden Myth didn't even possess the moral compass of a four year old -- THEY DID NOT KNOW RIGHT FROM WRONG -- can you grasp that?


They disobeyed His laws and He punished them. That's what everyone's does with their kids. They do something wrong they get punished but that doesn't mean the parents hate the children. They punish them out of love.
Again the mental disconnect from the actual story is stunning. If a parent punished his children for a minor infraction like eating fruit and then doled out the cruel, torturous punishment for ALL of humanity that god did in your fairy tale -- those parents would be despised for their vile actions and prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.


How is this love? You are deranged.


Your arguments are not good enough to amount to anything. I'm pretty sure all Christians have the same Bible too and if not please point me to the other ones so I can make an argument proving I am right and my God exists.


My arguments are solid and germane. It's the mental gymnastics and twisted-logic that you employ to make your fairy tale fit your warped-reality that doesn't amount to anything -- they are infantile and laughable. You are incapable of generating logical arguments and you must resort to asinine analogies that don't even come close to what is written in the fictional account. You have Deluded yourself so as to mistake mythical stories as reality.


You're a pathetic christian drone trying desperately to hold onto your ignorant delusional beliefs and you are only worthy of ridicule -- something to be laughed at. You can only offer silly superstitions and stunted rationalizations for your idiotic beliefs, never substantiating ANYTHING with actual objective evidence. You are basing EVERYTHING from your own idiosyncratic interretation of a MYTH and from other lame apologetics.


Now back to your deer-in the-headlight christian dream-land where snakes can communicate with the human language and someone who was dead and buried for three days could be resurrected -- alive and well; good as new. Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.


Take care to comprehend the quote below -- it greatly applies to you.


The best minds will tell you that when a man has begotten a child he is morally bound to tenderly care for it, protect it from hurt, shield it from disease, clothe it, feed it, bear with its waywardness, lay no hand upon it save in kindness and for its own good, and never in any case inflict upon it a wanton cruelty. God's treatment of his earthly children, every day and every night, is the exact opposite of all that, yet those best minds warmly justify these crimes, condone them, excuse them, and indignantly refuse to regard them as crimes at all, when he commits them. Your country and mine is an interesting one, but there is nothing there that is half so interesting as the human mind. -- Mark Twain--S.

sconnor said...

texasaggie2012


And I am not making excuses, I am stating what I believe is true. Do you not understand that God made everything good and since it got screwed up he can't be apart of it because He is perfect?


And do you realize that your fictional bible-god character -- without ANY forethought -- was the one who kicked this whole thing into motion? Shouldn't he have realized that by putting an innocent couple, in the garden, who didn't know right from wrong would not comprehend his command to NOT eat from the tree of knowledge? If god was truly omniscient and wanted to protect his bastion of knowledge, why didn't he put the guard with the flaming sword in front of the tree of knowledge, which could have averted the catastrophic effects of hideous unimaginable suffering from the beginning?


Your bible-god character is NOT perfect; he was morbidly negligent and and painfully incompetent.


Sing it with me texasaggie:


~Fairy~tales~can~come~true~they~
~can~happen~to~you~when~you're~
~deluded~at~heart~


--S.

TexasAggie2012 said...

They knew right from wrong because God told them. You can do whatever you want-right, but don't eat from the tree-wrong. And there is a difference between good and evil and right and wrong. Let me simplify my example so you can understand it. Killing people is not good. But if they invade your house and threaten you and your family, you are allowed to protect yourself and family and kill them. Not good, but right.

I don't see what's wrong with the punishment. The world was perfect and the screwed it up and their lives and all other lives must be punished. But you can be saved because God didn't want to punish them but He did what He had to.

A sin is doing something wrong when told what not to do so Adam and Eve were told what not to do and they did it anyway, that sounds like a sin to me. Just because it is not written in words doesn't mean it's not, you have to think outside the box.

Your entire argument is futile, see I can use big words too, because they did know right from wrong. They were capable of thinking and drawing conclusions.

Baconsbud said...

TexasAggie2012 if the universe was perfect, how could they have sinned? You go on about sin but then turn around saying how perfect everything is. Think about what you are saying. If it was perfect it wouldn't be possible for them to sin. Don't say our definition of perfect and your gods are different. Don't say there is free will for if your god has a plan then there can be no free will. Think about what you say everything is according to gods plan. That means that nothing happens that isn't already known. When something is already known about the future then how can it be free will for you can do nothing else. If you think only the big things are preplanned, what makes something you do big enough to be part of the preplanned action. A sneeze can easily be why you live or die.

thebibleisstupid said...

Sorry, I'm not as prolific as sconnor or baconsbud. This is in response to Aggie several pages ago.

Congratulations. You are correct about the probability question, and there may be hope for you yet. You are wrong, however, about it not having anything to do with anything. It does mean you at least have the slightest inkling about independent and non-independent probabilities. And since that seems to be the root of many rationalizations of the bible, it is indeed important.

Now, why everything is the way it is? I don't know. I never claimed to know. There is a concept called pantheism that basically says the physical laws that the universe seems to adhere to constitute god. I can't really argue with this. If this is your definition of god, then I agree. We choose to use different labels, but whatever. Deism is also similar in concept to pantheism. Neither has anything to do with the bible.

The bible does not have anything relevant the the universe as we currently understand it. Your dismissive "obviously haven't read the bible" is typical and incorrect. I have studied the bible quite a bit recently, and it was actually after I started looking at it in detail that I realized it is garbage. When I was a believer, I had read very little of the bible. I simply accepted the cutesy bible stories from sunday school without really thinking about them. Once I started reading it critically, I realized these cutesy stories are really quite stupid. There is no proof in the bible of anything, other than there was once a collection of really awful writers who somehow got their terrible stories assembled into the bible. I suspect they were related to the guys who wrote the koran, which I understand is also quite stupid. (I have not studied the koran. The bible is bad enough.)

For your last question, why do so many people believe in the bible if it's not true? All I can say is a lot of people are delusional. The implication that if enough people believe it, it must be true, is really a dumb argument. A bunch of children believe santa claus and easter bunny are real. Not too long ago, most people believed that the best way to treat disease is to drain blood from the person. Also not too long ago, a sizable part of the population thought that owning slaves was okey-dokey. All of these people are or were very wrong.

The number of people who believe something is only an indication of how well they have been taught to believe it. It is not an indication of how true the thing they believe actually is.

TexasAggie2012 said...

baconsbud:

Congratulations, you have got me there. Maybe if I read into it I could give you an answer but I am stumped. I applaud your point.

sconnor said...

texasaggie2012,


They knew right from wrong because God told them.


You have already said this.


You can do whatever you want-right, but don't eat from the tree-wrong.


Look-- this is how it works: You make an argument -- you have already asserted, Adam and Eve knew right from wrong because god told them.

I argued that they couldn't know right from wrong because they did NOT POSSESS that knowledge. They DID NOT eat from the tree of knowledge. I further elaborated (which you chose to ignore) that: I could tell a four year old it is wrong to run into a street but that doesn't mean they'll understand that command. Both the four year old and the ignorant couple from the story did NOT have the capacity to understand right from wrong.


Just because god told them NOT to eat from the tree of knowledge does NOT mean they knew right from wrong. Contextually, they did not possess the knowledge of right and wrong to make an educated decision, just like the four year old in my example.


Now -- this is where you must refute that argument. All you did was restate your earlier argument. Now can you, specifically, refute my last argument or not?


If you can't come up with anything new, then you can leave.


I don't see what's wrong with the punishment. The world was perfect and they screwed it up and their lives and all other lives must be punished. But you can be saved because God didn't want to punish them but He did what He had to.

Of course you don't see what's wrong with the punishment -- you're a deluded christian, suffering from the brain-disease of christian fundamentalism.


Explain to me -- in the real world -- where it would be "just" and "appropriate" punishment to cause countless millions to suffer egregiously in unimaginable ways for a crime they did NOT commit?


Explain to me how it was FAIR that my ten year old son, got a rare form of leukemia, suffered horribly for months, with painful lesions on his tongue and throat, torturous biopsies, coughing up blood, going into respiratory arrest, twisting in agonizing pain, night and day because the blood in his veins was turning into sludge, only to die from a massive heart attack -- just because an ignorant, innocent couple thousands of years ago disobeyed god because they did NOT know right from wrong?


My son ONLY represents EVERY child who has ever suffered in this world and you think your god was justified in his actions? Both you and your god-concept are revolting.


I'll tell you what texasaggie, why don't you take a trip down to your local Pediatric Intensive Care Unit and the Pediatric Burn Unit and you let ALL the parents know their children are being PUNISHED by god because of a nescient couple who ate from the tree of knowledge.


A sin is doing something wrong when told what not to do so Adam and Eve were told what not to do and they did it anyway, that sounds like a sin to me. Just because it is not written in words doesn't mean it's not, you have to think outside the box.Out of the box? You are embellishing the contexts of the story. You are adding layers of interpretation and erroneous information to support your assertion.


Again, refer to my "four year old" argument. Adam and Eve were incapable of knowing what they did was wrong, let alone it being a sin. They had NOT acquired the knowledge from THE TREE OF KNOWLEDGE. These are the FACTS from the context of the story. The ancient superstitious myth-writers, wrote themselves into a trap.


This is why basing your world-view on myths are obscenely ridiculous.


Your entire argument is futile, see I can use big words too...

Awwwwwww, poor baby -- are my words too big for you. Don't blame me for your morbid inadequacies and shortcomings.

--S.

TexasAggie2012 said...

sconner:

You are sorely mistaken again. It is the tree of knowledge OF GOOD AND EVIL! In 12 different versions of the Bible I have looked at, they all say the same thing, the tree of knowledge OF GOOD AND EVIL, not the tree of all knowledge. Adam and Eve were capable of thinking and making decisions themselves. They were not stupid or childish. You make it seem like they had no clue what was going on and what they were doing there, just observing their surroundings thinking "this is cool". God created them with a brain capable of making decisions. Eve made a decision and ate the fruit, that requires some brain activity. They managed to have kids and they knew how to take care them. They obviously knew something. You are embellishing the contexts in the story.

Once again Adam and Eve brought evil into the world. That is why we have diseases that kill innocent people, like your son, we have famine that kills people, and why we have war and many other things that kill people. Don't think your the only one in the world that has lost someone you've loved. I had a friend die in a car wreck, no alcohol, no speeding, no nothing. The tires lost traction and spun out and he got hit by an oncoming car. Innocent people die everyday for reasons no one can explain and it's not fair at all.

Now to answer your question. Terrorists. They try to ruin our way of life so we go over there and attack them and try to end reign of terror and evil. We force them to be on the run constantly hiding in caves, hiding underground, hiding in uncomfortable places, eating probably not the best food. We are after the ones who didn't necessarily planned or took part in the attacks but we go after them to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Baconsbud said...

TexasAggie2012 Your first paragraph says it all. They, according to you have no idea what good and evil are. The only people I have ever known that don't know the meaning of good and evil are mentally deficient and the very young. If someone is innocent of that knowledge they can be easily manipulated into most anything. You also are ignoring the fact that many christians are taught it is the tree of knowledge not the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

You say that Adam and Eve brought evil here but doesn't that also mean it existed somewhere. If it existed somewhere then evil is just a part of this perfection that god created. Are abortions part of this perfection created by god?

TexasAggie2012 said...

baconsbud:

I don't get your point. You made my point. They didn't know of good and evil so they got manipulated, you said it yourself in the below statements.
They, according to you have no idea what good and evil are(...) If someone is innocent of that knowledge they can be easily manipulated into most anything.

Also, please tell me where evil existed before this, I would like to know. And abortion is a sin that is evil that got brought into the world by Adam and Eve.

sconnor said...

texasaggie

You are sorely mistaken again. It is the tree of knowledge OF GOOD AND EVIL! In 12 different versions of the Bible I have looked at, they all say the same thing, the tree of knowledge OF GOOD AND EVIL, not the tree of all knowledge.

Never said it was the tree of ALL knowledge.

I know it is difficult for you to digest information. Try real hard and let this sink in.

Because they had NOT partaken of the tree of knowledge of GOOD and EVIL, they clearly had NO knowledge of GOOD and EVIL, which is to say they had NO moral sense (no moral conscience) at the moment of their decision to disobey god. If they didn't know about good and evil(bad) how w2ere they to know what they were doing was "bad" (wrong) or "good" (right)? Is it starting to sink in?

Additionally christians point to the Garden of Eden story as the point when mankind did inherit morality --know right from wrong. You need to brush up on your asinine apologetics!

Genesis 3:1-7 v1 Now the snake was the most clever among all the wild animals that the *Lord God had made. The snake said this to the woman: ‘Did God say that you can eat the fruit from all the trees in the garden?’

v2 This is how the woman answered the snake. ‘We can eat the fruit from the trees in the garden. v3 But God said, “You must not eat the fruit from a certain tree. That tree is in the middle of the garden. Do not even touch it, otherwise you will die.” ’

v4 But the snake replied to the woman, ‘You will not die. v5 But when you eat the fruit, your eyes will open. God knows that. You will be like God and you will know right things and wrong things.

v6 So the woman saw that the fruit was good to eat. And she saw that it was lovely to look at. She also thought that it would make her wise. She then took some fruit and she ate it. She also gave some fruit to her husband and he ate it. v7 Then their eyes opened. They realised that they were naked. They sewed together leaves from a fig tree to cover themselves. (Figs are sweet fruit with many seeds.)



COMMENTARY FOR ABOVE



Notes on the verses
Verse 1 God had made the snake. But *Satan was using it to do something against God’s command. The snake was able to talk to the woman. That shows that it was not an ordinary snake. There was only one tree whose fruit God had forbidden the woman to eat. But the snake made her want that fruit. The snake made her think that God was not speaking the truth. It made her think that God did not care about her and Adam.

Verse 3 The woman spoke as if God had given a very strict command. She said that God had ordered her and Adam, ‘Do not even touch it (the fruit).’ But God had not said that.

Verse 4 The snake then denied what God had said. The snake said, ‘You will not die.’

Verse 5 ‘Your eyes will open’. Writers in the Bible often say that. It does not mean that we cannot see things round us now. It means that we do not understand about God. The woman was greedy. She wanted the fruit and she wanted to be like God. However, God had made the woman like himself already. God had given power to her and her husband, so that they had power over everything else. The woman could have sent the snake away.

Verse 7 ‘Their eyes opened’. *Sin affects all parts of us. Adam and Eve were not actually blind before. But now they saw that they had done something wrong. In other words, they understood it with their mind. They ate the fruit with their bodies, because they were not obeying God with their mind. Then they felt ashamed because they were naked.

http://www.easyenglish.info/bible-commentary/genesis-mwks-lbw.htm



BTW don't even mention the *Sin quote. Again this is a later embellishment from modern christians.



Furthermore, here's another translation.



Obviously your research methods are on par with your dismal word comprehension.



Genesis 2:15-17 The LORD God put the man in the Garden of Eden to take care of it and to look after it. But the LORD told him, "You may eat fruit from any tree in the garden, except the one that has the power to let you know the difference between right and wrong. If you eat any fruit from that tree, you will die before the day is over!"

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%202:15-17;&version=46;



Genesis 3:4-5 "No, you won't!" the snake replied. "God understands what will happen on the day you eat fruit from that tree. You will see what you have done, and you will know the difference between right and wrong, just as God does."

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis%203:1-7;&version=46;



Adam and Eve were capable of thinking and making decisions themselves. They were not stupid or childish. You make it seem like they had no clue what was going on and what they were doing there, just observing their surroundings thinking "this is cool". God created them with a brain capable of making decisions. Eve made a decision and ate the fruit, that requires some brain activity.

The context of the story is clear. They did NOT possess a moral conscious because they did NOT eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. At the time they did not know, what they were doing was good OR evil -- right from wrong. I'm NOT embellishing the context of the story. Its all their in black and white.



If you did not possess the knowledge of good and evil how could you make a moral decision?



Really, really, try hard and let this sink in.



They managed to have kids and they knew how to take care them.

................after they ate from the tree of knowledge.



Once again Adam and Eve brought evil into the world. That is why we have diseases that kill innocent people, like your son, we have famine that kills people, and why we have war and many other things that kill people. Don't think your the only one in the world that has lost someone you've loved.

STRWAMAN. You are using a infantile diverging tactic because you can NOT justify your god's abusive vile actions.



I NEVER argued that I was the only one in the world who has lost anyone.



I actually went out of my way to say my son represents EVERY child who has ever suffered horribly in the world.



Innocent people die everyday for reasons no one can explain and it's not fair at all.



That's right -- it's NOT FAIR that your sadistic god PUNISHES INNOCENT people because an ignorant couple -- with NO moral conscious (not knowing what they did was evil or good) by disobeying him.



Is this starting to penetrate your cranium?



Now to answer your question. Terrorists. They try to ruin our way of life so we go over there and attack them and try to end reign of terror and evil. We force them to be on the run constantly hiding in caves, hiding underground, hiding in uncomfortable places, eating probably not the best food. We are after the ones who didn't necessarily planned or took part in the attacks but we go after them to make sure it doesn't happen again.

FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT.



Intel points to terrorist that will do us harm. They belong to organizations that have committed heinous acts of terrorism.



You see -- this is how an analogy works:



A&E did something wrong because they did not posssess a moral conscience and then god punished countless millions of INNOCENT people so that they would suffer in repugnabt unimaginable ways for a crime they did not commit.



Now, you MUST deliever an analogy that would show an incocent person who did not possess a moral conscious commiting a minor infraction where millions of innocent people are punished severely with unthinkable suffering for a crime they did NOT commit.



Can you do that?


--S.

thebibleisstupid said...

Innocent people die everyday for reasons no one can explain and it's not fair at all. Well, according to you, it is completely fair and explainable. It's god punishing them because of something that allegedly happened thousands of years ago that they had nothing to do with. And that they're not really innocent because somehow the transgressions of Adam and Eve are magically affixed for generations.

This concept of transferral of guilt and responsibility from one person to another is one of the most offensive concepts in the bible.

sconnor said...

texasaggie

Also, please tell me where evil existed before this, I would like to know.

Silly rabbit MYTHS are for deluded christians.

I know -- that you being a po-dunk (probably) home-schooled creationist -- it will be difficult for you to comprehend life existed (in many forms) waaaaay before your infantile creation-concept ever saw the light of day and these biological organisms were susceptible to disease and injury.

I know it is beyond your comprehension to dismiss the idea that Adam and Eve plowed their fields with the help of a stegosaurus and they went to work riding on the back of a velociraptor, ala The Flintstones -- but try real hard to cop a clue.

The scientific objective evidence is overwhelming and ONLY the most zombified dumb-arse christian would babble otherwise.

440 million years ago. End of the Ordovician period.
370 million years ago. Near the end of the Devonian period.
245 million years ago. End of Permian.
210 million years ago. End of Triassic.
65 million years ago. End of Cretaceous.

In fact 99% of all life has gone extinct -- all by natural causes. ALL well before your fabricated story with the talking snake suggests.

Oh wait! Damn! I was wrong, I just saw a talking snake on TV. Talking snakes are real!

Disney wouldn't lie -- right?

--S.

TexasAggie2012 said...

sconner:

I don't see anywhere where it says they didn't have a "moral sense" or "moral character". You are using completely false assumptions to try and make your poorly pieced together argument and your saddening grammer and spelling.

Here's another answer to your question, why did Germany and Hitler invade Poland and Austria and begin killing Jews and other people? I didn't see the Jews committing crimes against Nazis but you probably have something to say about me "embellishing" the story or I am making a "fallacious argument".

And I know it's hard for a person with a head way too far up his butt to realize that these dinosaurs had to be made by something and I don't see evolution supporting this, but it may support why your brain still hasn't developed from a monkey's. I'm proud that you read up on your geology, too. Finally, something that has a posibility of being true is thrown into your arguments! You get a gold star!

Wait, on the Science Channel right now. They just proved the Mayas were abducted by aliens and that's why they disappeared so abruptly without warning.

I mean the Science Channel wouldn't lie, right? And I'm pretty sure you probably being a 40-year old man or woman still watching the Disney channel is the saddest thing I've ever seen. Please grow up or at least pretend that you are older than me.

sconnor said...

texasaggie


And I'm pretty sure you probably being a 40-year old man or woman still watching the Disney channel is the saddest thing I've ever seen...

Er? I wasn't literally watching a Disney movie. I was ridiculing your absurd belief in talking snakes. Perhaps you speak parceltongue -- the snake language from the Harry Potter movie? Oh wait, your mommy probably didn't let you watch movies about witchcraft and wizards -- oops.


...why did Germany and Hitler invade Poland and Austria and begin killing Jews and other people? I didn't see the Jews committing crimes against Nazis but you probably have something to say about me "embellishing" the story or I am making a "fallacious argument".

It is a fallacious argument.


I originally asked: Explain to me -- in the real world -- where it would be "just" and "appropriate" punishment to cause countless millions to suffer egregiously in unimaginable ways for a crime they did NOT commit?


From your deluded mind, you asserted, "I don't see what's (god's innocent earthly children suffering for a crime they did not commit) wrong with the punishment".


Was it "just" and "appropriate" for the NAZIS to torture and kill the Jews of the Holocaust?


Are you condoning Hitler's actions -- too?


Do you EVER get tired of vomiting up one moronic argument after another?


Your god and Hitler do have something in common -- both are sadistic genocidal maniacs.


You think it was "just" and "appropriate" punishment that god inflicted on his earthly children.


1. Show me -- in the real world -- where it would be "just" and "appropriate" punishment to cause countless millions to suffer egregiously in unimaginable ways for a crime they did NOT commit?


The problem is texasaggie -- there is NOTHING you could reference in real-life that would support your assertion that god's punitive actions were moral. Waiting.........


I don't see anywhere where it says they didn't have a "moral sense" or "moral character". You are using completely false assumptions to try and make your poorly pieced together argument and your saddening grammer and spelling.Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, hahahahahahahahahahahaha!


This coming from the dip-sh*t who can't spell "grammar".


People debating on blogs are accustomed to occasional misspelled words.


BTW, I noticed you conveniently ignored the FACT that there are translations that say "right" or "wrong".


2. Additionally you still are ignoring my argument -- that if the couple did not know what good and evil were because they did not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, then how would they know if what they were doing was morally right or wrong?


Please address this argument, specifically.


3. Furthermore, your "god told them argument" is fallacious because as I pointed out to you -- you could tell a four year old not to cross the road but they are incapable of distinguishing between good and bad behavior.


4. Put another way -- if a mentally challenged adult committed a crime but it was decided that under our judicial system of law that they could NOT be found guilty, because the evidence showed that their moral judgment was impaired and they could NOT differentiate good from evil they would be considered unfit to stand trial. Because of there inability to understand good from evil, it would be impossible to understand right from wrong. PLEASE, PLEASE try to understand this. This is not embellishing.


Please specifically address arguments 3 and 4.


5. If you did not know the difference between good and evil how could you make a moral decision?


Please answer the question, specifically.


I don't see evolution supporting this...

If you're too stupid to understand science immerse yourself in christianity.


--S.

sconnor said...

texasaggie2012


~IN ADDITION~


I don't see anywhere where it says they didn't have a "moral sense" or "moral character". You are using completely false assumptions to try and make your poorly pieced together argument and your saddening grammer (Grammar? LOL) and spelling.

I'm NOT assuming or embellishing.


What do you think it means -- NOT to know what good and evil means? It means they did NOT have a moral sense or a moral character. They DID NOT know what they were doing -- they had NO sense of good and evil -- right from wrong.



Consider the definition.



mor·al (môrl, mr-)


ADJECTIVE:


Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character: moral scrutiny; a moral quandary.
Teaching or exhibiting goodness or correctness of character and behavior: a moral lesson.
Conforming to standards of what is right or just in behavior; virtuous: a moral life.
Arising from conscience or the sense of right and wrong: a moral obligation.
Having psychological rather than physical or tangible effects: a moral victory; moral support.
Based on strong likelihood or firm conviction, rather than on the actual evidence: a moral certainty. (Emphasis mine)
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/dictionary/entry/moral


I'm NOT making assumptions. The definition of NOT being able to judge or differentiate between good and evil is absolutely clear.


They did not have a natural understanding (sense) of good and evil.


They did not possess the knowledge of good and evil, which means they did NOT possess a moral character.


If you DID NOT know the difference between good and evil, then how could you -- by definition -- have a moral sense or possess a moral character?


Waiting......................


--S.

sconnor said...

sdpsylence


Maybe you missed my last post to you.


I've re-posted it for your convenience. Could you please address my points.


Sconnor said: Are you also saying that dead and buried people will get a chance to choose during the second coming even if they have heard of christ and his message but did not believe it or understand it or reasoned it it was invalid or they were raised in a different religion?
sdpsylence: A: No, according to Hebrews 6:4-6 you only get to decide once. That doesn't mean that you can't live a life coming and going. Many Christians have lost faith and returned at least once, myself included. It means when your life is done what side of the line are you on. Whichever side of the line you're on, that's it. Raised in a different religion depends. Did they hear about Christ, i.e. have the option of accepting or rejecting or were they in a closed society where they never knew they had a choice? Depending on the answer, see my previous statements.So let's get this straight -- the christ-denying Jews of the Holocaust, who suffered through unspeakable terrors -- there virtual hell on earth -- where families were torn apart, brutally beaten, burned alive, experimented on, starved and worked to death -- unimaginable vile, long-term mass, suffering -- they -- knowing the supposed christian message will now reside in hell?


The reason these people will be sent to hell for the rest of eternity, is because they were not born a bible believing christian like sdpsylence and they were not persuaded to believe in the preposterous notion that all you have to do, to be saved, is to legitimately seek jesus with all their heart and telepathically tell Jesus you accept him -- an absurd idea believed by the most brain-dead christians.


Also depending on your skewed vision of salvation, the after-life and the age of accountability -- were the children saved, to be eternally separated from their christ-denying adult parents and family members?


--S.

Baconsbud said...

In regards to morals, where in the bible does it say your god give the morals to us. I need the verses and it can be tough finding stuff unless you are well versed in the bible. Thanks for any help.

TexasAggie2012 said...

sconner:

You are the one that won't accept the fact that I am right. Now you want me to shoot down your point #2, 3, and 4 in one paragraph.

I've said it once and I'll keep saying it until your ignorant mind can grasp, they were told by God what to do and what not to do. Eve even acknowledges this when the snake asks her about the tree. " We may eat from the trees in the garden. But GOD TOLD US, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden..." Genesis 3:1-3 is where this can be found. This proves that she listened to God and knew that it was wrong to eat from it. She didn't have a four-year old mind and wasn't mentally challenged like you said in your little, cute analogies because they were created in God's image and last time I checked the Creator of the universe wasn't stupid. She knew it was wrong and she chose to do it anyway and I am not embellishing the story, it's in black and white.

Your question 5 now. Your definition of moral says it all. They knew right from wrong not good from evil. Also, Eve already disobeyed God. She listened to the snake. Adam and Eve were to "rule over the fish in the sea and over the birds in the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." She listened to the snake that she was to be telling it what to do. Your arguments are failing fast.

Back to the discussion on the punishment. It wasn't even that bad. They just have to work harder for their food now, big whoop. They already had to work for their food in the first place. God didn't give them their food on a silver platter, they had to do something to get food.

I don't see where you are getting your arguments from but please make them harder to disprove.

baconsbud:

You could look at Genesis 1:27 and see that God created them in his image and you can assume God has morals which He may or may not have given to them because it say it specifically in the text. Take it however you want but I am going to stick to my beliefs, you don't have to share them it's your choice and if you don't want to that's fine with me.

r said...

Regarding the original post, these points aren't really fair. Particularly number 7, which most people can understand the point of the verses: God comes first. Additionally I don't see why Christians have to be bound by the Old Testament, which you repeatedly cite as reasoning for your points on marriage.

Steve Wells said...

Right, you are, r.

Jesus didn't mean what he said. When he said you must hate your family, he didn't mean it. Likewise about the leaving your family thing.

And when he said "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven," (Matthew 5:18-19), he didn't mean that either.

Jesus never meant what he said (except when he happened to agree with modern believers).

r said...

sconnor, just a brief comment.

Having faith doesn't mean you are gullible, and particularly concerning Christianity just means people are willing to trust oral tradition.

sconnor said...

texasaggie

You are the one that won't accept the fact that I am right. Now you want me to shoot down your point #2, 3, and 4 in one paragraph.

No -- I don't want you to answer in one paragraph -- I want you to answer the questions individually sticking to the specifics of the argument.


I've said it once and I'll keep saying it until your ignorant mind can grasp, they were told by God what to do and what not to do....


I UNDERSTAND that. I know that god told them -- that's a given. I already concede that point.


Eve even acknowledges this when the snake asks her about the tree. " We may eat from the trees in the garden. But GOD TOLD US, 'You must not eat fruit from the tree that is in the middle of the garden..." Genesis 3:1-3 is where this can be found. This proves that she listened to God and knew that it was wrong to eat from it.


Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, hahahahahahahahahaha.


This is just another STRAWMAN, because you can NOT address my points specifically.


I have NEVER denied that god told them NOT eat from the tree of knowledge. I also agree Eve knew she was told by god. You are just spinning your wheels. My argument is and has always been they didn't have the capacity to know the difference between good and evil.


If they did NOT have the capacity to distinguish good from evil how could they know what they were doing was morally right or wrong?


Your chicken-shit unwillingness to address the specifics of my questions shows that you CAN NOT answer them.


Now answer the question specifically.


2. Additionally you still are ignoring my argument -- that if the couple did not know what good and evil were because they did not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, then how would they know if what they were doing was morally right or wrong?


She didn't have a four-year old mind and wasn't mentally challenged like you said in your little, cute analogies...

3. She didn't even have the capacity of a four year old or a mentally challenged person. According to the myth, she did NOT possess the knowledge of good and evil -- at ALL. And if -- as the story dictates -- she did NOT know the difference between good and evil how could she possibly have known that it was wrong to eat from the tree of knowledge? It doesn't matter that she was commanded by god -- she did NOT know the difference between good and evil and if she didn't know the difference between good and evil how could she possibly know what she was doing was right or wrong?


It's not my dumb-ass myth it's yours. Answer this question specifically.


...because they were created in God's image and last time I checked the Creator of the universe wasn't stupid. She knew it was wrong and she chose to do it anyway and I am not embellishing the story, it's in black and white.

If they were created in god's image, how come they didn't already know the difference between good and evil? We know the story establishes: they did NOT know the difference between good and evil.


3a. Point is, the story tells us, they did NOT KNOW the difference between good and evil. And if they didn't know the difference between good and evil how could they know that what they were doing was right or wrong?


Your question 5 now. Your definition of moral says it all. They knew right from wrong not good from evil.


You are ignoring this part of the definition: "Of or concerned with the judgment of the goodness or badness of human action and character"


You MUST possess the knowledge of good and evil before you can know what you are doing is right or wrong.


3b. Again, Please tell me, EXACTLY, how one is to know right from wrong if they are NOT able to differentiate good from evil?


3c. Think about this texasaggie -- really put yourself into the mindset of NOT being able to know what good and evil was -- NOW how could you possibly know -- even if someone commanded you NOT to do something -- if what you were doing was morally right or wrong?


Answer to the specifics of the question -- can you do that?


Also, Eve already disobeyed God. She listened to the snake.


I NEVER argued otherwise. We know she disobeyed. that's another given and does NOTHING to refute my basic argument. My argument is: she did NOT know good from evil. If she did NOT know good from evil how could she possibly know what she was doing was wrong?


3d. How could anyone (who didn't know good from evil) possibly know what they were commanded NOT to do, was right or wrong? Let it sink in................


Adam and Eve were to "rule over the fish in the sea and over the birds in the sky and over every living thing that moves on the earth." She listened to the snake that she was to be telling it what to do. Your arguments are failing fast.

That has NOTHING to do with my arguments.


Back to the discussion on the punishment. It wasn't even that bad. They just have to work harder for their food now, big whoop. They already had to work for their food in the first place. God didn't give them their food on a silver platter, they had to do something to get food.

Wow -- so are you now back-tracking? Wasn't it your assertion A&E screwed up and god had to punish ALL of humanity? Is your diseased brain so deluded you can NOT even keep track of the bullsh*t you spew?


texasaggie said in previous posts, I don't see what's wrong with the punishment. The world was perfect and they (A&E) screwed it up and their lives and all other lives must be punished...and these are the consequences we must deal with, disease, war, and everything else.


I also noticed you completely gave up on question #1 by completely ignoring it.


You were trying to justify your god's deplorable actions and salvage his sadistic reputation by trying to demonstrate that people are supposedly justly and appropriately punished for a crime they did NOT commit.


And NOW you completely change your argument to: god just giving A&E there little slap on the wrist -- ignoring the FACT you said god was punishing ALL of humanity (with, disease, war, and everything else) for what the innocent and ignorant A&E did.


Seriously, when are you going to admit you are an intellectually impotent christian-drone?


--S.

Baconsbud said...

TexasAggie2012 and Steve Wells I think there are a lot of assumptions being made by both of you. Texas you are assuming that when man was created,he had morals. If he had morals what was the big deal with the tree of knowledge of good and evil? To have morals you have to already know what right and wrong are. You can truly know that unless you know what good and evil are. Steve you are saying he didn't mean it when he said those things. Why are they in there if he didn't mean them? I understand that they are probably metaphoric but he still meant them in some way. I do agree with your last sentence though is odd how that is isn't it. It also is odd that so many of the different denominations see what they mean differently.

R, I think one of the reasons most people turn to the OT in regards to many different areas is that most of the harmful christians use it to justify the harm they are doing.

Steve Wells said...

Sorry, baconsbud. I was being sarcastic.

I don't what Jesus actually said, and I have no idea what he might have meant by whatever the hell he might have said. But I find it interesting (disgusting, actually) that believers claim to know what he said (exactly what it says he said in the Bible), but they usually say he didn't mean it.

Baconsbud said...

yeah thought you might be after reading your comment on another post. It's cool I do have to agree how it is like that.

sconnor said...

texasaggie


~IN ADDITION~


I would also like to point out to you my analogies are in reference to ONLY one attribute: The capacity to know between good and evil and by extension NOT being able to distinguish between good and evil then it would be impossible to know between right and wrong, even if someone commanded you NOT to do something.


My analogy is not saying that A&E are stupid or mentally challenged.


Evidently, the are smart enough to talk.


My analogies specifically shows how either a four year old or a mentally challenged person who does NOT know the difference between good and evil would be incapable of knowing what they did was right or wrong -- even if someone told them NOT to do something.


Your argument, that they are NOT stupid is a strawman and completely diverges from the FACTS of the story. A&E did NOT possess the knowledge of good and evil -- so if they did NOT know what good and evil was how could they possibly know, that what they were doing -- by disobeying god -- was right or wrong -- even if he told them NOT to?


Furthermore, in order for you to keep contending that it is NOT about right and wrong, you have to:


1. Keep pretending there is NO logical connection between NOT distinguishing "good" from "evil", with the morality of knowing "right" from "wrong". Where as if you DID NOT know the difference between good and evil, it would be impossible for you to know what you were commanded to do was right or wrong behavior.
2. Keep pretending that there are NOT other translations that use the words "right" and "wrong".
3. Keep pretending your argument that "god told them" is good enough even though they couldn't possibly have known that what they were doing was right or wrong behavior, because they did NOT possess a knowledge of good and evil.


--S.

sconnor said...

r,


Having faith doesn't mean you are gullible, and particularly concerning Christianity just means people are willing to trust oral tradition.

Hmmmmm? When a person willingly trusts in something that is NOT true, that would be gullibility. They are naive and easily deceived for whatever reason -- which is the very definition of gullible.


Christians routinely interject FAITH, where they abandon their critical thinking skills and throw reason out the door, so as to deceive themselves or be deceived by others (apologists claiming evolution is not true) that they believe in the "oral tradition" (talking snakes, people being born of a virgin, or a guy who was dead and buried for three days was resurrected -- alive and well good as new). Now that's massive gullibility.


--S.

r said...

Right, you are, r.

Jesus didn't mean what he said. When he said you must hate your family, he didn't mean it. Likewise about the leaving your family thing.

And when he said "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven," (Matthew 5:18-19), he didn't mean that either.

Jesus never meant what he said (except when he happened to agree with modern believers).
modernity has nothing to do with it, as a believer in any century could appreciate the literary devices at work here. do you think it's strange then that Christ said we should love our enemies, yet hate our families?

Steve Wells said...

A believer in any century could appreciate the literary devices at work here.What literary devices were at work here, r?

Do you think it's strange then that Christ said we should love our enemies, yet hate our families?Yeah, that's pretty strange. But Jesus (supposedly) said a lot of strange stuff.

For example: "If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off." (Matthew 5:29-30)

If anyone else said something like that we'd say he was crazy. When Jesus says it, we say he's using a really cool literary device.

sconnor said...

sdpsylence -- where are you?


--S.

r said...

What literary devices were at work here, r?Yeah, that's pretty strange. But Jesus (supposedly) said a lot of strange stuff. For example: "If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out. And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off." (Matthew 5:29-30)

If anyone else said something like that we'd say he was crazy. When Jesus says it, we say he's using a really cool literary device.
i usually don't have a problem when someone presents an idea using allegories, metaphors, or hyperboles. in school i was taught how to understand the meaning of these ideas when presented in an abstract way. i imagine you also have these skills, but instead of trying to understand these concepts in the Christian holy book, you ridicule it.

r said...

Hmmmmm? When a person willingly trusts in something that is NOT true, that would be gullibility. They are naive and easily deceived for whatever reason -- which is the very definition of gullible.


Christians routinely interject FAITH, where they abandon their critical thinking skills and throw reason out the door, so as to deceive themselves or be deceived by others (apologists claiming evolution is not true) that they believe in the "oral tradition" (talking snakes, people being born of a virgin, or a guy who was dead and buried for three days was resurrected -- alive and well good as new). Now that's massive gullibility.
i don't think you are being fair to Christians. you do not have any more right to claim truth than they do. but at least give the Creationists some credit. they reject evolution because they have more faith in their version of things than than they do the science version. it's not because they're gullible, it's because science may be foreign to them. admittedly this is no excuse, but remember there was a time when you were not so educated.

sconnor said...

r,

i don't think you are being fair to Christians. you do not have any more right to claim truth than they do.


Let's see -- if I claimed I had a dog that died, which was cremated and four days later it returned to me as an invisible flying apparition I could ONLY see and it could grant me wishes -- would you NOT have a right to question that supposed truth?


I have every right to call bullsh*t on their preposterous beliefs (supposed truths) and ask them to substantiate their crazy beliefs with objective evidence, same as I do with scientologists who believe aliens called THETANS took over earth-people's bodies.


The difference is: I'm NOT claiming "TRUTH" -- They are. I just want them to substantiate what they claim as truth. The problem is -- they can't. How is this any different from a guy who claims an angel came down from the skies to recite god's final revelation to mankind in the form of the qur'an? Both claim truth; both are dubious and can NOT be substantiated.


I'll tell you what r, when christians have one unified, unequivocal message that they can ALL agree on and they can substantiate ALL their extraordinary claims you come on back and let me know.


but at least give the Creationists some credit. they reject evolution because they have more faith in their version of things than than they do the science version.


I'm NOT going to give them any credit for being ignorant dip-sh*ts that wallow in stupidity, who rely on the most unreliable method of obtaining and processing information -- FAITH.


it's not because they're gullible, it's because science may be foreign to them.

You are extremely WRONG. It is true that science is foreign to them -- this would make christians ignorant. What makes christians gullible is that they gorge on the regurgitated bullsh*t that lying hucksters, like Hovind, Comfort and Hamm spew. They blindly lap up this vomit (believing that a biased religionist wouldn't lie) without ever researching or verifying if its credible.


...admittedly this is no excuse, but remember there was a time when you were not so educated.


Yep, at one time I was ignorant gullible and complacent -- then I grew up.


--S.

TexasAggie2012 said...

sconner:

You are so narrow-minded and you just keep bringing up the same questions that I have answered from the beginning. Maybe this is the technique ignorant people use to understand things. So I guess i will answer your questions one by one so your mind won't get confused trying to figure out which question I've answered.

#2. Adam and Eve did something wrong, something they knew was wrong because God told them. They disobeyed God, not with the intent to do it because God told them not to and make Him mad, but because the snake made it seem like there would be no consequences. Their judgement was incorrect, they had no motive to do it in hatred of God, they did something wrong but not evil. They did not stop and think about the morality of the decision. They just went on and ate the fruit even though they knew it was what God told them not to do.

#3. Of course she didn't have the knowledge of good and evil because she hadn't eaten from the tree yet. DUH, I never said she did. She knew it was wrong BECAUSE GOD TOLD HER IT WAS. GET IT THROUGH YOUR PEA-SIZED, IGNORANT BRAIN. You are using the words out of context. The word wrong in this case means incorrect and evil is not a synonym of this. She made a wrong/incorrect decision, not an evil attempt to go against God.

#3a. It's cute how you use little sub-sections for the number 3. There's no need to answer this is the same question as in 2 and 3.

#3b. No, you don't have to know good from evil to know right from wrong. Evil is used as a noun not as an adjective. Evil in the passage is used in this way "the force in nature that governs and gives rise to wickedness and sin" taken from dictionary.reference.com. She did not deliberately go against God for kicks and giggles, she was misled or tempted by the snake into making a wrong decision.

#3c and 3d are the same questions as above so they will not be answered again for like the 10th time.

And since I am sick of you bashing my beliefs and making yourself look like a fool doing it this is probably my last post. I have better things to do like not argue with 40 year old man with no life outside of criticizing a person half his age about his beliefs. I've tried to keep an open mind in this process, unlike yourself, and tried to see your point of view but I don't agree with anything you've said. I will stand by my beliefs and fight for them and you don't have to agree with me but you don't have to attack me for what I believe. Also, I agree with r, Christians are not gullible. Our beliefs are based on faith and faith can be described in Hebrews 11:1. We are not gullible, we believe in something we cannot see or explain but know is there, this according to me. I am a Christian and you can take your shots at me and r but you cannot sway us or our beliefs.

This will mark the end of my farewell address.

Thanks and Gig 'em,

Texas Aggie '12

joncat said...

According to you, Mr. Wells, the Bible doesn't talk about gay marriage at all. Does this work for you?

"Do not lie with a man as one lies with a woman; that is detestable." - Leviticus 18:22 (NIV)

On the topic of 'killing their children for God'... You didn't finish the passage.

"And he said, Lay not thine hand upon the lad, neither do thou any thing unto him: for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son from me." Genesis 22:12

*Phew* So Christians aren't children killers after all!

Steve, it makes me sad and angry that you would take the Bible so out of context and criticize it like so. This is very arrogant and ignorant of you.

You will never be truly happy until you give up your pointless fight against the Creator of the universe.

sconnor said...

texasaggie


You are so narrow-minded and you just keep bringing up the same questions that I have answered from the beginning.


Now you are a liar. Some christian ethic. You may have answered questions in your mind but in every case you skirted around the specifics of my questions. I keep asking the same question because you HAVE NOT answered it.


Can't blame you really -- you have to pretend you answered my questions (without really addressing the actual premise) to protect your feeble beliefs.


Maybe this is the technique ignorant people use to understand things.


Yeah, stick with that rationalization -- at least I'm not a douche-nozzle christian who believes in talking snakes or superstitious explanations for the world around me -- forging the FACT that the creation myth, in the bible, has NO reference in reality.


So I guess i will answer your questions one by one so your mind won't get confused trying to figure out which question I've answered.

I'll believe when I see it.


#2. Adam and Eve did something wrong, something they knew was wrong because God told them. They disobeyed God, not with the intent to do it because God told them not to and make Him mad, but because the snake made it seem like there would be no consequences.


Still skirting and NOT addressing the specifics of the question. And BTW god NEVER told A&E the consequences that he subsequently bestowed upon them.


Their judgement was incorrect, they had no motive to do it in hatred of God, they did something wrong but not evil. They did not stop and think about the morality of the decision.


Ohhhhhh -- you're so close. They couldn't think about the morality of what they were doing because they did NOT know the difference between good and evil. If they did NOT know the difference between good and evil how could they possibly know what they were doing was wrong?


They just went on and ate the fruit even though they knew it was what God told them not to do.

And why did they do that? Because without the knowledge of good and evil the morally challenged couple could NOT possibly have understood that to disobey god was WRONG. You can't blame them -- they were incapable of making the right decision. Just like you can't blame a four year old for running out into a busy street, even after you told them NOT to. Both can NOT comprehend that what they were doing was wrong.


#3. Of course she didn't have the knowledge of good and evil because she hadn't eaten from the tree yet.

We agree.


She knew it was wrong BECAUSE GOD TOLD HER IT WAS. GET IT THROUGH YOUR PEA-SIZED, IGNORANT BRAIN.


No he did NOT. God NEVER told her it was WRONG. He told the primordial couple not to eat from the tree of good and evil ("right" from "wrong" in other translations) but NEVER told them it was wrong or WHY it was WRONG nor did he tell them what the subsequent punishments would be. Are you reading the same myth?


You are using the words out of context. The word wrong in this case means incorrect and evil is not a synonym of this. She made a wrong/incorrect decision, not an evil attempt to go against God.

I'm Not interchanging words (although other bibles do translate it as "right" and "wrong"). I am making an argument that says if you did NOT possess the knowledge of good and evil, theeeeeeen you would NOT be able to know what you were doing was WRONG.


You have failed over and over again to comprehend the integral correlation -- either because you are too F-ing stupid or you are purposely burying it because your pathetic beliefs would unravel.


Bottom line, you can't blame A&E because they were incapable of understanding why it was wrong or bad to disobey god -- according to the myth.


#3b. No, you don't have to know good from evil to know right from wrong. Evil is used as a noun not as an adjective. Evil in the passage is used in this way "the force in nature that governs and gives rise to wickedness and sin" taken from dictionary.reference.com.


Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, hahahahahahaha -- you complete simpleton! That christian homeschooling is really paying off! (Massive sarcasm)


According to the Hebrew Old Testament Lexicon "EVIL" is an ADJECTIVE.
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=07451&version=kjv
http://bible.crosswalk.com/InterlinearBible/bible.cgi

Original word -- [r

Word Origin -- from(07489)

Transliterated Word -- Ra'

TDNT -- Entry -- TWOT - 2191a,2191c

adj.
bad, evil
bad, disagreeable, malignant
bad, unpleasant, evil (giving pain, unhappiness, misery)
evil, displeasing
bad (of its kind - land, water, etc)
bad (of value)
worse than, worst (comparison)
sad, unhappy
evil (hurtful)
bad, unkind (vicious in disposition)
bad, evil, wicked (ethically)
in general, of persons, of thoughts
deeds, actions n m
evil, distress, misery, injury, calamity
evil, distress, adversity
evil, injury, wrong
evil (ethical) n f
evil, misery, distress, injury
evil, misery, distress
evil, injury, wrong
evil (ethical)

And since you went to dictionary.reference.com you will already know the defintion of the ADJECTIVE: EVIL

EVIL
adjective 1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.



#3c and 3d are the same questions as above so they will not be answered again for like the 10th time.

Now that you KNOW that the word EVIL is indeed a synonym for WRONG -- PLEASE answer my question.


3c. Think about this texasaggie -- really put yourself into the mindset of NOT being able to know what good and evil was -- NOW how could you possibly know -- even if someone commanded you NOT to do something -- if what you were doing was morally right or wrong?


So NOT ONLY is it an adjective that means "wrong" other bibles translate it as "right" and "wrong" and specifically say "KNOWING THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG".


Genesis 2:16-17 But the LORD told him, "You may eat fruit from any tree in the garden, except the one that has the power to let you know the difference between right and wrong. If you eat any fruit from that tree, you will die before the day is over!"
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%202:16-17;&version=46;


Also you ignored (again) and had to completely back off of your idiotic and infantile argument as to "why bad things happen to good people". texasaggie said in previous posts, I don't see what's wrong with the punishment. The world was perfect and they (A&E) screwed it up and their lives and all other lives must be punished...and these are the consequences we must deal with, disease, war, and everything else.

This was the gestation of the argument. My arguments -- thus far -- were to refute that particular claim. It's massively idiotic to believe that god punished the rest of his earthly children with unimaginable vile suffering just because an ignorant couple (who did NOT know right from wrong) disobeyed god because supposedly a TALKING snake tricked them. It's with this, that you have FAILED MISERABLY.


And since I am sick of you bashing my beliefs and making yourself look like a fool doing it this is probably my last post. I have better things to do like not argue with 40 year old man with no life outside of criticizing a person half his age about his beliefs.


Good -- don't let the proverbial door hit you on the ass on your way out.


I've tried to keep an open mind in this process, unlike yourself, and tried to see your point of view but I don't agree with anything you've said.


Of course not -- you are a deluded christian suffering from an egregious brain disease that kills logical thinking.


I will stand by my beliefs and fight for them and you don't have to agree with me but you don't have to attack me for what I believe.


I call it like I see it -- you are a deluded christian moron who is wallowing in morbid ignorance, who can only offer silly superstitious myths as your reference in reality -- cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo. And adding insult to injury your basic "bad things happen to good people" explanation was thoroughly dismantled -- shown to be an asinine mythic explanation from a stunted brain-dead christian who suffers from arrested development.


Also, I agree with r, Christians are not gullible. Our beliefs are based on faith and faith can be described in Hebrews 11:1. We are not gullible, we believe in something we cannot see or explain but know is there, this according to me.


Not ONLY are you gullible you are also a deluded whack-job -- the equivalent of an insane person (John Nash for example) who babbles on incessantly, about people that he claims he "knows" are there (while others don't), who are working with him to decipher codes to save the world. Both you and this insane person spew deluded bullsh*t which CAN NOT be substantiated. A TALKING snaked misled Eve? Bawhahahahahahahaha! You're such an ignorant childish imbecile.


This is why you deserve zero respect. You constantly vomit up superstitious bullsh*t you can NOT substantiate. This is NOTHING but the meanderings of a deluded mind. Your god is nothing but a human construct -- a massive delusion of your own making, a figment of your limited imagination, a definition, based on your myopic, interpretation of scripture and bloated rationalizations.


I am a Christian and you can take your shots at me and r but you cannot sway us or our beliefs.

I could give a shit.


Man, once surrendering his reason, has no remaining guard against absurdities the most monstrous, and like a ship without rudder, is the spot of every wind. With such persons, gullibility, which they call faith, takes the helm from the hand of reason and the mind becomes a wreck.

-- Thomas Jefferson


This will mark the end of my farewell address.

And like I said, don't let the proverbial door hit you in the ass on the way out.


Back to your bunker of bibles and rose colored christian glasses where you can bask in morbid ignorance and wallow in deluded superstitious explanations of the world.


--S.

sconnor said...

sdpsylence


Apparently, sdpsylence, bugged out. But here is my post refuting his last bit of lunacy.


First a point of clarification: "According to sdpsylence logic god purposefully made evidence for him vague and difficult. ROTFLMAO!"
A: Actually God did not leave evidence at all for the very reason you stated, that if there was objective evidence there would be no need for faith. The path to salvation is purposefully vague and difficult and no where in the Bible is salvation claimed to be clear or easy.

Riiiiiight, The bible is unequivocally, ambiguous. sdpsylence says:(So to directly answer your question, according to my belief, to one who makes his inquiry from a purely intellectual viewpoint, ambiguous, to one who adds spiritual dedication to intellectual inquiry clarity emerges, so yes both clear and ambiguous.)


Funny how using the unreliable method of FAITH is also what gets us our other religions and deities. Oh, but their FAITH isn't the correct FAITH.


As an aside you knew perfectly well I used the word "unequivocal" to mean "clear". My whole argument has been that god's message -- in his book -- is unclear. I NEVER made a case that the bible was "absolute". ALL my posts -- contextually -- have posited that the bible is NOT clear and is completely up to interpretation. Your mental black-flips in this regard are telling. Furthermore, the quote in question was addressing christianity in general.


Again, I repeat, When CHRISTIANITY has one unified, unequivocal message, that all christians agree on and you can substantiate what you say, then you come on back and let me know -- you should probably be back in around -- never.


We BOTH agree, however that scripture is unclear and difficult. You just take the deluded position that its clear to you because somehow (perhaps magically) everything becomes crystal clear to you because you go about it in the right way -- you have a hard on for christ and seek him with your heart. I'm sure this is based on sound science (massive sarcasm) What it is actually is just your ridiculous rationalization that your particular interpretation is true. Your diseased mind thinks that the bible is only clear to the people who believe the way you do.


It ALL makes sense now you have the special key (that only you can see) that unlocks the mysteries of the bible. And on top of that you can NOT substantiate anything you say with objective evidence -- hahahahahahahahahaha.


You can see it and are saved, while the ones who use reason and critical thinking skills can't see it and are damned. Isn't that convenient.


But, isn't it curious that the other christian (charlesh04) is desperately trying to offer up evidence for the existence of his christian god. Maybe you should give him a shout and let him know there is NO evidence for his invisible omni-present christian god -- that he's got it ALL wrong.


I guess, charlesh04, hasn't seen the light and he isn't actively seeking Him/His salvation and doesn't, in his heart, have a legitimate desire to share a relationship with Him so he doesn't know Him -- therefore he's not getting the unified, unequivocal message from the bible, like you do.


This begs the question, ALL the other christian groups who DO NOT believe the way you do; the ones who interpret scripture differently than you do, who cater to dogma and doctrine (which of course they will defend because they'll say its based on scripture) then obviously they aren't getting a clear message from the bible like you are getting -- therefore they must not be legitimately seeking your god-man with all their heart.


"Oh goody another christian who has the one and only truth. Tell me, sdpsylence, why should I value your interpretation of scripture over other christians interpretations -- why should yours have any validity?"
A: By Christian belief the Bible is the "one and only truth".


Are you being dim on purpose? The claim is: the bible is the "one and only truth". Which is claimed by ALL the christian groups, but yet they ALL have their idiosyncratic interpretation of it -- especially regarding salvation.


It's my view that it's not up to interpretation.


Doesn't matter what your view is -- the reality of the situation is several christian groups have several vast and differing interpretations, (in this discussion, specifically -- salvation) all claiming their interpretation is true, comes from god and ALL their claims are also supported by scripture.


Whether you like it or NOT you are also interpreting scripture. Again you just make the extraordinary claim: your interpretation is correct because you are legitimately seeking jesus with your heart.


Like you I'm quite literal in my reading of scripture.


Ummmm? No, I think scripture was painfully written by fallible men who used the supposed authority of god as their own to to lend credence to their own specific agendas. I do NOT believe snakes or donkeys can literally speak, nor do I believe that someone who was dead and buried for days could be resurrected -- alive and well, good as new.


Obviously there is parable and metaphor used to relate an idea but the "facts" of the bible are to be taken literally. If my viewpoint has validity to anyone beyond myself that's up to each individual to decide and everyone, Christian or otherwise, is welcome to disagree.

Facts? Please provide objective, factual evidence for a snake that has command of the human language and/or objective, factual evidence for Jesus being dead and buried for three days, only to be resurrected -- alive and well -- so that he could save us by magically washing away our sins but can only be activated if you legitimately seek him -- with your heart -- so you can unlock the convoluted bible and know the one and only true correct interpretation so only you and your unique christian beer drinking cult will have knowledge of how one is truly saved. That's insane.


Furthermore, are these FACTS you speak of -- are they also presented by god, so as to make them vague and difficult? Nothing like a vague FACT. Kind of like "ambiguously unequivocal".


Sooooooo, anyway, I'm still waiting for you to tell me why your idiosyncratic interpretation of scripture is valid and why I should value it. So far your argument did NOT address it.


"My argument is dealing with the ineffectual use of a book to convey god's supposed message of salvation."
A: My apologies that I totally missed this point in any of your arguments. Are you saying that a book is an ineffectual format, that the book itself doesn't effectively convey the message, or that the supposed message itself is faulty? Or perhaps all three?

Yes -- you really are in your own little world. No one, I mean NO one, could miss the basic premise of my argument.


Using a book to to convey god's supposed message of salvation is negligent and wholly inferior for the many reasons I outlined.


1. The message is completely up to interpretation.
2. The message, throughout time, can NOT get to everyone because of, land barriers, water barriers, time barriers, language barriers, cultural barriers, technological barriers etc.
3. The message will not be taken seriously because other cultures were raised with differing beliefs. (Just like you don't believe allah is the road to salvation, a muslim won't believe that jesus is the road to salvation.)
4. The message will not be taken seriously by anyone who dismisses faith from being an unreliable form of obtaining information and instead uses critical thinking skills and reason.
5. And you completely support my other argument: the book uses difficult or vague texts, parables, poems, songs, dream imagery, switching from literal to non-literal, that could so easily be misinterpreted, perverted or interpreted, so many different ways? Which by your assertion, god does on purpose. And only you and your christian mold, by seeking god -- with all your heart -- will have the key to unlock the unperceivable bible so you can know how one is saved.


So the god who so loved the world makes it impossible for the majority of his earthly children to be saved both by incompetence and on purpose. A god who would save his earthly children ONLY because they had faith in him, while the majority of his other earthly children are damned because they did NOT have FAITH in him, paints a portrait of a deity that is obscenely, petty, unreasonable, unjust and malevolent. Why create these souls to begin with?


Only a minority of christians are saved correct? This we agree on -- right?


In your last post to me you did clarify that the dead and buried who did not hear god's message for salvation will have a chance to hear it while ANYONE who did hear the message and denied it will be damned for eternity.


I have to wonder who will be in charge of divulging the information, when christ returns? Will it be a fallible human christian like yourself who will share the news. I mean will god leave it up to people like you to deliver his message without equivocating? And will it also be delivered so as to make it unclear and difficult?


What's more, how come these people have the advantage of being resurrected to hear the message? By my account if I was resurrected after being dead for thousands of years, then I would have some concrete evidence of a creator god who could rearrange my atoms to make me whole again? How come they have (what would surely be) some monumental objective evidence for life after death and the existence of a creator god, hmmmmmmmmmm?


"Now first please provide objective evidence that the bible is indeed the word of god as opposed to a spurious."
A: You know full well this is a fruitless path of debate. Non-believers have been asking this for 2000 years and Christians have been answering for 2000 years. You and I both know all the questions and all the answers and we both know there is no answer a Christian gives that a Christian doesn't believe and also no answer a Christian gives that would mean anything whatsoever to a non-Christian.


Right -- so, you don't have any objective evidence for your extraordinary claims -- got it.


Anyway, according to you there is NO objective evidence for your invisible omni-present god-man. You MUST rely on FAITH. You know the same unreliable method a devout Jewish person uses to believe what Yahweh has prepared for them.


I choose to table this question on the grounds that you, due to the research you've done, have heard any answer I might give so why re-hash it.


I thought you chose to table it? and yet you trudge on........


What I will say however is that asking for scientifically objective proof of the religious is the actual straw man.


Asking you to substantiate you extraordinary claims is NOT a strawman. Please look up the definition of a strawman and fully comprehend its meaning before erroneously using it.


Science answers how, while religion attempts to answer why. Like philosophy the answers to why will always be subjective and will differ from person to person.


Yes, I fully agree: religion is completely subjective. Which means it is entirely made up, in your mind, has no reference in reality and has zero credibility. It would behoove you to look up the meaning of "subjective".


The point is, you can't has why something works and answer with how it works anymore than you can ask how something works and answer with why it works. Gravity would be a great example. We know the physics and mechanics of how gravity works but you'd be hard pressed to find a scientist that can answer "why is there gravity".

This bloated rationalization can also be used for the muslim faith -- therefor its true.


So lets review,
1. You have zero objective evidence for any of your extraordinary claims.
2. You admit religion is entirely subjective.
3. You claim that if a person asks you to provide objective proof for your extraordinary claims its a strawman -- WRONG.
4. Only you and your particular christian ilk can comprehend the incomprehensible bible because you have a legitimate desire to have a relationship with your god-man.


How are you any different from an insane scientologist who makes the extraordinary claim, aliens called Thetans took over our bodies and adversely affect everyone except scientologists, because they know how to circumvent said aliens?


Both:
Have no objective evidence.
Are subjective.
Can't substantiate their claims.
Use special pleading -- claiming they have the secret key to unlock the CODE.


"Your god is nothing but a human construct".
A: Again, I can't prove He exists and more than you can prove He doesn't.~and~
Hitchens comment that ""What can be asserted without proof can be dismissed without proof." is ultimately useless as it goes both ways, that what can be dismissed without proof can be asserted without proof.

I added your "Hitchens argument" here and tackle them both at the same time. I'm sure you won't mind.


You are the one making the extraordinary statement so the onus is upon you to substantiate your statements.


If I make the extraordinary statement: an invisible flying dog is living in my garage and it grants me wishes -- the responsibilities lie with me to present evidence of this supposed entity --otherwise I'm just a babbling buffoon. Can you comprehend how ridiculous it would be for me to claim an invisible flying dog lives in my garage and grants me wishes and I tell you that you can't prove the invisible, flying dog, that grants me wishes, doesn't exist? NOOOOO -- you would think me insane. What's more, the only way you can perceive the invisible flying wish-granting dog is if you believe with ALL your heart it is true and that you legitimately seek it. Craaaaazzzzzzy!


I am not definitively saying god does not exists. I am saying I don't know and you don't either because you don't have any special information that I wouldn't have. Although you claim and convinced yourself you do. I'm simply arguing against your god-concept regarding the inferior way he is lovingly trying to save his earthly children from damnation.


And again, this discussion has been had by people far smarter and more learned then either of us so why go there. Let's just both google the idea and read up on (again). There's nothing I could say on the Christian side you haven't heard before and nothing you could say on the non-Christian side I haven't heard. Ahh the eternal tango.

Excuses, excuses, excuses.


"When reading the bible, people are free to rationalize and interpret it (making it mean whatever you want it to mean)"
A: Correct, people are free to rationalize and interpret but that gets pretty hairy. One premise of Christianity is that it is supposed to change your life, you are not supposed to change it so it fits into your life. You are also correct in that the idea of interpreting, twisting, folding, tucking, etc. is what leads to denomination schisms.

Exactly -- you support my argument: If god so loved us and wanted to save us, then why would he put his all-important message into a book that could so easily be interpreted so many different ways? God should have known that fallible people would change it so it fits into their life and that it would -- in the end -- preclude them from being saved. What's more, you have ONLY convinced yourself you have interpreted it correctly and that you didn't change it to fit your life.


"When christianity has one unified, unequivocal message, that all christians agree on"
A: Umm, that'd be the Bible. Unified-check, unequivocal message-check.


Difficult and unclear CHECK! Must believe (see the light) before you believe then legitimately seek Jesus and only then can you comprehend the vague puzzle of scripture that lets you know how one is supposedly saved. F-ing demented.


The third point is a problem. All Christians agree that the Bible is the unified unequivocal message of God.


WRONG.


"Views on the Bible
A slight majority of Christians (55%) strongly agree that the Bible is accurate in all of the principles it teaches, with another 18% agreeing somewhat. About one out of five either disagree strongly (9%) or somewhat (13%) with this statement, and 5% aren’t sure what to believe.

There is no similar clarity among self-defined Christians regarding how the Bible compares to other holy books. When faced with the statement that “the Bible, the Koran and the Book of Mormon are all different expressions of the same spiritual truths,” the group was evenly split between those who accepted the idea (19% agreed strongly, 22% agreed somewhat) and those who rejected it (28% disagreed strongly, 12% disagreed somewhat), while leaving a sizeable portion (20%) undecided."
http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/260-most-american-christians-do-not-believe-that-satan-or-the-holy-spirit-exis



Additionally to see how WRONG you are about how christians perceive the bible check this out: http://ingoodfaith.wordpress.com/2009/04/11/what-do-christians-believe-in/



I guess they haven't seen the light like you did. All those souls are destined to be damned for ALL of eternity.


That said, yeah you're gonna find your looney bins that call themselves Christians...

Oh -- I already found one. I'm conversing with him right now.


...and then bomb an abortion clinic, or (as stated in a previous post) call themselves Christians and then carry signs that say "God hates gays". This is more proof of human nature than a testament against Christianity and serves only to show us all that no matter what someone claims to be, every group everywhere is gonna have its ass-hats.


That's right -- the same human nature that makes it impossible for them to accept or believe in god's supposed message of salvation. Why didn't god consider that human nature would pollute his one and only way (the way you purpose) to be saved?


Sadly there is no test or certification or qualifying test to Christianity. Sadly anyone is free to say they're a Christian and as you've already pointed out, many people who say their Christians have never even read the bible. How would they know if they're Christian or not? But sure enough since their parents were (or for whatever other reason they've deemed themselves so) they run around telling everyone they are regardless of all the evidence to the contrary.

Silly fallible people -- oh well off to hell for the lot of them, where they will be damned for all of eternity!


"Jesus is confused."
A: The verses you've listed are qualifiers not assertions. Matthew 10:34 is the distinction that Christianity........

**Jesus brings peace**


I get it -- Jesus ONLY preaches and brings peace to those select few who have FAITH in him. Of course this ONLY includes the ones who are legitimately seeking him with ALL their heart.


Again I stress -- is your god/man so petty and insecure that his poor, precious, little feelings will be hurt if we don't seek him and believe in him -- so much so that he won't let you reside in his cosmic paradise and instead be damned to hell?


Why does a god who preached, "Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another", or when god tells us how many times we should forgive our brother who has sinned against us — “not seven times, but forgive seventy times seven” only give you one shot at believing in him? That sure is a boat load of forgiveness, from a hypocritical god who will damn you to hell for NOT believing in him.


~REITERATION~


AGAIN: A god who would save his earthly children ONLY because they had faith in him, while the majority of his other earthly children are damned because they did NOT have FAITH in him, paints a portrait of a deity that is obscenely, petty, unreasonable, unjust and malevolent. Why create these souls to begin with?


"Brilliant plan! (massive sarcasm)"
A: As I said a couple times before, people may not like it, but it is what it is.

Yeah -- if you mean -- a deluded concept that your particular christian group constructed so they could wallow in the bogus security of salvation -- then sure -- it is what it is.


And am I to assume, you too, think the plan is NOT brilliant?


"he has it written in such a way that ONLY the true christian believers can decipher it"
A: Once again you're putting effect before cause. One doesn't "decipher" it because one is a true Christian, in other words one doesn't become a "true Christian" and then gain the ability to "discern the path". One sees the light and thus is on the path to salvation. The point which you apparently missed is that you have to, in your heart, desire a relationship with Christ. This is the entire point of faith and dedication.

Right -- you must first believe in order to believe. ("one seeeeeees the light" -- amen brother) How does one desire to have a relationship with a character out of a book? How does one desire to have a relationship with someone who has NO objective evidence for existing? How does one see the light? That suggest to me that either you were granted some special power or you have deluded yourself into believing in something just for the sake of believing it.


Its an imaginary god that can only be believed by believing in it --which is a circular argument.


That most assuredly does NOT work with me. It has no reference in reality. I would never desire a relationship with something that has NO reference in reality or has NO objective evidence for its existence -- that's bat-sh*t crazy.


"Because now you limit the "saved" to another set of criteria where you must be deeply devoted to a relationship to christ and if you are not you will not understand his message and you'll be weeded out, thereby NOT saved; thereby tortured for an eternity in the flames of hell."
A: Hey I didn't set another collection of criteria, God did.


This premise is absurd. First you must offer objective evidence that the collection of criteria is actually from god -- which you can't. And second, christians routinely proclaim, I'm NOT saying it, god is/did -- which renders the whole premise impotent.


Typical deluded apologetics: using god's supposed authority as your own as to lend it a bogus credibility, without ever substantiating anything.


You are correct though that one must be deeply devoted to a relationship with Christ in order to be "saved". As an aside, biblically speaking, hell means eternal separation from Christ. Flames and brimstone and little imps running around with pitchforks and all that are human constructs."Congratulations, the majority of god's earthly children will be tortured for an eternity because they didn't believe in him the way you say they should believe in him. You have relegated your god to a torturer of souls."
A: Kind of skewed in premise. First not the way I say they should believe.


What are you talking about? Aren't you the one that asserts you must first "see the light" then you must desire to have a devoted relationship with christ? This is the criteria you are postulating. Get a grip.


Everyone should develop their relationship with Christ on their own according to scripture. As you've pointed out several times, even among Christians the way one "should" believe is debated. My personal opinion is that's between you and Christ and I'm not sure I see any problem with having differences in individual relationships, so long as you are following Christ the way Christ and you have worked out.


Another deluded concept. You can't work out anything with christ because he is not available to you. All anyone -- who purposes to have a relationship with christ -- is doing is pretending to have a relationship that is based on their myopic interpretation of a character out of a book and deluded emotions they attribute to a deity.


From a human perspective it's like my sister and I. we have totally different relationships with our father but the love, mutual respect, and reasonable obedience is in both.

Fallacious analogy


You can have a relationship with your father because he exists in reality. He can actually interact with you, converse with you and you can receive first-hand, unequivocal information from him. And if you don't understand what he is telling you -- you can talk to him directly until you come to an understanding, where your father can actually say, exactly, you know exactly what I was trying to tell you.


The fact that the relationship is expressed and practiced in different ways really doesn't affect to outcome. I guess what I'm trying to say is the methods may vary but the goals and the core foundations do not. If you go east a mile north a mile and west a mile and I go west a mile north a mile and east a mile do we not both end up the same place?

Bottom line, the supposed relationship some christians have with their particular jesus-concept varies greatly and as a result they will have several differing criterion on how one is supposedly saved. If they are NOT the same criterion you posit then what's wrong with the system? I guess they too didn't see the light and didn't develop a legitimate devoted relationship with Jesus. Either jesus made it too difficult for them to comprehend his messages or they didn't seek him out with ALL their heart like you did.


"Is your god so petty and so insecure that he will torture his earthly children in the flames of hell for an eternity simply because they didn't believe the way you do?"
A: That's a surprisingly cheap argument. Talk about straw man. If we're standing at a crossroads and I know that to the left is a mob of vicious killers and to the right there's a huge rockin' party and I say to you, dude, go right. If you don't believe me and you go left and get killed does that mean I've murdered you? No. In the same sense if God say, hey believe in me and you'll be partying for all time or don't believe in me and your headed for the pit, you choosing to not believe in him doesn't suddenly make him the torturer or the condemner.


Another fallacious analogy.


God isn't asking if you believe in heaven or hell (partying or the pit) like your bogus analogy suggests; he is asking you to believe in his existence -- have FAITH in him. Now if someone doesn't believe in this god-concept for one reason or another god damns you to hell for an eternity.


Your analogy also fails because why would I believe in you (take your word for it) to tell me the truth, that if I go "right" there is a rockin' party and if I go "left" there is a mob of vicious killers? You could be with the mob for all I know. Now maybe you could offer me some evidence of your assertion, but if it's anything like your god-concept then you will make it vague and difficult. Screw that. Your whole rationalized god-concept is warped and again has NO reference in reality. A person in this situation shouldn't rely on FAITH, they should investigate the situation and educate themselves by obtaining objective evidence of your assertion.


He made an offer.


Right -- his offer was you believe (in) me and you'll get your golden tickets to paradise; if you don't believe (in) me you will be damned for all of eternity. That's an ULTIMATUM.


You chose not to take it.

There is NO WAY to make an educated decision due to the lack of information coupled with your deluded "vague and difficult path to salvation" fiasco. If I had to choose between a rockin' party and a pit and I could see it (objective evidence) for myself and I could evaluate the situation, first hand, without relying on some whack-a-loon making interpretive claims, then of course, I would pick the rockin' party. But as of now, ALL I have are spurious claims from some fallible person who can NOT substantiate an iota of what he is saying.


And I will, again, reiterate: your god-concept is morbidly insecure and massively petty to allow such a situation to happen simply because you don't believe in him.
His poor feelings were bruised because someone didn't believe in him so he constructed a place called hell where unbelievers will reside, with mass murders and pedophiles, for an eternity.


Your argument would make sense if you base it on the premise that God picks some and tosses others but that premise is false. God offers everyone the same deal. We choose whether to go right to the party or left to the pit.

WRONG. We either believe (in) god and go to heaven or we don't believe (in) him and go to hell for an eternity.


Further, again, it's not about people believing the way I do. It's about people believing at all. It's about the offer but accepting the offer or not is fully your/everyone's choice.

WRONG. Again, it's NOT a choice its an ultimatum based on zero evidence and the interpretive claims of a deluded christian who thinks he's got it ALL figured out.


As an example there are christians who will say, everyone is saved; there are other ways to get to heaven. Notice how they don't think like you.


Or other christians say you must attend their church or do good works, in order to get to heaven. Again they don't think like you.


"First besides pulling the "vagueness is on purpose argument" out of thin air, how exactly did you acquire this information. Second please substantiate how you were bestowed this information."
A: This is another topic on which multiple dozens of treatises on both sides of the argument has been written and I'm sure we both know both sides well so why rehash. That said the most direct and literal example I can offer is this: "the unspiritual man simply cannot accept the matters which the Spirit deals with—they don’t make sense to him, for, after all, you must be spiritual to see spiritual things. The spiritual man, on the other hand, has an insight into the meaning of everything, though his insight may baffle the man of the world…we who are spiritual have the very thoughts of Christ!" (1 Cor 2:14–16)

Riiiiight and because you are a self-affirmed spiritual man then all of a sudden you can see spiritual things and they make sense to you. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaa. You have zero credibiblity.


Tell me spirit man -- is it ONLY your particular brand of the spiritual that is true?


Because I have done extensive research into Near Death Experiences and many experiencers claim that when they came back from the "arms of god" or the "ultimate reality" they were more spiritual and that everyone will be saved and god doesn't play favorites and god doesn't hold one religion as being true.


Uh oh, they must NOT be true spiritual people or perhaps they have been deceived by satan?


"Yeah -- NOW. What about All of god's children, throughout history? You need to put it into a historical contexts. You are ONLY thinking of the 20th and 21st centuries."
A: See John 5:28,29: "Marvel not at this: for the hour is coming, in the which all that are in the graves shall hear his voice, And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation."
Basically, and this is discussed in Revelation as well, all those that died before Christ lived are resting. They are not, biblically speaking, in heaven or in hell, they're simply in their graves. As part of the second coming they will be given the opportunity that all those in the 20th/21st century have, to hear the options and make a decision. Plus it bears mentioning that Christ died for all past present and future sins so the idea of Christ's blood washing away the sin of one's life is retroactive but its still up to the individual to choose to accept it or not and as I already said, those who didn't have the option back then, will in the future.


*REPASTED FROM ABOVE FOR YOUR CONVENIENCE*


In your last post to me you did clarify that the dead and buried who did not hear god's message for salvation will have a chance to hear it while ANYONE who did hear the message and denied will be damned for eternity.


I have to wonder who will be in charge of divulging the information? Will it be a fallible human christian like yourself who will share the news. I mean will god leave it up to people like you to deliver his message without equivocating or will you make it difficult? Or will god-man jesus be making an appearance? Will it also be delivered so as to make it unclear and difficult?


What's more, how come these people have the advantage of being resurrected to hear the message? By my account if I was resurrected after being dead for thousands of years, then I would have some concrete evidence of a creator god who could rearrange my atoms to make me whole again? How come they have (what would surely be) some monumental objective evidence for life after death and the existence of a creator god, hmmmmmmmmmm?


"Once again thank you for bolstering my premise. Didn't god (you know being omniscient and all) consider that his earthly children were fallible and they would splinter into 34,000 separate groups? All with different understandings; ALL with differing interpretations -- bastardizing his message? Didn't -- THE CREATOR OF THE WHOLE UNIVERSE -- take into account a fair share of his earthly children would stray from scripture? This is my MAIN argument: the bible is morbidly ineffectual at getting his message to everyone -- unanimously and unequivocally. Again thank you for strengthening my arguments."
A: Of course He knew. Sort of the definition of omniscient. Again I'll fall back on the idea that salvation is an offer.


It's only an offer in your deluded mind where you have to skew analogies to fit your warped premise.


The only way to guarantee the salvation of all would be to remove free will so that acceptance of the offer would not be a choice and then we wouldn't be having this discussion would we?


Uh? NO. God could make his message available to everyone in a crystal clear way and we wouldn't have to rely on fallible interpretive claims presented by deluded christians who can't substantiate what they are saying. Then everyone could make educated decisions and they could choose a life of bliss in the bosom of god or the pit of hell -- FREE WILL STILL INTACT. (*)


I would say your premise is flawed in that the message is available to everyone but each person must make his/her own choice about salvation. Is it effective in forcing everyone into a saving relationship with Christ through grace. Absolutely, but saving everyone was never the point. Offering salvation to everyone is the point and my personal opinion is that it does quite an effective job at offering salvation to everyone.

It does NOTHING of the sort. You can't make a choice based on convoluted premises and NO objective evidence.


"Wow -- you do realize you are making my basic premise an impenetrable fortress?"
If your basic premise is that it would be better if everyone ever was saved then yeah you've got a solid premise. Again, it's a difference in approach. I would say it would be best if everyone accepted the offer and again, the only way your preferred method would work would be the removal of human free will,


WRONG. see above (*)


which would preclude faith, which would make religion pointless. The entire reason for free will with regards to Christ and salvation is that the onus is on the individual to make his/her own decision.

Right by abandoning ALL reason and critical thinking skills and replace it with faith where you simply believe in concepts without any evidence and without substantiating anything. Let's ALL hop on this crazy train.


"What, are you nuts? -- you have been speaking on behalf of your god, the entire time."
A: Alright, semantics issue. Speaking on behalf of God and speaking for God are different things. I can't speak for God. As we've discussed, the great commission requires that I speak on His behalf.

Bullsh*t. You use the authority of god as your own as a way of substantiating your bogus claims.


"God never claims to make it easy. -Again thank you for supporting my argument."
A: If your argument is that salvation is difficult then yes, I'm supporting your argument.

Salvation is difficult thereby relegating the majority of god's earthly children to reside in hell or hades where there will be physical repercussions or separation from god or whatever convoluted concept you expound on.


"Yes but the infallible all-knowing sdpsylence KNOWS he has the one true correct interpretation. Funny how that works, because ALL christian denominations will say the other denomination does NOT have an accurate concept of god/christ, too."
A: Never claimed to be infallible or all-knowing.


Then again, I ask why should I value your idiosyncratic interpretation of scripture? Why is your position valid? Christians ALL claim the truth and they all claim it comes from god and it all comes from the bible. Why does your particular interpretation hold any water?


In fact one of the requirements of Christianity is to acknowledge that we are hopelessly flawed creatures given to mistakes. If this weren't true, we wouldn't need a savior. I disagree thought that all denominations will say the other does not have an accurate concept of God. There are differences in the practices and traditions of faith but I'd like to hear from Christians of any denomination to find out if there are differences in the concept of God. This is one area where denomination rarely makes a difference.

WRONG AGAIN. No doubt assumptions and speculation are what you excel at.
http://www.barna.org/barna-update/article/12-faithspirituality/260-most-american-christians-do-not-believe-that-satan-or-the-holy-spirit-exis



http://ingoodfaith.wordpress.com/2009/04/11/what-do-christians-believe-in/



"My argument NEVER was about the misconceptions of god's character. My argument is the bible is a wholly inadequate and negligent to bring the message of salvation to everyone equally and unequivocally".
A: I've already made my case above. To summarize though I believe it's completely adequate to bring the message, which is different then saying it will bring everyone to salvation, which as we've already discussed, it won't due to the human capacity for deciding not to believe the message.

Which makes it morbidly ineffectual and relegates the majority of gods earthly children to hades/hell........sepration.......physical.......... something convoluted, you said.


"I'd defer to the Bible for the truth of God's nature.
Yawn.........strawman."
A: You may find it yawn worthy but God and His nature are described at length in the Bible.


Which is rendered obsolete because it is completely up to interpretation.

You've read it so you know that. The point I'm making is there are a lot of things people write, both Christians and non-Christians that can't be found anywhere in scripture. My personal view of God is, is it in scripture or is it not. If it's not I don't buy it and it seems to me that some of your arguments only stand up if certain assumptions are made that can't be found in scripture.

And yet other christians groups make this assertion and still come up with differing interpretations.


"And again I'll restate, God is not the always peaceful, always wants to hug you, only wants to see you smile no matter what God that some people like to make Him out to be to make Christianity seem nice or easy or soft or whatever.


Oh I agree with you there. I'll go so far as to say bible-god is a hypocritical sadistic schizophrenic, megalomaniac, who loves to make his earthly children suffer in unimaginable ways.


-Except god said, "God so loved the world that He gave His one and only Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life" (John 3:16 NIV)."
A: Good verse but you missed the part where there's a requirement. He offers eternal life to anyone, but it requires that you believe in Christ.

Well of course; and I bet there are other requirements too -- depending on ones idiosyncratic interpretation of scripture.


As far as your second to last paragraph, you're basically asking the age old question, "if God is so great why do people suffer"......To boil that link down: "This complaint that God is a God of wrath seems to picture him as being vengeful without reason, as being determined upon the destruction of men, but it is never so. God only destroys, only exercises his wrath when men have rejected his love.

Oh yeah, another great portrait of your insecure, petty and sadistic all loving god.


Tell me sdpsylence when a girlfriend rejected your love was it appropriate to inject her with a painful disease or to torture her with a blow torch?


You know I can almost buy, that if a god can create you he can also take your life away, but how come bible-god has to make you suffer egregiously, first? The only explanation I can come up with is he is a sadistic megalomaniac, relishing in the pain and suffering of people. Or the more simple explanation: the bible-god concept NEVER existed.


Which brings me to this argument you ignored:


God being omniscient already knew the majority of his earthly children would be destined to be tortured for all of eternity in the flames of hell.


Why create them in the first place? The only answer I can come up with is god is a sadistic torturer of souls. What other reason could there be?


You gave a convoluted explanation about hell or hades and separation from god or something physical -- it was definitely a diverging tactic. It would seem you are not comfortable addressing this -- I wonder why?


Let me rephrase the question a bit.


God being omniscient already knew the majority of his earthly children would be destined to hell to be separated from him for all of an eternity (or your vague and convoluted concept of something physical in hades or something)


Why create them in the first place? The only explanation I can come up with, is god is a sadistic torturer of souls. What other reason could there be?


But again, that answer will never satisfy a person who isn't Christian and realistically there can be no answer that would, because the only way to analyze the question is through scripture which you reject.

That's right -- I thoroughly reject lame superstitious explanations from a fairy tale book. A good (and reality based) read on the subject is called GOD'S PROBLEM How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question -- Why We Suffer, by Bart D. Ehrman


Finally, in summation I have concluded, you are just another deluded christian in a long line of unbalanced christians I have conversed with. You truly believe that you have found the Holy Grail -- an invisible key to a shining paradise that only you and your particular christian brethren can perceive and unlock; an insane concept constructed from your own myopic idiosyncratic interpretation of scripture, that provides you with a bogus sense of superiority and an illusion of eternal security and comfort. You have an idiotic ultra-twisted, notion of reality, based on foolish superstitions and willful ignorance, who has been brainwashed to the point of insanity.


You are asking us to believe in your preposterous claims, supported on flimsy subjective "proofs", spurious spiritualism and the rantings of a lunatic, who also admits there is no objective evidences for his magic mumbo-jumbo. You would have us take your word for it, much in the same way you obtain and process information -- the wholly unreliable method of FAITH.


Faith is nothing more than suspending your disbelief, ON PURPOSE, so as to make it fit in your warped, fantasy-filled world-view. You deliberately choose to forgo the reasoning powers your mind possesses and feebly fill in the blanks with subjective flim-flam and bloated, stretched-thin rationalizations, all the while insanely exclaiming there is NO objective evidence for your god-concept. You would have us believe that FAITH is a virtue but it is not. It is not supernatural; it is not spiritual -- it is a CHOICE. A choice steeped in massive delusion -- a construct of your own making, where you believe you have the one and only truth. You CHOOSE to waive your intellectual faculties and throw reasoning out the door, while convincing yourself by pretending that your irrational and insane interpretive claims are perfectly valid. You are like the slick huckster who is trying to sell his religious cure-all tonic -- where you are so whacked-out that you really do believe the babbling vomit you spew.


You would have us believe in silly superstitions, spurious spirit realities and supernatural horsesh*t -- that only you can sense -- all of which can NOT be substantiated with ANY objective evidence. Objective evidence -- that supposedly was afforded to a select number of jews around two thousand years ago, when the god-man jesus was trompsing around the dessert ressurecting dead people, walking on water, turning water into wine, curing the diseased and lame or watever miracles he summoned up to provide proof. Evidently he spent his wad right then and there and is incappable of/or is purposefully denying eveidence for his existence.


You are the equivalent of a mad-man who claims he has a relationship with an invisible genie that only he can see and understand and ONLY if you could "see the light" and commit to a devoted relationship with the genie, you too could begin to understand. I in NO way have any respect for you. I do not agree with the other poster that if I want respect for my beliefs then I should respect your beliefs. In fact I consider your beliefs to be unsubstituted bullsh*t, that has zero reference in reality, from a disturbed whack-a-loon, deer-in-the-headlight, christian who insanely thinks god loves him and will grant you a fast track to heaven because you believed in him with all your heart -- no doubt a match made in heaven.


Without a doubt, you are now arrogantly reassuring yourself that I am a lost cause destined for hell, while you still hold the one and only truth -- you'll be saved while the majority (including the Jews from the Holacaust) of god's earthly children are damned. Cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.


"The notion that faith in Christ is to be rewarded by an eternity of bliss, while a dependence upon reason, observation, and experience merits everlasting pain, (or whatever convoluted hell you paint) is too absurd for refutation, and can be believed only by that unhappy mixture of insanity and ignorance called 'faith.'" -- Robert G. Ingersol (Emphisis mine)


--S.

r said...

sconnor,

sorry for the wait. with spring in the air i find it hard to concentrate sometimes.

a few thoughts on my mind after reading your previous post:

1)should beliefs be proven?

2)can faith and reason be used together as tools to perceive our world?

3)do Christians surrender all reason, as your use of the Jefferson quote implies?

sconnor said...

r

1)should beliefs be proven?

Yes -- if they want to be taken seriously, especially when the beliefs are being used to push ANY (in this case christian) agenda. Take for instance (as in one example) the stance that homosexuality is condemned by god: This is a belief that is used by the christians to bolster their bigotry. It is bible based bigotry where the christian uses the supposed authority of their god to push polluted agendas -- without substantiating with objective evidence that this indeed was god's position.


Explain to me this: when has the bible and its bible-god been proven to be true? The supposed evidence for the credibility of the bible is:
1. The bible claims to be credible
2. It's believers insisting that it is credible. (circular argument)
Which is the same supposed evidences that are used to prove Mormonism, Islam and Judaism are also true.


So bottom line -- YES -- beliefs must be proven.


Where is the objective evidence that a personal god exists and that it cares what human beings do with their reproductive organs?


2)can faith and reason be used together as tools to perceive our world?

NO -- not together.


Faith and reason are mutually exclusive. You either believe in something because of evidence (reason) or you believe in it because of a lack of evidence (faith).


3)do Christians surrender all reason, as your use of the Jefferson quote implies?

Not necessarily. Christians could very well live their day to day life using reason in one way or another. For example -- a christian buying a car from someone they do NOT know: it would behoove them to use REASON when buying the car. If the seller told them they had the perfect car (everything the christian was looking for) and he said give me half the money up front and I'll get you the car: should the christian use FAITH or REASON when processing this information?


The ONLY reasonable answer would be -- REASON. Faith is an unreliable way of obtaining and processing information.


Using FAITH to believe in the absurd and unbelievable accounts in the bible has NO reference in reality and has NO credibility.


Remember FAITH is the wholly unreliable method used to believe in other deities and in a myriad of supernatural goings on, like the belief in allah, krishna, reincarnation, or a voodoo witch-doctor using his Ju-Ju, who can heal with chicken blood or the Cambodian faith healer who can reach into your stomach and remove cancer and on and on and on. Which renders FAITH as a reasonable option -- obsolete.


This is what FAITH gets you -- a multitude of absurd beliefs with NO reference in reality.


Are you beginning to comprehend how FAITH is completely unreliable?


Faith is a brain malfunction, where you abandon ALL critical thinking skills and the voice of reason, where you willingly, choose to ignore and bury logic, steeping yourself in ignorance, so you can believe, in the unbelievable.


Now when FAITH is regarded as a virtue and is erroneously elevated to the level of reason -- this is when it gets obscenely bad.


[Small sample list of why "faith" is a poor substitute to using critical thinking skills in making decisions]


It is faith that made it possible to burn supposed witches at the stake.

It is faith that made it possible to torture unbelievers during the Inquisition.

It is faith that made it possible for Jehovah Witnesses to let their children suffer and die because god does not allow blood transfusions.

It is faith that made it possible for thousands to be slaughtered during the crusades.

It is faith that made it possible for slavery to flourish in the confederate states.

It is faith that made it possible to discriminate against interracial marriages.

It is faith that makes it possible for women to be brainwashed and held against their wishes in Mormon sects.

It is faith that makes it possible for men to rule their subservient wives.

It is faith that makes it possible for parents to beat their children with a rod.

It is faith that makes it possible for parents to only pray, while withholding medical intervention, allowing their children to die.

It is faith that makes it possible for some denominations and sects to not allow woman a place of authority.

It is faith that makes it possible for terrorists to fly planes into buildings.

It is faith that makes it possible to be bigoted towards gay people.

It is faith that makes it possible to discriminate against gay people getting married.

It is faith that makes it possible to steal from old ladies, and the bereaved, who give their entire life savings to shysters, promising good health and salvation.

It is faith that makes it possible to teach ignorance, in the form of creationism, in the schoolroom.

It is faith that makes it possible for the church to ban condom use, causing hundreds of thousands to die in Africa.


Furthermore, other stains on our society like racism, prejudice, bigotry are propagated by the same method of obtaining information (very much like using FAITH). Both forgo reasoning skills to believe in the unbelievable. At one time American society regarded black people as inferior animals. Was this perception based on REASON or was it based on a thinking mechanism that is the equivalent of FAITH?


"I know of no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable" -- Sam Harris--S.

LeeAnn said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Baconsbud said...

Where is your proof that it was praying that healed anyone. Were they taking any medication, being treated by a doctor, or was there a misdiagnosis.

Why study something you don't believe in? Well if I told you you were wrong and had no bases for what I was saying, would you aspect that. Instead to get though all the misguided beliefs you have to know, I have to understand what you believe. If you think ignorance of something proves your view of it then you are badly misguided. Only though education can you have a true stance on any subject. Try educating yourself using all the available sources you can reasonably use before you make assumptions.

sconnor said...

leeann (pinch-hitter for texasaggie or r, perhaps?)


You sure spend a lot of time and energy talking about / researching something / someone (namely God) who you think isn't real. whew. very interesting.

And your point? Is this an allusion to: just because one talks about the concept of god -- then god must exist?


Really? -- why hold back -- please let us in on your profound conclusion that you find so interesting.


How do you explain those healed through prayer, from cancers, aids, paralysis, broken bones, etc....some of which I've personally witnessed.

Some you personally witnessed? Really? Care to give us some details? Care to provide objective evidence that the prayer was what really healed the person? I'm sure you have sound science backing up your subjective (personally witnessed) testimonies. Are you claiming that in ALL these cases (even the ones you witnessed) the sufferer rejected modern medical intervention for faith healing through prayer, instead?


These supposed miracles -- could there be a reasonable explanation as to why they got better? Perhaps a misdiagnosis? A bad x-ray? Spontaneous remission? urban legend?


[Quick little story]

My cousin was desperate -- he now has to use a wheelchair because of radiation treatments and hip replacements that cost him the use of his legs. He went to a christian "faith healer" who prayed over him and had him stand up -- A MIRACLE, A MIRACLE! People shouted and praised the lord -- a miracle had happened. But what everyone in the church did NOT know was my cousin could stand for seconds at a time -- the faithful went away believing (personally witnessed) a miracle had occurred and that he was healed, when NOTHING of the sort happened.


I'll tell you what, leeann, why don't you gather up your merry band of faith healers and go to your local Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, where there are children egregiously suffering and dying from aggressive, terminal childhood diseases and go pray over them and heal them.


Better yet, if you are so convinced that prayer is an effective way to cure diseases why don't you let ALL the Doctors and the parents at the Pediatric Intensive Care Unit know that they are wasting their time using the new-fangled medical technology and what they should be doing is admitting these suffering children to your church where the faith healers can pray over them and heal them -- good as new.


What's more, if you ever need medical intervention (let's say perhaps your arm gets severed) why don't you refuse treatment from the medical community and instead pray to your god that he will make your arm grow back -- right in front of your eyes.
http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/


Furthermore, why do you have to beg your cosmic healer in the sky to heal you?


Apparently your deity is omniscient and should know you are suffering -- but now he waits until one of his miserable creatures telepathically lets him know somethings up and even then he still neglects millions of his suffering children.


The question should be why does your god refuse to answer the cosmic phone letting billions of prayers go unanswered, ALL the while allowing his earthly children to suffer massively in unthinkable ways?


How come your supposed god turns a blind eye to prayers letting SIX MILLION innocent children suffer and die before their fifth birthday, every year because of malnutrition?


500,000 children suffer and die from measles every year, Rotavirus kills 600,000 children under five each year, ONE MILLION children suffer and die from malaria -- a child dies every 30 seconds from malaria -- that's a sh*t-load of prayers going UNANSWERED.


Also consider the abusively neglectful and obscenely ignorant parents who pray over their children, in lieu of medical treatment -- letting the child suffer and die. Praying -- super reliable! (massive sarcasm)

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23882698/

http://www.layscience.net/?q=node/91


And spare us your absurd platitudes and infantile explanations as to why god supposedly answers some prayers and morbidly neglects billions of his other earthly children, who suffer in unimaginable ways.


Two hands working, can do more than a thousand clasped hands, praying -- anonymous.


--S.

Lee said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
sconnor said...

lee

Such anger and hatred coming at my comment ... for what reason?

I can assure you I am NOT angry -- I'm perfectly content. Perhaps you misconstrue my bluntness and sarcasm for anger?


If you hate God or the notion of God, why bother yourself with Him / religion. It IS interesting to me. :-)

Can't hate what does NOT exist.


Furthermore, I don't hate the notion of god. I think your god-concept is absurd, childish, and thoroughly unsubstantiated.


What I do abhor is christians who use the supposed authority of their imaginary god -- who use the suppose voice of god (as their own) to give it a bogus sense of credibility, to push ANY of their polluted agendas. This is what I rail against. If you keep your beliefs to yourself and keep them out of the public sector, then I don't have a problem. This is what I "bother" with -- comprende? (*****)


My "proof" of healings?


My dad had a broken back and broken neck. Was in the hospital for 5 days with it, while I was at home praying daily. He was to have an operation for the neck and be in the hospital for 3-4 mos after surgery and was to wear the 'halo' contraption to keep his neck still, after the operation, for 1 yr. After 5 days of prayer, he was released from the hospital. Healed. Doctors even admitted it was a miracle.


Oh? -- the doctors admitted it was a miracle -- then it MUST be true. Did they also maintain he was healed because you prayed for him? Again please substantiate how you know the supposed healing was a direct result of you praying. The answer: you CAN'T. You ONLY attribute the healing to your prayers -- you make an erroneous connection between the two, which you can NOT verify with objective evidence and then you rationalize away or forget ALL the times your prayers were not answered.


Furthermore, the doctors definition of a miracle doesn't necessarily have to mean god went out of his way, circumvented the laws of nature by wielding his awesome power just so he could heal your dad. They could have simply meant it was a miracle in the sense that the probability of him getting better the way he did was inexplicable but doesn't have to have supernatural ramifications -- much like when a sports broadcaster call it a "miracle catch" that wins the game. Any doctor worth his weight in sense would know there could be reasonable explanations for someone getting better and there is NO need to attribute it to the supernatural or to a deity.


How about another story?

Oh -- do tell.


My nephew was in the hospital in a coma. Brain dead, and to be a vegetable for the rest of his life, was his prognosis. When I heard he was in the hospital, I went in and prayed over him. He was awake, and walking, within 24 hours. Released after another 24 hours.


It was another miracle.


Surrrre it was -- is it so inconceivable that the prognosis was a worst case scenario? Is it possible that the doctors who did the evaluating made some mistakes? Is it possible that you are embellishing the story?


What I also have to ponder is: if there is a god who is so powerful that he can bend the laws of nature to heal the sick and broken -- why didn't he just intervene before the person had to go through ALL that pain and misery? If he can fix things and heal the suffering why doesn't he just prevent it before it happened? Nooooooooo -- your god has to first let the person be in agony then he steps in to save the day when someone notifies him telepathically, but this he only does sparingly, while billions of his other earthly children suffer in horrific, unthinkable pain (some for years) -- cuckoo, cuckoo, cuckoo.


But god swooped in to make your dads boo-boos go bye-bye because he is special and you prayed for him. (Laughably preposterous!)


I'm NOT laughing with you -- I'm laughing AT you.


But it is a 'wicked' generation who won't believe, even if they see the miracle right before their very eyes...says Jesus.

Then you render your god powerless -- because if your god can't provide evidence by miracle or (whatever method) in order to convince a non-believer then he is impotent. You would think an ALL-knowing, ALL-powerful god could convince everyone to believe.


Your basic premise is you have to believe in order to believe -- that's a circular argument.


I don't have the ability to heal every single person in the hospital, as you suggest ... I am not the healer. I am just a Believer. Jesus said, "If you will Believe, then you will see the great miracles of God".

OK -- you want to go with what Jesus said -- do you?


According to your book of fairy tales, Jesus also said in Mark 16:17-18 -- "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."


Are you NOT a believer? Then get your ass over to your local Pediatric Intensive Care Unit and start healing ALL the suffering terminally ill children -- chop, chop!


Notice Jesus also says you can down a bucket of poison and you -- being a believer -- will be unaffected -- hallelujah; praise the Lard! Chug, chug!


What my two examples show is that God is real, He is alive, and He lovingly heals if a Believer prays, asks Him to heal, and has faith and believes God to heal.

The millions of children -- suffering in agonizing pain -- await your prayers to heal them.


What's more -- ALL you have done is erroneously attributed your prayers with the person getting better -- without providing objective evidence that there was a correlation between you praying and the person getting better.


You could have just as easily rubbed a rabbits foot and the same results would have came to fruition.


This example shows a rabbit's foot is real, it's is alive, and the foot lovingly heals if a believer rubs hard enough, asks the rabbit's foot to heal, and has faith and believes that the rabbit's foot can heal.


Additionally you posit that in order to heal someone by praying you must believe in god and believe god can heal. I suspect you mean you have to believe in your particular christian god -- correct?


Curious -- other religions pray and claim their prayers were answered too. Some pray to allah or krishna or to the great Indian spirit in the sky -- ALL claiming their god intervened and did some healing. According to your logic their god-concepts are real and are alive, as well.


Now, they DO NOT BELIEVE in your christian god, they DO NOT have faith in your christian god to heal, yet they still attribute the healings to their particular god or to some other supernatural happenings. Funny, huh?


Hmmmmmm? I wonder how they come to that conclusion? What sort of thinking mechanism allows them to make that determination -- maybe its the same way you do it? Funny how that works.


Bottom line your erroneous "prayer to healing connection" is NOTHING but an illusion of your own making, based on subjective rationalizations and your limited imagination.


You're the equivalent of a primitive superstitious ignoramus from the dark-ages who attributed phenomenon to the supernatural or to other deities -- when natural, reasonable explanations exist.


But why should you upset yourselves over it?


SEE ABOVE (*****)


Go about your own lives. At death we will all be proven right or wrong.


Consider the devout muslim. According to their religion you must believe in allah and you must worship and abide by the five pillars of islam to obtain heaven -- what if you're wrong?


--S.

Baconsbud said...

I was going to reply to him on this sconnor but figured I would wait until this morning. I am glad you replied. You said everything I would have liked to say and in a much better way. It is odd that both of the examples were in the hospital and not at their homes where he could have been with them as he prayed.

r said...

sconnor,

it is my understanding that beliefs cease to be beliefs when they are proven. proven beliefs would then be considered knowledge. why then do beliefs have to be proven?

also, if faith is so destructive, why did it even evolve? i think that while yes, faith can be misguided, you are short-selling it without admitting its role in what makes us human.

Baconsbud said...

Wow took a long time to get to the bottom of the comments.

R why wouldn't you want to prove a belief? Look at history and lets find all the times that great harm has been done because of beliefs. The crusades come to mind and if we look hard we will find others. Would the witch hunts have happened if beliefs had been proven wrong? If the British and French hadn't had the belief that Hitler would keep his word, would WWII have happened? So to not want to prove a belief does create plenty of things that cause a lot of harm.

Yes faith has evolved, not for the better at all times but to survive. Yes faith does have a role in what makes humans tick. I see faith as the basic tool of those that look to hate others. Yeah some peoples faith does do good but to me anyone that thinks a few good acts makes up for all the evil done on faith is closing their eyes to the truth. I see the Iraqi war as a good example of how faith mislead many to support it in the beginning but as the belief that it was just was proven wrong it all changed.

sconnor said...

sconnor,


it is my understanding that beliefs cease to be beliefs when they are proven. proven beliefs would then be considered knowledge.


How do you figure?


People at one time believed demons or evil spirits caused disease. The belief, that had no reference in reality, based on ignorance and superstition, was REPLACED by reason and knowledge -- for the betterment of mankind.


The belief in the supernatural would NOT be considered knowledge. Science knows genetics, brain chemistry, viruses, and bacteria are the culprits and modern medical intervention have saved millions of lives over the years. This mode of processing and validating knowledge can be duplicated and achieved by anyone who practices critical thinking as opposed to believing for the sake of believing.


I posit you must have objective evidence before you believe it to be true. This is the ONLY reasonable option.


This is why I do NOT believe in a personal god. Do you have objective evidence for a personal god?


why then do beliefs have to be proven?

For precisely the reason I relayed to you up above. By all means, live in the dark ages where belief and supernatural explanations ruled the world and when you get a bad case of the plague you have a holy man rub oil on your head while he chants gibberish.


also, if faith is so destructive, why did it even evolve?


It is my contention that the more reality based knowledge humans acquired is what made us evolve. That is why reason is the only reliable method for acquiring and processing information.


i think that while yes, faith can be misguided, you are short-selling it without admitting its role in what makes us human.
Misguided?


There's an understatement if I ever heard one.


Did you not see my: [Small sample list of why "faith" is a poor substitute to using critical thinking skills in making decisions] a few posts up? Wouldn't you think that if the hammer of reason stomped out ignorance in ALL its ugly forms, we would be better off? Please, review my short list. I would hardly call that misguided.


I posit that FAITH is an unreliable method of obtaining and processing information that has left rivers of blood in its wake. Furthermore the same non-reasoning skills that are employed by FAITH are used by racists, bigots, genocidal maniacs, gay bashers, etc., where they abandon ALL reason, steep themselves in ignorance and believe the most absurd of ideas.


This is why REASON and critical thinking skills are so important and need to be emulated by everyone.


Tell me, r, name one thing that faith does -- that is good -- that can't be done without it?


"I know of no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable" -- Sam Harris

Take care to digest this quote and completely comprehend it.


I'd like to also, bring something to your attention -- it is becoming tiresome answering ALL your questions in extreme detail when ALL you do is ignore my questions. I've made it a point to address ALL your questions -- I would just like it, if you would reciprocate.


I suspect you skirt ALL my comments and questions because you simply can NOT address them -- this speaks volumes.



Maybe if you tried to address ALL my questions and comments you will begin to comprehend my arguments.


--S.

r said...

Baconsbud,

it is true that beliefs can be wrong or misguided. but remember i never said we should abandon reason. it seems to me that at our current place in time (because we do not know everything in the universe) we have to perceive our world (our universe) through faith and reason.

at least that seems the most "reasonable" to me (pardon the pun). i identify with theists but i'll tell you that i do not support certain fundamentalist beliefs. this particular stance is not that uncommon, it's just unfortunate that the only stance associated with theism seems to be fundamentalist Christianity.

as a side note, i've considered the crusades as a land grab sold through religion than an actual "religious war."

Baconsbud said...

R

I will disagree with you on the faith and reason. To me faith is believing even when evidence goes against it. My problem with faith is it only applies, for most people, in one area of their life. I know most people are reasonable other then when they feel their faith is being challenged. Since a persons religious faith affects so many different fields within the scientific community there can be no reasonable view of the universe. This doesn't fit all religious faith nor does it mean you are reasonable without religion. I just think that until faith is placed second much of what religion claims to be looking for they can never truly find.


I think the main reason that most people associate fundie views is they get most of the press coverage. The less fundie a view the less profit for the media outlets. Most times a fundie says anything there is controversy. Controversy always draws more viewers. Until the media actually has to report all sides of stories, it will continue to create misleading reporting aimed at profit and propaganda.

sconnor said...

r


it is true that beliefs can be wrong or misguided.

...or atrocities that have left rivers of blood in their wake.


More specifically, it is when reason is NOT employed that gets us into trouble.


but remember i never said we should abandon reason.


You have to abandon reason when you use faith or the non-thinking skills employed by faith.


it seems to me that at our current place in time (because we do not know everything in the universe) we have to perceive our world (our universe) through faith and reason.

Ridiculous. Again you go right ahead and use a holy man chanting over you when you get some terminal disease.


Additionally rationalist, realist, and in other words people who use critical, logical thinking skills and reason alone don't have ANY problem perceiving the world as it is -- even when mystery presents it self.


at least that seems the most "reasonable" to me (pardon the pun). i identify with theists


And what parts of theism do you identify with?


but i'll tell you that i do not support certain fundamentalist beliefs.

Like me, I'm sure you have a laundry list of reasons NOT to support fundamentalists.


...this particular stance is not that uncommon, it's just unfortunate that the only stance associated with theism seems to be fundamentalist Christianity.

Hmmm? what beliefs in christianity are based on reason?


as a side note, i've considered the crusades as a land grab sold through religion than an actual "religious war."



Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, hahahahahahahaahahaha!


I love the way you romanticize the crusades. "Land grab" through religion -- what a joke.

Bottom line, your "land grab sold through religion" was a way of exterminating Muslims with force using the weapons of the day, chopping off heads, bludgeoning, eviscerating, slashing burning down houses, killing men women and children because they didn't hold the same beliefs as the christians did -- hmmmm? what's another way of saying it? -- oh yeah religious war.


I notice you CAN NOT address my points specifically, allowing you to bathe yourself in darkness.


--S.

TexasAggie2012 said...

sconner:

You said "You have to abandon reason when you use faith or the non-thinking skills employed by faith." Then you obviously abandon reason, too. You have faith that there is no God. You have no proof that He doesn't exist and if you do please show me.

You are a sad, strange, little man- Buzz Lightyear

Hooray quotes from irrelevant sources!!

sconnor said...

Texasaggie


Texasaggie is back from her farewell address, ready for some more mental spankings, once again arriving stunningly unequipped and completely ignoring my last post refuting the asinine assertion that the word "evil" was supposedly used as a noun, in the bible, when according to the Hebrew Old Testament Lexicon from the bible -- "EVIL" is an ADJECTIVE.


And since you went to dictionary.reference.com you will already know the definition of the ADJECTIVE: EVIL


EVIL–adjective 1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life.


Then you bury your tiny head in the sand, like an ostrich and ignore the FACT that your bullshit infantile argument about "why bad things happen to good people", was utterly obliterated.


texasaggie said in previous posts, I don't see what's wrong with the punishment. The world was perfect and they (A&E) screwed it up and their lives and all other lives must be punished...and these are the consequences we must deal with, disease, war, and everything else.


You had to backtrack and said: Back to the discussion on the punishment. It wasn't even that bad. They just have to work harder for their food now, big whoop. They already had to work for their food in the first place. God didn't give them their food on a silver platter, they had to do something to get food.


The whole argument -- from the beginning -- was about how god supposedly punished the rest of the world (with, disease, war, and everything else) because an innocent couple (NOT knowing between good and evil; right from wrong) disobeyed him.


Everything we argued about has been rendered obsolete, because of you massive incompetence. You FAILED miserably and should be dreadfully embarrassed.


Not ONLY did your "evil is a noun argument" and incomprehension that good and evil are synonyms for right and wrong crumble in absolute failure, you also SUPPORT MY INITIAL ARGUMENT -- thanks for that.


You said "You have to abandon reason when you use faith or the non-thinking skills employed by faith." Then you obviously abandon reason, too. You have faith that there is no God. You have no proof that He doesn't exist and if you do please show me.

Bahawaahahahahahahahah, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Dumb-fuck apologetics 101


This is another case of a deluded christian trying to elevate FAITH, by attempting to even the playing field.


We do NOT have FAITH there is NO god the same as YOU do NOT have FAITH there are NO invisible fairies or invisible gremlins -- you simply do NOT have any objective evidence for their existence.


Same as, you don't go about your day having FAITH that there is NO muslim concept of god -- allah.


The same way you discount allah is the same way we discount your christian god and ALL god-concepts -- for that matter. Think about it -- let....it....sink.....in. Is it penetrating that thick ignorant skull of yours?


We have NOT been provided ANY OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE for the existence of a personal christian god. It is a non-belief or un-belief -- NO FAITH REQUIRED.


Additionally, I am NOT making a definitive assertion that a god does NOT exist. There very well could be a god lurking out there somewhere, but as of now, objective evidence has NOT been provided to substantiate the existence of an omni-present conscious deity that concerns himself with humanity. ALL you have is a make-believe concept based on your limited imagination and speculative interpretation of scripture, coupled with strained subjective rationalizations, which means in essence, YOU GOT NOTHING BUT A MASSIVE DELUSION!


Really -- do you ever get tired of getting your stupid-ass intellect (or lack there of) handed to you on a platter?


You are a sad, strange, little man- Buzz Lightyear

...and you're a deluded deer-in-the-headlight christian drone who actually has the retarded belief that snakes have command of a human language and can converse with people -- Bahawahwahahahahahahaha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.


...you have no proof that He doesn't exist and if you do please show me.
Sorry that's NOT how it works. That's a logical fallacy -- you can't prove a negative.


Same as if I claimed I had an invisible flying dog in my garage and it grants me wishes and then -- using your dip-shit logic -- said you have NO proof that IT doesn't exist and if you do please show me -- a reasonable person would think me insane just like I think you are an idiotic lunatic who makes claims she can NOT substantiate.


The onus is upon the one making the extraordinary claim, to substantiate said claim.


You make the ridiculously childish claim snakes can talk -- well then, you are obligated to provide objective evidence for this claim or I can walk away knowing you are just an insane person making dumb-ass assertions she can NOT substantiate.


Same with your assertion that god sent god down to earth, because god loved god's earthly children, so much, that god had to sacrifice god, to god, to allow god, to magically change the supposed "sin-rule", god installed, in the first place and you must telepathically, assure god of your allegiance to god, so god can bestow grace upon you, allowing you to enter heaven, while the rest of god's earthly children (the non-bible believing, non-christians) will be tortured in the flames of hell for an eternity.


Please provide objective evidence for your insane proclamations, otherwise I will always regard you as a christian asshole who makes dumb-fuck assertions she can NOT substantiate.


Hooray quotes from irrelevant sources!!


Hooray germane and salient quotes you can NOT specifically address because you have NO arguments that can refute the major idea's they possess.


--S.

TexasAggie2012 said...

sconner:

English 203. This might be above your comprehension level but try to understand.

"of" is a preposition. Prepositions are followed nouns or pronouns. This is called a prepostiononal phrase. Let's do an exercise.

Exercise 1. Find the prepositional phrase.

The tree of knowledge of good and evil.

Answer:__________________

Oh, look. In the phrase "of good and evil", good is a noun and wait, look, evil is, too. Hooray!!! Did they ever teach you the Shirley Method in school?

And the snake could talk because he was possessed by something, maybe a demon.

Objective Evidence:

Here the story of the disciple Thomas. He would not believe that Jesus had risen from the dead until he touched his wounds.

John 20:25 says, "So the other disciples told him, 'We have seen the Lord!' But he [Thomas] said to them, 'Unless I see the nail marks in his hands and put my finger where the nails were, and put my hand into his side, I will not believe it.'"

"A week later his disciples were in the house again, and Thomas was with them. Though the doors were locked, Jesus came and stood among them and said, 'Peace be with you!' Then he said to Thomas, 'Put your finger here; see my hands. Reach out your hand and put it into my side. Stop doubting and believe.' Thomas said to him, 'My Lord and my God!' Then Jesus told him, 'Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed' (John 20:26-29).

So he placed his hands on Jesus' wounds and saw that this really was Jesus. Evidence!

Also, there are accounts from four different people of the crucifixion and the resurrection in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Please take your time and read them. Evidence!

What about all the people that witnessed Jesus perform miracles like raising Lazarus from the dead, walking on water, making the blind see, and many more miracles? Evidence!

Please ask for more evidence and I will give it to you.

And who needs objective evidence when you have direct evidence?

You need to remove that big ego of yours and accept defeat. It's the most honorable thing you can do. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha....haha...ha...hahaha...ha. Hooray extended laughs!!

Someday, you're gonna wind up all alone, and you'll have no one to blame but yourself.
-The Emperor's New Groove

Another cute quote from your favorite Disney characters.

Baconsbud said...

Texasaggie

Why do you feel it is my job to prove your invisible hateful friend exist? Does that mean because I might believe that the world only exist because purple winged pigs are always keeping the earth seeded and rotate is the truth since you can't prove it wrong? If you are this unprepared for dome of the more simple arguments that happen between atheist and theist, you must be having a hard time with some of those tough college courses.

As sconnor pointed out it is your job as the one making a claim to provide evidence that your god exist. The type of evidence you need to provide is that which can't be used to prove any other god belief. This means no saying the beauty of the earth or others in that line work. If you see them as proof of your god then you have to see them as proof of all god claims. Personnel experiences don't work either since only you may have seen this or felt that. I know you really want there to be a god but how many times has someone claimed something that is a personnel experience that goes against your belief that you reject it? I doubt very much that you have any evidence that can't be used by anyone to claim a different god belief.

Baconsbud said...

Texasaggie

How long has this rule of about propositions been around? When it was translated into english, did they translate it to fit the rules of english? When you translate from one language to another there is always something lost. It might be nothing important but there are times it can completely change the meaning of what has been said. Does the Hebrew language of the time it was first written even have propositions.

Your evidence is nothing more then personnel evidence. Where are all of the other peoples written statements that it happened in this way? You are basing your claim of evidence on the writings of someone who wasn't there. Most scholars say that John was written from 70-100 years after the fact. If I wrote about Jack the Ripper and claimed he was a specific person and it was all based on what I had been told by others, would you believe me? I have seen people who have said they believe that the Ripper is one of about 4 or 5 people but none that are respected claim they know for sure who he was. They are using the words of others to base this on and they know because of the amount of time that has gone by it is next to impossible to say for sure who it was.

Also it is some not dome in my earlier comment. Oops need to do a better job of proof reading. LOL

sconnor said...

texasaggie


English 203. This might be above your comprehension level but try to understand.
"of" is a preposition. Prepositions are followed nouns or pronouns. This is called a prepostiononal phrase. Let's do an exercise.
Exercise 1. Find the prepositional phrase.
The tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Answer:__________________
Oh, look. In the phrase "of good and evil", good is a noun and wait, look, evil is, too. Hooray!!! Did they ever teach you the Shirley Method in school?

Holy shit! Your limited intelligence is stunning. What did you do? Did you just look up the definition and try to extrapolate its meaning by making mean what you wanted it to mean? Can't blame you really; this is how you interpret your holy book -- you just make it mean whatever you want it to mean to suit your arguments and then use the supposed voice and supposed authority of god to make it viable.


Well, your interpretation of prepositional phrases are equally stunted.


A prepositional phrase that modifies a noun or pronoun is an adjective phrase.


'Good' and 'evil' are adjectives that describe 'knowledge', so 'knowledge' could be considered a noun in relation to those words.


But then, that whole grouping is used to describe 'Tree', which is the only true noun in the phrase. The sentence: "knowledge of good and evil" is an adjectival phrase.


What's more "OF" is NOT used in the original Hebrew and the phrase "the tree of knowledge of good and evil" can indeed mean ALL knowledge.


"So the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil they take to mean the Tree of All Knowledge. This meaning can be brought out by the alternative translations Tree of Knowledge of Good and of Evil (the word of not being expressed in the Hebrew) or Tree of Knowledge, both Good and Evil."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_Knowledge_of_Good_and_Evil#Translation_Issues


Furthermore, in an egregious derelict of logic and acknowledgment you still conveniently IGNORE the FACT that Other translations say:
Genesis 2:16-17 But the LORD told him, "You may eat fruit from any tree in the garden, except the one that has the power to let you know the difference between right and wrong. If you eat any fruit from that tree, you will die before the day is over!"
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=genesis%202:16-17;&version=46;


You also conveniently IGNORE the FACT that Bible Crosswalk labels them as adjectives:
According to the Hebrew Old Testament Lexicon "EVIL" is an ADJECTIVE.
http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=07451&version=kjv
http://bible.crosswalk.com/InterlinearBible/bible.cgi

BTW -- feel free to cut and paste any/all references I've provided

Original word -- [r

Word Origin -- from(07489)

Transliterated Word -- Ra'

TDNT -- Entry -- TWOT - 2191a,2191c

adj.
bad, evil
bad, disagreeable, malignant
bad, unpleasant, evil (giving pain, unhappiness, misery)
evil, displeasing
bad (of its kind - land, water, etc)
bad (of value)
worse than, worst (comparison)
sad, unhappy
evil (hurtful)
bad, unkind (vicious in disposition)
bad, evil, wicked (ethically)
in general, of persons, of thoughts
deeds, actions n m
evil, distress, misery, injury, calamity
evil, distress, adversity
evil, injury, wrong
evil (ethical) n f
evil, misery, distress, injury
evil, misery, distress
evil, injury, wrong
evil (ethical)


Furthermore you could go to MOST christian websites that do bible commentaries and see how they interpret the tree of knowledge of good and evil, like in this example, below:


"Also puzzling is what the author means by "knowledge of good and evil." In the Hebrew original, the word for "knowledge" also means "knowing," and the entire phrase might be translated as "knowing how to distinguish good from bad" -- which Adam presumably wouldn't need to do so long as nothing bad turned up in paradise. But God never promised him that."
http://www.gracecathedral.org/enrichment/brush_excerpts/brush_20030409.shtml


ALL this combined is FACTUAL evidence that you have FAILED miserably at proving your argument and your ONLY RECOURSE is to act like a two year old covering her eyes thinking the world has gone invisible -- you simply close your eyes, to the evidence provided and pretend like it does NOT EXIST.


It's funny how even this christian apologist (above) can't hold two competing ideas in his head either -- "Adam presumably wouldn't need to do so long as nothing bad turned up in paradise."


Except according to texasaggie a BAD demon disguised as a snake that could talk did show up.


Speaking of speaking snakes................


And the snake could talk because he was possessed by something, maybe a demon.

Or maybe an evil tree fairy or a Manitou -- an Indian spirit? Maybe it was a shape-shifter or a wizard? For dead god on a stick sake (christ sake) you are an asshole!


Please explain -- in as much detail as you can muster -- how is it possible that a demon (evil supernatural being) was a part of god's ALL-GOOD creation?


Notice texasaggie's loop-d-loop logic and flip-flopping to suit her argument: Before she said, When God created the world, according to my beliefs, there was no sin and everything was good.


EVERYTHING?


Once AGAIN, the nescient, texasaggie tries to baffle us with her dumb-ass twisted rationalizations.


So the malevolent, supernatural being, the (supposedly deceiving) demon was ALL-good? Texasaggie is an idiot.


I love it when stupid-ass christians paint themselves into corners. Come on texasaggie try to wiggle yourself out of this one. You'll have to jump through hoops and do mental gymnastics to defend your fucked-up rationalizations or back-flips like you did with your infantile "why do bad things happen to good people argument", which you conveniently IGNORED AGAIN.


PASTED AND RECOPIED FOR YOUR VIEWING PLEASURE

Then you bury your tiny head in the sand, like an ostrich and ignore the FACT that your bullshit infantile argument about "why bad things happen to good people", was utterly obliterated.


texasaggie said in previous posts, I don't see what's wrong with the punishment. The world was perfect and they (A&E) screwed it up and their lives and all other lives must be punished...and these are the consequences we must deal with, disease, war, and everything else.


You had to backtrack and said: Back to the discussion on the punishment. It wasn't even that bad. They just have to work harder for their food now, big whoop. They already had to work for their food in the first place. God didn't give them their food on a silver platter, they had to do something to get food.


The whole argument -- from the beginning -- was about how god supposedly punished the rest of the world (with, disease, war, and everything else) because an innocent couple (NOT knowing between good and evil; right from wrong) disobeyed him. You SUPPORT MY INITIAL ARGUMENT -- thanks for that.


Everything we argued about has been rendered obsolete, because of your massive incompetence. You FAILED miserably and should be dreadfully embarrassed.


Objective Evidence:

It would behoove you to KNOW and completely comprehend the definition of OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE, before you deliver subjective supposed proofs.


Texasaggie desperately tries to offer us "OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE" by actually supplying us with SUBJECTIVE SUPPOSED PROOFS (Thomas and supposed miracles) from bible verses.


Supposed testimonies from the bible are not Objective nor can they be considered direct evidence.


Using your reject-logic the final testament was given by the archangel Gabriel to the prophet Muhammad which is the final revelation of god (allah) that extols divine guidance and direction for mankind. Your logic dictates this is objective proof.


So we have the Old Testament, The New Testament and The Final Testament.


It too is written down in a holy book -- therefore according to your asinine logic this proves the qur'an is true and everything in it is allah's word.


Bottom line, vomiting up verses from your holy book is NOT OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE. Because ALL holy books can be used as supposed proof to support their extraordinary claims.


Now to the crux of the problem: no one can assert with objective evidence, Jesus -- the man or the stories surrounding him -- existed; let alone making the claim and prove with objective evidence he was the true, supernatural, resurrected, metaphysical son of god, as opposed to embellished, fabricated, oral stories, eventually, written over time by biased, superstitious authors -- nothing but a piece of fiction, based on a possible, fallible, human, prophet or an amalgamation of several people and several earlier legends and myths. ONCE AGAIN YOU GOT NOTHING.


Additionally if you want to use verses from the bible as supposed proof, I'm sure you can do what Jesus says you can do -- right?


Mark 16:17-18 "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."


It's in the bible and jesus said it. You're a true believer -- correct texasaggie?


You can lay hands on a terminally ill child who is suffering in unimaginable agony and you can heal them -- right? What are you waiting for -- Hop to -- get to your local Pediatric Intensive Care Unit and start your healing. There are children dying from aggressive childhood diseases and are in extreme pain from agonizing 4th and 5th degree burns over their entire bodies -- you can lay hands on the and the will recover!


Also, there are accounts from four different people of the crucifixion and the resurrection in Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John. Please take your time and read them. Evidence!Bawhahahahahahahaha -- NO -- NOT evidence!


I have read and studied them. If you knew anything about how the gospels supposedly came together you would realize that EVERYTHING was written decades after the supposed death of Jesus and ALL of them borrow from each other.


(****)You can NOT PROVE, eye-witnesses wrote about Jesus. First Jesus died between 27-30 A.D. Between his death and around 60 A.D. only stories of Jesus were circulated and handed down through the centuries; this is called the oral tradition. The earliest Gospel was written by Paul in the form of epistles (letters) at around 50-70 A.D.


The dating of rest of the Gospels places them in the following chronology. There are other versions of this chronology, but they are not the majority view and tend to come from apologetics and are not scholarly.


1. 27-30 A.D. -- Death of Jesus
2. 30-60 A.D. -- Oral tradition
3. 50-70 A.D. -- Letters from Paul
4. 60-70 A.D. -- First edition of Thomas.
5. 70 A.D. -- The destruction of the temple; the fall of Jerusalem .
6. 70-80 A.D. -- Mark.
7. 85-90 A.D. -- Matthew.
8. 85-95 A.D. -- Luke.
9. 90-100 A.D. -- John.


During Jesus' SUPPOSED ministry, Jesus nor any of his apostles wrote anything down. For thirty years only the stories were told. What should be noted is no one signed or dated the manuscripts (Gospels) and we have no original copies. In all cases we have copies of copies of copies, with thousands of mistakes between them. Several different people, some professional scribes and some illiterate scribes would make the copies. These were handwritten and copied and re-copied throughout the centuries.


And of these copies, the authors attributed to the Gospels were just, best guesses by the church. The earliest manuscripts come from Paul and were written between 20 to 40 years after Jesus' death.


As you know Paul never knew Jesus and only wrote about what he heard. All the other Gospels came after this and although some claim eyewitness accounts that does not mean they were written by the eyewitnesses -- CLAIMING EYEWITNESSES is a way of offering bogus credibility, which you gullible gorge on. (****)


Again, the Gospels borrow heavily from each other and embellishments and metaphysics were added as the stories were told and re-told. Each author would add different aspects to the story based on societal context toward values and issues at the time of authorship. Scribes also added extra sayings that were NOT part of our earliest manuscripts.


Any historians you may quote that wrote about Jesus did so well after his death and only relied on the stories told of the oral tradition. These stories were ALL based on hearsay and this was 2,000 years ago, from a mostly illiterate culture.


The Kennedy assassination was in the 20Th century and we still don't know what really happened. There have been several books by several authors with hundreds of testimonies, several eyewitnesses and thousands of theories. We even have film from several angles and locations and there still is a plethora of non-conclusive ideas and theories.


What about all the people that witnessed Jesus perform miracles like raising Lazarus from the dead, walking on water, making the blind see, and many more miracles? Evidence!NO -- NOT Evidence, dumb-ass.


Refer to above (****)


Also -- What about people giving erroneous accounts to give bogus credence to their stories? NO EVIDENCE -- dip-shit. Furthermore, ANYONE can embellish stories and add supposed miracles that supposedly people witnessed. ANYMORE supposed evidences?


Please ask for more evidence and I will give it to you.

I've been asking for OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE and so far you can ONLY vomit up subjective supposed proofs from a holy book, just like ALL holy books can do, which renders your supposed proofs complete and utter bullshit.


And who needs objective evidence when you have direct evidence?

You don't have direct evidence, unless of course you want to recognize the supposed "direct evidence" of Muhammad when he got god's (allah's) final Revelation from the angel Gabriel.


You need to remove that big ego of yours and accept defeat. It's the most honorable thing you can do. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha....haha...ha...hahaha...ha. Hooray extended laughs!!

Riiiiight -- the greatest thing about these posts is everyone with an ounce of intellect and NOT biased -- wrapped in the holy spirit of christianity buffoons -- can see you are a deluded illogical childish fool, who has to IGNORE ALL the arguments before her and ignorantly believes that snakes have command of a human language, demons can possess bodies, and Jesus can pump up the party by turning water into wine. Only the most deluded fuck-tard christians can believe such infantile nonsense. Ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha, hahahahahahahaha -- oh my sides ache!


Someday, you're gonna wind up all alone, and you'll have no one to blame but yourself.
-The Emperor's New Groove
Another cute quote from your favorite Disney characters.


Oh snap. (sarcasm)


As if a personal choice in appreciating animated Disney movies has ANYTHING to do with the arguments at hand. These stupid-ass Disney quotes do NOTHING to support your deluded infantile arguments. It's a desperate attempt of diverging and a pathetic attempt at humor.


Notice how texasaggie MUST IGNORE ALL my arguments in order to support her christian shit-for-brain beliefs.


Notice texasaggie could NOT refute my FAITH ARGUMENT in regard to her, "you have faith NOT to believe in god bullshit".


Also notice texasaggie can NOT specifically address the many salient and germane quotes and the major ideas they possess, I offered, over the many posts. Again, you got NOTHING BUT A MASSIVE DELUSION!


--S.

r said...

Baconsbud,

You bring up great points especially considering how controversy sells (Fox News comes to mind). However, it looks like we have different definitions of faith.

I don't think reason and faith have to be polar opposites, or even that they fulfill the same role. We will never be completely certain of some things and I feel that is why we need faith. I equate faith to trust, and if that is true then we aren't really confining faith to one aspect of our lives since we generally have to trust other people and things on a regular basis.

I think we agree where science is concerned, but if I were to only make one point during my visit to this blog, it is that faith and science can be used together (because I believe they do different things). Like Einstein said, "science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."

Religion needs science to keep it from turning into something ugly, but I want the freedom to commune with something bigger than myself.

r said...

Sconnor,

I think we have a misunderstanding. I'm not really here to convert you, but as you can see with my conversation with Baconsbud, I'm only clarifying points. However, you could learn a few things from Baconsbud, he seems a bit better at discussion (emphasis on not arguing).

Let me summarize (brevity is a virtue, imo):

1) You say faith and reason are mutually exclusive.

I am saying they fulfill different roles.

2) You say believers have left rivers of blood in their wake.

But I say even the secularists can commit atrocities.

3) You say faith has no place in our lives because everything can be perceived through reason.

But ever since we became self-aware, humans have wanted to commune with something outside of themselves (or inside depending on who you ask). I would prefer not to deny myself of things like emotion, which are irrational. However if that is your preference I don't have much against that.

Disclaimer: I am not saying faith should supplant reason. There is nothing wrong with using both because we are never completely certain of some things.

You ask me what Christian beliefs are rational. Surely loving your neighbor is just a little rational?

A final word on the Crusades. If you do not want to consider the deeper intricacies of war then at least try not to act like I'm telling a joke when I give explanations for human behavior.

From your reaction I would guess you think Islam is what is making all those misguided youths blow themselves up in Israeli markets and American convoys.

Strife is part of the human condition, atheist and theists alike are capable of it. Remove inequality and you remove the need for war. Religion, nationalism, idealism: these are the recruiting tools, they do not pull the trigger.

Peace.


P.S. TexasAggie, I like your quotes even if others do not appreciate them!

sconnor said...

r


I think we have a misunderstanding. I'm not really here to convert you,


I could give a shit, either way.


but as you can see with my conversation with Baconsbud, I'm only clarifying points.

And I noticed in your attempt to clarify points in this post you misrepresent some of my arguments or comments.


However, you could learn a few things from Baconsbud, he seems a bit better at discussion (emphasis on not arguing).

Who do you think you are? I'll discuss or argue as I please. If you don't like it -- sod off.


Let me summarize (brevity is a virtue, imo):

And or a lazy man's way of NOT addressing in depth all the issues I've layed out. You choose to ignore the finer points and/or broader points (depending on the premise) of my arguments.


1) You say faith and reason are mutually exclusive.

I am saying they fulfill different roles.



Fine -- DIFFERENT ROLES -- which makes them mutually exclusive.


Faith is believing in something that has NO evidence and reason is knowledge acquired with objective evidence -- mutually exclusive.


One can ONLY believe with FAITH that an angel can come down and talk to mortals like in the story about an angel visiting Mary. One can NOT use reason and OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE to support such a story -- MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE.


Can you argue to the specifics of this argument?


2) You say believers have left rivers of blood in their wake.

But I say even the secularists can commit atrocities.


You are either NOT able to comprehend what I am saying or you are purposefully misconstruing it.


Read and/or re-read, what I wrote and this time try to understand it, before you tell me what I said -- M-kay?.


(****)
I posit that FAITH is an unreliable method of obtaining and processing information that has left rivers of blood in its wake. Furthermore the same non-reasoning skills that are employed by FAITH are used by racists, bigots, genocidal maniacs, gay bashers, etc., (including secularist or anyone who commit atrocities) where they abandon ALL reason, steep themselves in ignorance and believe the most absurd of ideas. (emphasis added for clarification)


More specifically, it is when reason is NOT employed that gets us into trouble.
That is why REASON is the only reliable method for acquiring and processing information.


Bottom line -- it is ignorance and the abandonment of reason that lets these atrocities (secular included) flourish, which is the exact non-thinking (FAITH) that dominates christianity and other religions.


That is why I left this quote.


"I know of no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable" -- Sam Harris


Since the brevity of the quote did NOT infiltrate your mind let me expand it so you might better comprehend the major ideas it possesses.


The problem with fascism and communism, however, is not that they are too critical of religion; the problem is that they are too much like religions. Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable. -- Sam Harris

Now can you refute my loquacious arguments or is it too much for you to digest?



3) You say faith has no place in our lives because everything can be perceived through reason.

But ever since we became self-aware, humans have wanted to commune with something outside of themselves (or inside depending on who you ask).



This is rather nebulous. I'm NOT sure what you are getting at but it seems woo-woo -- out there.


I would prefer not to deny myself of things like emotion, which are irrational.

And unless you are a full, green-blooded Vulcan then you won't be able to deny emotions. Using Faith as a method to obtain and process information is not the same as innate emotions, nor is it what we are discussing, which is: faith and reason are mutually exclusive.


And I agree emotions can be very irrational -- again sometimes at the detriment of society. That is why reason is the ONLY reliable form of obtaining and processing knowledge.


Besides we are talking about cognitive reasoning. And I'm NOT necessarily saying everything can be perceived by reason. I am saying REASON is the only reliable method for acquiring and processing information. There is a difference.


BTW, I'm curious while using FAITH to perceive the world, what exactly is it that you perceive? Furthermore, that what you may perceive -- how credible is it?


I also want you to answer this question: name one thing that faith does -- that is good -- that can't be done without it?


However if that is your preference I don't have much against that.
Gee, thanks :) emoticon -- get it?


Disclaimer: I am not saying faith should supplant reason. There is nothing wrong with using both because we are never completely certain of some things.

So then, what THINGS are you more certain of when you use FAITH?


You ask me what Christian beliefs are rational. Surely loving your neighbor is just a little rational?

I concede that point, but this particular tenant is NOT specific to christianity.


No doubt, doing harm to your neighbor is counter-intuitive. Secularist, humanist, and other religions espouses this.


My nuances of my throw-away question is -- what extraordinary propositions claimed ONLY by christianity -- are rational? In my mind, even non-fundamentalist Christians -- as a whole -- believe christ was dead and buried for three days and was resurrected, alive and well; good as new and magically it has something to do with being saved. Sorry my brevity in this situation was detrimental to the conversation (argument).


A final word on the Crusades. If you do not want to consider the deeper intricacies of war then at least try not to act like I'm telling a joke when I give explanations for human behavior.

Your explanations are nothing short of infantile. To suggest the crusades were NOT a "religious war" is to show you are morbidly uninformed.


Maybe start with this: "The Crusades were a series of religion-driven military campaigns waged by much of Latin Christian Europe against external and internal opponents. They were fought mainly against Muslims, though campaigns were also directed against pagan Slavs, Jews, Russian and Greek Orthodox Christians, Mongols..."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades
...and educate yourself further with other readings before you make excruciatingly ignorant statements.


From your reaction I would guess you think Islam is what is making all those misguided youths blow themselves up in Israeli markets and American convoys.

Yes FAITH that they are pleasing the all-mighty allah and that they will receive 72 virgins for their suicide mission is a HUGE factor. Please read, The End of FAITH, Religion, Terror and the Future of Reason by Sam Harris. Although the brevity of the arguments might be too much for you to handle -- I would suspect.


Strife is part of the human condition, atheist and theists alike are capable of it.

Never made an argument otherwise.


Remove inequality and you remove the need for war. Religion, nationalism, idealism: these are the recruiting tools, they do not pull the trigger.Hmmmmmm? Remove inequality? -- that's a reasonable thought.


Refer here(****)


Peace.


Can't have peace without reason.


--S.

Baconsbud said...

R

I think you have pointed out one of the biggest problems with the english language. The words faith, religion, belief and reason all have from 4 to 9 different meanings. I figure you can even make them have more meanings by using them together. It would make it a lot easier if each of these words only had 2 meanings but then you would need more words to get a point across. There are already over 200,000 words available to us. Most of us might know 10,000 or so of them well enough to use.them regularly.

I agree faith and reason can work together at times. The problem is at times they work against each other. I have a form of faith in the sciences. It is nothing like the faith people have within religion. My faith in science comes from seeing it in action and how it corrects itself when it is wrong. I don't see religion having action that can truly be seen. When something is wrong within religion it takes more then religion to get it changed. Society is the main system that changes religion and even then many will stick with the views that are seen as wrong. Yes I see the good people do because they are involved in religion but I also see good done by people without religion. You don't have to have religion to be good.

R I think you are here to convert people but not in the negative way most think of when they say that. Any time you are trying to change a persons view, you are trying to convert them. You might not be trying to convert someone to a religion. Like all words convert has several different meanings. I think you are trying to convert peoples opinions more then anything else.

R I do agree that sconnor is way more passionate about these things then I am. I also agree he could lay off the name calling. I do think he has some good points but then I tend to ignore the name calling because it isn't aimed at me. If it was aimed at me I would have quit responding to him fairly quickly. I do think it was texasaggie that first did the name calling though.

Here is where we have a different view of things. You said, "Religion needs science to keep it from turning into something ugly", that alone says a lot. If religion actually allowed science to prevent it from being ugly we probably wouldn't see near as many atheist blogs. Science doesn't need religion to keep itself from turning ugly but it does need to be watched by people to keep it from turning ugly. I don't agree with the first part of the quote you use of Einstein.

Yeah anyone can commit atrocities. The difference is religion can cause people with no desire to harm others, commit these acts. Most non-believers that commit atrocities do so from an early age and continues until stopped.

sconnor said...

Baconsbud


I agree faith and reason can work together at times.I'd like to explore this further.


Can you give some examples?


I do agree that sconnor is way more passionate about these things then I am. I also agree he could lay off the name calling. I do think he has some good points but then I tend to ignore the name calling because it isn't aimed at me. If it was aimed at me I would have quit responding to him fairly quickly. I do think it was texasaggie that first did the name calling though.


I think if you will notice the name calling was not reserved for r.


I felt he was trying to make honest inquires without vomiting up ridiculously preposterous beliefs like texasaggie was regurgitating. I have little patience for such asinine beliefs and as you can see by the way I used ad hominem attacks I have zero respect for her.


I'm willing to discuss the matters but it seems to me r is having a difficult time comprehending my arguments as was seen by his misrepresentation of what I supposedly said.


It is my hope he can go line by line from my last post and address them specifically. Maybe he will be able to get the gist.


--S.

Baconsbud said...

I probably should have explained that a little better, about the faith and reason. The faith I have is in scientist and nature. The reason I have faith in these is that they are always being tested by others and ourselves. I have no real evidence that I can say that the sun will come up but do feel it will. My faith is in the stuff of life not a book. I have faith that most scientist are searching for the truth but for myself I have no real evidence until they answer some question or task put to them. Faith isn't only about religion. I have faith that tonight someone will save someones life and someone will take someones life. I have no evidence but know that that is part of the way mankind is.

Oh I knew the name calling was there just skipped over it and didn't allow it to bother me.

sconnor said...

Baconsbud


I probably should have explained that a little better, about the faith and reason. The faith I have is in scientist and nature. The reason I have faith in these is that they are always being tested by others and ourselves. I have no real evidence that I can say that the sun will come up but do feel it will.


OK. You did briefly touch on the FACT that we have different definitions of FAITH.


Your explanation above is actually TRUST. There is a difference in believing in something that has zero objective evidence like a christian personal god who supposedly has us in mind, cares for us, loves us and intervenes on our behalf if we truly believe and pray really hard -- this is FAITH (believing in something that has no evidence)


What you posit is actually TRUST built up from amassing reliable objective evidences. Consider the sun: The sun exists; it is a reality. Scientist have done extensive experiments in laboratories to KNOW how old and how long it has been and will burn. They can measure both the nuclear reactions taking place in the center of the sun using neutrinos and they can determine the density profile and temperature of the interior of the sun by measuring the way the sun vibrates.

Also consider the objective evidence of other stars: we can observe other stars like our sun, that exist. We can also observe other suns that have or will go supernova. In FACT the objective evidence we have for our sun "coming up" is overwhelming. Does this mean our sun won't blow up for some unforeseeable reason? -- perhaps, but the potential for it's rising is spectacularly high.

Not only does science substantiate with objective empirical evidence that the sun will come up -- the sun also has a reliable record of doing so in your lifetime and throughout recorded history. This is TRUST or (confidence based on reliance)


Notice how FAITH and TRUST differ in this respect.


What empirical objective evidence is there for the supposed personal omni-present invisible christian god? What is the potential for this deity to visit you or you visit him and discuss what's on his mind? Well, The potential is less than razor-thin because there is NO reliable history or objective evidence for this occurring.


My faith is in the stuff of life not a book. I have faith that most scientist are searching for the truth but for myself I have no real evidence until they answer some question or task put to them. Faith isn't only about religion. I have faith that tonight someone will save someones life and someone will take someones life. I have no evidence but know that that is part of the way mankind is.
But you do have evidence -- you just don't recognize it. Again, this is TRUST (confidence based on reliance) that someone will save and/or take a life because these occurrences have happened and will continue to happen because of the nature of our existence. We KNOW people exist and they are biological entities susceptible to injury or disease that can be extinguished by man's hand or saved by man's hand. How do we KNOW this? Answer: because we have objective evidence amassed from reliable sources such as police reports, statistical analysis of crime, news shows that barrage us on a 24 hour news cycle with actual video evidence that supports the FACT people kill and/or save peoples lives, and on and on and on. Furthermore the potential -- KNOWING what we know about the human body -- exists for anyone to kill and/or save a life -- this is reality based. You have TRUST (confidence based on reliance, amassed over time, with actual objective evidence), which is mutually exclusive to FAITH (believing in something that has no evidence).


--S.

TexasAggie2012 said...

r:

I try to keep things light and fun in here but with all the hatred from sconner it's kinda hard. But I like Disney, it's what I grew up with.

Baconsbud:

I did not start the name calling, sconner said one of my explanations was a "crock of sh*t". He provoked me and continued to so I respond with lighter comments.

sconner:

Whoa, whoa, whoa, settle down pancho. There is no need for all this cursing and getting mad homes. Take a chill pill dawg.

Also, I would like to know if you were a Christian before and after your son died. You don't have to answer it if you don't want to, I understand it might be hard for you to talk about him. But this might be a clue to why you changed your faith if it happened after your son died. And if you believed in the first place, you are saying that you were all these things that you spit at us with dislike. Just sayin'.

First off, I am indeed a man, a young man. So it would be respectful to refer to me as a male from now on. Thank you.

You need to tell me facts for me to believe you (attack point for you). You said there is no "of" in the Hebrew language, ok I'll believe you, but you said good and evil COULD be considered the same as knowledge and the phrase knowledge of good and evil CAN mean all knowledge. I need more than a could or can, i need an is or does.

Why do you talk like you have a crowd behind you listening and believing all the crap you spit out? You have an ego problem or something.

There was nothing wrong with the punishment, they have to work for their food and other things, but they brought sin into the world and all the other bad things and we have to deal with it all. That's all on that point.

Notice that faith is a synonym of trust but there are so many definitions this is probably irrelavent but I thought I would throw it in there.

As for objective evidence, in the defintion it says it can be obtained through observation. I happened upon this link, http://www.gospel-mysteries.net/witnesses-crucifixion.html I found it quite interesting in may not be the definite facts you're looking for but the Pre-Markan Passion Narrative is pretty interesting.

You also need to quit your crying about going to the pediatric center and healing kids. Maybe I can, maybe I can't. It's all in God's hands, sometimes he says yes, sometimes no, sometimes wait (attack point for you).

And you really need to stop using the same quote over and over again, we get it already.

Do you really feel good about calling young people names and attacking them for no reason? Come on you have to have something better to do than belittling people, unless your purpose in life or the pathway you chose, according to you, is to bash the same thing you once believed in. If you want to be useful why don't you go and do something good for society like going down the the pediatric center and healing kids or do research and cure cancer. This could help.

Here's some motivation:
"I think I can, I think I can, I think I can."-The Little Train that Could.

sconnor said...

texasaggie

r:

I try to keep things light and fun in here but with all the hatred from sconner it's kinda hard.



I can assure you I do NOT hate you. Again you are confused with my blunt assessment of your mental faculties (or lack there of) and your embarrassing infantile beliefs. Basically, I do NOT respect you, same as I wouldn't respect a dipshit adult who believes in the tooth fairy.


But I like Disney, it's what I grew up with.


And yet you chastise me for appreciating Disney movies by making this ridiculous statement:


texasaggie said, And I'm pretty sure you probably being a 40-year old man or woman still watching the Disney channel is the saddest thing I've ever seen. Please grow up or at least pretend that you are older than me.

Because as we ALL know once you become an adult you have to stop watching childish movies by Disney. (sarcasm)


Even when you are arguing inane topics you contradict yourself like a confused toddler.


Baconsbud:

I did not start the name calling, sconner said one of my explanations was a "crock of sh*t". He provoked me and continued to so I respond with lighter comments.


And your beliefs are still a great big crock of steaming shit, which you still have FAILED miserably to substantiate.


sconner:

Whoa, whoa, whoa, settle down pancho. There is no need for all this cursing and getting mad homes. Take a chill pill dawg.


Ooooooooo -- the profanity police.


Ummmm How should I put this.......if you don't like it -- go FUCK yourself.


Instead of debating the specifics of my salient and germane arguments, you run out of options and ammunition and you can only attack how something is said. Oh your virgin ears -- sconnor uses profanity, it's hateful.


My use of curse words does NOT distract from the substantive arguments I have been making. I'm ALL grown up and I can use the language that I so desire. It's painfully obvious you are playing your delusional morality card that gives you the false sense of superiority. You can NOT defend your lame position so you resort to bemoaning about crude language and hate.


I love it -- first texasaggie makes a snide comment, that my use of big words are overbearing, then he criticizes my grammar while spelling grammar wrong; now -- he scolds me for my use of expletives.


My use of expletives are just another spice in my stew. Think of me as the Gordon Ramsey of debating.


Why is it when a whack-job christian continually embarrasses himself, FAILING to substantiate ANYTHING and FAILING to refute the arguments I present they have to resort to the sophomoric tactic of diverging through STRAWMAN.


You are floundering like an out of water, brain-diseased fish -- desperately vomiting up ANYTHING so you can diverge from your colossal LACK of substantive evidence.


Bag the extraneous bullshit -- it does NOTHING to substantiate your infantile explanations of the world that you base on a fairy tale.


Now can you refute the specifics of my arguments or will you continue to diverge by offering inane arguments that have NOTHING to do with the premise at hand?


Also, I would like to know if you were a Christian before and after your son died. You don't have to answer it if you don't want to, I understand it might be hard for you to talk about him. But this might be a clue to why you changed your faith if it happened after your son died. And if you believed in the first place, you are saying that you were all these things that you spit at us with dislike. Just sayin'.

Spare me your jr. psychological analysis. Connor's death -- in and of itself -- did not make me an unbeliever.


I grew up Catholic, believing in god and christ, was an alter boy, almost went down the path of becoming a CCD teacher, had my kids baptized, went to church most Sundays. I didn't have the morbidly ignorant beliefs that snakes could talk because demons overtook their being, that satan placed dinosaurs under the ground to test us, that the earth is only 6,000 years old or that evolution is not true etc. etc..


I suspect you will vomit up that I was not a true christian and was NOT born again -- more deluded bullshit from a sick mind.


It's inconceivable for a deluded christian drone to accept that other christians, that were, even bible quoting, god fearing, holy spirit filled, born-again, Jesus freaks, who had a "relationship" with Jesus actually took the time to honestly research the christian faith and comparative religions, who through critical thinking and the voice of reason, dug themselves out of the pit of morbid ignorance and the sludgy swamp of christianity and slowly concluded there was NO objective evidence for a personal christian god and christianity is bullsh*t.


After Connor died, I went to the bible for comfort. As I read it, I slowly realized how disturbing and vile the bible was. It afforded me no comfort and I could hardly believe a religion was based on this horror show. At the same time a "friend" tried to help me through my grief. He is a christian fundamentalist and I found the things he was saying illogical and trite. I started reading the bible and questioning him. At first he thought it was good, that I had all these questions. He said it was OK for me to ask questions; it would strengthen his faith and the guys at the firehouse, where he works, ask questions, all the time.


But then I immersed myself in the bible and started to read other books. When I started to ask the tough questions I went to the books of Lee Strobel, Josh McDowell and their ilk.


I read Strobel's Case for Christ and Case for Faith when I was still a Christian and I was unimpressed. In fact, the flimsiness of his arguments made me search further... I read those and Josh McDowell"s books, More Than a Carpenter and Evidence That Demands a Verdict. I found them to be highly unsatisfying, sophomoric and unconvincing. These books left me starved for information. These books were the genesis (no pun intended) to my apostasy. Thanks goes to Strobel and McDowell for writing such, lame, limited drivel, as to make me search even harder.


Then I moved to John Shelby Spong and graduated to Bart D. Ehrman and Michael Shermer -- BOTH funddy christians turned unbelievers.


I obsessively researched for the past three years, about christianity. I took comparative religious courses, did bible studies, debated with christians. I read the bible twice cover to cover. I did a study, comparing the KJV with the CEV. Everything I was led to believe was complete bullsh*t. I have interviewed, Jehovah witnesses, Mormons, Conservative evangelicals, liberal Christians, Lutherans, Methodists, Catholics and Unitarians and guess what? -- they all have varying deluded beliefs about Jesus and how one is supposedly saved and on top of that they all claim the truth.


I came to the conclusion there was NO OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE for personal christian god and the thought that a supposed ALL-loving god could be so petty, insecure and sadistic, that he would torture the majority of his earthly children in the fires of hell for an eternity because they simply did NOT believe in him was obscenely repugnant.


First off, I am indeed a man, a young man. So it would be respectful to refer to me as a male from now on. Thank you.

You got it princess.


You need to tell me facts for me to believe you (attack point for you). You said there is no "of" in the Hebrew language, ok I'll believe you, but you said good and evil COULD be considered the same as knowledge and the phrase knowledge of good and evil CAN mean all knowledge. I need more than a could or can, i need an is or does.

This is what I said:

What's more "OF" is NOT used in the original Hebrew and the phrase "the tree of knowledge of good and evil" can indeed mean ALL knowledge.

Then I gave you a reference. Go there and perhaps start to educate yourself.

"So the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil they take to mean the Tree of All Knowledge. This meaning can be brought out by the alternative translations Tree of Knowledge of Good and of Evil (the word of not being expressed in the Hebrew) or Tree of Knowledge, both Good and Evil."http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tree_of_Knowledge_of_Good_and_Evil#Translation_Issues


Why do you talk like you have a crowd behind you listening and believing all the crap you spit out? You have an ego problem or something.

No crowd behind me. No ego problem -- again spare us your bullshit jr. psychological analysis. This is just MORE infantile diverging because you can NOT refute my arguments.


There was nothing wrong with the punishment, they have to work for their food and other things, but they brought sin into the world and all the other bad things and we have to deal with it all. That's all on that point.

Of course that's all on that point -- you got nothing but an absurd delusion. It's a bullshit explanation interpreted from an ancient myth that has talking snakes and magic trees.


AND AGAIN texasaggie has to tuck his tail between his legs and ignore my arguments.


texasaggie said, And the snake could talk because he was possessed by something, maybe a demon.


Please explain -- in as much detail as you can muster -- how is it possible that a demon (evil supernatural being) was a part of god's ALL-GOOD creation?


Notice texasaggie's loop-d-loop logic and flip-flopping to suit his argument: Before he said, When God created the world, according to my beliefs, there was no sin and everything was good.

Furthermore you are a lying piece of shit -- you said: I don't see what's wrong with the punishment. The world was perfect and they (A&E) screwed it up and their lives and all other lives must be punished...and these are the consequences we must deal with, disease, war, and everything else.


You are a mindless fuck-tard aren't you?


Regardless -- according to the fabricated myth story it was god's abusive negligence by not taking the proper precautions (perhaps an armed guard in front of the tree of knowledge?) or having the foreknowledge to prevent a couple -- who didn't know it was good or evil to disobey him -- from unleashing evil into the world, where god's earthly children would egregiously suffer in vile unimaginable ways.


Again, the whole argument -- from the beginning -- was about how god supposedly punished the rest of the world (with, disease, war, and everything else) because an innocent couple (NOT knowing between good and evil; right from wrong) disobeyed him. Now that you have backtracked You actually SUPPORT MY INITIAL ARGUMENT.


Notice that faith is a synonym of trust but there are so many definitions this is probably irrelavent but I thought I would throw it in there.

Unbelievable -- your stunted thinking process is like watching a train crash in slow motion.


I detailed the two separate definitions quite clearly. A synonym does NOT mean that the words in question will have the same exact meaning.


Seriously, do you ever get tired of being an asshole, lodging your foot in your mouth, all the time?


As for objective evidence, in the defintion it says it can be obtained through observation. I happened upon this link, http://www.gospel-mysteries.net/witnesses-crucifixion.html I found it quite interesting in may not be the definite facts you're looking for but the Pre-Markan Passion Narrative is pretty interesting.

You can't just pull out one portion of the definition and claim that is the definition. Observing something alone is NOT objective evidence.


Consider that based on observation alone ancient man thought the sun moved around the earth: After FACTS were compiled through research analysis, and measurement COUPLED with observation is when it becomes OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE.


Objective EvidenceInformation based on facts that can be proved through analysis, measurement, observation, and other such means of research.



What you NEED to comprehend is the difference between OBJECTIVE evidence and SUBJECTIVE evidence.



OBJECTIVE1.Of or having to do with a material object.

2.Having actual existence or reality.

3.Uninfluenced by emotions or personal prejudices: an objective critic. See Synonyms at fair

4.Based on observable phenomena; presented factually: an objective appraisal.



As opposed to:



SUBJECTIVE

1.

a.Proceeding from or taking place in a person's mind rather than the external world: a subjective decision.

b. Particular to a given person; personal: subjective experience.

2.Moodily introspective.

3.Existing only in the mind; illusory.

4.Psychology Existing only within the experiencer's mind.


Are you beginning to understand the difference?


You also need to quit your crying about going to the pediatric center and healing kids. Maybe I can, maybe I can't.


Fuck off you deluded wing-bat. YOU CAN'T!


It's all in God's hands, sometimes he says yes, sometimes no, sometimes wait (attack point for you).

You are again ignoring my argument. In the verse I supplied god didn't say, yes, no or sometimes -- contextually, he said, a believer CAN.


Mark 16:17-18 "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues; They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."


Notice how you can NOT refute my argument AGAIN. You try and prove your arguments with subjective rationalization -- positing that it is true because the bible says so and when I give you something from the bible that contradicts your argument by showing you a verse in the bible that is impossible you MUST duck and cover, NEVER acknowledging the FACT your premise FAILED yet once again.


And you really need to stop using the same quote over and over again, we get it already.

Do you? You can NEVER refute the major ideas in the quotes -- this speaks volumes.


Do you really feel good about calling young people names and attacking them for no reason?


I'm indifferent. Bottom line -- you are a dipshit with the mental capacity of a three year old -- both you and the toddler believe animals have command of a human language and can converse with people.


Come on you have to have something better to do than belittling people...


Who the fuck are you to decide what I deem better in what I do?


...unless your purpose in life or the pathway you chose, according to you, is to bash the same thing you once believed in.


Nope. And I did NOT believe in the same asinine shit-for-brain beliefs you insanely babble on about.


If you want to be useful why don't you go and do something good for society like going down the the pediatric center and healing kids or do research and cure cancer. This could help.

Wait; what do you mean? -- you're a believer; according to your book of fairy tales, god said, you can heal people. I don't have that magical ability. You are being criminally negligent if indeed you have this magical ability and you won't use it. Think of ALL the innocent children you could save. Think of ALL the children who are suffering in agonizing pain -- you could alleviate it because your holy book tells you so.


Additionally, the philanthropic endeavors I contribute to humanity are NOT pertinent to the discussion.


Again you vomit one strawman up after another because you CAN NOT refute ANY of my arguments.

You can't refute the adjective arguments
You can't refute the "of" argument.
You can't refute other translations say: let you know the difference between right and wrong.
You can't refute the Bible Crosswalk evidence
You can't refute that MOST christian apologists interpret it as: "knowing how to distinguish good from bad"
You can't refute the subheading argument
You can't refute you ridiculous demon possessing the snake claptrap
You can't refute the major ideas presented in the many quotes I supplied
You backtrack and lie from what you have said before: I don't see what's wrong with the punishment. The world was perfect and they (A&E) screwed it up and their lives and all other lives must be punished...and these are the consequences we must deal with, disease, war, and everything else.
You can't refute this:
Now to the crux of the problem: no one can assert with objective evidence, Jesus -- the man or the stories surrounding him -- existed; let alone making the claim and prove with objective evidence he was the true, supernatural, resurrected, metaphysical son of god, as opposed to embellished, fabricated, oral stories, eventually, written over time by biased, superstitious authors -- nothing but a piece of fiction, based on a possible, fallible, human, prophet or an amalgamation of several people and several earlier legends and myths.You can't refute my FAITH ARGUMENT
You can't refute that your holy book says you can drink poison and heal people
You can't refute that the jesus story is based on hearsay and that you have zero OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE for ANYTHING in the bible.


In FACT, all you can do is change the subject, diverge with lame strawman and offer silly subjective shit, steeped in ignorance (morbid infantile ignorance) and delusion, sprinkled with Disney quotes and book quotes, that do NOTHING to substantiate your fucked-up, cuckoo, beliefs.

--S.

markml said...

Not to burst the little Atheist bubble, but actually reading the FULL Bible passages mentioned will completely discredit most of your interpretations.

IN FACT, in most cases, the Bible is saying the EXACT opposite of your interpretation ironically enough!

Since most people are too lazy to do so, I provide proof:

1. The Bible says that Christians should not marry.
(God doesn't want Christians to marry. We shouldn't either.)

YOUR ABRIDGED VERSION: Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. 1 Corinthians 7:27

LONGER VERSION: Art thou bound unto a wife? seek not to be loosed. Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. But and if thou marry, thou hast not sinned

In other words, you should be content with life, whether you are married or you are single. But it is NOT a sin to marry -- this is repeated several times in the chapter, and is the reoccurring message to take away. Quite different than saying that Christians should not marry!YOUR ABRIDGED VERSION: For I would that all men were even as I myself.... I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. 1 Corinthians 7:7-9

LONGER VERSION: But I speak this by permission, and not of commandment. For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.

Guess, you completely missed the disclaimer where he says that this is his opinion, not a commandment from God. And whose opinion in this, you may ask? This is the opinion of Paul who is unmarried and not having sex. Oh how can that be possible, you say! Well even today, many Catholic priests take a vow to chastity -- nothing Earth shattering there! Paul is saying that he thinks this is a good thing, but he realizes that not every human on the planet is capable of doing that ... and God probably doesn't want the whole planet to be abstinent, because then the species would die off. So Paul is more than anything saying that marriage is a necessity for many people, but for those who don't feel the need to marry, they should be happy that they don't, because that means they have one less burden. ONCE AGAIN, READ THE DISCLAIMER WHERE PAUL SAYS THAT THESE ARE HIS OPINIONS, NOT COMMANDMENTS FROM GOD! 2. But if a Christian man decides to get married (which he shouldn't), he can have more than one wife.

YOUR ABRIDGED VERSION: If he take him another wife.... Exodus 21:10

LONGER VERSION: And if a man sell his daughter to be a maidservant, she shall not go out as the menservants do. If she please not her master, who hath betrothed her to himself, then shall he let her be redeemed: to sell her unto a strange nation he shall have no power, seeing he hath dealt deceitfully with her. And if he have betrothed her unto his son, he shall deal with her after the manner of daughters. If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.

This is NOT talking about having multiple wives or polygamy. It is talking about servants! It is essentially saying that a man can have a female servant, who is not his wife. But if after marrying someone else, he is not able to care for the female servant, then he must let the servant go. Read it carefully and understand the context of how Herbrew culture differs from American culture!3. And if he doesn't like one of his wives (like if she's unclean or ugly or something), he can divorce her.
When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. Deuteronomy 24:1

"Unclean" in a biblical context means "immoral", not "ugly" (where does it say that?) or physically dirty! Come on, even a five-year-old can understand that!4. If a Christian man gets married and then discovers on his wedding night that his new wife is not a virgin, then he and the other Christian men must stone her to death.If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her, And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid: Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate.... But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel: Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you. Deuteronomy 22:13-17

Your interpretation here is ALMOST correct for once, although you're ignoring a few important details. First you should replace the word "Christian" with "Jewish", because this was written LONG before Christianity in the Old Testament (Torah). In the Old Testament, the punishment for many crimes is death. The New Testament, on the other hand, isn't even about punishment but rather forgiveness. So while the crime may still be a crime, if you read the New Testament, your reaction to that crime is different than if you only read the Old Testament.

And in this specific case, the crime is not just that she wasn't a virgin, but that she LIED about being a virgin when she wasn't just to trick the guy into marrying her!
5. Christians shouldn't have sex (even if they are married, which they shouldn't be).YOUR ABRIDGED VERSION: But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none. 1 Corinthians 7:29

LONGER VERSION: But this I say, brethren, the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none; And they that weep, as though they wept not; and they that rejoice, as though they rejoiced not; and they that buy, as though they possessed not; And they that use this world, as not abusing it: for the fashion of this world passeth away. But I would have you without carefulness. He that is unmarried careth for the things that belong to the Lord, how he may please the Lord: But he that is married careth for the things that are of the world, how he may please his wife.

Once again, the cliff notes here are that time on Earth is short...and all these Earthly things, whether they be sex, crying, celebrating, buying, etc. are DISTRACTIONS from the purpose of being on Earth, which is to learn how to better serve God's will. It is not saying that these distractions are avoidable, and it certainly not singling out marriage or sex as being a bad thing.

It is simply saying that if you're married, you're going to be spending time thinking about your wife, which you could instead be spending thinking about God. It's not rocket science to produce these conclusions!

Also, keep in mind, that once again, this DISCLAIMER I mentioned above applies to this whole chapter. These are not commandments from God, but rather Paul's opinions about how to be both righteous and human at the same time.
YOUR ABRIDGED VERSION: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. 1 Corinthians 7:1-2

LONGER VERSION: It is good for a man not to touch a woman. Nevertheless, to avoid fornication, let every man have his own wife, and let every woman have her own husband.

In other words, in Paul's opinion, abstinence is a virtue, but unreasonable for most people since most people get horny. And so, people SHOULD get married to avoid the temptation of having sex outside of marriage!

Steve Wells said...

Thanks markml for that.

The short version of your longer version is the the Bible doesn't really mean what it says. It means whatever you'd like to believe that it means.

sconnor said...

markml


......and I would like to add:


Not to burst the little Atheist bubble, but actually reading the FULL Bible passages mentioned will completely discredit most of your interpretations,


IN FACT, in most cases, the Bible is saying the EXACT opposite of your interpretation ironically enough!
And the shorter version of the longest version:


Most?


Furthermore, we do NOT recognize your holy book of fantasy to have ANY credibility or authority.


Your word-salad is in vain because you MUST first present OBJECTIVE evidence your divine fairy tale book actually came from a divine source. But please spare us your bloated rationalizations, infantile explanations and deluded explanations, I've heard ALL the lame rhetoric, before from countless intellectually vacuous christians who suffer from arrested development.


--S.

TexasAggie2012 said...

OK are we in the third grade again. Calling me princess is what you did in grade school. Grow up.

So you were Catholic. You never had a relationship with God, you had a relationship with your priest guy because you have to through him for everything, right?

You have indeed forgotten what was written in Ezekiel 28:12-15. Here it is for your viewing pleasure: "Take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre and say to him: 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: You were the model of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone adorned you: ruby, topaz and emerald, chrysolite, onyx and jasper, sapphire, turquoise and beryl. Your settings and mountings were made of gold; on the day you were created they were prepared. You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones. You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you." So he was there and he did something there to cause God to dislike him. Hmmmmm, what happened in the Garden of Eden that may have caused God to not like Satan? Oh, right, he tempted Adam and Eve and caused the fall of man. But why was there something evil in the garden you say? God created Satan as the wisest and most beautiful and almost near perfect angel. He really liked the guy and thought extremely highly of him. Then, Satan decided to turn his back on God and go his own way and wanted to be his own "god" and he turned evil.

Defintion of objective evidence-information which can be proven true, based on facts that substantiate the change being made. The evidence must not be circumstantial but must be obtained THROUGH OBSERVATION, measurement, test or other means. The Pre-Marken Passion Narrative is a first-hand account of what happened and what was seen. There's your freakin' evidence.

REFUTATIONS:

Adjective clause.
You are mistaken. Good and evil are nouns that take on the role of adjectives. They do describe the tree but are used in noun form. Boom, refuted! <--(used in reference to The Office)

The "of" argument.
There is no single word Hebrew word for "of", but it is included in other words. I put the phrase "the tree of knowledge of good and evil" in a translator and this came up

העץ של ידע של רע טוב

I then put it back in the translator and it said "the tree OF knowledge OF bad good". This puzzled me so I put "evil" in the translator and got this

(ת') רע, מושחת


(ש"ע) רוע


(תה"פ) בצורה רעה, רע

Three different results with these three defintions in the same order "( was ' ) bad, corrupt ( Sh"a ) badness ( Th"p ) in the bad, bad form". There apparently is no word for evil in the Hebrew translation. The people who translated Genesis obviously didn't think that "bad" encompassed the entire meaning so they had to use a word that was closer to the word corrupt and therefore used the word "evil". And your lame wikipedia reference of the phrase meaning all knowledge MAY be true and was SUGGESTED by people, not factual. FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT. Boom, refuted!

Other translations.
Your kind of right (unfortunately). Some do say that but they might be trying to make it simpler for someone like you to understand, but they are mistaken. They used the wrong words to replace good and evil. Boom, kind of refuted!

Bible Crosswalk stuff.
Notice there are two defintions in noun form in there. Go on look at it, especially the one starting with evil (ethical). Boom, Refuted!

Christian apologists.
Most not ALL. You have used this before, just because most people believe it doesn't mean they are right. It could mean knowing how to distinguish good from bad but not necessarily. Boom, refuted!

Subheadings.
They put it there because that's what it is! Are you dense? They are not trying to trick everyone. They put what happened as a subheading so you know what the passage is about. Boom, not even refuted but owned!

Demon in the snake.
Satan was there in the Garden with them. He knew he could not control the Heavens so he was determined to gain control of the earth so he could the 'god' of something because he wanted to overthrow the true God. So he used the snake to tempt Adam and Eve into sinning and Satan has his foothold. Boom, refuted!

Quotes.
Sam's reason quote.

He obviously is mistaken. In the Ottoman Empire, the Sultan has his Grand Vizier or his advisor. When hard times came or anything he would sacrifice his Grand Vizier to save himself because he reasoned that he didn't want to die so let's just get rid of this guy and put another one in his place. Also, if the Sultan died he was replaced by a brother or an uncle, but if he had many brothers that could take his place civil war would ensue over the throne. So to fix this problem, they reasoned that it would be best to kill most of the siblings to prevent a civil war from happening. These problems brought by the Sultan contributed, not necessarily was the main cause, to the Ottoman downfall. Boom, roasted!

Jefferson's quote.
This puzzles me because Jefferson believed in a god.

Backtracking.
You're are mistaken. Boom, refuted!

Jesus.
Pre-Markan Passion Narrative. Boom, refuted!

Drinking poison.
It does say this. Maybe I can, maybe I can't. I haven't tried. I don't plan on trying drinking poison either. I might be able heal people. Maybe if I was full of the Spirit but me as a human probably not. Boom, refuted!

Hearsay.
Once again the Pre-Markan Passion Narrative. Yeah there's nothing wrong with having things passed down by mouth. It might get a little changed here or there but if what really happened was important and life-changing, I'm pretty sure someone would remember something about it. Boom, refuted!

There it is all your points refuted and then some.

sconnor said...

texasaggie


Man you are one deluded shit-for-brain whack-job. Your supposed refutations, were amateurish renderings composed by an infantile ignoramus, who consistently used ghastly illogical, poorly thought out, shabbily constructed and dreadfully erroneous arguments that was the equivalent of trying to hammer a giant square peg into a tiny round hole, where you completely ignore many of the specifics and nuances of my arguments. I'll number my comments and questions so you can address ALL of them specifically in context, so you won't be able to alleviate the logic behind my arguments. Notice how I copy and paste everyone of your arguments and (unlike you) address ALL of them thoroughly. I defy you to address each and every one of my comments and arguments, in detail, without equivocating or skipping around, skirting the logic behind the arguments.


I suspect when confronted with having to address ALL my arguments in detail you will offer up lame, bullshit excuses as to why you can't/won't answer them and run scared like a little schoolgirl -- we'll see.


OK are we in the third grade again. Calling me princess is what you did in grade school. Grow up.

Yes ma'am!


So you were Catholic. You never had a relationship with God, you had a relationship with your priest guy because you have to through him for everything, right?

Uh?........the last part of that sentence was incoherent.


1. You silly deluded douche-nozzle -- you can't have a relationship with your god-man because he is NOT there. He ONLY exists in your deranged mind.


2. You have simply fabricated an insanely and fantastic, massive delusion by idiosyncratically interpreting the superstitious, spurious words of scripture and by erroneously attributing emotions to your Jesus-character. You are pretending to have a relationship with a fictional character out of a book -- you are mentally disturbed.


3. It would be exactly like if an insane person claimed he had a relationship with another god-man -- Hercules. This person also makes his extraordinary claim, by obsessively, immersing himself in the writings about Hercules and convinces himself that the emotions of power and divine ecstasy he feels came directly from the POWER OF HERCULES, when in reality he just erroneously attributed feeling to a supposed higher power. In this illustration this person would be considered mentally ill, which is exactly the way I perceive a devout Christian who extols a personal relationship with God/Jesus – a character out of a book. You're a certifiable loon.


4. And absolutely, amazing; didn't I say you would vomit up this bullshit: I suspect you will vomit up that I was not a true christians™ and was NOT born again -- more deluded bullshit from a sick mind. In your fucked-up fantasy land ONLY born-again christians drenched in the love juice of Jesus, coated in the jismy goo of the holy spirit are the only true christians™.


5. According to your screwy beliefs, since Catholics supposedly don't have a true relationship with Jesus -- aren't they too destined for hell?


6. The six million Jews of the Holocaust, who suffered through unspeakable terrors -- there virtual hell on earth -- where families were torn apart, brutally beaten, burned alive, experimented on, starved and worked to death, unimaginable vile, long-term mass, suffering. And what awaits them after they die? According to texasaggie -- it's hell.


7. This hellish existence is also awaiting the Buddhists from the atomic blasts -- their virtual hell on earth -- where if you weren't vaporized, you were burned beyond recognition, charred to the bone and in some cases flower patterns from the fabric of furniture was seared into the skin or you lived the rest of your life rotting away and suffering from radiation poisoning -- epic, horrific destruction and human suffering on a mass scale. According to texasaggie's crazy beliefs, they now reside in hell.


8. According to texasaggie -- everyone who does not ascribe to his idiosyncratic, line of delusional thinking and the christian doctrine that pollutes his mailable infantile mind will be spending eternity in hell. The other 70% of the world -- all the other religions and non-believers -- who are not bible believing christians will posthumously reside in hell.


9. The reason these people will be tortured, for the rest of eternity, is because they were not born a bible believing christian like texasaggie and they were not persuaded to believe in the preposterous notion that all you have to do to be saved is to have a relationship with him and telepathically tell your cosmic buddy Jesus (who resides solely in the limited imaginations of christians) you accept him -- an absurd idea believed by the most brain-dead christians.


10. The absolute arrogance and insanity that is needed to believe in such nonsense -- "my god takes an interest in me, listens to me, answers my prayers, loves me, accepts me and will reward me for being a good little christian with the blissful pleasures of heaven" -- all the while, this supposed, all-loving god neglects the rest of his earthly children who are suffering and dying from hideous incurable diseases, or who are suffering and dying from malnutrition, or are unrecognizable from heinous burns, suffering in agony. So while texasaggie believes his trite prayers are answered, and he can heal egregiously sick children (but also refuses to help terminally ill children) the prayers of children suffering around the world fall on deaf divine ears.


11. Yes, texasaggie wallows, in the bogus sense of superiority and arrogance, with the delusional knowledge god loves him and the christians who think exactly like he does will be granted a one way ticket to paradise, while the rest of the non-christian world and the christians who don't ascribe to his line of thinking will be damned.


12. Don't even think of vomiting up an apologist platitude that it's NOT your call on whether these people are going to heaven or hell. Demented christians like yourself routinely try to wiggle out of the doctrine of hell with a bunch of bullshit. You either believe in the bullshit you extol and that you have to do certain things (criteria based on your beliefs) to get into heaven or face hell -- or you don't.


13. The notion that faith in Christ is to be rewarded by an eternity of bliss, while a dependence upon reason, observation, and experience merits everlasting pain, is too absurd for refutation, and can be believed only by that unhappy mixture of insanity and ignorance called 'faith.' -- Robert G. Ingersoll.
Go on refute the major ideas in this quote.


14. Additionally, to posit you must have a relationship with god is just another subjective bullshit rationalization that has NO reference in reality.


15. Other religions use this bullshit phrase too -- which renders the whole premise meaningless.


16. Consider -- as one example -- one of the divisions of Islam:

Sufis: They are the mystic sect of Islam. They oppose a rigid interpretation of Qur'an and seek a personal relationship with Allah through 'experiences,' such as religious dancing. The "Whirling Dervishes" are of this sect who practice this type of religious dancing.
http://wri.leaderu.com/articles/islam-singh.html


17. Or how about Hindus:

In practice, a worshiper tends to concentrate prayers on one deity or on a small group of Hindu Gods with whom there is a close personal relationship. Puja (worship) of the Hindu gods consists of a range of ritual offerings and prayers typically performed either daily or on special days before an image of the deity, which may be in the form of a person or a symbol of the sacred presence
http://www.indianchild.com/hindu_god.htm


18. Or as another example, consider Wiccans -- they also claim a relationship with the divine: http://www.wicca-spirituality.com/relationship-with-divine.html


19. Even Catholics

Coming to know God is life's most precious joys because you enter into a relationship with your Creator – the one who created you out of love and desires for you to share with him all his glory. The Church believes that people desire God and only in God will they find the truth and happiness that we constantly seek. God is always pouring out his love for us and it's up to us to turn to God. He will never stop loving you!

http://www.aboutcatholics.com/faith_beliefs/who_is_god/


20. AND just ONE example (out of many) From the Catholic Catechism

2558 "Great is the mystery of the faith!" The Church professes this mystery in the Apostles' Creed (Part One) and celebrates it in the sacramental liturgy (Part Two), so that the life of the faithful may be conformed to Christ in the Holy Spirit to the glory of God the Father (Part Three). This mystery, then, requires that the faithful believe in it, that they celebrate it, and that they live from it in a vital and personal relationship with the living and true God. This relationship is prayer.
http://www.usccb.org/catechism/text/pt4sect1.shtml


21. These religions claim to have personal relationships with their gods -- therefore their religion is credible also.


22. Can you see how your bullshit logic doesn't add up?


Also, once again, you just ignore other salient arguments and skip them.

23. It's inconceivable for a deluded christian drone to accept that other christians, that were, even bible quoting, god fearing, holy spirit filled, born-again, Jesus freaks, who had a "relationship" with Jesus actually took the time to honestly research the christian faith and comparative religions, who through critical thinking and the voice of reason, dug themselves out of the pit of morbid ignorance and the sludgy swamp of christianity and slowly concluded there was NO objective evidence for a personal christian god and christianity is bullsh*t.


You have indeed forgotten what was written in Ezekiel 28:12-15. Here it is for your viewing pleasure: "Take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre and say to him: 'This is what the Sovereign LORD says: You were the model of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty. You were in Eden, the garden of God; every precious stone adorned you: ruby, topaz and emerald, chrysolite, onyx and jasper, sapphire, turquoise and beryl. Your settings and mountings were made of gold; on the day you were created they were prepared. You were anointed as a guardian cherub, for so I ordained you. You were on the holy mount of God; you walked among the fiery stones. You were blameless in your ways from the day you were created till wickedness was found in you." So he was there and he did something there to cause God to dislike him. Hmmmmm, what happened in the Garden of Eden that may have caused God to not like Satan? Oh, right, he tempted Adam and Eve and caused the fall of man. But why was there something evil in the garden you say? God created Satan as the wisest and most beautiful and almost near perfect angel. He really liked the guy and thought extremely highly of him. Then, Satan decided to turn his back on God and go his own way and wanted to be his own "god" and he turned evil.

You deluded knob, I have NOT forgotten ANYTHING.

24. Ez 28:12-15 is the judgment of the king of Tyre and just because he mentions god's Garden it has nothing to do with the context of the story of Adam and Eve. Ezekiel is describing the king of Tyre as a person at one time who was "perfect" which is one meaning given to this difficult Hebrew text. And that the king of Tyre enjoyed himself AS IF he was in the Garden of god -- a simple simile meaning he was living the fat life.God gave the king of Tyre a place to rule over, but The king of Tyre got too high faluten and considered himself a god, so god had to destroy him. Once again you use this verse out of context as a way to erroneously bolster your notions of the story of Adam and Eve. You ineptly plagiarize some other bullshit apologists, lame interpretation: stretching and manipulating the verses, until it breaks and then sloppily mash it together, erroneously making it mean what you want it to mean to support your contaminated explanations. You really suck at this.


Defintion of objective evidence-information which can be proven true, based on facts that substantiate the change being made. The evidence must not be circumstantial but must be obtained THROUGH OBSERVATION, measurement, test or other means. The Pre-Marken Passion Narrative is a first-hand account of what happened and what was seen. There's your freakin' evidence.

25. That's NOT OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE. Just because the pre-Marken passion narrative claims first hand observational evidence does NOT make it true.


26. Case in point: Muhammad claims first hand account that the final Revelation of Allah was given by the archangel Gabriel that extols divine guidance and direction for mankind.


27. It too is written down in a holy book and claims to be a first hand observational account -- therefore according to your asinine logic this proves the qur'an is true and everything in it is allah's word.


28. Bottom line, vomiting up verses from your holy book is NOT OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE. Because supposedly ALL holy books can be used as proof to support the their extraordinary claims.


29. And you still think by observation ALONE is a valid piece of OBJECTIVE evidence -- it is NOT. Consider that based on observation alone ancient man thought the sun moved around the earth: After FACTS were compiled through research analysis, and measurement COUPLED with observation is when it becomes OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE.

This is what I mean you just simply avoid the logical specifics of my arguments.

So try and refute the logic behind ALL those arguments.


REFUTATIONS:

Adjective clause.
You are mistaken. Good and evil are nouns that take on the role of adjectives. They do describe the tree but are used in noun form.



30. Fine for argument sake, we'll go with your definition: they "take on the role of adjectives". Dip shit that means they are being used to describe the tree of knowledge -- its an adjective phrase. How can I make you understand this? Additionally you have to take into account the ORIGINAL ANCIENT HEBREW of the specific phrase in the bible. (More on this next)

Boom, refuted! <--(used in reference to The Office)

31. Um...NO you did NOT. Furthermore, using Boom, refuted! over and over again is NOTHING but a pathetic desperate ploy to overcompensate for your lack of logic, intelligence and erroneous arguments.


There is no single word Hebrew word for "of", but it is included in other words. I put the phrase "the tree of knowledge of good and evil" in a translator and this came up

העץ של ידע של רע טוב

I then put it back in the translator and it said "the tree OF knowledge OF bad good". This puzzled me so I put "evil" in the translator and got this

(ת') רע, מושחת

(ש"ע) רוע

(תה"פ) בצורה רעה, רע

Three different results with these three defintions in the same order "( was ' ) bad, corrupt ( Sh"a ) badness ( Th"p ) in the bad, bad form". There apparently is no word for evil in the Hebrew translation. The people who translated Genesis obviously didn't think that "bad" encompassed the entire meaning so they had to use a word that was closer to the word corrupt and therefore used the word "evil".



32. Holy fuckin' Christ! You are astonishingly, dimwitted. You F-ing moron. You have no idea how incredibly retarded you are. You just can't stick the English translation into a Hebrew translator and get accurate translations of the original Hebrew phrase that is in the bible you stupid f-ing jackass (I guess jack-asses can talk). When you type in the English word OF -- the translator will try to find something appropriate. You have to stick with the ORIGINAL ANCIENT HEBREW from the bible. Once again your despicable shitty research methods are shown to be wholly impotent and massively incompetent.


33. What's more, the actual word from the actual phrase in the bible that means "evil" is [r or ra`. This has been established.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/InterlinearBible/bible.cgi


34. The actual HEBREW PHRASE FROM THE BIBLE does NOT contain the word OF and the word evil is an adjective. This is indisputable. (More on this latter)


And your lame wikipedia reference of the phrase meaning all knowledge MAY be true and was SUGGESTED by people, not factual. FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT. Boom, refuted!

35. Try looking up "fallacious argument" and understand its meaning before you use such lofty (obviously incomprehensible) concepts. It is NOT fallacious to offer a scholarly view (two prestigious scholars) that supports the idea that the HEBREW phrase from the bible means ALL knowledge.


Other translations.
Your kind of right (unfortunately). Some do say that but they might be trying to make it simpler for someone like you to understand, but they are mistaken. They used the wrong words to replace good and evil. Boom, kind of refuted!


36. They are mistaken? Hmmmmmm? Great argument (sarcasm) Let me try -- others use good an evil so you can understand, but they are mistaken. They used the wrong words to replace right and wrong. Wow that's easy, now I see why you argue like that.


37. Either you can refute it or you can't. F-ing moron.


38. Bottom line there are other translations that say right and wrong.


39. I guess god got tired inspiring these translations -- huh?


Bible Crosswalk stuff.
Notice there are two defintions in noun form in there. Go on look at it, especially the one starting with evil (ethical). Boom, Refuted!


40. Get this through your fucking head: the word [r or ra` is an ADJECTIVE for the specific PHRASE in (Genesis 2:9, 2:17, 3:5, 3:22)


41. The word [r or roa` is considered a noun and is used in Genesis 41:19.


42. Roa` the NOUN, is NOT used in the passage in question (Genesis 2:9, 2:17, 3:5, or 3:22)


43. Ra` is an ADJECTIVE in the phrase The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.

http://www.biblestudytools.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=07455&version=kjv

http://www.biblestudytools.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/freqdisp.cgi?book=ge&number=07455&count=1&version=kjv


44. This alone; DESTROYS your ENTIRE premise.


45. Regardless you can NOT refute the logic that dictates if YOU do NOT possess the knowledge good and evil then how could you possibly know that what you were doing by disobeying god was good or evil? -- Even if he said NOT TO. It would be meaningless to a couple who could NOT distinguish good from evil.


Christian apologists.
Most not ALL. You have used this before, just because most people believe it doesn't mean they are right. It could mean knowing how to distinguish good from bad but not necessarily. Boom, refuted!


46. My argument is not that because many christians apologists say it; then it is true -- my argument is according to your deluded christian ilk this is how they interpret it. I am NOT appealing to the majority (argumentum ad poulum). Again, you should NOT attempt to use such difficult concepts -- you ONLY make yourself look like an idiot.


Subheadings.
They put it there because that's what it is! Are you dense? They are not trying to trick everyone. They put what happened as a subheading so you know what the passage is about. Boom, not even refuted but owned!


47. They were NEVER part of the original Hebrew or Greek. Modern day christian apologists put their biased slant on it to make it mean whatever they wanted it to mean.


48. In a ridiculous bit of hyperbole, but germane none the less: It would be like if someone put the subheading, The First Sexual Experience, above Genesis 3, where the story has been embellished to support a metaphorical interpretation that Adam and Eve fucked for the first time: Eve offered her fruit=vagina, Adam used his snake=penis.


49. Point is -- ANYONE can ignore the context of the actual myth in genesis 2&3 and embellish it to support their own polluted beliefs by putting erroneous subheadings. Come on tackle the logic -- I know you will be hard pressed.


Demon in the snake.
Satan was there in the Garden with them. He knew he could not control the Heavens so he was determined to gain control of the earth so he could the 'god' of something because he wanted to overthrow the true God. So he used the snake to tempt Adam and Eve into sinning and Satan has his foothold. Boom, refuted!


50. Backtracking AGAIN --dipshit.
Texasaggie said, Point 2: I never said the snake was satan.


51. Wow -- notice how you just simply change your argument to suit your needs?


52. Your supposed refutation DOES NOT explain how -- IF god's creation was ALL-GOOD -- how could the evil, deceptive Satan be a part of it?


53. the evil one (Matthew 13:19 & 1 John 2:13)
a murderer and the father of lies (John 8:44)
power of darkness (Colossians 1:13)
unclean spirit (Matthew 12:43)


54. It's another conundrum you have stumbled into. More logic to wade through. Furthermore, satan does NOT make an appearance in the garden of Eden story. There is NO character of satan in the myth -- once again you have embellished the authors original intent, by mounding on layers of your own deluded interpretation. Contextually, the author never describes the talking snake as satan, and never describes a demon or satan possessing the snake. Lastly, your stupid-ass god unjustly punishes the snake and ALL snakes for what satan supposedly did. If you became possessed by a demon or satan and while being possessed, you did bad things -- according to your fucked up logic shouldn't YOU be punished? Isn't that like punishing ALL cops, because a criminal posed as a cop and did something bad? Please address the logic of these arguments.


55. Remember saying this: TA said, When God created the world, according to my beliefs, there was no sin and everything was good.


56. You must argue to the logic -- if EVERYTHING WAS good How could an evil entity exist? Either god created a world where EVERYTHING was good or he did NOT --which is it?


57. You also must logically present a case why your supposedly omniscient -- albeit negligent -- god didn't take the proper precautions to prevent his ALL-GOOD creation (the world he so loved) from becoming a place where people suffer in vile unimaginable ways.


58. God set all this shit into motion. If he would have put an armed guard in front of the tree of knowledge like he eventually did in front of the tree of life all this could have been prevented.


59. Hell why did your dumb-ass god create the tree of knowledge in the first place? Why create the (evil one) satan? Why blame ALL this shit on an ignorant couple who didn't know the difference between good and evil?


Quotes.
Sam's reason quote.

He obviously is mistaken.



60. Great argument, very articulate and well thought out. (Massive sarcasm) Again, what an easy way to refute by just simply say he was mistaken then vomit up another bullshit example.


In the Ottoman Empire, the Sultan has his Grand Vizier or his advisor. When hard times came or anything he would sacrifice his Grand Vizier to save himself because he reasoned..........

61. Holy Jesus shit! Just because you used the word "reasoned" in your little scenario does NOT make it reasonable.


62. That's like saying, Hitler reasoned the Jews were less than human and then reasoning that the garish myth of blood libel was true to justify the Holocaust.


63. Nothing in your lame-brained example is reasonable -- you twit.


Jefferson's quote.

This puzzles me because Jefferson believed in a god.


64. Of course it puzzles you. You are a nescient toad, suffering with the brain-disease of christianity, where you don't have a clue what it means to be a deist.


65. Jefferson did NOT believe in a personal christian god. Jefferson was a product of the age of enlightenment, in which reason was the primary source and legitimacy for authority. Jefferson did not considered the God of the Bible appealing to what was reasonable. Again your po-dunk, backwater, christian education is really paying off. (more sarcasm)


Backtracking.
You're are mistaken. Boom, refuted!


66. Another scathing refutation. Your debating skills are outstanding and the vast detail in yet another brilliant rumination is overwhelming. (More sarcasm) Here let me try your method of refutation again, YOU are mistaken. See that's easy. Just say you're mistaken, stop there and don't support your assertion.


67.You are the lying asshole who said: I don't see what's wrong with the punishment. The world was perfect and they (A&E) screwed it up and their lives and all other lives must be punished...and these are the consequences we must deal with, disease, war, and everything else.

68. You first condone the the obscenely unjust punishment that all other lives must be punished (disease, war, and everything else), which would include innocent babies and children suffering in agonizing pain -- vile, unimaginable suffering.


69. Then you flip-flop and ONLY condone the punishment bestowed upon Adam and Eve, ignoring the FACT you justified ALL others being punished with, disease, war, and everything else.


70. You are a pathological liar, steeped in massive delusion, who will lie at any cost, twisting your rationalizations to suit the argument, at the time. LYING FOR JESUS!


Jesus.
Pre-Markan Passion Narrative. Boom, refuted!


71. You haven't refuted shit. Again, just because there is a claim of a first hand account does NOT make it objective evidence.


72. Although some claim eyewitness accounts that does not mean they were written by the eyewitnesses -- CLAIMING EYEWITNESSES is a way of offering bogus credibility, which you gullibly gorge on.


73.ANYONE can embellish stories and add supposed miracles and say people witnessed them. Logic? Logic? Logic?


74. Can you grasp that concept?


75. Please supply OBJECTIVE evidence that Jesus is the supernatural, resurrected, metaphysical son of god, as opposed to embellished, fabricated, oral stories, eventually, written over time by biased, superstitious authors -- nothing but a piece of fiction, based on a possible, fallible, human, prophet or an amalgamation of several people and several earlier legends and myths.


76. Remember other holy books claim first hand accounts and miracles. These are subjective rationalizations and in NO way substantiates they really happened. So much logic to overcome.


77. Pre-Markan Passion Narrative is inadmissible just like the Muhammad narrative where he gives a first hand account of getting the final revelation from god.


Drinking poison.
It does say this. Maybe I can, maybe I can't. I haven't tried. I don't plan on trying drinking poison either. I might be able heal people. Maybe if I was full of the Spirit but me as a human probably not. Boom, refuted!


78. Texasaggie is employing the KINDERGARTEN DEFENSE, where the little tyke answers the teachers question with, "maybe I can answer it maybe I can't", which means YOU CAN'T.


79. Either you believe what the bible tells you or you don't -- you cherry-pickin' motherfucker. And you did NOT refute anything. You are a self-proclaimed BELIEVER, who's in a deep, loving relationship with Jesus. Jesus point blank says, you CAN drink poison and you CAN heal people. So get your ass out there and start healing people.


80. Mark 16:17-18 "And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall...drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover."


81. Proverbs 16:3 Commit to the LORD whatever you do, and your plans will succeed.


82. The bible is clear -- believers can get what they want. I guess you just want to let little children suffer in egregious, unimaginable agony.


83. Matthew 7:7 Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. (Can't you ask Jesus to let you heal all the terminally ill and suffering children?)


84. Matthew 17:20 I tell you the truth, if you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there' and it will move. Nothing will be impossible for you. (NOTHING is impossible. See you don't even have to be full of the spirit -- you have at least enough faith that equals a minuscule mustard seed --right?).


85. Mark 11:24 Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. (Come on! At least start at your local Pediatric Intensive Care Unit and ease ALL those innocent children from their massive suffering -- HEAL THEM!)


86. Matthew 18:19 Again, I tell you that if two of you on earth agree about anything you ask for, it will be done for you by my Father in heaven. (I'm sure you have plenty of deluded christian friends and relatives who believe the way you do -- you just need one more. Think of ALL the babies and children you can heal).


87. Matthew 21:21 Jesus replied, "I tell you the truth, if you have faith and do not doubt, not only can you do what was done to the fig tree, but also you can say to this mountain, 'Go, throw yourself into the sea,' and it will be done. (You believe -- right, texasaggie? There are countless children in your area who are suffering in horrible reprehensible ways -- all you have to do is lay your hands on them -- you know if you are a believer (mustard seed of faith) and you believe ALL this bullshit in the bible).


88. John 14:12-14 I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.


89. ANYTHING, texasaggie. How about healing a new-born who has an inoperable brain tumor or a horribly deformed baby or a child who has terminal cancer, or a child who just had ALL of his arms and legs amputated? Either you CAN (like Jesus says) heal suffering, sick children or you are an uncompassionate, obscenely apathetic, morbidly negligent monster who is withholding the healing power Jesus gave to you.


90. In actuality you are too much of a chicken-shit pussy, to admit that you can NOT heal sick and terminally-ill children and the bible is just a bunch of bullshit you can NOT substantiate with OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE.


Hearsay.
Once again the Pre-Markan Passion Narrative. Yeah there's nothing wrong with having things passed down by mouth. It might get a little changed here or there but if what really happened was important and life-changing, I'm pretty sure someone would remember something about it. Boom, refuted!


91. Or it was just a bunch of superstitious dessert dwellers who made up stories and used the supposed voice of god to give it credibility where there was none, who embellished and added miracles to push their varying agendas. Please address the logic of this statement. please understand the difference between subjective and objective evidence -- pre-Markan is SUBJECTIVE.


92. The Qur'an was told orally and then written down -- according to your chaotic, fucked-up logic it really happened too.


There it is all your points refuted and then some.


Laughable!


You're NOT even close.


Start addressing the logic in ALL my comments and arguments.


I await your strained and twisted rationalizations, bullshit contrivances, subjective underpinnings, impotent refutations and erroneous arguments -- ALL of which are steeped in sick delusion. I love verbally slaying imbecilic christians -- just keep on coming back for more mental spankings, I'm here to stay.


--S.

Baconsbud said...

Texasaggie you might want to read the Jefferson Bible. It should give you a good idea of what Jefferson actually thought of christianity. Yes he believed in the teachings of Jesus but not in the dogma of religion. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jefferson_Bible

TexasAggie2012 said...

Baconsbud:
Baconsbud:

I do find it interesting that Jefferson did believe in God but that Jesus was not divine, he just thought Jesus' teachings were very true. I think it's funny also that he made his own 'Bible'.

On a completely different note, I am curious what you believe in, Bacon. I won't attack you or curse you or anything like that, I just want to see your point of view. Thanks.

sconner:

1. This is my first sentence.

2. I will begin my arguments as soon as i get to number 4.

3. Numbering sentences is stupid.

4. Here we go.

5. And I do address all your points.

Your "points"

1. Douche-nozzle? What the heck are you talking about? Maybe douchebag or, my personal favorite, douchefag, but douche-nozzle? Lamesauce. And yes God is there.

2. Personal attacks. Keep it up. They never get old, maybe make up some new words.

3. Don't be hatin' on Hercules. He's cool. Nope, I believe God is there.

4. "Jismy goo" and "love juice" you are insane. It's water that represents being born again.

5. Nope, if they believe that Jesus is God's son and ask Him to forgive them of their sins then no they are not going to hell.

6. Nope, refer to previous statement.

7. No.

8. Yeah, basically.

9. Nope, not absurd..

10. Wrongo, He cares for everyone. Satan has a hold on the earth and God can have no part in coming down here because He is pure and cannot be apart of all this sin. So He gives people qualities to help all the sick kids, doctors, surgeons, physicians, and stuff like that.

11. I never said i was superior to anyone and I am not arrogant. God loves everyone and wants everyone come live with Him in heaven when their time on earth is done.

12. It's not but I want to try and get as many people to come with me to heaven.

13. I think Mr. Ingersoll was blind. Did he not see all the beautiful things God created around him? You can use reason, observation, and experience to show that Jesus is real. Lamesauce.

14. Personal experience is objective. Let's have a little analogy here. Back in the old west, let's say Buffalo Bill wanted to play some poker. So he and Calamity Jane play a hand with people watching. Bill has Ace Queen. Jane has Kings. The flop comes and it's Ace, King, Queen. The cards are written down by an observer. The next card is an Ace. Full houses for each. The next card is a 2. Bill wins with the higher full house. This is all documented by a guy that observed the hand. A couple of years later a buddy of the person that documented the hand asks if he saw Bill and Jane play the hand, of course he says yes and tells him what happened. But according to you this cannot be trusted because it can't be tested, there is no video evidence, and he could be possibly lying. Do you get tired of digging yourself in holes you can't get out of?

15. Well, let's see which one came up first. Hmmmm, it looks like the Old Testament was being written around 300 years before anything else. The Hindu Veda was the closest. Don't you think it's possible, no probable that other religions used some of Christianity's ideas to make their religion?

16-23. Since they all have to do with relationships. See above facts.

TexasAggie2012 said...

24. And yes you have forgotten somethings. Out of context? Nope. There it is, you just don't want admit you're wrong. I understand, it's hard for a man of your ignorance level to do so but it's whatever. And what make your sources more credible than mine? Absolutely nothing! You are a sad, strange, little man.

25-29. Refer to what I answered in 14 and 15.

30. Yes but they are still nouns!

31. Yes I did.

32. ...Yes you... can!

33-34. No!

35. Scholarly view? Are you suggesting you are making a scholarly view? HAHAHAHA! This is amusing, just because you did a little research doesn't make you a scholar.

36-39. They used words they thought would explain it correctly and I don't think they got the words accurately.

40-44. I've read those links and parts of it are right. But it is still the tree of knowledge of good and evil.

45. THEY WERE TOLD WHAT TO DO AND THEY WENT AGAINST IT. THEY DID SOMETHING WRONG WHEN THEY KNEW IT WAS WRONG, DOUCHEFAG!!

46. What are you talking about?!?!

47-49. They put it there because that's what happened you cotton-headed ninny-muggins! You have your head so far up your butt you can't even realize that's exactly what is happening.

50-56. After doing more in depth research and finding evidence that Satan was there I changed my mind. You are stupid once again. Satan was created good. He decided he wanted the power of God and wanted to take God's throne. So God cast him out after he turned against Him and Satan took his grab on the earth. About punishing snakes, it's a reminder to everyone when you see a snake about the fall and no it's not like punishing all cops.

57-59. God gave them the CHOICE and they decided to go against Him but they did something they KNEW was wrong and got punished for it.

60-63. Yeah, it makes sense, you just don't want to admit that your wrong. The Sultan used reason, which was bad reason but reason nontheless, and saved his own butt. May not be reasonable but he used reason to make his decision. You have FAILED!

64-65. Uh... yeah he did, dummy. He belived in God but he was a Unitarian and didn't believe in the Trinity in case you didn't know. Product of his age? You are stupid. That is lamer then some of my explanations.

66-70. You are DUMB!!!!!! The punishment wasn't bad, it was the evil that Satan put on this earth that sucks. Do you not get that SATAN is behind all of the evil in this world and NOT God?!

TexasAggie2012 said...

71-77. You're right anyone can embellish something BUT if it was something monumental happening, I'm sure they remember all of what happened and how it happened. And first-hand accounts are once again objective and other religions probably used parts of Christianity to give themselves credibility.

78-90. You are supposed to have total faith in God. I'm not afraid to say that I don't total and complete faith in Him. I'm young I have time to understand these things in the Bible and learn more about how awesome God is. Yeah I probably can't but maybe if I'm full of the Spirit, I might be able to.

91-92. What is up with you believing everything was embellished you idiot? These things happened and people wrote them down because they saw it happen! OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE! You can't test these facts because no one is still alive on this earth that was there back then. So you have the things that were written back then by the people who were there and saw what happened, who did NOT embellish what they saw, and wrote it down for future people to see. SUCK IT!

You need some definite help in the ego department because you haven't slayed me and you may want to spank me, but if you go both ways it's ok to admit it, but it ain't ever gonna happen you poor, deluded, simpleton who desperately wishes he was capable of accomplishing something in his pathetic, fantasy world where he pretends to be smart enough to come up with a legitimate arguments to try and put someone down but still fails miserably at the only thing in life he cares about. That's right go cry to mommy about how you let her down at becoming a somebody and wallow in self-pity for the rest of your miserable, worthless days. Wow that was alot of built up anger wasted on a nobody.

Baconsbud said...

I am non religious and believe no religion has the truth. Is there a god, I very much doubt there is. All religions are attempts by mankind to explain things they had no knowledge of. As mans knowledge grew you can see how religion changes it's views to fit this new knowledge other then some select groups. I see religion as the root of all evil. No matter how much good religion can do it will never make up for all the evil it does.

sconnor said...

texasaggie

1. You silly deluded douche-nozzle -- you can't have a relationship with your god-man because he is NOT there. He ONLY exists in your deranged mind.


1. Douche-nozzle? What the heck are you talking about? Maybe douchebag or, my personal favorite, douchefag, but douche-nozzle? Lamesauce. And yes God is there.

A. Right. He is there -- in the vacuous confines of your stunted mind. Nothing but a construct you built from your myopic interpretation of scripture and subjective meanderings. where's the OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE for the existence of your personal christian god/man?


2. You have simply fabricated an insanely and fantastic, massive delusion by idiosyncratically interpreting the superstitious, spurious words of scripture and by erroneously attributing emotions to your Jesus-character. You are pretending to have a relationship with a fictional character out of a book -- you are mentally disturbed.


2. Personal attacks. Keep it up. They never get old, maybe make up some new words.

B. Notice how texasaggie CAN NOT substantiate this Jesus character. Notice how texasaggie CAN NOT address the specifics of this comment.
You make the extraordinary claim -- you have a relationship with your personal christian deity. Please supply OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE for this supposed relationship and specifically refute why it is NOT just a massive delusion which you constructed from your particular christian interpretation of scripture where you pretend a fictional character out of a book is your friend and you have a relationship with him.

sconnor said...

3. It would be exactly like if an insane person claimed he had a relationship with another god-man -- Hercules. This person also makes his extraordinary claim, by obsessively, immersing himself in the writings about Hercules and convinces himself that the emotions of power and divine ecstasy he feels came directly from the POWER OF HERCULES, when in reality he just erroneously attributed feeling to a supposed higher power. In this illustration this person would be considered mentally ill, which is exactly the way I perceive a devout Christian who extols a personal relationship with God/Jesus – a character out of a book. You're a certifiable loon.


3. Don't be hatin' on Hercules. He's cool. Nope, I believe God is there.

C. I know you believe god is there (this is redundant and does NOTHING to refute my argument), but once AGAIN you MUST ignore the logic of the argument and play the baby game of duck and cover. Please explain -- in full detail -- why you are NOT the equivalent of an insane person claiming they have a relationship with someone out of a book (Hercules is just one example, it might well have been Captain Ahab, Tom Sawyer, or King Lear? (Note: just because other christians claim to have a relationship with your specific christian deity does NOT refute the logic of my argument)


4. And absolutely, amazing; didn't I say you would vomit up this bullshit: I suspect you will vomit up that I was not a true christians™ and was NOT born again -- more deluded bullshit from a sick mind. In your fucked-up fantasy land ONLY born-again christians drenched in the love juice of Jesus, coated in the jismy goo of the holy spirit are the only true christians™.


4. "Jismy goo" and "love juice" you are insane. It's water that represents being born again.

D. Of course the biting sarcasm and cutting satire is lost on you -- I know what your deluded born-again doctrine of salvation is. I also KNEW that would be your lame defense.


E. Please explain -- in detail -- why your definition of a true christians™ is credible as opposed to ALL the other definitions offered up by other denominations and definitions of christ throughout history? (Saying you base yours on scripture is inadmissible -- ALL denominations claim this)


F. In other words you believe you know what god/jesus wants and how one is supposedly saved -- why should the criteria you espouse for being saved be considered legitimate while other denominations have vast and various interpretations on salvation -- ALL claiming scripture as their base?


G. I'll tell you what texasaggie, if god exists, then god knows, exactly, where to find me -- he can tell me, exactly, and concisely, everything he needs me to know, himself -- this way, I can be absolutely certain, what god wants from me, and I don't have to rely on some fallible, deluded fuck-tard deer-in-the-headlight crazy-ass christian, that makes extraordinary, interpretive claims, he can't substantiate -- M-kay?

sconnor said...

5. According to your screwy beliefs, since Catholics supposedly don't have a true relationship with Jesus -- aren't they too destined for hell?

5. Nope, if they believe that Jesus is God's son and ask Him to forgive them of their sins then no they are not going to hell

H. Wait...........they don't have to be born-again, wrapped in the holy spirit, true christians™ ? Really?


6. The six million Jews of the Holocaust, who suffered through unspeakable terrors -- there virtual hell on earth -- where families were torn apart, brutally beaten, burned alive, experimented on, starved and worked to death, unimaginable vile, long-term mass, suffering. And what awaits them after they die? According to texasaggie -- it's hell.


6. Nope, refer to previous statement.

I. Shit-for-brains, The FACT that they were Jews, precludes them from being christian. They were born into their particular religion and did NOT believe in Jesus the christ, son of god, nor would they have telepathically asked for his forgiveness.


J. Knowing this FACT -- Aren't they being tortured in the flames of hell for an eternity?


K. Knowing they were being violently exterminated because they were Jews, precludes them from being christian -- in light of this -- aren't they being tortured in the flames of hell for an eternity?


L. Saying IF they believe that Jesus is God's son and ask Him to forgive them of their sins then no they are not going to hell is NOT addressing the argument. At know fault of their own -- being born into their particular FAITH and considering what you deem appropriate for salvation -- is it NOT true they will be damned to hell, for an eternity?


7. This hellish existence is also awaiting the Buddhists from the atomic blasts -- their virtual hell on earth -- where if you weren't vaporized, you were burned beyond recognition, charred to the bone and in some cases flower patterns from the fabric of furniture was seared into the skin or you lived the rest of your life rotting away and suffering from radiation poisoning -- epic, horrific destruction and human suffering on a mass scale. According to texasaggie's crazy beliefs, they now reside in hell.


7. No.

sconnor said...

M. I suspect you were born into your beliefs, indoctrinated into your particular christianity -- why is it, you would NEVER consider the religion of Islam, the one true path to salvation?


N. Using your answer you will comprehend other cultures who were born into and indoctrinated into their specific religion -- throughout history -- will find it just as impossible to consider your brand of religion the one and only true one -- thus according to your beliefs (because they were not born into your particular brand of christianity and don't believe in jesus/god they will eternally be tortured in the flames of hell -- correct?


8. According to texasaggie -- everyone who does not ascribe to his idiosyncratic, line of delusional thinking and the christian doctrine that pollutes his mailable infantile mind will be spending eternity in hell. The other 70% of the world -- all the other religions and non-believers -- who are not bible believing christians will posthumously reside in hell.


8. Yeah, basically

O. Then you have just painted a portrait of your god as a sadistic torturer of souls.


The Christian’s Delusion Of Salvation
P. God -- who so loved the WORLD -- initiated a plan, of restoration, by sending his son, to be tortured, crucified and sacrificed, to save humanity. Sinful, humanity -- who couldn't possibly save themselves -- in the end, must accept and believe in Jesus, so they can be saved and yet, the other 70% of the world -- at this moment in time -- are other religions, the non-religious, or unbelievers, who are not bible-believing Christians. Didn't God consider his other earthly children, when he put his feeble, plan into action? Looks like Jesus' torturous, sacrifice was futile. God's inept, plan is incapable of saving everyone and hinges on the very ones who couldn't save themselves, in the first place. God’s plan for salvation is tragically flawed, wholly inadequate and morbidly negligent. The number of lost souls, throughout history, is monumentally, mind-blowing. Christianity is nothing but an illusion, which gorges itself, on gullibility and ignorance.


9. The reason these people will be tortured, for the rest of eternity, is because they were not born a bible believing christian like texasaggie and they were not persuaded to believe in the preposterous notion that all you have to do to be saved is to have a relationship with him and telepathically tell your cosmic buddy Jesus (who resides solely in the limited imaginations of christians) you accept him -- an absurd idea believed by the most brain-dead christians.


9. Nope, not absurd..

sconnor said...

Q. As per usual, texasaggie can NOT address the logic or specifics of the argument.
(refer to The Christian’s Delusion Of Salvation)


R. Furthermore, when you take into consideration ALL the christian denotations who don't ascribe to your particular criteria for being saved, coupled with ALL the other religions and non-believers (throughout history -- ONLY a minuscule of gods earthly children will be saved, while the MAJORITY of gods other earthly children will be tortured in the flames FOREVER -- this is god's great plan and you condone it and love him for it? Why?


S. And while we are at it -- explain the logic behind a god who preaches
"Bear with each other and forgive whatever grievances you may have against one another." Colossians 3:13 ~and~ "Forgive not seven times but forgive seventy times seven." -- Matthew 18:21-22 with a god who will torture you for an eternity simply because someone didn't believe in him?

10. The absolute arrogance and insanity that is needed to believe in such nonsense -- "my god takes an interest in me, listens to me, answers my prayers, loves me, accepts me and will reward me for being a good little christian with the blissful pleasures of heaven" -- all the while, this supposed, all-loving god neglects the rest of his earthly children who are suffering and dying from hideous incurable diseases, or who are suffering and dying from malnutrition, or are unrecognizable from heinous burns, suffering in agony. So while texasaggie believes his trite prayers are answered, and he can heal egregiously sick children (but also refuses to help terminally ill children) the prayers of children suffering around the world fall on deaf divine ears.


10. Wrongo, He cares for everyone. Satan has a hold on the earth and God can have no part in coming down here because He is pure and cannot be apart of all this sin. So He gives people qualities to help all the sick kids, doctors, surgeons, physicians, and stuff like that.

And stuff like that? Great argument -- genius. (sarcasm)


Wrongo, He cares for everyone. Satan has a hold on the earth and God can have no part in coming down here because He is pure and cannot be apart of all this sin.


T. Then you have retracted god's powers and admit your god is NOT omnipotent. Surely god is powerful enough to remove satan's hold on the earth?

sconnor said...

U. Furthermore if satan has a hold on the earth and god is pure and can't be a part of all this sin how exactly is it possibly for him to intervene on behalf of the praying faithful. If he can supposedly intervene when someone prays and work miracles isn't this an indicator that your ALL-powerful god can indeed manipulate the laws of nature and circumvent satans hold on earth?


So He gives people qualities to help all the sick kids, doctors, surgeons, physicians, and stuff like that.

V. Another feeble minded explanation from a christ-tard. These god-given qualities you suggest ONLY takes into consideration the modern era -- perhaps the last few hundred years. Where were these god-given qualities for the first few millennia where plagues wiped out whole civilizations? Where were these god-given qualities when cuts routinely got infected causing people to die? Where were these god given qualities when a myriad of untreatable diseases wiped out millions throughout history, leaving agonizing grief in their wake? Where were these god-given qualities before modern surgical technology and modern physicians?


X. Now, please substantiate that this invisible supernatural character (satan) actually exists and has a hold on the earth, as opposed to subjective rationalizations you pluck out of scripture and your ass?


Y. And it would seem your book of fairy tales contradicts who is in control of (a hold on)the earth and who is behind evil. (*****) texasaggie states below, SATAN is behind all of the evil in this world and NOT God?!


Z. Joshua 2:11
For the LORD your God, he is God in heaven above, and in earth beneath.
Joshua 3:13
The LORD of all the earth
2 Kings 19:15
Thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth.
1 Chronicles 16:14
He is the LORD our God; his judgments are in all the earth.
1 Chronicles 16:31
Let the heavens be glad, and let the earth rejoice: and let men say among the nations, The LORD reigneth.
Ezra 5:11
We are the servants of the God of heaven and earth.
Job 34:13
Who hath given him a charge over the earth? or who hath disposed the whole world?
Psalm 47:2
For the LORD most high is terrible; he is a great King over all the earth.
Psalm 47:7
For God is the King of all the earth.
Psalm 59:13
God ruleth in Jacob unto the ends of the earth.
Psalm 83:18
That men may know that thou, whose name alone is JEHOVAH, art the most high over all the earth.
Psalm 96:10
Say among the heathen that the LORD reigneth
Psalm 97:1
The LORD reigneth; let the earth rejoice.
Psalm 97:5
The hills melted like wax at the presence of the LORD, at the presence of the Lord of the whole earth.
Psalm 99:1
The LORD reigneth; let the people tremble.
Isaiah 37:16
Thou art the God, even thou alone, of all the kingdoms of the earth.
Isaiah 54:5
The God of the whole earth shall he be called.
Micah 4:13
I will consecrate their gain unto the LORD, and their substance unto the Lord of the whole earth.
Zechariah 4:14
These are the two anointed ones, that stand by the LORD of the whole earth.
Zechariah 6:5
These are the four spirits of the heavens, which go forth from standing before the LORD of all the earth.
Matthew 11:25
Jesus answered and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth...
Luke 10:21
Jesus rejoiced in spirit, and said, I thank thee, O Father, Lord of heaven and earth...
Acts 17:24
God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth.

sconnor said...

AA. According to your fairy tale book god also creates evil things:

BB. Ec 7:14 In the day of prosperity be joyful, but in the day of adversity consider: God also hath set the one over against the other, to the end that man should find nothing after him.
which means: When times are good be happy but when times are bad think what it means. God made both to keep us from knowing what will happen next.

2Ki 6:33 And while he yet talked with them, behold, the messenger came down unto him: and he said, Behold, this evil is of the LORD; what should I wait for the LORD any longer?


DD. Isa 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.


EE.Pr 16:4 The LORD hath made all things for himself: yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.


FF. I already know your calamity argument, which works for me, because you admit that God causes horrible disasters -- how do you reconcile these particular attributes of God with your concept of an all-loving God?


GG. The bible view is clear, your supposed all-loving, moral, god creates, misery, calamity, adversity and evil -- IN THE WORLD. Please present a detailed logical counter argument to the above.


11. Yes, texasaggie wallows, in the bogus sense of superiority and arrogance, with the delusional knowledge god loves him and the christians who think exactly like he does will be granted a one way ticket to paradise, while the rest of the non-christian world and the christians who don't ascribe to his line of thinking will be damned.


11. I never said i was superior to anyone and I am not arrogant.


HH. Bullshit. You don't have to say it. You display an erroneous assumption of superiority because you think a deity has you in mind and if YOU act how you think he wants you to act YOU will get to go to heaven, while ALL the other people who don't ascribe to your deluded beliefs are damned. That's arrogance -- asshole.

sconnor said...

God loves everyone and wants everyone come live with Him in heaven when their time on earth is done.

II. And if they simply do NOT believe in this ALL-loving god he will have them tortured in the flames of hell for an eternity. If that's love -- fuck him and fuck you.


12. Don't even think of vomiting up an apologist platitude that it's NOT your call on whether these people are going to heaven or hell. Demented christians like yourself routinely try to wiggle out of the doctrine of hell with a bunch of bullshit. You either believe in the bullshit you extol and that you have to do certain things (criteria based on your beliefs) to get into heaven or face hell -- or you don't.


12. It's not but I want to try and get as many people to come with me to heaven.

JJ. So you admit that your sadistic piece of shit god -- a god who pales in comparison to ALL genocidal maniacs combined -- will ONLY save a minority of his earthly children while the majority of his earthly children (throughout time) will be tortured in hell for an eternity -- right?


KK. And if god picked you to try and get as many people to come with you to heaven he sure did a shitty job in assessing your impotent credentials.


13. The notion that faith in Christ is to be rewarded by an eternity of bliss, while a dependence upon reason, observation, and experience merits everlasting pain, is too absurd for refutation, and can be believed only by that unhappy mixture of insanity and ignorance called 'faith.' -- Robert G. Ingersoll.
Go on refute the major ideas in this quote.


13. I think Mr. Ingersoll was blind.


LL. Notice texasaggie can NOT refute the logic of the quote and has to resort to subjective rhetoric.


Did he not see all the beautiful things God created around him? You can use reason, observation, and experience to show that Jesus is real. Lamesauce.

sconnor said...

MM. YOUR ARGUMENT states a god exists because you supposedly see evidences for beautiful things your god supposedly created. Am I correct in my summation?

NN. Can you comprehend this argument is an appeal to nature and it is only based on subjective reasoning?

OO. I'm still waiting for you to know the difference between objective evidence and subjective evidence.

PP. If you can come to a conclusion that a deity exists because there is an appearance of beautiful things then it is reasonable to conclude your argument fails, miserably when observable evidence is offered that is contrary to your premise, such as ALL the unintelligent, shitty, repulsive, ugly things in this cese-pool of a world?

QQ. Can you see how my argument attacks your argument specifically?

RR. Can you see your argument trying to prove the existence of a deity crumbles to the floor, in two very important ways? 1. Being you have NOT delivered (TESTABLE, REPEATABLE, VERIFIABLE, OBJECTIVE) evidence and 2. the observable world is also replete with evidence of ugly horrid things, that is antithetical to the specifics of your argument -- please try to grasp this.

SS. So what you have is a subjective opinion contradicted by observable evidence that dismantles your argument specifically -- comprende?

14. Additionally, to posit you must have a relationship with god is just another subjective bullshit rationalization that has NO reference in reality.

14. Personal experience is objective. Let's have a little analogy here. Back in the old west, let's say Buffalo Bill wanted to play some poker. So he and Calamity Jane play a hand with people watching. Bill has Ace Queen. Jane has Kings. The flop comes and it's Ace, King, Queen. The cards are written down by an observer. The next card is an Ace. Full houses for each. The next card is a 2. Bill wins with the higher full house. This is all documented by a guy that observed the hand. A couple of years later a buddy of the person that documented the hand asks if he saw Bill and Jane play the hand, of course he says yes and tells him what happened. But according to you this cannot be trusted because it can't be tested, there is no video evidence, and he could be possibly lying. Do you get tired of digging yourself in holes you can't get out of?
TT.You have no idea what you are talking about. You might want to talk to a responsible adult so they can show you the errors of your ways. Personal experience, through observation is SUBJECTIVE -- therefore inadmissible as proof of ANYTHING, dumb-ass.

sconnor said...

UU. Then the personal experience of the prophet Muhammad -- according to your twisted rationale -- is OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE -- therefore Islam is true and allah exists -- can you see how your logic is completely obliterated -- fuck-twit?

VV. Furthermore how do we know a guy actually observed the game and wrote it down?

XX. How can you confirm that what was written actually occurred?

YY. Yes the lying -- how do you know the guy just didn't make the whole thing up?

ZZ. Due to your diminutive intellect and your inability to comprehend the difference between subjective and objective, you MUST flail around like a shitty fart in a skillet.

15. Other religions use this bullshit phrase too -- which renders the whole premise meaningless.

15. Well, let's see which one came up first. Hmmmm, it looks like the Old Testament was being written around 300 years before anything else. The Hindu Veda was the closest. Don't you think it's possible, no probable that other religions used some of Christianity's ideas to make their religion?1a. Sure. christianity borrowed from the Jewish stories of Yahweh and the the Jewish stories were borrowed from earlier pagan religions. But, so what -- it doesn't matter because you can NOT verify if these stories were true or if they were personally experienced as opposed to them claiming personal experience -- that's why it is inadmissible.

2a. Consider the now discredited Herman Rosenblat who retold a story of meeting his future wife at a concentration camp. She supposedly threw apples over the fence that helped him through the ordeal. It was found to be a hoax. Both he and the wife verified their stories with personal experience -- see how personal experience is subjective in nature and is not reliable?

16. Consider -- as one example -- one of the divisions of Islam:
Sufis:
17. Or how about Hindus:
18. Or as another example, consider Wiccans
19. Even Catholics
20. AND just ONE example (out of many) From the Catholic Catechism


21. These religions claim to have personal relationships with their gods -- therefore their religion is credible also.


22. Can you see how your bullshit logic doesn't add up?
Also, once again, you just ignore other salient arguments and skip them.


23. It's inconceivable for a deluded christian drone to accept that other christians, that were, even bible quoting, god fearing, holy spirit filled, born-again, Jesus freaks, who had a "relationship" with Jesus actually took the time to honestly research the christian faith and comparative religions, who through critical thinking and the voice of reason, dug themselves out of the pit of morbid ignorance and the sludgy swamp of christianity and slowly concluded there was NO objective evidence for a personal christian god and christianity is bullshit.


16-23. Since they all have to do with relationships. See above facts.

3a. What FACTS? It's painfully obvious you can NOT refute the logic of my argument. You posit I did not have a relationship with god because supposedly being catholic one only can have a relationship with the priest.


4a. I supplied references that showed other religions ALSO claim that a relationship with god is integral to their beliefs. Can you offer a substantive counter argument to ALL my points?

sconnor said...

You have indeed forgotten what was written in Ezekiel 28:12-15. Here it is for your viewing pleasure: "Take up a lament concerning the king of Tyre...24. Ez 28:12-15 is the judgment of the king of Tyre and just because he mentions god's Garden it has nothing to do with the context of the story of Adam and Eve. Ezekiel is describing the king of Tyre as a person at...


24. And yes you have forgotten somethings. Out of context? Nope. There it is, you just don't want admit you're wrong. I understand, it's hard for a man of your ignorance level to do so but it's whatever. And what make your sources more credible than mine?

5a. Well for one, satan is NEVER mentioned in the verse provided. You simply add layers of interpretation to come to your overreaching conclusions. Show where in the context does it refer to satan specifically? Again, these are embellished interpretations from modern christian apologists, that have NO reference to the context of the story or the whole book of Ezekiel. You would have thought that your god -- THE CREATOR OF THE INFINITE UNIVERSE -- would have done a better job at conveying satan had something to do with the story making it crystal clear without equivocating but sadly this is NOT the case. But good ole' texasaggie has it ALL figured out -- It's NOT a story specifically about the king of Tyre..........noooooo -- god is lacing the story with hidden messages that have to be deciphered, where you can stretch the meaning as a way to support your delusional beliefs.

sconnor said...

Defintion of objective evidence-information which can be proven true, based on facts that substantiate the change being made. The evidence must not be circumstantial but must be obtained THROUGH OBSERVATION, measurement, test or other means. The Pre-Marken Passion Narrative is a first-hand account of what happened and what was seen. There's your freakin' evidence.

25. That's NOT OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE. Just because the pre-Marken passion narrative claims first hand observational evidence does NOT make it true.

26. Case in point: Muhammad claims first hand account that the final Revelation of Allah was given by the archangel Gabriel that extols divine guidance and direction for mankind.

27. It too is written down in a holy book and claims to be a first hand observational account -- therefore according to your asinine logic this proves the qur'an is true and everything in it is allah's word.

28. Bottom line, vomiting up verses from your holy book is NOT OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE. Because supposedly ALL holy books can be used as proof to support their extraordinary claims.

29. And you still think by observation ALONE is a valid piece of OBJECTIVE evidence -- it is NOT. Consider that based on observation alone ancient man thought the sun moved around the earth: After FACTS were compiled through research analysis, and measurement COUPLED with observation is when it becomes OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE.

This is what I mean you just simply avoid the logical specifics of my arguments.

So try and refute the logic behind ALL those arguments.

25-29. Refer to what I answered in 14 and 15.
6a. What you posited in 14&15 wasn't worth shit. Now you have to specifically address the counter-arguments I supplied to your inept try.

7a. Not only are the answers for 14&15 complete bullshit they also can't answer questions 25-29.

8a. It's easier to just ignore the specific arguments -- isn't it? The reason you did NOT address 25-29 specifically is because you CAN'T.

sconnor said...

REFUTATIONS:

Adjective clause.
You are mistaken. Good and evil are nouns that take on the role of adjectives. They do describe the tree but are used in noun form.

30. Fine for argument sake, we'll go with your definition: they "take on the role of adjectives". Dip shit that means they are being used to describe the tree of knowledge -- its an adjective phrase. How can I make you understand this? Additionally you have to take into account the ORIGINAL ANCIENT HEBREW of the specific phrase in the bible. (More on this next)

30. Yes but they are still nouns!
9a. Yes but it is still an adjective phrase, where the words are use to describe the proper noun. But what you consistently fail to understand that is the ENGLISH translation you are referring to. In the ORIGINAL ANCIENT HEBREW they are adjectives. The ENGLISH translation is inconsequential. When you refer to the ORIGINAL ANCIENT HEBREW of the verse in question -- they are ADJECTIVES.

Boom, refuted! <--(used in reference to The Office)

31. Um...NO you did NOT. Furthermore, using Boom, refuted! over and over again is NOTHING but a pathetic desperate ploy to overcompensate for your lack of logic, intelligence and erroneous arguments.

31. Yes I did.10a. In your diseased mind, perhaps. Again you have to stick to the ORIGINAL ANCIENT HEBREW of the verse in question.

There is no single word Hebrew word for "of", but it is included in other words. I put the phrase "the tree of knowledge of good and evil" in a translator and this came up
העץ של ידע של רע טוב
I then put it back in the translator and it said "the tree OF knowledge OF bad good". This puzzled me so I put "evil" in the translator and got this...

32. Holy fuckin' Christ! You are astonishingly, dimwitted. You F-ing moron. You have no idea how incredibly retarded you are. You just can't stick the English translation into a Hebrew translator and get accurate translations of the original Hebrew phrase that is in the bible you stupid f-ing jackass (I guess jack-asses can talk). When you type in the English word OF -- the translator will try to find something appropriate. You have to stick with the ORIGINAL ANCIENT HEBREW from the bible. Once again your despicable shitty research methods are shown to be wholly impotent and massively incompetent.

32. ...Yes you... can!
11a. No, no you can't. What don't you understand? When you go in reverse putting the English translation into the Hebrew translator it can find other varying Hebrew words to translate to evil. This gets us nowhere. You have to stick to the ORIGINAL ANCIENT HEBREW of the specific verse in the bible.

sconnor said...

33. What's more, the actual word from the actual phrase in the bible that means "evil" is [r or ra`. This has been established.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/InterlinearBible/bible.cgi

34. The actual HEBREW PHRASE FROM THE BIBLE does NOT contain the word OF and the word evil is an adjective. This is indisputable. (More on this latter)

33-34. No!
12a. You MUST NOT have re-checked the source.

And your lame wikipedia reference of the phrase meaning all knowledge MAY be true and was SUGGESTED by people, not factual. FALLACIOUS ARGUMENT. Boom, refuted!

35. Try looking up "fallacious argument" and understand its meaning before you use such lofty (obviously incomprehensible) concepts. It is NOT fallacious to offer a scholarly view (two prestigious scholars) that supports the idea that the HEBREW phrase from the bible means ALL knowledge.

35. Scholarly view? Are you suggesting you are making a scholarly view? HAHAHAHA! This is amusing, just because you did a little research doesn't make you a scholar.
13. Fuck-tard you can't even digest the simple sentences in front of you -- how are you to comprehend the more complex premises provided? I'm referring to the scholars who wrote the article.

Other translations.

Your kind of right (unfortunately). Some do say that but they might be trying to make it simpler for someone like you to understand, but they are mistaken. They used the wrong words to replace good and evil. Boom, kind of refuted!



36-39. They used words they thought would explain it correctly and I don't think they got the words accurately.
14a. Non-argument. You could have avoided this whole debate with those words.

15a. Here let me try -- I don't think you presented any of your arguments accurately. Holy fuckin' shit, that's EASY. Again I see why you argue that way.

sconnor said...

Bible Crosswalk stuff.

Notice there are two defintions in noun form in there. Go on look at it, especially the one starting with evil (ethical). Boom, Refuted!


40. Get this through your fucking head: the word [r or ra` is an ADJECTIVE for the specific PHRASE in (Genesis 2:9, 2:17, 3:5, 3:22)

41. The word [r or roa` is considered a noun and is used in Genesis 41:19.

42. Roa` the NOUN, is NOT used in the passage in question (Genesis 2:9, 2:17, 3:5, or 3:22)

43. Ra` is an ADJECTIVE in the phrase The Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil.
http://www.biblestudytools.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/heb.cgi?number=07455&version=kjv
http://www.biblestudytools.com/Lexicons/Hebrew/freqdisp.cgi?book=ge&number=07455&count=1&version=kjv

44. This alone; DESTROYS your ENTIRE premise.

40-44. I've read those links and parts of it are right. But it is still the tree of knowledge of good and evil.16a. NO. No it's NOT because the ORIGINAL ANCIENT HEBREW of the specific verse in the bible does NOT have “OF” and as I laid out plainly for you several times Ra` is an ADJECTIVE in the phrase.

17a. You asserted, Evil is used as a noun not as an adjective. Evil in the passage is used in this way "the force in nature that governs and gives rise to wickedness and sin" taken from dictionary.reference.com.

18a. You might consider them nouns in the English translation especially if you ignore the fact they are an adjective phrase. But what completely annihilates your premise is the ORIGINAL ANCIENT HEBREW of the specific verse in the bible plainly demonstrates EVIL is an adjective so your premise FAILS.

19a. It is NOT the force in nature that governs and gives rise to wickedness and sin and the ORIGINAL ANCIENT HEBREW actually means:
–adjective
1. morally wrong or bad; immoral; wicked: evil deeds; an evil life

45. Regardless you can NOT refute the logic that dictates if YOU do NOT possess the knowledge good and evil then how could you possibly know that what you were doing by disobeying god was good or evil? -- Even if he said NOT TO. It would be meaningless to a couple who could NOT distinguish good from evil.

45. THEY WERE TOLD WHAT TO DO AND THEY WENT AGAINST IT. THEY DID SOMETHING WRONG WHEN THEY KNEW IT WAS WRONG, DOUCHEFAG!!
20a. Just because you typed the whole sentence in caps doesn't make it anymore true.

21a. You still FAIL to comprehend the logic behind my premise.

22a.We agree they were told.

23a. We also agree that contextually, they disobeyed. (hardly a major infraction, that garnered so much unjust punishment)

24a. What we don't agree on however is what you FAIL to grasp: if they did NOT know the difference between good and evil how could they possibly know what they were doing was good or evil? Saying they were told is NOT an acceptable answer, because as we know when a child who does NOT recognize the difference between good behavior or bad behavior -- simply commanding them to NOT do it will NOT compute. Just like a child running into a busy street, even after the parent told them NOT to.

25a. And if they didn't know what they were doing was good or evil how can they be held accountable for their ignorant actions (let alone god punishing the rest of his earthly children?

sconnor said...

Christian apologists.
Most not ALL. You have used this before, just because most people believe it doesn't mean they are right. It could mean knowing how to distinguish good from bad but not necessarily. Boom, refuted!


46. My argument is not that because many christians apologists say it; then it is true -- my argument is according to your deluded christian ilk this is how they interpret it. I am NOT appealing to the majority (argumentum ad populum). Again, you should NOT attempt to use such difficult concepts -- you ONLY make yourself look like an idiot.

46. What are you talking about?!?!
26a. Exactly -- you are too dense to understand the meaning of (argumentum ad populum).
I did NOT appeal to the majority.

Subheadings.
They put it there because that's what it is! Are you dense? They are not trying to trick everyone. They put what happened as a subheading so you know what the passage is about. Boom, not even refuted but owned!


47. They were NEVER part of the original Hebrew or Greek. Modern day christian apologists put their biased slant on it to make it mean whatever they wanted it to mean.

48. In a ridiculous bit of hyperbole, but germane none the less: It would be like if someone put the subheading, The First Sexual Experience, above Genesis 3, where the story has been embellished to support a metaphorical interpretation that Adam and Eve fucked for the first time: Eve offered her fruit=vagina, Adam used his snake=penis.

49. Point is -- ANYONE can ignore the context of the actual myth in genesis 2&3 and embellish it to support their own polluted beliefs by putting erroneous subheadings. Come on tackle the logic -- I know you will be hard pressed.

47-49. They put it there because that's what happened you cotton-headed ninny-muggins! You have your head so far up your butt you can't even realize that's exactly what is happening.
27a. And once again you completely go around the logic of the argument and simply reiterate your lame position. “They put it there because that's what happened” is NOT an answer. Case in point, in the context of the genesis story there is NO mention of sin or original sin and to assert this, you MUST add mounds of interpretation and go against the authors original intent.

28a. In fact -- disobeying god in this circumstance could hardly be considered a misdemeanor offense let alone a major SIN, that was perpetrated by an ignorant couple who didn't know that by disobeying god was evil.

29a. I knew you would pussy out you chicken-shit coward and NOT address each of the arguments separately.

sconnor said...

Demon in the snake.
Satan was there in the Garden with them. He knew he could not control the Heavens so he was determined to gain control of the earth so he could the 'god' of something because he wanted to overthrow the true God. So he used the snake to tempt Adam and Eve into sinning and Satan has his foothold. Boom, refuted!


50. Backtracking AGAIN --dipshit.
Texasaggie said, Point 2: I never said the snake was satan.

51. Wow -- notice how you just simply change your argument to suit your needs?

52. Your supposed refutation DOES NOT explain how -- IF god's creation was ALL-GOOD -- how could the evil, deceptive Satan be a part of it?

53. the evil one (Matthew 13:19 & 1 John 2:13)
a murderer and the father of lies (John 8:44)
power of darkness (Colossians 1:13)
unclean spirit (Matthew 12:43)

54. It's another conundrum you have stumbled into. More logic to wade through. Furthermore, satan does NOT make an appearance in the garden of Eden story. There is NO character of satan in the myth -- once again you have embellished the authors original intent, by mounding on layers of your own deluded interpretation. Contextually, the author never describes the talking snake as satan, and never describes a demon or satan possessing the snake. Lastly, your stupid-ass god unjustly punishes the snake and ALL snakes for what satan supposedly did. If you became possessed by a demon or satan and while being possessed, you did bad things -- according to your fucked up logic shouldn't YOU be punished? Isn't that like punishing ALL cops, because a criminal posed as a cop and did something bad? Please address the logic of these arguments.

55. Remember saying this: TA said, When God created the world, according to my beliefs, there was no sin and everything was good.

56. You must argue to the logic -- if EVERYTHING WAS good How could an evil entity exist? Either god created a world where EVERYTHING was good or he did NOT --which is it?

50-56. After doing more in depth research and finding evidence that Satan was there I changed my mind.

30a. That's because you were grossly unprepared to support your bullshit christian doctrines -- you've been scrambling all along, simply making it up as you went along.

You are stupid once again. Satan was created good.

31a. If that is true how did he become evil, dumb-fuck?

32a. You are trapped -- you posit that EVERYTHING was good and it didn't become bad until the ignorant couple unleashed evil into the world -- how was it possible that satan was the evil supernatural being in the garden tempting eve? Logic escapes you.

sconnor said...

He decided he wanted the power of God and wanted to take God's throne. So God cast him out after he turned against Him and Satan took his grab on the earth.
33a. So satan had more power than god and he could out maneuver god’s perfect creation even before the ignorant couple unleashed evil onto the world? You are logically illiterate.

About punishing snakes, it's a reminder to everyone when you see a snake about the fall and no it's not like punishing all cops.
34a. What don't you understand -- the snake is NOT the one responsible for what happened -- satan was. Punishing the snake and ALL snakes was unjust. Why didn't god punish satan? Why did god create satan in the first place KNOWING he would "turn evil"?

35a. How about another more accurate example: consider a dog owner (satan) who turns his dog (snake) into (possessed) a vicious dog who eventually mauls a child. Using your retarded logic, ALL dogs should be punished so as to serve as a reminder of the ONE bad dog's evil deed, all the while NOT punishing THE REAL CULPRIT, the owner who turned the dog into the evil dog in the first place.

57. You also must logically present a case why your supposedly omniscient -- albeit negligent -- god didn't take the proper precautions to prevent his ALL-GOOD creation (the world he so loved) from becoming a place where people suffer in vile unimaginable ways.

58. God set all this shit into motion. If he would have put an armed guard in front of the tree of knowledge like he eventually did in front of the tree of life all this could have been prevented.

59. Hell why did your dumb-ass god create the tree of knowledge in the first place? Why create the (evil one) satan? Why blame ALL this shit on an ignorant couple who didn't know the difference between good and evil?

57-59. God gave them the CHOICE and they decided to go against Him but they did something they KNEW was wrong and got punished for it.
36a. Fucking pussy -- you can NOT address the logic of each specific argument. This speaks volumes. Your inability to address the logic behind each of my arguments ONLY bolster my position that you are a deluded christian asshole, who has NO reference in reality, and your god character has so many holes, it looks like Bonnie and Clyde’s car after they were mowed down with tommy-gun fire.

sconnor said...

Quotes.
Sam's reason quote.

He obviously is mistaken.


60. Great argument, very articulate and well thought out. (Massive sarcasm) Again, what an easy way to refute by just simply say he was mistaken then vomit up another bullshit example.

In the Ottoman Empire, the Sultan has his Grand Vizier or his advisor. When hard times came or anything he would sacrifice his Grand Vizier to save himself because he reasoned..........

61. Holy Jesus shit! Just because you used the word "reasoned" in your little scenario does NOT make it reasonable.

62. That's like saying, Hitler reasoned the Jews were less than human and then reasoning that the garish myth of blood libel was true to justify the Holocaust.

63. Nothing in your lame-brained example is reasonable -- you twit.

60-63. Yeah, it makes sense, you just don't want to admit that your wrong. The Sultan used reason, which was bad reason but reason nontheless, and saved his own butt. May not be reasonable but he used reason to make his decision. You have FAILED!
37a. You made the argument for me. BAD reason is unreasonable. Justifying ones unreasonable egregious actions is just a bloated rationalization you erroneously attribute to reason. Reason as asserted by Harris means an underlying fact or cause that provides logical sense for a premise or occurrence. Your example is the complete opposite of that and once again crumbles under the weight of logic.

38a. Notice how texasaggie had to do more maneuvering and an end around skirting the individual arguments in an attempt to protect his feeble beliefs? You have NO alternative except to ignore the supporting arguments and the logic they are embossed with.

Jefferson's quote.

This puzzles me because Jefferson believed in a god.


64. Of course it puzzles you. You are a nescient toad, suffering with the brain-disease of christianity, where you don't have a clue what it means to be a deist.

65. Jefferson did NOT believe in a personal christian god. Jefferson was a product of the age of enlightenment, in which reason was the primary source and legitimacy for authority. Jefferson did not consider the God of the Bible appealing to what was reasonable. Again your po-dunk, backwater, christian education is really paying off. (more sarcasm)

64-65. Uh... yeah he did, dummy. He believed in God but he was a Unitarian and didn't believe in the Trinity in case you didn't know. Product of his age? You are stupid. That is lamer then some of my explanations.
39a. Again, you did NOT refute Jefferson's quote in the least. You offer up more trite garbage in an effort to diverge because of your lack of sound counter-arguments. Yeah he did is NOT an argument. Again let me try your tactic, Uh.....no he didn't. Oh YES -- how easy is that? Again NO wonder why you argue like that -- its another lame kindergarten defense. He DID NOT believe in a personal christian god. He was a deist. Look up the meaning before you make yourself look foolish again. Being a deist means you do NOT believe in a personal god – ass-wipe.

sconnor said...

Backtracking.
You're are mistaken. Boom, refuted!


66. Another scathing refutation. Your debating skills are outstanding and the vast detail in yet another brilliant rumination is overwhelming. (More sarcasm) Here let me try your method of refutation again, YOU are mistaken. See that's easy. Just say you're mistaken, stop there and don't support your assertion.

67.You are the lying asshole who said: I don't see what's wrong with the punishment. The world was perfect and they (A&E) screwed it up and their lives and all other lives must be punished...and these are the consequences we must deal with, disease, war, and everything else.

68. You first condone the the obscenely unjust punishment that all other lives must be punished (disease, war, and everything else), which would include innocent babies and children suffering in agonizing pain -- vile, unimaginable suffering.

69. Then you flip-flop and ONLY condone the punishment bestowed upon Adam and Eve, ignoring the FACT you justified ALL others being punished with, disease, war, and everything else.

70. You are a pathological liar, steeped in massive delusion, who will lie at any cost, twisting your rationalizations to suit the argument, at the time. LYING FOR JESUS!

66-70. You are DUMB!!!!!! The punishment wasn't bad, it was the evil that Satan put on this earth that sucks. Do you not get that SATAN is behind all of the evil in this world and NOT God?!
40a. Refer to this (*****) up above and see just how massively wrong you are. And over and over again texasaggie ignores the specifics of the arguments and buries his head in the sand like the pussy he is.

Jesus.
Pre-Markan Passion Narrative. Boom, refuted!


71. You haven't refuted shit. Again, just because there is a claim of a first hand account does NOT make it objective evidence.

72. Although some claim eyewitness accounts that does not mean they were written by the eyewitnesses -- CLAIMING EYEWITNESSES is a way of offering bogus credibility, which you gullibly gorge on.

73.ANYONE can embellish stories and add supposed miracles and say people witnessed them. Logic? Logic? Logic?

74. Can you grasp that concept?

75. Please supply OBJECTIVE evidence that Jesus is the supernatural, resurrected, metaphysical son of god, as opposed to embellished, fabricated, oral stories, eventually, written over time by biased, superstitious authors -- nothing but a piece of fiction, based on a possible, fallible, human, prophet or an amalgamation of several people and several earlier legends and myths.

76. Remember other holy books claim first hand accounts and miracles. These are subjective rationalizations and in NO way substantiates they really happened. So much logic to overcome.

77. Pre-Markan Passion Narrative is inadmissible just like the Muhammad narrative where he gives a first hand account of getting the final revelation from god.

71-77. You're right anyone can embellish something BUT if it was something monumental happening, I'm sure they remember all of what happened and how it happened. And first-hand accounts are once again objective and other religions probably used parts of Christianity to give themselves credibility.
41a. You did NOT address the specifics of my arguments and instead resort to a strawman.

42a. You can NOT provide OBJECTIVE evidence that something monumental happened as opposed to NOTHING really happening and people just claiming something monumental happened -- can the logic penetrate your diseased christian brain?

sconnor said...

And first-hand accounts are once again objective and other religions probably used parts of Christianity to give themselves credibility.
43a. Then Mohamed's first hand accounts and Herman Rosenblat first hand accounts -- according to your fucked-up logic -- are OBJECTIVE and perfectly viable -- right?

44a. Notice how texasaggie just simply blows by massive chunks of my arguments and ignores them completely because he simply can NOT address them.

Drinking poison.
It does say this. Maybe I can, maybe I can't. I haven't tried. I don't plan on trying drinking poison either. I might be able heal people. Maybe if I was full of the Spirit but me as a human probably not. Boom, refuted!


78. Texasaggie is employing the KINDERGARTEN DEFENSE, where the little tyke answers the teachers question with, "maybe I can answer it maybe I can't", which means YOU CAN'T.

79. Either you believe what the bible tells you or you don't -- you cherry-pickin' motherfucker. And you did NOT refute anything. You are a self-proclaimed BELIEVER, who's in a deep, loving relationship with Jesus. Jesus point blank says, you CAN drink poison and you CAN heal people. So get your ass out there and start healing people.


78-90. You are supposed to have total faith in God.

45a. Obviously you did NOT read where jesus said, ALL you need is a tiny mustard seed of FAITH, dipshit. Which leads me to believe you once again ignored the arguments to protect your feeble beliefs.

46a. You CAN'T HEAL -- your bible is a great big fucking lie.

sconnor said...

I'm not afraid to say that I don't total and complete faith in Him. I'm young I have time to understand these things in the Bible and learn more about how awesome God is. Yeah I probably can't but maybe if I'm full of the Spirit, I might be able to.
47a. Mustard seed, bitch -- get out there and heal the sick children like the bible says.

49a. Wow -- whole chunks of logic just disregarded. Yet another end-around. I understand you are an incompetent bone-head who can NOT address the individual questions and comments that support my arguments -- you have little options, except to ignore them.

Hearsay.
Once again the Pre-Markan Passion Narrative. Yeah there's nothing wrong with having things passed down by mouth. It might get a little changed here or there but if what really happened was important and life-changing, I'm pretty sure someone would remember something about it. Boom, refuted!


91. Or it was just a bunch of superstitious dessert dwellers who made up stories and used the supposed voice of god to give it credibility where there was none, who embellished and added miracles to push their varying agendas. Please address the logic of this statement. please understand the difference between subjective and objective evidence -- pre-Markan is SUBJECTIVE.

92. The Qur'an was told orally and then written down -- according to your chaotic, fucked-up logic it really happened too.

91-92. What is up with you believing everything was embellished you idiot?

50a. I'm NOT positing that everything was embellished. My argument is you have NO way of knowing if it was true as opposed to embellishments or completely fabricated stories -- NOTHING but works of fiction.

sconnor said...

These things happened and people wrote them down because they saw it happen! OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE!

51a. Again -- using your shitty logic -- the Qur'an is true because people wrote them down and because they saw it happen? With your retarded logic you MUST also believe the prophet Mohamed was given god's last revelation. More logic that escapes you.

You can't test these facts because no one is still alive on this earth that was there back then. So you have the things that were written back then by the people who were there and saw what happened, who did NOT embellish what they saw, and wrote it down for future people to see. SUCK IT!
52a. Consider the Qur'an:
Supposedly, It was written down by people who were there and saw what happened, when it happened.
Supposedly They did NOT embellish what they saw either.
Supposedly They wrote it down for future people to see it. Therefore the Qur'an is true and it is the FINAL revelation from god.

You need some definite help in the ego department because you haven't slayed me and you may want to spank me, but if you go both ways it's ok to admit it...
Seems to me you are the type of individual who has a proclivity to play the skin flute -- it's OK to admit it. You might as well get your practice in, seeing as you’ll be in front of Jesus on your knees for an eternity.

...but it ain't ever gonna happen you poor, deluded, simpleton who desperately wishes he was capable of accomplishing something in his pathetic, fantasy world where he pretends to be smart enough to come up with a legitimate arguments to try and put someone down but still fails miserably at the only thing in life he cares about. That's right go cry to mommy about how you let her down at becoming a somebody and wallow in self-pity for the rest of your miserable, worthless days.

53a. Can you say -- projecting? It's a psychological term -- look it up.

sconnor said...

Wow that was alot of built up anger wasted on a nobody.
54a. Awwwwwww -- according to your book of fairy tales you're in trouble.
Texasaggie said,
IT WAS WRONG, DOUCHEFAG!!
you cotton-headed ninny-muggins!
Uh... yeah he did, dummy.
You are stupid once again.
You are DUMB!!!!!!
...you idiot?

55a. You called me names, in anger.

Matthew 5:22 Whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.

56a. And don't try and wiggle out of it by saying you didn't use the word fool specifically.

Consider:
Matthew Henry's Concise Commentary on the Bible, respected by christians world wide.
57a. Matthew 5:21-26 "The Jewish teachers had taught, that nothing except actual murder was forbidden by the sixth commandment. Thus they explained away its spiritual meaning. Christ showed the full meaning of this commandment; according to which we must be judged hereafter, and therefore ought to be ruled now. All rash anger is heart murder. By our brother, here, we are to understand any person, though ever so much below us, for we are all made of one blood. Raca, is a scornful word, and comes from pride: Thou fool, is a spiteful word, and comes from hatred. Malicious slanders and censures are poison that kills secretly and slowly. Christ told them that how light soever they made of these sins, they would certainly be called into judgment for them. We ought carefully to preserve Christian love and peace with all our brethren; and if at any time there is a quarrel, we should confess our fault, humble ourselves to our brother, making or offering satisfaction for wrong done in word or deed: and we should do this quickly; because, till this is done, we are unfit for communion with God in holy ordinances. And when we are preparing for any religious exercises, it is good for us to make that an occasion of serious reflection and self-examination. What is here said is very applicable to our being reconciled to God through Christ. While we are alive, we are in the way to his judgement-seat; after death, it will be too late. When we consider the importance of the case, and the uncertainty of life, how needful it is to seek peace with God, without delay!"See you in hell you stupid motherfucker.

sconnor said...

58a. ALSO you MUST take into consideration what else your cosmic buddy tells you to do.

59a. Matthew 7:3-5 Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

60a. Consider your own faults rather than criticizing others, don't be a hypocrite and be meek and humble and turn the other cheek.

61a. Matthew 7:12 Treat others as you want them to treat you. This is what the Law and the Prophets are all about.

62a. Luke 6:37 Don't judge others, and God won't judge you. Don't be hard on others, and God won't be hard on you. Forgive others, and God will forgive you.

63a. Romans 12:19 Dear friends, don't try to get even. Let God take revenge.

64a. Philippians 2:3-4 Don't be jealous or proud, but be humble and consider others more important than yourselves. Care about them as much as you care about yourselves

65a. Colossians 3:12-13 God loves you and has chosen you as his own special people. So be gentle, kind, humble, meek, and patient.

66a. Titus 3:1-2 Remind your people to obey the rulers and authorities and not to be rebellious. They must always be ready to do something helpful and not say cruel things or argue. They should be gentle and kind to everyone.

67a. Matthew 5:39 But I tell you not to try to get even with a person who has done something to you. When someone slaps your right cheek, turn and let that person slap your other cheek.

68a. More verses from your shitty good-for-nothing bible you MUST IGNORE.


I AGAIN defy you to ANSWER every single one of my points logically.

--S.

Chris said...

HA HA.
Christians have absolutely NO evidence whatsoever to prove the existence of their ridiculous ''GOD''!
I am from Africa, a place where babies under the age of 2 get raped! Where a person who has been a good upstanding citizen their whole life can be gang raped and then have their breasts cut off and then be cut into pieces while still alive! Is your god a sadist? Does he get off on human suffering? Or does he plain and simply NOT EXIST! If he does exist, he does not know Africa and I am from Africa so why should I believe in your imiginary friend? To all christians who leave their stupid messages on this site, with every message you leave, you show us athiests how right we are! You show us that you have been brainwashed into believing about an imiginary being! If my kids talk about imaginary friends, its ok because they are kids, but you are adults! The time of imaginary friends is over! THERE IS NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE THAT YOUR GOD EXISTS! Get over yourselves!
Sconnor, YAHAYAHA, dont bother because they CANNOT answer you!

Xolotl-Tzin said...

That made me laugh hard.

I love how polygamy is like encouraged in the bible and Christians run around claiming that God supports monogamy. Give me a break.

ruseekingGod2 said...

I know that Christ has changed my life. I won't argue the with the postings I've found on this site. I can see that there are many who just want to argue why the things in the Bible can't possibly be correct or for our good. I can see whay they believe as they do. I just know where I was, where I am, amd more importantly where I'm going. There's one thing that can't be argued...we'll all see someday who was right. I'm fine with my choice...Are you? If you can sleep soundly at night with the peace and joy that I have, then I'm sure your choice is the right one. If you can't...maybe you need to make sure the context you've chosen to see is the actual context. Do the work for yourself. Read the whole story, not just that which was spoonfed to you by someone else. I hope you have great night's sleep.

Steve Wells said...

ruseekingGod2 said:

"There's one thing that can't be argued...we'll all see someday who was right."

Well, no. We don't know that.

We won't survive our own deaths, so we won't "see" anything after we're dead. We'll just be dead.

sconnor said...

ruseekingGod2

I know that Christ has changed my life.

Whoop-D-frickin-doo! This declaration is nothing but a subjective rationalization where you simply attributed your own delusional thoughts and stunted imagination to an imaginary god/man-concept.

You're a deluded christian who has fabricated an insanely and fantastic, massive delusion by idiosyncratically interpreting the supposed word of god; the superstitious, spurious words of scripture, and erroneously attributing emotions to your god-character. You are pretending to have a relationship with a fictional character out of a book that only exists in the confines of your limited and insane mind.

I won't argue the with the postings I've found on this site. I can see that there are many who just want to argue why the things in the Bible can't possibly be correct or for our good. I can see whay they believe as they do. I just know where I was, where I am, amd more importantly where I'm going.

Ah yes -- the old everything is going good for me -- therefore christianity and the christian god are true.

Using your asinine logic, consider the devout muslim who also attribute blessings to their god; they also: just know where they were, where they are, and more importantly where they're going -- therefore Allah exists and the qur'an is Allah's final revelation of divine guidance and direction for mankind.

There's one thing that can't be argued...we'll all see someday who was right. I'm fine with my choice...Are you?

Bawhahahahahahaha, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha.

Oh that's fresh -- vomiting up the ghastly fallacious; "pascal's wager"

What If YOU are wrong, and the claims of the qur'an and the Islamic faith are true -- you'll be facing everlasting fire. Is that really a risk you need to take?

Let's get one thing straight, we are not down with your pathetic, asinine delusion -- you gullible, superstitious, lunatic.

Do yourself a favor and look up "pascal's wager" and thoroughly comprehend it's meaning so you won't EVER use this fallacious, dumb-ass argument again.
http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Pascal's_Wager

If you can sleep soundly at night with the peace and joy that I have, then I'm sure your choice is the right one. If you can't...maybe you need to make sure the context you've chosen to see is the actual context. Do the work for yourself. Read the whole story, not just that which was spoonfed to you by someone else.

Are you kidding me? You are just regurgitating the bullshit you gladly lapped up from (I suspect) lame apologetic web sites or dumb-ass clergy.

In religion and politics people's beliefs and convictions are in almost every case gotten at second-hand, and without examination, from authorities who have not themselves examined the questions at issue but have taken them at second-hand from other non-examiners, whose opinions about them were not worth a brass farthing. -- Mark Twain

I hope you have great night's sleep.

I'm perfectly content, and will be sleeping like a babe on feather pillows.

--S.

P.S. The notion that faith in Christ is to be rewarded by an eternity of bliss, while a dependence upon reason, observation, and experience merits everlasting pain, is too absurd for refutation, and can be believed only by that unhappy mixture of insanity and ignorance called 'faith.' -- Robert G. Ingersoll.

Notice how the "ignorance" and "insanity" apply to you.

Jimmy P said...

Steve, I'll just comment point by point. and apparently my response is to big so i'll break the posts up a bit.

"The bible says nothing at all about gay marriage."
Umm, I don't even know where to begin here. Can I say that marriage usually involves sexual intimacy? Or are we going to dumb down logic a bit and say that the specific words of homosexuality and marriage aren't in the same sentence in the bible, and therefore 'it's cool'? Your argument here could be: "does gay imply sexual intimacy?"

1)"The bible says that Christians should not marry."
--"should not" is not in the greek of the 4 NT verses you quoted. It is saying that is 'good' if you stay married, it does not say that it is not good if you are married, that is faulty logic. You are saying if A is okay than not A is bad, no, rather the text is saying that A is ok. period. (I'm pretty sure the error in your logic is called 'partial evidence') by the way, you never quite reference verse 9 where Paul allows marriage, for everyone.

2)"But if a Christian man decides to get married (which he shouldn't), he can have more than one wife"
--I get the feeling that I have to discuss the use of 'context'. Context is that which goes before and that which comes after. For instance, the verse you quoted says, "If He takes to himself another woman, he may not reduce her food, her clothing, or her conjugal rights." This verse (and chapter) is talking about unfair treatment towards slaves, and again, its not saying that it is okay to have multiple wives what the text is saying is that if you take a second wife then you need to make sure that your first wife is taken care of in all the ways a wife would be, i.e. food, clothing, and even sex. The text is not explicitly saying that they may have more than one, however it is saying that if they do they need to make sure the first is taken care of (its interesting to me how often you use the phrase 'Christian marriage' and not Jewish marriage). It is also interesting to me how little the bible gives any value towards polygamy (positive or negative).

Jimmy P said...

5)"Christians Should have sex (even if the are married, which they shouldn't be)".
--ok, I've already talked about the "shouldn't be married" thing so i wont bring it back up. I also wont try to talk on the "He who finds a wife finds a good thing" passage either. but let's move on to sex. Now, i have to give more context on the Corinthian passage listed. Paul is talking to the Corinthians on the issue of marriage, and all of chapter 7 seems to be about marriage. he is talking about if you aren't married to stay as you are, and also says if you are married stay as you are. If a christian marries an unbeliever, if you are a slave when you met God remain that way, unless you can be free, and of course of you are unmarried do not seek marriage. Of course Paul is not saying this as a command from God, he says in verse 25-28 to the women that he doesn't have a command from the Lord on this only his wisdom that it is much less troublesome to be single. Not that is wrong to be married. In fact Paul explicitly says in verse 28 that it is NOT a sin to get married. But in verses 29 and on even through 35 Paul is making the case that we need to not have our minds on the worries and issues of this world, but be focused on God and serve the Lord with as few distractions as possible, that is why he is saying with recommendation of his own wisdom that it is better not to marry...it says nothing about sex. The next verses you quoted (7:1-2) you say is biblical truth that christians should not have sex. The problem is, again, you don't actually quote the second verse only the first verse...again..context here. The very next verse and the completion of Paul's thought is, (and i will just list verses 1 and two so you get his complete thought...I'll give the New American Standard Version [it's the most literal with the greek albeit sometimes a wooden read]) "Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband." And then Paul goes on describing the roles of each partner in the relationship, and then in verses 4-5 Paul tells them to not deprive one another of their bodies, except if they do in agreement for awhile to devote themselves to prayer and then after sometime come back together. Sex. pretty simple really you just have to stop pulling verses out of context.

Jimmy P said...

cont'd..3)"And if he doesn't like one of his wives (like if she is unclean or ugly or something), he can divorce her."
--Again, we are not finishing the point of this verse(s). the context helps with this. The verse isn't saying that it is okay to let this happen it is giving a for-instance case of something else. verses 1-4 say, "When a man takes a wife and marries her, and it happens that she finds no favor in his eyes because he has found some indecency in her, and he writes a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out from his house, and she leaves his house and goes and becomes another mans wife, and if the latter husband turns against her and writes her a certificate of divorce and puts it in her hand and sends her out of his house, or if the latter husband dies who took her to be his wife, then her former husband who sent her away is not allowed to take her again to be his wife, since she has been defiled; for that is an abomination before the LORD, and you shall not bring sin on the land which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance." The verses are not saying it is okay to divorce a woman because she is 'unclean or ugly or something'. The illustration is saying that the first man shouldn't take back the wife, because she is unclean, regardless of if his intentions were right or not. (and the hebrew word seems to point to the fact the man found out something 'indecent' or 'shameful' about her, it doesn't seem the verse is pointing the fact that she is 'ugly or something'. Also, there is a difference between descriptive and prescriptive biblical passages; the bible refers to lies and orgies in the bible but it doesn't seem to PREscribe these things, it is simple DEscribing these things. The same goes for this passage, it is describing a situation not prescribing a divorce rite.

I have heard this saying in some of your readers comments and it is true, you do try to use "straw-man" approach in your logic to the biblical data. Mis-interpretation because of a lack of context, seems to be your usual fall back.

4)"If a Christian man gets married and then discovers on his wedding night that his new wife is not a virgin, then he and the other Christian men must stone her to death."
--Ok, with this one you are finally getting the point of the passage so that is good, except you are leaving out a few things: 1) you need to list all of the verses that you are talking about, it is actually Deuteronomy 22:13-21. 2) it is not that she is not a virgin therefore the men of the town can stone her, it is because, as it says in verse 21, God doesn't want this kind of a life-style to spread among the israelites. I commented on what I think is God's motivation for this in "How many has God killed? (complete list and estimated total)" because the earth got as wicked as it did, even to the point of every intention of the people's heart was 'only evil continually' and that he was even grieved that he made man, to the point of wanting and even annihilating, what you believe to be, 20,000,000 people. 3) again, it is interesting that you use the term 'christian' in the title. Do you not understand this difference between the Jewish Torah and the use of Christian Liberty? 4) There is a sense of justice going on through these verses. In verses 17-19 if the man accused her wrongly (publicly slandered her) then he is punished by the elders (not sure what that looks like) and then also fined 100 silver pieces, (according to the IVP Bible Background Commentary on the Old Testament) that amount is "...twice the bride price...It would be the equivalent of about 10 years of normal wages." However, yes, a Jewish man that married a woman and found out that her hymen was already ruptured may bring the case to the people and the men were given the right to stone her to death, because of her sin.

Jimmy P said...

7)"Good Christians must hate their families (If you abandon them for Jesus, he'll give you a big reward.)"
--All things written, whether Bible or not follow a literary style, one of the literary styles is known as figure of speech. I believe this passage to be a figure of speech saying, "Compared to your love for me your love for others should look like hatred" (and before you straw man that one, keep in mind that this is the same person that says, 3 chapters later, [in the matthew passage] that the two most important commands in the Torah, are Love God and Love your neighbor.) With figures of speech you have to take into considerations the person who said it, the words he is saying, and the intended meaning. Generally an expression is figurative when it is out of character with the subject discussed, or is contrary to fact, experience, or observation. Good general Hermeneutics for biblical interpretation follows these lines, 1) Always take a passage in its literal sense unless there is good reason for doing otherwise (that really is common sense, if I say it is raining cats and dogs you probably wouldn't call the pound). 2) The figurative sense is intended if the literal would involve an impossibility (check out Jer. 1:18; Rev. 1:16; Psalm 57:1; Micah 1:2 for examples) 3) The figurative is intended if the literal meaning is an absurdity, as in trees clapping their hands (Isa. 55:12) 4) Take the figurative sense if the literal would demand immoral action (John 6:53-58), 5) Note when a figurative expression is followed by an explanatory literal statement. (1 Thess. 4:13-15, 16; Ephesians 2:1) and also 6) Sometimes a figure of speech is marked by a qualifying adjective, as in "Heavenly Father" (Matt. 6:14), "the True Bread" (John 6:32), "living stone" (1 Pt. 2:4), etc. With this in mind it is also important to understand the background of the passage being spoken of, in biblical times, and even still today, if a person is to convert from Christianity from lets say a Jewish background the family would disown them so you have the passage, in Matthew where Jesus is comforting and encouraging those that have left their family because of this type of circumstance. And this is the case since Jesus is answering Peter who left no only his family but his fishing business, (his name at the time was Hebrew Ben-Yonah/Bar-Yonah, Simon).

Jimmy P said...

6)"Christians must beat their children (which they shouldn't have since they shouldn't get married or have sex)
--I think at this point I have fully answered your "shouldn't get married or have sex" remark, so I wont comment any further on that. so, first verse: Proverbs 13:24..."He who withholds his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him diligently." I'm no sure how this say Christians should be their children again, you are using a logical fallacy called the "straw-man" fallacy. I will give you the difinition of straw-man so hopefully you wont fall into that trap any more. According to Patrick j. Hurley's "A Concise Introduction to Logic" A Straw man attack is, "A fallacy that occurs when the arguer misinterprets an opponent's position for the purpose of more easily attacking it, demolishes the misinterpreted argument, and then proceeds to conclude that the original argument has been demolished." You are misinterpreting this passage to say that it is a must for Christian parents to beat their children. The word is discipline. And I am a bit confused what would you have us do if a child is acting up? or are you just a proponent for not ever physically disciplining your child? either way, is fine, Psalms seems to say that is a good idea to discipline your child, and the Hebrews apparently used a rod. The next verse pretty much says the same thing that the rod (discipline, however you want to put it) helps kids not to continue in wrong things. If you don't agree with this then, could you tell us how to correctly discipline children? And the final verses, "Do not hold back discipline from the child, Although you strike him with the rod, he will not die. You shall strike him with the rod And rescue his soul from Sheol." The summary of this passage, and the others, is , "discipline the child so that rebellion is corrected him and so that he doesn't mess up his or her life later on down the road." People push boundaries, and it is clear to see, even going back to the flood, that left to our own devices we typically will choose to be bad. discipline is a good thing. I don't think I am the only one here who believes that. Do you have any kids? You don't have to answer, I'm just really curious if you do, how you discipline them and how well they behave now.

Jimmy P said...

and finally 10)"And finally, like Abraham (Susan Smith, Andrea Yates, et al.), Christian parents should be willing to kill their children for God."
--first of all note, that God stops the child sacrifice before it happens. The biblical prophets in Deuteronomy and Leviticus expressly forbid the practice of Child sacrifice. Now, remember Abraham was before the Torah, what is interesting to me is how ready he was to go sacrifice the child. His father, Tamar probably worshipped the moon and human sacrifice seemed to be normal. in fact in the ancient near east the God that provides fertility (El) is also entiltled to demand a portion of what has been produced. This is expressed in the sacrifice of animals, grain and children. In the Bible God never allows human sacrifice. So when God told Abraham to do what was normal in his time and then stops him from doing it and provides a sacrifice, he is telling him that he will never have to, nor will anyone else, sacrifice a child.

Jimmy P said...

8)"And kill their disobedient children"
--I have already commented on Deuteronomy 21:18-21 (the rest of the verses say that God doesn't want that sin to spread to the rest of the camp, we do it today too, electric chair, jail, etc.) Of the two Exodus passages you quoted (and the Leviticus passage), yes, it does say this but let me clarify a few things so you don't continue to twist them. In the second verse the phrase, 'curseth his father or his mother' translates better as a demonstrated infraction of contempt, not simply just cursing and both of these would be against the 5th commandment in 20:12. Each injunction is designed to protect the cohesion of the family unit as well as insure that the each subsequent generation provide their parents with respect, food and protection they deserve. This apparently wasn't a far off punishment back then. Sumerian laws allow a son who disowns his parents to be sold as a slave. and Hammurabi requires the amputation of the hand of a man who strikes his father. A will from Ugarit describes a son's behavior using the same verb used in this verse and stipulates disinheritance. However, you have pulled the last verse (matthew 15:4) out of context. Here, Jesus is confronting Pharisees that are saying that the disciples are breaking the tradition of the elders because they are not washing their hands to eat, and Jesus is calling them hypocrites because they are putting their own traditions as higher than the commands of God in the use of the Jewish practice of Corban, where they would deny their family money or food, when God commanded them in the Torah to take care of their family.

9)"And kill their families, if they have religiously incorrect ideas"
--The verses you quoted fall into the same catagory as many of the other ones, their is a protection element going on here as well, God does not want this rebellion to spread to others in the community, (we even see the importance of this in how they executed the law, in stoning you need more then one person so a group would be responsible for the killing of the person. Among no other people group does the idea of stoning seem to appear, Ancient Near Eastern Law codes list only drowning, burning, impalement, and beheading and in each case it is an official body not the community at large that carries out the justice, God wants people to see the affects of the sins that they commit. We really have to understand "the gods" that it is being talked about here. The neighboring peoples were not nice people, and some of the gods being talked about agreed with child sacrifice (yes, I will comment on number 10) and they did it to appease their gods for rain or sexual varility or any number of things. by the way, I wonder how many times they actually abided by these stoning rules, because the rest of the entire Old Testament is them giving into all of the things God says not to, and it ends up being their demise of oppression, hard-ships, slavery, and child sacrifice...God was right...big surprise.

Christy said...

It is my belief that anyone who believes in any particular religion or faith should, when asked, be able to defend that faith. Not just by using what is written in the bible alone but by historical, archeological and secular means. After spending years trying, unsuccessfully I might add, to defend the Christian faith, I have found that the entire bible is nothing but one huge myth. Not only Jewish myth and Christian myth but myth syncretized and assimilated from a myriad of beliefs from other ancients. What I found truly fascinating was that most of the OT was stolen from Egyptian, Mesopotamian and Babylonian sources...just with minor rewording to hide the polytheistic views of those ancients.

If "Christians" truly want to know the truth...they have to spend the time that will be required studying and researching the orgins of not only the ancients beliefs but the orgins of their own beliefs as well. It was disheartening when I first started seeing the lie that was foisted upon, not only me, but millions of others. But after years of study, I finally know the truth and the lies have been revealed for what they are...lies told to control the populace in general.

My suggestion is...defend your faith, if you feel you must...but make sure you know what it is you are truly defending. Blind faith never reveals true wisdom.

iwasicarus said...

dear blog author please feel free to move this to e most appropriate thread. I only read the post starting with christian marraige.
-----
I'd like to point out a few basic things that might eliminate some frustrations and move this discussion to a more intellegent level. Some of these posters are obviously highly intelligent, but intelligence also refers to accurate information such as intelligence operators -spys, gather.
#1 the word in the Genesis story of the garden, translated as die (to surely occur upon eating from the tree of good and evil) actually means to be separated (from). As in man's spirit was separated from communion with God's Spirit. Mankind died spiritually, not physically. The ramifications of this change of interpretation are wide spreading. For instance Jesus said He is the vine and we are the branch, apart from Him we can do nothing. The Holy Spirit used to be referred to as the Holy Ghost. Who's ghost do u think it is?
The bible says we can't even really understand (at least portions- i'm not sure of how much) of the word without the Spirit's help. "the flesh does not and indeed CANNOT grasp the things of the Spirit" If an atheist wants to grasp the bible, I recommend he JUST BE TRUTHFUL (as God is said to be, no?) and say "Jesus, i don't think or am not sure your're real but if you are, please show me the truth and open my eyes." and then do your bible research. what have u got to lose if he's not real? One caveat though and it's a big one! I said ask Jesus, not just God, because many religions have a God, but the bible is essentially about Christ and if u want to find out about the God of the bible you'd better ask him, or risk the possibility of being answered by a counterfit god of something else. (one of the translations of the Greek prefix anti as in the anti-christ, is "other") Trust me! this possibility is real, and on occasion can harm you very badly. I know.

iwasicarus said...

#2 This is commonly known but bears restating. The word translated knowledge in Hebrew means PERSONAL experience with, as in the G-rated euphemism Adam knew Eve. So even thought the two may have understood God's warning in one one sense, they didn't really have a clue what they were getting into. Ever experience that?

iwasicarus said...

#3 When considering the atrocities of the Old Testament remember that the word testament can also validly be translated as contract. Old contract with commandments men proved they could not follow in their own strength no matter how hard the motivation to do so, vs. the new contract (a new, say, job contract is probably going to have some new ways of doing things even if your still doing the same job, no?) where there is something new - the Spirit living inside the Christian's heart (heart being the inner most man, not necessarily the thing discussed on Valentines day) that gives us His strength. Think of it as power steering for a commercial diesel semi truck. It's still all up to the driver to drive where Boss tells him or not, but if he wills to do so, that power lets him steer 40 tons with one finger.
That's called walking with Christ, walk or drive away from Him, His route, and the boss may start cancelling stuff on his company credit card, like vehicle maitanance of the steering box and eventially even fuel purchases. "The Lord chastises all he calls sons" I speak mostly of the "fruit of the Spirit" peace,love (Agape in the Greek, not phileo or storge or eros), and a sound mind. not necessarelly the so called gifts. "The gifts of the Spirit are given without repentance" but Jesus says many will come to Him seeking admittance to heaven (not saint Peter) and say "did I not cast out demons in your name, heal the sick..." and He will respond "get away from me, you workers of iniquity, I never KNEW you!"
As you may be able to tell I'm now Pentacostle Christian, but I used to be atheist and remember the frustration, It still happens to me at times.

iwasicarus said...

#4 When reading the Old Testament bear in mind that Jewish poetry of the time ( poetry properly being defined as words that convey emotion, (NOT rhyme which is sentences that ...) rather than prose which is words which convey mere data-information)
utilized feeling metaphors not visual metaphors as is common in English. Read Song of Songs both ways and notice the difference. For example the phrase "your eyes look like doves" appears weird visually like it belongs on the wall of an Egyptian tomb, but consider how watching a mated pair of doves interact might make you feel and apply that to the phrase.
People argue about whether there ever existed the Leviathan of the book of Job and bring dinosaurs into to discussion, instead consider how a parent who's family was bathing on merely getting some water on the banks of a river 3000 years ago, with the technology of the time, would experience a 1200 lb. Nile crocodile dragging their child back into the water as they desperately faced the necessity of getting that child back.
Sometimes we lack needed knowledge of that time period or location. Take the example of instances in bible where God says "I would have covered you with my wings as a mother hen covers her chicks."
We think we get it, but we generally don't live in Israel where there is a bird analogous to a prairie chicken. Sometimes people walking over the aftermath of a prairie fire find the bodies of these chickens spread out cooked upon the ground. The bird could of coarse have flown away but instead choose to lay there and burn to death. The reason becoming apparent when the corpse is picked up and the living chicks who cannot fly away are found alive under her wings. Notice the difference in how the metaphor might make you feel now.
This by the way is an example of what literal interpretation is technically. It is interpreting something in accord with the way literature of the time would have been interpreted in its time by its people, NOT in the mindless visual sense a talking robot might render the meaning, as the term has commonly come to mean. Show that to a Fundamentalist! Oops! did I really say that?

iwasicarus said...

reply to Chris Sunday May 24th, "To all christians who leave their stupid messages on this site, with every message you leave, you show us athiests how right we are! You show us that you have been brainwashed into believing about an imiginary being! If my kids talk about imaginary friends, its ok because they are kids, but you are adults! The time of imaginary friends is over! THERE IS NO CONCRETE EVIDENCE THAT YOUR GOD EXISTS! Get over yourselves! "
To a certain point I agree with you Chris but the problem is that God is not made of concrete. Ok I'm joking, sort of. Seriously, the initial direct evidence of God that an honest christian will usually site is internal and experiencial. More comes later.

Steve Wells said...

iwasicarus,

Please confine your comments to the topic of the post (in this case Christian marriage) and avoid preaching. If you can't do that, I'll have to delete them.

iwasicarus said...

Steve did u read e previous comments? They r what I responded to. And then I said my comments maybe should be moved (cept the last). Some of those people argue in sincere good faith, unlike u. As u requested, I started to address your original comment but soon realized 1st Corinthians 7 itself refutes too many of your ideas by simply being read in its entirety, (ie: IN CONTEXT) for u to not have been quite aware of what you were doing.
For sincere arguers,: actually read 1Cor 7 in the amplified bible at http://www.BibleGateway.com then Romans 1:26-27, 1 Corinthians 6:9, no need to site more, just combine those with the fact that God calls the church the bride of Christ, and put 2 n 2 together to figure out what He thinks of gay marriage. 4 what He thinks of regular marriage at the most mundane level even, look up Mathew 19:8-9 and Mark 10:4-6 in the Message bible on that site.
As 4 the rest of the original post, well, "If you have to ask..." . Take Christian marriages in the time period of Deuteronomy 24:1 4 example.
Steve I used to get the "rod" as a child too, in an atheist home, and I notice the people who use the "Spare the rod.." scriptures as a lazy excuse and the one who gave me the "rod" have something in common; they

iwasicarus said...

find it EXPEDIENT for all sorts of reasons from jadedness to worried concern to a sort of "fun" to insecurities under pressure to ... on n on, to take a shallow simple minded approach to what they're dealing with, be it the bible or a child or both, rather than invest time and care (fullness too) to really look into what they're handling and tease out the beauty, to take the stance that the inconsistencies are worth the plumbing simply because of what they are housed in. That there is an internal validity to that seeming chaos.
So I think that for whatever reason these people have something in common with You. Somebody like Chris, if their life has really been as bad as he implies his might have been, deserves the better response. N what goes for Chris goes for you too. THAT's what being a Christian is about.
You know at first I was tempted to just suggest reading the Romans chapter in context (no I don't jibe with verse 20 either), but I got reined in on doin that cause I've learned partly, from the bible that that's not who i am. People see the world as THEY are, no?

iwasicarus said...

Amp Mathew 19:8 He said to them, Because of the hardness (stubbornness and perversity) of your hearts Moses permitted you to dismiss and repudiate and divorce your wives;
MB 8-9 Jesus said, "Moses provided for divorce as a concession to your hard heartedness, but it is not part of God's original plan. I'm holding you to the original plan, and holding you liable for adultery if you divorce your faithful wife and then marry someone else. I make an exception in cases where the spouse has committed adultery."
Amp Mark 10:4 They replied, Moses allowed a man to write a bill of divorce and to put her away.(A)
5But Jesus said to them, Because of your hardness of heart [[a]your condition of insensibility to the call of God] he wrote you this [b]precept in your Law.
MB They answered, "Moses gave permission to fill out a certificate of dismissal and divorce her."
5-9Jesus said, "Moses wrote this command only as a concession to your hardhearted ways. In the original creation, God made male and female to be together. Because of this, a man leaves father and mother, and in marriage he becomes one flesh with a woman—no longer two individuals, but forming a new unity. Because God created this organic union of the two sexes, no one should desecrate his art by cutting them apart."
(by the way, I was wrong about the translation of Testament; it's not just a contract, in its purest form it's a one sided device where one person MUST die to enact it and the other must either accept the terms or walk away from it.)

gman35 said...

One thing I have learned over my years is that you have to watch those human beings...lol. Truely this is mostly out of context. Because a story of Abraham or another character in the Old Testament did this or that does not mean that we are suppose to.. We as Christians live under the New Testament plus the Commandments that Jesus even added more strict interpretations to. If you are not a believer then so be it but dont pick single verses out and quote them as if you know what you are talking about.. Include the whole chapter so that those that have not read it will know the truth.... just saying .

SmooveBB said...

Actually, Jesus stated that he did not come to change the old testament 'rules' one bit.

Per the bible, everyone on Earth should be stoned to death for one reason or another.

G. Schwartz said...

This is probably the most ridiculous article on "Christian" marriage I have ever seen. And the proofs of these ridiculous claims are merely cherry-picking from the Bible, looking for the most outrageous quotes. As far as most of the OT quotes are concerned, Christians would consider them no longer binding on us due to Christ's fulfillment of the Mosaic covenant. Once again, atheists have shown that caricature, rather than substantial argument, is the name of their game.

Steve Wells said...

G. Schwartz,

...the proofs of these ridiculous claims are merely cherry-picking from the Bible, looking for the most outrageous quotes.

Gosh G., I thought Christians believed that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." (2 Timothy 3:16) If so, then all the cherries on the tree are good to eat, so there's no harm in cherry picking from the good book, right?

Do you think all the fruit on the tree is evil or just most of it?

theedster said...

Well you had my interest until #1. I think the ... explains it all. If you are going to try to be intellectual at least use your quotes correctly and in context.

No logical person would agree with this blog, not because of religion or arguments against the Bible but because they have no foundation.

I think you prove your point by being so ridiculous. Come on if this is all an atheists has to offer they are in trouble.

Steve Wells said...

OK, theedster, enlighten me by explaining the context of 1 Corinthians 7. What does Paul mean when he says: "It is good for a man not to touch a woman. ... I would that all men were even as I myself. ... I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. ... Now concerning virgins ... it is good for a man so to be. ... Art thou loosed from a wife? seek not a wife. ... the time is short: it remaineth, that both they that have wives be as though they had none."?

Robert said...

agreed Theedster. I always find it hilarious when I see a bunch comments from people about what the bible says when they've obviously never actually read it or asked any intelligent questions about it. I grew up an atheist myself, but as I explored the bible, I could not ignore the truth of it. I've seen miracles with my own eyes. I've prayed for people and seen them healed before my eyes. I could go on and on. there was a question on one of the links here that said something like what is the difference between atheists and theists. I can answer that one, personal experience. this site concerns me for all your sake. be a little more open to study something before making judgements that, quite frankly, will affect your life after this one. Are you really willing to bet your eternity on what you or someone else thinks? It's never too late while on this earth to ask Christ to be your savior. Think about it.

Baconsbud said...

Robert first we will need proof that your so called miracles happened. If it is just your word that we are to go on I will have to say I very much doubt you are telling us the full story.

I find it odd that christians make the claim that they are open minded yet only want people to believe what they do. I would say that most that call themselves atheist are open to much. They have taken evidence and found that the religions they have studied fail to provide proof of their reality.

I also very much doubt you were an atheist. When most chrisitans make the claim that they were ateist, they tend to mean something different then what atheism actually is. Atheism is nothing more then the lack of belief in a god. There are large numbers of people who aren't religious but are not atheist.

Robert said...

well, one thing i know is that i will never "convince" you. i know i never would have believed it before either. i can only tell you what i have experienced and hope that it will at least make you think about it and possibly explore it further. my point is that you need to be sure of what you are giving opinions on, not basing it on what others think or what you think you know. i know where you are coming from. this is not something i blindly follow, it is studied and many questions asked. i was the biggest skeptic on "religion" for 30 years of my life. i'm not here to argue with you, it's everyone's choice whether they wish to enter heaven or not. everyone has to make up their own mind.

I live by faith, and by faith I live... said...

This is completely out of context, misunderstood, and especially written not the way it was really written.

1 Corinthians 7:27(complete verse, NIV). Are you married? do not seek a divorce. Are you unmarried? Do not look for a wife.

-People with faith like me would read his like: If you are married, do not seek a divorce. Understand, love, and forgive you partner.etc If you are unmarried, do not look for a wife. Look for God, delight in Him and He will give you the desires of your heart.

-then we have to read verses before this verse and I would suggest read the full flow of the story or statement for us to know what the author really means.

This is what happen when people without faith reads the bible. The result is you question and justify each texts without considering other texts affiliated with it. And you tend to get a different meaning when all you want to happen is to satisfy your want(which is to fight and justify the bible) Infact without faith, there is no way you will understand the bible nor understand God.

This is just sad. How can someone tell that the bible is inaccurate when the people or the person who says that is also inaccurate.

I will only believe in God and my faith is only to Him. Never will be on my fellow human whose understanding and thinking is very limited and finite. Hope these people will realize what they are doing.

Atheists people is no longer content in arguing about the existence of God, the truth is they are angry with God. Which leads me to my next confusion: Why be angry or argue on something you don't believe that exixts?

And if I'm not asking too much, because I really want to know. How do atheists get married?

Dr. Mic Hunter said...

Hey, lighten up and watch some videos of Jesus


http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/13478316/jesus-gives-a-pop-quiz-on-his-teachings-on-gays

http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/13478554/jesus-compares-sex-to-peanut-butter

http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/13487795/jesus-preaching-on-the-kingdom-of-heaven

http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/13476746/maybe-jesus-left-some-loopholes-or-who-would-jesus-hate

Mic said...

What do you hope to achieve sconnor? Apart from walling in your own crapulence and an almost OCD in extracting every minutia of argument. You posted this quote and in doing so revealed your absurdity.

P.S. The notion that faith in Christ is to be rewarded by an eternity of bliss, while a dependence upon reason, observation, and experience merits everlasting pain, is too absurd for refutation, and can be believed only by that unhappy mixture of insanity and ignorance called 'faith.' -- Robert G. Ingersoll.

"is too absurd for refutation". You seem like a smart fellow who loves to play with words, think about it.

Mic

Iconoclast said...

I live by faith, and by faith I live:

"Atheists people is no longer content in arguing about the existence of God, the truth is they are angry with God. Which leads me to my next confusion: Why be angry or argue on something you don't believe that exixts?

And if I'm not asking too much, because I really want to know. How do atheists get married?"

Reply: Hating a fictional character & knowing that character's non-existence are two different things. A helpful illustration:

I hate Sauron, even though I know Sauron doesn't exist & is made up by Tolkien.

Substitute Tolkien with "the Bible's authors" & Sauron with "God"

Warren Cobb said...

there is one very large error in this article on marriage and marrying, it concerns " whom God hath joined together " traditions and customs have always interfered with God's will concerning making babies,( or more males and females ) but the oneness ( two shall be, or become one )is found in the child, and those out of LOVE for each other and their child, is whom Jesus said " let not man be the cause of separating these two" and that by itself should be apparent, however, sexually minded people only think of themselves and why should others have to support your foolish lack of knowledge

tom clark said...

Mr. Wells, the word also says "rightly dividing the truth". You didnt mention that. Paul says it is better not to marry , but if you can't control yourself it's not a big deal. You also say something about gay marriage . That was just an assumption. Read the book of Romans. What does Paul say about un-natural affection ? You conveniently failed to mention that too.

Frankie Noisifter said...

Who gets do define the terms??
What is Love?

What is Evil?

What is morality? If there is NO god then the definition is left to man. If there is no god then why do rules of Morality apply to man and not animals? If there is no god then survival of the fittest(SOF) is the ultimate rule of morality because that is the method by which man arrived at this intellectual pinnacle. Man is therefore horribly immoral because modern man is doing everything backwards according to the rules of survival. In accordance to the natural law that allegedly elevated us to this point we should be discarding the weak not helping the poor ETC. If there is NO god and "SOF" is the ultimate rule of morality then the ("ROTFL") joke is on the atheist.Try as you like to stamp us out, we survive and repopulate like rabbits! This all comes from "Christian marriages" Unbelief and homosexual marriage is therefore is an affront to god "SOF" as it is a genetic disaster.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 201   Newer› Newest»