NationStates Jolt Archive

...why, only the other day a guy came up to me on the street and said "From the look on your face I'd say you've got an innovative philosophical critique of religion on pragmatic-empiricist grounds, probably influenced by Hume and Russell. Please tell me all about it."

"It's funny you should say that..." I replied.

I would ask for your permission to sig that if it wasn't so long.

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b42/Segomo2/1183977445799ob9.jpg

We're dealing with the traditional Judeo-Christian view of God.

1. Evil exists (i.e., the Devil or Hell)
2. God created everything
3. God is omni-benevolent (all-good)
Therefore, an all-good creator made evil, or the all-good creator doesn't exist.

Basically, why I don't believe in God (at least the Christian view). It's not logical unless you believe he/she/it's a prick.

Edit: I've gotten a couple posts from people saying, "Proof against god? Lmao. Ur an idiot. U cant do that." or, as Indri put it, "It's juvenile dipshits like you that make the rest of us atheists look bad." Since they're not reading my other posts, I have to put the disclaimer here: The title is a PUN. It's in the form of a logical proof, a different definition of proof from what you initially think. I had to do it that way, or no one would have read the post.

Oh, and I'm agnostic, btw. Disbelief is the absence of belief, not the belief in the absence.

Have you read the bible? No? Didn't think so. If you had, you would know the story of hell. Originially, Seraphim (high angels) had free will much like the humans, but were more devoted to God. Satan, a Seraphim, believed this servitute to be suck-ass so he led a revolt against God, which he lost, and was thus exiled into hell along with his army, who became demons. The actual sentancing of mortal sinners to hell is controvercial, as it appears only in the New Testimate, and was voted in by the early Roman Catholic church to keep attendance and obedience up.
As to the secondish half of your logic, which makes perfect sense without a complete knowledge of the story, and is an opinion I also held for a time, God is not omni-benevolent. He is omnipresent, which just means he's everywhere. He did create everything, including free will, his greatest gift to man, and the aspect that is truly 'in his image'. This free will allows us to invent our own evils and suffering, none of which are his creation, simply byproducts therof. However, since He loves all of His children equally, He cannot intervene on the behalf of one to save another, once his word was truly spread by the Old Testimate prophets and Jesus Christ. So, acting to save his Chosen People from the Nazis, for example, it would have shown he loved the Jews more than the Nazis, which Jesus (AKA God) promises is not true. His hands are tied by his love for all of us, from the pedarist to the priest (same thing sometimes!), from the Gentile to the Genocidal maniac, we are all God's children.

*snip*

none of that proves nor disproves the existence of God...

Not designed to prove me right, just him wrong, which it does. It tears through his arguements which are based on misconceptions.

Not designed to prove me right, just him wrong, which it does. It tears through his arguements which are based on misconceptions.

Christianity itself is a Misconception, having gone through so many Translations, and the sheer number of books that were simply 'left out'...its crazy...

But, i see your point...

no. im saying that the warm/cold explanation of evil is not a good one.

it only seems good to us because we dont have it so bad. if we lived in subsaharan africa we would wonder why god hates us so much that we have to live in the cold all the time.

Now you have some sort of valid point. Were you trying to say we are having it so good compared to subsaharan africa all that time? If so, you should have just said so.

But, it still fails to be very convincing. People in subsaharan africa are just much more affected by the consequences of their actions than we. While we may take a day off and reasonably hope to survive, many of them can't.

That said, it is harder for them, only if God exists and hates them, they would be in Hell, not on earth. I'm fairly certain any part of earth is pretty "warm" (pun!) compared to Judeo-Christian Hell.

Now do tell me oh wise one, isn't it already a gift to have a chance at all not to be in Hell, seeing as we as a race have a much greater chance of being "sinners" than not? Wouldn't it be simpler, if God hate those poor poor africans so much, to just send them to Hell?

And are you pretending anyways that we suffer less because we live where there is (almost) no starvation? We simply have different kind of suffering. They suffer from physical pain, but know they can count on each other as humans. I live in Quebec, "rich" province of Canada, with a very high suicide rate, the highest in North America (if not the world? I forget). If you tell me nobody's suffering that much here, I will laugh or cry.

Now you have some sort of valid point. Were you trying to say we are having it so good compared to subsaharan africa all that time? If so, you should have just said so.

But, it still fails to be very convincing. People in subsaharan africa are just much more affected by the consequences of their actions than we. While we may take a day off and reasonably hope to survive, many of them can't.

That said, it is harder for them, only if God exists and hates them, they would be in Hell, not on earth. I'm fairly certain any part of earth is pretty "warm" (pun!) compared to Judeo-Christian Hell.

Now do tell me oh wise one, isn't it already a gift to have a chance at all not to be in Hell, seeing as we as a race have a much greater chance of being "sinners" than not? Wouldn't it be simpler, if God hate those poor poor africans so much, to just send them to Hell?

And are you pretending anyways that we suffer less because we live where there is (almost) no starvation? We simply have different kind of suffering. They suffer from physical pain, but know they can count on each other as humans. I live in Quebec, "rich" province of Canada, with a very high suicide rate, the highest in North America (if not the world? I forget). If you tell me nobody's suffering that much here, I will laugh or cry.

what im saying is that its a bad analogy.

of course there is a continuum of evil. some things are more evil than others, some people suffer more needlessly than others.

but to suggest that there is no other way that god could have arranged the world than this. that we MUST be so weighted towards evil seems to me to be wrong. he could have made a much less evil world and we would still be able to see the difference between good and evil.

it just seems to me to be too facile to suggest that the suffering of the rest of the world is merely a matter of it SEEMING bad compared to something else. its bad, its bad all on its own. its bad without having to look at something better to figure that out. its bad in a way that leaves you thinking that god must WANT it that way, its been bad so freaking long.

and it has been very bad for most of the existence of humanity. so bad that it takes a leap of faith for people to think that it could be better and to start to work towards that.

cold as the absense of warmth just doesnt cover the kind of bad that this world has. not unless you like to think that god is fine with keeping billions of people in the freezer.

what im saying is that its a bad analogy.

of course there is a continuum of evil. some things are more evil than others, some people suffer more needlessly than others.

but to suggest that there is no other way that god could have arranged the world than this. that we MUST be so weighted towards evil seems to me to be wrong. he could have made a much less evil world and we would still be able to see the difference between good and evil.

it just seems to me to be too facile to suggest that the suffering of the rest of the world is merely a matter of it SEEMING bad compared to something else. its bad, its bad all on its own. its bad without having to look at something better to figure that out. its bad in a way that leaves you thinking that god must WANT it that way, its been bad so freaking long.

and it has been very bad for most of the existence of humanity. so bad that it takes a leap of faith for people to think that it could be better and to start to work towards that.

cold as the absense of warmth just doesnt cover the kind of bad that this world has. not unless you like to think that god is fine with keeping billions of people in the freezer.

You have a very good absoluto-bad-meter. Where can I get that?

Do you not think that it's our fault for distributing wealth the way we do, and not share? Isn't it our fault that people are born in starvation? Isn't that ALWAYS the consquence of someone's choices?

Also, do you not think that for Him to make it better, he would have to make us be different, thus altering free-will (thus proving he does not love us as we are). And don't you think He would want us to go through some hardness to prove we deserve to go to heaven, by making the right choices even through hardship?

You have a very good absoluto-bad-meter. Where can I get that?

Do you not think that it's our fault for distributing wealth the way we do, and not share? Isn't it our fault that people are born in starvation? Isn't that ALWAYS the consquence of someone's choices?

Also, do you not think that for Him to make it better, he would have to make us be different, thus altering free-will (thus proving he does not love us as we are). And don't you think He would want us to go through some hardness to prove we deserve to go to heaven, by making the right choices even through hardship?

No

Also, do you not think that for Him to make it better, he would have to make us be different, thus altering free-will

no, of course not. you have to be pretty willfully blind to think that. to make the world better in a way that doesn't at all alter free-will (though i have yet to see why that is such a capital good properly argued from a religious perspective - and don't really expect to since it is clearly impossible given the alleged properties of god), all god needed to do is intervene to create one less baby born with a birth defect that causes agonizing pain and premature death.

No

1) I clearly wasn't adressing you.

2) If you reply to a post, could you be so polite as to state arguments, basis, anything other than post and run? If so, I shall be glad to respond to you as if I cared.

1) I clearly wasn't adressing you

hi and welcome to nsg. it is what we on the internets call a 'public forum', where just anybody can respond to any idiocy you write. fun for the whole family!

1) I clearly wasn't adressing you.

2) If you reply to a post, could you be so polite as to state arguments, basis, anything other than post and run? If so, I shall be glad to respond to you as if I cared.

Well...first off, youve responded to me, lol...

Second, i was joking, i havent been taking this thread seriously since its inception and have only attempted to show the absurdity of trying to prove the existence or non existence of God through an Anonymous Internet forum...

no, of course not. you have to be pretty willfully blind to think that. to make the world better in a way that doesn't at all alter free-will (though i have yet to see why that is such a capital good properly argued from a religious perspective - and don't really expect to since it is clearly impossible given the alleged properties of god), all god needed to do is intervene to create one less baby born with a birth defect that causes agonizing pain and premature death.

And how do you know it's not the result of someone's actions? Inhaling pollution, taking drugs, whatever?

And how do you know (from a christian perspective) it's not meant to be HIS test, and that none other is right for that person?

Should everyone be tested in the exact same way? Of course not.

Well...first off, youve responded to me, lol...

Second, i was joking, i havent been taking this thread seriously since its inception and have only attempted to show the absurdity of trying to prove the existence or non existence of God through an Anonymous Internet forum...

Thanks anyways for specifying. Now I feel bad!

hi and welcome to nsg. it is what we on the internets call a 'public forum', where just anybody can respond to any idiocy you write. fun for the whole family!

I'm sorry, I hate these kinds of post, I mean he hadn't stated any argument or anything. If I had known it was a joke, or if he had stated arguments or something, I would not have said that.

Thanks anyways for specifying. Now I feel bad!

Dont, its hard to pick up that Sarcastic tone from Text, lol....

And how do you know it's not the result of someone's actions? Inhaling pollution, taking drugs, whatever?

firstly, because some such birth defects are completely outside of the realm of the will, just as a basic biolgical fact.

secondly, what are you, a fucking monster? the world wouldn't be better if fewer children were born into continuous agonizing pain?! it would in no way at all affect anyone's free will to make this change. but even if it did, the world would be the better for it.

the world wouldn't be better if fewer children were born into continuous agonizing pain?!

IT WOULDNT!?...

So thats why my Church has so few members......

*snip*

secondly, what are you, a fucking monster? the world wouldn't be better if fewer children were born into continuous agonizing pain?! it would in no way at all affect anyone's free will to make this change. but even if it did, the world would be the better for it.

So the world is bad for you because someone else has birth defects? No, the world is worse for that particular person. To say it's impossible that a real God makes people that way is like saying the same God can't possibly make some people born stupid, shy, albino or whatever. And to you too I can respond that maybe WE are very lucky not to be like that because God wants it so, when He with His Jesus-like superpowers could make everyone born like that.

So if I thought "We're lucky" instead of "He's unlucky", that would make me a monster?

Also, along with my previous post, I could say that God could make all that earth all lovely and cuddely, but then there would be no need for paradise, because 1) We wouldn't need it and 2) We would have done nothing do deserve it.

. Originially, Seraphim (high angels) had free will much like the humans, but were more devoted to God.

High Angels: "I am Uriel, the Strength of God, and I...I...dude, what were we talking about? Let's go get some pancakes."

So the world is bad for you because someone else has birth defects? No, the world is worse for that particular person. To say it's impossible that a real God makes people that way is like saying the same God can't possibly make some people born stupid, shy, albino or whatever. And to you too I can respond that maybe WE are very lucky not to be like that because God wants it so, when He with His Jesus-like superpowers could make everyone born like that.

So if I thought "We're lucky" instead of "He's unlucky", that would make me a monster?

Jesus only had 3 superpowers.

1. Adding hydroxyl substituents to molecules, which today, is no longer a superpower.

2. Making large amounts of bread, also no longer as impressive.

3. He had a giant hammer that he could spin around to fly with, hit people with, and crack the ice to end winter. This remains extraordinary.

3. He had a giant hammer that he could spin around to fly with, hit people with, and crack the ice to end winter. This remains extraordinary.

I think Jesus may owe some Copyright infringement money to Thor...

this is a rediculous thread if god does exist woo hoo if he doesn't woohoo as far as i am concerned religion becomes far to complicated when you involve one smart person to lead over a million stupid people

I think Jesus may owe some Copyright infringement money to Thor...

Jesus and Thor signed a bilateral and perpetuitous agreement to hold one another harmless and blameless for the use of their respective likeness, as well as an addendum agreeing to not "cock block".

Jesus and Thor signed a bilateral and perpetuitous agreement to hold one another harmless and blameless for the use of their respective likeness, as well as an addendum agreeing to not "cock block".

lmfao...Your not supposed to Block our Friend's cock, your supposed to GUIDE his Cock....

lmfao...Your not supposed to Block our Friend's cock, your supposed to GUIDE his Cock....

ah, Ephesians 4:15

I think Jesus may owe some Copyright infringement money to Thor...... and Horus ... and Mithras.

A new and original thread topic.

1. You'll never convince a true atheist there is a god.
2. You'll never convince a true Christian there isn't one.
3. You'll never put forth an argument that "proves" God's existence or lack thereof to a true agnostic.

Put another way:

1. Jews don't recognize the Pope
2. Muslims don't recognize the Jews
3. 2 Baptists in a Liquor store don't recognize each other.

A new and original thread topic.

1. You'll never convince a true atheist there is a god.
2. You'll never convince a true Christian there isn't one.
3. You'll never put forth an argument that "proves" God's existence or lack thereof to a true agnostic.

Put another way:

1. Jews don't recognize the Pope
2. Muslims don't recognize the Jews
3. 2 Baptists in a Liquor store don't recognize each other.

Are you trying to start threads or stop this one? Just because we can't convince each other does not mean moral debates within clear bounds have no value. The goal is to strenghten your position and make your oponents doubt theirs, not to slap-backslap each other.

I was actually just trying to poke a little fun and the never ending debate.

I was actually just trying to poke a little fun and the never ending debate.

And that you did. I would put a smiley face here but my browser sucks.

Jesus only had 3 superpowers.

1. Adding hydroxyl substituents to molecules, which today, is no longer a superpower.

2. Making large amounts of bread, also no longer as impressive.

3. He had a giant hammer that he could spin around to fly with, hit people with, and crack the ice to end winter. This remains extraordinary.
Ooooooookay...

Well, let's account for a few things...

1. Jesus fulfilled a massive number of Old Testament prophecies, a remarkable amount of which have been dated far before his time. The mathematical odds that Jesus just so happened to fulfill all these prophecies and was not actually who was prophesied about is astronomical.

What's more, Jesus could not have planned to fulfill these prophecies, even if he was mentally insane. He could not dictate his place of birth (Bethlehem), his extraordinary type of birth (virgin), or his genealogy (King David, etc.). That's simply improbable.

If that isn't above your "simple superpowers," I don't know what is.

2. Jesus was known to heal people by mysterious methods, none of which have been explained by scientists or physicians today. To brush those aside is fairly foolish.

3. In your second point, you fail to account that he also multiplied fish, a feat that, I think, would be more difficult than you make it appear.

4. He is claimed to have walked on water and to have controlled the weather.

5. Noting another healing, he is claimed to have healed a man's ear after it was cut off by Simon Peter. That doesn't happen in five seconds with no medical tools, not today, and certainly not in biblical times.

6. Jesus died on a cross and then was seen by many, many witnesses days later. Now, that's a simple sentence, but let's pick that apart for a minute...

Jesus did die on the cross. He was flogged, he had thorns sticking into his head, and if you don't know the physics of a cross death, research it. It's a horrible way to die, and it's improbable that Jesus could've survived. Even if he had survived the cross, the Roman guards (who would be killed if their prisoner survived, giving them plenty of motive to ensure his death) thrust a spear through his heart and lungs. The Bible states that blood and water spilled from his body, the "water" being a fluid accumulated in the lungs when one suffocates (which is essentially the way one dies on the cross).

So was Jesus dead? I believe so.

Then take into account that he was recorded to have appeared before the disciples, a number of women, and a great number of other witnesses... in a perfectly healthy condition (had he somehow survived, his body would've been completely pathetic-looking).

That's pretty super-powerful, I'd say.


Only to name a few. Your assessment of Jesus' "super powers" is a pretty massive understatement, at best.

The thing with that of course, and I have put it to the OP who strangely refuse to answer to it, is that it assume a morality for God that is akin to that of humanity.

Our differant laws show that morality is subjective, and changeble dependant on locaction, time and socialogical factors.

Do you know for example what God deems to be moraly correct? Until you do, then the conclusion is flawed.

Your argument is flawed as it is based on the idea that God's view of morality matters. It doesn't. Since we are using human terms, human definitions apply. And since actively not helping someone who is suffering through no fault of your own when you can do so with no inconvenience to yourself is deemed to be not good in pretty much every system of morality ever conceived by humanity, the conclusion still holds.

To put it more simply, if God's morality differing from our own matters, we cannot apply our own moral terms to God, and thus none of our moral terms apply to God.

Okay fair point, but we must have some knowledge of a unicorn to have a label for it.
The concept is not the thing. The concept of unicorns exists. Unicorns do not exist. That simple enough for you?

Ooooooookay...

Well, let's account for a few things...

1. Jesus fulfilled a massive number of Old Testament prophecies, a remarkable amount of which have been dated far before his time. The mathematical odds that Jesus just so happened to fulfill all these prophecies and was not actually who was prophesied about is astronomical. ...snip....

Can you provide an example or two, please?

Can you provide an example or two, please?

Like being descended from David. Wait, no, Joseph wasn't his father.

Like restoring the temple of Jerusalem. Wait, no. Hasn't happened.

Like ending all war. Wait, no.

Have you read the bible? No? Didn't think so. If you had, you would know the story of hell. Originially, Seraphim (high angels) had free will much like the humans, but were more devoted to God. Satan, a Seraphim, believed this servitute to be suck-ass so he led a revolt against God, which he lost, and was thus exiled into hell along with his army, who became demons. The actual sentancing of mortal sinners to hell is controvercial, as it appears only in the New Testimate, and was voted in by the early Roman Catholic church to keep attendance and obedience up.


I find this amusing because it has nothing to do with the Bible. The seraphim are not the high angels, they're one of the middle ranks. Satan is a job title, not a name. haSatan, which you are probably referring to, was not a seraph, nor did he ever rebel against God. In fact, Samael (that being his name), was one of God's servants. He likely was the angel who prevented Abraham from sacrificing Isaac.

Oh, and the idea of angels having free will is debatable. Only a scant handful ever demonstrated anything approaching free will.

Like being descended from David. Wait, no, Joseph wasn't his father.

As far as any legal record would have been concerned, he certainly was. So that's a technical fulfillment.

As far as any legal record would have been concerned, he certainly was. So that's a technical fulfillment.

IIRC, Hebrews at the time were matrilineal anyways, so it still wouldn't matter.

As far as any legal record would have been concerned, he certainly was. So that's a technical fulfillment.

But the problem is, the claim is being made that there was a fulfillment of the prophesied expectations, and no prophets anywhere predicted "Somebody who might seem to be a descendant of David but really wasn't".

IIRC, Hebrews at the time were matrilineal anyways, so it still wouldn't matter.
Utterly incorrect. Hebrews at that time were very strictly patrilineal. It was a rarity when mothers were even mentioned in the genealogies. (The business about "a person is a Jew if his mother was" arose only during medieval times, in answer to concerns about what to do with rape-children.)

IIRC, Hebrews at the time were matrilineal anyways, so it still wouldn't matter.

the 2 lineages given in the NT are both the lines of joseph. 2 different lineages.

Utterly incorrect. Hebrews at that time were very strictly patrilineal. It was a rarity when mothers were even mentioned in the genealogies. (The business about "a person is a Jew if his mother was" arose only during medieval times, in answer to concerns about what to do with rape-children.)

i did not know that.

But the problem is, the claim is being made that there was a fulfillment of the prophesied expectations, and no prophets anywhere predicted "Somebody who might seem to be a descendant of David but really wasn't".

I myself am adopted. I have never met my biological parent. Of which line am I? Of the line of people from whom I have been cared for and nurtured for close to 20 years, or of the line of the people whose genetic material I inherited and never seen since?

I myself am adopted. I have never met my biological parent. Of which line am I? Of the line of people from whom I have been cared for and nurtured for close to 20 years, or of the line of the people whose genetic material I inherited and never seen since?
The Hebrews at the time did not have such a concept. The prophesies didn't say anything about "somebody who was adopted and wasn't biologically of that line" or anything of the sort. The point is, if you are going to claim that he "fulfilled" the prophesies, you have to account for why "God" supposedly authored prophesies which were, at least, terribly misleading.

The Hebrews at the time did not have such a concept. The prophesies didn't say anything about "somebody who was adopted and wasn't biologically of that line" or anything of the sort. The point is, if you are going to claim that he "fulfilled" the prophesies, you have to account for why "God" supposedly authored prophesies which were, at least, terribly misleading.

Welcome to Prophecy 101.

Rule #1: Make them vague so you can be right.
Rule #2: They should only make sense in retrospect.
Rule #3: ???
Rule #4: Profit

Never mind, I thought you were defending Cybornia's position.

As far as the prophesies go, once the Messiah came, all the scattered Jews were to return to Judea, the Temple would be rebuilt, the Jews would become the most respected nation in the world, leading the whole world into an era of universal peace... after Jesus came, all the Jews left in Judea were scattered around the world, the Temple was levelled to the ground, the Jews became the most despised nation in the world, as the world descended into a cycle of increasingly brutal wars. Nice going, "Messiah"!

Never mind, I thought you were defending Cybornia's position.

As far as the prophesies go, once the Messiah came, all the scattered Jews were to return to Judea, the Temple would be rebuilt, the Jews would become the most respected nation in the world, leading the whole world into an era of universal peace... after Jesus came, all the Jews left in Judea were scattered around the world, the Temple was levelled to the ground, the Jews became the most despised nation in the world, as the world descended into a cycle of increasingly brutal wars. Nice going, "Messiah"!

That was my own way of ceding my argument based on my own ignorance and lack of research.

That said, Jesus did fulfill some when he was here the first time and we Christians believe he takes care of the rest on round two.

This is easily refuted by the Baha'i perspective. (Not that our faith in any way refutes Christianity's true principles, this is just an explanation)

Evil does not exist

Evil is the absence of good just as darkness is the absence of light.

ok, god can't be proven to exist OR be false. so :upyours::upyours::upyours::D:):p:rolleyes:

1. In regard to the prophecies, I think that with only cursory study you'll find that they aren't misleading. Espescially Isiah. The prophecies regard deliverance, but that deliverance is obviously from the Law and from Sin, not Romans. Read Hosea for like 5 minutes, you'll see what I'm talking about.
2. Misleading or not, Christ fulfills every, single one. The probability of that, as determined by a Princeton professor, is one out of, 10,000 to the 50th power.
3. In regards to God creating sin, which seemed to be the start of this thread: Read Romans Chapter 9. Free Will does not explain away sin, as the words "free will" are NEVER in the Bible. God did not create sin. Romans makes that clear. He made man perfect, and without sin. Man then sinned, disobeying God. How is that reflect poorly on God? Man committed the crime, and yet you have the audacity to blame God? When he made us perfect, and gave us Eden?
As Paul himself puts it "will the molded say to it's molder 'Why have you made me like this?' Has the potter no right over the clay, to make out of the same lump one vessel for honorable use and another for dishonorable use?

That said, Jesus did fulfill some when he was here the first time and we Christians believe he takes care of the rest on round two.
And where are the prophesies about the Messiah needing a "mulligan"?

And where are the prophesies about the Messiah needing a "mulligan"?

Mulligan implies that he failed to do it the first time while Jesus clearly states that it was not his intention to do it that time. As for second coming, there's no OT prophecy that comes to mind.

Ooooooookay...

Well, let's account for a few things...

1. Jesus fulfilled a massive number of Old Testament prophecies, a remarkable amount of which have been dated far before his time. The mathematical odds that Jesus just so happened to fulfill all these prophecies and was not actually who was prophesied about is astronomical.

What's more, Jesus could not have planned to fulfill these prophecies, even if he was mentally insane. He could not dictate his place of birth (Bethlehem), his extraordinary type of birth (virgin), or his genealogy (King David, etc.). That's simply improbable.

If that isn't above your "simple superpowers," I don't know what is.

2. Jesus was known to heal people by mysterious methods, none of which have been explained by scientists or physicians today. To brush those aside is fairly foolish.

3. In your second point, you fail to account that he also multiplied fish, a feat that, I think, would be more difficult than you make it appear.

4. He is claimed to have walked on water and to have controlled the weather.

5. Noting another healing, he is claimed to have healed a man's ear after it was cut off by Simon Peter. That doesn't happen in five seconds with no medical tools, not today, and certainly not in biblical times.

6. Jesus died on a cross and then was seen by many, many witnesses days later. Now, that's a simple sentence, but let's pick that apart for a minute...

Jesus did die on the cross. He was flogged, he had thorns sticking into his head, and if you don't know the physics of a cross death, research it. It's a horrible way to die, and it's improbable that Jesus could've survived. Even if he had survived the cross, the Roman guards (who would be killed if their prisoner survived, giving them plenty of motive to ensure his death) thrust a spear through his heart and lungs. The Bible states that blood and water spilled from his body, the "water" being a fluid accumulated in the lungs when one suffocates (which is essentially the way one dies on the cross).

So was Jesus dead? I believe so.

Then take into account that he was recorded to have appeared before the disciples, a number of women, and a great number of other witnesses... in a perfectly healthy condition (had he somehow survived, his body would've been completely pathetic-looking).

That's pretty super-powerful, I'd say.

Only to name a few. Your assessment of Jesus' "super powers" is a pretty massive understatement, at best.

Did you actually just try to make a serious response (basically just a regurgitation of various claims and assumptions, but still an attempt at a serious response) to a post wherein I basically stated that Jesus was the Marvel Comic Book version of the mythological character Thor?

Also, "known" to have healed? Just because you bought something doesn't make it a fact, and your whole tirade is rife with assumptions that, just because they appear in one religion's beliefs doesn't make them automatically indisputably true. Calling me foolish because I don't share your confusion between belief in an event and evidence of the event isn't proof of anything.

EVERYTHING you've claimed here can be parallelled in other religions that have just as many "witnesses", just as many old books that "foretell" this and that, just as many "reports" that their super duper guy was seen doing this or that.

Lots of things that are written down in old books might not be as true as you need them to be, and the old book (even if the sequel reports things forecast in the original, like if it turns out Gandalf was right in Two Tours about something he said in Fellowship) isn't really evidence.

Well, let's see, if issue #32 reports Thor will defeat so-and-so and Issue #77 has him defeating so-and-so, then by your reasoning, Thor must be the fulfillment of prophecy, so...I guess I see why you fell for it.

Mulligan implies that he failed to do it the first time while Jesus clearly states that it was not his intention to do it that time. As for second coming, there's no OT prophecy that comes to mind.

yes but jesus didnt fulfill the important parts of the job of messiah. thousands of people were born of young women (the prophecy, if it refers to the messiah, is not about a virgin) and were of the house of david and were born in bethlehem. those are qualifiers not guarantees.

the proof of being the messiah is to have done those things outlined earlier by tmu which he did NOT do. so at best he is the jewish messiah-in-waiting and might fulfill the prophesies some time in the future.

yes but jesus didnt fulfill the important parts of the job of messiah. thousands of people were born of young women (the prophecy, if it refers to the messiah, is not about a virgin) and were of the house of david and were born in bethlehem. those are qualifiers not guarantees.

the proof of being the messiah is to have done those things outlined earlier by tmu which he did NOT do. so at best he is the jewish messiah-in-waiting and might fulfill the prophesies some time in the future.

There are also verses in Isaiah that talk about the Messiah being killed, which Jesus arguably also fulfilled.

There are also verses in Isaiah that talk about the Messiah being killed, which Jesus arguably also fulfilled.

im not familiar with those but they would also be qualifiers.

there are two different things leading to two different types of suffering in your example. but the only way this helps you is if you can demonstrate that thousands of children starving to death is for the best. that tens of thousands of people dying in an earthquake is better for them than not. that being born into a life of incredible and unending pain is good.

btw, have you noticed that you seem to be unable to keep your claims straight? seriously, you are explicitly making the claim that you denied you were making just a few posts ago.

I think it is more probable that you are misunderstanding just what claims I am making.

However, yes that is just what I say, that which we call suffering, God may not see in the same light. I'm not even going to attempt to show how children starving to death is a good thing, obviousely because I don't view it as such. Staying on that point though, there are some people out there that will say it is a good thing due to the already overpopulation of the planet, so even amongst our own species suffering is realtive.

I don't belive in god. Why? It just doesn't add up to me.

However, i've been questioning it. Maybe there is a god. But he hates me.


Either way. it's MY belief, i'll voice my opinion but i'll never ram it down someone's throat.

God isn't worth getting all angry and pissed off over, no matter how powerful he's meant to be. If there is a god, i'm dredful sorry i didn't heed the warnings but i'll accept my punishment (eternal damnation).

If in fact God does punish. That is not my belife, why would God give us free will and then punish us for using it?

Did you actually just try to make a serious response (basically just a regurgitation of various claims and assumptions, but still an attempt at a serious response) to a post wherein I basically stated that Jesus was the Marvel Comic Book version of the mythological character Thor?

Also, "known" to have healed? Just because you bought something doesn't make it a fact, and your whole tirade is rife with assumptions that, just because they appear in one religion's beliefs doesn't make them automatically indisputably true. Calling me foolish because I don't share your confusion between belief in an event and evidence of the event isn't proof of anything.

EVERYTHING you've claimed here can be parallelled in other religions that have just as many "witnesses", just as many old books that "foretell" this and that, just as many "reports" that their super duper guy was seen doing this or that.

Lots of things that are written down in old books might not be as true as you need them to be, and the old book (even if the sequel reports things forecast in the original, like if it turns out Gandalf was right in Two Tours about something he said in Fellowship) isn't really evidence.

Well, let's see, if issue #32 reports Thor will defeat so-and-so and Issue #77 has him defeating so-and-so, then by your reasoning, Thor must be the fulfillment of prophecy, so...I guess I see why you fell for it.

Perhaps one of the most well-thought arguments proposed in this thread Jhah.

People believe the bible is the Word of God... but tell me one word in the bible that was written by God... or for that matter by Jesus. Some guys decided to write down a bunch of stories about this guy and their religion and some one decided to collect them and turn them into a book. But I've not a lot of faith in anything that man has written. Quite honestly at that.

Then explain Luke 10:18 (there was a typo in my last post) where Jesus tells the seventy two that he has seen "Satan fall like lightning from heaven."

This could well be an example of the prophetic past tense. The Greek grammar seems to bear out this view (the word 'εθεωρουν', to be an observer, is used in the imperfect tense, indicating a drawn out action; this would seem to fit better within the context of a drawn-out prophetic vision rather than a direct observation of a past event).

This is not at all incompatible with this because Jesus Himself sees Satan fall from from Heaven. Now, taken literally, this means Satan had fallen from Heaven previously.

Since what is described in Revelations 12 is prophecy, then it cannot be the only fall of Satan like you say since Jesus describes the fall of Satan even before the crucifixion.

This would just screw up the 'fallen rebel' theory even more: now you're arguing that 'Satan' was cast out of Heaven, and then he was allowed back in to do his stuff (the Revelations verse) only to be cast out again. Are they keeping him on a bungee cord or something? If the Luke verse is intended to refer to a past even then all that's been proved is the Bible is contradictory.

They overcame Him by the Blood of the Lamb means the white robes cleansed by Jesus' blood (see Revelations 7:14). This means that the fall prophesied in Revelations 12 is when Jesus was crucified, or more likely, after.

I'm still failing to see how this implies a previous fall.



Accuser, I will grant you that.
Not renegade? In Zechariah 3:1-2 one of the Angels of the Lord rebukes Satan.

"Then he showed me Joshua the high priest standing before the angel of the Lord, and Satan standing at his right side to accuse him. The Lord said to Satan, 'The Lord rebuke you, Satan! The Lord, who has chosen Jerusalem, rebuke you! Is not this man a burning stick snatched from the fire?'"

Yep: Satan's job was to act as accuser: his charges aren't actually denied, it's simply decided that he's sufficiently repentant. If you read the rest of the chapter you'll see an acknowledgement that Satan was an official part of the heavenly court process:

The angel of the LORD gave this charge to Joshua: "This is what the LORD Almighty says: 'If you will walk in my ways and keep my requirements, then you will govern my house and have charge of my courts, and I will give you a place among these standing here.

In Peter 1, 5:8, elder and young men are told to be alert for the devil who prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.

Which translation are you using? Several Christian translations (including the NIV) pull a fast one here:

Be self-controlled and alert. Your enemy the devil prowls around like a roaring lion looking for someone to devour.

Enemy? Well, I suppose so, but that's not what the Greek says:

νηψατε γρηγορησατε ο αντιδικος υμων διαβολος ως λεων ωρυομενος περιπατει ζητων καταπιειν

The bolded text would be best translated as 'your accuser' (it's very similar to the verb αντιδικοω which means 'to be at law, to litigate'. The verse isn't suggesting a physical danger, but a spiritual one in the courts of heaven.

I'm not too familiar with Hebrew or the translations of numbers, so could you perhaps provide the Hebrew version of Numbers 22:22, and the direct translations of the Angel of the Lord and the Satan, and etc, then I will have to think about that.

I'm afraid I don't have a Hebrew text to hand and my Hebrew is pretty much non-existent! Satan is simply satan or hasatan. Hasatan means 'an accuser/adversary', satan can be read as either 'an accuser/adversary' or as a name.


God has His own sense of justice and punishment that Humans cannot comprehend according to Christian theology.

This is nothing about a sense of justice: it's nonsensical! Nobody thought that the talking snake was anything other than a talkative reptile until Justin Martyr (a second century Christian writer). It makes no sense at all, it'd be like trying to claim that all references to the Ring in The Lord of the Rings were really references to Gollum's mother!


And the Bible is not literature?

Not good literature.

Leonardo Davinci's The Last Supper is not art?

Firstly, I've already pointed out the distinction between theology and religious belief in this thread. Secondly, even if it did inspire great things that wouldn't alter the fact that theology in itself is vapid.

Is not theology the basis of great philosophy?

Most of the philosophy I can think of that was based on theology is very bad indeed. Also see my above point: "even if it did inspire great things that wouldn't alter the fact that theology in itself is vapid".

Did you know that for a long time it was the Church that funded scientific advancements?

Some scientific advancements, although theology has done much more to impede science than it has to enable it. We would have had the theory of evolution much earlier if the church hasn't burnt Bruno.

Like being descended from David. Wait, no, Joseph wasn't his father.

Like restoring the temple of Jerusalem. Wait, no. Hasn't happened.

Like ending all war. Wait, no.

And since the coming of Jesus the Jews have been respected by all nations, and nobody has ever hated or hurt them since that time.

Hang on...

the 2 lineages given in the NT are both the lines of joseph. 2 different lineages.

Which, hilariously enough, both fail to meet the prophetic requirements. :p

2. Misleading or not, Christ fulfills every, single one. The probability of that, as determined by a Princeton professor, is one out of, 10,000 to the 50th power.

This sounds like bullshit to me.

EDIT: Also, to prove that Jesus fulfilled a prophecy you need to:

1. Show that the prophecy predated him.

2. Show that the prophecy wasn't self-fulfilling (so he couldn't have consciously tried to fulfil them)

3. Show that he actually did the things he's supposed to have done, and that they weren't just written by later authors to match up with pre-existing prophecies.

Good luck with that.

Mulligan implies that he failed to do it the first time while Jesus clearly states that it was not his intention to do it that time. As for second coming, there's no OT prophecy that comes to mind.

Typical man.

Jesus: 'Yeah, guys, I know I said I'd bring world peace and do away with evil and shit but I'm gonna put that off 'til next time, k?'

At least this debunks once and for all the notion that Jesus was married: no wife would have tolerated a reply of "yeah, I'll mow the lawn after my second coming". :D

On a serious note, cynical types would view this as a post-hoc rationalisation of Jesus' failures to do what he was meant to do to qualify as the Messiah.

There are also verses in Isaiah that talk about the Messiah being killed, which Jesus arguably also fulfilled.

If you're referring to the 'Suffering Servant' then you should know that it refers to Israel (probably the Exiles), not a future Messiah.

yes but jesus didnt fulfill the important parts of the job of messiah. thousands of people were born of young women (the prophecy, if it refers to the messiah, is not about a virgin) and were of the house of david and were born in bethlehem. those are qualifiers not guarantees.

Heh, there are quite a few people in ancient times who are alleged to have been born of a virgin too. ;)

Personally I have my doubts as to whether Jesus was really born in Bethlehem: Matthew and Luke both give wildly contradictary accounts of what they were doing there (Matthew implies that Mary and Joseph had lived there all along, but fled from Herod; Luke says that they lived in Nazareth but were visiting Bethlehem for a census) which seem to me to be attempts to rationalise the prophecy with the existing tradition that he'd grown up in Nazareth. A Nazareth birth seems much more likely.

If in fact God does punish. That is not my belife, why would God give us free will and then punish us for using it?

Even God needs a cheap laugh now and again. :p

Heh, there are quite a few people in ancient times who are alleged to have been born of a virgin too. ;)

Personally I have my doubts as to whether Jesus was really born in Bethlehem: Matthew and Luke both give wildly contradictary accounts of what they were doing there (Matthew implies that Mary and Joseph had lived there all along, but fled from Herod; Luke says that they lived in Nazareth but were visiting Bethlehem for a census) which seem to me to be attempts to rationalise the prophecy with the existing tradition that he'd grown up in Nazareth. A Nazareth birth seems much more likely.

I like you. You make reading this thread fun. You and some others too. Rock on!

Heh, there are quite a few people in ancient times who are alleged to have been born of a virgin too. ;)

Personally I have my doubts as to whether Jesus was really born in Bethlehem: Matthew and Luke both give wildly contradictary accounts of what they were doing there (Matthew implies that Mary and Joseph had lived there all along, but fled from Herod; Luke says that they lived in Nazareth but were visiting Bethlehem for a census) which seem to me to be attempts to rationalise the prophecy with the existing tradition that he'd grown up in Nazareth. A Nazareth birth seems much more likely.

just keeping it simple, agenda. i didnt want to overload the guy with too much at one time.

but the important point is that even if you take the bible as written, jesus is big on the qualifiers and short on the functions of messiah. what is the point of saying "see he qualifies!" if he never does what the messiah is supposed to do according to the bible?

I like you. You make reading this thread fun. You and some others too. Rock on!

*blushes* :)

just keeping it simple, agenda. i didnt want to overload the guy with too much at one time.

Spoilsport! :p

but the important point is that even if you take the bible as written, jesus is big on the qualifiers and short on the functions of messiah. what is the point of saying "see he qualifies!" if he never does what the messiah is supposed to do according to the bible?

Like I say, typical bloke: "Yeah, I'll [paint the fence/bring about world peace], just wait until [the football's finished/the second coming].

I think it wasn't made clear enough yet ...

1. Jesus fulfilled a massive number of Old Testament prophecies... He could not dictate ... his extraordinary type of birth (virgin), or his genealogy (King David, etc.).

And the line is traced through the male. And the one who has nothing to do with Maria's pregnancy is exactly the one you want to trace the line through:

"Born by virgin" AND "genealogy" = FALSE

Like I say, typical bloke: "Yeah, I'll [paint the fence/bring about world peace], just wait until [the football's finished/the second coming].

Hey.... that sounds nothing at all like me... football sucks... Foosball is where it's at.

I think it wasn't made clear enough yet ...



And the line is traced through the male. And the one who has nothing to do with Maria's pregnancy is exactly the one you want to trace the line through:

"Born by virgin" AND "genealogy" = FALSE

Just to let you know, Mattew's genealogy is through Joseph, while Luke's is through Mary. The Greek word Luke used for "Father" is the same one that could be used to depict "Father-in-Law".

That's all. Proceed on your regularly scheduled useless argument.

We're dealing with the traditional Judeo-Christian view of God.

1. Evil exists (i.e., the Devil or Hell)
2. God created everything
3. God is omni-benevolent (all-good)
Therefore, an all-good creator made evil, or the all-good creator doesn't exist.

Basically, why I don't believe in God (at least the Christian view). It's not logical unless you believe he/she/it's a prick.

Edit: I've gotten a couple posts from people saying, "Proof against god? Lmao. Ur an idiot. U cant do that." or, as Indri put it, "It's juvenile dipshits like you that make the rest of us atheists look bad." Since they're not reading my other posts, I have to put the disclaimer here: The title is a PUN. It's in the form of a logical proof, a different definition of proof from what you initially think. I had to do it that way, or no one would have read the post.

Oh, and I'm agnostic, btw. Disbelief is the absence of belief, not the belief in the absence.

Proof against someones interpretation of a deity is not proof against a deity. I'm an agnostic too, although, I suspect I have a slightly different, slightly less glib definition.

Just to let you know, Mattew's genealogy is through Joseph, while Luke's is through Mary. The Greek word Luke used for "Father" is the same one that could be used to depict "Father-in-Law".

That's all. Proceed on your regularly scheduled useless argument.

Wait... there is a contradiction in the book that is the holy word and containing the only truth and only the truth?

Wait... there is a contradiction in the book that is the holy word and containing the only truth and only the truth?

Not sure how a difficulty in translation is a contradiction. You'll notice that, if you look at the lineages, they are different, and Luke is the only one that used a word that can be translated either "father" or "father-in-law".

Just to let you know, Mattew's genealogy is through Joseph, while Luke's is through Mary. The Greek word Luke used for "Father" is the same one that could be used to depict "Father-in-Law".

That's all. Proceed on your regularly scheduled useless argument.

you might want to look at that again. both specifically reference joseph and neither talk about mary.

you might want to look at that again. both specifically reference joseph and neither talk about mary.

Correct, but where it talks about Joseph's "father" in Luke, it could also be translated "Father-in-law".

Just to let you know, Mattew's genealogy is through Joseph, while Luke's is through Mary.
No, Luke explicitly states that he is tracing through Joseph.
The Greek word Luke used for "Father" is the same one that could be used to depict "Father-in-Law".
He doesn't actually use a "word" for Father at all, just a string of genitive-case constructions, Jesus "was supposed to be" of Joseph, who "was" of Heli, who was of [etc. etc.] It is clear that in each case biological, rather than any kind of "legal" or "adoptive", parentage is meant since we have two cases in the genealogy where the biological father differed from the legal father and both times Luke gives the biological (Nathan was "of David", his biological father, although his legal father was Urijah the Hittite; Obed was "of Boaz", his biological father, although his legal father was Mahlon son of Elimelech). The only case where Luke makes a distinction is saying that Jesus "was supposed to be" of Joseph, indicating that this is the one and only time that he is giving a non-biological parent.

Hey.... that sounds nothing at all like me... football sucks... Foosball is where it's at.

Heh, I'm not a really a football fan either. With me it's usually "Just as soon as I've finished this book".

Correct, but where it talks about Joseph's "father" in Luke, it could also be translated "Father-in-law".

i see it saying "son of" not father.

He doesn't actually use a "word" for Father at all, just a string of genitive-case constructions, Jesus "was supposed to be" of Joseph, who "was" of Heli, who was of [etc. etc.] It is clear that in each case biological, rather than any kind of "legal" or "adoptive", parentage is meant since we have two cases in the genealogy where the biological father differed from the legal father and both times Luke gives the biological (Nathan was "of David", his biological father, although his legal father was Urijah the Hittite; Obed was "of Boaz", his biological father, although his legal father was Mahlon son of Elimelech). The only case where Luke makes a distinction is saying that Jesus "was supposed to be" of Joseph, indicating that this is the one and only time that he is giving a non-biological parent.

I meant to say "Son of", but in any case, arguing Greek phraseology is difficult for most of us, and would require far more research than I am willing to invest in an internet thread arguing a point about which no one is going to change their mind, so I surrender that point.

The Jerusalem Talmud also indicates that Mary was the daughter of Heli . If you compare the two genealogies, they don't even have the same father. It is very clear by the language used and the extra information available that Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli, being married to his daughter.

(That's Haggigah, Book 77, 4 - by the way)

EDIT: (Also, it's quite appropriate that Mattew, a tax collector, traced the legal lineage of Jesus, while Luke, a physician, traced the biological lineage of Jesus.)

i see it saying "son of" not father.

You're right of course. It's been a long time since I've studied any of this, and I had it backwards in my mind.

Heh, I'm not a really a football fan either. With me it's usually "Just as soon as I've finished this book".

Is that book the Bible? Because if it is I've got a spoiler for you.... Jesus dies!

On a side note... I once wrote a newspaper article for a school assignment that turned Jesus into Michael Jackson.... I mean look at them... they're the same person!

You're right of course. It's been a long time since I've studied any of this, and I had it backwards in my mind.

of course its only a problem if you are a bible literalist.

of course its only a problem if you are a bible literalist.

Well, naturally... but every time I see someone who has clearly never compared the lineages claim that they are both through Joseph (who apparently had two fathers, according to them), I feel as follows:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

Credit to www.xkcd.com

Well, naturally... but every time I see someone who has clearly never compared the lineages claim that they are both through Joseph (who apparently had two fathers, according to them), I feel as follows:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/duty_calls.png

Credit to www.xkcd.com

They are apparently both through Joseph: that's what the books say. Look at the Greek:

23και αυτος ην ιησους αρχομενος ωσει ετων τριακοντα ων υιος ως ενομιζετο ιωσηφ του ηλι

24του μαθθατ του λευι του μελχι του ιανναι του ιωσηφ

25του ματταθιου του αμως του ναουμ του εσλι του ναγγαι

26του μααθ του ματταθιου του σεμειν του ιωσηχ του ιωδα

27του ιωαναν του ρησα του ζοροβαβελ του σαλαθιηλ του νηρι

28του μελχι του αδδι του κωσαμ του ελμαδαμ του ηρ

29του ιησου του ελιεζερ του ιωριμ του μαθθατ του λευι

30του συμεων του ιουδα του ιωσηφ του ιωναμ του ελιακιμ

31του μελεα του μεννα του ματταθα του ναθαμ του δαυιδ

32του ιεσσαι του ιωβηδ του βοος του σαλα του ναασσων

33του αδμιν του αρνι του εσρωμ του φαρες του ιουδα

34του ιακωβ του ισαακ του αβρααμ του θαρα του ναχωρ

35του σερουχ του ραγαυ του φαλεκ του εβερ του σαλα

36του καιναμ του αρφαξαδ του σημ του νωε του λαμεχ

37του μαθουσαλα του ενωχ του ιαρετ του μαλελεηλ του καιναμ

38του ενως του σηθ του αδαμ του θεου

του basically just means 'of' (it forms the genitive when combined with the correct noun ending). If you can transliterate Greek then you should be able to read the whole list from part way through verse 23 all the way to 38 knowing only the words 'του' and 'θεου' (God, genitive case).

If ιωσηφ του ηλι (lit. Joseph of Heli) means Joseph son in law of Heli then why is exactly the same expression used for σηθ του αδαμ (lit. Seth of Adam)? Who was Seth's father in law?

You cite the Talmud: when was this part written and what was its source? Was the author in a position to know?

The complete divergence of the two geneologies shows only that they were composed independently, it can't be taken to mean that one of them must describe Mary's lineage (in fact the text explicitly goes against that).

The issue is certainly clear, but the evidence is against you, not for you.

You cite the Talmud: when was this part written and what was its source? Was the author in a position to know?

The complete divergence of the two geneologies shows only that they were composed independently, it can't be taken to mean that one of them must describe Mary's lineage (in fact the text explicitly goes against that).

The issue is certainly clear, but the evidence is against you, not for you.

I do not know when and by whom Haggigah was written. It had to have been after Jesus death, because Haggigah is a writing down of what was referred to in Jesus time as the "oral law". It wasn't written down until sometime after that. I will see if I can find it.

We have at least one other occasion where this is used, Manasseh was referred to as the "son of Jair" in Numbers, Deuteronomy, and 1 Kings. However, in Chronicles, it is shown that he is the son-in-law of Jair.

I do not know when and by whom Haggigah was written. It had to have been after Jesus death, because Haggigah is a writing down of what was referred to in Jesus time as the "oral law". It wasn't written down until sometime after that. I will see if I can find it.

We have at least one other occasion where this is used, Manasseh was referred to as the "son of Jair" in Numbers, Deuteronomy, and 1 Kings. However, in Chronicles, it is shown that he is the son-in-law of Jair.

is that in the Septuagint?

is that in the Septuagint?

Haggigah, or Numbers, Deuteronomy, 1 Kings, and Chronicles?

Haggigah, or Numbers, Deuteronomy, 1 Kings, and Chronicles?

the old testament is in hebrew so the example is irrelevant unless you are referring to the greek translation of the OT from before the time of jesus.

the old testament is in hebrew so the example is irrelevant unless you are referring to the greek translation of the OT from before the time of jesus.

I may have backed myself into a corner...

I may have backed myself into a corner...

im glad its you and not me!

im glad its you and not me!

Thanks. It's been too bloody long since I studied any of this stuff. I can't even argue coherently. I walked away from all this too long ago to remember all the arguments.

Not another one...

To summarize what Einstein once said, cold does not exist in itself: it is merely what we call the lack of heat (meaning we can't measure cold, we measure heat). Darkness does not exist in itself: it is what we call the absence of light. And finally, evil does not exist in itself: it is what we call the absence of good.

This argument has been played multiple times. There are plenty of these, and my personal favorite is:

God does not exist because we suffer: if He loved us, He would make everything absolutely perfect! Or at least make the evil suffer and bless the good.

I meant to say "Son of"
There is no word "Son" in there either.
in any case, arguing Greek phraseology is difficult for most of us
What is there is just the "genitive suffix", and if you don't know any Greek, I should be polite enough to explain that this is the equivalent of apostrophe-s in English; literally it says: Jesus was supposedly Joseph's, and Joseph was Heli's... and Nathan was David's, and David was Jesse's, and Jesse was Obed's, and Obed was Boaz's...

The Jerusalem Talmud also indicates that Mary was the daughter of Heli
It mentions a woman named Mary (slightly over 50% of all Jewish women at the time were named "Mary") who lived in Ashdod (on the Philistine coast, quite remote from either Bethlehem or Nazareth) during the reign of Alexander Jennaeus (over a hundred years before Jesus); she was tried for witchcraft and her father was named Eli, which was a common male name, and so it would be surprising if among all the (thousands of) Jewish names mentioned in the Talmud, "Mary daughter of Eli" had never come up. However, this Mary quite obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with the mother of Jesus (Mary the mother of Jesus is mentioned a few times in the Talmud, and called Mary the mugaddelah "hairdresser", which seems to indicate that the Talmudic authors had Mary the mother of Jesus balled up with Mary Magdalene, so what the Talmud has to say about her needs to be taken with a little salt, anyway).
If you compare the two genealogies, they don't even have the same father.
Precisely. This is only one of the many ways in which Matthew and Luke flatly contradict each other. In Matthew, the birth takes place while Judea is still a tributary kingdom (the people paid taxes to Herod; Herod sent tribute to Rome), while in Luke it takes place when the quasi-independent kingship has been abolished, Judea annexed to the province of Syria, and central taxation imposed (this happened a decade after Herod was dead). In Matthew, Joseph and Mary lived in Bethlehem already, and only moved to Nazareth to avoid Herod's son; while in Luke, they were from Nazareth originally, and only made a special trip to Bethlehem because of the census.
It is very clear by the language used and the extra information available that Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli, being married to his daughter.
The exact opposite is clear.
EDIT: (Also, it's quite appropriate that Mattew, a tax collector, traced the legal lineage of Jesus, while Luke, a physician, traced the biological lineage of Jesus.)
No, BOTH of them give biological, not legal, parentage every time the two differ. BOTH call Nathan the son of David (not Urijah), Obed the son of Boaz (not Mahlon).
You probably wanted to say the opposite, anyway: wasn't it your claim that LUKE was giving Joseph a "legal" rather than "biological" father?

We have at least one other occasion where this is used, Manasseh was referred to as the "son of Jair" in Numbers, Deuteronomy, and 1 Kings. However, in Chronicles, it is shown that he is the son-in-law of Jair.

Which verses are you refering to?

Not that it's relevant: in the context of Luke it seems clear that it was charting Joseph's geneology. If you want to contest what the text claims to say then the onus is on you to prove that it's refering to Joseph as 'son in law' in this context.

There is no word "Son" in there either.

What is there is just the "genitive suffix", and if you don't know any Greek, I should be polite enough to explain that this is the equivalent of apostrophe-s in English; literally it says: Jesus was supposedly Joseph's, and Joseph was Heli's... and Nathan was David's, and David was Jesse's, and Jesse was Obed's, and Obed was Boaz's...

It mentions a woman named Mary (slightly over 50% of all Jewish women at the time were named "Mary") who lived in Ashdod (on the Philistine coast, quite remote from either Bethlehem or Nazareth) during the reign of Alexander Jennaeus (over a hundred years before Jesus); she was tried for witchcraft and her father was named Eli, which was a common male name, and so it would be surprising if among all the (thousands of) Jewish names mentioned in the Talmud, "Mary daughter of Eli" had never come up. However, this Mary quite obviously has nothing whatsoever to do with the mother of Jesus (Mary the mother of Jesus is mentioned a few times in the Talmud, and called Mary the mugaddelah "hairdresser", which seems to indicate that the Talmudic authors had Mary the mother of Jesus balled up with Mary Magdalene, so what the Talmud has to say about her needs to be taken with a little salt, anyway).

Precisely. This is only one of the many ways in which Matthew and Luke flatly contradict each other. In Matthew, the birth takes place while Judea is still a tributary kingdom (the people paid taxes to Herod; Herod sent tribute to Rome), while in Luke it takes place when the quasi-independent kingship has been abolished, Judea annexed to the province of Syria, and central taxation imposed (this happened a decade after Herod was dead). In Matthew, Joseph and Mary lived in Bethlehem already, and only moved to Nazareth to avoid Herod's son; while in Luke, they were from Nazareth originally, and only made a special trip to Bethlehem because of the census.

The exact opposite is clear.

No, BOTH of them give biological, not legal, parentage every time the two differ. BOTH call Nathan the son of David (not Urijah), Obed the son of Boaz (not Mahlon).
You probably wanted to say the opposite, anyway: wasn't it your claim that LUKE was giving Joseph a "legal" rather than "biological" father?

Nice. Much clearer and more detailed than anything I've written.

Rule #3: ???
Rule #4: Profit

... don't take MY underpants...

You can't prove a negative.

You either have evidence in favor of a hypothesis or no evidence to support the hypothesis. You can't have evidence against a hypothesis.

Couldn't agree more,
read up on Popper pls. (original poster)

Have to say though, you have free will. (as in the Bible) I don't see how you can have that without having the ability of evil.

Oh, I'm UU, so not really invested

Here's a question I've got to ask. People who believe in the Bible and God... why is it that you are so willing to believe in God but not in actual witches or even demons? Though the bible clearly state both exist. Furthermore. No one has debunked or argued my point... Why would anyone want to follow a guy who impregnated his own mother?

Simple math session:

God impregnated Mary, Mary is Jesus mother, Jesus is believed not only to be the son of God but God himself by many.

If Jesus is simply the Son of God this makes him a God in his own right and the Christian and Catholic religions are WRONG in calling God the One True God. I would also think that the Holy Spirit is not God but like Jesus is related to God and is another God which means the One True God actually is Three Gods.

Or, alternatively, God, the Holy Spirit, and Jesus are all different aspects of a One True God and thus Jesus impregnated Mary. Which, in my opinion, is disgusting and wrong.

I've heard so many arguments against that simple statement. Which isn't just logical, but is actually what the Bible says and what people believe. "Oh well Jesus is the Son of God but he is God because God's his father and he has his DNA." That is nonsense. Having your father's DNA does not make you your father. "Well even if Jesus did impregnate Mary it's not like there was sex." No, there wasn't. But I certainly wouldn't want to impregnate MY mother, regardless of sex being involved or not. "Well, Jesus was just God's incarnation on Earth and so he wasn't really involved in the impregnation thing." See above. That means Jesus was God. Which means he still did it.. even if he didn't remember doing it.

There is no way that you can argue that there is only the One True God and maintain that Jesus did not impregnate his mother. Either there's more then this One True God or Jesus impregnated his mother. You can't have it both ways.

Let's see anyone dispute that.

Couldn't agree more,
read up on Popper pls. (original poster)

But you can prove a negative, watch:

1. If A then B.
2. Not B
3. Therefore Not A

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

Similarly, the complete absense of elephant dung, trampled victims and general destruction is strong evidence against there having been a stampede of elephants down my road five minutes ago. It may not be 100% proof (maybe the elephants were small, timid and constipated...) but it is evidence against a hypothesis.

the old testament is in hebrew so the example is irrelevant unless you are referring to the greek translation of the OT from before the time of jesus.translation? was there a written jewish scripture before the septuagint? there is no evidence for that supposition yet.

translation? was there a written jewish scripture before the septuagint? there is no evidence for that supposition yet.

just keeping it simple. i didnt want to overload his brain with too much info.

Wasn't there this book called the Old Testament that sort of said God was an ass hole?

Just making sure, is all.

Wasn't there this book called the Old Testament that sort of said God was an ass hole?

Just making sure, is all.

it certainly did not!

but its a common inference.

Nun: You don't believe in God because of Alice in Wonderland?
Loki: No, "Through the Looking Glass". That poem, "The Walrus and the Carpenter" that's an indictment of organized religion. The walrus, with his girth and his good nature, he obviously represents either Buddha, or... or with his tusk, the Hindu elephant god, Lord Ganesha. That takes care of your Eastern religions. Now the carpenter, which is an obvious reference to Jesus Christ, who was raised a carpenter's son, he represents the Western religions. Now in the poem, what do they do... what do they do? They... They dupe all these oysters into following them and then proceed to shuck and devour the helpless creatures en masse. I don't know what that says to you, but to me it says that following these faiths based on mythological figures ensure the destruction of one's inner-being. Organized religion destroys who we are by inhibiting our actions... by inhibiting our decisions, out of... out of fear of some... some intangible parent figure who... who shakes a finger at us from thousands of years ago and says... and says, "Do it - Do it and I'll fuckin' spank you."

Wasn't there this book called the Old Testament that sort of said God was an ass hole?Well, it does not explicitly say so, but it does in fact describe it thusly.

Wasn't there this book called the Old Testament that sort of said God was an ass hole?

Just making sure, is all.

There's quite a range of views in the Tanach about the nature and character of God, with some accounts portraying him as detached and vengeful and others describing a more anthropic, merciful deity. But yeah, he is an asshole in a lot of them...

translation? was there a written jewish scripture before the septuagint? there is no evidence for that supposition yet.

We can estimate the date of writing for many books in the Jewish Bible through Higher Criticism, and there certainly seems to be material in there that pre-dates the writing of the Septuagint by centuries.

EDIT: at the very least we can dismiss the idea that it was all written at the same time because some material was clearly written in response to other, earlier material.

Nun: You don't believe in God because of Alice in Wonderland?
Loki: No, "Through the Looking Glass". That poem, "The Walrus and the Carpenter" that's an indictment of organized religion. The walrus, with his girth and his good nature, he obviously represents either Buddha, or... or with his tusk, the Hindu elephant god, Lord Ganesha. That takes care of your Eastern religions. Now the carpenter, which is an obvious reference to Jesus Christ, who was raised a carpenter's son, he represents the Western religions. Now in the poem, what do they do... what do they do? They... They dupe all these oysters into following them and then proceed to shuck and devour the helpless creatures en masse. I don't know what that says to you, but to me it says that following these faiths based on mythological figures ensure the destruction of one's inner-being. Organized religion destroys who we are by inhibiting our actions... by inhibiting our decisions, out of... out of fear of some... some intangible parent figure who... who shakes a finger at us from thousands of years ago and says... and says, "Do it - Do it and I'll fuckin' spank you."

Loki is my lord and savior.

But you can prove a negative, watch:



Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

Similarly, the complete absense of elephant dung, trampled victims and general destruction is strong evidence against there having been a stampede of elephants down my road five minutes ago. It may not be 100% proof (maybe the elephants were small, timid and constipated...) but it is evidence against a hypothesis.

Yay modus tollens!

Nun: You don't believe in God because of Alice in Wonderland?
Loki: No, "Through the Looking Glass". That poem, "The Walrus and the Carpenter" that's an indictment of organized religion. The walrus, with his girth and his good nature, he obviously represents either Buddha, or... or with his tusk, the Hindu elephant god, Lord Ganesha. That takes care of your Eastern religions. Now the carpenter, which is an obvious reference to Jesus Christ, who was raised a carpenter's son, he represents the Western religions. Now in the poem, what do they do... what do they do? They... They dupe all these oysters into following them and then proceed to shuck and devour the helpless creatures en masse. I don't know what that says to you, but to me it says that following these faiths based on mythological figures ensure the destruction of one's inner-being. Organized religion destroys who we are by inhibiting our actions... by inhibiting our decisions, out of... out of fear of some... some intangible parent figure who... who shakes a finger at us from thousands of years ago and says... and says, "Do it - Do it and I'll fuckin' spank you."

http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1307/1242724652_819e267f7b_m.jpg

I think it is more probable that you are misunderstanding just what claims I am making.

However, yes that is just what I say, that which we call suffering, God may not see in the same light.
oh?

your claim is that omnibenevolence is compatible with wanting people to suffer?That is not my claim at all. What makes you think it is?

I'm not even going to attempt to show how children starving to death is a good thing, obviousely because I don't view it as such.

if children starving to death isn't a good thing (or at least the best possible thing), then the problem of evil is still staring right at you, demanding answer.

Staying on that point though, there are some people out there that will say it is a good thing due to the already overpopulation of the planet, so even amongst our own species suffering is realtive.

it is not relative. anyone who thinks death by starvation to decrease the surplus population is a good thing just doesn't care about suffering. they are not omnibenevolent. in fact, they are fucking jackasses.

We can estimate the date of writing for many books in the Jewish Bible through Higher Criticism, and there certainly seems to be material in there that pre-dates the writing of the Septuagint by centuries.There are no material pieces of theological text available that predate the Septuagint. No stone inscriptions, no papyri, nothing. There is only one stone bearing a text fragment mentioning YHVH from the 9th century BCE, but is in no way certain that this represents the same theological concept of YHVH as it was rendered by the authors of the Septuagint or later jewish tales. As a matter of fact all available material hints that in times prior to the 9th century BCE (i.e. the times of David and Solomon, the Judges era, the Wandering and Conquest era, the Sojourn in Egypt, and all the history of the patriarchs right down to Cush, Ham, and Noah, even Enoch and Cain) Yah was worshiped by the Israelites (≠Jews) and some Hebrew clans (≠Jews) just like he was worshiped by everyone else in the Middle East (cf. Enki/Ea/Yah). The Septuagint, written by "Jews" in Egypt, is more or less the true birth of Jewishness and apparently of Judaism, as an arbitrary mixture of much older, non-jewish traditions, tales, and beliefs.

if children starving to death isn't a good thing (or at least the best possible thing), then the problem of evil is still staring right at you, demanding answer.

it is not relative. anyone who thinks death by starvation to decrease the surplus population is a good thing just doesn't care about suffering. they are not omnibenevolent. in fact, they are fucking jackasses.

nooo its not starvation, free, its lack of nutrition. just like evil is the absense of good, hunger is the absense of food.

which all some how makes it not god's fault.

We're dealing with the traditional Judeo-Christian view of God.

1. Evil exists (i.e., the Devil or Hell)
2. God created everything
3. God is omni-benevolent (all-good)
Therefore, an all-good creator made evil, or the all-good creator doesn't exist.
Try this on for size (sizing the Judeo-Christian myth):
1. Evil exists (i.e., the Devil or Hell)
2. God created everything
3. God is omni-benevolent (all-good)
4. Evil is good.

DID YOU KNOW THESE FACTS?

I SURE DIDN'T TILL NOW

Death is certain but the Bible speaks about untimely death!

Make a personal reflection about this.....

Very interesting, read until the end.....

It is written in the Bible (Galatians 6:7):

"Be not deceived; God is not mocked:

for whatsoever a man sow,

that shall he also reap.


Here are some men and women

who mocked God :

John Lennon (Singer):

Some years before, during his interview with an American Magazine, he said:

"Christianity will end, it will disappear.

I do not have to argue about

that. I am certain.

Jesus was ok, but his subjects were too simple, today we are more famous than Him" (1966).

Lennon, after saying that the Beatles were more famous than Jesus Christ, was shot six times.

Tancredo Neves (President of Brazil ):

During the Presidential campaign, he said if he got 500,000 votes from his party, not even God would remove him from Presidency.

Sure he got the votes, but he got sick a day before being made President, then he died.

Cazuza (Bi-sexual Brazilian composer, singer and poet):

During A show in Canecio ( Rio de Janeiro ),

while smoking his cigarette, he puffed out some smoke into the air and said:"God, that's for you."

He died at the age of 32 of LUNG CANCER in a horrible manner.

The man who built the Titanic

After the construction of Titanic, a reporter asked him how safe the Titanic would be.

With an ironic tone he said:

"Not even God can sink it"

The result: I think you all know what happened to the Titanic

Marilyn Monroe (Actress)

She was visited by Billy Graham during a presentation of a show.

He said the Spirit of God had sent him to preach to her.

After hearing what the Preacher had to say, she said:

"I don't need your Jesus".

A week later, she was found dead in her apartment

Bon Scott (Singer)

The ex-vocalist of the AC/DC. On one of his 1979 songs he sang:

"Don't stop me; I'm going down all the way, down the highway to hell".

On the 19th of February 1980 , Bon Scott was found dead, he had been choked by his own vomit.

Campinas (IN 2005)

In Campinas , Brazil a group of friends, drunk, went to pick up a friend.....

The mother accompanied her to the car and was so worried about the drunkenness of her friends and she said to the daughter holding her hand, who was already seated in the car:

"My Daughter, Go With God And May He Protect You."

She responded: "Only If He (God) Travels In The Trunk, Cause Inside Here.....It's Already Full "

Hours later, news came by that they had been involved in a fatal accident, everyone had died,

the car could not be recognized what type of car it had been, but surprisingly, the trunk was intact.

The police said there was no way the trunk could have remained intact. To their surprise, inside the trunk was a crate of eggs, none was broken

Christine Hewitt (Jamaican Journalist and entertainer)
said the Bible (Word of God) was the worst book ever written.

In June 2006 she was found burnt beyond recognition in her motor vehicle.

Sigh.

When will people learn: God not only exists, but I am he.

Sigh.

When will people learn: God not only exists, but I am he.
Did you do this then (http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2151/678/1600/God%20Spilled%20the%20Paint.jpg)?

Did you do this then (http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/2151/678/1600/God%20Spilled%20the%20Paint.jpg)?

No, I left that to one of my more artisticly inclined angels.

DID YOU KNOW THESE FACTS?

I SURE DIDN'T TILL NOW

Death is certain but the Bible speaks about untimely death!

Make a personal reflection about this.....

Very interesting, read until the end.....

It is written in the Bible (Galatians 6:7):

"Be not deceived; God is not mocked:

for whatsoever a man sow,

that shall he also reap.


Here are some men and women

who mocked God :

John Lennon (Singer):

Some years before, during his interview with an American Magazine, he said:

"Christianity will end, it will disappear.

I do not have to argue about

that. I am certain.

Jesus was ok, but his subjects were too simple, today we are more famous than Him" (1966).

Lennon, after saying that the Beatles were more famous than Jesus Christ, was shot six times.

Tancredo Neves (President of Brazil ):

During the Presidential campaign, he said if he got 500,000 votes from his party, not even God would remove him from Presidency.

Sure he got the votes, but he got sick a day before being made President, then he died.

Cazuza (Bi-sexual Brazilian composer, singer and poet):

During A show in Canecio ( Rio de Janeiro ),

while smoking his cigarette, he puffed out some smoke into the air and said:"God, that's for you."

He died at the age of 32 of LUNG CANCER in a horrible manner.

The man who built the Titanic

After the construction of Titanic, a reporter asked him how safe the Titanic would be.

With an ironic tone he said:

"Not even God can sink it"

The result: I think you all know what happened to the Titanic

Marilyn Monroe (Actress)

She was visited by Billy Graham during a presentation of a show.

He said the Spirit of God had sent him to preach to her.

After hearing what the Preacher had to say, she said:

"I don't need your Jesus".

A week later, she was found dead in her apartment

Bon Scott (Singer)

The ex-vocalist of the AC/DC. On one of his 1979 songs he sang:

"Don't stop me; I'm going down all the way, down the highway to hell".

On the 19th of February 1980 , Bon Scott was found dead, he had been choked by his own vomit.

Campinas (IN 2005)

In Campinas , Brazil a group of friends, drunk, went to pick up a friend.....

The mother accompanied her to the car and was so worried about the drunkenness of her friends and she said to the daughter holding her hand, who was already seated in the car:

"My Daughter, Go With God And May He Protect You."

She responded: "Only If He (God) Travels In The Trunk, Cause Inside Here.....It's Already Full "

Hours later, news came by that they had been involved in a fatal accident, everyone had died,

the car could not be recognized what type of car it had been, but surprisingly, the trunk was intact.

The police said there was no way the trunk could have remained intact. To their surprise, inside the trunk was a crate of eggs, none was broken

Christine Hewitt (Jamaican Journalist and entertainer)
said the Bible (Word of God) was the worst book ever written.

In June 2006 she was found burnt beyond recognition in her motor vehicle.

I have continuously mocked God at every turn of my life. I am unrepentant. I will say this. GOD CAN'T KILL ME! You hear that God?! You can't kill me. Nanannana.

...

wow. just...wow.

*snip*Source and evidence?

wow. just...wow.

Just a stupid copypasta. Celebrities lead fucked up lives.

snip

As has been said, silly copypasta.

However, what you're saying is that if you're disrespectful to God he kills you.

Now, it seems that the current slant of the thread was something about... what was the word... benevolence?

Are you serious? Please tell me this is a joke.

DID YOU KNOW THESE FACTS?

I SURE DIDN'T TILL NOW

Death is certain but the Bible speaks about untimely death!

Make a personal reflection about this.....

Very interesting, read until the end.....

It is written in the Bible (Galatians 6:7):

"Be not deceived; God is not mocked:

for whatsoever a man sow,

that shall he also reap.


Here are some men and women

who mocked God :

John Lennon (Singer):

Some years before, during his interview with an American Magazine, he said:

"Christianity will end, it will disappear.

I do not have to argue about

that. I am certain.

Jesus was ok, but his subjects were too simple, today we are more famous than Him" (1966).

Lennon, after saying that the Beatles were more famous than Jesus Christ, was shot six times.

Yes, fourteen fucking years later. You can't even get the most basic facts right: he was shot four times (http://johnlennon.tribe.net/thread/eff7a05b-e687-4bb4-be00-3a9ce8aa7396) (a fifth shot missed), not six.

Tancredo Neves (President of Brazil ):

During the Presidential campaign, he said if he got 500,000 votes from his party, not even God would remove him from Presidency.

Sure he got the votes, but he got sick a day before being made President, then he died.

Wow, so God intervenes to kill politicians for using hyperbole but he's cool with Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin etc. That's a great deity you've got there.

Cazuza (Bi-sexual Brazilian composer, singer and poet):

During A show in Canecio ( Rio de Janeiro ),

while smoking his cigarette, he puffed out some smoke into the air and said:"God, that's for you."

He died at the age of 32 of LUNG CANCER in a horrible manner.

Gosh, a smoker dying of lung cancer. I can't see any natural explanation for that... :rolleyes: I love bigotted little way you slipped 'bi-sexual' in there.

The man who built the Titanic

After the construction of Titanic, a reporter asked him how safe the Titanic would be.

With an ironic tone he said:

"Not even God can sink it"

The result: I think you all know what happened to the Titanic

Yes, it sank during its maiden voyage killing 1,517 innocent people. But hey, if God felt that the size of his divine wang was in question then I suppose he didn't have any choice. :rolleyes:

I must say though I'd like to have heard about the man who built the Titanic: I'd assumed it'd taken thousands of people but I guess he must have worked hard...

I'm heard that quotation thrown around a lot, but never with a reliable source. It seems to be an urban legend.

Marilyn Monroe (Actress)

She was visited by Billy Graham during a presentation of a show.

He said the Spirit of God had sent him to preach to her.

After hearing what the Preacher had to say, she said:

"I don't need your Jesus".

A week later, she was found dead in her apartment

Source on the Billy Graham claim?

As Marilyn apparently killed herself I'm not sure how this fits in with divine retribution...

Bon Scott (Singer)

The ex-vocalist of the AC/DC. On one of his 1979 songs he sang:

"Don't stop me; I'm going down all the way, down the highway to hell".

On the 19th of February 1980 , Bon Scott was found dead, he had been choked by his own vomit.

And the other two people who wrote and performed the song are still alive (not to mention hideously rich). Still, I suppose consistency is the hobgoblin of lesser minds.


Campinas (IN 2005)

In Campinas , Brazil a group of friends, drunk, went to pick up a friend.....

The mother accompanied her to the car and was so worried about the drunkenness of her friends and she said to the daughter holding her hand, who was already seated in the car:

"My Daughter, Go With God And May He Protect You."

She responded: "Only If He (God) Travels In The Trunk, Cause Inside Here.....It's Already Full "

Hours later, news came by that they had been involved in a fatal accident, everyone had died,

the car could not be recognized what type of car it had been, but surprisingly, the trunk was intact.

The police said there was no way the trunk could have remained intact. To their surprise, inside the trunk was a crate of eggs, none was broken

Gosh, some drunk teenagers crash a car? It must be a miracle!

Christine Hewitt (Jamaican Journalist and entertainer)
said the Bible (Word of God) was the worst book ever written.

In June 2006 she was found burnt beyond recognition in her motor vehicle.

Never heard of her.

I don't know what's more pathetic: that you believe this shit or that you think it's evidence of a benevolent god. If you think that a throw-away remark is enough to justify the horrible death of a carful of teenagers or hundreds of people on the Titanic then you are a without a doubt one of the sickest people I've ever had the misfortune to encounter.

As has been said, silly copypasta.

However, what you're saying is that if you're disrespectful to God he kills you.

Now, it seems that the current slant of the thread was something about... what was the word... benevolence?

Benevolence doesn't mean lack of order or justice. Think of how we use the term "benevolent dictatorship", not "benevolent anarchy".

There are no material pieces of theological text available that predate the Septuagint. No stone inscriptions, no papyri, nothing. There is only one stone bearing a text fragment mentioning YHVH from the 9th century BCE, but is in no way certain that this represents the same theological concept of YHVH as it was rendered by the authors of the Septuagint or later jewish tales. As a matter of fact all available material hints that in times prior to the 9th century BCE (i.e. the times of David and Solomon, the Judges era, the Wandering and Conquest era, the Sojourn in Egypt, and all the history of the patriarchs right down to Cush, Ham, and Noah, even Enoch and Cain) Yah was worshiped by the Israelites (≠Jews) and some Hebrew clans (≠Jews) just like he was worshiped by everyone else in the Middle East (cf. Enki/Ea/Yah).

Quite probably.

The Septuagint, written by "Jews" in Egypt, is more or less the true birth of Jewishness and apparently of Judaism, as an arbitrary mixture of much older, non-jewish traditions, tales, and beliefs.

Are you suggesting that these beliefs and traditions were never previously written down? As I said, we can dismiss the idea that the whole thing was written in one go because parts of it were written in response to other parts, so there must have been some writings pre-dating the Septuagint, even before we look at textual evidence for a more precise dating.

Benevolence doesn't mean lack of order or justice. Think of how we use the term "benevolent dictatorship", not "benevolent anarchy".

Are you suggesting that a dictatorship which kills all who dare to question the state could be considered benevolent?

If the illusion that is God killed people for disrespecting him, I certainly wouldn't be here, posting this. Of course we could just attribute my survival to my extreme lightning dodging ability.:p:cool:

Are you suggesting that these beliefs and traditions were never previously written down? As I said, we can dismiss the idea that the whole thing was written in one go because parts of it were written in response to other parts, so there must have been some writings pre-dating the Septuagint, even before we look at textual evidence for a more precise dating.Well, there is no reason to believe that texts that predate the Septuagint by more than two or three centuries would render the same image of "god" as (pre-talmudic) Judaism later does. One has to distinguish between the historic account and the theological account that the Tanakh conveys. Jewish scripture is a theologically interpreted and streamlined interpretation of history and a projection of later jewish views and beliefs into a fantastical past, and the authors of the Septuagint had a once-in-a-millennium chance to write down their version of history in the new rather open-minded and unsuspecting environment of Hellenistic Egypt.

Couple points...

A) God did not create evil. Evil created itself... Lucifer, first of the arch angels if you beleive this kind of stuff, willingly disobeyed god and when he was punished became bitter and eventually his personality warped until he became evil. God with its 'infinate benevelance' could not come to destroy Lucifer. Evil created itself.

B) You can disprove it all you want.. in the end its all based on faith and those things are very hard to change.

C) Assuming there is a god... it gave us all freedom of choice. The movie 'Time Bandits' makes this point toward the end. How could one have freedom to choose thier own way if there isnothing to choose from.

Sorry man but you have really showed people nothing.

Well, there is no reason to believe that texts that predate the Septuagint by more than two or three centuries would render the same image of "god" as (pre-talmudic) Judaism later does. One has to distinguish between the historic account and the theological account that the Tanakh conveys. Jewish scripture is a theologically interpreted and streamlined interpretation of history and a projection of later jewish views and beliefs into a fantastical past, and the authors of the Septuagint had a once-in-a-millennium chance to write down their version of history in the new rather open-minded and unsuspecting environment of Hellenistic Egypt.

which, like the new testament, is only a problem for bible literalists.

it seems obvious to me that even if the authors of the septaguint were using written copies of the various texts, the change from hebrew to greek would entail changes that reflect the biases of the translators.

at a minimum.

there is no way to know what changes might have been included since we dont know what those hebrew texts (that probably did exist) said.

Couple points...

A) God did not create evil. Evil created itself... Lucifer, first of the arch angels if you beleive this kind of stuff, willingly disobeyed god and when he was punished became bitter and eventually his personality warped until he became evil. God with its 'infinate benevelance' could not come to destroy Lucifer. Evil created itself.

B) You can disprove it all you want.. in the end its all based on faith and those things are very hard to change.

C) Assuming there is a god... it gave us all freedom of choice. The movie 'Time Bandits' makes this point toward the end. How could one have freedom to choose thier own way if there isnothing to choose from.

Sorry man but you have really showed people nothing.

he still created evil. he created everything. you arent supposing that lucifer created himself and thus is a kind of co-equal to god are you?

Will you all just shut the fuck up! None of you will ever be able to prove it one way or the other

he still created evil. he created everything. you arent supposing that lucifer created himself and thus is a kind of co-equal to god are you?

I provided two theories here. The first thoery being that god did not create evil, he created angels, beings who much like humans could make thier own choices though their ultimate purpose was to serve god. One of them in particuler willingly disobeyed god and as such was no longer allowed to bask in the holy radiance that is god or whatever. When that happened he became angry and let it consume him... making him evil beause of his blind rage toward god he attempts to sway humans to harm one another and undermine god.

The second thoery I presented stated that yes god did create evil, he created it because it would be just plain stupid to make a race of people and tell them "You have a choice, you can choose from worshipping me and living as I say.. or uhm.. well... I guess thats about it."

Well, there is no reason to believe that texts that predate the Septuagint by more than two or three centuries would render the same image of "god" as (pre-talmudic) Judaism later does. One has to distinguish between the historic account and the theological account that the Tanakh conveys. Jewish scripture is a theologically interpreted and streamlined interpretation of history and a projection of later jewish views and beliefs into a fantastical past, and the authors of the Septuagint had a once-in-a-millennium chance to write down their version of history in the new rather open-minded and unsuspecting environment of Hellenistic Egypt.

It's certainly dubious history but I think you're overstepping the mark with regard to how much original material survived the translation. Conflicting viewpoints on the nature and character of God survive in the modern Torah, contrasting the anthropic, merciful god of those parts classified as the Yahwist to the detached, vengeful god of the Priestly source. I'd argue that we can actually see the transition from henotheism to monotheism through the early books, and the story of God (previously referred to as Elohim) revealing his name 'Yahweh' to the Hebrews sounds like a propagandistic piece written to reconcile worshippers of El and Yah by proposing that they were simply different names for the same God (much as the Romans identified local gods with their own to integrate the natives).

I provided two theories here. The first thoery being that god did not create evil, he created angels, beings who much like humans could make thier own choices though their ultimate purpose was to serve god. One of them in particuler willingly disobeyed god and as such was no longer allowed to bask in the holy radiance that is god or whatever. When that happened he became angry and let it consume him... making him evil beause of his blind rage toward god he attempts to sway humans to harm one another and undermine god.

The second thoery I presented stated that yes god did create evil, he created it because it would be just plain stupid to make a race of people and tell them "You have a choice, you can choose from worshipping me and living as I say.. or uhm.. well... I guess thats about it."

well the first one is silly and the second one is inadequate.

not all bad things that happen to people are the result of free will. famine, natural disasters and horrible diseases cannot be put at the feet of human free will.

god did not give us the free will to fly like a bird. are we hampered by that? HE is the one who decided that we have the free will to torture babies. that could have been left out and we still would have had plenty of free will to go around.

i dont see whats so attractive about an omnibenevolent god anyway. its obviously not true and not necessary to notion of god existing.

I have continuously mocked God at every turn of my life. I am unrepentant. I will say this. GOD CAN'T KILL ME! You hear that God?! You can't kill me. Nanannana.
So you believe in God but just have no respect for Him?

Are you serious? Please tell me this is a joke.



Yes, fourteen fucking years later. You can't even get the most basic facts right: he was shot four times (http://johnlennon.tribe.net/thread/eff7a05b-e687-4bb4-be00-3a9ce8aa7396) (a fifth shot missed), not six.



Wow, so God intervenes to kill politicians for using hyperbole but he's cool with Hitler, Pol Pot, Stalin etc. That's a great deity you've got there.



Gosh, a smoker dying of lung cancer. I can't see any natural explanation for that... :rolleyes: I love bigotted little way you slipped 'bi-sexual' in there.



Yes, it sank during its maiden voyage killing 1,517 innocent people. But hey, if God felt that the size of his divine wang was in question then I suppose he didn't have any choice. :rolleyes:

I must say though I'd like to have heard about the man who built the Titanic: I'd assumed it'd taken thousands of people but I guess he must have worked hard...

I'm heard that quotation thrown around a lot, but never with a reliable source. It seems to be an urban legend.



Source on the Billy Graham claim?

As Marilyn apparently killed herself I'm not sure how this fits in with divine retribution...



And the other two people who wrote and performed the song are still alive (not to mention hideously rich). Still, I suppose consistency is the hobgoblin of lesser minds.




Gosh, some drunk teenagers crash a car? It must be a miracle!



Never heard of her.

I don't know what's more pathetic: that you believe this shit or that you think it's evidence of a benevolent god. If you think that a throw-away remark is enough to justify the horrible death of a carful of teenagers or hundreds of people on the Titanic then you are a without a doubt one of the sickest people I've ever had the misfortune to encounter.
The article was meant to be thought provoking. I guess your thoughts were provoked to the extent that you provided your own rationalizations and justifications for the benevolence or lack thereof of God, and take a swipe at my character to boot.

Source and evidence?
Source.....internet email.

Evidence will be provided when you provide yours. :D

The article was meant to be thought provoking.

the only thought that provoked is "what are you, fucking stupid?"

was this your intention?

I'm smarter, wiser, more decent, more famous, and otherwise better than God in every respect. I'm invincible, and even God can't kill me.

Bring it on.

the only thought that provoked is "what are you, fucking stupid?"

was this your intention?
Well my friend we can't all be as intelligent as you. :p

I'm smarter, wiser, more decent, more famous, and otherwise better than God in every respect. I'm invincible, and even God can't kill me.

Bring it on.


*Hawk places sights over Soheran's head*
"uh huh?"



lmao

The article was meant to be thought provoking. I guess your thoughts were provoked to the extent that you provided your own rationalizations and justifications for the benevolence or lack thereof of God, and take a swipe at my character to boot.

Heheheheheh thought provoking . . . .um . . . .basically you took a bunch of examples where people were killed horribly and tried to use them to prove that god exists . . .. .ya that is definately "thought provoking" alright . . . .if thats how you see god I want no part of it.

We're dealing with the traditional Judeo-Christian view of God.

1. Evil exists (i.e., the Devil or Hell)
2. God created everything
3. God is omni-benevolent (all-good)
Therefore, an all-good creator made evil, or the all-good creator doesn't exist.

Basically, why I don't believe in God (at least the Christian view). It's not logical unless you believe he/she/it's a prick.

Edit: I've gotten a couple posts from people saying, "Proof against god? Lmao. Ur an idiot. U cant do that." or, as Indri put it, "It's juvenile dipshits like you that make the rest of us atheists look bad." Since they're not reading my other posts, I have to put the disclaimer here: The title is a PUN. It's in the form of a logical proof, a different definition of proof from what you initially think. I had to do it that way, or no one would have read the post.

Oh, and I'm agnostic, btw. Disbelief is the absence of belief, not the belief in the absence.

No, because evil is all that exists in the world, it is the absence of good, god created good, but some who still resist him have none of his love and therefore have evil.

I'm smarter, wiser, more decent, more famous, and otherwise better than God in every respect. I'm invincible, and even God can't kill me.

Bring it on.

What about chuck norris (http://Chuck_Norris.justgotowned.com)?

Well my friend we can't all be as intelligent as you. :p

but we can at least try.

honestly, the existence of a single atheist who dies of old age makes your shit ridiculous.

No, because evil is all that exists in the world, it is the absence of good, god created good, but some who still resist him have none of his love and therefore have evil.

so, unlike the suggestion of jesus, god only loves those who love him?

The article was meant to be thought provoking. I guess your thoughts were provoked to the extent that you provided your own rationalizations and justifications for the benevolence or lack thereof of God, and take a swipe at my character to boot.

You call that diatribe an article? Oddly enough, the only thoughts that are provoked in me when someone gloats over the painful deaths of innocent people are "you sick piece of filth" followed closely by "how can anyone be this stupid?"

but we can at least try.

honestly, the existence of a single atheist who dies of old age makes your shit ridiculous.

Not to mention that, in the case of John Lennon, divine retribution took sixteen years to take effect after the offending comment...

Not to mention that, in the case of John Lennon, divine retribution took sixteen years to take effect after the offending comment...

HEY

god works in his own time.

sooner or later everyone who blaphemes god DIES.

you know thats true.

NOW do you believe in god?

Not to mention that, in the case of John Lennon, divine retribution took sixteen years to take effect after the offending comment...

well, i'm pretty sure there is some line somewhere about the equivalence of a hundred years to a single god day. so, like maybe he was on the phone or something.

HEY

god works in his own time.

sooner or later everyone who blaphemes god DIES.

you know thats true.

NOW do you believe in god?

well, i'm pretty sure there is some line somewhere about the equivalence of a hundred years to a single god day. so, like maybe he was on the phone or something.

:p

You would have thought He would come up with something original though if he wanted to make a point: giving a smoker lung cancer or causing some drunken teenagers to crash a car isn't exactly miraculous. Now, if He turned the world's most prominent atheists into pigs and gave everyone else a new barbeque set then I'd sit up and take notice.

I'm smarter, wiser, more decent, more famous, and otherwise better than God in every respect. I'm invincible, and even God can't kill me.

Bring it on.
But God's not a virgin. He has a leg up on you there.

:p

You would have thought He would come up with something original though if he wanted to make a point: giving a smoker lung cancer or causing some drunken teenagers to crash a car isn't exactly miraculous. Now, if He turned the world's most prominent atheists into pigs and gave everyone else a new barbeque set then I'd sit up and take notice.

i would SOOO become a believer then. i love pork bbq!

HEY

god works in his own time.

sooner or later everyone who blaphemes god DIES.

you know thats true.

NOW do you believe in god?

But everyone who believes in god DIES!

The bible is the worst book ever written.

C'mon, big guy. Smite me.

so, unlike the suggestion of jesus, god only loves those who love him?that's basically the message of the bible, yes. the deal is submission for "love". what a pile of horseshit, huh :rolleyes:

But everyone who believes in god DIES!

uhhhhhh....


mere techincality.

that's basically the message of the bible, yes. the deal is submission for "love". what a pile of horseshit, huh :rolleyes:

the bible does speak against the idea that god loves everyone.

You stated yourself that from the christian point of view are those things real. But then it is only to the christians that the loss of god can occuer. But if you change two fundamental ideas of just exactly what god is, then the statements no longer holds up.
1. God is everything.

2.There is a reason that God created evil.

You see then we still have room for the logic in God's existence, just not if we were a christian, or atleast your average christian.

But everyone who believes in god DIES!

but at the second coming they shall rise and walk again, as a zombie horde.

btw, what is up with christianity and zombies?

the bible does speak against the idea that god loves everyone.
isn't that what i said?

isn't that what i said?

i believe it is.

what? you dont like somoene agreeing with you?

There isn't any problem or contradiction at all. There can be no good without evil, there is no chance of salvation without the risk of damnation. Grow up and stop pretending that solid philosophy is superstition.

There can be no good without evil

yes, there can - all you need is to be able to conceive of the negation of good.

and even if this were true, that just means you would need an example of evil. what you actually have is an unbelievably staggering amount of horrific suffering that has gone on for all of humanity's existence and which would be trivially easy for even a relatively powerful (to say nothing of omnipotent) being to do away with completely.

There isn't any problem or contradiction at all. There can be no good without evil, there is no chance of salvation without the risk of damnation. Grow up and stop pretending that solid philosophy is superstition.

so youre saying that the problem with the OPs syllogism is that he made a mistake--god is not omnibenevolent?

DID YOU KNOW THESE FACTS?

I SURE DIDN'T TILL NOW

Death is certain but the Bible speaks about untimely death!

Make a personal reflection about this.....

Very interesting, read until the end.....

It is written in the Bible (Galatians 6:7):

"Be not deceived; God is not mocked:

for whatsoever a man sow,

that shall he also reap.

<snip in the interest of brevity>

Christine Hewitt (Jamaican Journalist and entertainer)
said the Bible (Word of God) was the worst book ever written.

In June 2006 she was found burnt beyond recognition in her motor vehicle.

wow..to attribute those samples to an act of god smacks of blasphemy.

If I was a all powerful being I would get bored after a good while of making things, so I would start destroying things and then get bored with that. So I decide to create life in order to start the coolest experiment in history, albeit as I am all powerful it would be the coolest one anyway.

yes, there can - all you need is to be able to conceive of the negation of good.

and even if this were true, that just means you would need an example of evil. what you actually have is an unbelievably staggering amount of horrific suffering that has gone on for all of humanity's existence and which would be trivially easy for even a relatively powerful (to say nothing of omnipotent) being to do away with completely.
evil is needed to promote your development... you don't evolve in a useful way without strife and conflict and pain... we tried it with homo habilis for a while but all they did was get fat and breed progressively more stupid offspring in appallingly large numbers(the garden of eden was a colossal failure, you did just eat from the forbidden tree you eat everything, that's why they call it the empty quarter now). omnibenevolence is on the macro scale, your individual suffering is unimportant... does that hurt your feelings? that's tough, if we were worried about making each of you super extra happy we would turn you all into trees and be done with it, trees are happy except when they are on fire.

This is not in the form of a logical proof. You start with 3 assumptions and immedietly make a conclusion without manipulating the assumptions in any way! You have actually committed several logical fallacies (including, red herring, appeal to authority, and simply skipping the whole symbolic logic part of LOGIC). These alone make your conclusions worthless. Further, any conclusion you make is only correct in the context of your original assumptions. In this case, your assumptions are attrocious. "evil exists" - quite debateable. "God created everything" - oh really? did he create my ford mustang? "God is omni-benovolent" - by his definition of good or your defintion of good? Seems to me like you just don't understand what "good" is...

I'm glad to see you're thinking about such issues though. I'd encourage you to go to college and study philosophy and logic. Maybe you'll be the one to figure out this age old dilemma.

We're dealing with the traditional Judeo-Christian view of God.

1. Evil exists (i.e., the Devil or Hell)
2. God created everything
3. God is omni-benevolent (all-good)
Therefore, an all-good creator made evil, or the all-good creator doesn't exist.

Basically, why I don't believe in God (at least the Christian view). It's not logical unless you believe he/she/it's a prick.

Edit: I've gotten a couple posts from people saying, "Proof against god? Lmao. Ur an idiot. U cant do that." or, as Indri put it, "It's juvenile dipshits like you that make the rest of us atheists look bad." Since they're not reading my other posts, I have to put the disclaimer here: The title is a PUN. It's in the form of a logical proof, a different definition of proof from what you initially think. I had to do it that way, or no one would have read the post.

Oh, and I'm agnostic, btw. Disbelief is the absence of belief, not the belief in the absence.

but we can at least try.
Too much work my friend. :p

honestly, the existence of a single atheist who dies of old age makes your shit ridiculous.
It is not my shit. I didn't make it up. Like I said, I tossed it out there to provoke thought, and the response has not surprised me in the least.

wow..to attribute those samples to an act of god smacks of blasphemy.
Did I attribute them as acts of God?

Heheheheheh thought provoking . . . .um . . . .basically you took a bunch of examples where people were killed horribly and tried to use them to prove that god exists
Those were sent to me in an email. I certainly was not using them as proof of the existence of God.

. . .. .ya that is definately "thought provoking" alright . . . .if thats how you see god I want no part of it.
That is not how I perceive God.

Too much work my friend. :p


It is not my shit. I didn't make it up. Like I said, I tossed it out there to provoke thought, and the response has not surprised me in the least.

they dont surprise me either.

Honestly... I am a pastafarian... i adhear strictly to the scripture of the flying spaghetti monster... *seriously, google 'church of the flying spaghetti monster'

and besides, your original argument such that a benevolent being created evil, but is incapable of it, cannot be applied to teh flying spaghetti monster, whom, as we all know is very much NOT a benevolent being... some times a happy and drunk being, but not benevolent. :p

Did I attribute them as acts of God?

To be honest, the premise "The Bible speaks of untimely death" when juxtaposed with the verse about "reaping", then followed with the anecdotes contains a clear inference that these deaths were some kind of reprisal for "mocking" god.

The disingenuous way you've dealt with the response, (combined with the fact that you're reposting of the e-mail suggests that you didn't notice or at least acknowledge the glaring flaws in the premise) is making me suspect that you are actually an anti-Christian trying to discredit religious people by portraying them as fallacious.

So you believe in God but just have no respect for Him?

God has not done one thing in my life or time that has garnered respect... in fact, he hasn't done one thing worth respect in HIS life.

Quite the opposite, actually.

I don't believe in the Christian God, or even the Catholic God. I don't believe he created the Heaven and Earth. Nor do I believe he made man. But even if he did, neither act is particularly worthy of resect. Man is basically a festering bacteria across the planet. Which, if we're to believe history and science, was just one piece of land in a big ball of water at the begining. And come on, how impressive is that? Do I believe there is a God? Mayhaps. Do I believe he's worthy of worship and praise? Not hardly.


You stated yourself that from the christian point of view are those things real. But then it is only to the christians that the loss of god can occuer. But if you change two fundamental ideas of just exactly what god is, then the statements no longer holds up.
1. God is everything.

2.There is a reason that God created evil.

You see then we still have room for the logic in God's existence, just not if we were a christian, or atleast your average christian.

If God is everything, that means he's also that big pile of dog poo in the front yard. And I, personally, don't find anything particularly appealing about following anything a pile of dog poo tells me to do. It's bad policy.

Also, if God is everything, he would also therefore be Satan, and Satan is our enemy. Therefore God is our enemy. Confused? That's the Bible for you. I give it a 2 out of 10, it tries so very hard to be a masterpiece but fails.

Unimportant babble from a incompetent monkey.

While I imagine you were trying to be humorous or something to that effect, your epic failure at it barters only this. "When next you want to speak, think really hard about what your going to say, then smack youself in the face with a sledgehammer."

To be honest, the premise "The Bible speaks of untimely death" when juxtaposed with the verse about "reaping", then followed with the anecdotes contains a clear inference that these deaths were some kind of reprisal for "mocking" god.

The disingenuous way you've dealt with the response, (combined with the fact that you're reposting of the e-mail suggests that you didn't notice or at least acknowledge the glaring flaws in the premise) is making me suspect that you are actually an anti-Christian trying to discredit religious people by portraying them as fallacious.

Still one of the better arguments I've heard along the way.



Side Note: God's idea of Good should at least adhere to the bylaws he's set out for Man in the Commandments. Considering that God routinely breaks the Commandments, in particular "Thou Shalt Not Kill", then God should be sent to hell as Sinners are meant to be as I can't recall a time that I've ever heard of God praying for repentance from God..... Hrm.


I wonder if anybody even pays attention to my babble

It is not my shit. I didn't make it up. Like I said, I tossed it out there to provoke thought, and the response has not surprised me in the least.

So what you're basically saying is that you were trolling?