Atheist looking for religious debate. Any religion. Let's see if I can be convinced.

[CG Didymus]

Oh. So Salm's claim that Nazereth had once been an established settlement but had been abandoned by Jesus' time is actually reasonably accurate?

So the Bible's claim that Jesus was "from Nazareth" might be inaccurate?

Thanks.

Yes, you know that well known prophecy that says the Messiah will be called a Nazarene. Let me look it up right now... Let's see... where is it?

 

[night912]

Please, you care constantly making claims. Do you want me to go back and find some for you? Quit blaming your founder for your inability to properly support your claims.

I make no claims. I just state my beliefs.
I have nothing to claim so there would be no reason for me to make claims.

The reason you want to turn my beliefs into claims is so you can say I have the burden of proof. I was not born yesterday...
But again, I have no claims.

SZ, I don't know about you, but to me, I'm going to admit that it's one hell of a miracle the day that Trailblazer admit that she's making claims.

 

[Subduction Zone]

SZ, I don't know about you, but to me, I'm going to admit that it's one hell of a miracle the day that Trailblazer admit that she's making claims.

I know. Earlier in this thread she denied making claims. I offered to point them out to her when she did. Before she could even take me up on my offer, in the very next post after mine she was making claims again. I copied and pasted. There was no response.

 

[Trailblazer]

You don't seem to be able to make up your mind. You have claimed that Baha’u’llah proves god but you haven't given us any objective evidence, it seems to be blind faith. If there was an objective reason to think that, then we'd have objective evidence for god, which you keep saying is impossible.

As I said in my previous post, there IS objective evidence for God and that objective evidence is Baha'u'llah (and all the other Messengers of God such as Jesus, Moses, and Muhammad, etc.)

You're contradicting yourself again - and of course omnipotence would mean that god could do anything it wanted, so it could do anything to the physical world and provide objective evidence. That's what omnipotent means. And it was your argument that god could do this but chooses not to.

Omnipotence does not mean can do anything, it means all-powerful. God cannot provide direct objective evidence of His Being because God cannot be analyzed measured or observed.

Which is god's choice, he could have made things differently, if it is actually omnipotent.

Omnipotence does not mean can do anything, it means all-powerful. God cannot change His nature and make Himself verifiable because then God would not be God.

And most of them have got it wrong (because they believe corrupted messages, and they don't believe in multiple messengers), not to mention the fact that they've indulged in violence and oppression of each other because of their differences. Yes, great plan, who cares about those tortured to death, eh?

Humans are responsible for all of that, God is not responsible anything humans do. It was not God’s plan, but humans have free will so they run amok.

Easy, provide a clear, objectively verifiable message to everybody in the world.

Why should He, just because you want one? God will never do that because in that case the wheat could not be separated from the chaff because everyone would believe God exists, including the people who don't deserve to know.

Of course it does. If you have perfect foreknowledge of the consequences of designing the world one way, then you can choose to do it that way or not (and maybe do it another way). Choosing to do it one way, in the perfect knowledge of all the consequences makes god entirely responsible for them. Omnipotent + omniscient = omni-responsible.

Omnipotent + omniscient = omni-responsible. I have never heard anything that illogical in my entire life.

God’s power and knowledge does not cause anything to happen. God is not responsible for what He does not do. Humans are responsible for everything that happens in this world because they cause what happens in this world by choosing to make it happen. Selfish evil people are responsible for being selfish and evil because they made the choice to be selfish and evil. The only thing God is responsible for us what we do not choose, that which is beyond our control because it is predestined by God.

Atheists always want to pass the buck to God because they don’t want to take ANY responsibility for their actions. They blame God for everything and they expect God to do what they are responsible to do. It is a good thing that there is no objective evidence for God because you would not want to be a believer anyway since God expects believers to be responsible for their own actions as well as obeying His teachings and laws.

 

[Subduction Zone]

As I said in my previous post, there IS objective evidence for God and that objective evidence is Baha'u'llah (and all the other Messengers of God such as Jesus, Moses, and Muhammad, etc.)

This is a claim, and you need to justify it. By the way, since scholars pretty much agree that Moses is fictional good luck.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Omnipotence does not mean can do anything, it means all-powerful. God cannot provide direct objective evidence of His Being because God cannot be analyzed measured or observed.

Another claim and a self contradicting one.

 

[night912]

God’s power and knowledge does not cause anything to happen. God is not responsible for what He does not do. Humans are responsible for everything that happens in this world because they cause what happens in this world by choosing to make it happen. Selfish evil people are responsible for being selfish and evil because they made the choice to be selfish and evil. The only thing God is responsible for us what we do not choose, that which is beyond our control because it is predestined by God.

Apparently Trailblazer must have been predestined to be self contradictory and be indecisive of her own beliefs, because she's been constantly contradicting herself and going from believing something to be true then suddenly abandoned that belief, only to accept it once again after just a few posts.

Atheists always want to pass the buck to God because they don’t want to take ANY responsibility for their actions. They blame God for everything and they expect God to do what they are responsible to do. It is a good thing that there is no objective evidence for God because you would not want to be a believer anyway since God expects believers to be responsible for their own actions as well as obeying His teachings and laws.

See, once again Trailblazer has once again, changed her beliefs regarding objective evidence for God. With all these choosing back and forth, one would expect her to take responsibility for her choices that she'd made.

A good example would be this:

Trailblazer makes a claim, but refuses to take responsibility for making that claim.

 

[night912]

As I said in my previous post, there IS objective evidence for God and that objective evidence is Baha'u'llah (and all the other Messengers of God such as Jesus, Moses, and Muhammad, etc.)

And just a few posts later.......

It is a good thing that there is no objective evidence for God

Are you ever tired of arguing with yourself?

 

[Trailblazer]

This is a claim, and you need to justify it. By the way, since scholars pretty much agree that Moses is fictional good luck.

It is not a claim, it is a belief, and I don't care what scholars say about Moses. All I care about is what Baha'u'llah wrote:

“Among the Prophets was Abraham, the Friend of God. Ere He manifested Himself, Nimrod dreamed a dream. Thereupon, he summoned the soothsayers, who informed him of the rise of a star in the heaven. Likewise, there appeared a herald who announced throughout the land the coming of Abraham.

After Him came Moses, He Who held converse with God. The soothsayers of His time warned Pharaoh in these terms: “A star hath risen in the heaven, and lo! it foreshadoweth the conception of a Child Who holdeth your fate and the fate of your people in His hand.” In like manner, there appeared a sage who, in the darkness of the night, brought tidings of joy unto the people of Israel, imparting consolation to their souls, and assurance to their hearts. To this testify the records of the sacred books. Were the details to be mentioned, this epistle would swell into a book. Moreover, it is not Our wish to relate the stories of the days that are past.”
The Kitáb-i-Íqán, pp. 62-63

 

[Truthseeker]

By the way, since scholars pretty much agree that Moses is fictional good luck.

How would they know that? Did you know that actually Moses is a Egyptian name? That there are several Levi's with Egyptian names in the Bible? And only Levi's have Egyptian names? This is part of the evidence that here was an actual exodus from Egypt but it involved only they who are known as Levi's. It's in a book called "The Exodus" by Richard Elliot Friedman. There were much fewer than the numbers claimed in Exodus which helps explain why there is no physical evidence or records of the Exodus. I don't believe in the 10 plagues either. That definitely would have been recorded.

From Wikipedia:

In his 2017 book The Exodus: How It Happened and Why It Matters, Friedman argues that the Exodus involved only a few thousand of people, who left Egypt during the reign of either Pharaoh Ramesses II or his son, Pharaoh Merneptah.

This group later merged with the Israelites, introducing the cult of Yahweh in Caanan, together with the idea of monotheism/monolatry, possibly inspired by the religious reforms of Pharaoh Akhenaten. Once in Israel, Yahweh's cult supplanted the cult of the Caananite god El, and the two gods became one and the same in Israelite religious mentality. This group of migrants would later form the Tribe of Levi.

The name Yahweh, according to Friedman, was probably inspired by the Shasu deity Yhw, whose presence is attested by two Egyptian texts from the time of Pharaos Amenhotep III (14th century BCE) and Ramesses II (13th century BCE).

Friedman also rejects the idea that Jewish monotheism was born during the Babylonian captivity (see Deutero-Isaiah) and argues that the concept of monotheism/monolatry was present in the Israelite people since the 12th century BCE, although for many centuries it met strong resistance from polytheistic sectors of Israel.[8]

The book received positive reviews from several biblical scholars and archaeologists like Thomas Römer, Carol Meyers and Thomas E. Levy and from publications like Publishers Weekly, The Christian Century and The Jewish Journal.[9]

This also implies that the conquering of Canaan never happened, or the genocide that supposedly occurred.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is not a claim, it is a belief, and I don't care what scholars say about Moses. All I care about is what Baha'u'llah wrote:

“Among the Prophets was Abraham, the Friend of God. Ere He manifested Himself, Nimrod dreamed a dream. Thereupon, he summoned the soothsayers, who informed him of the rise of a star in the heaven. Likewise, there appeared a herald who announced throughout the land the coming of Abraham.

After Him came Moses, He Who held converse with God. The soothsayers of His time warned Pharaoh in these terms: “A star hath risen in the heaven, and lo! it foreshadoweth the conception of a Child Who holdeth your fate and the fate of your people in His hand.” In like manner, there appeared a sage who, in the darkness of the night, brought tidings of joy unto the people of Israel, imparting consolation to their souls, and assurance to their hearts. To this testify the records of the sacred books. Were the details to be mentioned, this epistle would swell into a book. Moreover, it is not Our wish to relate the stories of the days that are past.”
The Kitáb-i-Íqán, pp. 62-63

Actually it was a claim since you had no qualifier. When you only have a belief you need to make a note of it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

How would they know that? Did you know that actually Moses is a Egyptian name? That there are several Levi's with Egyptian names in the Bible? And only Levi's have Egyptian names? This is part of the evidence that here was an actual exodus from Egypt but it involved only they who are known as Levi's. It's in a book called "The Exodus" by Richard Elliot Friedman. There were much fewer than the numbers claimed in Exodus which helps explain why there is no physical evidence or records of the Exodus. I don't believe in the 10 plagues either. That definitely would have been recorded.

From Wikipedia:

In his 2017 book The Exodus: How It Happened and Why It Matters, Friedman argues that the Exodus involved only a few thousand of people, who left Egypt during the reign of either Pharaoh Ramesses II or his son, Pharaoh Merneptah.

This group later merged with the Israelites, introducing the cult of Yahweh in Caanan, together with the idea of monotheism/monolatry, possibly inspired by the religious reforms of Pharaoh Akhenaten. Once in Israel, Yahweh's cult supplanted the cult of the Caananite god El, and the two gods became one and the same in Israelite religious mentality. This group of migrants would later form the Tribe of Levi.

The name Yahweh, according to Friedman, was probably inspired by the Shasu deity Yhw, whose presence is attested by two Egyptian texts from the time of Pharaos Amenhotep III (14th century BCE) and Ramesses II (13th century BCE).

Friedman also rejects the idea that Jewish monotheism was born during the Babylonian captivity (see Deutero-Isaiah) and argues that the concept of monotheism/monolatry was present in the Israelite people since the 12th century BCE, although for many centuries it met strong resistance from polytheistic sectors of Israel.[8]

The book received positive reviews from several biblical scholars and archaeologists like Thomas Römer, Carol Meyers and Thomas E. Levy and from publications like Publishers Weekly, The Christian Century and The Jewish Journal.[9]

This also implies that the conquering of Canaan never happened, or the genocide that supposedly occurred.

I have heard all of the poor apologetics. By the way, from what I have seen it is only the Bible believers that say that Moses is a Egyptian name. And even if it was, so what? Do you know how far the Egyptian empire extended to at the supposed time of the Exodus?

And I see that to even make the story plausible you had to change it so much that Moses would have been all but unrecognizable.

 

[Trailblazer]

Actually it was a claim since you had no qualifier. When you only have a belief you need to make a note of it.

For future reference everything I say is a belief, but if I claim anything I will say it is a claim.

 

[Truthseeker]

I have heard all of the poor apologetics. By the way, from what I have seen it is only the Bible believers that say that Moses is a Egyptian name. And even if it was, so what? Do you know how far the Egyptian empire extended to at the supposed time of the Exodus?

And I see that to even make the story plausible you had to change it so much that Moses would have been all but unrecognizable.

There are Pharaohs like TutMoses. Why only the Levi's? Note it received favorable reviews from scholars and archeologists.

I don't expect you to agree. Not worth arguing about any more. This information was more for Trailblazers information really.

 

[Trailblazer]

And I see that to even make the story plausible you had to change it so much that Moses would have been all but unrecognizable.

I like how Moses is portrayed in the movie The Ten Commandments, but I also realize it is just Hollywood.
Makes for good entertainment.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I like how Moses is portrayed in the movie The Ten Commandments, but I also realize it is just Hollywood.
Makes for good entertainment.

Even how he is portrayed in the Bible is extremely fictitious.

 

[Subduction Zone]

There are Pharaohs like TutMoses. Why only the Levi's? Note it received favorable reviews from scholars and archeologists.

I don't expect you to agree. Not worth arguing about any more. This information was more for Trailblazers information really.

The priestly sects, which is what the Levis were, tended to keep to themselves. Perhaps there is something in Jewish history that would explain this. And Egypt's empire extended north past where Israel ended up being at that time. Do you think that they did not leave any namesakes behind?

 

[Trailblazer]

I dunno, I never

Even how he is portrayed in the Bible is extremely fictitious.

I never read that part of the Bible but I can only imagine. If it is anything like Genesis we are all in trouble!
In fact, I never read any of the Bible till I was 60 yrs old, not even one page. The only reason I have now read some of the Bible is because I started debating with Christians on forums about eight years ago and I needed to know the Bible prophecies.

 

[Dropship]

Interestingly, some of the "messengers" (prophets) never wanted the job..-

For examp Moses admitted to being unable to think on his feet-
"O Lord, I have never been eloquent, I am slow of speech and tongue..Please send someone else.” (Exodus 4:10-13)

And Jonah was so scared he refused pointblank to be a prophet and jumped on a ship to escape, bad call -
"Jonah ran away from the Lord and headed for Tarshish." (Jonah 1:3)

And young Jeremiah tried to talk his way out of the job -
“Alas, Sovereign Lord,” I said, “I do not know how to speak; I am too young.” (Jer 1:6)

 

[Dropship]

As for the alleged "prophets" who came after Jesus such as Mohammed and Joseph Smith, I don't accept they were true prophets for the simple reason that Jesus was the very last "messenger"-

"God spoke in times past by the prophets, has in these last days spoken unto us by his Son" (Hebrews 1:1/2)