Cardinal Pell and Evolution

[Brian2]

You just said that God has the right to kill his children.

So? You seem to think that's moral and an action that a loving god would carry out. Yikes.
Where does this "right" come from, by the way?

OK so you are calling all humans God's children, and I suppose that would mean that apes and pigs and cats and worms are also children of God, but let's not go there at the moment.
How about humans? Sponge Bob made some drawings that came to life and started causing chaos. Did he have a right to get rid of his drawings?
And you seem to think that the being who created the universe and anything else there is, has to apply to someone or something for the right to be the judge of the things that He owns. So where do you think that God should or might apply for permission to judge us and then get rid of those of us who have gone down the dark side and don't want to repent and come back and be a citizen in His Kingdom and give up a life of crime.

 

[Brian2]

No. History tells us a different story. I did not make that up. The fantasy is most likely yours. Biblical scholars point this out as a flaw in the resurrection story.

Biblical scholars, including Bart Ehrman, have differing opinions about what is written in the Bible, but you did make up your version of events of what happened when Jesus died, and many Biblical scholars also do the same thing.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Biblical scholars, including Bart Ehrman, have differing opinions about what is written in the Bible, but you did make up your version of events of what happened when Jesus died, and many Biblical scholars also do the same thing.

No repeating what other historians have said is not me making things up. It can be shown that Romans did leave people up on the cross. There is no evidence that I know of of people being taken down for a holiday. There is one body that was possibly a crucifixion victim that did not end up in a mass grave. But there is no info on when he was taken down.

 

[Brian2]

No repeating what other historians have said is not me making things up. It can be shown that Romans did leave people up on the cross. There is no evidence that I know of of people being taken down for a holiday.

So you want to believe historians who deny the evidence of the gospels and what happened then with Jesus.
It makes no sense to say that Romans did leave bodies on the cross therefore Jesus was left on the cross.

There is one body that was possibly a crucifixion victim that did not end up in a mass grave. But there is no info on when he was taken down.

The gospels IS evidence of people being taken down for a holiday (they went to the Italian Riviera and came back to finish their crucifixion)
Jews buried the dead before sunset usually.

Did Jews insist on pre-sunset burials of the crucified?

In the 1st century, Romans were known to crucify individuals they deemed to be criminals, nailing or tying them to a cross until they were dead. What…

beliefmap.org

In times of war and rebellion the Romans left Jewish bodies to rot on the crosses, but in times of peace and especially in Jerusalem the peace would be maintained by complying with Jewish customs.
This does not tell us anything about bodies left on crosses for Passover but Joseph of Arimathea would not break a Sabbath of rest to bury someone imo so the Friday was the preparation for the usual Passover that evening and the Passover that Jesus and disciples had on the evening before, was just an early Passover for one or more of the reasons historians note that could be the reasons.

 

[Subduction Zone]

So you want to believe historians who deny the evidence of the gospels and what happened then with Jesus.
It makes no sense to say that Romans did leave bodies on the cross therefore Jesus was left on the cross.

What "evidence" of the gospels? There does not appear to be any. I get so tired of people that have no clues as to what counts as evidence.

The gospels IS evidence of people being taken down for a holiday (they went to the Italian Riviera and came back to finish their crucifixion)
Jews buried the dead before sunset usually.

Did Jews insist on pre-sunset burials of the crucified?

In the 1st century, Romans were known to crucify individuals they deemed to be criminals, nailing or tying them to a cross until they were dead. What…

beliefmap.org

No, the Gospels are a claim. And yes, if the Jews had their way they would have buried Jesus. But he was crucified. And part of the punishment was to leave the body up as a constant reminder. On a holiday that reminder would be even stronger. You need to explain why the Romans would take it down. There is no record of them doing so.

In times of war and rebellion the Romans left Jewish bodies to rot on the crosses, but in times of peace and especially in Jerusalem the peace would be maintained by complying with Jewish customs.
This does not tell us anything about bodies left on crosses for Passover but Joseph of Arimathea would not break a Sabbath of rest to bury someone imo so the Friday was the preparation for the usual Passover that evening and the Passover that Jesus and disciples had on the evening before, was just an early Passover for one or more of the reasons historians note that could be the reasons.

Citation needed. And not from an apologist source. Find a history based source that makes that claim and you might have something.

 

[Brian2]

What "evidence" of the gospels? There does not appear to be any. I get so tired of people that have no clues as to what counts as evidence.

Evidence of bigfoot.
I saw a tall man lurching through the forest in the distance at sunset in Colorado.
I have a photo of that man and as you can see he is covered in hair and looks nothing like a normal man and has no clothes on.
He chased me to my car.
He pounded on the bonnet of the car while I was trying to start the car.
I have video of all of this from my phone and dash cam.
This is him in the video when he came to my window and roared at me. See how big his mouth is.
OK so all of this could be said to be evidence of something which might be bigfoot.
The evidence of the resurrection of Jesus is like this, with witness reports of people and certainty it was Jesus with nail wounds and spear wound.
Witnesses in a trial also give evidence.
Saying that you don't believe in the supernatural is not evidence of anything.
Saying that you don't believe in the supernatural so the gospels must have been written after 70AD by people who did not know Jesus is not evidence of anything.
Yes I get tired of people who have no clue what counts as evidence also.

No, the Gospels are a claim. And yes, if the Jews had their way they would have buried Jesus. But he was crucified. And part of the punishment was to leave the body up as a constant reminder. On a holiday that reminder would be even stronger. You need to explain why the Romans would take it down. There is no record of them doing so.

I did explain why the Romans would take it down or allow it to be taken down.
Joseph of Arimathea also asked Pilate who made sure that Jesus was dead and allowed it.
It's all evidence in the ancient stories that have come from witnesses.

Citation needed. And not from an apologist source. Find a history based source that makes that claim and you might have something.

I'm not sure what you want citation for and not sure why I should spend time looking for any more exceptions to the rule. Jesus is the exception and the insistence that the usual thing was not what happened to Jesus so it did not happen to Jesus is not logical. It might be bias against the gospels and Jesus or worse but it is not a logical argument.
It was usual for people to be left on the cross for a few days at least. Maybe this is shown by Joseph of Arimathea going to Pilate to ask for the body.
Why would Pilate give it.
Keep peace at Passover.
He had a thing for Jesus and thought He was innocent.
The Jews wanted Jesus death so it was no lesson to leave the body on the cross.

 

[1213]

As opposed to God doing the murdering in the Flood.

I don't think God murders, because it means unjust killing. I think God has the right. And if He kills, He has also given life, so He is even. I have no reason to demand Him to give more than what He has given.

But, I think it is good that you think killing is wrong. But, do you think abortion and euthanasia are also wrong?

 

[1213]

Then why did you give that as a reason?

Sorry, I just said it not very accurately.

I guess you aren't aware that the ancient Greeks very much believed in Apollo and erected temples in his honour and everything. They thought he did this because the sun made its way across the sky every single day and that was their explanation for it.

Too bad that I can't ask them why they believed that explanation. I think it could have helped them.

Nobody has "proven it wrong" so why don't you believe in Apollo?

Because I have no good reason for that.

 

[1213]

So it's not murder when God does it because he says so.

No, it is not a murder, because God has the right. And God has the right because He has given life. There is no reason why He should give eternal life for all.

They most certainly do. I wouldn't exist if my parents had never had sexual intercourse.

But the life is not because of them. They have not given life, they got life, and allowed it to continue.

You are if you support the death penalty.

If I think death penalty is ok, it does not mean that I think you should kill anyone.

But, do you support aborts and euthanasia?

Two wrongs don't make a right. I don't see how you can declare that killing is wrong, but then go ahead and kill someone because they killed someone.

Right in the sense of being entitled to do something. If person takes a right to kill others, he gives the same right to others. For example, if you take a right to steal from someone, how could you claim they can't do the same to you? You couldn't say they can't do it, because you also did it. That way, whatever right person takes for himself, he also gives to others.

But according to the Bible, God has created evil, since he supposedly created everything.

But evil is actually nothing, it is like darkness or emptiness, lack of good.

 

[1213]

Yeah, they do. My niece didn't exist until my brother-in-law and my sister created her. That's how it works.

You then have a very different definition for word "create". People can't create anything. And people can't give life.

 

[1213]

Reminds me of a Methodist minister I met who strongly opposes the death penalty saying this: "Why do we want to kill people who kill people to show that killing people is wrong?".

I think the reason is not to show it is wrong, nor because someone would want to kill. The reason is that it could prevent someone to murder, if he would know he could be killed because of that. And also, why should murderers be allowed to live anyway? By what I have understood, atheists would like evil to vanish.

 

[1213]

Who said that they should run freely? If you believe guilty people should be killed even though there are alternatives...

I think murderers deserve death, but I don't mean that people should kill others.

 

[Altfish]

I don't think God murders, because it means unjust killing. I think God has the right. And if He kills, He has also given life, so He is even. I have no reason to demand Him to give more than what He has given.

But, I think it is good that you think killing is wrong. But, do you think abortion and euthanasia are also wrong?

So, special pleading for God, he can kill.

Why would you think I don't think killing is wrong?
As for abortion, well the health of the mother comes first; abortion should be the last option.
Euthanasia, yes, I agree with it. Having just watched my father die a painful death.

 

[SkepticThinker]

OK so you are calling all humans God's children, and I suppose that would mean that apes and pigs and cats and worms are also children of God, but let's not go there at the moment.

Sure, I guess so. They are all supposedly god's creations.

When I was growing up in church we were told that God is our heavenly father and we are as children to him, since he created us. Have you never heard this?

How about humans?
Sponge Bob made some drawings that came to life and started causing chaos. Did he have a right to get rid of his drawings?

How did we go from "how about humans?" to "can a cartoon character destroy his drawings if they come to life and cause chaos?"

This is the basic question I was posing to you, by the way. Except, without the cartoon characters. See how you just threw it back to me instead of answering it?

And you seem to think that the being who created the universe and anything else there is, has to apply to someone or something for the right to be the judge of the things that He owns.

I do? Where do you see that in my post?

"You just said that God has the right to kill his children.

So? You seem to think that's moral and an action that a loving god would carry out. Yikes.
Where does this "right" come from, by the way?"

We're not talking about god having the right to judge or whatever. We're talking about having the "right' to KILL his creations for doing stuff he doesn't like.

Do our parents own us because they've given us life, so they can take it away? (Which was the point of the SpongeBob cartoon, by the way). If not, why not? And if not, why does God supposedly have that right?

So where do you think that God should or might apply for permission to judge us and then get rid of those of us who have gone down the dark side and don't want to repent and come back and be a citizen in His Kingdom and give up a life of crime.

I don't believe in god(s). And I don't believe in the whole "I brought you into this world so I can take you out" mentality.

Please notice here, that instead of explaining your position on this and answering the question posed to you, you tried to turn it around on me instead and avoided answering the question or supplying an explanation on your position, which is what we're talking about here.

 

[metis]

I think the reason is not to show it is wrong, nor because someone would want to kill. The reason is that it could prevent someone to murder, if he would know he could be killed because of that. And also, why should murderers be allowed to live anyway? By what I have understood, atheists would like evil to vanish.

So, Jesus was wrong and uncaring, iyo?

If one gets life in prison with no parole, that will take care of your issue and would be far more compatible with what Jesus taught. Seems with you that right-wing politics trumps all.

 

[metis]

I think murderers deserve death, but I don't mean that people should kill others.

But that's exactly what you're doing when people like you seek such revenge to the point of negating human life!

 

[SkepticThinker]

Evidence of bigfoot.
I saw a tall man lurching through the forest in the distance at sunset in Colorado.
I have a photo of that man and as you can see he is covered in hair and looks nothing like a normal man and has no clothes on.
He chased me to my car.
He pounded on the bonnet of the car while I was trying to start the car.
I have video of all of this from my phone and dash cam.
This is him in the video when he came to my window and roared at me. See how big his mouth is.
OK so all of this could be said to be evidence of something which might be bigfoot.
The evidence of the resurrection of Jesus is like this, with witness reports of people and certainty it was Jesus with nail wounds and spear wound.
Witnesses in a trial also give evidence.

Oh not it certainly is not. Notice how in your example above you have photographs, video evidence, damage to your car ... you know, actual evidence.

When it comes to the resurrection of Jesus all you have are hearsay stories passed down orally for years before being written down, then copied and copied and translated and re-translated and copied .... And we have no original copies of these stories. Oh and the stories don't match up with each other.
There are no photos of Jesus.
There is no video of Jesus.
There are no eyewitness accounts.
This is nothing at all like the evidence we find in your example.

All you have are the re-telling of fantastical stories in an old book. In other words: You have claims.

Saying that you don't believe in the supernatural is not evidence of anything.
Saying that you don't believe in the supernatural so the gospels must have been written after 70AD by people who did not know Jesus is not evidence of anything.
Yes I get tired of people who have no clue what counts as evidence also.

You're trying to shift the burden of proof again.

I did explain why the Romans would take it down or allow it to be taken down.
Joseph of Arimathea also asked Pilate who made sure that Jesus was dead and allowed it.
It's all evidence in the ancient stories that have come from witnesses.



I'm not sure what you want citation for and not sure why I should spend time looking for any more exceptions to the rule. Jesus is the exception and the insistence that the usual thing was not what happened to Jesus so it did not happen to Jesus is not logical. It might be bias against the gospels and Jesus or worse but it is not a logical argument.
It was usual for people to be left on the cross for a few days at least. Maybe this is shown by Joseph of Arimathea going to Pilate to ask for the body.
Why would Pilate give it.
Keep peace at Passover.
He had a thing for Jesus and thought He was innocent.
The Jews wanted Jesus death so it was no lesson to leave the body on the cross.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I don't think God murders, because it means unjust killing. I think God has the right. And if He kills, He has also given life, so He is even. I have no reason to demand Him to give more than what He has given.

Then you need to work on your morals a bit. Most people have better morals than that.

But, I think it is good that you think killing is wrong. But, do you think abortion and euthanasia are also wrong?

You need to differentiate between killing and murder. God murders, he has no excuse. He is supposed to be omniscient and omnipotent. People can murder. But abortion is not murder. That is not a human being yet. Even the Bible agrees with that. If you are going by Bible standards then you have to agree that abortion is not murder.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I think murderers deserve death, but I don't mean that people should kill others.

What if they get the wrong person and kill them. What do you do then?

The odds of an error being made are simply too great. Especially since people are not perfect and some are even corrupt.

 

[SkepticThinker]

No, it is not a murder, because God has the right. And God has the right because He has given life. There is no reason why He should give eternal life for all.

And there's the part I have a problem with. I don't find "might makes right" to be a moral position.

But the life is not because of them. They have not given life, they got life, and allowed it to continue.

It is because of them that I am here. If my parents didn't have intercourse, I wouldn't be here. Plain and simple.
And just because they brought my life into this world, I don't think that gives them the right to take it away on a whim.

If I think death penalty is ok, it does not mean that I think you should kill anyone.

But, do you support aborts and euthanasia?

I support someone's right to end their own life on their own terms, if they are in chronic pain. That's their choice to make for themselves.
As for abortion, I support the life of the woman and her right to choose what she does with her body.

Right in the sense of being entitled to do something. If person takes a right to kill others, he gives the same right to others. For example, if you take a right to steal from someone, how could you claim they can't do the same to you? You couldn't say they can't do it, because you also did it. That way, whatever right person takes for himself, he also gives to others.

This is the old "eye for an eye" mentality that I don't find to be particularly moral either.
If someone steals from someone, we don't punish them by stealing their stuff in return. And I don't think that it's a moral position to say "Killing is wrong" so we're going to kill you because you killed someone. I find that kind of barbaric.

But evil is actually nothing, it is like darkness or emptiness, lack of good.

Evil is the word I use to describe immoral or wrong actions.