Evolution, violence and the existence of God

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I believe it can be a difficult decision. I don't believe in drinking alcoholic beverages. Once a friend wanted me to go to the store and buy alcohol for him and I refused. He was quite angry about that. My wife has her buy cigarettes for her even though it badly affects her asthma and I do because I have to live at peace with her.

And I can completely respect your choice, and your decision to not enable people who drink.

The line is drawn, however, if you would try to impose your choice onto others who do not believe as you. It's one thing to refuse to buy booze for another person. It's quite a different thing if booze were made illegal because people's "religion" tells them to.

I don't drink either, but I would never stop someone else from drinking, if they so chose.

I might take their car keys for a night, though...

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

The Bible is unique in that it has corresponding or parallel cross-reference verses and passages showing the internal harmony among its writers.

The "harmony" as you put it, only exists in limited passages where there is cross-over, such as the gospels.

Of course-- since the authors wrote these 60 and 90 and later years after the alleged events, and they all had access to the same earlier (and now missing) sources? It's pretty understandable why they are similar.

On the other hand, there's lots of "disharmony" too. One of the most glaring contradictions, is the role-call of who was (and who wasn't) at the Easter Event: Who found the tomb, who got there first, and who came later? None of the stories agree on these details-- this in spite of having access to the same material. Hmmmm.

Another odd 'disharmonious' story, is the words of Jesus during the crucifixion... last words? Different in each of the gospels that feature this episode.

There's a lot more-- but to me, the fact that there are so many glaring mistakes?

Is definitive evidence that there is no single-source "inspiring" these tales. No over-arching authority, no unified "guiding hand" in the bible's fabrication.

In fact? The book looks more like a cobbled-together bunch of writings from thousands of different authors, editors, translation-choices, etc. Every re-write taking away some, adding some more-- and? There appears to be nothing stopping them from doing that... !

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The "harmony" as you put it, only exists in limited passages where there is cross-over, such as the gospels.
Of course-- since the authors wrote these 60 and 90 and later years after the alleged events, and they all had access to the same earlier (and now missing) sources? It's pretty understandable why they are similar.
On the other hand, there's lots of "disharmony" too. One of the most glaring contradictions, is the role-call of who was (and who wasn't) at the Easter Event: Who found the tomb, who got there first, and who came later? None of the stories agree on these details-- this in spite of having access to the same material. Hmmmm.
Another odd 'disharmonious' story, is the words of Jesus during the crucifixion... last words? Different in each of the gospels that feature this episode.
There's a lot more-- but to me, the fact that there are so many glaring mistakes?
Is definitive evidence that there is no single-source "inspiring" these tales. No over-arching authority, no unified "guiding hand" in the bible's fabrication.
In fact? The book looks more like a cobbled-together bunch of writings from thousands of different authors, editors, translation-choices, etc. Every re-write taking away some, adding some more-- and? There appears to be nothing stopping them from doing that... !

Besides dealing with the gospel accounts, m I find there are cross-over or cross-reference verses.
The four gospel accounts are designed to make up one gospel. The gospel according to Matthew, etc.
About 3 O'Clock in the afternoon (1) Jesus says that he is thirsty, then (2) My God why have you forsaken me, followed by saying (3) it has been accomplished or finished, finally (4) into your hands, Jesus entrusted himself to his God.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Why do you believe that? It isn't what the story says; Jesus words were very clear. Look at the context, he was explaining to his followers that he had to leave.
"It's okay, guys-- I'm coming right back!"
So. If Jesus knew he wasn't coming right back-- then he deliberately lied to them.
Your way actually makes Jesus into a bald-faced liar... ! You really want to go there?

Where at Luke 19:11-15 did Jesus teach he would be coming right back.
Revelation was Not even written until the end of the first century, and the setting for Revelation 1:10 is for our day.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

I believe it can be a difficult decision. I don't believe in drinking alcoholic beverages. Once a friend wanted me to go to the store and buy alcohol for him and I refused. He was quite angry about that. My wife has her buy cigarettes for her even though it badly affects her asthma and I do because I have to live at peace with her.

Some need to refrain from alcohol because it has a bad effect on them.
Jesus drank wine ( including his first miracle ) but to drink or not is a personal choice. Drunkeness is Not scriptural.
We can't force or make decisions for another person, just show what the Bible really teaches.
Such as defiling the flesh (smoking) is unscriptural according to 2 Corinthians 7:1.

It probably was difficult in the first century to remain politically neutral of world affairs, but as Jesus taught 'now' was the time for his followers to lay down the sword at Matthew 26:52; Revelation 13:10. They made the difficult choice to Not even get involved in the issues of the day between the Jews verses the Romans, and so can we also be neutral.

Also, it would be un-scriptural for a person to have an abortion for just the selfish sole purpose of getting rid of an un-wanted child. That is what would be a High Crime in God's eyes as a blatant disregard for the gift of life.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Besides dealing with the gospel accounts, m I find there are cross-over or cross-reference verses.
The four gospel accounts are designed to make up one gospel. The gospel according to Matthew, etc.
About 3 O'Clock in the afternoon (1) Jesus says that he is thirsty, then (2) My God why have you forsaken me, followed by saying (3) it has been accomplished or finished, finally (4) into your hands, Jesus entrusted himself to his God.

Nope. You are simply lying, here-- that's not how the various stories go. They are significantly different.

And I noticed you 100% ignored the problem with the Easter Events.... !

Hmmmm....

 

[URAVIP2ME]

And I noticed you 100% ignored the problem with the Easter Events.... !
Hmmmm....

What Resurrection Sunday ( Not Easter ) event do you have in mind.
Easter means Resurrection of Spring. The word Easter is from a non-biblical source.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

What Resurrection Sunday ( Not Easter ) event do you have in mind.
Easter means Resurrection of Spring. The word Easter is from a non-biblical source.

In the Bible's Fairy Tale section, we have a couple of examples where Jesus supposedly comes back to life. Ironically? The parts where this happens were edited in later, and the language is newer that the entire rest of the book. But nevermindthat.

There are, as I recall, two such stories-- both quite different from each other. The Cast Of Characters in this little fable are significantly different, as is the person who supposedly gets to the grave site first, and who leaves last, and who talks to the ghost of Jesus.

Thus? At least one of the stories is wrong. Likely both are complete fabrications-- but they cannot both be right.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

What Resurrection Sunday ( Not Easter ) event do you have in mind.
Easter means Resurrection of Spring. The word Easter is from a non-biblical source.

https://ffrf.org/legacy/books/lfif/stone.php

The above outlines the problems with the three stories.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

What Resurrection Sunday ( Not Easter ) event do you have in mind.
Easter means Resurrection of Spring. The word Easter is from a non-biblical source.

Here's the verses in question:

(from Tackling David Platt's Easter Challenge For Non-Christians)

In Matthew 28 what occurs is that an angel appears (whose appearance is like lightning and frighten the guards while also causing an earthquake when descending from Heaven), removes the stone that blocked Jesus’s tomb and told Mary Magdalene and Mary of Clopas, that Jesus had been resurrected. The angel then instructed them to go to Galilee where they would come across Jesus. This earthquake is not mentioned again.

In Mark 16 events are different. The stone was already gone and the being that appeared in front of Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome is a young man dressed in white who tells them that Jesus is not there and has come back to life. Jesus first appears to Mary Magdalene alone.

In Luke 24 it’s an even bigger group of women, and it’s two angels. The group of women go to the disciples and the men dismiss them as being crazy, aside from Peter who runs to the tomb and wonders about what happened to Jesus after finding nothing more than strips of linen in the empty tomb. Jesus first appears to the disciples as an unrecognizable being.

In John 20 Mary Magdalene comes to the tomb alone and finds it completely empty. No angels. Just an empty tomb. She runs to the disciples and Simon Peter and the Other Disciple rush to the tomb after being told of its emptiness. They rush to the tomb and find it empty, and then leave. At this point angels and Jesus appear to Mary alone.

 

[Muffled]

That's nice that you believe that, but that belief isn't supported by their koran and hadiths.

All of these so called terrorist acts are very much supportable by their texts.

I believe in reading the Qu'ran I never encountered an encouragement of terrorism. I can see where men can put their own interpretation on things to make it seem that way but that comes from the evil desires of their hearts and not from the text.

I don't believe the Hadiths are reliable for doctrine and those that do are probably going to act contrary to the Qu'ran by giving them heed.

 

[Muffled]

Why do you believe that? It isn't what the story says; Jesus words were very clear. Look at the context, he was explaining to his followers that he had to leave.

They were clearly upset-- and why wouldn't they be? Jesus had jerked them out of their lives, convinced them to give up their livelihood and families, to follow him around in a kind of roving commune.

And now? He's ... .Leaving? I'd be pretty p**sed too! It's very clear, his promise was meant to comfort these people, who's lives he had uprooted so drastically.

"It's okay, guys-- I'm coming right back!"

So. If Jesus knew he wasn't coming right back-- then he deliberately lied to them.

Your way actually makes Jesus into a bald-faced liar... ! You really want to go there?

I believe I do want to go there. You say the truth is what you say it is and not what Jesus says it is so who then would a person believe? I will believe Jesus because He is God in the flesh and speaks the truth.

I believe it because that is what is written.

I believe you do not understand the story yet.

I don't believe I see that at all. There isn't much comfort in the story.

Mat. 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a testimony unto all the nations; and then shall the end come.

Does that convey an immediate return? We are probably only approaching a fulfillment of this verse in our age.

I believe since your premise is false your conclusion is also.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

I believe I do want to go there. You say the truth is what you say it is and not what Jesus says it is so who then would a person believe? I will believe Jesus because He is God in the flesh and speaks the truth.

I believe it because that is what is written.

I believe you do not understand the story yet.

I don't believe I see that at all. There isn't much comfort in the story.

Mat. 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a testimony unto all the nations; and then shall the end come.

Does that convey an immediate return? We are probably only approaching a fulfillment of this verse in our age.

I believe since your premise is false your conclusion is also.

So you admit that your Jesus was LYING? With malice? He put fake "hope" into those followers!

That is not good-- but what can we expect from Infinite Evil.

Hell is Infinite Evil. Any being who created it, is also Infinite Evil.

So it's hardly surprising that Jesus would be a big fat liar.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Mat. 24:14 And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in the whole world for a testimony unto all the nations; and then shall the end come.
Does that convey an immediate return? We are probably only approaching a fulfillment of this verse in our age.

There was No immediate returning according to Luke 19:11-15.
Matthew 24 and Luke 21 is set for our day or time frame and Not the first century.
The kingdom good news (Daniel 2:44) was Not proclaimed on an international or global scale in the first century.
Revelation 1:10 is set in our time frame, so yes then I can agree we are now approaching the fulfillment of Matthew 24:14; Acts of the Apostles 1:8 because we are at the ' final phase ' of Matthew 24:14, and thus we are nearing the ' final signal ' of 1 Thessalonians 5:2-3 when ' they ' (powers that be) will be saying, " Peace and Security" as the precursor of the coming great tribulation of Revelation 7:14, before Jesus, as Prince of Peace, ushers in global Peace on Earth among persons of goodwill.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

That is not good-- but what can we expect from Infinite Evil.
Hell is Infinite Evil. Any being who created it, is also Infinite Evil.
.

Since biblical hell is Not infinite, then biblical hell is Not infinite evil.
The Bible's hell comes to a final end according to Revelation 20:13-14.
After everyone in ' hell ' is delivered up ( resurrected out of hell ) then emptied-out hell is cast vacant into that symbolic ' second death ' for vacated hell.

The beings that created an infinite hell are false teachers teaching what is Not biblical as being biblical.
Jesus taught sleep in death - John 11:11-14, so while dead Jesus was in hell (Acts 2:27)he was in a sleep-like state.
If biblical hell was a permanent place then Jesus would still be in hell.
The old Hebrew Scriptures also teach sleep in death such as Ecclesiastes 9:5; Psalms 115:17; Psalms 146:4.
So, the Bible's hell is simply mankind's temporary stone-cold grave for the sleeping dead until resurrection day.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Here's the verses in question:
In Matthew 28 what occurs is that an angel appears (whose appearance is like lightning and frighten the guards while also causing an earthquake when descending from Heaven), removes the stone that blocked Jesus’s tomb and told Mary Magdalene and Mary of Clopas, that Jesus had been resurrected. The angel then instructed them to go to Galilee where they would come across Jesus. This earthquake is not mentioned again.
In Mark 16 events are different. The stone was already gone and the being that appeared in front of Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome is a young man dressed in white who tells them that Jesus is not there and has come back to life. Jesus first appears to Mary Magdalene alone.
In Luke 24 it’s an even bigger group of women, and it’s two angels. The group of women go to the disciples and the men dismiss them as being crazy, aside from Peter who runs to the tomb and wonders about what happened to Jesus after finding nothing more than strips of linen in the empty tomb. Jesus first appears to the disciples as an unrecognizable being.
In John 20 Mary Magdalene comes to the tomb alone and finds it completely empty. No angels. Just an empty tomb. She runs to the disciples and Simon Peter and the Other Disciple rush to the tomb after being told of its emptiness. They rush to the tomb and find it empty, and then leave. At this point angels and Jesus appear to Mary alone.

In Scripture all four accounts make up one account when put together.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

Since biblical hell is Not infinite, then biblical hell is Not infinite evil.
.

Says you. I've read the bible-- it describes hell as endless torment.

That's a pretty good definition of infinite evil.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

In Scripture all four accounts make up one account when put together.

Which grossly contradict each other. Imagine that? It's as if there is no actual god who was guiding the assembly of these Friend Of A Friend Imaginative Tales.

Indeed-- that seems to be the problem.

 

[Skwim]

Says you. I've read the bible-- it describes hell as endless torment.

That's a pretty good definition of infinite evil.

You're probably thinking of Matthew 25:46 which says

"And these shall go into everlasting torment; but the just men shall go into everlasting life."​

Thing is, "torment" here doesn't really mean torment as we commonly use it, severe physical or mental suffering, but "sexual fulfillment":

"And these shall go into everlasting sexual fulfillment; but the just men shall go into everlasting life."
​

Or. . . is it "peals of laughter"? I can never keep the two straight.

"And these shall go into everlasting peals of laughter; but the just men shall go into everlasting life."
​

On second thought . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .maybe it means "fits of farting."

"And these shall go into everlasting fits of farting; but the just men shall go into everlasting life."


​

In any case "torment" certainly can't mean severe physical or mental suffering.

.

 

[Bob the Unbeliever]

You're probably thinking of Matthew 25:45 which says

"And these shall go into everlasting torment; but the just men shall go into everlasting life."​

Thing is, "torment" here doesn't really mean torment as we commonly use it, severe physical or mental suffering, but "sexual fulfillment":

"And these shall go into everlasting sexual fulfillment; but the just men shall go into everlasting life."
​

Or. . . is it "peals of laughter"? I can never keep the two straight.

"And these shall go into everlasting peals of laughter; but the just men shall go into everlasting life."
​

On second thought . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .maybe it means "fits of farting."

"And these shall go into everlasting fits of farting; but the just men shall go into everlasting life."


​

In any case "torture" certainly can't mean severe physical or mental suffering.

.

Oh, I happily admit that I think the entire bible is 100% fiction, and deliberately so. In fact, if there be any tiny fraction that isn't pure fantasy? It's entirely by accident-- nobody is that good, and so some actual facts may have accidentally been included-- but not by design.