Smoking Gun, Oh Atheists?

[ImmortalFlame]

No, I don't accept part of the Bible to accept. I'm a fundamentalist. All verses in all 66 books of the most commonly accepted canon are pure words of Jesus Christ, profitable for action, meditation and inspiration.

So you believe that rape isn't always wrong?

There's nothing difficult to understand about humans being impulsive or vindictive on occasion. There's something horrendous, however, when brother murders brother. His blood cries out from the ground. If we go to Heaven and God plays on a giant HD screen your life, would you be able to coherently point out where you made occasional missteps only?

What are you talking about? Can you please try to remain on ONE subject at a time?

 

[1robin]

so we are made in your god's image. that then means your god is intolerant, hates everyone who is not heterosexual, women who want autonomy, people of any other religious tradition, and so on. because, while you personally may not admit to that, that is what the bible bangers are only too happy to point out, namely everyone who is not like them--whatever that may mean to any given claimant of xtianity--gets treated like they are subhuman. yeah, especially those who think science is valid and evolution explains the existence of life on this planet without the benefit of the supernatural.

If you are going to try and pick on Christian doctrines then use the actual doctrines themselves instead of straw men.

Being made in the image of God means:

1. We are moral agents.
2. We have freewill.
3. We hold a finite and limited version of God's universal and eternal sovereignty.

Find fault with that.

A. I have no problem admitting the bible condemns homosexuality (but I usually show it is wrong using secular arguments). God loves homosexuals more than you love anything, he just hates the suffering sexual immorality causes. He died to pay for the massive destruction our moral insanity causes, you didn't.
B. At one time it is said God destroyed almost the entire human race because it did nothing but evil, and atheists cry INTOLERANCE. God has also withheld that same judgment concerning the same race that in the last 5000 years culminating in the great social Darwinist utopias of Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, have had 300 years without major war in the last 5000, and atheists cry TOO TOLERANT. So which is it, too intolerant or too intolerant. He can't be both.
C. Quote the verse where God is said to hate a person because they are in another religion. It is true that Christianity is exclusive, but then again truth is almost always exclusive. Is the number 4 evil because that is the only answer to 2 + 2 =?
D. If you think science and faith are at odds why are over 80% of Nobel Laureates Christians or Jewish? When Newton discovered the laws of motion, did he say "I guess I don't need God anymore, no he wrote that made his faith even more full of wonder.
E. Without a supernatural uncaused first cause you wouldn't have anything to evolve, anywhere for it to evolve, or any time over which to evolve. If your going to appeal to random mechanisms at least start at the beginning.

does this mean that god has multiple personality disorder? or is this in fact, proof that everyone has their own personal godlet?

It proves you have no idea what Yahweh actually is or has done and are apparently unfamiliar with the last 2000 years worth of biblical scholarship.

regarding quoting biblical verses, why bother. since they are all individually interpreted and the various interpretation are only loosely followed, i.e. when it's convenient, I won't bother with that. anyhow, a collection of myths has no relevance in reality.

I did not say to quote verses to you, I have no idea who you are, I said it to a person who was misrepresenting specific biblical doctrines. You are doing something more like yelling at traffic than anything else. If you think for example the gospels can be written off as myth you do not know much about the gospels or much about how myths are established, you are not even in the realm where bible verses are relevant yet. Stop ranting, seething, and yelling through your keyboard and start making evidence based rational or philosophic arguments.

 

[1robin]

That's not a claim I've ever made.

Ok then lets back up the truth trolley and find out what you did mean. You said:

Most parents I know would sacrifice almost nearly anything and everything for their child, and do everything they can to help them, and their love is unconditional and unshakeable. God just seems to have given up after Adam and Eve sinned, and decided there would be no more chances and that everyone in the future who was absolutely in no way involved will be punished as well.

First humans are finite, we have no infinite capacities or attributes. Second, that looks very much like a bad version of the formal argument concerning "the problem of evil". If it wasn't the only thing left I can think of is your claiming God did not do as you would have had him do, but no conclusion follows from that premise, so there is little I need do in response.

BTW God didn't give up, he came down to Earth and despite being morally perfect he did not remain aloof and distance himself from our suffering. A great Indian philosopher said the Galilean didn't conquer in spite of suffering, he conquered through suffering. The excruciating physical suffering Christ voluntarily bore for our sins was not even the primary way he suffered so we would not have to. He endured utter separation from a father who's perfect love he had never lacked in an existence that extends causally prior to creation.

I can start doing that, but what does that say about yourself, the Christian, asking an anti-Christ to source their claims of what the Bible says.

What? It is not your world view or mine that makes the bible's claims relevant. It is the fact that you chose to find fault with them that does. It is the subject of a debate that determines what is relevant.

 

[1robin]

Thank you for sharing Dr. Craig's post on the subject. He is a marvelous apologist.

He wrote that "“Objective” means “independent of people’s (including one’s own) opinion.” Rape is always objectively wrong.

He also wrote that "“Absolute” means “regardless of the circumstances.” “Relative” means “varying with the circumstances.” It is absolutely wrong to commit rape, and rape is never relatively okay or right.

I chose rape most carefully as the OP knowing that atheists LOVE to chat about slavery, capital punishment, etc. but are likewise unwilling to say rape is both objectively and absolutely wrong. After all, as you so clearly put it, if atheists believe that absolute morality exists in nature, then the universe holds absolutes, implying a creator and a moral creator.

The morality of killing is not like rape, it does vary. It is never right to murder, but a person can be right to kill in self defense, etc......... So if someone said killing was absolutely wrong, they would in fact be wrong. Glad you looked it up and explained it, it makes perfect sense.

Let my give you two definitions that may save you time debating atheists about morality. Because they mean something entirely different by the term it is good to clarify this upfront.

Objective morality -
Malum in se (plural mala in se) is a Latin phrase meaning wrong or evil in itself. The phrase is used to refer to conduct assessed as sinful or inherently wrong by nature, independent of regulations governing the conduct. .
Malum in se - Wikipedia

This is what theists mean by the term morality but this kind of morality cannot possibly exist without God.

Subjective morality, relative morality, or simply ethics -
Malum prohibitum (plural mala prohibita, literal translation: "wrong [as or because] prohibited") is a Latin phrase used in law to refer to conduct that constitutes an unlawful act only by virtue of statute, as opposed to conduct that is evil in and of itself, or malum in se.
Malum prohibitum - Wikipedia

This is what atheists are talking about. To avoid confusion I ask them to refer to the first as morality and the second as ethics just to keep from talking past each other.

Also watch for them to respond to a claim about the nature (ontology) of morality with a response about how we come to know about (epistemology) morality. I used to warn them up front not to do so, but when I saw they would eventually do it anyway, I gave it up.

 

[1robin]

You are obfuscating. Is god all knowing according to the bible? Yes. I don't need to quote it.

Did he create man knowing exactly what the outcome would be? If he is all knowing then the answer has to be yes.

Did he create the rules knowing man would break them? Again, the answer has to be yes.

Still not one single verse. If I do not see a single verse from the bible in yet another post, when I get to the end, then I will no longer be able to justify responding. You attempted to compare God to some meaningless hypothetical parent who exiled their kid to eternal damnation the first mistake they made. That analogy does not represent anything in the bible.

1. God holds kids to be unaccountable and does not consign them to eternal separation from God no matter how many horrible things they do.
2. God also has never irrevocably separated a person from himself for their first sin. But any time this side of the dirt we have access to more than enough evidence to come to faith in God and with him our eternal salvation.

The bible says we pass from condemnation, in to redemption. Your trying to reverse the process and blame it on God.

So no, your analogies do not represent the bible. Probably why you never quote it.

How is any of this misrepresenting the bible? It's all in there. You are talking about things that happened after the fact, but it all hails from this 'original sin' right?

See the above.

So be it. But by his own rules, not to mention the rules humanity has established, he should be in the same hot seat as the rest of us.

I do not know why God would be bound by rules meant for finite minded, morally insane, nephish primates. For example there are laws about sanitation given to Moses concerning a camp environment (basically germ theory), laws given to the Levites about temple activity, laws given about sexual purity, etc...... why would God be governed by any of them? Adults have a radically different set of laws and rules that govern them compared to children based on capacity. Yet the capacity difference between an average adult and average child is relatively quantum in scale compared to the difference in capacity between God and man. The only thing that binds a righteous God is self revelation. BTW you might want to look up great making properties to understand divine command theory.

Why on earth would I quote the bible? Everything I have claimed it says, it says. I am simply looking at what it says and pointing out the glaring fault the rest of you ignore in your need to believe the whole thing is founded on a good and noble god.

Ok, that is it. Not one verse in dozens of posts from the specific book your trying but miserably failing to condemn. I will leave you to it, I can no longer justify the time.

 

[Simurgh]

If you are going to try and pick on Christian doctrines then use the actual doctrines themselves instead of straw men.
......
If you think for example the gospels can be written off as myth you do not know much about the gospels or much about how myths are established, you are not even in the realm where bible verses are relevant yet. Stop ranting, seething, and yelling through your keyboard and start making evidence based rational or philosophic arguments.

ok first off, stating that xtians don't live by their own doctrines is not the same as picking said doctrines apart. i'm not! i merely point out the hypocrisy of all that moralistic posturing that too many xtians do, claiming to be "good" xtians, when they can't even agree on what that means.
and yes, the gospels are part of xtian mythology. hey, we can't even be sure that jesus ever existed. prophets were endemic during the supposed time of the christos/chrestos, and a valid position can be taken as to jesus being either a composite of a few men who were trying to reform judaism at that time, or that he is just a mythological figure that fulfilled a need. there is no evidence that the man actually existed as a discrete and singular person.
since you are into rational evidence--how that is supposed to work with a belief based on no evidence--you can go for it and start proving yourself factual and rational. and what doctrines would you like to debate? do any of them have a rational and factual grounding? or do you want to pretend that what you belief is provable and based on evidence?

 

[Searching1981]

Well, I haven't read most of the responses but let me guide you with Hegelian Dialectic. Like most things on the internet, you won't find anything accurate about Hegel on the Internet. So, if you want to better understand him then read his Elements of the Philosophy of the Right and his Introduction to the History of the world. In his time he was called the Protestant Aquinus, Aquinus was a Catholic Philosopher.

There is a difference between Good and Evil and Right and Wrong. OK, you say how does that work. Good and Evil respond to Spiritual matters and matters of the soul. Right and Wrong, like our Rights, respond to the Legal System. So, theoretically in the Western World something can be Good like helping your neighbor, but is not Right there are no laws forcing you to help your neighbor. Or, they can be Right like Trump's Travel Ban, but not in any way Good in the Religious sense. I use Trump as an example because he is now making our laws so there are quite a few things that he is making Right which are Evil.

Now, how does this translate to this discussion. OK we know Rape is both Evil and Wrong (legally actionable) but then people say, "The Bible doesn't condemn Rape." I say you read that on the internet probably coming from Rapists. Why? Because the Roman Empire which controlled all of Europe before Europe was Europe had no laws on Rape or Slavery. We are ancestors of the Roman Empire in the Western World so at what point does Rape and Slavery get outlawed? I'll tell you when Constantine converts the Roman Empire into the Holy Roman Empire based off of Christianity. So, in reality while you may read on the internet that Rape is condoned in the Bible it clearly is not if it was outlawed, like slavery, by the Judeo-Christian framework. Oh, so because internet people who have no education and have an agenda can't see it it must not be true....until History shows you it is true and History is not on the internet.

So, then you say what of the Curse of Ham? I say what of the Great Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King? The Christian has always had evil people since Simon the Sorcerer trying to upend it but what has happened so far? Christianity, Faith, Courage has won. I'm a Liberal and I say we now live in a time when Atheists pretending to be Pastor are teaching the Faith and Pilates like Trump eat it up while doing licentious things because it gets them votes and now the internet misguides and rewrites history all while you sit there and consume it and say, "this is how it always has been," I tell you one generations Propaganda (Internet) becomes the Next Generations sense of History and, man, do we have a huge Russian Propaganda machine.

Now for Atheists to be sincere you have to admit, "Christianity was a net good in History because we have all these laws derived from it," but you can also add, "it is no longer good and it has had it's place and we need something better." If you say that, I hope you get a really, really good education because look at Russia, China, North Korea because it is happening here. You live under the illusion you are free but everything you are presented is censored and controlled. Just like John Lennon said in Working Class Hero, "And you think you're so clever and classless and free But you're still f***ing peasants as far as I can see."

The sad conclusion? You will never have music like that ever again so how enlightened are you?

 

[Simurgh]

Well, I haven't read most of the responses but let me guide you with Hegelian Dialectic. Like most things on the internet, you won't find anything accurate about Hegel on the Internet. So, if you want to better understand him then read his Elements of the Philosophy of the Right and his Introduction to the History of the world. In his time he was called the Protestant Aquinus, Aquinus was a Catholic Philosopher.

There is a difference between Good and Evil and Right and ..........................................

Now for Atheists to be sincere you have to admit, "Christianity was a net good in History because we have all these laws derived from it," but you can also add, "it is no longer good and it has had it's place and we need something better." If you say that, I hope you get a really, really good education because look at Russia, China, North Korea because it is happening here. You live under the illusion you are free but everything you are presented is censored and controlled. Just like John Lennon said in Working Class Hero, "And you think you're so clever and classless and free But you're still f***ing peasants as far as I can see."

The sad conclusion? You will never have music like that ever again so how enlightened are you?

you could be a funny dude if you were not such a self-righteous twit. yeah, reading some philosphers' books is just great. you managed to do it, and now you are qualified to judge other people and their reading habits? are you really that conceited that you assume no one else is capable of reading System der Logic, Die Phänomenologie des Geistes, or maybe Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Religion. so if you want to play the purist, you better read Hegel in the original german, else how sure can you be that the translation is keeping within the spirit of the author?

and contrary to what you think is so good about xtianity and their religious mythology, i disagree. so would the natives of all continents that were subjected to xtian conversion tactics and the brutality of the intolerant practitioners of that faith. that includes the pagan europeans who were persecuted and tortured in the name of that so-called benevolent god.
no, i'm not a peasant, f***ing or otherwise, and if you equate enlightened thinking with religious thinking then you are a sad and delusional bible banger indeed. besides, what makes you such a internet hater when you clearly use it? and the xtians did not end slavery. slavery has been around ever since people settled in the neolithic and started fighting over resources. anyhow, a lot of "good" xtians made a fortune of enslaving people and even more made money using them. and how about today's human trafficking? no xtians involved? dream on, you are hiding your head in the sand, little ostrich.

and by the way, our laws evolved from roman law, local common laws precedent rulings, and social contracts between ruler and ruled. if people had to wait around for xtians to create laws, they would have never survived to the point where they could write them down and act as if they had invented morality and social responsibility.

 

[Searching1981]

you could be a funny dude if you were not such a self-righteous twit. yeah, reading some philosphers' books is just great. you managed to do it, and now you are qualified to judge other people and their reading habits? are you really that conceited that you assume no one else is capable of reading System der Logic, Die Phänomenologie des Geistes, or maybe Vorlesungen über die Philosophie der Religion. so if you want to play the purist, you better read Hegel in the original german, else how sure can you be that the translation is keeping within the spirit of the author?

and contrary to what you think is so good about xtianity and their religious mythology, i disagree. so would the natives of all continents that were subjected to xtian conversion tactics and the brutality of the intolerant practitioners of that faith. that includes the pagan europeans who were persecuted and tortured in the name of that so-called benevolent god.
no, i'm not a peasant, f***ing or otherwise, and if you equate enlightened thinking with religious thinking then you are a sad and delusional bible banger indeed. besides, what makes you such a internet hater when you clearly use it? and the xtians did not end slavery. slavery has been around ever since people settled in the neolithic and started fighting over resources. anyhow, a lot of "good" xtians made a fortune of enslaving people and even more made money using them. and how about today's human trafficking? no xtians involved? dream on, you are hiding your head in the sand, little ostrich.

and by the way, our laws evolved from roman law, local common laws precedent rulings, and social contracts between ruler and ruled. if people had to wait around for xtians to create laws, they would have never survived to the point where they could write them down and act as if they had invented morality and social responsibility.

Don't tell me you read it, tell me about it. Show, not tell. Searching in German, which you don't know if I speak or do you? And what you tell me better be original and not something off a site I can tell...because I read it.

 

[Simurgh]

Don't tell me you read it, tell me about it. Show, not tell. Searching in German, which you don't know if I speak or do you? And what you tell me better be original and something off a site I can tell...because I read it.

yep, you totally missed the point. Und so das du es auch weisst, ich habe Hegel, Kant, Schopenhaur, Nietzsche, Adorno, und viele andere Philosphen in Deutsch gelesen. J'ai lu Bourdieux, Foucault, Derrida, Isigaray, et autres en francais aussi. and then there were some english dudes and the greeks i admit to have read in translation and so on and so forth. whatever. what i said was that you like to make yourself out to be some sort of special snowflake because you glommed on to Hegel. get over it.
just say that you want to engage in a rational discourse and be done with it. then state your premise. if your premise was that we are either dependent on xtianity to understand what is good and what is not, then you failed. you make assertions, get judgemental, and claim that you get Hegel and the rest of us don't because we rely on the internet for information. that is just an arrogant and unsubstantiated assumption and not a dialectic approach towards an issue.
case in point, you get all self-important about reading Hegel and then when i ask if you did that in german, because i know fully well that things get lost in translation you want to question my credentials regarding the language. to repeat myself, get over it. if you wan to engage in a meaningful discussion with anyone, you need to get off that high horse of imagined superiority and say something that makes sense. your diatribe does not.

 

[Searching1981]

You said Snowflake, you are not German nor know German but Google Translate. What time is it in Germany right now? I lived in England with many German friends at the London School of Economics and I've visited Germany countless times. This is how people with Pedigree talk and relate, none of us are offended by it. What I tell you is if you feel so inferior to me because I present the Truth can you imagine how much Truth you've missed out on because it is superior to you. So, instead, of saying, "I am superior to you," while I'm saying, "I'm just myself, I'm not doing anything," I urge you to be reflective.

I'm not here to convert you but to show you hypocrisy and to spread the Truth. Now, I can tell you I'm in the Purgatory writing this with a ten year sentence but why do I care people like you will still try to hunt me. But what I will say is I'm clearly not the Christ nor anywhere near him but I understand Him when he writes, "I am not here to Unite but to Divide." Of course he is Right. The world at this moment is being divided amongst the Wheat and the Chaff.

 

[Underhill]

Still not one single verse. If I do not see a single verse from the bible in yet another post, when I get to the end, then I will no longer be able to justify responding. You attempted to compare God to some meaningless hypothetical parent who exiled their kid to eternal damnation the first mistake they made. That analogy does not represent anything in the bible.

1. God holds kids to be unaccountable and does not consign them to eternal separation from God no matter how many horrible things they do.
2. God also has never irrevocably separated a person from himself for their first sin. But any time this side of the dirt we have access to more than enough evidence to come to faith in God and with him our eternal salvation.

The bible says we pass from condemnation, in to redemption. Your trying to reverse the process and blame it on God.

So no, your analogies do not represent the bible. Probably why you never quote it.

See the above.

Never? What of the thousands of years when the Jews were gods chosen and everyone else was a gentile?

As I said, this conversation is about as pointless as they come. You cannot see past your belief to look at what the book says rationally. I get it. You've invested too much to take an honest look.

I do not know why God would be bound by rules meant for finite minded, morally insane, nephish primates. For example there are laws about sanitation given to Moses concerning a camp environment (basically germ theory), laws given to the Levites about temple activity, laws given about sexual purity, etc...... why would God be governed by any of them? Adults have a radically different set of laws and rules that govern them compared to children based on capacity. Yet the capacity difference between an average adult and average child is relatively quantum in scale compared to the difference in capacity between God and man. The only thing that binds a righteous God is self revelation. BTW you might want to look up great making properties to understand divine command theory.


Ok, that is it. Not one verse in dozens of posts from the specific book your trying but miserably failing to condemn. I will leave you to it, I can no longer justify the time.

You do that. This primate is going to stand by the notion that any deity who wishes me as a follower should, at the very least, follow the rules of common decency.

 

[1robin]

ok first off, stating that xtians don't live by their own doctrines is not the same as picking said doctrines apart. i'm not! i merely point out the hypocrisy of all that moralistic posturing that too many xtians do, claiming to be "good" xtians, when they can't even agree on what that means.

You do not understand what Christianity is and what Christians believe.

1. God is morally perfect and cannot accept imperfection into heaven. If he did, it would become a Hell in short order.
2. God supplied a moral code by which we can see that we are morally flawed and fall short of his standards.
3. Christians simply admit that we are moral failures and that we do not have anything to offer which will bridge the gap.
4. God provided a morally perfect being who did meet his standards and who sacrificed himself by taking God's wrath in my place. The moment I believe, Christ's righteousness is credited to my account, and my sin to his, which he paid the entire price. That is what substitutionary atonement means.
5. Christians simply accept God's provision for our obvious universal moral failures.
6. However many Christians do go on to live very moral lives, if you want examples of wise instruction and moral excellence then Christianity has more of them than any similar group.
7. I do not need a savior if I could perfectly obey the bible's commands.

BTW when a Christian is saved he is made righteous, not perfect. Righteous means "right standing before God" not moral perfection. However when we are resurrected we will be given new spiritual bodies that will be perfect.

and yes, the gospels are part of xtian mythology. hey, we can't even be sure that jesus ever existed. prophets were endemic during the supposed time of the christos/chrestos, and a valid position can be taken as to jesus being either a composite of a few men who were trying to reform judaism at that time, or that he is just a mythological figure that fulfilled a need. there is no evidence that the man actually existed as a discrete and singular person.

No they are not. Myth implies untruth. You made a claim to knowledge so the burden is yours and yours alone. Prove to me the gospels are untrue.

It is almost impossible to get a myth to take hold during the generation of eye witnesses to the events. For example if you wrote a book in 2030 claiming President Obama had defeated China in an all out war you would never get more than a handful of brain dead idiots to agree with you, but you will get an avalanche of people who do not agree. The resurrection is the diametrical opposite, everything we have from the time is in the affirmative. Can you produce a single claim from anyone (even Christ's enemies) that were on site and recorded "I was there and that did not happen" concerning a single miracle involving Christ?

Actually lets make this simpler. Lets just concern our selves with the least probable (or most fantastic) miracle, Christ's resurrection. Show it to be false, good luck.

since you are into rational evidence--how that is supposed to work with a belief based on no evidence--you can go for it and start proving yourself factual and rational. and what doctrines would you like to debate? do any of them have a rational and factual grounding? or do you want to pretend that what you belief is provable and based on evidence?

There is an embarrassment of evidence. There is more textual evidence for Christ that any other figure in ancient history of any kind. The bible's textual tradition is far more reliable than any other work of any kind in ancient history. That is two claims to knowledge and I will provide eIf you want to debate the claims of the bible the first place to start is the textual integrity of the bible. I provided two claims concerning it which you must deal with.

BTW you (nor the other poster) who are condemning the bible's claims have yet to post a single verse from it.

 

[Simurgh]

You said Snowflake, you are not German nor know German but Google Translate. What time is it in Germany right now? I lived in England with many German friends at the London School of Economics and I've visited Germany countless times. This is how people with Pedigree talk and relate, none of us are offended by it. What I tell you is if you feel so inferior to me because I present the Truth can you imagine how much Truth you've missed out on because it is superior to you. So, instead, of saying, "I am superior to you," while I'm saying, "I'm just myself, I'm not doing anything," I urge you to be reflective.

I'm not here to convert you but to show you hypocrisy and to spread the Truth. Now, I can tell you I'm in the Purgatory writing this with a ten year sentence but why do I care people like you will still try to hunt me. But what I will say is I'm clearly not the Christ nor anywhere near him but I understand Him when he writes, "I am not here to Unite but to Divide." Of course he is Right. The world at this moment is being divided amongst the Wheat and the Chaff.

all right, little special snowflake. i have no idea why using the term snowflake mares me as being non-german, but hey. you're right. i am not german, but if you lived in england then you should at least have a basic knowledge of europe. there are two other countries where german is a primary language. so guess what, i am a native german speaker who is not german. how's that? and just because you had some german friends does not mean you know anything about germany either. besides, what difference does it make if i know what time it is in germany now? like i can't google that? what pedigree are you talking about? you think because you insult me that gives you one?
english does not seem to be your first language, judging by the way you express yourself. or maybe that's just angst and that froth at your mouth that makes you sound so unhinged. either way, as much as you want to tell everyone that you are a hegel fanboy, you just prove that you understand nothing about what he stood for--rational discourse?!? the truth you rant on about is obviously your attempt at arguing from authority. yeah, might work with the religiously deluded, but not with people who actually understand what rational thought is.
and why quote bible verses? do we atheists expect you to quote "Stranger in a Strange Land"? in order to be able to act all superior like. what good do bible verses do in a rational conversation?

 

[Simurgh]

You do not understand what Christianity is and what Christians believe.

1. God is morally perfect and cannot accept imperfection into heaven. If he did, it would become a Hell in short order.
2. God supplied a moral code by which we can see that we are morally flawed and fall short of his standards.
3. Christians simply admit that we are moral failures and that we do not have anything to offer which will bridge the gap.
4. God provided a morally perfect being who did meet his standards and who sacrificed himself by taking God's wrath in my place. The moment I believe, Christ's righteousness is credited to my account, and my sin to his, which he paid the entire price. That is what substitutionary atonement means.
5. Christians simply accept God's provision for our obvious universal moral failures.
6. However many Christians do go on to live very moral lives, if you want examples of wise instruction and moral excellence then Christianity has more of them than any similar group.
7. I do not need a savior if I could perfectly obey the bible's commands.

BTW when a Christian is saved he is made righteous, not perfect. Righteous means "right standing before God" not moral perfection. However when we are resurrected we will be given new spiritual bodies that will be perfect.

No they are not. Myth implies untruth. You made a claim to knowledge so the burden is yours and yours alone. Prove to me the gospels are untrue.

It is almost impossible to get a myth to take hold during the generation of eye witnesses to the events. For example if you wrote a book in 2030 claiming President Obama had defeated China in an all out war you would never get more than a handful of brain dead idiots to agree with you, but you will get an avalanche of people who do not agree. The resurrection is the diametrical opposite, everything we have from the time is in the affirmative. Can you produce a single claim from anyone (even Christ's enemies) that were on site and recorded "I was there and that did not happen" concerning a single miracle involving Christ?

Actually lets make this simpler. Lets just concern our selves with the least probable (or most fantastic) miracle, Christ's resurrection. Show it to be false, good luck.


There is an embarrassment of evidence. There is more textual evidence for Christ that any other figure in ancient history of any kind. The bible's textual tradition is far more reliable than any other work of any kind in ancient history. That is two claims to knowledge and I will provide eIf you want to debate the claims of the bible the first place to start is the textual integrity of the bible. I provided two claims concerning it which you must deal with.

BTW you (nor the other poster) who are condemning the bible's claims have yet to post a single verse from it.

yeah well, i don't need to prove that you are deluded. prove you're not. so you have a book full of myths. good for you. by the way, mythos simply means story. that we have sometimes added a negative connotation to the term is not the fault of the word, now is it?

all of that stuff you quoted above is meaningless. it might satisfy your need to justify believing in the supernatural, but that's where that ends. it proves nothing.

 

[1robin]

yeah well, i don't need to prove that you are deluded. prove you're not. so you have a book full of myths. good for you. by the way, mythos simply means story. that we have sometimes added a negative connotation to the term is not the fault of the word, now is it?

Oh yes you do. It is the burden of claims to truth that require proofs, my position is the faith position. It's only burden is the lack of a defeater.

So you have a burden to prove the universal negative you claim was a fact, or you can prove that the bible is 100% myth. Until you meet the burden your own claims have I can't justify spending debating you in depth.

all of that stuff you quoted above is meaningless. it might satisfy your need to justify believing in the supernatural, but that's where that ends. it proves nothing.

Another claim to knowledge. You just don't learn your lessons do you? Prove that everything I said was meaningless.

Good luck, you have all your work yet ahead of you.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Thousands of followers, fame... it's kind of hard to measure their motivations 2000 years after the fact. But by your logic why would Mohamed do it? Or Joseph Smith? What about Buddha or Charles Russel? They can't have all done it because they were compelled by the one true god...

But this is a different case. And they didn't have thousands of followers or the right kind of fame. Paul spoke often of being deserted in prison and trial, of being hated, misunderstood, beaten, shipwrecked, imprisoned, sleepless, impoverished.

Joseph Smith had forty plus spiritual wives. Muhammed had dozens. I've read their works and the Bible and am convinced the Bible writers were legit. What do you think of the voice of the Bible writers?

 

[BilliardsBall]

This is just priming for spinning way off topic of the thread, but no, we don't have to assert any absolute morals. What we assert is what our society places higher value in and why. And what tangible data can be used to determine what minimizes suffering and why, if we agree that minimal suffering is what we are going for. But it's not universal because we must first agree on definitions (or at least find consensus) and have the same goals.

For example suffering of forced continuance of pregnancy is greater than the suffering the fetus by the pregnancy ending. There's also arguments to be made about body autonomy and compromising human rights for reasons that have to do with calls to emotion. (Such as dissolving the rights of criminals for medical testing And that being cruel and unusual punishment.)

For homosexuality the suffering of homosexuals whoncant access the rights of marriage which helps a great deal with taxes, insurance, merging property and wealth, and helping with children (And yes, gays have kids too), is greater than Christians who never really controlled how marriage was defined in this country to begin with. And for consistency should np more be able to control if gays get married than if Satanists do.

And again, I don't believe Christians are making absolute moral claims. Because I don't agree that arguments from authority are absolute, or that moral instruction they receive from that authority aren't filtered through several subjective POVs. (The deity itself, the writers, translators and interpretors.)

Before we move to abortion and gay rights, why is it that I cannot find one skeptic to agree with these assertions?

Rape is ALWAYS wrong

Rape is OBJECTIVELY, ABSOLUTELY, UNIVERSALLY, evil

 

[BilliardsBall]

If that's the case, how can I possibly answer your questions, since a utopia is essentially impossible?

I believe you just asked me a hypothetical question? Do you know how to answer one as well as ask one, then?

A utopia is indeed ESSENTIALLY IMPOSSIBLE WITH PEOPLE IN IT. Therefore, Jesus Christ. Died > Rose > Saves > Transforms > Utopian citizens.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I believe you just asked me a hypothetical question? Do you know how to answer one as well as ask one, then?

Not if you're asking for something that doesn't actually make sense. Like asking how many spoonfuls would you need to take out of a basin of infinite spoonfuls in order for there to be less than infinite spoonfuls.

A utopia is indeed ESSENTIALLY IMPOSSIBLE WITH PEOPLE IN IT. Therefore, Jesus Christ. Died > Rose > Saves > Transforms > Utopian citizens.

What?