Smoking Gun, Oh Atheists?

[JustWondering]

The iconography of several Christian denominations depicts Christ with unhealed wounds.

I can see the biblical god not healing his son's wounds. Every time god gets involved with humans in the bible it seems that someone is in for a bad time. To be fair, I think most gods that were invented in that area and time frame were tyrannical and to be feared.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The iconography of several Christian denominations depicts Christ with unhealed wounds.

They may depict that (I've even seen some pretty funny, hilarious albeit very blasphemous, facebook pictures depicting that), but I am very doubtful anyone could walk after having a spike driving through their ankles/feet.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

They may depict that (I've even seen some pretty funny, hilarious albeit very blasphemous, facebook pictures depicting that), but I am very doubtful anyone could walk after having a spike driving through their ankles/feet.

That depends: is this a magical person?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

That depends: is this a magical person?

Given Jesus' promotion of humility and not drawing attention to yourself (especially in matters of faith), it strikes me as odd to think Jesus would walk around with such attention-grabbing wounds.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Given Jesus' promotion of humility and not drawing attention to yourself (especially in matters of faith), it strikes me as odd to think Jesus would walk around with such attention-grabbing wounds.

It could join the long, long list of inconsistencies in Christianity.

 

[Underhill]

It sounds like you are making an argument from silence (it could have happened either way, we just don't know what happened). Do I misunderstand you?

Also, know that when Christians rejected the intertestamental apocrypha, one proof was that the Jews regarding the EXACT same books as apocryphal--why you won't find the Maccabees, for example, in either a Hebrew or Christian Bible. It's not as spurious and random as you claim.[/QUOTE]

You're not following what I'm saying. Both testaments say thousands of times, "Hear now the Word of the Lord . . . "

Apocryphal books often say things like, "Here is the wisdom that my grandfather taught me."

*no God-author claims
*no prophecies to be fulfilled
*self-contradictory
*etc.

There were reasons to reject the apocrypha, and these reasons were applied with consistency. The same reasons still hold true. I've read much of the apocrypha and 100% of the 66 books of the Bible. I can see stylistic and textual reasons as I read, why the apocrypha is obviously inferior. You?

Sure I have. And you are wrong. Most of the early books of the old testament are written stories, not "the word of god". Even the Psalms is a bunch of Poetry by David.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Apparently you don't know how analogies work.

Okay then. Let's offer you a different deal: you are subjected to three days of humiliation and agony. At the end of the three days, however, not only will the humiliation and pain go away, you will be made all powerful and will be a symbol of worship for billions of people. On top of this, you will save all three million people who would have died from the bomb I mentioned earlier. What have you sacrificed?


Except it makes no sense, since God set all the conditions of the sin and the repeal of it. God could have absolved all the sin any way they wanted, or not even placed the sin on humanity in the first place. What you're suggesting is akin to me setting up the aforementioned bomb and deciding not to set it off, and calling this a sacrifice. It isn't. I set up the bomb, and I could have decided to not set up the bomb, or to deactivate the bomb, at any point. Fact is, if God were truly just, no salvation would have been required in the first place. It's just plain silly.

These are canards to me. I hear them from atheists frequently. For 1) above - Jesus was already all-powerful, receiving all things and worship, etc. The rest of your post seems to indicate that all human trials are pleasant, even easy, based on reward. What did an athlete sacrifice and suffer to win a gold medal? Nothing! What did a devout student give up to earn two Ph.D's, really? Nothing! As soon as you apply common sense reasoning to biblical things (stop putting them in unique classifications) the Bible will be more sensible to you.

As for 2) What does that mean, "placed the sin on humanity in the first place". Free will beings make free will choices for sin or righteousness rather than those things being "placed" or "awarded" to us. Do you tell your partner, "If you were a better lover, I would never have needed to commit adultery in the first place . . . " Your partner wouldn't accept that shirk of responsibility. Nor does Jesus Christ.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Don't presume to speak for me.

The Bible passage portrays the torturing to death of David and Bathsheba's newborn son as a deliberate choice by God. It's dishonest to portray it as some sort of inevitable consequence.


The passage portrays God as a sadistic, psychopathic murderer. How do you think a human being who tortured a newborn baby to death should be treated?

Rather, the Bible portrays a number of certain consequences as both inevitable and authored by a sovereign God. One way I know I'm God's child--when I err, I receive chastisement.

I noticed you are assaulting God for making a child suffer but the parent of that child, David, worshiped the Lord before and immediately after the baby died.

Your last sentence is interesting. Why does the sadistic, psychopathic murderer give us entire chapters on love, self-sacrifice, redemption, healing, divine gifts, proverbial wisdom, etc. Christians will struggle in all honesty with themes of justice in the Bible, but you seem to have a flawed view of God because you seem to have an incomplete picture of the Bible to draw upon.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

These are canards to me. I hear them from atheists frequently. For 1) above - Jesus was already all-powerful, receiving all things and worship, etc.

So, therefore, their sacrifice was completely pointless and unnecessary.

The rest of your post seems to indicate that all human trials are pleasant, even easy, based on reward.

I am getting increasingly tired of you missing the point. I never said the trial would be "easy" or "pleasant". That's you dishonestly putting words in my mouth - don't do it again. The point is that if you're doing something finite for infinite reward - while also giving a huge benefit to many other people - it can hardly be considered a "sacrifice".

What did an athlete sacrifice and suffer to win a gold medal? Nothing! What did a devout student give up to earn two Ph.D's, really? Nothing! As soon as you apply common sense reasoning to biblical things (stop putting them in unique classifications) the Bible will be more sensible to you.

Ignoring the logic of the argument and formulating strawmen only serves to demonstrate how little you're willing to debate honestly.

We are not talking about ordinary people going through tremendous, life-long trials to achieve something. We are talking about an all-powerful being (a being that can literally do and achieve anything instantly) making a conscious decision to needlessly suffer for three days, at the end of which coming back to life and saving humanity from a fate that they themselves imposed. The fact that you can't admit that this isn't any kind of sacrifice is astonishing to me.

As for 2) What does that mean, "placed the sin on humanity in the first place". Free will beings make free will choices for sin or righteousness rather than those things being "placed" or "awarded" to us. Do you tell your partner, "If you were a better lover, I would never have needed to commit adultery in the first place . . . " Your partner wouldn't accept that shirk of responsibility. Nor does Jesus Christ.

Once again, you're comparing ordinary people to your supposed omnipotent, all-powerful creator. Your creator made the rules, they set up the conditions, they were fully aware of every consequence of every action before it occurred, they had the power to change any of this at any time and to alleviate it by any means but apparently made the choice not to and instead did a ridiculous, roundabout excursion by putting themselves into a mortal body and getting themselves tortured and killed. It makes absolutely no sense and cannot, by any reasonable human being, be considered a sacrifice.

The fact that you're unable to acknowledge that your God is a GOD and keep comparing them to human mortals just proves to me that you don't actually believe in God at all - you just want to feel like a human being is in charge of everything, because an ignorant, flawed human being could explain the Universe better than your God can.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Why is not crying out punishable by death? How did the decide she did not cry out? What if her mouth was gaged? What if she was a mute? What if the closest person to the rape was standing a mile away? Why punish a rape victim?

The OT has over 600 laws, but is not a law book, citing every possible statute in full detail. However, it provides principles to extrapolate from (as do our U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, for example).

"If it is consensual, punish both parties, if rape, punish one party" is the obvious extrapolation here.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Jesus' wounds from that crucifixion apparently healed. I have surgery scars on my knee and a more-or-less permanent limp (even if slight) because of the damage to that and my cartilage. So, yeah, healed/recovered crucifixion would probably give you a super-heightened pain thresh hold to look forward to, unless pain is your sexual thrill.

Since giving up on god, I took the helm of my own life, I'm not suicidal anymore, I went back to school and graduated with honors and distinctions (whereas with god I barely graduated high school), and it's continued to get better so much to the point I'm only a few months from turning 31 and I've drank and got drunk once this year of my life, unlike this time last year when I was still drinking the last handful of my alcohol binges. And, how ironic, I've even gotten better at those things Jesus went on about that people often like about him. But yet that was after I evicted him, his dad, and the holy ghost from my heart, soul, and life.

Jesus retains His crucifixion scars eternally, and showed them in evidence of His resurrection.

I'm very glad you are on the mend and doing well in school and life. I'm very glad you are not suicidal. But since being born again provides me and many, many others with joy and hope, I would presume that your former "Christian life" was under some kind of "Christian" abuse. I'm sorry about that.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So your god didn't design human DNA? If that's the case that only leaves evolution for how we ended up how we are. Are you saying you believe in evolution instead of creationism?

God designed DNA and DNA shows immense design in its arrangement. I'm unsure what your question has to do with my question/response to you earlier:

"Do you always hold parents responsible for the crimes of their children? That seems an untenable stance. Please tell me more."

You wish to accuse God of our sin, which makes no sense. I recognize I'm accountable for my own misdeeds. But you would punish my Father God or my earthly parents for the misdeeds I have committed? Tell me more.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Also, know that when Christians rejected the intertestamental apocrypha, one proof was that the Jews regarding the EXACT same books as apocryphal--why you won't find the Maccabees, for example, in either a Hebrew or Christian Bible. It's not as spurious and random as you claim.

Sure I have. And you are wrong. Most of the early books of the old testament are written stories, not "the word of god". Even the Psalms is a bunch of Poetry by David.[/QUOTE]

Have you read the Psalms? God speaks in many of them. There is prophecy in most of them. Some of the prophecies have come to pass.

Again, there were sound reasons for rejecting the apocrypha. I've read much apocrypha and the whole Bible and can spot the differences frequently and often.

Of course, our mutual problem is not what some vague apocrypha might say, but what the Bible clearly says, regarding sin, redemption, trusting Jesus Christ, Heaven, Hell, end times, etc.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Rather, the Bible portrays a number of certain consequences as both inevitable and authored by a sovereign God. One way I know I'm God's child--when I err, I receive chastisement.

So torturing the baby to death is God's will, but David's fault?

You know, I've been in discussions about morality where "torturing babies" gets thrown around as an example of something that's obviously wrong... and here you are defending it.

I noticed you are assaulting God for making a child suffer but the parent of that child, David, worshiped the Lord before and immediately after the baby died.

And the ends justify the means?

Your last sentence is interesting. Why does the sadistic, psychopathic murderer give us entire chapters on love, self-sacrifice, redemption, healing, divine gifts, proverbial wisdom, etc.

Why does an abusive spouse take their victim on vacations?

 

[JustWondering]

God designed DNA and DNA shows immense design in its arrangement. I'm unsure what your question has to do with my question/response to you earlier:

"Do you always hold parents responsible for the crimes of their children? That seems an untenable stance. Please tell me more."

You wish to accuse God of our sin, which makes no sense. I recognize I'm accountable for my own misdeeds. But you would punish my Father God or my earthly parents for the misdeeds I have committed? Tell me more.

So if a creator exists it created our DNA which determines our temperament and what urges and instincts we have. So god put the urge in kleptomaniacs to steal, god put the urge to rape into rapists, and god decided not to give some people empathy. He also put us in an environment where people are in desperate situations forcing them to do evil things just to survive. So god is responsible for whatever evil exists in the world. God created evil people, god created situations that force good people to do evil things to survive. To then say after that he holds no responsibility for the evil in the world is delusional and completely illogical.

To address your clumsy attempt to try sidestepping my point, parents do not design their children's DNA but they do raise their children, so it is possible in some instances that they are responsible for their child's behavior.

God calls man defective because we sin, but he made us this way, so yes god is ultimately responsible since he created us and then set us loose to do what he designed us to do. Its obvious to anyone not brainwashed since childhood to blindly except fairy tales as reality.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I would presume that your former "Christian life" was under some kind of "Christian" abuse.

More or less. Conservative Christian churches are known for tormenting LBGT youth exposed to such hatred.

 

[Underhill]

Have you read the Psalms? God speaks in many of them. There is prophecy in most of them. Some of the prophecies have come to pass.

Again, there were sound reasons for rejecting the apocrypha. I've read much apocrypha and the whole Bible and can spot the differences frequently and often.

Of course, our mutual problem is not what some vague apocrypha might say, but what the Bible clearly says, regarding sin, redemption, trusting Jesus Christ, Heaven, Hell, end times, etc.

We aren't going to come to agreement on this simply because you are willing to accept it as truth in the face of the absurdity of the whole book. To a logical mind the fact that much of it is obviously nonsense discredits the entire text. I couldn't care less about easily explained away prophecies and claims of mans infallibility from a monstrous god (if we are to believe the old testament). I feel the same way about every religious text I have ever read.

 

[Milton Platt]

The OT has over 600 laws, but is not a law book, citing every possible statute in full detail. However, it provides principles to extrapolate from (as do our U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, for example).

"If it is consensual, punish both parties, if rape, punish one party" is the obvious extrapolation here.

Actually, it is not. It is only one interpretation....the one that suits you.

 

[BilliardsBall]

So, therefore, their sacrifice was completely pointless and unnecessary.


I am getting increasingly tired of you missing the point. I never said the trial would be "easy" or "pleasant". That's you dishonestly putting words in my mouth - don't do it again. The point is that if you're doing something finite for infinite reward - while also giving a huge benefit to many other people - it can hardly be considered a "sacrifice".


Ignoring the logic of the argument and formulating strawmen only serves to demonstrate how little you're willing to debate honestly.

We are not talking about ordinary people going through tremendous, life-long trials to achieve something. We are talking about an all-powerful being (a being that can literally do and achieve anything instantly) making a conscious decision to needlessly suffer for three days, at the end of which coming back to life and saving humanity from a fate that they themselves imposed. The fact that you can't admit that this isn't any kind of sacrifice is astonishing to me.


Once again, you're comparing ordinary people to your supposed omnipotent, all-powerful creator. Your creator made the rules, they set up the conditions, they were fully aware of every consequence of every action before it occurred, they had the power to change any of this at any time and to alleviate it by any means but apparently made the choice not to and instead did a ridiculous, roundabout excursion by putting themselves into a mortal body and getting themselves tortured and killed. It makes absolutely no sense and cannot, by any reasonable human being, be considered a sacrifice.

The fact that you're unable to acknowledge that your God is a GOD and keep comparing them to human mortals just proves to me that you don't actually believe in God at all - you just want to feel like a human being is in charge of everything, because an ignorant, flawed human being could explain the Universe better than your God can.

Okay. Let's go to your last point:

" . . . an ignorant, flawed human being could explain the Universe better than your God can"

So, the building blocks that formed the universe post-BB expansion were "always here, eternal" despite the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy.

That isn't in any way a better explanation than the many detailed explanatory narratives in the Bible.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Okay. Let's go to your last point:

" . . . an ignorant, flawed human being could explain the Universe better than your God can"

That's according to you, not me. Your contention is that God must be some sort of ignorant, flawed being, because an all-powerful, all-knowing being would not make the ridiculous mistakes that your God has apparently made or be nearly as utterly incapable as you have described your God as being.

So, the building blocks that formed the universe post-BB expansion were "always here, eternal" despite the Law of Conservation of Matter and Energy.

I never said that.

That isn't in any way a better explanation than the many detailed explanatory narratives in the Bible.

The Bible doesn't have any explanatory narratives. Just narratives.