• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

1robin

Christian/Baptist
First off, I need to correct you: my position is that the woman has the right to end the pregnancy at any time. This is not the same as some sort of right to the death of the fetus. After viability, the pregnancy can be ended by inducing a live birth.
This is confusing but the one glaring problem is this. Where did this women get this right?

But back to your question: supporting abortion isn't a matter of believing that the fetus has no value, but that the woman's rights have more value. After birth, there's no conflict between the rights of the woman and the life of the baby.
Many of your points seem only to apply to conflicts between a mothers and a child's health. I do not contend with abortion in those circumstances. However in over 90% of the case it is a child's life verses a Mother's inconvenience for her own actions. Your arguments do not apply in that context.

Now let me turn your question around on you: after a person is born, we would never take your bone marrow or kidneys against your will even if that person would die without them. If you have the right to decide not to let someone use your organs, why wouldn't a pregnant woman? Why do you give a fetus even more rights than a normal person?
Oh come on. Kidneys are not ever considered to be persons. The actual relevant issues here are the value we place on human life as it exists in a person. BTW personhood has no line that can be drawn or should and I will prove this. Is there any argument that one second before whatever line they have simply invented that life was any less worthy of protection. They literally change that line over time and by state. There is no line that can be drawn and so the child by default always has protection under secular personhood or theologically as a soulish creature.

Please actually read my posts before you reply... did you even look at the half that you snipped out?
If I snipped it I guarantee you I did look at it.

People will keep breeding regardless of whether you decide to be consistent. And if you resolve the conflict the way I'd prefer - i.e. by accepting that the anti-choice position is wrong - then you're free to have kids without being worried about being logically inconsistent.
And if your side resolved the question by moral logic and responsibility instead of convenience a billion people would have lived instead of having been destroyed at the alter or preference. Your argument about ending all breeding because a small percentage of children die accidentally is too absurd to continue. If you wish to be flippant and ridiculous you will have to do so on your own.

Your position devalues pregnant women. You care about fetuses, but stop carrying about those fetuses after they've grown up and get pregnant themselves.
I swear your argumentation is usually at least coherent, but you have really lost it here. I never stopped caring about the fetus even when it grows up. The only way this argument mighty have applicability is if an abortion killed the mother every time. I am choosing between a mothers convenience and a child's life so your argument is just as inapplicable as the miscarriage one.

Again: the human race will continue regardless of whether you acknowledge the inconsistency in your position.
You have yet to show the slightest inconsistency exists.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Maybe you should read Isaiah 45:7. It says right there explicitly that Gawd creates evil. So what does that tell you? That he's evil.

If evil is outside the creation of God, then that would prove my point that God and the Devil are one and the same. You just unwittingly admitted it right there, yet you refuse to acknowledge it.
This is basic stuff. You ever heard of a commentary? Exegesis? Hermeneutics? It helps to actually find out what a verse is saying. Stripped of context, using interpretations convenient for your claim, and using verses in a vacuum is not scholarship or helpful. In 12 of the twenty most common versions the word evil is not the English word that the Hebrew was translated into. Of the 8 that did use evil, I thing 6 came from one common source. Not that even the use of evil is damning concerning God. The actual word originally used is ra' and means bad. As in a bad result. Hell is a bad result yet Hell is not unjust. Freewill means freedom to rebel. Rebelling demands and just God rebuke those who do so. That is bad and is ra'. Hebrew, Aramaic, and koine Greek and far more descriptive than English and so many times a word that is not quite perfect is chosen for an interpretation. It helps to actually look stuff up.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

I form the light, and create darkness,.... Natural light, or that light which was produced at the first creation, and of which the sun is the fountain and source; or day which is light, and night which is darkness, the constant revolutions of which were formed, appointed, and are continued by the Lord, Genesis 1:3, moral light, or the light of nature, the rational understanding in man; spiritual light, or the light of grace, by which things spiritual and supernatural are known; the light of joy and comfort from Christ, the sun of righteousness; and the light of eternal glory and happiness: this is all from God, of his producing and giving; and so darkness is his creature; that natural darkness which was upon the face of the earth at the beginning; what arises from the absence of the sun, or is occasioned by the eclipses of it, or very black clouds; or any extraordinary darkness, such as was in Egypt; or deprivation of sight, blindness in men; and, in a figurative sense, ignorance and darkness that follow upon sin; judicial blindness, God gives men up and leaves them to; temporal afflictions and distresses, and everlasting punishment, which is blackness of darkness:
I make peace, and create evil; peace between God and men is made by Christ, who is God over all; spiritual peace of conscience comes from God, through Christ, by the Spirit; eternal glory and happiness is of God, which saints enter into at death; peace among the saints themselves here, and with the men of the world; peace in churches, and in the world, God is the author of, even of all prosperity of every kind, which this word includes: "evil" is also from him; not the evil of sin; this is not to be found among the creatures God made; this is of men, though suffered by the Lord, and overruled by him for good: but the evil of punishment for sin, God's sore judgments, famine, pestilence, evil beasts, and the sword, or war, which latter may more especially be intended, as it is opposed to peace; this usually is the effect of sin; may be sometimes lawfully engaged in; whether on a good or bad foundation is permitted by God; moreover, all afflictions, adversities, and calamities, come under this name, and are of God; see Job 2:10,
I the Lord do all these things; and therefore must be the true God, and the one and only one. Kimchi, from Saadiah Gaon, observes, that this is said against those that assert two gods, the one good, and the other evil; whereas the Lord is the Maker of good and evil, and therefore must be above all; and it is worthy of observation, that the Persian Magi, before Zoroastres (m), held two first causes, the one light, or the good god, the author of all good; and the other darkness, or the evil god, the author of all evil; the one they called Oromazes, the other Arimanius; and, as Dr. Prideaux (n) observes,
"these words are directed to Cyrus king of Persia, and must be understood as spoken in reference to the Persian sect of the Magians; who then held light and darkness, or good and evil, to be the supreme Beings, without acknowledging the great God as superior to both;'' and which these words show; for Zoroastres, who reformed them in this first principle of their religion, was after Isaiah's time.
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.

All other major commentaries say very similar things about that verse.
 

SheikhHorusFromTheSky

Active Member
This is basic stuff. You ever heard of a commentary? Exegesis? Hermeneutics? It helps to actually find out what a verse is saying. Stripped of context, using interpretations convenient for your claim, and using verses in a vacuum is not scholarship or helpful. In 12 of the twenty most common versions the word evil is not the English word that the Hebrew was translated into. Of the 8 that did use evil, I thing 6 came from one common source. Not that even the use of evil is damning concerning God. The actual word originally used is ra' and means bad. As in a bad result. Hell is a bad result yet Hell is not unjust. Freewill means freedom to rebel. Rebelling demands and just God rebuke those who do so. That is bad and is ra'. Hebrew, Aramaic, and koine Greek and far more descriptive than English and so many times a word that is not quite perfect is chosen for an interpretation. It helps to actually look stuff up.

Gill's Exposition of the Entire Bible

I form the light, and create darkness,.... Natural light, or that light which was produced at the first creation, and of which the sun is the fountain and source; or day which is light, and night which is darkness, the constant revolutions of which were formed, appointed, and are continued by the Lord, Genesis 1:3, moral light, or the light of nature, the rational understanding in man; spiritual light, or the light of grace, by which things spiritual and supernatural are known; the light of joy and comfort from Christ, the sun of righteousness; and the light of eternal glory and happiness: this is all from God, of his producing and giving; and so darkness is his creature; that natural darkness which was upon the face of the earth at the beginning; what arises from the absence of the sun, or is occasioned by the eclipses of it, or very black clouds; or any extraordinary darkness, such as was in Egypt; or deprivation of sight, blindness in men; and, in a figurative sense, ignorance and darkness that follow upon sin; judicial blindness, God gives men up and leaves them to; temporal afflictions and distresses, and everlasting punishment, which is blackness of darkness:
I make peace, and create evil; peace between God and men is made by Christ, who is God over all; spiritual peace of conscience comes from God, through Christ, by the Spirit; eternal glory and happiness is of God, which saints enter into at death; peace among the saints themselves here, and with the men of the world; peace in churches, and in the world, God is the author of, even of all prosperity of every kind, which this word includes: "evil" is also from him; not the evil of sin; this is not to be found among the creatures God made; this is of men, though suffered by the Lord, and overruled by him for good: but the evil of punishment for sin, God's sore judgments, famine, pestilence, evil beasts, and the sword, or war, which latter may more especially be intended, as it is opposed to peace; this usually is the effect of sin; may be sometimes lawfully engaged in; whether on a good or bad foundation is permitted by God; moreover, all afflictions, adversities, and calamities, come under this name, and are of God; see Job 2:10,
I the Lord do all these things; and therefore must be the true God, and the one and only one. Kimchi, from Saadiah Gaon, observes, that this is said against those that assert two gods, the one good, and the other evil; whereas the Lord is the Maker of good and evil, and therefore must be above all; and it is worthy of observation, that the Persian Magi, before Zoroastres (m), held two first causes, the one light, or the good god, the author of all good; and the other darkness, or the evil god, the author of all evil; the one they called Oromazes, the other Arimanius; and, as Dr. Prideaux (n) observes,
"these words are directed to Cyrus king of Persia, and must be understood as spoken in reference to the Persian sect of the Magians; who then held light and darkness, or good and evil, to be the supreme Beings, without acknowledging the great God as superior to both;'' and which these words show; for Zoroastres, who reformed them in this first principle of their religion, was after Isaiah's time.
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.

All other major commentaries say very similar things about that verse.

**** Hermeneutics. We shouldn't rely on anyone to interpret the text but our own, so that way we don't get deceived. If anything, since the BiBULLLL is the word of GAAAAWWWWDDDD, we should let GAWD interpret the Bible for us, or at least let the Bible interpret it itself since it has GAWD power.
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
**** Hermeneutics. We shouldn't rely on anyone to interpret the text but our own, so that way we don't get deceived. If anything, since the BiBULLLL is the word of GAAAAWWWWDDDD, we should let GAWD interpret the Bible for us, or at least let the Bible interpret it itself since it has GAWD power.
So you may interpret well understood scripture in any way that justifies whatever is convenient to you and no scholarship on any level and no matter how long respected and potentially God given commentary can stand in the way. Is that about it. BTW simple word usage and well known definitions were more the issue here than complex interpretations. If you wish to ignore 2000 years of research and scholarship then be my guest but do not expect to carry a debate that way unless you are debating someone who does the same.
 
Last edited:

1robin

Christian/Baptist
We can have link wars but I am not interested. Post one of the arguments (your best) from those sites and then we can debate it. I have already given one and you may contend with it. The Bible is by far the most textually accurate book of ancient history of any kind. Not what you would expect from a BS book. Good luck.
 

SheikhHorusFromTheSky

Active Member
We can have link wars but I am not interested. Post one of the arguments (your best) from those sites and then we can debate it. I have already given one and you may contend with it. The Bible is by far the most textually accurate book of ancient history of any kind. Not what you would expect from a BS book. Good luck.

You know something, since you refuse do look at the information, then I'll give you some excerpts from these websites.

Jesus ben Sirach. This Jesus was reputedly the author of the Book of Sirach (aka 'Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach'), part of Old Testament Apocrypha. Ben Sirach, writing in Greek about 180 BC, brought together Jewish 'wisdom' and Homeric-style heroes.

Jesus ben Pandira. A wonder-worker during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (106-79 BC), one of the most ruthless of the Maccabean kings. Imprudently, this Jesus launched into a career of end-time prophecy and agitation which upset the king. He met his own premature end-time by being hung on a tree – and on the eve of a Passover. Scholars have speculated this Jesus founded the Essene sect.

Jesus ben Ananias. Beginning in 62AD, this Jesus had caused disquiet in Jerusalem with a non-stop doom-laden mantra of ‘Woe to the city’. He prophesied rather vaguely:

"A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against the whole people."

– Josephus, Wars 6.3.


Arrested and flogged by the Romans, Jesus ben Ananias was released as nothing more dangerous than a mad man. He died during the siege of Jerusalem from a rock hurled by a Roman catapult.

Jesus ben Saphat. In the insurrection of 68AD that wrought havoc in Galilee, this Jesus had led the rebels in Tiberias ("the leader of a seditious tumult of mariners and poor people" – Josephus, Life 12.66). When the city was about to fall to Vespasian’s legionaries he fled north to Tarichea on the Sea of Galilee.

Jesus ben Gamala. During 68/69 AD this Jesus was a leader of the ‘peace party’ in the civil war wrecking Judaea. From the walls of Jerusalem he had remonstrated with the besieging Idumeans (led by ‘James and John, sons of Susa’). It did him no good. When the Idumeans breached the walls he was put to death and his body thrown to the dogs and carrion birds.

Jesus ben Thebuth. A priest who, in the final capitulation of the upper city in 69AD, saved his own skin by surrendering the treasures of the Temple, which included two holy candlesticks, goblets of pure gold, sacred curtains and robes of the high priests. The booty figured prominently in the Triumph held for Vespasian and his son Titus.

A Surfeit of Jesuses! But No "Jesus of Nazareth"

On Nazareth.

The gospels do not tell us much about this 'city' – it has a synagogue, it can scare up a hostile crowd (prompting JC's famous "prophet rejected in his own land" quote), and it has a precipice – but the city status of Nazareth is clearly established, at least according to that source of nonsense called the Bible.

However when we look for historical confirmation of this hometown of a god – surprise, surprise! – no other source confirms that the place even existed in the 1st century AD.

• Nazareth is not mentioned even once in the entire Old Testament. The Book of Joshua (19.10,16) – in what it claims is the process of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area – records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any 'Nazareth' from its list.

• The Talmud, although it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth, nor does early rabbinic literature.

• St Paul knows nothing of 'Nazareth'. Rabbi Solly's epistles (real and fake) mention Jesus 221 times, Nazareth not at all.

• No ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth. It is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century.

Nazareth – The Town that Theology Built

[youtube]4UqG8w7ezUQ[/youtube]
Flavian Signature Presentation - Joseph Atwill - YouTube

NON-CHRISTIAN SOURCES

Virtually all other claims of Jesus come from sources outside of Christian writings. Devastating to the claims of Christians, however, comes from the fact that all of these accounts come from authors who lived after the alleged life of Jesus. Since they did not live during the time of the hypothetical Jesus, none of their accounts serve as eyewitness evidence.

Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E. (well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus), puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written! Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

Pliny the Younger (born: 62 C.E.) His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of range as an eyewitness account.

Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E., mentions a "Chrestus," a common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ" (a disputable claim). But even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius' birth occurred well after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.

Talmud: Amazingly some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, (a collection of Jewish civil a religious law, including commentaries on the Torah), as evidence for Jesus. They claim that Yeshu in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Yeshu, according to scholars depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus or it may refer to Yeshu ben Pandera, a teacher of the 2nd centuy CE. Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud didn't come into existence until the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion. At best it can only serve as a controversial Christian or Jewish legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.

Christian apologists mostly use the above sources for their "evidence" of Jesus because they believe they represent the best outside sources. All other sources (Christian and non-Christian) come from even less reliable sources, some of which include: Mara Bar-Serapion (circa 73 C.E.), Ignatius (50 - 98? C.E.), Polycarp (69 - 155 C.E.), Clement of Rome (? - circa 160 C.E.), Justin Martyr (100 - 165 C.E.), Lucian (circa 125 - 180 C.E.), Tertullian (160 - ? C.E.), Clement of Alexandria (? - 215 C.E.), Origen (185 - 232 C.E.), Hippolytus (? - 236 C.E.), and Cyprian (? - 254 C.E.). As you can see, all these people lived well after the alleged death of Jesus. Not one of them provides an eyewitness account, all of them simply spout hearsay.

As you can see, apologist Christians embarrass themselves when they unwittingly or deceptively violate the rules of historiography by using after-the-event writings as evidence for the event itself. Not one of these writers gives a source or backs up his claims with evidential material about Jesus. Although we can provide numerous reasons why the Christian and non-Christian sources prove spurious, and argue endlessly about them, we can cut to the chase by simply determining the dates of the documents and the birth dates of the authors. It doesn't matter what these people wrote about Jesus, an author who writes after the alleged happening and gives no detectable sources for his material can only give example of hearsay. All of these anachronistic writings about Jesus could easily have come from the beliefs and stories from Christian believers themselves. And as we know from myth, superstition, and faith, beliefs do not require facts or evidence for their propagation and circulation. Thus we have only beliefs about Jesus' existence, and nothing more.

http://www.nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
 
Last edited:

1robin

Christian/Baptist
You know something, since you refuse do look at the information, then I'll give you some excerpts from these websites.

Jesus ben Sirach. This Jesus was reputedly the author of the Book of Sirach (aka 'Ecclesiasticus, or the Wisdom of Jesus the Son of Sirach'), part of Old Testament Apocrypha. Ben Sirach, writing in Greek about 180 BC, brought together Jewish 'wisdom' and Homeric-style heroes.

Jesus ben Pandira. A wonder-worker during the reign of Alexander Jannaeus (106-79 BC), one of the most ruthless of the Maccabean kings. Imprudently, this Jesus launched into a career of end-time prophecy and agitation which upset the king. He met his own premature end-time by being hung on a tree – and on the eve of a Passover. Scholars have speculated this Jesus founded the Essene sect.

Jesus ben Ananias. Beginning in 62AD, this Jesus had caused disquiet in Jerusalem with a non-stop doom-laden mantra of ‘Woe to the city’. He prophesied rather vaguely:

"A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against the whole people."

– Josephus, Wars 6.3.


Arrested and flogged by the Romans, Jesus ben Ananias was released as nothing more dangerous than a mad man. He died during the siege of Jerusalem from a rock hurled by a Roman catapult.

Jesus ben Saphat. In the insurrection of 68AD that wrought havoc in Galilee, this Jesus had led the rebels in Tiberias ("the leader of a seditious tumult of mariners and poor people" – Josephus, Life 12.66). When the city was about to fall to Vespasian’s legionaries he fled north to Tarichea on the Sea of Galilee.

Jesus ben Gamala. During 68/69 AD this Jesus was a leader of the ‘peace party’ in the civil war wrecking Judaea. From the walls of Jerusalem he had remonstrated with the besieging Idumeans (led by ‘James and John, sons of Susa’). It did him no good. When the Idumeans breached the walls he was put to death and his body thrown to the dogs and carrion birds.

Jesus ben Thebuth. A priest who, in the final capitulation of the upper city in 69AD, saved his own skin by surrendering the treasures of the Temple, which included two holy candlesticks, goblets of pure gold, sacred curtains and robes of the high priests. The booty figured prominently in the Triumph held for Vespasian and his son Titus.

A Surfeit of Jesuses! But No "Jesus of Nazareth"

On Nazareth.

The gospels do not tell us much about this 'city' – it has a synagogue, it can scare up a hostile crowd (prompting JC's famous "prophet rejected in his own land" quote), and it has a precipice – but the city status of Nazareth is clearly established, at least according to that source of nonsense called the Bible.

However when we look for historical confirmation of this hometown of a god – surprise, surprise! – no other source confirms that the place even existed in the 1st century AD.

• Nazareth is not mentioned even once in the entire Old Testament. The Book of Joshua (19.10,16) – in what it claims is the process of settlement by the tribe of Zebulon in the area – records twelve towns and six villages and yet omits any 'Nazareth' from its list.

• The Talmud, although it names 63 Galilean towns, knows nothing of Nazareth, nor does early rabbinic literature.

• St Paul knows nothing of 'Nazareth'. Rabbi Solly's epistles (real and fake) mention Jesus 221 times, Nazareth not at all.

• No ancient historian or geographer mentions Nazareth. It is first noted at the beginning of the 4th century.

Nazareth – The Town that Theology Built

[youtube]4UqG8w7ezUQ[/youtube]
Flavian Signature Presentation - Joseph Atwill - YouTube

NON-CHRISTIAN SOURCES

Virtually all other claims of Jesus come from sources outside of Christian writings. Devastating to the claims of Christians, however, comes from the fact that all of these accounts come from authors who lived after the alleged life of Jesus. Since they did not live during the time of the hypothetical Jesus, none of their accounts serve as eyewitness evidence.

Josephus Flavius, the Jewish historian, lived as the earliest non-Christian who mentions a Jesus. Although many scholars think that Josephus' short accounts of Jesus (in Antiquities) came from interpolations perpetrated by a later Church father (most likely, Eusebius), Josephus' birth in 37 C.E. (well after the alleged crucifixion of Jesus), puts him out of range of an eyewitness account. Moreover, he wrote Antiquities in 93 C.E., after the first gospels got written! Therefore, even if his accounts about Jesus came from his hand, his information could only serve as hearsay.

Pliny the Younger (born: 62 C.E.) His letter about the Christians only shows that he got his information from Christian believers themselves. Regardless, his birth date puts him out of range as an eyewitness account.

Tacitus, the Roman historian's birth year at 64 C.E., puts him well after the alleged life of Jesus. He gives a brief mention of a "Christus" in his Annals (Book XV, Sec. 44), which he wrote around 109 C.E. He gives no source for his material. Although many have disputed the authenticity of Tacitus' mention of Jesus, the very fact that his birth happened after the alleged Jesus and wrote the Annals during the formation of Christianity, shows that his writing can only provide us with hearsay accounts.

Suetonius, a Roman historian, born in 69 C.E., mentions a "Chrestus," a common name. Apologists assume that "Chrestus" means "Christ" (a disputable claim). But even if Seutonius had meant "Christ," it still says nothing about an earthly Jesus. Just like all the others, Suetonius' birth occurred well after the purported Jesus. Again, only hearsay.

Talmud: Amazingly some Christians use brief portions of the Talmud, (a collection of Jewish civil a religious law, including commentaries on the Torah), as evidence for Jesus. They claim that Yeshu in the Talmud refers to Jesus. However, this Yeshu, according to scholars depicts a disciple of Jehoshua Ben-Perachia at least a century before the alleged Christian Jesus or it may refer to Yeshu ben Pandera, a teacher of the 2nd centuy CE. Regardless of how one interprets this, the Palestinian Talmud didn't come into existence until the 3rd and 5th century C.E., and the Babylonian Talmud between the 3rd and 6th century C.E., at least two centuries after the alleged crucifixion. At best it can only serve as a controversial Christian or Jewish legend; it cannot possibly serve as evidence for a historical Jesus.

Christian apologists mostly use the above sources for their "evidence" of Jesus because they believe they represent the best outside sources. All other sources (Christian and non-Christian) come from even less reliable sources, some of which include: Mara Bar-Serapion (circa 73 C.E.), Ignatius (50 - 98? C.E.), Polycarp (69 - 155 C.E.), Clement of Rome (? - circa 160 C.E.), Justin Martyr (100 - 165 C.E.), Lucian (circa 125 - 180 C.E.), Tertullian (160 - ? C.E.), Clement of Alexandria (? - 215 C.E.), Origen (185 - 232 C.E.), Hippolytus (? - 236 C.E.), and Cyprian (? - 254 C.E.). As you can see, all these people lived well after the alleged death of Jesus. Not one of them provides an eyewitness account, all of them simply spout hearsay.

As you can see, apologist Christians embarrass themselves when they unwittingly or deceptively violate the rules of historiography by using after-the-event writings as evidence for the event itself. Not one of these writers gives a source or backs up his claims with evidential material about Jesus. Although we can provide numerous reasons why the Christian and non-Christian sources prove spurious, and argue endlessly about them, we can cut to the chase by simply determining the dates of the documents and the birth dates of the authors. It doesn't matter what these people wrote about Jesus, an author who writes after the alleged happening and gives no detectable sources for his material can only give example of hearsay. All of these anachronistic writings about Jesus could easily have come from the beliefs and stories from Christian believers themselves. And as we know from myth, superstition, and faith, beliefs do not require facts or evidence for their propagation and circulation. Thus we have only beliefs about Jesus' existence, and nothing more.

Did Jesus exist?
Any cursory glance at the amount of posts I have to make just to keep with the threads I am involved with given that I do this as opportunity allows will quickly show you I do not have time to waste with a thousand different claims. I state once again to give me your best one, and to contend with the single one I have made and which is absolutely knowable (unlike many of yours). If I see anything challenging about your best I may devote more time to the rest but so far the time required to contend with just one is all I can justify. Please pick your best and lets use it as a barometer of the quality of the rest and you can attempt to show the one I made wrong if you wish. For a book as wrong as you think the Bible is it should require only a few sentences to damn it beyond recovery.
 

SheikhHorusFromTheSky

Active Member
Any cursory glance at the amount of posts I have to make just to keep with the threads I am involved with given that I do this as opportunity allows will quickly show you I do not have time to waste with a thousand different claims. I state once again to give me your best one, and to contend with the single one I have made and which is absolutely knowable (unlike many of yours). If I see anything challenging about your best I may devote more time to the rest but so far the time required to contend with just one is all I can justify. Please pick your best and lets use it as a barometer of the quality of the rest and you can attempt to show the one I made wrong if you wish. For a book as wrong as you think the Bible is it should require only a few sentences to damn it beyond recovery.

Son, I have already gave you enough information. You just won't accept it because it doesn't conform to your paradigm. But then again, you're just to good for that, aren't you? Congratulations! :clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap

I gave enough and said enough, so really I don't need to "contend" with your "knowable" (aka conforming) "information", which you have never even gave to me.
 

SheikhHorusFromTheSky

Active Member
Your confusing regarding things true of being open minded to other information with what time constraints demand is appalling. Especially since My requests left you open to post the best claim you have and contend one I made. Are you new to debate? Neither of which you did as requested.

I don't need to make claims. Like I said, I already gave you my best information (which you still reject). To be honest, you are most definitely not open to anything. But like I said, you're to good for that... since you're guided by The Almighty Gad (which by the way is a Semitic fortune deity).
 

1robin

Christian/Baptist
Son, I have already gave you enough information. You just won't accept it because it doesn't conform to your paradigm. But then again, you're just to good for that, aren't you? Congratulations! :clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap:clap

I gave enough and said enough, so really I don't need to "contend" with your "knowable" (aka conforming) "information", which you have never even gave to me.
I knew this bow out was coming. Intellectual punts do not follow far behind attempts to overwhelm with volume while underwhelming with quality. Since you can't follow requests made necessary by that same prolific ineffectualness, but instead seem to do the opposite of what was requested, do not understand debate, and insist on using derogatory terms based in arrogance I am out. I wish more than 1 out of a hundred from you side would put up concise challenges instead of liberal doses of ineffectual heaps of meaningless rhetoric. Nothing you have said in this post even remotely records the truth of what I posted (one claim concerning something I had not ever given you, was given three times) and I could prove this if I had the slightest indication it would matter.
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
Ingledsva said:
My RIGHTS count, and Hitler's don't. because we are talking about a part of MY BODY!
In what way is owning genetic material a basis for rights? Any way you invent to do so would also justify the child's right to life. My Dad always said your rights (even if you actually have them) end at the other persons none.
Do you know how stupid that sounds?

We don't have another "autonomous person" in this conversation.

Ingledsva said:
These are not imaginary rights, as shown by courts, and a blob of my cells does not have rights over ME.
A court is completely incapable of either granting rights to an unborn human life or of taking them away. It may only decide what is legal. As I have explained going all the way back to Rome and Greece the difference between legality and morality was well known. I have been discussing the more profound moral issue not the arbitrary legality used to buy votes, pay back those who gave money to campaigns, or to satisfy lobbyists.
What a court says has nothing to do with right or wrong. Why do I have to state something so obvious. When those same courts said abortion was illegal did not your side insist that law was wrong? Did not recently homosexuals argue that laws prohibiting them from marrying was wrong? Neither one had a foundation for claiming that did anyway. I do have a foundation even without God to claim what I have and your denying the same thing you allowed before.

I could care less if you are discussing your religious "moral" ideas. The law is the law.

You are trying to argue LIVE HUMAN rights, against fetal blob/part of my body.

Ingledsva said:
LOL! Your religion is speaking. We are not in trouble today because of sex outside of marriage! PERIOD!
Good night nurse, there are few issues in human history that have more devastating consequences than sex outside marriage. Statements like this simply destroy you credibility. How many families have to be destroyed by infidelity for you to agree it is destructive? A rate BTW up 300-400% since secularism infected the US in 1960. It is hard to debate morals with an atheist, they are an illusive moving target.

The is pure bull, and your religious ideas speaking again.
Our problems are from cramming people into unnatural super cities, without enough space, food, work, etc, leading to trapped rat survival at all costs mentality.

Ingledsva said:
"What founds rights without God?" I don't believe in your God. Nor do your religious ideas have a right to rule me.
Then you have no rights or at least no basis for claiming you do. Certain things are voided when you dismiss God. That is why Jefferson could only think of God as grounds for rights at all.

And that of course is just another outrageously ridiculous religious idea stuck in your head.
Not believing in your invisible man - does not negate any of my rights.

Ingledsva said:
Yes you do have a right to kill - in defense of self or family, etc. And again YOU are the one that thinks abortion is murder - I do not
Well neither condition exists concerning abortion so by your own standards you have no justification for killing an unborn child.

What exactly did you not understand about that last sentence?

Ingledsva said:
Which still leaves you throwing in RED HEARINGS trying to throw off a debate.
I have no need of misdirection. Facts are all on my side. My erring on life contention is absolute.

Facts are not on your side! - And if you have no need of misdirection - why do you always throw such into your debates?

Ingledsva said:
LOL! And I will say again - the courts have found them justifiable.
No they did not. They determined they were legal based on political pressure. Two very different issues. Why is only those legal determinations you agree with correct. By your standards Jim Crow laws were right when in effect.

And again you are trying to argue about a fetus by using LIVE HUMANS.
The "pressure" was obviously from BOTH sides leading to a reasonable compromise.

All law is opinion. My statements dealt with absolute criteria for solutions not opinions.

LOL! No they didn't. Obviously there are a whole lot of people that don't agree with you

Ingledsva said:
And again - you don't seem to understand the difference between stating facts - and - "complaining about and denying reality."
So far you have not presented an actual fact as justification for anything or refutation of what I have said. By your twisted rationalization the white man who refused to serve the African American in 1940 was "right". This is called a false normalization fallacy. The idea that what is accepted is right would have resulted in condemnation of Gandhi, Martin Luther King Jr, and Christ. Nice job. My views look for what is right not what is legal.

Again - and more red-herrings.
We are discussing abortion and fetuses, not the rights of past autonomous humans.

Ingledsva said:
LOL! Obviously you do, as you are posting on the subject.

You calling people whom believe women have to have full control of their own bodies to be truly equal in our society, irresponsible and ignorant, is just ridiculous.

There has obviously been years of back and forth discussion on this subject - leading to a reasonable compromise law with an abortion cut off date. Both sides have had their say.
1. My side- States we have no capacity to declare any line exist in pregnancy between Murder and ok and so being responsible contend that no decision should be made.
2. Your side- Is ignorant of where any line "should" be drown. Yet being selfish and irresponsible draws it anyway and takes life based on that imaginary line.

LOL! Having an opinion on the subject - that is different then yours - does not make us ignorant, selfish, or irresponsible.

You can't defend this. The fact no line actually exists is reflected by their being lines drawn at multiple times based on states determinations. There exists no actual line yet human life is destroyed based on it.

Again! The line is between people like you, and people like me. It will always exist.

Ingledsva said:
Obviously I was not talking about the male and female bodies being the same. I was talking about societal equality, and what rights are needed by women to achieve this.
If we are physically different is that not grounds for at least a few societal inequalities being justified. Should we lower the physical requirements for combat units concerning women (as we have) and get soldiers killed so women can exercise a right that does not exist and become infantry or special operations soldiers.

And again - the size bull - has exactly WHAT to do with equality in society?
Also, Women in combat have not caused men to get killed! Get a grip! Your religious patriarchy is showing. Women have been warriors for tens of thousands of years.

PC liberal BS has caused way more harm than it has prevented. Unequal things should not be equalized. I put this off because the posts length suggested I was in for a long and complex argument. I was mistaken. You made two main points, both founded on nothing and repeated them many times. Where do you get rights? The government does not have a warehouse full of rights to distribute? If you have an equality with anything on what actually existent thing and sufficient foundation are they founded? Only God can possibly make humans equal and with equal status. Evolution has never created two equal things ever and has no rights to dispense even if it could.

LOL - You are repeating.

Where do I get rights? - By being an autonomous being.

Here is how your Jesus put it -

Neither there be Jews nor Greeks/Hellenists, nor is there slave nor freeborn, Nor is there male and female: for all are verily the other/same/one in Christ Iesous.
*
 
Last edited:

1robin

Christian/Baptist
I don't need to make claims. Like I said, I already gave you my best information (which you still reject). To be honest, you are most definitely not open to anything. But like I said, you're to good for that... since you're guided by The Almighty Gad (which by the way is a Semitic fortune deity).
Please listen carefully. I never attempted to either argue with what you claimed nor reject any of it. I will do so if you will grant the requests I made because as I said to allow the time I have to enough to debate the issue, to select your best and we would discuss it. Then if that one claim was a challenge for me you could bring more as we went along. You refused. Then you went on to claim something I gave you 3 times (a textual argument) was never given at all. So far your perfectly wrong and it does not get any better.

You have far less evidence than needed to conclude I am closed minded even if I was which is not the case by any standard.

I never claimed I was too good for anything yet you falsely suggest I did. I never even hinted at nor thought that.

Then as if the dishonesty and inaccuracy so far was not quite enough for you made a claim about God for which you can't possibly know even if it was true.

You must try very hard to be wrong as no half measures could produce this many inaccuracies in so short a space.

Not one single claim in your post here was correct and virtually none were in any of them made to me.

I will give you one last chance, even though that is as much arrogance and falsehood I can stand for today.

1. For the 4th time the Bible is the most textually accurate book of any kind in ancient history and that is conceded by even its worst professional critics like Ehrman and is knowable by using extremely reliable methods.

2. Pick any single claim from the mountain of stuff you posted to illustrate your best example of Biblical error and we can debate it.

If you will do those two things you can attempt to make a case. If not then I can't justify this further. I will reply tomorrow if instead of false accusations and insults you provide what was requested.
 

SheikhHorusFromTheSky

Active Member
You know what, I'll give you a challenge. Since you think my claims are incorrect, how about you address them. In fact, address ALL of my claims that I've made against you, and then I'll be sure to address them myself.

Go ahead. Explain to me how the Bible is somehow the "most accurate" of all religious texts. Come now, I'm waiting. :yes::drool::beach:
 

Ingledsva

HEATHEN ALASKAN
Ingledsva said:
Yep. Plus it is slanderous in its fallacy that people that don't believe in God commit all kinds of "evil."

It shows the Christian idea that if their religion doesn't like it - then you should be forced to follow their idea,

Sex before marriage is normal and good, - better hope there is sex in the marriage, or your spouse is going to leave, - and sex after/outside marriage is OK if both spouses agree to such.

There is obviously nothing wrong with "sodomy." Homosexuals should be allowed to do it - right along with all the heterosexual couple that do. etc.

And by the way, I've seen a flying saucer, - and NO I wasn't alone, many saw it. :)
You condemnation is actually evidence of the poem's veracity. You gave a laundry list of what is ok (without the slightest reason) and the only thing you said was wrong was for anyone to say those things were wrong. That is exactly what the poem said of secular "morality".

Your religion thinking they are immoral - does NOT make them immoral.

1. Sodomy is not in any sense normal. Most societies throughout most of history have considered it deviant.

LOL! See above. As to ancient societies, you are wrong; as has been shown here many times. Sodomy has been engaged in by Heterosexual and homosexual people for thousands of years - as proven by ancient art and writings.

2. Normal (even if I had the luxury of what you said being true) would still not have the slightest thing to do with right or wrong. It was normal in 1860 for a slave to be torn apart by horses, whipped, or sexually assaulted. If the 300,000 Christians in the north thought like you they would have said: Why should they throw away their lives, as slavery was normal after all? I am sure glad Abraham Lincoln was a Christian with the moral foundation to stop what was normal.

And again, you try to throw off the subject by using "ABUSE" when we are talking sex practices that people LIKE to do.

It is not "immoral" because you think it is icky.

3. Sodomy is destructive even in monogamous relationships and as it exists in the homosexual community at large produces massive amounts of suffering, death, and monetary costs and is completely devoid of any corresponding gain that would justify its practice.

LOL! Christianity has tried to teach such ideas many times, that kissing, touch, and anything else done during sex, is non-productive. Therefore, No pleasure for you, - get in -get out - spit out a baby!

And are you really going to try to blame homosexuals for HIV/AIDS? The first know case in the USA was a heterosexual man that had sex with prostitutes while on business in Africa - blame it on him and others like him.

4. I have a friend who was a Navy corpsman. He has told me stories about what they have seen since homosexuals were allowed in the military and I would post it but they are far too graphic. It is utterly disgusting.

And the information coming out in the military news lately - confirms what we already knew - crime, murder, sexcapades, pedophilia, and rape, were and are, rampant in the military - having nothing at all to do with gay folk. Gay military problems are a single-drop in the ocean of heterosexual sexual abuse in the military.

5. Since adultery has caused millions of families to be torn apart, I wish to ask if anything is destructive enough to be considered wrong to you?

LOL, Did you know that adultery laws originally were only against married women? Men could continue to do as they pleased sexually. This is still the "adultery" definition in some states.

However, using "spouse," - adultery charges cannot be enforced today - in the courtroom - when both spouses have agreed to outside partners.

Did you miss my - " sex after/outside marriage is OK if both spouses agree to such"

Your post is proof of the accuracy of the poem.

Obviously it is not.

*
 
Top