African Children Denounced As "Witches" By Christian Pastors

[Phenomanul]

Who is stalking whom? :shootme [just so that we're perfectly clear on the extent of your delusion]

[boutons_deux]

Who is stalking whom? :shootme [just so that we're perfectly clear on the extent of your delusion]

Ridiculing is not stalking. I don't show up JUST to ridicule you

[Phenomanul]

You need to pull yourself out of this emotional tailspin. People can respect your right to believe without respecting what you believe. Christians are not being persecuted.

Perhaps not here. But they are in other parts of the world. The anecdote I shared previously in this thread being proof of that fact. I wouldn't even consider the sneering and smearing from the 'atheist clan' on this board as persecution either (just run-o-the-mill disrespect / spitting-on-their-grave mockery).

But your claim that people "respect my right to believe" can be discretely refuted with multiple instances over any thread I decide to participate in. The level of contempt, disdain, derision over anything I state is CLEARLY evident - unless of course you consciously or sub-consciously ignore it because your views very much align with the opposed viewpoint/world perspective I am arguing against...


Do you also believe there is a war on Christmas?

Not at large, no... but definitely one being conducted by athiests in isolated pockets all over the world. Let them for all I care.

Ultimately, I believe that people are free to believe whatever they want to. And frankly if they want to hurl hate in my direction, I don't care. My frustrations with posters on this website aren't based on subject matter disagreement THEY are however based on the clashing of argumenting-styles (and the drive by attack dynamic of other posters).

[Phenomanul]

Ridiculing is not stalking. I don't show up JUST to ridicule you

But you feel compelled to say something any time I do?? As I said, your claim that somehow, "I'm a butthurt victim" because YOU retort to my posts is logically inane - much like the rest of your trite nonsense.

[Blake]

But you feel compelled to say something any time I do?? As I said, your claim that somehow, "I'm a butthurt victim" because YOU retort to my posts is logically inane - much like the rest of your trite nonsense.

Fuck man, it's an open message board. Are you really that insecure in your posts that you feel stalked?

[Blake]

And THAT's our impasse.

I believe that GOD willingly gives up some of his omniscience in order to gift mankind 'free will' - honoring a gentleman's agreement with Himself. IN that context, man is still very much accountable for his/her actions and GOD ultimately has to deal with the consequences of gifting other beings the power of choice - it's a risk HE willingly chose to take...

GOD is all-knowing, but willingly relinquishes some of that power to allow us to come to HIM on grounds of faith (an extension of our choice). That many people can't reconcile GOD's omniscient nature with the ramifications of 'free-will' stem largely from the fact that they deal only in absolutist terms. --> which is very much what you've done by suggesting GOD is pulling ALL the puppet strings and essentially playing both sides...

So again, we'll have to agree to disagree.

I'm not being flip with question. Seriously: Do you believe God can create a round square?

If the square becomes round, it's no longer a square, right?

If God decides not to know everything he is no longer omniscient. You can't have it both ways.

[Phenomanul]

Fuck man, it's an open message board. Are you really that insecure in your posts that you feel stalked?

Coming in all out of context... cue Blake.

I never claimed bouton's was stalking me... I simply stated that his claim that somehow I was stalking him was garbage.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

He's omniscient except when he isn't. This sounds like a personal compact. I would never come into such a 'gentleman's agreement' on such nebulous terms with anyone much less an extra dimensional being whose nature is unknown. He 'could but doesn't' is also impossible to prove.

It's just so much meaningless blather. Scripture as normative cause is bankrupt in reality outside of human constructs. At that point it's just circular reasoning and reinforced wishful thinking. I've had spiritual events throughout my life and I don't deny the possibility of extra sensory beings or something 'greater than I.' I don't just surrender to it because of some book and bow to its authority because other people press their spiritualism on me. I push back with the truth.

I like Thoreau's approach to the transcendental and reason. I certainly do not feel the need to play sophist and try to force Constantine's construct as the truth. I find it quite easy to reject almost all dogmatic scripture and can still find peace. I really like the Jesus story and can understand how his story of freedom from religious repression was so popular so close to the lands of the Ptolemaists. Anthony, Cesar and Cleopatra had just happened 50 years before. Guys like John the Baptist could finally practice freely without persecution. It was new shit for that part of the world.

The Roman tradition of religious tolerance stems from the plebeian rebellion against patrician in Romes' first year. They removed all the sacrificial bullshit the patricians were demanding and had the senate drawn from all citizens. Roman culture was literally founded against the principles of the Levites, Pharisees, and the slave culture of pharaohs. All that shit Paul talks about what corporal conditioning is acceptable, the place of slaves, women, and submission to the god king, is the same slave tradition.

I just don't understand how a rational mind doesn't accept the reality of Constantine and his councils for what it is. It's like the Uyyabbid Damascenes who took over after Abu and Ali gibbed each other because Fatimah couldn't inherit herself. They pumped out the first Hadith. Some tried to use is for good purposes such as presumption of innocence and some other laws but its on obviously false authority.

[Phenomanul]

I'm not being flip with question. Seriously: Do you believe God can create a round square?

If the square becomes round, it's no longer a square, right?

If God decides not to know everything he is no longer omniscient. You can't have it both ways.

And I'm not. When it comes to our choices GOD has curtailed HIS powers. I think you have me confused with someone else. I've affirmed that position repeatedly - which is why we are at logical odds on the concept of 'free-will'.

That being said, GOD has all the power to take it all away and be fully omniscient if HE wanted to be. In that regard HE would still be considered omniscient. An alternative explanation is that GOD is able to see ALL of our choices, at every decision tree in our lives - every single possible permutation. I would consider that omniscience too - EVEN if ultimately we only make one choice at every one of those decision trees. HE knows the outcome from every choice we can plausibly make - but ultimately we are still the ones that choose to what we want to do.

Linearity and time don't mean the same thing to us (while in our mortal bodies) as they do to an Eternal being such as GOD who can transcend beyond any such temporal limitation...

[Blake]

Coming in all out of context... cue Blake.

I never claimed bouton's was stalking me... I simply stated that his claim that somehow I was stalking him was garbage.

Ok

[Blake]

And I'm not.

You're trying.

The logic is ridiculous either way. If you don't want humans to disobey you, don't put a tree of knowledge right next to their hut.

And don't allow Satan to hang out in Eden either.

[mingus]

Sorry, I don't see where you offered it up. Is it really too much for you to repost it

Look at my post 70 in response to RG.

The message that I have always gotten from it was that God wasn't merely asking Abraham's to kill Isaac to prove how much he loved God. I'm not aware of any translation of the OT that implies he was set to follow God's order to kill Isaac under the pretense of love. I've NEVER read/heard that. It was out of FEAR of breaking, and COMMITMENT/LOYALTY to, the Covenent between God, the Jews, and the rest of humanity. God didn't want to test whether Abraham loved Him enough to kill Isaac. He wanted to test Abraham's loyalty & commitment to upholding the Covenent & that above all--even his own son--it came first. That in essence his LOVE had to stretch beyond blood & encompass all of humanity, in order to be the God's chosen leader in upholding the Covenent.

[Blake]

Look at my post 70 in response to RG.

The message that I have always gotten from it was that God wasn't merely asking Abraham's to kill Isaac to prove how much he loved God. I'm not aware of any translation of the OT that implies he was set to follow God's order to kill Isaac under the pretense of love. I've NEVER read/heard that. It was out of FEAR of breaking, and COMMITMENT/LOYALTY to, the Covenent between God, the Jews, and the rest of humanity. God didn't want to test whether Abraham loved Him enough to kill Isaac. He wanted to test Abraham's loyalty & commitment to upholding the Covenent & that above all--even his own son--it came first. That in essence his LOVE had to stretch beyond blood & encompass all of humanity, in order to be the God's chosen leader in upholding the Covenent.

He couldn't think of a better, less murderous test?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

He couldn't think of a better, less murderous test?

Or a test that wasn't exactly like the type of thing that Pharaoh's priests used to do. Each Pharaoh had his history buried with him. Those priests used to do the same shit to family heads routinely. You can see the tradition being carried from Ancient Memphis to the escaped slaves, all the way to today.

The ark of the covenant is where the fragments of the legendary 10 commandments were kept. That covenant says 'thou shalt not kill.'

If you mean the covenant of absolute obedience as such to a pharaoh god-king then mingus interpretation both makes sense and is easy to discard. What to take of a man's willingness to sacrifice his own son is to demonstrate absolute obedience. These are dynastic people obsessed with fertility, determining who could marry who and the like. It helps to be specific which covenant you are talking about. When you insist on books 6000 years old its the type of nonsense you end up with though.

[TeyshaBlue]

Anthromorphizing a diety seems dicey, at best.

[mingus]

He couldn't think of a better, less murderous test?

Of course He could've.

Let me preface by saying that I don't believe any of this is true, nor do I believe in the God from the Bible. I believe in a God, but that's a story for another day.

The Bible I believe is ultimately literature. The point of this particular story, or part of the greater story, is to show that in order for Abraham to be worthy of being the (first) leader carrying out the Covenent, he has to be willing to give up what he holds most dear--his son, in this case. Theoretically, it could've been Sarai, or it could've been Ishmael, or all of them. And it could've been a different, more humane test. But the sacrificing part was just a storytelling device used to show/validate/symbolize that Abraham was worthy of fullfilling his end of the Covenent. In light of that, I wouldn't take its characterization of God or his choice of how to test Abraham with much more than a grain of salt seeing how it isn't important to the theme of the story, which is mainly whether Abraham is worthy or not.

[mingus]

Or a test that wasn't exactly like the type of thing that Pharaoh's priests used to do. Each Pharaoh had his history buried with him. Those priests used to do the same shit to family heads routinely. You can see the tradition being carried from Ancient Memphis to the escaped slaves, all the way to today.

The ark of the covenant is where the fragments of the legendary 10 commandments were kept. That covenant says 'thou shalt not kill.'

If you mean the covenant of absolute obedience as such to a pharaoh god-king then mingus interpretation both makes sense and is easy to discard. What to take of a man's willingness to sacrifice his own son is to demonstrate absolute obedience. These are dynastic people obsessed with fertility, determining who could marry who and the like. It helps to be specific which covenant you are talking about. When you insist on books 6000 years old its the type of nonsense you end up with though.

What do you mean "insist on books"?

That doesn't make any sense.

The book can/should be read as literature, with significant historical, political, social elements. It's got everything in it that literature does. Of course, the Bible purports to be more. That, I do not believe one bit. But it that's neither here nor there. Just because I defend a certain interpretation of this story, doesn't mean I have a spiritual stake in it or that I'm beholden to support what it says.

The Covenent I'm talking about is the one between God, the Jews/Israelites, and their descendants (all of humanity): the Abrahamic Covenent (as opposed to the Moseic or Noahic Covenents, respectively).

Abraham has been chosen by God to in essence unify the Israelites, which were at that point (when the book the story probably was actually written) a scattered & disorganized people, ethnically known as Canaanites. The story is about Abraham's commitment to unify these people by, yes, being obedient to God, but more important given the historical context a commitment to his people--to unify them and allow them and their descendants, whether by adoption or hereditary inheritance, to prosper under the direction of one, monotheistic God (the Semitic people of Canaan at the time prayed to, and continued even after the Covenent, to pray to a variety of "gods", which contributed to their disformity). It's all about unifying a disorganized people under the pretense of this (Abrahamic) Covenent. And, because the Israelites at large also determine, by how they live their lives, whether the Covenent is upheld, the moral of the Abrahamic Covenent extends to them: the "sacrificing" of one's child may be necessary to upholding the Covenent (i.e. sending your son or daughter, as a sacrifice, to fight tribes of the area, or the Egyptions, or Persians [further down the line, but probably going on around when the story was actually told & written])

There's more to it than God = Cruel, Evil SOB. In fact it's a story our country & and the West in general has related to in the past and continues to relate to today. Except our Covenent (or social contract) is with different authority: absolute authority (govt.), & us. Do we take part in this social contract because merely because we're obedient to Govt.? No, we do because it's what unifies us, and has the best chance of giving us and our descendants a better future. We too have to be ready to sacrifice ourselves and our children to uphold this contract. It's bigger than any one person, blood-relate or not. Otherwise we live in Locke's "State of Nature" (which is basically the state that the Covenent-less Canaanites were living in at the time).

[mingus]

I really don't get the one-sided derision of the book: when you insist on "book 6000 years old" & nonsense.

It is a history, in part, of how my ancestors came together. And kept what kept them together. There's a lot to be gained from reading BOTH it and the NT. Not everything in it should be taken literally, and certainly there's things that when taken out of historical context seem stupid. But, many of its important, timeless values have been completely tossed aside by people who only care about criticizing & deriding it. I wish the people who (deservedly) criticize & deride it so much for what they believe (I assume) are moral reasons, felt the same moral responsiblity to say "while it's full of shit here, over here it talks about ______, where it's actually right." So as to not give the impression that the whole thing should be ignored. I think the more that happens the worse of we are. It should not so much be erased as adapted to our contemporary culture/way of life. I think the former is happening, and I think as a culture we're worse of because of it in a lot of ways. There's lots of insights to be had from it, philosophically, morally & ethically, historically. I'm not a believer, but I've taken many of the these insights and applied them to my life, and I'm all the better for it. At the same time, I've the good sense not to apply some of it too. But it's not this or that.

Whatever. That's my .02.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What do you mean "insist on books"?

That doesn't make any sense.

The book can/should be read as literature, with significant historical, political, social elements. It's got everything in it that literature does. Of course, the Bible purports to be more. That, I do not believe one bit. But it that's neither here nor there. Just because I defend a certain interpretation of this story, doesn't mean I have a spiritual stake in it or that I'm beholden to support what it says.

The Covenent I'm talking about is the one between God, the Jews/Israelites, and their descendants (all of humanity): the Abrahamic Covenent (as opposed to the Moseic or Noahic Covenents, respectively).

Abraham has been chosen by God to in essence unify the Israelites, which were at that point (when the book the story probably was actually written) a scattered & disorganized people, ethnically known as Canaanites. The story is about Abraham's commitment to unify these people by, yes, being obedient to God, but more important given the historical context a commitment to his people--to unify them and allow them and their descendants, whether by adoption or hereditary inheritance, to prosper under the direction of one, monotheistic God (the Semitic people of Canaan at the time prayed to, and continued even after the Covenent, to pray to a variety of "gods", which contributed to their disformity). It's all about unifying a disorganized people under the pretense of this (Abrahamic) Covenent. And, because the Israelites at large also determine, by how they live their lives, whether the Covenent is upheld, the moral of the Abrahamic Covenent extends to them: the "sacrificing" of one's child may be necessary to upholding the Covenent (i.e. sending your son or daughter, as a sacrifice, to fight tribes of the area, or the Egyptions, or Persians [further down the line, but probably going on around when the story was actually told & written])

There's more to it than God = Cruel, Evil SOB. In fact it's a story our country & and the West in general has related to in the past and continues to relate to today. Except our Covenent (or social contract) is with different authority: absolute authority (govt.), & us. Do we take part in this social contract because merely because we're obedient to Govt.? No, we do because it's what unifies us, and has the best chance of giving us and our descendants a better future. We too have to be ready to sacrifice ourselves and our children to uphold this contract. It's bigger than any one person, blood-relate or not. Otherwise we live in Locke's "State of Nature" (which is basically the state that the Covenent-less Canaanites were living in at the time).

I'm aware that new prophets would come along and make a new set of rules. That was the entire point I was making regarding the last prophet according to you christians. You do believe in what jesus preached and tried to do right?

If that is the case outside of the resurrection story and get into heaven free card that you guys like to fixate on the most significant thing he did was overturn the dovecotes and moneychangers table. That is what gave the pharisees probable cause with the romans to go after Jesus. He took off to Galilee and the country side. He preaches a lot is betrayed and captured. It's Roman property law over wrecking the temple that sees him crucified.

That is the story that took over the mediterranean. That and him telling everyone to give up judgment and find absolution through him. He goes on about having to go through a rebirth.

Don't try that context line with me. I actually know the context far better than most. I was raised in a literalist Biblical tradition. I've studied the history, anthropology, sociology and history of the region. I can talk about the political, technological, and scoiological mindset of the times. I've read some of the Giza scrolls. I've read histories of antiquity like herodotus and cicero. I've sifted through archaeological and historical information from Babylon and Persia. All I do is talk about context.

You know about Egyptian history? Pharaoh stayed in Memphis, the north, until about 3000 BC. The ritual sacrifice was a big part of the move. They for example would sacrifice all of pharaohs retainers on his death prior to the move the Thebes. Once in Theebs they would instead build statues terracotta army style. The stuff in the early old testament reads very similar to the stories and laws that they took out of Giza. If the Exodus story has any basis in reality then this is the time period in question. That's why I say 6000 years because that is where these stories originate from.

Also pulled out of Giza were declarations, astrologies, census and laws that read like genesis leviticus deuteronomy and numbers complete with slaving and doomsaying. Now I get as you move on with Daniel and some others that magic and what not is forbidden. I look at it as social progress in that region from about 6000 BC til the time Jesus would have been around. The Egyptian builder/priest class was very methodical though. They kept track of families and who was sacrificed and what body parts.

When I read the story of abraham I cannot help but think of priests declaring that someone had to die for some body part out on the pyramids. What I take from Abrahams story is that god will never ask anything of me like that because he's not an asshole. This is very similar to the ethic I take from Jesus story of not having to pay animal sacrifice or coin for absolution because God is not an asshole. When I read Jesus say to keep the lessons of Abraham and the various covenants as you term it, I hear him saying keep the freedoms we already won before.

I'm not going to get into miracles and whether or not Jesus 'revealed himself' to the two Mary's then his disciples and brother but by the time 'Paul' is on the road seeing him, I'm not buying it. Reading through his shit and the subjugation, proscriptions for beatings, and all manner of malfeasance I reject those books categorically as trash.

You have studied the early church and the nestorians, aesthetics, and the various factions that emerged? I always respected the guys like Saint Matthew and Augustine who actually tried to live the pure ethic that Jesus preached with his ritual bathing. Not so much the thought police of the Paulines that set themselves up as Bishops in Rome and Alexandria. Notice how there is no book in the Bible to the Alexandrians? That was because you didn't disagree with Cyril, Philip or any of the lectors because they would burn you out.

By the time that Constantine is in the picture, there are churches set up in every mediterranean. They have two councils. The first is to define the nature of Jesus. They deify him completely and then sick Peter the lector and those monks after the guys who disagreed. This began the whole excommunication thing. Then they had the second council where they took the torah, the gospels. a bunch of sales guides from early church leaders whose opinions the Romans liked which are no more valid then what you and I are talking about today then the prophecy that predicted Jesus appearance to corroborate the stuff in John and called it the word of God. You know the lengths they went to in terms of what types of thoughts were allowed back then right? Heresy laws and such?

Much of the New Testament is so contrived as to be upsetting. The genealogy it starts off with irritates me from the go. For the Jesus story to make any sense, he has to be a bastard outside the social order of Nazareth. If he's not then he is the son of a builder and goes to work with his father. His disdain for the pharisees actually makes sense if that geneology is not true. Nevermind that God was the one it says knocked up Mary to gloss over any uncertainty.

At least the Gospels have words and acts attributed to Jesus. I like some of the stories of the OT. I even practice many of the ethics contained therein. I just don't believe any of it is divinely inspired. It's been the tool of despots.

[mingus]

I'm aware that new prophets would come along and make a new set of rules. That was the entire point I was making regarding the last prophet according to you christians. You do believe in what jesus preached and tried to do right?

If that is the case outside of the resurrection story and get into heaven free card that you guys like to fixate on the most significant thing he did was overturn the dovecotes and moneychangers table. That is what gave the pharisees probable cause with the romans to go after Jesus. He took off to Galilee and the country side. He preaches a lot is betrayed and captured. It's Roman property law over wrecking the temple that sees him crucified.

That is the story that took over the mediterranean. That and him telling everyone to give up judgment and find absolution through him. He goes on about having to go through a rebirth.

Don't try that context line with me. I actually know the context far better than most. I was raised in a literalist Biblical tradition. I've studied the history, anthropology, sociology and history of the region. I can talk about the political, technological, and scoiological mindset of the times. I've read some of the Giza scrolls. I've read histories of antiquity like herodotus and cicero. I've sifted through archaeological and historical information from Babylon and Persia. All I do is talk about context.

You know about Egyptian history? Pharaoh stayed in Memphis, the north, until about 3000 BC. The ritual sacrifice was a big part of the move. They for example would sacrifice all of pharaohs retainers on his death prior to the move the Thebes. Once in Theebs they would instead build statues terracotta army style. The stuff in the early old testament reads very similar to the stories and laws that they took out of Giza. If the Exodus story has any basis in reality then this is the time period in question. That's why I say 6000 years because that is where these stories originate from.

Also pulled out of Giza were declarations, astrologies, census and laws that read like genesis leviticus deuteronomy and numbers complete with slaving and doomsaying. Now I get as you move on with Daniel and some others that magic and what not is forbidden. I look at it as social progress in that region from about 6000 BC til the time Jesus would have been around. The Egyptian builder/priest class was very methodical though. They kept track of families and who was sacrificed and what body parts.

When I read the story of abraham I cannot help but think of priests declaring that someone had to die for some body part out on the pyramids. What I take from Abrahams story is that god will never ask anything of me like that because he's not an asshole. This is very similar to the ethic I take from Jesus story of not having to pay animal sacrifice or coin for absolution because God is not an asshole. When I read Jesus say to keep the lessons of Abraham and the various covenants as you term it, I hear him saying keep the freedoms we already won before.

I'm not going to get into miracles and whether or not Jesus 'revealed himself' to the two Mary's then his disciples and brother but by the time 'Paul' is on the road seeing him, I'm not buying it. Reading through his shit and the subjugation, proscriptions for beatings, and all manner of malfeasance I reject those books categorically as trash.

You have studied the early church and the nestorians, aesthetics, and the various factions that emerged? I always respected the guys like Saint Matthew and Augustine who actually tried to live the pure ethic that Jesus preached with his ritual bathing. Not so much the thought police of the Paulines that set themselves up as Bishops in Rome and Alexandria. Notice how there is no book in the Bible to the Alexandrians? That was because you didn't disagree with Cyril, Philip or any of the lectors because they would burn you out.

By the time that Constantine is in the picture, there are churches set up in every mediterranean. They have two councils. The first is to define the nature of Jesus. They deify him completely and then sick Peter the lector and those monks after the guys who disagreed. This began the whole excommunication thing. Then they had the second council where they took the torah, the gospels. a bunch of sales guides from early church leaders whose opinions the Romans liked which are no more valid then what you and I are talking about today then the prophecy that predicted Jesus appearance to corroborate the stuff in John and called it the word of God. You know the lengths they went to in terms of what types of thoughts were allowed back then right? Heresy laws and such?

Much of the New Testament is so contrived as to be upsetting. The genealogy it starts off with irritates me from the go. For the Jesus story to make any sense, he has to be a bastard outside the social order of Nazareth. If he's not then he is the son of a builder and goes to work with his father. His disdain for the pharisees actually makes sense if that geneology is not true. Nevermind that God was the one it says knocked up Mary to gloss over any uncertainty.

At least the Gospels have words and acts attributed to Jesus. I like some of the stories of the OT. I even practice many of the ethics contained therein. I just don't believe any of it is divinely inspired. It's been the tool of despots.

I agree & disagree with some of what you said. For example, I disagree that the Egyption practice of sacrificing Pharos is really all that important here, given the fact that human sacrifice was already a practice of the Canaanites. In fact, and I tend to agree with this, the story can be interpreted as saying that actual (as opposed and in addition to the symbolic gesture of it, which I've mentioned already) sacrifice is actually abhorrent.

But I'm not going to go into this anymore because--and I stated this way earlier in this thread--my intent was never to change anyone's mind. I'm I simply wanted to rid this thread of the simple idea that the story of Abraham can unequivocally be read in one way. We've only touched the surface. There are a dozen ways, many of which are very compelling.

[mingus]

Another thing, label me as you wish (I guess it makes me look less capable of analyzing the subject with competency, seeing how you said before that all Christians are stupid), but I'm not a Christian. By any objective criteria, I'm not a Christian. Also, by any objective criteria, not all Christians are stupid. Your subscription to such stupid ideas is pretty much a roadblock for debating this any further, or really anything at all.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I agree & disagree with some of what you said. For example, I disagree that the Egyption practice of sacrificing Pharos is really all that important here, given the fact that human sacrifice was already a practice of the Canaanites. In fact, and I tend to agree with this, the story can be interpreted as saying that actual (as opposed and in addition to the symbolic gesture of it, which I've mentioned already) sacrifice is actually abhorrent.

But I'm not going to go into this anymore because--and I stated this way earlier in this thread--my intent was never to change anyone's mind. I'm I simply wanted to rid this thread of the simple idea that the story of Abraham can unequivocally be read in one way. We've only touched the surface. There are a dozen ways, many of which are very compelling.

My intent is to uncover the truth. That is why I look to actual written records and the like. Prior to the founding of Jerusalem, the pharaohs could raid and capture slaves with impunity in Canaan as you term it. Jerusalem's founding around 6000 BC would have given cover for escaping slaves. Babylon and Ur are getting conquered every other generation it seems from their records during this time period. Alcohol had spread from the East a couple thousand years before.

You talk of context and how others don't understand. You don't argue any of what I say, I actually fact check myself on this. I'm giving you the real context. Truth. Reality.

Pharaoh is central in the Exodus story. What pharaoh did in reality in 4000 BC is important and back then he was still killing all of his retainers. They built large burial complexes to house them pretty famously. In this context the raised slave to serve the pharaoh has a completely different dynamic.

When I read the account of the passover where Moses marks in blood the houses that will be spared from plague and imagine how the priest class would have chosen out the families that would have to sacrifice a member and how they would have used writing technology for social control. I read their scrolls where they keep track of the family lines and where they live. Which would be more meaningful: marking the houses of those that will be making the sacrifice or those that will be spared. From a social control position marking out the special class for passover just fits perfectly. Isn't god merciful?

The priests were deliberate. They thought different body parts did different things and kept track of it and where it came from. They built a system of dams to hold the nile from memphis then they built wonders that remain to this day. These are the same men that built the pyramids with said slave labor. When the building stopped and they went to do their auguries and such it must have been terrifying to be a slave. Are you going to be the one yanked out and gibbed in front of everyone on the hill over there where pharaoh set up shop? You've heard accounts of slave masters in the 19th century and before in US history. That's your context. Escape meant being chased down by chariots and gibbed. Moses left seeking freedom but he held to slave traditions nonetheless.

As I've pointed out the slavers morality which is Leviticus Deuteronomy and Numbers are of those traditions. Tracking the families for tribute/sacrifice in numbers. Lists of laws that require blood sacrifice and sets conditions for acceptable slavery. Proscriptions about food, sex, and lifestyle. It's all a common factor in those books from the Bible and the pharaohs scrolls pulled out of Giza. It is what it is.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Another thing, label me as you wish (I guess it makes me look less capable of analyzing the subject with competency, seeing how you said before that all Christians are stupid), but I'm not a Christian. By any objective criteria, I'm not a Christian. Also, by any objective criteria, not all Christians are stupid. Your subscription to such stupid ideas is pretty much a roadblock for debating this any further, or really anything at all.

No, I said most christians seem stupid because they refuse to address facts and issues about their beliefs head on. They pick and choose when to use reason and logic. Like I said I like Thoreau's ethic that the two don't have to be in conflict. You start defining God from those books and I have what I consider reasonable issues with that. You're trying to justify the story of Abraham and the various Biblical prophets now and accusing people of not understanding context.

When I give you context you won't disagree with it on any point of fact. It is what it is.

[Blake]

Another thing, label me as you wish (I guess it makes me look less capable of analyzing the subject with competency, seeing how you said before that all Christians are stupid), but I'm not a Christian. By any objective criteria, I'm not a Christian. Also, by any objective criteria, not all Christians are stupid. Your subscription to such stupid ideas is pretty much a roadblock for debating this any further, or really anything at all.

All Christians aren't completely stupid but it's pretty stupid or ignorant to subscribe to Christianity tbh

[mingus]

All Christians aren't completely stupid but it's pretty stupid or ignorant to subscribe to Christianity tbh

It depends. Subscribing to Christianity can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people. The core tenet of believing Jesus as Messiah & and in Bible God & the Holy Spirit are just a few aspect of it. It's religious & philosophical, one can subscribe to either or both, and be called a Christian, depending on who you ask.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

It depends. Subscribing to Christianity can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people. The core tenet of believing Jesus as Messiah & and in Bible God & the Holy Spirit are just a few aspect of it. It's religious & philosophical, one can subscribe to either or both, and be called a Christian, depending on who you ask.

You do recognize that between 370 and 700 AD there were 7 councils that codified what you are talking about and that were enforced by the Roman Empire in the form of heresy laws? The trinity, the dual wills, the nature of the covenant and all the canon you spout was decided then by men.

Ecumenial councils. Declared infallible and enforced on pain of death. Tithe. Absolution for cash. Bible. Trinity. Banned monotheism for their triumvirate. Excommunication.

Nevermind that they were completely ineffective and almost lost the world to the Ayyubids and Uyyabids. Might as well be catholic if youre going to subscribe to that stuff.

[mingus]

You do recognize that between 370 and 700 AD there were 7 councils that codified what you are talking about and that were enforced by the Roman Empire in the form of heresy laws? The trinity, the dual wills, the nature of the covenant and all the canon you spout was decided then by men.

Ecumenial councils. Declared infallible and enforced on pain of death. Tithe. Absolution for cash. Bible. Trinity. Banned monotheism for their triumvirate. Excommunication.

Nevermind that they were completely ineffective and almost lost the world to the Ayyubids and Uyyabids. Might as well be catholic if youre going to subscribe to that stuff.

What exactly are you addressing?

I wish you'd reign in your tendency to eagerly demonstrate your incredible breadth of knowledge where it isn't pertinent and/or is based on presumption, in the interest of clarity. Half the time I've spent talking with you I've annoyingly had to debunk your distortions of me or something I said.

Here, I don't know if you've beef with something I said, or a misinterpretation/distortion of what I said. From what I can tell it's the latter.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What exactly are you addressing?

I wish you'd reign in your tendency to eagerly demonstrate your incredible breadth of knowledge where it isn't pertinent and/or is based on presumption, in the interest of clarity. Half the time I've spent talking with you I've annoyingly had to debunk your distortions of me or something I said.

Here, I don't know if you've beef with something I said, or a misinterpretation/distortion of what I said. From what I can tell it's the latter.

I'm addressing the historical context of your Bible. You asked why I spoke against the book and I explained. I told you what books of the Bible I didn't like and why. I explained the historical context from whence the book came. I outlined the traditions from which your covenants came.

My opinions on your religion are detailed and cannot be simply explained. Everything I am talking about is factual.

[mingus]

I'm addressing the historical context of your Bible. You asked why I spoke against the book and I explained. I told you what books of the Bible I didn't like and why. I explained the historical context from whence the book came. I outlined the traditions from which your covenants came.

My opinions on your religion are detailed and cannot be simply explained. Everything I am talking about is factual.

You know, you keep labeling me something I'm not. Even after telling to you that I'm not a Christian, you continue to label me as such. Hell, if I'm a Christian I may as well be a Muslim, Hindu & Buddhist too! Which wouldn't make any sense. It's hysterical actually.

And of course, none of this can be simply explained. I don't need you to tell me that. My entire point from the beginning was that none of this is easily explained. Thanks for making my point.

And no, not all of what you have said is factual. Not all Christians are stupid, in fact. And I'm not a Christian. So you're wrong in saying you've been factual in everything you've said. The facts you've stated otherwise don't mean anything in and of themselves. You've come to conclusions/beliefs based on them that I, and many others, think are wrong. Beliefs are not facts. So no, again, not everything you've said is factual.

Anyway, I don't expect anyone who hold the irrational view that all Christians are stupid (and, unless you went back and edited it, that's exactly what you said) to demonstrate that they have a firm grip on the reality of this, or any dicussion for that matter. That's been the case with you, so I'm better off moving on...

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You know, you keep labeling me something I'm not. Even after telling to you that I'm not a Christian, you continue to label me as such. Hell, if I'm a Christian I may as well be a Muslim, Hindu & Buddhist too! Which wouldn't make any sense. It's hysterical actually.

And of course, none of this can be simply explained. I don't need you to tell me that. My entire point from the beginning was that none of this is easily explained. Thanks for making my point.

And no, not all of what you have said is factual. Not all Christians are stupid, in fact. And I'm not a Christian. So you're wrong in saying you've been factual in everything you've said. The facts you've stated otherwise don't mean anything in and of themselves. You've come to conclusions/beliefs based on them that I, and many others, think are wrong. Beliefs are not facts. So no, again, not everything you've said is factual.

Anyway, I don't expect anyone who hold the irrational view that all Christians are stupid (and, unless you went back and edited it, that's exactly what you said) to demonstrate that they have a firm grip on the reality of this, or any dicussion for that matter. That's been the case with you, so I'm better off moving on...

I'm just going to link what I said before. If you choose to ignore me again then so be it. I addressed your 'christians are stupid' complaint directly.


No, I said most christians seem stupid because they refuse to address facts and issues about their beliefs head on. They pick and choose when to use reason and logic. Like I said I like Thoreau's ethic that the two don't have to be in conflict. You start defining God from those books and I have what I consider reasonable issues with that. You're trying to justify the story of Abraham and the various Biblical prophets now and accusing people of not understanding context.

When I give you context you won't disagree with it on any point of fact. It is what it is.

If you want to claim youre unitarian as if that means you haven't been spouting ecumenial dogma like covenants and the nature of god and jesus then so be it. If you want to act like I wasn't giving context when you complained about our lack of context then so be it. Going in circles is boring.

[mingus]

You've given great context. If I ever implied that you didn't know your shit in that regard, then I apologize for that. Clearly, you've researched and know a lot about the subject, and in addition you've brought up some things that were new to me that I will definitely read up on in the future when time allows.

Where I've disagreed with you is on conclusions you've made regarding Abraham-Isaac story in terms of its meaning and its historical influences. I've also disagreed with the level of certainty you talk about them with. But there's always more to learn. Particularly, I'm interested in reading more about the as you alleged Egypt influence in this regard. Admittedly, I'm not as well-versed on much about Egyption human sacrifice shit--when it started, how long it lasted, whether & how much it resonated with the Israelites, etc.

You're arguments are compelling, but the problem is that they like virtually every other argument in favor of a particular interpretation of the Abraham--Isaac story, including mine, rests on the fact that there's relatively limited (compared to say, Egypt) historical documentation of the Canaanites/Israelites at that particular time in existence, and the open-ended nature of the story in terms of meaning (i.e. there's a lot of subtextual stuff that you've got to try and figure out since there's no internal dialogue type shit). Coming to a certitudes about its meaning and where it exactly had risen up from historically is basically impossible. But, that was my point from the get-go.

That said, there's probably a dozen compelling arguments that have been made regarding this topic. It's been a pretty fruitful discussion in the sense that I can read up on some of the shit you brought to light in support of your reading of it.

Additionally, there's quite a lot of unequivocally bad shit that God does in the OT that, for those wanting to paint the Biblical God in a negative light, would probably be better source material. Nonetheless, it's been interesting, and I apologize for the undeserved insults I threw out at you. Been a long day.

[boutons_deux]

https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtl1/v/t1.0-9/10155533_949724238415835_4063308795229130850_n.jpg ?oh=9ae6437a35f681222b06d99455d0e99f&oe=57458906

[boutons_deux]

https://scontent-dfw1-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xtp1/v/t1.0-9/12289493_933685323353060_1683102882125921975_n.jpg ?oh=d2e60db442c7450215cd086b63656812&oe=5713F780

[Phenomanul]

You do recognize that between 370 and 700 AD there were 7 councils that codified what you are talking about and that were enforced by the Roman Empire in the form of heresy laws? The trinity, the dual wills, the nature of the covenant and all the canon you spout was decided then by men.

Ecumenial councils. Declared infallible and enforced on pain of death. Tithe. Absolution for cash. Bible. Trinity. Banned monotheism for their triumvirate. Excommunication.

Nevermind that they were completely ineffective and almost lost the world to the Ayyubids and Uyyabids. Might as well be catholic if youre going to subscribe to that stuff.

Yet physical editions of the Torah (written in Hebrew) and the relevant portions found in the Septuagint (written in Koine Greek) which predate any and all "influences" of ecumenical Roman councils (starting with the first council of Nicaea in A.D. 325, through the council of Trent, etc...), or pre-ecumenical councils of the Ancient church (starting with the council of Jerusalem [~A.D. 50], etc...) ALREADY reference GOD in plural form. In fact, GOD speaks of Himself in plural starting from the Book of Genesis. The passages are still written this way in the Hebrew texts TODAY. Over millennia, Judaism hasn't changed the texts, even while they know that Christians interpret them as an affirmation of Trinitarian doctrine - BUT that's how important the preservation of written fidelity is to them (much to the benefit of Christian doctrine).

Genesis 1:26, “Let us make man in our image” (ποιήσωμεν)
Genesis 3:22, “And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us”
Genesis 11:7, “Go to, and let us go down, and there confound their language”
Isaiah 6:8, “And I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?”

And yes, I understand there are other views and interpretations for these texts (this particular issue), but those alternative explanations don't completely undermine the Christian interpretation of said texts (Christian interpretation is just as plausible).

I find it rather poignant to point out you seem to place more emphasis on modern interpretations of historical texts rather than the content of the texts themselves. You have done this ad nauseam, repeatedly and with such broad sweeping speculation that I find it ridiculous that you then turn around and claim that the speculative arguments themselves ARE TRUTH. Convenience is what this amounts to.

For example, you threw the entire NT under the bus based strictly on your personal exclusion of Pauline doctrine, but to do so you ignored the texts of the four Gospels [Matthew, Mark, Luke, John], Acts of the Apostles, Hebrews, the 2 epistles by Peter, the 3 epistles by John, Jude and the Book of Revelations (in other words, more than half of the New Testament).

You are entitled to believe as you wish, but the fact that that you could posit such lazy arguments and then use that as a basis to reject an entire volume of works is laughable. And then you beat your chest in intellectual superiority when the bulk of your arguments rely on accusational overtones to discredit the works themselves (i.e. wishy-washy accusations that "the Roman councils undeniably changed/altered" scriptural texts - without any proof or evidence to substantiate the claims themselves). That said, the Dead Sea Scrolls alone kill the merit of any such accusation because it reveals that the fidelity of those texts remained unchanged for centuries - and prior to the interjection of any Roman 'authority' - those you claim altered the texts to change the meaning of the Gospel message.

In other words, IF Roman councils wanted to spread a message that would be consistent with their allegedly distorted view of scripture, but somehow different than what the authors of the original NT works intended THEN they would have unequivocally changed bits and pieces of the texts to suit their ideologies. To do so they would have ALSO needed to alter texts from the Torah itself. Instead we find PROOF that the Torah has remained identical to itself over time and identical to the version of the Torah that is grafted in the Biblical canon. So where is the evidence of tampering? IT JUST ISN'T THERE. Hence, IF there is physical proof to substantiate the lack of tampering in the aforementioned context (none of the Biblical OT was tampered with), THEN why would you claim that the councils invariably tampered with 1st NT century writings? Out of a convenience to discredit the CONTENT itself, which is a message you clearly reject. The Book of Hebrews alone, long attributed to the Apostle Paul (but no longer the case using forensics-of-writing-style techniques), contains such an eloquent summary of the Gospel message that if the Gospels or just one of the Gospels and this book were the sole revelation of the New Testament, it would be sufficient as a foundation to Christian theology. Thus, your anti-Paul stance/bias (a twisted alternative meaning to the Pauli exclusion principle) isn't sufficient a premise to discredit the Gospel message as a whole when other NT works paint the same exact picture (despite your reluctance to accept that truth).

Anyways... I don't want to get drawn into more discussion with someone who would make a sweeping statement that all Christians are stupid. But mingus already gave you more credit than you deserve.

[Blake]

It depends. Subscribing to Christianity can mean a lot of different things to a lot of different people. The core tenet of believing Jesus as Messiah & and in Bible God & the Holy Spirit are just a few aspect of it. It's religious & philosophical, one can subscribe to either or both, and be called a Christian, depending on who you ask.

If you subscribe to the belief that the bible is the unerring word of God and Jesus, you're pretty ignorant and/or stupid

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Yet physical editions of the Torah (written in Hebrew) and the relevant portions found in the Septuagint (written in Koine Greek) which predate any and all "influences" of ecumenical Roman councils (starting with the first council of Nicaea in A.D. 325, through the council of Trent, etc...), or pre-ecumenical councils of the Ancient church (starting with the council of Jerusalem [~A.D. 50], etc...) ALREADY reference GOD in plural form. In fact, GOD speaks of Himself in plural starting from the Book of Genesis. The passages are still written this way in the Hebrew texts TODAY. Over millennia, Judaism hasn't changed the texts, even while they know that Christians interpret them as an affirmation of Trinitarian doctrine - BUT that's how important the preservation of written fidelity is to them (much to the benefit of Christian doctrine).

Genesis 1:26, “Let us make man in our image” (ποιήσωμεν)
Genesis 3:22, “And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us”
Genesis 11:7, “Go to, and let us go down, and there confound their language”
Isaiah 6:8, “And I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us?”

And yes, I understand there are other views and interpretations for these texts (this particular issue), but those alternative explanations don't completely undermine the Christian interpretation of said texts (Christian interpretation is just as plausible).

I find it rather poignant to point out you seem to place more emphasis on modern interpretations of historical texts rather than the content of the texts themselves. You have done this ad nauseam, repeatedly and with such broad sweeping speculation that I find it ridiculous that you then turn around and claim that the speculative arguments themselves ARE TRUTH. Convenience is what this amounts to.

For example, you threw the entire NT under the bus based strictly on your personal exclusion of Pauline doctrine, but to do so you ignored the texts of the four Gospels [Matthew, Mark, Luke, John], Acts of the Apostles, Hebrews, the 2 epistles by Peter, the 3 epistles by John, Jude and the Book of Revelations (in other words, more than half of the New Testament).

You are entitled to believe as you wish, but the fact that that you could posit such lazy arguments and then use that as a basis to reject an entire volume of works is laughable. And then you beat your chest in intellectual superiority when the bulk of your arguments rely on accusational overtones to discredit the works themselves (i.e. wishy-washy accusations that "the Roman councils undeniably changed/altered" scriptural texts - without any proof or evidence to substantiate the claims themselves). That said, the Dead Sea Scrolls alone kill the merit of any such accusation because it reveals that the fidelity of those texts remained unchanged for centuries - and prior to the interjection of any Roman 'authority' - those you claim altered the texts to change the meaning of the Gospel message.

In other words, IF Roman councils wanted to spread a message that would be consistent with their allegedly distorted view of scripture, but somehow different than what the authors of the original NT works intended THEN they would have unequivocally changed bits and pieces of the texts to suit their ideologies. To do so they would have ALSO needed to alter texts from the Torah itself. Instead we find PROOF that the Torah has remained identical to itself over time and identical to the version of the Torah that is grafted in the Biblical canon. So where is the evidence of tampering? IT JUST ISN'T THERE. Hence, IF there is physical proof to substantiate the lack of tampering in the aforementioned context (none of the Biblical OT was tampered with), THEN why would you claim that the councils invariably tampered with 1st NT century writings? Out of a convenience to discredit the CONTENT itself, which is a message you clearly reject. The Book of Hebrews alone, long attributed to the Apostle Paul (but no longer the case using forensics-of-writing-style techniques), contains such an eloquent summary of the Gospel message that if the Gospels or just one of the Gospels and this book were the sole revelation of the New Testament, it would be sufficient as a foundation to Christian theology. Thus, your anti-Paul stance/bias (a twisted alternative meaning to the Pauli exclusion principle) isn't sufficient a premise to discredit the Gospel message as a whole when other NT works paint the same exact picture (despite your reluctance to accept that truth).

Anyways... I don't want to get drawn into more discussion with someone who would make a sweeping statement that all Christians are stupid. But mingus already gave you more credit than you deserve.

It doesn't say copies of the Gospel or Pauls work which was my entire point. The Torah/septuagint(fancy word for first 7 books) was kept by the Levites separately. You'll note all the copies of the NT start coming out of Constantinople after the second council.

What lazy is getting canned answer that doesn't address my points at all. Further this is teh exact same argument that that account that claimed to be a pilot used. I didn't believe he was a pilot and I don't think you are a oil rig worker.

MY furute arguments will quote former argumetns of mine outlining the above and how you are full of shit. Anyone wonder can look up my posts about the works of Paul and the geneology and other nonsense found in the NT.

Go ahead and wave you hands at the OT fables as truth if you want. That is even more stupid but have at it.

[Phenomanul]

It doesn't say copies of the Gospel or Pauls work which was my entire point. The Torah/septuagint(fancy word for first 7 books) was kept by the Levites separately. You'll note all the copies of the NT start coming out of Constantinople after the second council.

What lazy is getting canned answer that doesn't address my points at all. Further this is teh exact same argument that that account that claimed to be a pilot used. I didn't believe he was a pilot and I don't think you are a oil rig worker.

MY furute arguments will quote former argumetns of mine outlining the above and how you are full of shit. Anyone wonder can look up my posts about the works of Paul and the geneology and other nonsense found in the NT.

Go ahead and wave you hands at the OT fables as truth if you want. That is even more stupid but have at it.

When did I claim to be an oil rig worker? :lmao :lmao

I work in a Petroleum Refinery which is a related field but not exactly the same...

As I said, I'm not going to get drawn into a discussion with you. You, like many others here just throw a barrage of arguments (the above quote being an example), so many in number that I couldn't possibly refute them all even if I tried... The time requirement is not something I can expend either.

Even if I did manage to do so, you would then gloss over my rebuttals to focus on the 'weakest' rebuttal and claim that it somehow validated all of your posited arguments. Just looking back on this thread, I don't manage to find a single instance where you 'stand corrected' even as mingus tried to answer the very vaguely framed questions or subjective questions you threw at him. He would give you an answer, but when it was not the one you wanted or it wasn't to your liking, you would throw it back at him as if somehow his answer was wrong. I have neither the patience or the need to deal with that type of shenanigans.

It's tiring.

Besides the very last statement in your quote exemplifies the derisive nature of your position. The statement is laced with disdain. I'm not in a position to discuss every single doctrinal point or even the context of all scripture --> as that would take ages.

MY POINT earlier focused on the fidelity of scripture - that it has largely remained unchanged over MILLENNIA. For you THEN to claim that the ecumenical councils re-interpreted scriptures to fancy their own agendas (and so change the Gospel message) you would have to ignore the fact that ALL of the references to the Torah are consistent with the Torah itself (all versions of it). YOU KEEP IGNORING THIS ARGUMENT to twist it into an argument over the content itself. You've yet to provide discrete evidence that the councils tampered with the message of scripture. That the current editions of the NT come out after the second council of Constantinople takes a back seat to the fact that there are versions of some of the individual texts included in the canon that far predate A.D. 381.

IT's all moot anyway. There is nothing wrong with you saying you don't believe any of it - that's your prerogative. To chastise believers from the following position, however, is asinine (paraphrasing) "I have studied the historicity of biblical texts, and anyone who disagrees with my conclusions is stupid and deluded..."

That is ultimately why I will refuse to engage you in discourse. Condescending intransigence such as yours would just waste both of our time.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

When did I claim to be an oil rig worker? :lmao :lmao

I work in a Petroleum Refinery which is a related field but not exactly the same...

As I said, I'm not going to get drawn into a discussion with you. You, like many others here just throw a barrage of arguments (the above quote being an example), so many in number that I couldn't possibly refute them all even if I tried... The time requirement is not something I can expend either.

Even if I did manage to do so, you would then gloss over my rebuttals to focus on the 'weakest' rebuttal and claim that it somehow validated all of your posited arguments. Just looking back on this thread, I don't manage to find a single instance where you 'stand corrected' even as mingus tried to answer the very vaguely framed questions or subjective questions you threw at him. He would give you an answer, but when it was not the one you wanted or it wasn't to your liking, you would throw it back at him as if somehow his answer was wrong. I have neither the patience or the need to deal with that type of shenanigans.

It's tiring.

Besides the very last statement in your quote exemplifies the derisive nature of your position. The statement is laced with disdain. I'm not in a position to discuss every single doctrinal point or even the context of all scripture --> as that would take ages.

MY POINT earlier focused on the fidelity of scripture - that it has largely remained unchanged over MILLENNIA. For you THEN to claim that the ecumenical councils re-interpreted scriptures to fancy their own agendas (and so change the Gospel message) you would have to ignore the fact that ALL of the references to the Torah are consistent with the Torah itself (all versions of it). YOU KEEP IGNORING THIS ARGUMENT to twist it into an argument over the content itself. You've yet to provide discrete evidence that the councils tampered with the message of scripture. That the current editions of the NT come out after the second council of Constantinople takes a back seat to the fact that there are versions of some of the individual texts included in the canon that far predate A.D. 381.

IT's all moot anyway. There is nothing wrong with you saying you don't believe any of it - that's your prerogative. To chastise believers from the following position, however, is asinine (paraphrasing) "I have studied the historicity of biblical texts, and anyone who disagrees with my conclusions is stupid and deluded..."

That is ultimately why I will refuse to engage you in discourse. Condescending intransigence such as yours would just waste both of our time.

Again, the NT starts coming out late 4th century AD after the second council and not before. You can wave your hands at the OT/Jewish texts all you like.

You won't engage me because you have nothing to argue this point.

My argument is quite simple and all you can do is talk of about is the OT. To that digression as an aside, the septuagint was put together in 4th century Alexandria. Same time period. Congratulations on being ignorant of context.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You've given great context. If I ever implied that you didn't know your shit in that regard, then I apologize for that. Clearly, you've researched and know a lot about the subject, and in addition you've brought up some things that were new to me that I will definitely read up on in the future when time allows.

Where I've disagreed with you is on conclusions you've made regarding Abraham-Isaac story in terms of its meaning and its historical influences. I've also disagreed with the level of certainty you talk about them with. But there's always more to learn. Particularly, I'm interested in reading more about the as you alleged Egypt influence in this regard. Admittedly, I'm not as well-versed on much about Egyption human sacrifice shit--when it started, how long it lasted, whether & how much it resonated with the Israelites, etc.

You're arguments are compelling, but the problem is that they like virtually every other argument in favor of a particular interpretation of the Abraham--Isaac story, including mine, rests on the fact that there's relatively limited (compared to say, Egypt) historical documentation of the Canaanites/Israelites at that particular time in existence, and the open-ended nature of the story in terms of meaning (i.e. there's a lot of subtextual stuff that you've got to try and figure out since there's no internal dialogue type shit). Coming to a certitudes about its meaning and where it exactly had risen up from historically is basically impossible. But, that was my point from the get-go.

That said, there's probably a dozen compelling arguments that have been made regarding this topic. It's been a pretty fruitful discussion in the sense that I can read up on some of the shit you brought to light in support of your reading of it.

Additionally, there's quite a lot of unequivocally bad shit that God does in the OT that, for those wanting to paint the Biblical God in a negative light, would probably be better source material. Nonetheless, it's been interesting, and I apologize for the undeserved insults I threw out at you. Been a long day.

:bobo

[Phenomanul]

Again, the NT starts coming out late 4th century AD after the second council and not before. You can wave your hands at the OT/Jewish texts all you like.

You won't engage me because you have nothing to argue this point.

My argument is quite simple and all you can do is talk of about is the OT. To that digression as an aside, the septuagint was put together in 4th century Alexandria. Same time period. Congratulations on being ignorant of context.

Perhaps you should look in a mirror.

CONTEXT: The books from the NT weren't re-written in the 4th century. I guess you don't understand the dynamics of copying written works, and why I keep harping on the high fidelity renditions passed on by the scribes - a point you keep ignoring over and over again. In other words, the origins of the Gospels and other 1st century works were not fabricated in the 3rd and 4th centuries. You DISINGENOUSLY keep trying to imply as much. According to your logic the copy of Hamlet I downloaded for my Kindle last week must obviously be a different version than what Shakespeare penned down given that it was physically created 4 centuries later. :shootme Even if we didn't have Shakespeare's original copies, claims that somehow any copy published after the original was 'different than the original' could not be fully proven as truth... unless you had physical proof of what passages had been altered, by whom and for what purpose.

CONTEXT: It doesn't matter that the Septuagint was termed as such in the 4th century, it has its origins in the 3rd century BC when the first translations of the Torah to Koine Greek were sponsored. Some of these texts still exist today, yet those fragments remain uber precise with the content of the Hebrew texts. Because AGAIN, content fidelity was of utmost importance. The same fidelity that was adopted by the early church with the emergence and the transference of the gospels and the epistles. Fidelity was my point, not the name of the Septuagint itself. Fragments of the Koine Greek translation of Hebrew texts (pre-Septuagint) were discovered with the Dead Sea Scrolls AND YES, THEY ALL SAY THE SAME THING AS THEIR BIBLICAL VERSIONS.

CONTEXT: The Hebrew texts (OT) speak of JESUS. What he would have to fulfill to satisfy the role of Messiah. YOU all dismissively cast aside the 350+ prophecies He would have to fulfill to stake His claim for that role. But the fact that the Gospel rendition of JESUS satisfies every single reference to said role is statistically significant. Other SECULAR works even confirm the unnatural phenomena that occurred during the crucifixion - events which were foretold in the OT. NO ONE WENT BACK to modify the OT in order to 'better' affirm/validate JESUS as Messiah. The secular works themselves were not written by ecumenical authorities either - they were independent historical affirmations (written by ideologically opposed authors even) that validate scriptural (gospel) accounts of JESUS' life.

CONTEXT: Earlier in the thread you and others hinted - even lazily accused - that both the OT and NT texts were modified to 'manufacture' the theological basis for claiming that JESUS was Messiah (i.e. The tenets of Christianity were entirely contrived based on manipulated texts). I kept insisting that the OT texts - even those that speak of the Messiah - have remained unchanged for millennia - so now you have changed your tune and would rather say that the Hebrew texts don't matter. In other words, you keep hiding behind unsubstantiated lies and accusations. In the case of the NT writings - you want to claim that 'someone' dramatically altered who JESUS was in order to forge a new power structure around His adoration. The fact remains that the secular historical works also point to the fact that believers were already dying for Him DURING the 1st century (as martyrs of the early church). So a claim that somehow JESUS was re-written as the Son of GOD 3 or 4 centuries later makes no sense in light of the fact that believers were already being persecuted by the Roman empire for worshipping Him as such shortly after the crucifixion. AGAIN I know you will brush off those inconsistencies because they don't jive with your theory.

And so you see...

That's what I mean when I say you are not after true discourse... you go off on tangents beating your chest that your rather subjective position is irrefutable but even your 'over-confident' rebuttals are filled with deflections and an over-reliance on the assumption that other people undeniably changed the content, specifically the message of the 1st century writings.

AGAIN. BELIEVE WHATEVER YOU SO DESIRE.

Just don't claim that somehow your view of history is absolute truth, no matter how much you may want it to be so. If it were that simple - men much smarter than you or I would have unequivocally shown the road path to the alleged forgeries and pulled the wool from over everybody else's eyes.

I believe on grounds of faith. Based on events in my life and GOD's presence in my life. For you or anyone else to suggest that somehow believers such as myself are all stupid for believing differently than you is asinine and arrogant.

What's truly laughable is that you all constantly mock believers for alleged intolerance against others as dictated by the tenets of our faith (and yes, there are real instances of true intolerance by misguided adherents - but they are acting outside of what JESUS taught us to do). Yet the only intolerant folks in here are those that are repeatedly saying that believers are inferior.

Again, perhaps you should look in a mirror.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Perhaps you should look in a mirror.

CONTEXT: The books from the NT weren't re-written in the 4th century. I guess you don't understand the dynamics of copying written works, and why I keep harping on the high fidelity renditions passed on by the scribes - a point you keep ignoring over and over again. In other words, the origins of the Gospels and other 1st century works were not fabricated in the 3rd and 4th centuries. You DISINGENOUSLY keep trying to imply as much. According to your logic the copy of Hamlet I downloaded for my Kindle last week must obviously be a different version than what Shakespeare penned down given that it was physically created 4 centuries later. :shootme Even if we didn't have Shakespeare's original copies, claims that somehow any copy published after the original was 'different than the original' could not be fully proven as truth... unless you had physical proof of what passages had been altered, by whom and for what purpose.

CONTEXT: It doesn't matter that the Septuagint was termed as such in the 4th century, it has its origins in the 3rd century BC when the first translations of the Torah to Koine Greek were sponsored. Some of these texts still exist today, yet those fragments remain uber precise with the content of the Hebrew texts. Because AGAIN, content fidelity was of utmost importance. The same fidelity that was adopted by the early church with the emergence and the transference of the gospels and the epistles. Fidelity was my point, not the name of the Septuagint itself. Fragments of the Koine Greek translation of Hebrew texts (pre-Septuagint) were discovered with the Dead Sea Scrolls AND YES, THEY ALL SAY THE SAME THING AS THEIR BIBLICAL VERSIONS.

CONTEXT: The Hebrew texts (OT) speak of JESUS. What he would have to fulfill to satisfy the role of Messiah. YOU all dismissively cast aside the 350+ prophecies He would have to fulfill to stake His claim for that role. But the fact that the Gospel rendition of JESUS satisfies every single reference to said role is statistically significant. Other SECULAR works even confirm the unnatural phenomena that occurred during the crucifixion - events which were foretold in the OT. NO ONE WENT BACK to modify the OT in order to 'better' affirm/validate JESUS as Messiah. The secular works themselves were not written by ecumenical authorities either - they were independent historical affirmations (written by ideologically opposed authors even) that validate scriptural (gospel) accounts of JESUS' life.

CONTEXT: Earlier in the thread you and others hinted - even lazily accused - that both the OT and NT texts were modified to 'manufacture' the theological basis for claiming that JESUS was Messiah (i.e. The tenets of Christianity were entirely contrived based on manipulated texts). I kept insisting that the OT texts - even those that speak of the Messiah - have remained unchanged for millennia - so now you have changed your tune and would rather say that the Hebrew texts don't matter. In other words, you keep hiding behind unsubstantiated lies and accusations. In the case of the NT writings - you want to claim that 'someone' dramatically altered who JESUS was in order to forge a new power structure around His adoration. The fact remains that the secular historical works also point to the fact that believers were already dying for Him DURING the 1st century (as martyrs of the early church). So a claim that somehow JESUS was re-written as the Son of GOD 3 or 4 centuries later makes no sense in light of the fact that believers were already being persecuted by the Roman empire for worshipping Him as such shortly after the crucifixion. AGAIN I know you will brush off those inconsistencies because they don't jive with your theory.

And so you see...

That's what I mean when I say you are not after true discourse... you go off on tangents beating your chest that your rather subjective position is irrefutable but even your 'over-confident' rebuttals are filled with deflections and an over-reliance on the assumption that other people undeniably changed the content, specifically the message of the 1st century writings.

AGAIN. BELIEVE WHATEVER YOU SO DESIRE.

Just don't claim that somehow your view of history is absolute truth, no matter how much you may want it to be so. If it were that simple - men much smarter than you or I would have unequivocally shown the road path to the alleged forgeries and pulled the wool from over everybody else's eyes.

I believe on grounds of faith. Based on events in my life and GOD's presence in my life. For you or anyone else to suggest that somehow believers such as myself are all stupid for believing differently than you is asinine and arrogant.

What's truly laughable is that you all constantly mock believers for alleged intolerance against others as dictated by the tenets of our faith (and yes, there are real instances of true intolerance by misguided adherents - but they are acting outside of what JESUS taught us to do). Yet the only intolerant folks in here are those that are repeatedly saying that believers are inferior.

Again, perhaps you should look in a mirror.

Please show copies of the NT from before the 4th AD that prove your statement. Your word is no good here. I'll keep this argument real simple for everyone else. It makes it obvious where your glaring error is when I can just repeat the same argument.

[Blake]

Perhaps you should look in a mirror.

Again, perhaps you should look in a mirror.

Sick burn

again, sick burn

[Phenomanul]

Please show copies of the NT from before the 4th AD that prove your statement. Your word is no good here. I'll keep this argument real simple for everyone else. It makes it obvious where your glaring error is when I can just repeat the same argument.

The NT is a volume of works (27 Books)....

There are several fragments of the individual books that comprise the canon that date as early as the 2nd century (fragments from the Gospel of John from ~125 AD).

That the fragments match, content-wise, what is written in subsequent copies of those works IS my argument.

NOT the quantity of copies available (at least 48 different manuscripts before the 4th century)

NOT the fact that more copies exist after there was a formal establishment to preserve the written works (an obvious task for ecumenical councils starting in AD 381). Contextually, one would expect to find more copies from a period where Christian beliefs were no longer being persecuted but I guess you don't want to apply logic to that historical context.

Content fidelity HAS BEEN my argument since early in the thread but you keep trying to make it something that it is not. I'm not debating the merits of the content itself - for there I know you plainly reject the gospel message (every day and twice on Sunday). And you are entitled to reject said message.

What I am arguing, however, is the merit of your accusation that the content itself was altered to characterize JESUS as something different than what HE himself claimed to be (fortuitously, the oldest known NT manuscript corresponds to the Gospel of John, the very book where JESUS explicitly claimed to be GOD)...

[Phenomanul]

Sick burn

again, sick burn

I'm trying to debunk the merit of his argument. Not trying to burn him.

[RandomGuy]

Your words don't mean shit to me, you pompous shithead. Maybe you'll get your answers via my other conservations. But I've no interest in answering directly to a pompous shithead.

It seems you have no interest in answering questions at all. You asked me to be level, I was, and you couldn't answer simple questions then. The obvious conclusion is that you aren't worth bothering with, and are just here to act butthurt when someone says something you don't like.

Let me know when you decide to grow up a little. You seem intelligent enough to be worth talking to, if you would stop pouting and acting like a moody teenager.

[Blake]

I'm trying to debunk the merit of his argument. Not trying to burn him.

Lol using rubber/glue as a counter argument

[RandomGuy]

your own belief structure (i.e. "GOD does not exist") .

Not sure how many times I need to explain this to you, but that is not my position.

I see no good reasons to accept your position. That's it.

The default position for any reasonable person in regards to accepting the truth of anything, be it God of the Bible, God of the Quran, unicorns, purple pixies, or cereal-hawking leprachauns, is when there are good reasons to believe it is true.

Your religion is not the only one with a holy book that claims it is better than the other holy books.

[Phenomanul]

Not sure how many times I need to explain this to you, but that is not my position.

I see no good reasons to accept your position. That's it.

The default position for any reasonable person in regards to accepting the truth of anything, be it God of the Bible, God of the Quran, unicorns, purple pixies, or cereal-hawking leprachauns, is when there are good reasons to believe it is true.

Your religion is not the only one with a holy book that claims it is better than the other holy books.

Which you are entitled to believe, but when you then make sweeping statements that suggest that believers are intellectually handicapped / or intellectually dishonest with themselves, because your position is somehow full-proof and ours is faith-based - THAT is an arrogant argument. Your position requires elements of faith as well due to wholly unprovable 'origins' premises on which your core beliefs are founded.

[DisAsTerBot]

origin theories are called theories for a reason. hint: faith isn't involved

[Phenomanul]

Lol using rubber/glue as a counter argument


LOL "judging a book by it's cover..." you literally grabbed my opening phrase and closing phrase from that post and ignored everything else (the actual counter argument).

Just... STOP.

[Blake]

LOL "judging a book by it's cover..." you literally grabbed my opening phrase and closing phrase from that post and ignored everything else (the actual counter argument).

Just... STOP.

You're such a whiny bitch

[mingus]

It seems you have no interest in answering questions at all. You asked me to be level, I was, and you couldn't answer simple questions then. The obvious conclusion is that you aren't worth bothering with, and are just here to act butthurt when someone says something you don't like.

Let me know when you decide to grow up a little. You seem intelligent enough to be worth talking to, if you would stop pouting and acting like a moody teenager.

I don't purposefully dodge questions. I can humbly admit--as I've done many times before--when I've made errors in reasoning, judgement, interpretation. It's simply that I don't have the time to get to respond to everything as quickly as I'd like, and by the time I have time, other things have grabbed hold of my interest.

If you typed something out directed at me, I must've missed it--can you c&p it? Thanks.

But, before you do, I should say, that this entire topic can never be discussed intelligently & honestly if people cannot do two things (which I'm not [currently] accusing you of): come to semantical agreements on definitions of certain words we use to describe religious (or non-religious) people (i.e. "stupid" or "ignorant"), and stop making sweeping prejudicial, condescending, hateful, deragatory and RELIGIOPHOBIC generalizations (i.e. All Jews/Christians are ______). I mean, it's no way to be civil, and it gets the discussion off-track and turns it into spitballing match. At that point, I'd rather just jerk off, watch t.v, or do something else, tbh. I deal with too many dickheads daily as it is.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The NT is a volume of works (27 Books)....

There are several fragments of the individual books that comprise the canon that date as early as the 2nd century (fragments from the Gospel of John from ~125 AD).

That the fragments match, content-wise, what is written in subsequent copies of those works IS my argument.

NOT the quantity of copies available (at least 48 different manuscripts before the 4th century)

NOT the fact that more copies exist after there was a formal establishment to preserve the written works (an obvious task for ecumenical councils starting in AD 381). Contextually, one would expect to find more copies from a period where Christian beliefs were no longer being persecuted but I guess you don't want to apply logic to that historical context.

Content fidelity HAS BEEN my argument since early in the thread but you keep trying to make it something that it is not. I'm not debating the merits of the content itself - for there I know you plainly reject the gospel message (every day and twice on Sunday). And you are entitled to reject said message.

What I am arguing, however, is the merit of your accusation that the content itself was altered to characterize JESUS as something different than what HE himself claimed to be (fortuitously, the oldest known NT manuscript corresponds to the Gospel of John, the very book where JESUS explicitly claimed to be GOD)...

You still have not shown the gospels or the writings of 'Paul' from before the 4th century.

You started off by looking obviously. Your google sophistry gave you the septuagint and the torah so you posted that demonstrating very clearly you barely understand my argument. Now you come back with the fragments of what I assume are the Beatty collection as if that invalidates my point that Constantine and his cronies embellished and excluded when he made the Bible.

I don't deny Jesus existed. I just think the contrivances like the genealogy that the NT starts with are obvious. The context is the actual story of what jesus did without the miracles and who Constantine was and his background over 3.5 centuries later.

You can write multi paragraph diatribes complete with CAPS all you like. Jump up and down. Yell. Until you address my arguments head on you are not persuasive in the least.

[RandomGuy]

Which you are entitled to believe, but when you then make sweeping statements that suggest that believers are intellectually handicapped / or intellectually dishonest with themselves, because your position is somehow full-proof and ours is faith-based - THAT is an arrogant argument. Your position requires elements of faith as well due to wholly unprovable 'origins' premises on which your core beliefs are founded.

Respectfully:
"fool-proof", not "full-proof"

[RandomGuy]

Which you are entitled to believe, but when you then make sweeping statements that suggest that believers are intellectually handicapped / or intellectually dishonest with themselves, because your position is somehow full-proof and ours is faith-based - THAT is an arrogant argument. Your position requires elements of faith as well due to wholly unprovable 'origins' premises on which your core beliefs are founded.

I am not saying all believers are being intellectually dishonest. You are, but not all believers.

I gave you the chance to speak the truth. You declined every single time, dodging honest, fair questions. Yes, mental anguish is harmful. Yes, drowning babies is, by any reasonable definition, evil. The great flood, if it were a real event would have drowned tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of babies. Ordering your followers to hack children to death is also evil.

You have misrepresented my viewpoint by misstating it repeatedly, despite being corrected.

The principles of intellectual honesty require one to speak the truth when one knows the truth. Either you are being dishonest, or you truly don't know that hacking parents to death in front of their children, then hacking children to death is evil.

I will always be more moral than the God of the bible. Another example, if you really want to get back to the OP I would never say "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

The people in the OP appear to be more true to the instructions in the bible than Western Christians. If your only moral guide is the bible, there should be nothing wrong with killing people judged to be witches.

You will now attempt to say "that is not the right interpretation" in some way, as if there is some right interpretation of the words. There are literally thousands of different interpretations of this book, one for each denomination. You choose the one that let's you keep lying to yourself that the thing you worship isn't really evil, and wouldn't really tell people to do morally abhorrent things. Go ahead. Give me the spin.

[Phenomanul]

I am not saying all believers are being intellectually dishonest. You are, but not all believers.

I gave you the chance to speak the truth. You declined every single time, dodging honest, fair questions. Yes, mental anguish is harmful. Yes, drowning babies is, by any reasonable definition, evil. The great flood, if it were a real event would have drowned tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of babies. Ordering your followers to hack children to death is also evil.

You have misrepresented my viewpoint by misstating it repeatedly, despite being corrected.

The principles of intellectual honesty require one to speak the truth when one knows the truth. Either you are being dishonest, or you truly don't know that hacking parents to death in front of their children, then hacking children to death is evil.

I will always be more moral than the God of the bible. Another example, if you really want to get back to the OP I would never say "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live."

The people in the OP appear to be more true to the instructions in the bible than Western Christians. If your only moral guide is the bible, there should be nothing wrong with killing people judged to be witches.

You will now attempt to say "that is not the right interpretation" in some way, as if there is some right interpretation of the words. There are literally thousands of different interpretations of this book, one for each denomination. You choose the one that let's you keep lying to yourself that the thing you worship isn't really evil, and wouldn't really tell people to do morally abhorrent things. Go ahead. Give me the spin.

That is where you err.

You've never wanted to understand the context of covenants (even when I've explained them to you). The old covenant through Mosaic law and the new covenant through JESUS' grace mark a shift in how GOD relates to humanity. AND a shift in how the law applies to us today. But you don't want to hear any of it. It's never suited that entrenched position of yours because you would rather lazily throw out the 'baby with the bathwater' than accept an explanation of any kind.

When your position is that GOD rescuing children from ETERNAL death is evil - despite whatever "mental anguish" is suffered by them (or any of us today when we perish and die)... THEN we've nothing else to discuss. I accepted your position but told you I didn't agree with it. Again, since you don't understand the context of eternity - nor do you wish to, because it is opposite of what you believe THEN it won't ever make any sense to you (and rather than state your position on that front I'll let you refute a simple yes/no question [your favorite kind] - do you believe humans have an eternal spirit..?)

You've entrenched yourself in the position that if the GOD of the Bible exists THEN He is inherently evil - because you don't understand the context of eternity, the context of death, the context of salvation or the context of redemption. Much less, how all that is related to JESUS' work on the cross.

I gave you my position, my viewpoint. We disagree. But for you to suggest that I'm being intellectually dishonest BECAUSE we disagree, is just arrogant and condescending.

AND don't think I'll let it slide. You've stated your atheistic position on this forum on several occasions.
Your belief in Naturalistic origins.
Your belief that there is no need for a Creator.

For you to deflect with:



"I see no good reasons to accept your position. That's it."


- as your position in any 'GOD related' argument... Is nothing more than a redirect. An attempt to suggest that somehow I've mischaracterized you. And because somehow I've mischaracterized you then somehow my understanding of your argument is flawed. It is not. Let me simplify it for you.

I believe in an Eternal GOD

I believe in a Creator (of the universe / time / space / life).

I believe that JESUS is Christ, our redeemer.

I believe that HE has revealed His message of redemption through the preserved works of the Bible.

I believe that JESUS offers redemption by acknowledging Him as the Son of GOD, LORD and Savior.

I believe that JESUS is "the WAY, the TRUTH and the LIFE," and that no one has access to GOD the Father except through Him.

I believe in eternal life.

YOU DON'T believe any of those clauses.

So again, how have I mischaracterized your position?

You said,


I gave you the chance to speak the truth. You declined every single time[/B], dodging honest, fair questions.

I didn't decline or dodge. I gave you my answers. You simply refused to accept them as such because they are diametrically opposed to your viewpoint.

For you to continue to insist that you are "morally superior to the GOD of the bible" is extremely laughable from my position - but you can go on believing that if you wish.

I stated that such a position is blatantly inconsistent with your documented position in the defense of abortion. You called it a strawman. But it is relevant. Kind of like Obama shedding crocodile tears for children that die due to "lack of gun control" on one hand but then personally ratifying the practice of late term abortions on the other. It's a glaring inconsistency in philosophy.

IF your stated position was that you'd never "kill any babies... ZERO" then you wouldn't defend the practice of "killing babies" at all... especially when they are at their most vulnerable state. Not a strawman at all. I'm simply showing that your argument of 'superior morality' is full of holes.

Spin that. But yes... Go on living with your finitely superior morality.

[Phenomanul]

Respectfully:
"fool-proof", not "full-proof"

clad-proof is what I had originally written... but ok.

[Blake]

Flip flopping God kills kids. Pretty evil by any standard.

[RandomGuy]

I didn't decline or dodge. I gave you my answers. You simply refused to accept them as such because they are diametrically opposed to your viewpoint.



You did not directly, honestly answer the questions posed to you, and deferred to answering the questions you made up for yourself to answer. That is the definition of disingenuous.


dis·in·gen·u·ous
ˌdisənˈjenyo͞oəs/
adjective
not candid or sincere, typically by pretending that one knows less about something than one really does.

[RandomGuy]

When your position is that GOD rescuing children from ETERNAL death is evil - despite whatever "mental anguish" is suffered by them (or any of us today when we perish and die)... THEN we've nothing else to discuss. I accepted your position but told you I didn't agree with it. Again, since you don't understand the context of eternity - nor do you wish to, because it is opposite of what you believe THEN it won't ever make any sense to you (and rather than state your position on that front I'll let you refute a simple yes/no question [your favorite kind] - do you believe humans have an eternal spirit..?)


I fully understand the concept of eternity. That makes your case even worse.

Infinite torture (hell) for a finite sin is a moral abomination. It is punishment out of all scale to the crime. It is akin to skinning someone alive for jaywalking.

You can't point to avoiding infinite torture as a justification for evil and then pretend infinite torture is somehow not itself evil. You don't get to have it both ways.

That you don't seem to grasp the rank hypocrisy of "well, its ok to hack babies to death, because it saves them from infinite torture" sort of shocks the conscience.

How do YOU tell right from wrong?

[RandomGuy]

There is no "except that". You fail to acknowledge even the most rudimentary form of the logic you are attempting to use.

Either the logic operates that way or it doesn't.


X was a real person.
Y was a real place.
Z is an recorded event/happening that involves X and Y.

If X and Y, then Z must be a real event.


Is this true in all cases? Yes or no will do. A "why or why not" might also be helpful.


The problem with absolutes is that it is devoid of context...

Dodge, non-answer.

[RandomGuy]

Perhaps a re-phrasing is in order.

Is it possible that an account of an event about a real person in a real place can be completely made up? Again yes or no is all that is needed here.



Yes. Its entirely possible.



Not a dodge. I guess I was wrong. You did truthfully answer ONE question at least. My apologies.

[RandomGuy]

For you to continue to insist that you are "morally superior to the GOD of the bible" is extremely laughable from my position - but you can go on believing that if you wish.

I stated that such a position is blatantly inconsistent with your documented position in the defense of abortion. You called it a strawman. But it is relevant. Kind of like Obama shedding crocodile tears for children that die due to "lack of gun control" on one hand but then personally ratifying the practice of late term abortions on the other. It's a glaring inconsistency in philosophy.

IF your stated position was that you'd never "kill any babies... ZERO" then you wouldn't defend the practice of "killing babies" at all... especially when they are at their most vulnerable state. Not a strawman at all. I'm simply showing that your argument of 'superior morality' is full of holes.

Spin that. But yes... Go on living with your finitely superior morality.

(sighs)

If that is your go-to argument, let's examine that too.

I have never performed an abortion, or asked any woman to have one.
Bible God directly killed babies through drowning, and ordered other to do so.

If you define abortion as "killing babies", and killing babies is evil, who is more moral using your own definition? Who has killed more babies, me or God?

[Phenomanul]

You did not directly, honestly answer the questions posed to you, and deferred to answering the questions you made up for yourself to answer. That is the definition of disingenuous.

That you don't agree with my answers doesn't mean. 1) that I didn't answer them directly or 2) that I didn't answer them honestly.

You assume too much. You twist everything to suit yourself.

[Phenomanul]

I fully understand the concept of eternity. That makes your case even worse.

Infinite torture (hell) for a finite sin is a moral abomination. It is punishment out of all scale to the crime. It is akin to skinning someone alive for jaywalking.

You can't point to avoiding infinite torture as a justification for evil and then pretend infinite torture is somehow not itself evil. You don't get to have it both ways.

That you don't seem to grasp the rank hypocrisy of "well, its ok to hack babies to death, because it saves them from infinite torture" sort of shocks the conscience.

How do YOU tell right from wrong?

Oh please spare me your self-righteous perversion. Deflect yet again.

You know that Christians believe in GOD, you know of GOD, but you don't believe in His existence.

You know that Christians believe in Satan, you know of Satan, but you don't believe in his existence.

Likewise you know Christians believe in the concept of eternity, but you don't believe in eternity.

THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE. (and you didn't directly answer my question - but I don't get all hissy about it like you do).

More importantly you don't believe in any of the other clauses (tenets) I listed in the previous post. So again, how am I mischaracterizing you (specifically as it pertains to 'your atheistic position'?

What part of babies ALL belong to GOD don't you understand?

Let me explain (in the context of eternity):

When children die before they understand the concept of good and evil / right and wrong. Because they belong to GOD, through JESUS' act of redemptive grace, they go to heaven.

When adults die that DO understand the concept of good and evil / right and wrong, THEN their own actions condemns them to an eternity away from GOD. THEY do that themselves. THEY rejected GOD on their own terms.

Some "finite sin" isn't the cause for condemnation to hell --> rejecting GOD is.

But thanks for showing your ignorance of our beliefs. And then using that ignorance to berate the beliefs themselves. That's what makes this all frustrating. You trying to reinterpret tenets you don't even believe in or subscribe to, but then rejecting explanations of the concepts themselves from ACTUAL adherents.

[Phenomanul]

Dodge, non-answer.



Again, not really an answer. It is indeed a simplification of sorts, but I will assert that it is still useful to outline a general and quite important principle.

Perhaps a re-phrasing is in order.

Is it possible that an account of an event about a real person in a real place can be completely made up? Again yes or no is all that is needed here.

Yes. Its entirely possible.

That's why the multiple - wholly independent references - paint the overarching picture of Jesus' existence - and what he was up to.

Again, the Acts of Pontius Pilate, a Roman elected governor - wrote concerning Jesus and his miraculous acts. It's a secular work, historical annals - completely independent of the authors of the Gospels... yet it supports the basic premise of Jesus' extraordinary life.

The other historical writers witnessed an "unnatural" blacking out of the sun for several hours DESPITE not being present in Jerusalem at the time of Jesus' crucifixion. They knew those were very real events that other people had also seen - and no one questioned the events themselves - because they too were witnesses of the phenomena despite not knowing what was causing them.

The catch (the connection to the crucifixion) is that the times match those as written in the Gospels to a "T". From "the 6th to the 9th hour darkness covered all the land."

No astronomical event that we know of is capable of producing this phenomena.

I answered your question. Your methods are tiring.

[Phenomanul]

(sighs)

If that is your go-to argument, let's examine that too.

I have never performed an abortion, or asked any woman to have one.
Bible God directly killed babies through drowning, and ordered other to do so.

If you define abortion as "killing babies", and killing babies is evil, who is more moral using your own definition? Who has killed more babies, me or God?

Such a sophist deduction. Morality is not defined solely or exclusively by what we do (actions) but what we believe in. You defending the practice of abortion is tantamount to performing it yourself. According to JESUS, if I hated you that would be tantamount to murder. If I lusted after someone else's wife that would be tantamount to adultery.

For the last time however, there are no babies in hell. They are all with GOD.

You've yet to grasp the Christian understanding of death - as you keep wanting to focus on the process itself rather than the doorway it represents.

But go ahead and keep redefining your question. Keep framing it up so that you finally get the answer you want.

"yes you are morally superior to GOD" :rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes

Again, believe what you want. No one is stopping you.

[Phenomanul]

We're done RG.

I've no desire to Tango in this years-long pissing match any further... Can't you just leave it at that...? Our world perspectives clash On EVERY freaking issue. We will always disagree... On everything and anything pertaining to the GOD question...

[Blake]

We're done RG.

I've no desire to Tango in this years-long pissing match any further... Can't you just leave it at that...? Our world perspectives clash On EVERY freaking issue. We will always disagree... On everything and anything pertaining to the GOD question...

Lol pussy. You dodged his baby death question.

Bible God says "though shalt not kill" but does it himself over trivial things like calling someone "baldy"

[FuzzyLumpkins]

RandomGuy Just take heart in the fact that Phenomanul ran like a bitch from my argument. He wants you to spend a whole lot of time on your posts.

I like his current excuse that it doesn't matter what God does to babies because he sends them to heaven.

[Quetzal-X]

Will the pedophiles you good christians turn a blind eye to, be enjoying eternal paradise in christian Heaven after repenting? Its alll good according to the rules, yes?

There are so fucking many child rapers amongst your followers and undeniably amongst the leadership, why dont the so-called Real/Good christians call them out ?

[Phenomanul]

You still have not shown the gospels or the writings of 'Paul' from before the 4th century.

You started off by looking obviously. Your google sophistry gave you the septuagint and the torah so you posted that demonstrating very clearly you barely understand my argument. Now you come back with the fragments of what I assume are the Beatty collection as if that invalidates my point that Constantine and his cronies embellished and excluded when he made the Bible.

I don't deny Jesus existed. I just think the contrivances like the genealogy that the NT starts with are obvious. The context is the actual story of what jesus did without the miracles and who Constantine was and his background over 3.5 centuries later.

You can write multi paragraph diatribes complete with CAPS all you like. Jump up and down. Yell. Until you address my arguments head on you are not persuasive in the least.

no caps for your enjoyment…

you can deflect all you want but there are at least 48 manuscripts of known nt works written before the 4th century that exist today in multiple collections around the world. if you want to find them look them up yourself or go museum hopping (your argument that unless i provide them to you - then “they don’t exist” is garbage). more of these manuscripts would exist except that prior to constantine’s arrival on the scene, the church was highly persecuted – its believers killed, their writings burned and destroyed. i know you will gloss over that critical dynamic yet again… because it suits you… who is ignorant of context…? who claims to seek only truth…? ummm yeah whatever…

oooooh but wait… your position is a meandering one and you are doing whatever is needed to frame up your position as one of scholarly authority – when it’s anything but:

you started off with a narrative of claims (that you’ve yet to legitimize with any shred of evidence). i’ll place numbers by each or your unsubstantiated claims just to show you how speculative your entire argument was from the get-go.



What does jihadi tradition derive from?

The first Hadith came about in the 8th century well after Mohammed, Abu and the rest were dead. Their prophet forbid it explicitly.

(1) Constantine made christianity into his own image. :lol the first few chapters of the NT.

(2) Joseph was a refugee from Herod. (3) Mary was impregnated while a refugee in Cairo. When Herod dies, they return. (4) Jesus was born before the Pharisee tribe Joseph came from could sanctify him and he was a social outcast. He would not have been able to work or marry in his village. (5) He left and went to the river where he met John the Baptist who was running a counter culture of ritual bathing for absolution as opposed to the barbeque in the city. (6) When the Pharisees had John imprisoned John and the rest fled north to Galilee where Jesus met and converted Simon and Peter.

Now compare and contrast with the version that comes out of Nicaea in the 4th century: Joseph flees because Herod is coming after him. A angel appears and says God knocked mary up. Angel says that he is to return. Nativity story of great men bringing expensive gifts. John declares Jesus leader from the outset of their meeting. Simon and Peter bow down to him immediately.

If you cannot see how that story was contrived to appeal to Thracian dynastic elites then you aren't paying attention.

I don't 'hate' anything other than the people that hurt those I love. I do think that all organized religions are intellectually bankrupt. I also think that is the crux of why you dislike me so much. I question your faith in reasonable terms and you don't want to lose it.

It's the second time I read your simplified (practical) take on Jesus... However, it's a pretty convenient, contrived and twisted narrative that you have to lean on in order to believe all that - just for the sake of rejecting the accepted narrative. But yeah... you read it in a book somewhere so it must be true.

Jesus' birth/life/ministry fulfilled every prophecy concerning his Messianic role from the Hebrew/Judaic texts. Including:
Being born of a virgin (Book of Isaiah 7:14),
Being born in Bethlehem (Book of Micah 5:2),
Having to flee at birth to Egypt and being called out of Egypt (Book of Hosea 11:1),
The timing of when in history he would have to be born and how long he would live [33 years] (Book of Daniel 9:26),
Context surrounding the fate of other children in Bethlehem after his birth (Book of Jeremiah 31:15), (and the parallel with Moses' birth)
That there would be one who prepared the way for his ministry [John the Baptist] (Book of Isaiah 40:3),
That he would be a descendant of Judah, Israel's 4th son (Genesis 49:10),
That he would be a descendant of King David (Book of Jeremiah 23:5),
That he would be crucified (Psalms 22 / Isaiah 53 / Zechariah 12) [Psalms 22 is eerie in the sense that it describes Jesus' hands and feet would both be pierced well before the Romans had contrived the crucifixion method].
That the earth would go dark (for several hours) (Book of Amos 8:9)
That he would be brutally beaten (and specifically that his beard would be yanked out) (Book of Isaiah 50:6)
That the Messiah would be called the "Son of man" (Book of Daniel 7)

Jesus himself proclaimed himself the Son of Man in the Gospel of John, and even told the masses that it was He whom the prophet Isaiah saw sitting on the throne in his vision of Isaiah 6 (in other words that HE was GOD himself).

It's fine that you believe what you want. Just don't expect the rest of us to follow suit because it conveniently fits a better narrative for you. Or that somehow we're the deluded ones because we don't see it the way you see it.

you later posted this:


I translate most of the OT in terms of former Egyptian slaves and the slavemaster dynamic that we know existed in Ptolemaic Egypt from which they escaped. The slavemasters were also the priests and the ones who could write. Marking the stalls of slaves for various purposes would have been common and the notion of passover has a much more sinister air. Passover from sacrifice to the Ptolemaic gods would have been a very cathartic experience. Fear of death will do that to you.

I think the priest class simply transplanted the ideals and social controls. You can find much of the flood and creation nonsense in the Ptolemaic scrolls that have been recovered from all over Egypt. Moses being trained by the pharoahs but not really one of them would have been very convenient lie for an escaping priest. Ideas of race and other were almost complete back then as opposed to the enlightenment of today. It puts the story of Abraham and Isaac in a much different light when its not God but instead a priest speaking on the behalf of God in the story. It also makes sense. STring him out and then ultimately relent, oh God is merciful! It also speaks to a priest that feared reprisal and couldn't follow through. Pharoah wasn't there any more.

(7) When Christianity is termed a slave's religion, I mean it literally.

which is filled with more speculative assertions of your opinion – but you keep trying to pass it off as truth – basically saying moses made it all up.

and then this:


'God' is asking Isaac to sacrifice his son for salvation.

(8) Jesus overturns dovecotes and harrangues the pharisees practicing leviticus for demanding sacrifice for salvation.

Aristotle said something along the lines of an enlightened mind can entertain a notion without having to accept it. Your behavior smacks of fear.

(9) You do understand that your Holy Book was put together by men named Constantine, Cyril, and Nestor? Your God did not make that book. Men did.

If you could restate my points and actually argue on merit I wouldn't treat you as I do. You are doing the veritable holding your hands over your ears and screaming. I address your counter narrative of the Holy Spirit driving all this directly. I give you the same respect I ask for.

If you don't want to argue then great but tossing insults at me and only that is not going to presenting the case that you want.

just more assertions after assertion (read as opinion after opinion) with no evidence whatsoever…


I'm aware that new prophets would come along and make a new set of rules. That was the entire point I was making regarding the last prophet according to you christians. You do believe in what jesus preached and tried to do right?

If that is the case outside of the resurrection story and get into heaven free card that you guys like to fixate on the most significant thing he did was overturn the dovecotes and moneychangers table. (10) That is what gave the pharisees probable cause with the romans to go after Jesus. He took off to Galilee and the country side. He preaches a lot is betrayed and captured. (11)It's Roman property law over wrecking the temple that sees him crucified.

(12) That is the story that took over the mediterranean. That and him telling everyone to give up judgment and find absolution through him. He goes on about having to go through a rebirth.

Don't try that context line with me. I actually know the context far better than most. I was raised in a literalist Biblical tradition. I've studied the history, anthropology, sociology and history of the region. I can talk about the political, technological, and scoiological mindset of the times. I've read some of the Giza scrolls. I've read histories of antiquity like herodotus and cicero. I've sifted through archaeological and historical information from Babylon and Persia. All I do is talk about context. :lmao :lmao :lmao :lmao

You know about Egyptian history? Pharaoh stayed in Memphis, the north, until about 3000 BC. The ritual sacrifice was a big part of the move. They for example would sacrifice all of pharaohs retainers on his death prior to the move the Thebes. Once in Theebs they would instead build statues terracotta army style. The stuff in the early old testament reads very similar to the stories and laws that they took out of Giza. If the Exodus story has any basis in reality then this is the time period in question. That's why I say 6000 years because that is where these stories originate from.

Also pulled out of Giza were declarations, astrologies, census and laws that read like genesis leviticus deuteronomy and numbers complete with slaving and doomsaying. Now I get as you move on with Daniel and some others that magic and what not is forbidden. I look at it as social progress in that region from about 6000 BC til the time Jesus would have been around. The Egyptian builder/priest class was very methodical though. They kept track of families and who was sacrificed and what body parts.

When I read the story of abraham I cannot help but think of priests declaring that someone had to die for some body part out on the pyramids. What I take from Abrahams story is that god will never ask anything of me like that because he's not an asshole. This is very similar to the ethic I take from Jesus story of not having to pay animal sacrifice or coin for absolution because God is not an asshole. When I read Jesus say to keep the lessons of Abraham and the various covenants as you term it, I hear him saying keep the freedoms we already won before.

I'm not going to get into miracles and whether or not Jesus 'revealed himself' to the two Mary's then his disciples and brother but by the time 'Paul' is on the road seeing him, I'm not buying it. Reading through his shit and the subjugation, proscriptions for beatings, and all manner of malfeasance I reject those books categorically as trash.

You have studied the early church and the nestorians, aesthetics, and the various factions that emerged? I always respected the guys like Saint Matthew and Augustine who actually tried to live the pure ethic that Jesus preached with his ritual bathing. Not so much the thought police of the Paulines that set themselves up as Bishops in Rome and Alexandria. Notice how there is no book in the Bible to the Alexandrians? That was because you didn't disagree with Cyril, Philip or any of the lectors because they would burn you out.

By the time that Constantine is in the picture, there are churches set up in every mediterranean. They have two councils. The first is to define the nature of Jesus. They deify him completely and then sick Peter the lector and those monks after the guys who disagreed. This began the whole excommunication thing. (13) Then they had the second council where they took the torah, the gospels. a bunch of sales guides from early church leaders whose opinions the Romans liked which are no more valid then what you and I are talking about today then the prophecy that predicted Jesus appearance to corroborate the stuff in John and called it the word of God. You know the lengths they went to in terms of what types of thoughts were allowed back then right? Heresy laws and such?

(14) Much of the New Testament is so contrived as to be upsetting. The genealogy it starts off with irritates me from the go. For the Jesus story to make any sense, he has to be a bastard outside the social order of Nazareth. If he's not then he is the son of a builder and goes to work with his father. His disdain for the pharisees actually makes sense if that geneology is not true. Nevermind that God was the one it says knocked up Mary to gloss over any uncertainty.

At least the Gospels have words and acts attributed to Jesus. I like some of the stories of the OT. I even practice many of the ethics contained therein. I just don't believe any of it is divinely inspired. It's been the tool of despots.

more opinions.

btw… moral relativity is the tool of despots too… I’m pretty sure stalin wasn’t a christian… nor mao zedong… nor kim jung-il… but don’t let that stop you from hating and singling out believing christians…

also, a virginal birth for the messiah was foretold in micah hundreds of years before jesus’ birth. so somehow his virginal birth is a fantasy made up by councils operating in the 4th century…? (that you would just say… “oh yeah, god knocked mary up – that’s a tiny problem they had to fix”)

for someone that claims to study history your temporal qualms with the piecing together of ‘the jesus story’ is largely based on detractions that your heart already subscribes to. gnostics and their writings have been around for centuries. your reservations of disbelief in jesus’ deity are no different. you seem to believe only the writings which already affirm your position. to then claim you fact check and seek only truth is baloney. you only validate what justifies your disbelief – anything else - you dismiss, repudiate and throw out the window.


My intent is to uncover the truth. That is why I look to actual written records and the like. Prior to the founding of Jerusalem, the pharaohs could raid and capture slaves with impunity in Canaan as you term it. Jerusalem's founding around 6000 BC would have given cover for escaping slaves. Babylon and Ur are getting conquered every other generation it seems from their records during this time period. Alcohol had spread from the East a couple thousand years before.

You talk of context and how others don't understand. You don't argue any of what I say, I actually fact check myself on this. I'm giving you the real context. Truth. Reality.

Pharaoh is central in the Exodus story. What pharaoh did in reality in 4000 BC is important and back then he was still killing all of his retainers. They built large burial complexes to house them pretty famously. In this context the raised slave to serve the pharaoh has a completely different dynamic.

When I read the account of the passover where Moses marks in blood the houses that will be spared from plague and imagine how the priest class would have chosen out the families that would have to sacrifice a member and how they would have used writing technology for social control. I read their scrolls where they keep track of the family lines and where they live. Which would be more meaningful: marking the houses of those that will be making the sacrifice or those that will be spared. From a social control position marking out the special class for passover just fits perfectly. Isn't god merciful?

The priests were deliberate. They thought different body parts did different things and kept track of it and where it came from. They built a system of dams to hold the nile from memphis then they built wonders that remain to this day. These are the same men that built the pyramids with said slave labor. When the building stopped and they went to do their auguries and such it must have been terrifying to be a slave. Are you going to be the one yanked out and gibbed in front of everyone on the hill over there where pharaoh set up shop? You've heard accounts of slave masters in the 19th century and before in US history. That's your context. Escape meant being chased down by chariots and gibbed. Moses left seeking freedom but he held to slave traditions nonetheless.

As I've pointed out the slavers morality which is Leviticus Deuteronomy and Numbers are of those traditions. Tracking the families for tribute/sacrifice in numbers. Lists of laws that require blood sacrifice and sets conditions for acceptable slavery. Proscriptions about food, sex, and lifestyle. It's all a common factor in those books from the Bible and the pharaohs scrolls pulled out of Giza. It is what it is.

then we get to this:


You do recognize that between 370 and 700 AD there were 7 councils that codified what you are talking about and that were enforced by the Roman Empire in the form of heresy laws? The trinity, the dual wills, the nature of the covenant and all the canon you spout was decided then by men.

Ecumenial councils. Declared infallible and enforced on pain of death. Tithe. Absolution for cash. Bible. Trinity. Banned monotheism for their triumvirate. Excommunication.

Nevermind that they were completely ineffective and almost lost the world to the Ayyubids and Uyyabids. Might as well be catholic if youre going to subscribe to that stuff.

at which point the picture that you wanted to paint that the nt message was entirely contrived is supported strictly by assertions without any proof. why do you hold the credibility of writings which discredit the gospel message in higher regard? because it suits you. it’s convenient for you to keep framing up a position that is based on an interpretation of history which is highly speculative. your only proof are documents which wish to discredit known narratives and somehow I doubt you prescribe the same sort of scrutiny to the legitimacy of said documents.

so we get to a point where you keep suggesting that the content of the early writings is altered to paint jesus as something other than what he claimed to be, yet you keep moving the goal posts:

i say "early writings in ot point to jesus"

you say "ot writings were also contrived"

i say "but versions that predate jesus say same exact thing today as they did before jesus exist"

you say "ot writings don't matter nt writings were altered by ecumenical councils throughout the centuries the nt itself was created after the 4th century"

i say “there are nt works from before the 4th century that exist…”

you respond, “editions of the nt surfaced after the 4th century – I can prove it – that’s why the message is contrived…” (paraphrasing)

i say “the works which comprise the nt canon were written before the 4th century – they exist” content fidelity being my point.

your rebuttal: "they're obvious forgeries..." (your next goal post) --> [as if i can go and find them for you... (ahem Rylands collection)].

i say “where’s ur proof of that?”

you answer, “but, but, but… find paul’s writings before the 4th century…”

the gospels affirm jesus’ deity. pauline doctrine isn’t needed to convey the gospel message. again the book of hebrews suffices for that.

your next logical goal post: "but their content is _________..." (i.e. 'but but but...')

clearly... you don't believe in the gospel message. you beat your chest with arrogance and cast derailing accusations left and right any argument that doesn't jive with your position you immediately discard.

you are condescending... why would i even want to continue discussing anything with you?

to then claim i ran off… scoffff! if it makes u feel any better i wont respond to your rebuttal of this post. you can dance and gloat in the victory… much like you did above. go ahead feel smarter, more intelligent. what do i care…? you’ve made it perfectly clear what your motive is in this thread – to feel better about your own position.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You can teach children to believe most anything. That is the issue with faith: it's used to prey on the weak and innocent.

The Gospels talks of knowing God through Jesus and the truth setting you free. I get that you have to abandon such principles to make Constantine and the early church's vision of the Bible work but I personally would rather give up the church and make those principles stand. Jesus fought for freedom from the Pharisees who were trading material works for spiritual salvation and was killed for it.

I can learn from that but what I learn has me reject the modern Christian denominations including that early 4th century church. That is what I 'believe.'

[FuzzyLumpkins]

no caps for your enjoyment…

you can deflect all you want but there are at least 48 manuscripts of known nt works written before the 4th century that exist today in multiple collections around the world. if you want to find them look them up yourself or go museum hopping (your argument that unless i provide them to you - then “they don’t exist” is garbage). more of these manuscripts would exist except that prior to constantine’s arrival on the scene, the church was highly persecuted – its believers killed, their writings burned and destroyed. i know you will gloss over that critical dynamic yet again… because it suits you… who is ignorant of context…? who claims to seek only truth…? ummm yeah whatever…

oooooh but wait… your position is a meandering one and you are doing whatever is needed to frame up your position as one of scholarly authority – when it’s anything but:

you started off with a narrative of claims (that you’ve yet to legitimize with any shred of evidence). i’ll place numbers by each or your unsubstantiated claims just to show you how speculative your entire argument was from the get-go.



you later posted this:



which is filled with more speculative assertions of your opinion – but you keep trying to pass it off as truth – basically saying moses made it all up.

and then this:



just more assertions after assertion (read as opinion after opinion) with no evidence whatsoever…



more opinions.

btw… moral relativity is the tool of despots too… I’m pretty sure stalin wasn’t a christian… nor mao Zedong… nor kim jung-il… but don’t let that stop you from hating and singling out believing christians…

also, a virginal birth for the messiah was foretold in micah hundreds of years before jesus’ birth. so somehow his virginal birth is a fantasy made up by councils operating in the 4th century…? (that you would just say… “oh yeah, god knocked mary up – that’s a tiny problem they had to fix”)

for someone that claims to study history your temporal qualms with the piecing together of ‘the jesus story’ is largely based on detractions that your heart already subscribes to. gnostics and their writings have been around for centuries. your reservations of disbelief in jesus’ deity are no different. you seem to believe only the writings which already affirm your position. to then claim you fact check and seek only truth is baloney. you only validate what justifies your disbelief – anything else - you dismiss, repudiate and throw out the window.



then we get to this:



at which point the picture that you wanted to paint that the nt message was entirely contrived is supported strictly by assertions without any proof. why do you hold the credibility of writings which discredit the gospel message in higher regard? because it suits you. it’s convenient for you to keep framing up a position that is based on an interpretation of history which is highly speculative. your only proof are documents which wish to discredit known narratives and somehow I doubt you prescribe the same sort of scrutiny to the legitimacy of said documents.

so we get to a point where you keep suggesting that the content of the early writings is altered to paint jesus as something other than what he claimed to be, yet you keep moving the goal posts:

i say “there are nt works from before the 4th century that exist…”

you respond, “editions of the nt surfaced after the 4th century – I can prove it – that’s why the message is contrived…” (paraphrasing)

i say “the works which comprise the nt canon were written before the 4th century – they exist” content fidelity being my point.

your rebuttal: "they're obvious forgeries..." (your next goal post) --> [as if i can go and find them for you... (ahem Rylands collection)].

i say “where’s ur proof of that?”

you answer, “but, but, but… find paul’s writings before the 4th century…”

the gospels affirm jesus’ deity. pauline doctrine isn’t needed to convey the gospel message. again the book of hebrews suffices for that.

your next logical goal post: "but their content is _________..." (i.e. 'but but but...')

clearly... you don't believe in the gospel message. you beat your chest with arrogance and cast derailing accusations left and right any argument that doesn't jive with your position you immediately discard.
you are condescending... why would i even want to continue discussing anything with you?

to then claim i ran off… scoffff! if it makes u feel any better i wont respond to your rebuttal of this post. you can dance and gloat in the victory… much like you did above. go ahead feel smarter, more intelligent. what do i care…? you’ve made it perfectly clear what your motive is in this thread – to feel better about your own position.

I never said it was entirely contrived. You never directly address anything I say. You claim it's an assertion and move on. Absolute certainty is a waste of time in holistic analysis. Your inability to deny is what is telling. I don't think like you but I can anticipate your 'mind.' You repeat it enough ad nauseum.

You don't want to answer it because then we would actually have to look at the source of the earlier texts, how the differ from and what the include/don't include as opposed to the Constantine Bible. I imagine your google sophistry took you places you didn't want to see.

You also should acknowledge the book burnings and behaviors of the lectors following Christianity being made a state religion. That is important context to what their policy and motive was. The burning of the library at Alexandria and the book burnings in Rome. Heresy laws that required compliance to the Bible that lasted until Aquinas and his concept of natural law as opposed to divine law following the Reconquista near 1000 years later.

[Quetzal-X]

Will the pedophiles you good christians turn a blind eye to, be enjoying eternal paradise in christian Heaven after repenting? Its alll good according to the rules, yes?

There are so fucking many child rapers amongst your followers and undeniably amongst the leadership, why dont the so-called Real/Good christians call them out ?

[Quetzal-X]

Are todays s0-called jews evidence of evolution? Jesus was CLEARLY a bad muthafuckin shiny black man as decribed in the bible-yet today the jews are snow fucking white. wtf howd that happen tbh??

[RandomGuy]

Such a sophist deduction. Morality is not defined solely or exclusively by what we do (actions) but what we believe in. You defending the practice of abortion is tantamount to performing it yourself. According to JESUS, if I hated you that would be tantamount to murder. If I lusted after someone else's wife that would be tantamount to adultery.

For the last time however, there are no babies in hell. They are all with GOD.

You've yet to grasp the Christian understanding of death - as you keep wanting to focus on the process itself rather than the doorway it represents.

But go ahead and keep redefining your question. Keep framing it up so that you finally get the answer you want.

"yes you are morally superior to GOD" :rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes :rolleyes

Again, believe what you want. No one is stopping you.

Now, now, who is being a sophist? That isn't even consistent with your own delusional framework.

In my heart, I know killing babies is wrong. That is how I know it is wrong when bible God does it.

If I thought abortions kill babies, I would hold that to be just as wrong as God when he drowned all those babies, or had his followers hack them to death.

Abortions, done properly and before reasonable viability, do not kill babies. Before certain developmental milestones, a fetus is no more capable of independent existence than a woman's spleen, or appendix. That makes it most logically part of her body.

Intent is the operative word within your delusional framework. It is not my intent that any baby die. I am, therefore, innocent.

And still more moral than your God.

So I will ask again, who has killed more babies, me or God?

[RandomGuy]

Oh please spare me your self-righteous perversion. Deflect yet again.

You know that Christians believe in Satan, you know of Satan, but you don't believe in his existence.

Likewise you know Christians believe in the concept of eternity, but you don't believe in eternity.

THAT'S THE DIFFERENCE.

Once again, wrong.

I fully understand the concept of eternity. Eternity, being roughly defined as an infinite amount of time, exists. I believe that to be a true statement.

You bringing it up simply your case for a "loving God" even worse.

Infinite torture (hell) for a finite sin is a moral abomination. It is punishment out of all scale to the crime. It is akin to skinning someone alive for jaywalking.

You can't point to avoiding infinite torture as a justification for evil and then pretend infinite torture is somehow not itself evil. You don't get to have it both ways.

That you don't seem to grasp the rank hypocrisy of "well, its ok to hack babies to death, because it saves them from infinite torture" sort of shocks the conscience.

How do YOU tell right from wrong?

[RandomGuy]

More importantly you don't believe in any of the other clauses (tenets) I listed in the previous post. So again, how am I mischaracterizing you (specifically as it pertains to 'your atheistic position'?


I have already answered this rather directly.

You stated "RG believes no god exists".

This is not the case. I don't really have an opinion as to the non-existence of something that might be considered "God".

Some sort of being that fits the general description might exist. I don't really know, nor would there really be enough evidence to exclude the possibility.

"there is no god" is a testable statement that would require some sort of evidence to support, which is not really available to us, at this time.

What I am reasonably certain of, though, is that such a being would not have the properties ascribed to it in the bible, which in several cases is literally impossible, i.e. omnipotence/omniscience. Even if it were accurate, I would not fall at the feet of a murderous, vain, jealous thing like that. I would happily go to hell, comfortable that I was morally superior to such a thing, since I would never torture someone infinitely for a finite crime as petty as non-belief.

(edit)

Were such a being to exist, and actually cared whether I worshipped it, it would know exactly what it would take to convince me, both of its existence, and its worthiness for my worship. I am always open to evidence. I don't regard the modern bible as being particularly good evidence though. All told, it is pretty shitty evidence, since it is so obviously a human contrivance. The authorship and timing of the works, when you get into the details, very obviously points to a bunch of made up stories, written long after the events described, as Fuzzy can attest.

[RandomGuy]

You can teach children to believe most anything. That is the issue with faith: it's used to prey on the weak and innocent.

The Gospels talks of knowing God through Jesus and the truth setting you free. I get that you have to abandon such principles to make Constantine and the early church's vision of the Bible work but I personally would rather give up the church and make those principles stand. Jesus fought for freedom from the Pharisees who were trading material works for spiritual salvation and was killed for it.

I can learn from that but what I learn has me reject the modern Christian denominations including that early 4th century church. That is what I 'believe.'

You could also point out the moral objections requiring the human sacrifice of Jesus, or if Jesus' death was even meaningful when he knew he would come back three days later.

Or wonder why God was so concerned with foreskins.

[RandomGuy]

A God Of Foreskins


A God Of Foreskins
by Dave E. Matson


Yahweh is a god who is deeply obsessed with foreskins. At least that was true for the first two thousand years or so after Abraham. In the New Testament God, changed his mind, according to Paul. Maybe God was just out-voted in one of those early church councils. Suddenly, foreskins were no longer a hot topic, at least for those pagans converting to that odd, Jewish sect, which later took the name of "Christianity."


Greek culture, which had swept the ancient world by way of Alexander the Great, viewed circumcision as a mutilation of the body's perfect form, and no self-respecting pagan was about to submit to that rite. Thus, Paul had to change God's rules or forget about converting the multitudes of Greek-influenced pagans. In his letter to the Galatians, Paul makes his case--and stirs up a hornet's nest whose details are not given to us.


Clearly, the matter of foreskins was serious business in the Old Testament:

God said to Abraham, "You also must agree to keep the covenant with me, both you and your descendants in future generations. You and your descendants must all agree to circumcise every male among you. From now on you must circumcise every baby boy when he is eight days old, including slaves born in your homes and slaves bought from foreigners. This will show that there is a covenant between you and me. Each one must be circumcised, and this will be a physical sign to show that my covenant with you is everlasting. Any male who has not been circumcised will no longer be considered one of my people, because he has not kept the covenant with me."
(Genesis 17:9-14 Today's English Version)

The Egyptians were way ahead of God. Many of them were doing the foreskin thing as far back as 4000 BC, but that didn't improve their standing with God. Edomites, Ammonites, and Moabites later adopted the practice. It seems that a lot of people were sporting the mark of God's covenant! Couldn't God have chosen a rite that was a little more exclusive? Had God given the matter any thought?


Before Yahweh changed his mind, he was deadly serious about circumcision:

At a camping place on the way to Egypt, the LORD met Moses and tried to kill him. Then Zipporah, his wife, took a sharp stone, cut off the foreskin of her son, and touched Moses' feet with it. Because of the rite of circumcision she said to Moses, "You are a husband of blood to me." And so the LORD spared Moses' life.
(Exodus 4:24-26 Today's English Version)

That occurred after Yahweh had patiently explained to Moses everything he needed to do when he reached Egypt. Funny, that Yahweh didn't also tell Moses that his son needed to be circumcised. On their way to Egypt, however, Yahweh comes within a hair's breadth of terminating Moses' career over that little misunderstanding. Zipporah does save the day by performing the circumcision rite on Moses' son.


The working brain is not impressed by a god who is subject to such violent and unpredictable mood swings, whose actions are so poorly thought out. This god, for the sake of a foreskin, comes very close to pitching his own plans by killing Moses!


This obsession God has with circumcision is entirely beneath the dignity of an infinite being, but not unlike the views of primitive societies. Primitive societies often mutilate parts of the body to set themselves apart from others. One tribal group will insert increasingly large lip plugs until the lower lip is stretched around a considerable-sized disk. Another tribal group will do the same with their ear lobes. Various tattoos and scar patterns are popular in many places. Still another tribe will cram as many metal rings around the necks of their women as they can, to the point of elongating their necks. (The Guinness World of Records museum in Las Vegas has a model of the woman who holds the record in this last category.)


Circumcision may be more practical than lip plugs, but the working brain does not distinguish between a god obsessed with circumcision and a god obsessed with lip plugs. They are equally silly. How silly to think that a man needs to be circumcised to seal a covenant. How silly to think that a god's memory needs jogging to identify his people. How silly this whole business! Such a requirement is the work of man, not God.


It was once thought, in our western society, that circumcision had medical benefits. However, the old claims have fallen with further research, including the theory about cervical cancer. Today there is no excuse for the operation except as a religious rite.


Larue, Gerald Ph.D. 1993. "Honey, They Cut The Kid!" in The Book Your Church Doesn't Want You To Read, edited by Tim C. Leedom; Kendall /Hunt Publishing Company, Kerper Boulevard P.O. Box 539, Dubuque, Iowa 52004-0539; p.350-354

Ewwww. Really?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

A God Of Foreskins



Ewwww. Really?

Think of God as a priest claiming that God wants that and the stories start to fall into place almost universally.

[RandomGuy]

Think of God as a priest claiming that God wants that and the stories start to fall into place almost universally.

Eyup.

One has only to watch the TV preachers claiming that "God wants" them to have private jets.

Holy men/women have been playing that schtick since the dawn of our species, I'm sure. Some of them almost certainly believed their own proclamations as being given to them divinely.

Not quite as old as prostitution, since sex came before language and higher thinking, but not too far behind.

"I was just in that cave and the gods spoke to me about what they want you to do ... for me"

[Phenomanul]

I have already answered this rather directly.

You stated "RG believes no god exists".

This is not the case. I don't really have an opinion as to the non-existence of something that might be considered "God".

Some sort of being that fits the general description might exist. I don't really know, nor would there really be enough evidence to exclude the possibility.

"there is no god" is a testable statement that would require some sort of evidence to support, which is not really available to us, at this time.

Still a sophist argument - a semantical dodge. You've drifted from atheism to a form of agnosticism (I don't have time to validate your 'former' position with a search history - but you have stated a belief in naturalistic origins without need for a Creator - you have debated that position rather staunchly - for at least 5 years on this very forum).

Many Deists like Einstein did not believe in the GOD of the Bible, but still believed the universe and all therein required a Creator. His position was consistent with itself. Your position is wishy-washy:

"Some sort of being that fits the general description might exist..." Yet you wouldn't credit such a being with the power of creation - given the aforementioned position to suggest that 'origins of the cosmos' precludes the causality of such a being. Origins of life is another matter entirely because there, other unprovable, 'competing alternative' theories at least come into the picture (i.e. Panspermia etc...)

It's intellectual dishonesty that for the sake of not conceding any ground you would rather vaguely state your position as you have above.



What I am reasonably certain of, though, is that such a being would not have the properties ascribed to it in the bible, which in several cases is literally impossible, i.e. omnipotence/omniscience. Even if it were accurate, I would not fall at the feet of a murderous, vain, jealous thing like that. I would happily go to hell, comfortable that I was morally superior to such a thing, since I would never torture someone infinitely for a finite crime as petty as non-belief.

(edit)

Except one day, "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that JESUS CHRIST is LORD". By the time you acknowledge that HE is LORD it will be too late for you to change your mind about anything.

But yeah... If you would happily go to hell, how then do you consider that infinite torture?



Were such a being to exist, and actually cared whether I worshipped it, it would know exactly what it would take to convince me, both of its existence, and its worthiness for my worship. I am always open to evidence. I don't regard the modern bible as being particularly good evidence though. All told, it is pretty shitty evidence, since it is so obviously a human contrivance. The authorship and timing of the works, when you get into the details, very obviously points to a bunch of made up stories, written long after the events described, as Fuzzy can attest.

Except Fuzzy hasn't attested any of his claims or assertions. You gobble up his claims because it suits you. There is ONE HUUUUUUUGEEEE! gaping hole in Fuzzy's assertion as it pertains to the alleged alterations... I'll simplify:

IF the ecumenical councils were in the business of trying to alter the content of the NT works (several centuries of 'tampering'),

AND IF the ecumenical councils were in league with the will of the Roman Catholic Institution (under direction of the Papacy),

THEN NT works would most certainly have a message that matches that of the Roman Catholic Catechism.

BUT THEY DON'T.

Rome could have wiped away the potential for centuries of argumentation over scriptural interpretation IF they had simply re-written (ascribed) their doctrines to the early church leaders.

INSTEAD:

There is no recorded instance of Marian worship or even allusion to Marian worship anywhere in scripture. [JESUS said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man cometh to the Father except by me"]. Why didn't the councils just write in Mary as co-redeemer in scripture (as the Catechism explicitly states)?

There is no recorded instance of infant baptism, or the need to baptize children at all (much less charge money for such services).

JESUS, Peter, John, Paul nor any other disciple ever mentions purgatory.

There is no scriptural support for indulgences (ultimately, the reason why Martin Luther 'protested' against the church). No mention of anyone paying money to get to heaven (cause again, it is via JESUS' offer of grace only - a gift, not a purchase).

There is no scriptural support for suggesting we need intermediaries to get to GOD. JESUS work on the cross provides direct access to GOD.

There is no scriptural support (specifically in the NT) for the regimentation of sin. Scripture supports the doctrine that ALL sin is the same with the exception of 'blasphemy against the Holy Spirit' (the rejection of GOD) --> the very same choice that condemns men to an eternity away from GOD. Categorizing sin was an important moneymaker for the Catholic Institution.

There is no scriptural support for taking lives for Jesus' name (in fact the early church adherents died in martyrdom without a fight against their persecutors). The Catholic Inquisition and the motives behind it were certainly not supported by scripture.

There is no scriptural support for the creation of trinkets, statuettes, amulets or the such as part of the gospel. Even from the OT all of those images and statues were considered a form of idolatry. Furthermore, there is no support for the notion that they could 'perform miracles' of any sort. Psalms 135:15-18 says, "…15 The idols of the nations are but silver and gold, The work of man's hands. 16 They have mouths, but they do not speak; They have eyes, but they do not see; 17 They have ears, but they do not hear, Nor is there any breath at all in their mouths. 18 Those who make them will be like them, Yes, everyone who trusts in them." And yet, Catholic churches everywhere are filled with these idols.

There is no scriptural support for Papal doctrinal infallibility. Paul chastises Peter ('the first pope') on at least two occasions in front of all other early church leaders. If Peter as church pope had doctrinal infallibility THEN Paul had no grounds by which to correct him. Peter's position would have been the correct one by default. Furthermore, this issue could have been resolved simply by brushing out these references.

The scriptures speak of JESUS fighting the religious establishment of his time (the religiosity, the ritualistic nature, etc...) ---> things that the Catholic Church came to represent and embody over the course of its history.

This list could be much, much longer.

Either way if Rome wanted to create scriptures that fully supported its brand of religion THEY most certainly would have done so by tweaking the scriptures to that end. In their mind, the adherents wouldn't be able to know any better because they weren't allowed to keep copies of the scriptures anyway (only clergy). So who would ever know that the changes in content were made???

I simply don't buy the argument that alterations were made given that the scriptures as written don't support the staunch beliefs of the very institution you all are accusing of making the changes - the ones who wielded all the power. It baffles my mind that you all can't see past your own nose to see why such an allegation falls flat on its face in light of the doctrines that the Catholic Church steadfastly holds on to even today.

[Phenomanul]

Once again, wrong.

I fully understand the concept of eternity. Eternity, being roughly defined as an infinite amount of time, exists. I believe that to be a true statement.

You bringing it up simply your case for a "loving God" even worse.

Infinite torture (hell) for a finite sin is a moral abomination. It is punishment out of all scale to the crime. It is akin to skinning someone alive for jaywalking.

You can't point to avoiding infinite torture as a justification for evil and then pretend infinite torture is somehow not itself evil. You don't get to have it both ways.

That you don't seem to grasp the rank hypocrisy of "well, its ok to hack babies to death, because it saves them from infinite torture" sort of shocks the conscience.

How do YOU tell right from wrong?

You believe in eternal time. ummm ok.

You dodged the question yet again. From the get-go my question was if you believed in the eternal nature of the human spirit.

I explained the context of my own question pretty clearly. The ramifications of that belief is something you clearly DON'T BELIEVE IN (our spirit having to deal with the consequences of our actions/choices). So again, you don't believe in any Christian tenets. So my position that you don't understand eternity from a Christian standpoint is why your view of death is so myopic and finite.

Oh... and I can tell 'right' from 'wrong' just fine.

Of course if we start comparing our life's deeds someone will most likely accuse me of trying to be a self-righteous 'bible thumper'. It's not my right to claim to be better than anyone - cause as I stated earlier in the thread, "no matter how 'good' we claimed to be, we all still fall infinitely short of the perfection required to satisfy GOD's justice."

[Blake]

I like how you whine about not having the time for this thread in the middle of a 30 paragraph mess.

RG answered your question pretty clearly. You're just a sophist prick. Jesus is proud of the work your doing here, I'm sure.

[Th'Pusher]

I like how you whine about not having the time for this thread in the middle of a 30 paragraph mess.

RG answered your question pretty clearly. You're just a sophist prick. Jesus is proud of the work your doing here, I'm sure.

I like the way he continues to claim how he's "out" and "done", yet appears to be incapable of not responding. He shows a complete lack of self control.

[Phenomanul]

I like how you whine about not having the time for this thread in the middle of a 30 paragraph mess.

RG answered your question pretty clearly. You're just a sophist prick. Jesus is proud of the work your doing here, I'm sure.

He did. I'm calling out the fact that his answer is different from his previously stated position (as based on his posting history in the political forum). That he changed it only to try and wiggle out of another question he clearly dodged. He doesn't believe in the eternal nature of the human spirit - as such he, like you and others in his camp, are mischaracterizing the process of death to try and vilify GOD as evil. Sin created death, GOD didn't create it. Try to keep up.


I like the way he continues to claim how he's "out" and "done", yet appears to be incapable of not responding. He shows a complete lack of self control.

Stubbornness is one of my flaws... so sue me.

That would make RG just as stubborn. I can recognize my own flaw in others when I see it. If RG is as honest as he claims to be, he will admit as much.

It certainly helps I have the day off of work tomorrow.

[Th'Pusher]

He did. I'm calling out the fact that his answer is different from his previously stated position (as based on his posting history in the political forum). That he changed it only to try and wiggle out of another question he clearly dodged. He doesn't believe in the eternal nature of the human spirit - as such he, like you and others in his camp, are mischaracterizing the process of death to try and vilify GOD as evil. Sin created death, GOD didn't create it. Try to keep up.



Stubbornness is one of my flaws... so sue me.

That would make RG just as stubborn. I can recognize my own flaw in others when I see it. If RG is as honest as he claims to be, he will admit as much.

It certainly helps I have the day off of work tomorrow.
RG never had an emotional flameout and vowed to be out on the conversation. I'm fine with you continuing to argue. I just find it amusing you've resorted to being 'out' while apparently being incapable of keeping your word.

[Blake]

He did. I'm calling out the fact that his answer is different from his previously stated position (as based on his posting history in the political forum). That he changed it only to try and wiggle out of another question he clearly dodged. He doesn't believe in the eternal nature of the human spirit - as such he, like you and others in his camp, are mischaracterizing the process of death to try and vilify GOD as evil. Sin created death, GOD didn't create it. Try to keep up.

Bible God is a hypocritical piece of shit that breaks his own commandments.

But you want to do these ridiculously retarded mental gymnastics to justify his murder of innocent people.

I'll pass on keeping up with your lengthy sophist garbage posts, thanks. I prefer to just make fun of you.

[Phenomanul]

RG never had an emotional flameout and vowed to be out on the conversation. I'm fine with you continuing to argue. I just find it amusing you've resorted to being 'out' while apparently being incapable of keeping your word.

For all those that claim this is a free message board... you all sure seem to police it conveniently... what do you care if I respond or not...? I'm not making promises to anyone. Blake and others routinely curse me out and I have to hold my tongue. Were I to respond in kind someone would assuredly snicker and state, "oooooh what a good Christian thing to do..." No matter what I do, you all criticize it. So what do I care what you think of my word...? It's not like you believe anything I say anyways... :lmao :lmao :lmao

[Phenomanul]

Bible God is a hypocritical piece of shit that breaks his own commandments.

But you want to do these ridiculously retarded mental gymnastics to justify his murder of innocent people.

blah blah blah blah... LOL innocent. None of us are. The standard of perfection was set too high.


I'll pass on keeping up with your lengthy sophist garbage posts, thanks. I prefer to just make fun of you.

Of course, you would gloss over the argument because you never add any substance of your own... You're just around to take your derisive jabs... that's all you're capable of 'contributing'.

[Blake]

blah blah blah blah... LOL innocent. None of us are. The standard of perfection was set too high.

You're an idiot

[angrydude]

Lol. that google search didn't take long.

http://www.nola.com/religion/index.ssf/2011/03/changes_to_the_bible_through_the_ages_are_being_st udied_by_new_orleans_scholars.html


Working in a cluster of offices above the LifeWay Bookstore in Gentilly, Bible scholars are buried in a 20-year project to codify the thousands of changes, verse by verse, word by word — even letter by letter — that crept into the early New Testament during hundreds of years of laborious hand-copying.

Money quote incoming.


Those with more than a passing familiarity with the New Testament know its 27 books and letters were not first published exactly as they appear today.

Here's another.


As archeologists and historians in later years uncovered more early manuscripts, each one hand-copied from some predecessor, they could see occasional additions or subtractions from a phrase, a verse or a story.

The changes are called “variants.”

Most changes are inconsequential, the result of mere copying errors, or the replacement of a less common word for a more common word.

But others are more important. They meant something.

[Blake]

Bible God's communication skills suck badly

[Th'Pusher]

For all those that claim this is a free message board... you all sure seem to police it conveniently... what do you care if I respond or not...? I'm not making promises to anyone. Blake and others routinely curse me out and I have to hold my tongue. Were I to respond in kind someone would assuredly snicker and state, "oooooh what a good Christian thing to do..." No matter what I do, you all criticize it. So what do I care what you think of my word...? It's not like you believe anything I say anyways... :lmao :lmao :lmao

It is a free message board. I am personally requesting that you continue to argue with RG and Fuzzy.

[pgardn]

Many Deists like Einstein did not believe in the GOD of the Bible, but still believed the universe and all therein required a Creator. His position was consistent with itself. Your position is wishy-washy:


Einstein referred to the universe playing by rules we could understand. Just because he said, "God does not play dice" , when referring to quantum mechanics, he does not automatically imply a creator. Science cannot delve into a creator even if there is one. Because creators, as described by humans, automatically imply the supernatural, or above laws we can understand.

I don't understand why WE cannot separate science from the spiritual. Personally I understand the benefit of both.

[RandomGuy]

You believe in eternal time. ummm ok.

You dodged the question yet again. From the get-go my question was if you believed in the eternal nature of the human spirit.



If you asked that directly, and I had seen it, I would have answered it. I view answering direct questions as honestly as possible to be important to good discussions.

Define "human spirit". I can't tell you if I believe something is true without understanding what you mean.

[RandomGuy]

Still a sophist argument - a semantical dodge. You've drifted from atheism to a form of agnosticism (I don't have time to validate your 'former' position with a search history - but you have stated a belief in naturalistic origins without need for a Creator - you have debated that position rather staunchly - for at least 5 years on this very forum).


No, I think I have drifted, to my memory. Semantics becomes rather important when you are discussing definitions. "Most inclusively, atheism is the absence of belief that any deities exist". If your memory is that I have "drifted", I would guess your memory of what you think I believe is accurate, but far less accurate about my memory of what I personally believe, or believed. You have erred. It happens. My opinion does evolve over time as I learn/think about new evidence.

I haven't seen evidence that there is anything BUT naturalistic explanations for either humans or the universe.

People like yourself like to have the comforting strawman that people like me assert "no gods exist", because that induces a burden of proof, similar to your "God exists" burden.

I am merely telling you what my position is. What specific label you want to slap on it is up to you. The merrian webster dictionary definitions would seem to put that in "agnostic". Whatever floats your boat.

It still doesn't get you out of your burden of proof, however much you might wish it to be otherwise.

[RandomGuy]

I would not fall at the feet of a murderous, vain, jealous thing like that. I would happily go to hell, comfortable that I was morally superior to such a thing, since I would never torture someone infinitely for a finite crime as petty as non-belief.




Except one day, "every knee shall bow and every tongue confess that JESUS CHRIST is LORD". By the time you acknowledge that HE is LORD it will be too late for you to change your mind about anything.

But yeah... If you would happily go to hell, how then do you consider that infinite torture?



I am pointing out the logical implications of your beliefs.

Torture exists.
Hell exists.
Torture is evil.
Hell is torture.
IF hell exists, THEN it is infinite torture.
IF it is infinite torture, THEN the entity doing the torturing is evil. IF the entity directing the torturing is God, THEN God is evil.

QED.

I do not accept that "hell exists". The chain of reasoning breaks down if that underlying assumption is false. I am not, in this instance trying to tell you whether the thing in your imagination exits, I am merely pointing out to you that this idea is a shitty idea.

Unless, of course, you can show me where it exists, other than your imagination?

[RandomGuy]

So my position that you don't understand eternity from a Christian standpoint is why your view of death is so myopic and finite.



I have told you that I understand it, I just don't accept it is true. I understand the story of the Smurfs, too. Does that mean that my view of smurfs is "myopic and finite"?

Equating "understand" with "accept as true" is a fallacious argument, sophist. They are not mutually exclusive.

[Phenomanul]

Lol. that google search didn't take long.

http://www.nola.com/religion/index.ssf/2011/03/changes_to_the_bible_through_the_ages_are_being_st udied_by_new_orleans_scholars.html



Money quote incoming.



Here's another.

Misspellings or replicated words (or other mistakes of that nature) or even mistranslations into/from dead dialects equal not the alteration of content --> specifically the self proclaimed deity of JESUS. If you had followed the thread instead of jumping in to page 11 or 12 you might have seen that CONTENT and FIDELITY OF CONTENT has been my argument from the get-go.

[Phenomanul]

I have told you that I understand it, I just don't accept it is true. I understand the story of the Smurfs, too. Does that mean that my view of smurfs is "myopic and finite"?

Equating "understand" with "accept as true" is a fallacious argument, sophist. They are not mutually exclusive.

I can't believe you would insist on referencing your previous analogy... I didn't give it any weight because it's plainly 'apples and oranges'. There is a mountain of evidence [unquestionable proof] that point to the nature of the Smurfs movie as a fictional work. No one, except maybe toddlers and small children believe the content of movies is real. You all have yet to provide the proof that substantiates your claims that the gospel message is fiction.

It's yet another semantical argument to suggest just because we know Neil Patrick Harris is a real person, that his persona as Patrick in the Smurfs movies is also real. The definition of 'real' is drastically different provided the context of what Hollywood produces.

[Blake]

Misspellings or replicated words (or other mistakes of that nature) or even mistranslations into/from dead dialects equal not the alteration of content --> specifically the self proclaimed deity of JESUS. If you had followed the thread instead of jumping in to page 11 or 12 you might have seen that CONTENT and FIDELITY OF CONTENT has been my argument from the get-go.

Right, then Bible God really sucks at communication

[Blake]

I can't believe you would insist on referencing your previous analogy... I didn't give it any weight because it's plainly 'apples and oranges'. There is a mountain of evidence [unquestionable proof] that point to the nature of the Smurfs movie as a fictional work. No one, except maybe toddlers and small children believe the content of movies is real. You all have yet to provide the proof that substantiates your claims that the gospel message is fiction.

It's yet another semantical argument to suggest just because we know Neil Patrick Harris is a real person, that his persona as Patrick in the Smurfs movies is also real. The definition of 'real' is drastically different provided the context of what Hollywood produces.

You have a terrible problem with understanding burden of proof, sophist.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I can't believe you would insist on referencing your previous analogy... I didn't give it any weight because it's plainly 'apples and oranges'. There is a mountain of evidence [unquestionable proof] that point to the nature of the Smurfs movie as a fictional work. No one, except maybe toddlers and small children believe the content of movies is real. You all have yet to provide the proof that substantiates your claims that the gospel message is fiction.

It's yet another semantical argument to suggest just because we know Neil Patrick Harris is a real person, that his persona as Patrick in the Smurfs movies is also real. The definition of 'real' is drastically different provided the context of what Hollywood produces.

Irrefutable! I love how it's like that when you do it but when I do do it with specific, easily verifiable facts in the google age it is dismissed as 'assertions.'

When you do the entire sophist package, it is easy to identify you. Methodical will do that.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I have told you that I understand it, I just don't accept it is true. I understand the story of the Smurfs, too. Does that mean that my view of smurfs is "myopic and finite"?

Equating "understand" with "accept as true" is a fallacious argument, sophist. They are not mutually exclusive.

It is a sign of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without having to accept it.

[angrydude]

Misspellings or replicated words (or other mistakes of that nature) or even mistranslations into/from dead dialects equal not the alteration of content --> specifically the self proclaimed deity of JESUS. If you had followed the thread instead of jumping in to page 11 or 12 you might have seen that CONTENT and FIDELITY OF CONTENT has been my argument from the get-go.

If you bothered to read the article you would have seen it addresses much more than simple misspellings.


But others are more important. They meant something.

For example, the famous tale in John’s Gospel in which Jesus challenges a mob about to stone a woman accused of adultery — “Let any one of you who is without sin be the first to throw a stone at her” — is a variant that copyists began inserting into John at least 300 years after that Gospel first appeared.

In the conclusion to Mark, the description of Jesus appearing to various disciples after his resurrection does not appear in the earliest manuscripts.

And in Luke, the crucified Jesus’ plea that his executioners be forgiven “for they know not what they are doing” likewise does not appear in the earliest versions of his Gospel.


Another change appears in Mark 9:29, when Jesus tells his disciples some demons can be driven out “only by prayer.”

Warren said 3rd century manuscripts added “and fasting” — probably as Christians’ own commentary on the power of that spiritual discipline, which was then becoming standard Christian practice.

In those and other cases, early Christian copiers are probably hoping to clarify a teaching or story for Christian audiences.

In effect, early copiers were taking what modern readers would recognize as study notes and slipping them into the texts, a process that began to tail off around the 9th century, Warren said.

[Phenomanul]

You have a terrible problem with understanding burden of proof, sophist.

To prove that a written work written 20 centuries ago is not a work of fiction... when it isn't written as such...?

No one here is saying YOU or RG or Fuzzy has to believe the gospel content.

But you all are really the only ones trying to suggest that it is a fictional work without providing one single shred of evidence. Just assertions... "someone, hundreds of years removed, undeniably altered the content..." NO PROOF.

[Phenomanul]

If you bothered to read the article you would have seen it addresses much more than simple misspellings.

Matthew, Mark, Luke and John share stories that borrowed phrases from each other. It's an expected dynamic.

That said, saying:

"Michael was a passenger in vehicle on his way to school most days"

or

"Michael rode the bus to school"

or

"Michael often rode the school bus as a means of getting to school"

or

"Michael needed to ride the school bus to get to school daily"

Content-wise all say the same thing. In fact, IF the gospel writers had recounted their stories with the same exact language THEN we would miss out the perspective of the individual gospel writer, AND folks would reject the variations as mere copies. It's an affirmation that they didn't conspire and collude when writing the gospels - they weren't huddled together in a corner cooking all of this up. Even if you just look at the places where the gospels do not disagree at all you find a core message that is revolutionary: JESUS was confessed as Messiah by his disciples, He performed miracles and healed people, He forgave sins, He prophesied his own death and resurrection, He died on a Roman cross, and He was raised bodily from the dead.

Your example above doesn't take away the central argument of the gospel message that JESUS is the Son of GOD. Doesn't the agreement of the gospel accounts on an absolute core of central beliefs suggest that they got the basics right, precisely because they were reporting on the same events...?

All the peeps in this thread are suggesting that said message was contrived. But none are providing proof of it.

[Phenomanul]

You have a terrible problem with understanding burden of proof, sophist.

And you have a terrible problem being civil, jerk.

[Phenomanul]

I am pointing out the logical implications of your beliefs.

Torture exists.
Hell exists.
Torture is evil.
Hell is torture.
IF hell exists, THEN it is infinite torture.
IF it is infinite torture, THEN the entity doing the torturing is evil. IF the entity directing the torturing is God, THEN God is evil.

QED.

I do not accept that "hell exists". The chain of reasoning breaks down if that underlying assumption is false. I am not, in this instance trying to tell you whether the thing in your imagination exits, I am merely pointing out to you that this idea is a shitty idea.

Unless, of course, you can show me where it exists, other than your imagination?

Torture exists because of sin.
Hell exists due to the consequences of sin
Torture is evil
Hell is an eternal separation from GOD
If hell exists, THEN it is the result of sinful choices.

Your logic implies GOD is the torturer.

JUSTICE and HOLINESS set the rules, two aspects of GOD's PERFECT character.

"We want all of the freedoms that come with choice, but none of the consequences..."

If the power of choice to choose GOD has eternal consequence, so THEN does the power of choice to reject GOD.

Biblically speaking those that reject GOD do so on their own terms.

IF you reject HIM, which you are clearly doing... Man up. Face the consequences of said choice. Don't go whining that somehow GOD was unjust and unfair with you. IT's YOUR CHOICE and YOUR CHOICE alone.

[Phenomanul]

It is a sign of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without having to accept it.


Except Fuzzy hasn't attested any of his claims or assertions. There is ONE HUUUUUUUGEEEE! gaping hole in Fuzzy's assertion as it pertains to the alleged alterations... I'll simplify:

IF the ecumenical councils were in the business of trying to alter the content of the NT works (several centuries of 'tampering'),

AND IF the ecumenical councils were in league with the will of the Roman Catholic Institution (under direction of the Papacy or Constantine),

THEN NT works would most certainly have a message that matches that of the Roman Catholic Catechism.

BUT THEY DON'T.

Rome could have wiped away the potential for centuries of argumentation over scriptural interpretation IF they had simply re-written (ascribed) their doctrines to the early church leaders.

INSTEAD:

There is no recorded instance of Marian worship or even allusion to Marian worship anywhere in scripture. [JESUS said, "I am the way, the truth and the life. No man cometh to the Father except by me"]. Why didn't the councils just write in Mary as co-redeemer in scripture (as the Catechism explicitly states)?

There is no recorded instance of infant baptism, or the need to baptize children at all (much less charge money for such services).

JESUS, Peter, John, Paul nor any other disciple ever mentions purgatory.

There is no scriptural support for indulgences (ultimately, the reason why Martin Luther 'protested' against the church). No mention of anyone paying money to get to heaven (cause again, it is via JESUS' offer of grace only - a gift, not a purchase).

There is no scriptural support for suggesting we need intermediaries to get to GOD. JESUS work on the cross provides direct access to GOD.

There is no scriptural support (specifically in the NT) for the regimentation of sin. Scripture supports the doctrine that ALL sin is the same with the exception of 'blasphemy against the Holy Spirit' (the rejection of GOD) --> the very same choice that condemns men to an eternity away from GOD. Categorizing sin was an important moneymaker for the Catholic Institution.

There is no scriptural support for taking lives for Jesus' name (in fact the early church adherents died in martyrdom without a fight against their persecutors). The Catholic Inquisition and the motives behind it were certainly not supported by scripture.

There is no scriptural support for the creation of trinkets, statuettes, amulets or the such as part of the gospel. Even from the OT all of those images and statues were considered a form of idolatry. Furthermore, there is no support for the notion that they could 'perform miracles' of any sort. Psalms 135:15-18 says, "…15 The idols of the nations are but silver and gold, The work of man's hands. 16 They have mouths, but they do not speak; They have eyes, but they do not see; 17 They have ears, but they do not hear, Nor is there any breath at all in their mouths. 18 Those who make them will be like them, Yes, everyone who trusts in them." And yet, Catholic churches everywhere are filled with these idols.

There is no scriptural support for Papal doctrinal infallibility. Paul chastises Peter ('the first pope') on at least two occasions in front of all other early church leaders. If Peter as church pope had doctrinal infallibility THEN Paul had no grounds by which to correct him. Peter's position would have been the correct one by default. Furthermore, this issue could have been resolved simply by brushing out these references.

The scriptures speak of JESUS fighting the religious establishment of his time (the religiosity, the ritualistic nature, etc...) ---> things that the Catholic Church came to represent and embody over the course of its history.

This list could be much, much longer.

Either way if Rome wanted to create scriptures that fully supported its brand of religion THEY most certainly would have done so by tweaking the scriptures to that end. In their mind, the adherents wouldn't be able to know any better because they weren't allowed to keep copies of the scriptures anyway (only clergy). So who would ever know that the changes in content were made???

I simply don't buy the argument that alterations were made given that the scriptures as written don't support the staunch beliefs of the very institution you all are accusing of making the changes - the ones who wielded all the power. It baffles my mind that you all can't see past your own nose to see why such an allegation falls flat on its face in light of the doctrines that the Catholic Church steadfastly holds on to even today.

I find it funny that the bulk of your assertions also fall in line with the book, "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" with you somehow trying to pass it off as a personal journey in the discovery of truth.

I pointed to the existence of 48 pre-4th century documents written in Greek (there are others in Aramaic), but I dug deeper as to their content:

These manuscripts have numerous passages:

John 1:1 "1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

John 1:18 "18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and[a] is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known."

John 20:28 "28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”"

Titus 2:13 "13 while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," (the only one of these passages from my list written by the Apostle Paul)

Hebrews 1:8 "8 But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom."

2 Peter 1:1-2 "1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours: 2 Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord."

Numerous passages that affirm the deity of Jesus. So it's nonsense to claim that JESUS' deity was invented in the fourth century when you've already got the evidence in earlier manuscripts.

Besides, we still have lots of quotations by church fathers in other manuscripts dated prior to the fourth century (prior to Constantine's involvement). Ignatius in about AD 110 calls JESUS 'our GOD' and then says, 'the blood of GOD,' referring to JESUS. Where does Ignatius get this idea of JESUS' deity if it wasn't invented for more than two hundred years later? And then you have a steady march from Ignatius right through the rest of the patristic writers - I mean, you can't make that kind of a claim (that Constantine made Christianity into his own image) and be any kind of a responsible historian. No historian would ever even entertain that kind of stupidity...

[Blake]

To prove that a written work written 20 centuries ago is not a work of fiction... when it isn't written as such...?

No one here is saying YOU or RG or Fuzzy has to believe the gospel content.

But you all are really the only ones trying to suggest that it is a fictional work without providing one single shred of evidence. Just assertions... "someone, hundreds of years removed, undeniably altered the content..." NO PROOF.

No, you stupid fuck.

It's on you to prove Bible God exists. There's no sophist side to saying "he probably doesn't until proven he does"

[Phenomanul]

No, you stupid fuck.

It's on you to prove Bible God exists. There's no sophist side to saying "he probably doesn't until proven he does"

I don't care if you believe in Him or not. It is entirely your choice. I've repeatedly stated my belief in JESUS is one that is driven on grounds of faith. I'm fine with that - but you all are not (not my problem).

[Blake]

Torture exists because of sin.
Hell exists due to the consequences of sin
Torture is evil
Hell is an eternal separation from GOD
If hell exists, THEN it is the result of sinful choices.

Your logic implies GOD is the torturer.

Yes because God created Hell. It's not that hard to comprehend.

Fuckin a you're an idiot.

Now go on with another long winded sophist rant or whine about me being mean.

[Blake]

I don't care if you believe in Him or not. It is entirely your choice. I've repeatedly stated my belief in JESUS is one that is driven on grounds of faith. I'm fine with that - but you all are not (not my problem).

Neat strawman. We're discussing burden of proof from a logical standpoint, dumb fuck.

[Phenomanul]

Neat strawman. We're discussing burden of proof from a logical standpoint, dumb fuck.

Strawman??? Give me a break. That's ALWAYS been my argument.

You all are the ones constantly trying to answer the 'GOD question' on grounds of scientific evidence alone.

Where is your antagonizing of Fuzzy's claims that Constantine made Christianity into his own image starting at the 4th century...? Why not pick on his burden of proof?

Convenient.

[Blake]

Strawman??? Give me a break. That's ALWAYS been my argument.

I don't care about that argument. I'm not even talking about it at all. That's went it's a strawman



You all are the ones constantly trying to answer the 'GOD question' on grounds of scientific evidence alone.

Where is your antagonizing of Fuzzy's claims that Constantine made Christianity into his own image starting at the 4th century...? Why not pick on his burden of proof?

Convenient.

I don't give a shit about your sidebar with fuzz.

The burden of proof is on you or any other religion of there to provide evidence for your claim.

It's the way logic and reasoning work. It's that simple. If you can't, then take your sophism and go fuck yourself

[Phenomanul]

I don't care about that argument. I'm not even talking about it at all. That's went it's a strawman



I don't give a shit about your sidebar with fuzz.

The burden of proof is on you or any other religion of there to provide evidence for your claim.

It's the way logic and reasoning work. It's that simple. If you can't, then take your sophism and go fuck yourself
LOL... Dismissive per the par... How do you want me to prove to you something that I accept on grounds of faith...? You throw out the content of the scriptures that support my belief system... You throw out inconsistencies in your own belief structure. You attribute 'unsubstantiated' motives and intent to GOD, to cast judgement over Him based strictly on your fabricated framework. You do so conveniently I would add. Fact of the matter is I believe the core message of scripture and you don't... No amount of sarcasm, facetiousness, ridicule, derision, disdain or scorn on your part will sway me from my position - frankly it's foolish that you keep insisting on using those tactics when it hasn't budged me in the slightest over the past 5-7 years in which you've attacked my position.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I find it funny that the bulk of your assertions also fall in line with the book, "Holy Blood, Holy Grail" with you somehow trying to pass it off as a personal journey in the discovery of truth.

I pointed to the existence of 48 pre-4th century documents written in Greek (there are others in Aramaic), but I dug deeper as to their content:

These manuscripts have numerous passages:

John 1:1 "1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

John 1:18 "18 No one has ever seen God, but the one and only Son, who is himself God and[a] is in closest relationship with the Father, has made him known."

John 20:28 "28 Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!”"

Titus 2:13 "13 while we wait for the blessed hope—the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior, Jesus Christ," (the only one of these passages from my list written by the Apostle Paul)

Hebrews 1:8 "8 But about the Son he says, “Your throne, O God, will last for ever and ever; a scepter of justice will be the scepter of your kingdom."

2 Peter 1:1-2 "1 Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ, To those who through the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ have received a faith as precious as ours: 2 Grace and peace be yours in abundance through the knowledge of God and of Jesus our Lord."

Numerous passages that affirm the deity of Jesus. So it's nonsense to claim that JESUS' deity was invented in the fourth century when you've already got the evidence in earlier manuscripts.

Besides, we still have lots of quotations by church fathers in other manuscripts dated prior to the fourth century (prior to Constantine's involvement). Ignatius in about AD 110 calls JESUS 'our GOD' and then says, 'the blood of GOD,' referring to JESUS. Where does Ignatius get this idea of JESUS' deity if it wasn't invented for more than two hundred years later? And then you have a steady march from Ignatius right through the rest of the patristic writers - I mean, you can't make that kind of a claim (that Constantine made Christianity into his own image) and be any kind of a responsible historian. No historian would ever even entertain that kind of stupidity...

I've never read that book. I already told you what I studied for context and I got a :lmao smiley in response.

Your shit about Mary is all your own. I only ever mentioned her because the two Mary's that Jesus supposedly revealed himself to first. I was speaking more about the supposed Paul revelation. If you must know what inspired my thoughts on that particular matter I get it from writings of Thomas Jefferson. I like him better than Paul.

The Beatty documents nor dead sea scrolls include John Chapter 1 or 2nd Peter Chapter 2. Those first appear out of Constantinople. I have no idea why you are writing any of that in red. Jesus didn't say any of that shit.

[Phenomanul]

I've never read that book. I already told you what I studied for context and I got a :lmao smiley in response.

If you say so. But your arguments sound an awful lot like the narrative in that book.


Your shit about Mary is all your own. I only ever mentioned her because the two Mary's that Jesus supposedly revealed himself to first. I was speaking more about the supposed Paul revelation. If you must know what inspired my thoughts on that particular matter I get it from writings of Thomas Jefferson. I like him better than Paul.

I don't care why you referenced Mary. You're trying to obfuscate the argument.

My argument is simple.

You are accusing the Catholic Church of having altered/distorted the 'original' gospel message (i.e. 1st century writings) with ecumenical councils starting in the 4th century. That "Constantine re-invented Christianity". Your motive: to discredit their core message.

AND YET

Some of the more central tenets of Catholicism are no where to be found in scripture.

Your accusation, however convenient, doesn't make any sense in that light. If the councils had altered the message they would have assuredly included all/most of the tenets that supported their brand of religion. That's simply not the case.


The Beatty documents nor dead sea scrolls include John Chapter 1 or 2nd Peter Chapter 2. Those first appear out of Constantinople. I have no idea why you are writing any of that in red. Jesus didn't say any of that shit.

Just some prejudicial assumption of your own... I didn't quote it in red because I'm attributing those words to JESUS (nor did I ever state that). LOL I just felt like distinguishing what was scripture. And are you actually suggesting that the Beatty Documents and the Dead Sea Scrolls are the only pre-4th century manuscripts that contain NT writings?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

If you say so. But your arguments sound an awful lot like the narrative in that book.



I don't care why you referenced Mary. You're trying to obfuscate the argument.

My argument is simple.

You are accusing the Catholic Church of having altered/distorted the 'original' gospel message (i.e. 1st century writings) with ecumenical councils starting in the 4th century. That "Constantine re-invented Christianity". Your motive: to discredit their core message.

AND YET

Some of the more central tenets of Catholicism are no where to be found in scripture.

Your accusation, however convenient, doesn't make any sense in that light. If the councils had altered the message they would have assuredly included all/most of the tenets that supported their brand of religion. That's simply not the case.



Just some prejudicial assumption of your own... I didn't quote it in red because I'm attributing those words to JESUS (nor did I ever state that). LOL I just felt like distinguishing what was scripture. And are you actually suggesting that the Beatty Documents and the Dead Sea Scrolls are the only pre-4th century manuscripts that contain NT writings?

I'm not suggesting anything. You make incomplete arguments that I have to try and fill in. If you want to insist it is the Word of God complete with pedantic punctuation then go right ahead.

As for you AND YET, I clearly talked about the other councils defining the canon like the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, divine favor, and cash or goods for absolution. I used that as context of the one that created the bible. You still haven't figured out my argument. It's amusing watching you fumble around.

Ur and Nineveh 8th century cuneiform and the genesis story attributed to Ishtar is another telling fact.

Jesus still never said any of that shit.

You quoted and bolded my aristotle quote then led with the Mary line. It is what it is. You are a disingenuous and trying to win by volume that no one else reads.

[Phenomanul]

I'm not suggesting anything. You make incomplete arguments that I have to try and fill in. If you want to insist it is the Word of God complete with pedantic punctuation then go right ahead.

As for you AND YET, I clearly talked about the other councils defining the canon like the divinity of Jesus, the Trinity, divine favor, and cash or goods for absolution. I used that as context of the one that created the bible. You still haven't figured out my argument. It's amusing watching you fumble around.

Ur and Nineveh 8th century cuneiform and the genesis story attributed to Ishtar is another telling fact.

Jesus still never said any of that shit.

You quoted and bolded my aristotle quote then led with the Mary line. It is what it is. You are a disingenuous and trying to win by volume that no one else reads.

There is a whole lot of deflection in that post.

Your accusation falls flat on its face.

LOL Grammar police.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

That sure showed me!

What should not be lost on anyone, particularly those that say I try to 'talk smart' or similar notions, when I call someone pedantic that should be meaningful to you.

That is not grammar police, that is style police. Your argument style is godawful and non persuasive for a message board.

Try keeping it to one or two sentences per paragraph like a newspaper article and less of the walls of text. These short one liners of drivel are better as people will read that shit but it exposes you for the asshat.

Good job!

[Blake]

LOL... Dismissive per the par... How do you want me to prove to you something that I accept on grounds of faith...? You throw out the content of the scriptures that support my belief system... You throw out inconsistencies in your own belief structure. You attribute 'unsubstantiated' motives and intent to GOD, to cast judgement over Him based strictly on your fabricated framework. You do so conveniently I would add. Fact of the matter is I believe the core message of scripture and you don't... No amount of sarcasm, facetiousness, ridicule, derision, disdain or scorn on your part will sway me from my position - frankly it's foolish that you keep insisting on using those tactics when it hasn't budged me in the slightest over the past 5-7 years in which you've attacked my position.

You're like that college kid from the God's Not Dead movie.

[Phenomanul]

That sure showed me!

What should not be lost on anyone, particularly those that say I try to 'talk smart' or similar notions, when I call someone pedantic that should be meaningful to you.

That is not grammar police, that is style police. Your argument style is godawful and non persuasive for a message board.

Try keeping it to one or two sentences per paragraph like a newspaper article and less of the walls of text. These short one liners of drivel are better as people will read that shit but it exposes you for the asshat.

Good job!

And still you've refuted nothing, you've not backed up your allegations that Constantine and his cronies reinvented Christianity in the 4th century. 11 pages after your accusation an still not a shred of proof - just you dancing around semantics of me not accepting your statements alone as validation. And of course folks aren't reading my arguments, it's convenient for them to continue in the bliss of their own position.

Style police. geesh that's even worse than grammar police.

Let's end this:

You said, the NT was created in the 4th century. You picked and chose your context conveniently to suit your narrative - but provided no proof.

I pointed out that older manuscripts still convey the gospel story as we have it today - in summary that, JESUS was the Son of GOD who atoned the rest of humanity by dying on the cross.

You haven't addressed that head on. You keep wanting to dismiss the fact that those manuscripts do exist because they unravel the meat of your alternative narrative.

And now you're stuck in the mud trying to convince people that somehow that wasn't your argument at all - so you've now resorted to name-calling. "asshat" hmmm... childish.

[Th'Pusher]

And of course folks aren't reading my arguments, it's convenient for them to continue in the bliss of their own position.

Why do you continue to position yourself as the victim? Do you think it advances your argument?

[Phenomanul]

Why do you continue to position yourself as the victim? Do you think it advances your argument?

Not the victim. My position isn't a popular one.

Simply go back and count how many posters have supported anything I've said. None. Perhaps maybe just mingus (on a point here or there)

Now go back and count how many have thrown profanities my way. Eleven.

And that's just in this thread. How can you coyly ignore the mob mentality against my political forum persona... and try to twist it into something fair and balanced? ummm ok.

[Th'Pusher]

Not the victim. My position isn't a popular one.

Simply go back and count how many posters have supported anything I've said. None. Perhaps maybe just mingus (on a point here or there)

Now go back and count how many have thrown profanities my way. Eleven.

And that's just in this thread. How can you coyly ignore the mob mentality against my political forum persona... and try to twist it into something fair and balanced? ummm ok.

So few people on the forum support your position. That doesn't mean your arguments aren't being read, yet you throw that out there, the typical woe is me persecuted Christian bit. It's unseemly.

Maybe it's not that your arguments are not being read, maybe they're not convincing.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:lol nailing himself up right next to Jesus.

I like the I know you are but what I am routine. His argument against me basically boils down to that I cannot prove that the 1st 3 ecumeniel councils didn't put the Bible together and add and exclude on whim. Then he prattles on about scripture justifications for various straw men.

He has demonstrated quite clearly that he cannot follow my arguments as I point out in my last post. That is why I quit responding to him. Wasting time with idiots and fools is time better spent.

[mingus]

Not the victim. My position isn't a popular one.

Simply go back and count how many posters have supported anything I've said. None. Perhaps maybe just mingus (on a point here or there)

Now go back and count how many have thrown profanities my way. Eleven.

And that's just in this thread. How can you coyly ignore the mob mentality against my political forum persona... and try to twist it into something fair and balanced? ummm ok.

From my perpespctive, a couple of the things I wanted sufficient answers for weren't given sufficient answers. Where our previous convo left off was re prophecies. I don't see specificity in them. I see vagueness. The one that isn't vague (re death via piercing of hands or whatever--I don't know when it was written). Basically a prophecy is not a prophecy if it's "rigged". I need sufficient reason to believe they weren't rigged, so I need specificity and I need accurate dates of when what was written.

At the start of the thread you gave personal experience of witnessing exorcism as support for your belief. It makes sense that it would support your belief. Not mine tho, no more than personal experience of Muslim encountering Mohammed or something would register anything for you.

[RandomGuy]

I can't believe you would insist on referencing your previous analogy... I didn't give it any weight because it's plainly 'apples and oranges'. There is a mountain of evidence [unquestionable proof] that point to the nature of the Smurfs movie as a fictional work. No one, except maybe toddlers and small children believe the content of movies is real. You all have yet to provide the proof that substantiates your claims that the gospel message is fiction.

It's yet another semantical argument to suggest just because we know Neil Patrick Harris is a real person, that his persona as Patrick in the Smurfs movies is also real. The definition of 'real' is drastically different provided the context of what Hollywood produces.

All mythology is presented as real.

If you had asked Christians as little as five centuries ago where heaven is, they would say it is in the sky, in the clouds. Hell was deep under the ground.

Thor cast thunder and his hammer would strike the earth.

Zues would throw thunder from Mount Olympus.

Centuries later, we know there is nothing but magma under our feet, and can fly up to the clouds to see for ourselves what is actually there. Myth has been in retreat like this for as long as we have asked "why?"

I merely use the Smurf movie as a convenient example. A better analogy would be to take other real people in the ancient world, or even the modern world, for that matter, and know that all sorts of stories spring up around them. There are whole cottage industries devoted to sifting through the fact of Abraham Lincoln's life and what is attributed to him.

It is in our nature to make up stories. Humans would feel the need to make a book, and talk about a book, based on an idea. Something that creates a universe... would not have such a paltry constraint.

[RandomGuy]

Torture exists because of sin.
Hell exists due to the consequences of sin
Torture is evil
Hell is an eternal separation from GOD
If hell exists, THEN it is the result of sinful choices.

Your logic implies GOD is the torturer.

JUSTICE and HOLINESS set the rules, two aspects of GOD's PERFECT character.

"We want all of the freedoms that come with choice, but none of the consequences..."

If the power of choice to choose GOD has eternal consequence, so THEN does the power of choice to reject GOD.

Biblically speaking those that reject GOD do so on their own terms.

IF you reject HIM, which you are clearly doing... Man up. Face the consequences of said choice. Don't go whining that somehow GOD was unjust and unfair with you. IT's YOUR CHOICE and YOUR CHOICE alone.

1) How do you know God is perfect?

2) If God is perfect, God has chosen not to make decent arguments for himself or to present some better proof than a book. It would know what it would take to convince me, and has chosen not to do that. Some people who like to talk about "God's plan" would say that is a feature of that mysterious roadmap to the universe.

God revealed himself to all sorts of people. First hand knowledge doesn't take away free will.

On the other hand, something that doesn't exist... can't reveal itself. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but an absence of evidence for existence does support the theory of non-existence.

Choice works both ways.

[RandomGuy]

To prove that a written work written 20 centuries ago is not a work of fiction... when it isn't written as such...?

No one here is saying YOU or RG or Fuzzy has to believe the gospel content.

But you all are really the only ones trying to suggest that it is a fictional work without providing one single shred of evidence. Just assertions... "someone, hundreds of years removed, undeniably altered the content..." NO PROOF.

Again, you fail to understand the burden of proof here.


5 Sacred texts of various religions
5.1 Adidam
5.2 Aetherius Society
5.3 Ásatrú
5.4 Atenism
5.5 Ayyavazhi
5.6 Aztec religion
5.7 Bahá'í Faith
5.8 Bön
5.9 Buddhism
5.10 Caodaism
5.11 Cheondoism
5.12 Christianity
5.13 Confucianism
5.14 Discordianism
5.15 Druidism
5.16 Druze
5.17 Ancient Egyptian religion
5.18 Etruscan religion
5.19 Ancient Greece
5.20 Hermeticism
5.21 Hinduism
5.22 Islam
5.23 Jainism
5.24 Judaism
5.25 Konkokyo
5.26 Mandaeanism
5.27 Manichaeism
5.28 Maya religion
5.29 Meher Baba
5.30 Native American Church
5.31 New Age religions
5.32 Orphism
5.33 Raëlism
5.34 Rastafari movement
5.35 Ravidassia
5.36 Samaritanism
5.37 Satanism
5.38 Science of Mind
5.39 Scientology
5.40 Shinto
5.41 Sikhism
5.42 Spiritism
5.43 Sumerian
5.44 Swedenborgianism
5.45 Taoism
5.46 Tenrikyo
5.47 Thelema
5.48 Unarius Academy of Science
5.49 Unification Church
5.50 Urantianism
5.51 Wicca
5.52 Yârsân
5.53 Yazidi
5.54 Yorùbá
5.55 Zoroastrianism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_text

Each of these was written and presented as the truth.

The burden of proof on the Bible is the same as that of Dianetics.



Dianetics: The Modern Science of Mental Health (often abbreviated as DMSMH) is a book by L. Ron Hubbard about Dianetics, a system of psychotherapy he developed from a combination of personal experience, basic principles of Eastern philosophy, and the work of psychoanalysts such as Freud.[1] The book is a canonical text of Scientology.[2] It is colloquially referred to as Book One.[3] The book launched the movement, which later defined itself as a religion, in 1950. As of 2013, New Era Publications, the international publishing company of Hubbard's works, sells this book in English and in fifty other languages.

In this best-selling book,[4][5] Hubbard wrote that he had isolated the "dynamic principle of existence," which he states as "Survive," and presents his description of the human mind. He identifies the source of "human aberration" as the "reactive mind," a normally hidden but always conscious area of the mind, and certain traumatic memories ("engrams") stored in it. Dianetics describes counselling (or "auditing") techniques which Hubbard claimed would get rid of engrams and bring major therapeutic benefits.

Unlike the Bible, we actually know who wrote Dianetics, and we can read it in its original language.

How then, do we tell which claim of "truth" is true, since so many of them are mutually exclusive?

[RandomGuy]

From my perpespctive, a couple of the things I wanted sufficient answers for weren't given sufficient answers. Where our previous convo left off was re prophecies. I don't see specificity in them. I see vagueness. The one that isn't vague (re death via piercing of hands or whatever--I don't know when it was written). Basically a prophecy is not a prophecy if it's "rigged". I need sufficient reason to believe they weren't rigged, so I need specificity and I need accurate dates of when what was written.

At the start of the thread you gave personal experience of witnessing exorcism as support for your belief. It makes sense that it would support your belief. Not mine tho, no more than personal experience of Muslim encountering Mohammed or something would register anything for you.


Exorcism! Driving Out the Nonsense
Belief in demonic possession is getting a new propaganda boost. Not only has the 1973 horror movie The Exorcist been re-released, but the “true story” that inspired it is chronicled in a reissued book and a made-for-TV movie, both titled Possessed (Allen 2000). However, a year-long investigation by a Maryland writer (Opsasnik 2000), together with my own analysis of events chronicled in the exorcising priest’s diary, belie the claim that a teenage boy was possessed by Satan in 1949.
http://www.csicop.org/si/show/exorcism_driving_out_the_nonsense/

The human brain is remarkably, and tragically susceptible to suggestion.


Belief in spirit possession flourishes in times and places where there is ignorance about mental states. Citing biblical examples, the medieval Church taught that demons were able to take control of an individual, and by the sixteenth century demonic behavior had become relatively stereotypical. It manifested itself by convulsions, prodigious strength, insensitivity to pain, temporary blindness or deafness, clairvoyance, and other abnormal characteristics. Some early notions of possession may have been fomented by three brain disorders: epilepsy, migraine, and Tourette’s syndrome (Beyerstein 1988). Psychiatric historians have long attributed demonic manifestations to such aberrant mental conditions as schizophrenia and hysteria, noting that-as mental illness began to be recognized as such after the seventeenth century-there was a consequent decline in demonic superstitions (Baker 1992, 192). In 1999 the Vatican did update its 1614 guidelines for expelling demons, urging exorcists to avoid mistaking psychiatric illness for possession ("Vatican” 1999).

In many cases, however, supposed demonic possession can be a learned role that fulfills certain important functions for those claiming it. In his book Hidden Memories: Voices and Visions from Within, psychologist Robert A. Baker (1992) notes that possession was sometimes feigned by nuns to act out sexual frustrations, protest restrictions, escape unpleasant duties, attract attention and sympathy, and fulfill other useful functions.

Many devout claimants of stigmata, inedia, and other powers, have also exhibited alleged demonic possession. For example, at Loudon, France, a prioress, Sister Jeanne des Anges (1602-1665), was part of a contagious outbreak of writhing, convulsing nuns. Jeanne herself exhibited stigmatic designs and lettering on her skin. A bloody cross “appeared” on her forehead, and the names of Jesus, Mary, and others were found on her hand-always clustered on her left hand, just as expected if a right-handed person were marking them. She went on tour as a “walking relic” and was exhibited in Paris to credulous thousands. There were a few skeptics, but Cardinal Richelieu rejected having Jeanne tested by having her hand enclosed in a sealed glove. He felt that would amount to testing God (Nickell 1998, 230-231). Interestingly enough, while I was researching and writing this article I was called to southern Ontario on a case of dubious possession that also involved stigmata.

Possession can be childishly simple to fake. For example, an exorcism broadcast by ABC’s 20/20 in 1991 featured a sixteen-year-old girl who, her family claimed, was possessed by ten separate demonic entities. However, to skeptics her alleged possession seemed to be indistinguishable from poor acting. She even stole glances at the camera before affecting convulsions and other "demonic” behavior (Nickell 1998).

Of course a person with a strong impulse to feign diabolic possession may indeed be mentally disturbed. Although the teenager in the 20/20 episode reportedly improved after the exorcism, it was also pointed out that she continued “on medication” ("Exorcism” 1991). To add to the complexity, the revised Vatican guidelines also urge, appropriately, against believing a person is possessed who is merely “the victim of one’s own imagination” ("Vatican” 1999).

With less modern enlightenment, however, the guidelines also reflect Pope John Paul II’s efforts to convince doubters that the devil actually exists. In various homilies John Paul has denounced Satan as a “cosmic liar and murderer.” A Vatican official who presented the revised rite stated, “The existence of the devil isn't an opinion, something to take or leave as you wish. Anyone who says he doesn't exist wouldn't have the fullness of the Catholic faith” ("Vatican” 1999).

Unchallenged by the new exorcism guidelines is the acceptance of such alleged signs of possession as demonstrating supernormal physical force and speaking in unknown tongues. In the case broadcast by 20/20, the teenage girl did exhibit "tongues” (known as glossolalia [Nickell 1998, 103-109]), but it was unimpressive; she merely chanted: “Sanka dali. Booga, booga.” She did struggle against the restraining clerics, one of whom claimed that, had she not been held down, she would have been levitating! At that point a group of magicians, psychologists, and other skeptics with whom I was watching the video gleefully encouraged, “Let her go! Let her go!” (Nickell 1995)

Show me a levitating person on camera with some scientific proof of levitation without physical support, and I might start believing it.

Exorcism is simply another thing mysterious to ordinary life, but not overly unique, nor supernatural.

[RandomGuy]

IF you reject HIM, which you are clearly doing... Man up. Face the consequences of said choice. Don't go whining that somehow GOD was unjust and unfair with you. IT's YOUR CHOICE and YOUR CHOICE alone.

What choices did Bible God have to make when it was designing the universe?

wKtuk0ZpnbY

"Perhaps this is what it looked like when Yahweh was deciding upon the details of his creation."

A serious question, which I will guess that you will avoid answering in any honest way.

[boutons_deux]

"IF you reject HIM...Face the consequences"

:lol typical brainwashing by ANY group.

Manichean.

you're either with us, or against us.

If you're against us, you're an enemy, and/or you're going to hell and/or you're BAD, and/or we kill you and/or, etc, etc.

simplistic shit

[Phenomanul]

:lol nailing himself up right next to Jesus.

I like the I know you are but what I am routine. His argument against me basically boils down to that I cannot prove that the 1st 3 ecumeniel councils didn't put the Bible together and add and exclude on whim.

Should it have taken you 11 pages to actually admit you can't prove your core allegation...?


Then he prattles on about scripture justifications for various straw men.

Scripture provides the basis for my beliefs. You don't have to believe any of it nor am I stating it as truth (even if I believe it is TRUTH). It simply provides the context for why I believe what I believe. Geesh... You all get all bent out of shape at the mere reference to scriptural passages - when all they do is provide the context for my own position.


He has demonstrated quite clearly that he cannot follow my arguments as I point out in my last post. That is why I quit responding to him. Wasting time with idiots and fools is time better spent.

Perhaps because you kept changing your position to deflect. A position which you just subtly admitted but are now drastically downplaying in hopes that no one will know any better.

Your allegations are not based on the reservations of 1st century writings or the such. They're based on modern agendas trying to discredit the gospel content.

[Phenomanul]

So few people on the forum support your position. That doesn't mean your arguments aren't being read, yet you throw that out there, the typical woe is me persecuted Christian bit. It's unseemly.

Maybe it's not that your arguments are not being read, maybe they're not convincing.

"woe is me..." :lmao

More like, I'm stuck having to address multiple points and cannot do so in a timely fashion. The other posters THEN get all pushy, "answer my question damn it!"

So on top of having to deal with the derision, NO ONE HERE understands I can only answer so much. Everyone else just piles it on. Your detracting posts for example... don't help - since I have to address them too.

AND yes, I can tell when they aren't being read simply because they gloss over the answers I've already provided.

[Phenomanul]

1) How do you know God is perfect?

2) If God is perfect, God has chosen not to make decent arguments for himself or to present some better proof than a book. It would know what it would take to convince me, and has chosen not to do that. Some people who like to talk about "God's plan" would say that is a feature of that mysterious roadmap to the universe.

God revealed himself to all sorts of people. First hand knowledge doesn't take away free will.

On the other hand, something that doesn't exist... can't reveal itself. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, but an absence of evidence for existence does support the theory of non-existence.

Choice works both ways.

GOD revealed His grandeur through the marvel of creation itself except you, and folks like you would rather believe that it arose "out of nothingness..."

Romans 1:18-22 18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools.

Romans 1:28-32 28 And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[a] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,[b] unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.

Not that you believe any of that anyways. But if GOD wants us to come to HIM on grounds of faith, revealing Himself overtly kind of negates that.

[mingus]

http://www.csicop.org/si/show/exorcism_driving_out_the_nonsense/

The human brain is remarkably, and tragically susceptible to suggestion.



Show me a levitating person on camera with some scientific proof of levitation without physical support, and I might start believing it.

Exorcism is simply another thing mysterious to ordinary life, but not overly unique, nor supernatural.

I personally can't say with certainty that there's not any merit to demonic possession, because I've never witnessed one and I can't just dismiss claims outright, based on the (small IMO) possibility that I'm ignorant. That said, all the cases that I've read up on about demonic possession have, as the examples in the article have as well, been pretty clearly debunked. It doesn't help those that want to convince others of what they've been (uniquely) witness to, that there's a consistent pattern of either lying/trickery and/or ignorance in the form of religious confirmation bias involved in all of the prior cases making such claims. Given the precedent, it's hard not chalk up claims of by others being witness to demonic possession of being dubious at best.

What I don't understand is the arragonce and hypocrisy one has to have in order to EXPECT others to believe their claims, when I'm sure they'd be just as dismissive of similar claims made by other people who belong to different faiths.

What I believe is this: believe what you believe in terms of deamons, possessions, poltergeist etc., but don't arragontly expect others to follow suit just because you say it's true.

[RandomGuy]

I personally can't say with certainty that there's not any merit to demonic possession, because I've never witnessed one and I can't just dismiss claims outright, based on the (small IMO) possibility that I'm ignorant. That said, all the cases that I've read up on about demonic possession have, as the examples in the article have as well, been pretty clearly debunked. It doesn't help those that want to convince others of what they've been (uniquely) witness to, that there's a consistent pattern of either lying/trickery and/or ignorance in the form of religious confirmation bias involved in all of the prior cases making such claims. Given the precedent, it's hard not chalk up claims of by others being witness to demonic possession of being dubious at best.

What I don't understand is the arragonce and hypocrisy one has to have in order to EXPECT others to believe their claims, when I'm sure they'd be just as dismissive of similar claims made by other people who belong to different faiths.

What I believe is this: believe what you believe in terms of deamons, possessions, poltergeist etc., but don't arragontly expect others to follow suit just because you say it's true.

What one finds, when one digs, is a lot of things that start looking a whole lot less supernatural.

Not every unusual thing will ever be explained, but a lot of people will fit their own ideas into the box of "we don't know" because it conforms to their pre-existing ideas. "demons" doesn't get to be the default answer in such cases, until you can prove with some testable, reproducible regularity they exist.

If something affects our material universe, it can be measured and tested. Otherwise, it doesn't help us understand our universe.

[RandomGuy]

"woe is me..." :lmao

More like, I'm stuck having to address multiple points and cannot do so in a timely fashion. The other posters THEN get all pushy, "answer my question damn it!"

So on top of having to deal with the derision, NO ONE HERE understands I can only answer so much. Everyone else just piles it on. Your detracting posts for example... don't help - since I have to address them too.

AND yes, I can tell when they aren't being read simply because they gloss over the answers I've already provided.

FWIW, that is why I try to keep it short and bite size. I do give you some props for trying to follow 3 pr 4 dialogs. :toast

[Phenomanul]

From my perpespctive, a couple of the things I wanted sufficient answers for weren't given sufficient answers. Where our previous convo left off was re prophecies. I don't see specificity in them. I see vagueness. The one that isn't vague (re death via piercing of hands or whatever--I don't know when it was written). Basically a prophecy is not a prophecy if it's "rigged". I need sufficient reason to believe they weren't rigged, so I need specificity and I need accurate dates of when what was written.

Psalm 22 was written by King David. Several centuries before JESUS' timeline (or about 1,000 years prior). With the oldest known copies of it found in Dead Sea Scrolls that pre-date Jesus' timeline as well by over a century.

As for the "piercing" translation, I'm not a Hebrew scholar:

http://www.hadavar.org/critical-issues/anti-missionary-arguments/tampering-with-the-text/psalm-2216/


“Actually, the Septuagint, the oldest existing Jewish translation of the Tanakh, was the first to translate the Hebrew as “they pierced my hands and feet” (using the verb oruxan in Greek), followed by the Syriac Peshitta version two or three centuries later (rendering with baz’u). Not only so, but the oldest Hebrew copy of the Psalms we possess (from the Dead Sea Scrolls, dating to the century before Yeshua) reads the verb in this verse as ka’aru (not ka’ari, “like a lion”),[8] a reading also found in about a dozen medieval Masoretic manuscripts-recognized as the authoritative texts in traditional Jewish thought-where instead of ka’ari (found in almost all other Masoretic manuscripts) the texts say either ka’aru or karu.[9] (Hebrew scholars believe this comes from a root meaning “to dig out” or “to bore through.”)

So, the oldest Jewish translation (The Septuagint) translates “they pierced”;
the oldest Jewish manuscript (from the Dead Sea Scrolls) reads ka’aru, not ka’ari;
and several Masoretic manuscripts read ka’aru or karu rather than ka’ari.

This is not a Christian fabrication.”[10]


At the start of the thread you gave personal experience of witnessing exorcism as support for your belief. It makes sense that it would support your belief. Not mine tho, no more than personal experience of Muslim encountering Mohammed or something would register anything for you.

Like I said, it can't be used as proof for anyone other than myself. But I was there, I definitely know what I saw, heard and felt.

[RandomGuy]

SMURFS revealed His grandeur through the marvel of creation itself except you, and folks like you would rather believe that it arose "out of nothingness..."

Romans 1:18-22 18 For the wrath of Smurfs is revealed from heaven against all unSmurfsliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 19 because what may be known of Smurfs is manifest in them, for Smurfs has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Smurfshead, so that they are without excuse, 21 because, although they knew Smurfs, they did not glorify Them as Smurfs, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Professing to be wise, they became fools.

Romans 1:28-32 28 And even as they did not like to retain Smurfs in their knowledge, Smurfs gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; 29 being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[a] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, 30 backbiters, haters of Smurfs, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, 31 undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,[b] unmerciful; 32 who, knowing the righteous judgment of Smurfs, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them.
Not that you believe any of that anyways. But if SMURFS wants us to come to THEM on grounds of faith, revealing Themself overtly kind of negates that.


The Dianetics guy said it was written into the fabric of the universe too, just waiting for us to discover. You can, as I have pointed out fill in the blank of "_________ did it, it is self-evident." with just about anything.

God revealed himself plenty in the old testament, and Saul of Damascus got such a revalation even after jesus died.

God revealed himself directly to Lucifer, who was still free to reject or accept even with absolute knowledge.

Faith is an excuse that people use when they don't have good reason to believe something. It is a lot like money, everybody wants mine, but no one is willing to work for it.

Your faith in your favorite explanation of "the unseen" is not unique. There are billions of people with faith just as strong in other things. Pointing to a book as proof doesn't really get us anywhere, and it certainly gets me no where when your favored explanation is kind of a dick, with a gun at my head "worship me or else". Not much of a free will decision innit?

[Phenomanul]

The Dianetics guy said it was written into the fabric of the universe too, just waiting for us to discover. You can, as I have pointed out fill in the blank of "_________ did it, it is self-evident." with just about anything.

God revealed himself plenty in the old testament, and Saul of Damascus got such a revalation even after jesus died.

God revealed himself directly to Lucifer, who was still free to reject or accept even with absolute knowledge.

Faith is an excuse that people use when they don't have good reason to believe something. It is a lot like money, everybody wants mine, but no one is willing to work for it.

Your faith in your favorite explanation of "the unseen" is not unique. There are billions of people with faith just as strong in other things. Pointing to a book as proof doesn't really get us anywhere, and it certainly gets me no where when your favored explanation is kind of a dick, with a gun at my head "worship me or else". Not much of a free will decision innit?

Yet you use your free will to reject Him. It's still a choice. Your choice.

What I'm saying is that all choices have consequences.

And again, it's your choice to disagree with that premise.

As for Lucifer, ultimately that is why his wrongdoings couldn't be brushed off with a proverbial 'mulligan', because he knew better, he knew who GOD was and still rose up against Him. All the angels that followed Lucifer will suffer in his fate. Humans at least have been offered redemption, despite the fact that we didn't deserve it either.

[Phenomanul]

I personally can't say with certainty that there's not any merit to demonic possession, because I've never witnessed one and I can't just dismiss claims outright, based on the (small IMO) possibility that I'm ignorant. That said, all the cases that I've read up on about demonic possession have, as the examples in the article have as well, been pretty clearly debunked. It doesn't help those that want to convince others of what they've been (uniquely) witness to, that there's a consistent pattern of either lying/trickery and/or ignorance in the form of religious confirmation bias involved in all of the prior cases making such claims. Given the precedent, it's hard not chalk up claims of by others being witness to demonic possession of being dubious at best.

What I don't understand is the arragonce and hypocrisy one has to have in order to EXPECT others to believe their claims, when I'm sure they'd be just as dismissive of similar claims made by other people who belong to different faiths.

What I believe is this: believe what you believe in terms of deamons, possessions, poltergeist etc., but don't arragontly expect others to follow suit just because you say it's true.

That's such a distrusting way to look at people. Somehow you're painting me as arrogant, because you felt I demanded that others 'take my word for it'...?

Why even discuss anything at all if people are "just gonna make stuff up all nillly willy...?"

I didn't object to anyone's reservations about believing my anecdote. What pissed me off was the blatant 'spit-in-their-grave' mockery of my murdered friends' deaths... The distinction, I thought was clear enough.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Except that the accounts I referenced are historical accounts by secular historians, wholly independent from scripture... they reference unexplained phenomena that was evident to all who were there to witness it... The Acts of Pontius Pilate for example, affirms that Jesus was performing miracles that defied all explanation (clearly prose not fiction)... the excerpt from Phlegon's writings talk about the sun being blacked out throughout the land "for all to see", and was explicit about the time of day (which coincides with the Gospel narrative)... He later in said book suggests that it couldn't be explained away with a solar eclipse because the moon was not in the proper position in the sky to produce an eclipse (which he also suggests is besides the point because solar eclipses don't last hours nor do they produce earthquakes) (again clearly prose not fiction)...

I'm just pointing out that the references to Jesus extraordinary life are out there - and not all of them are scriptural as boutons was trying to suggest.

Just to give people and idea of how argumentation is actually done, you take an individual fact like his discussion of The Acts of Pilate. Now dipshit is obvious copying and pasting others works to a large degree.

Here is the description of it in the Catholic Encyclopedia: they have had and continue to have the copies of it btw.


This work does not assume to have written by Pilate, but to have been derived from the official acts preserved in the praetorium at Jerusalem. The alleged Hebrew original is attributed to Nicodemus. The title "Gospel of Nicodemus" is of medieval origin. The apocryphon gained wide credit in the Middle Ages, and has considerably affected the legends of our Saviour's Passion. Its popularity is attested by the number of languages in which it exists, each of these being represented by two or more recensions. We possess a text in Greek, the original language; a Coptic, an Armenian and a Latin, besides modern translations. The Latin versions were naturally its most current form and were printed several times in the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. One class of the Latin manuscripts contain as an appendix or continuation, the "Cura Sanitatis Tiberii", the oldest form of the Veronica legend.

The "Acta" consist of three sections, which reveal inequalities of style. The first (i-xi) contains the trial of Jesus based upon Luke 23. The second part comprises 12-16; it regards the Resurrection. An appendix, detailing the Descensus ad Infernos, forms the third section, This does not exist in the Greek text and is a later addition.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01111b.htm

Sure does sound like my paradigm of addition and exclusion at whim. They have no idea where it really came from beyond to say Jerusalem and it quite obvious that the original texts were gathered by the catholics in the ecumenial councils becuase they didn't exist prior. They even admit it was embellished in the middle ages.

The first time it shows up is the 2nd century:


Some Acts of Pilate, it seems, were known as early as the second century. Justin Martyr remarks in his first Apology (35) after he has mentioned the passion and crucifixion of Jesus: 'And that these things happened you can ascertain from the Acts of Pontius Pilate.'

http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/actspilate.html

Prior to that nothing.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The Gospel of Nicodemus preserves a document known as the Acta Pilati in chapters 1 to 11, with an addition in chapters 12 to 16, while chapters 17 to 27 are called the "Decensus Christi ad Inferos." Quasten writes, "The whole work, which in a later Latin manuscript is called the Evangelium Nicodemi, must have been composed at the beginning of the fifth century, but it seems to be more or less a compilation of older material." (Patrology, vol. 1, p. 116) It is possible that the material in the Gospel of Nicodemus was written to refute pagan Acts of Pilate created in 311, mentioned by Eusebius:

Having forged, to be sure, Memoirs of Pilate and Our Saviour, full of every kind of blasphemy against Christ, with the approval of their chief they sent them round to every part of his dominions, with edicts that they should be exhibited openly for everyone to see in every place, both town and country, and that the primary teachers should give them to the children, instead of lessons, for study and committal to memory. (H. E. 9.5.1)

[Phenomanul]

Just to give people and idea of how argumentation is actually done, you take an individual fact like his discussion of The Acts of Pilate. Now dipshit is obvious copying and pasting others works to a large degree.

Here is the description of it in the Catholic Encyclopedia: they have had and continue to have the copies of it btw.



http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01111b.htm

Sure does sound like my paradigm of addition and exclusion at whim. They have no idea where it really came from beyond to say Jerusalem and it quite obvious that the original texts were gathered by the catholics in the ecumenial councils becuase they didn't exist prior. They even admit it was embellished in the middle ages.

The first time it shows up is the 2nd century:



http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/actspilate.html

Prior to that nothing.

2nd century is still waaaaay before the ecumenical councils got involved in the 4th century. It's like you tried to make a point... but then failed to drive the nail deep enough to be fully convincing. You so subtly try to downplay anything that doesn't jive with your narrative. I could throw away the Acts of Pontius Pilate as having been authored by someone other than Pilate himself (even though the writings still predate the 4th century) - AND still the narrative about Jesus remains the same. The problem is that you all so willing to throw away all of the gospel accounts simply because you all reject the message. I haven't been able to validate if the manuscript from the gospel of Mark that was found on a mummy mask a couple of years ago has finally been published (I know the story leaked around this time last year) - but said manuscript was dated at 90 AD, which reveals that said gospel account was written originally within that first century (even though historical context already places it within that first century and before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70).

YET

You say that "Constantine reinvented Christianity into his own image."

You then specifically asserted that JESUS' divinity was a 4th century creation.

I showed you specifically which scriptural passages point/allude to His divinity that exist in manuscripts that predate the 4th century. Your response, (a red herring) "JESUS didn't say that!" (even though I made no such claim - you just assumed or simply tried to detract).

In other words, your narrative still falls flat on its face.

To claim that you've googled nothing up til now is a bold face lie.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

2nd century is still waaaaay before the ecumenical councils got involved in the 4th century. It's like you tried to make a point... but then failed to drive the nail deep enough to be fully convincing. You so subtly try to downplay anything that doesn't jive with your narrative. I could throw away the Acts of Pontius Pilate as having been authored by someone other than Pilate himself (even though the writings still predate the 4th century) - AND still the narrative about Jesus remains the same. The problem is that you all so willing to throw away all of the gospel accounts simply because you all reject the message. I haven't been able to validate if the manuscript from the gospel of Mark that was found on a mummy mask a couple of years ago has finally been published (I know the story leaked around this time last year) - but said manuscript was dated at 90 AD, which reveals that said gospel account was written originally within that first century (even though historical context already places it within that first century and before the destruction of Jerusalem in AD 70).

YET

You say that "Constantine reinvented Christianity into his own image."

You then specifically asserted that JESUS' divinity was a 4th century creation.

I showed you specifically which scriptural passages point/allude to His divinity that exist in manuscripts that predate the 4th century. Your response, (a red herring) "JESUS didn't say that!" (even though I made no such claim - you just assumed or simply tried to detract).

In other words, your narrative still falls flat on its face.

To claim that you've googled nothing up til now is a bold face lie.

I never said I never googled anything. I'm looking up your arguments and most historical data is on the interwebs. It clearly showed where they took a 2nd century text whose veracity we have no idea about, altered it at least slightly and then added a completely different section.

There is very good reason to believe due to that earlier complaint that does not exist in this current version that they doctored it to remove 'blasphemy' and anything else that didn't conform. That is precisely what I am talking about going on in the text you present.

Your example proves my case. Good job.

And you also demonstrate poor critical thinking skills applying binary logic. I never said nobody believed that Jesus was 'lord' prior to Constantine. I'm saying that Constantine banned any other way of looking at him. Nestorians in the East. Aesthetics in the West. Excommunicated. First was an aesthetic who ended up an unpopular minority.

[RandomGuy]

Yet you use your free will to reject Him. It's still a choice. Your choice.

What I'm saying is that all choices have consequences.

And again, it's your choice to disagree with that premise.

As for Lucifer, ultimately that is why his wrongdoings couldn't be brushed off with a proverbial 'mulligan', because he knew better, he knew who GOD was and still rose up against Him. All the angels that followed Lucifer will suffer in his fate. Humans at least have been offered redemption, despite the fact that we didn't deserve it either.

... and again, you fail to consider the choices that the God idea you worship had to have made. It isn't about my choices. It is about the decision tree required to construct your milieu.

You ignore all sorts of common sense, and what your reason tells you, so you can continue to believe yourself a good person, which I am confident you are.

Because you are a good person though, you have to kluge when it comes to the rationalizations, for the simple reason of reducing cognitive dissonance. You can't answer simple questions truthfully here. You choose to ignore them and dissemble. Good people don't worship evil things. Those two ideas (good person and worship something evil) are generally mutually exclusive. Is mental anguish harmful? Is it evil to hack children to death?

Your choice is to ignore the gun pointed at your head, so you can convince yourself that the thing pointing it at you is worth worshipping, without considering the choice it made to hold the gun.

The decision to hold the gun is still a choice. God's choice.

For reference:

In psychology, cognitive dissonance is the mental stress or discomfort experienced by an individual who holds two or more contradictory beliefs, ideas, or values at the same time, performs an action that is contradictory to one or more beliefs, ideas or values, or is confronted by new information that conflicts with existing beliefs, ideas, or values.[1][2]

Leon Festinger's theory of cognitive dissonance focuses on how humans strive for internal consistency. An individual who experiences inconsistency (dissonance) tends to become psychologically uncomfortable, and is motivated to try to reduce this dissonance—as well as actively avoid situations and information likely to increase it.[1]

[RandomGuy]

I never said I never googled anything. I'm looking up your arguments and most historical data is on the interwebs. It clearly showed where they took a 2nd century text whose veracity we have no idea about, altered it at least slightly and then added a completely different section.

There is very good reason to believe due to that earlier complaint that does not exist in this current version that they doctored it to remove 'blasphemy' and anything else that didn't conform. That is precisely what I am talking about going on in the text you present.

Your example proves my case. Good job.

And you also demonstrate poor critical thinking skills applying binary logic. I never said nobody believed that Jesus was 'lord' prior to Constantine. I'm saying that Constantine banned any other way of looking at him. Nestorians in the East. Aesthetics in the West. Excommunicated. First was an aesthetic who ended up an unpopular minority.

You might find this relevant as well (may have posted that before):

ik7GRQ9hoVY

Goes over some of the rather striking similarities between the Jesus myth and other Mediterranean mythologies.

It also points out the rather large holes in the earliest of writings.

[RandomGuy]

folks like you would rather believe that it arose "out of nothingness..."

Again, you are telling me what I believe. You really should ask first.

You tell me I believe in something out of "nothingness" as if that is foolish somehow. Let's explore that idea.

First a couple of concepts.


spe·cial plead·ing
noun
noun: special pleading
argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view.


Fallacy: Special Pleading

Description of Special Pleading

Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

Person A accepts standard(s) S and applies them to others in circumtance(s) C.
Person A is in circumstance(s) C.
Therefore A is exempt from S.

Why is a universe "out of nothingness" not logical to you? I assume that was your implication, if not, please elaborate as to your precise meaning.

[Phenomanul]

You might find this relevant as well (may have posted that before):

ik7GRQ9hoVY

Goes over some of the rather striking similarities between the Jesus myth and other Mediterranean mythologies.

It also points out the rather large holes in the earliest of writings.

I cannot see youtube links from my office at work.

[Phenomanul]

Again, you are telling me what I believe. You really should ask first.

You tell me I believe in something out of "nothingness" as if that is foolish somehow. Let's explore that idea.

First a couple of concepts.

Why is a universe "out of nothingness" not logical to you? I assume that was your implication, if not, please elaborate as to your precise meaning.

All the matter, all the energy, every subatomic particle, EVERYTHING we can see, observe and measure - came from a 'singularity' infinitesimally small in magnitude (of a size infinitesimally smaller than Planck's constant).

Everything from nothing. A concept which breaks every natural law - that's why it is illogical.

Christians believe it was a special supernatural event (natural laws WERE in fact broken), which is why a Creator is essential (and they believe it on grounds of faith).

Today cosmologists would rather believe in multiverses (a wholly umprovable theory) in order to throw out the implications of time, matter, and energy having began at some finite point in the past.
They do so because then they can continue to believe in the eternal nature of a MUCH larger macro-universe which births universes such as ours in bubbles. If the universe is eternal, then it doesn't need to be created. The problem with their theory is that it cannot meet the criteria for being evaluated by the scientific method. So they believe it on grounds of faith hoping to 'solve an umprovable' riddle based on observations and conjectures that are sketchy at best.

[Phenomanul]

... and again, you fail to consider the choices that the God idea you worship had to have made. It isn't about my choices. It is about the decision tree required to construct your milieu.

You ignore all sorts of common sense, and what your reason tells you, so you can continue to believe yourself a good person, which I am confident you are.

Because you are a good person though, you have to kluge when it comes to the rationalizations, for the simple reason of reducing cognitive dissonance. You can't answer simple questions truthfully here. You choose to ignore them and dissemble. Good people don't worship evil things. Those two ideas (good person and worship something evil) are generally mutually exclusive. Is mental anguish harmful? Is it evil to hack children to death?

Your choice is to ignore the gun pointed at your head, so you can convince yourself that the thing pointing it at you is worth worshipping, without considering the choice it made to hold the gun.

The decision to hold the gun is still a choice. God's choice.

For reference:

I think this is your biggest mischaracterization of my position - and ultimately where Christianity is different from all of the other religions (despite whatever brand of Catholicism you are familiar with that believes the opposite).

Namely that we're not "good," no matter how hard we try to be. I explained this earlier, "our good deeds are like garbage before GOD". We can't 'earn' heaven/eternal salvation by being 'good' because none of us are. That is why judgment of our brothers is futile, given that none of us are worthy - not one... Committing only one sin (however slight the infraction) is enough to separate us from GOD eternally. On those grounds, ultimately everyone falls short of heaven.

Only one human was perfect (never sinned), and because He didn't rely on His divinity to defeat sin, His triumph over sin ultimately allowed SIN to condemn us all. That same triumph however was enough for him to mediate on our behalf.

IF we accept JESUS' offer of atonement - a gift that none of us deserve (grace) to prevent sure death that we did deserve (mercy) THEN sin cannot condemn us.

All that to say, that Christ's perfect blood (payment of 'life' to defeat 'death') was enough to atone for the sins of all humanity. Except people still reject his gift. A choice. Their choice. So they must be held accountable for that choice --> which means that they will be judged according to their works (which we've established aren't good enough).

JESUS' grace on the cross also saves all children who weren't of age to make that choice.

Mental anguish...??? ¡Please..! None of that matters in the context of eternity. As I said before, I'm not guaranteed a peaceful death... none of us are. Death is only a process. Our eternal destination is the key. Look up the death of the martyr Steven. Or for that matter, any martyr of the early church - many of them died agonizing deaths at the hands of their persecutors (stonings / beatings / hangings / burnings / maulings by lions / crucifixions) - yet I can assure you that in the presence of GOD none of that matters to them (and they would do it all over again).

[FuzzyLumpkins]

All the matter, all the energy, every subatomic particle, EVERYTHING we can see, observe and measure - came from a 'singularity' infinitesimally small in magnitude (of a size infinitesimally smaller than Planck's constant).

Everything from nothing. A concept which breaks every natural law - that's why it is illogical.

Christians believe it was a special supernatural event (natural laws WERE in fact broken), which is why a Creator is essential (and they believe it on grounds of faith).

Today cosmologists would rather believe in multiverses (a wholly umprovable theory) in order to throw out the implications of time, matter, and energy having began at some finite point in the past.
They do so because then they can continue to believe in the eternal nature of a MUCH larger macro-universe which births universes such as ours in bubbles. If the universe is eternal, then it doesn't need to be created. The problem with their theory is that it cannot meet the criteria for being evaluated by the scientific method. So they believe it on grounds of faith hoping to 'solve an umprovable' riddle based on observations and conjectures that are sketchy at best.

Plank's constant is not a size. It's a ratio. The plank length is something but seeing how you phrased it you have no idea what you are talking about.

I'll play the same game I play with WC because your ability is only slightly above his.: what 'natural laws' were broken?

[Phenomanul]

I never said I never googled anything. I'm looking up your arguments and most historical data is on the interwebs. It clearly showed where they took a 2nd century text whose veracity we have no idea about, altered it at least slightly and then added a completely different section.

There is very good reason to believe due to that earlier complaint that does not exist in this current version that they doctored it to remove 'blasphemy' and anything else that didn't conform. That is precisely what I am talking about going on in the text you present.

Your example proves my case. Good job.

And you also demonstrate poor critical thinking skills applying binary logic. I never said nobody believed that Jesus was 'lord' prior to Constantine. I'm saying that Constantine banned any other way of looking at him. Nestorians in the East. Aesthetics in the West. Excommunicated. First was an aesthetic who ended up an unpopular minority.

Wait, wait, wait... How can someone (thousands of early church believers in fact) believe JESUS is LORD if the premise of His divinity had not yet been 'created'??? Yet again, you are changing your position. You plainly said Constantine and his councils invented Jesus' divinity. Now you are saying (paraphrasing) "it was a pre-existing belief, they just made that belief the official state belief and banned all dissention".

If you can't see the intellectual dishonesty of the grotesque nature of such a change I really don't know why I'm discussing anything with you. You really think everyone else is that stupid..? That you can brush it off with a semantical dodge...?

The crux of your initial position was to suggest that the gospel's original language DID NOT allude to JESUS' divinity at all.

You were doing so to assert that this was the reason why you didn't believe their content at face value --> and to that end you tried to tie the creation of the NT as a product of the ecumenical councils in the 4th century --> not as a mere compilation of 'existing' works but as a reinvention of their content. Because hey... anything three centuries removed from the original works COULDN'T POSSIBLY have any credibility whatsoever.

You accepting JESUS' divinity was a pre-existing belief IS the crux of the argument. All the other gnostic beliefs which arose out of the 2nd century were rightfully banned given that they didn't originate with the source (JESUS) or anyone close to the source.

[Phenomanul]

Plank's constant is not a size. It's a ratio. The plank length is something but seeing how you phrased it you have no idea what you are talking about.

I'll play the same game I play with WC because your ability is only slightly above his.: what 'natural laws' were broken?

I meant to write Planck's length. Simple mistake. BUT firmly hold on to it as a validation that somehow justifies every argument you've posited. :rolleyes

THIS is what I mean when I state I can't possibly answer everything in a timely manner. Normally I would have proofread my statement and caught my error. Not so when I have to address multiple debaters. Whatever. Your gloating is proof enough of your need for affirmation.

[Blake]

All the matter, all the energy, every subatomic particle, EVERYTHING we can see, observe and measure - came from a 'singularity' infinitesimally small in magnitude (of a size infinitesimally smaller than Planck's constant).

Everything from nothing. A concept which breaks every natural law - that's why it is illogical.

Christians believe it was a special supernatural event (natural laws WERE in fact broken), which is why a Creator is essential (and they believe it on grounds of faith).

Today cosmologists would rather believe in multiverses (a wholly umprovable theory) in order to throw out the implications of time, matter, and energy having began at some finite point in the past.
They do so because then they can continue to believe in the eternal nature of a MUCH larger macro-universe which births universes such as ours in bubbles. If the universe is eternal, then it doesn't need to be created. The problem with their theory is that it cannot meet the criteria for being evaluated by the scientific method. So they believe it on grounds of faith hoping to 'solve an umprovable' riddle based on observations and conjectures that are sketchy at best.

So basically God made another gentleman's agreement with himself to break laws he created.

[Blake]

I meant to write Planck's length. Simple mistake. BUT firmly hold on to it as a validation that somehow justifies every argument you've posited. :rolleyes

THIS is what I mean when I state I can't possibly answer everything in a timely manner. Normally I would have proofread my statement and caught my error. Not so when I have to address multiple debaters. Whatever.

You've got more logical problems than grammar

[Phenomanul]

So basically God made another gentleman's agreement with himself to break laws he created.

He isn't bound to the laws of nature.

He is bound to the laws of His Nature.

[Phenomanul]

You've got more logical problems than grammar

Ooooooh the thought police is here. :rolleyes

But please feel free to enlighten me... go on and explain how EVERYTHING in the known universe came to be from nothing...?

[RandomGuy]

I cannot see youtube links from my office at work.

Ah. That was more addressed to Fuzzy.

For your benefit:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_God_Who_Wasn%27t_There

[Phenomanul]

Until tomorrow. I have other tasks I must complete today.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Wait, wait, wait... How can someone (thousands of early church believers in fact) believe JESUS is LORD if the premise of His divinity had not yet been 'created'??? Yet again, you are changing your position. You plainly said Constantine and his councils invented Jesus' divinity. Now you are saying (paraphrasing) "it was a pre-existing belief, they just made that belief the official state belief and banned all dissention".

If you can't see the intellectual dishonesty of the grotesque nature of such a change I really don't know why I'm discussing anything with you. You really think everyone else is that stupid..? That you can brush it off with a semantical dodge...?

The crux of your initial position was to suggest that the gospel's original language DID NOT allude to JESUS' divinity at all.

You were doing so to assert that this was the reason why you didn't believe their content at face value --> and to that end you tried to tie the creation of the NT as a product of the ecumenical councils in the 4th century --> not as a mere compilation of 'existing' works but as a reinvention of their content. Because hey... anything three centuries removed from the original works COULDN'T POSSIBLY have any credibility whatsoever.

You accepting JESUS' divinity was a pre-existing belief IS the crux of the argument. All the other gnostic beliefs which arose out of the 2nd century were rightfully banned given that they didn't originate with the source (JESUS) or anyone close to the source.

My original position was that Constantine picked and chose what to include and exclude, embellished, amended and redacted. You quote that. You cannot quote me to prove your assertion.

So far in this discussion we've seen this happen very clearly in the church held documents of the Acts of Nicodemus. I don't care what you find repugnant. That is independent of the truth.

You just got going through admitting that the works from the second and third century is the best you have. Then you come back with certainty of where said beliefs came from. My sig quote is for you today.

[DarrinS]

14 pages of this shit?

[Blake]

He isn't bound to the laws of nature.

He is bound to the laws of His Nature.

Which include the 10 commandments. He breaks those like they don't exist.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I meant to write Planck's length. Simple mistake. BUT firmly hold on to it as a validation that somehow justifies every argument you've posited. :rolleyes

THIS is what I mean when I state I can't possibly answer everything in a timely manner. Normally I would have proofread my statement and caught my error. Not so when I have to address multiple debaters. Whatever. Your gloating is proof enough of your need for affirmation.

What you meant to do. . . For the argument 'the Phenobarbital account doesn't know what the fuck it is talking about' I will hold onto this. It reminds me of another Russell quote:


A stupid man's report of what a clever man says can never be accurate, because he unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand.

Plank's length is basically the smallest quanta where light wavelength can propagate. It's infinitesimally small but it is not zero. Then of course there is the entire nature of a theory and how unlike dogma is able to change with different observable phenomenon. I just asked a physicist at Cambridge who happens to be one of my best friends to describe what a plank length means to him and he said its a theoretical point where quantum effects become the dominant paradigm.

Anyway that takes a big ole shit on your 'something from nothing' argument because said length is greater than zero. The Russell quotes apply there as well. Then of course there is the complex plane and topology of Euler which has proven real in telecom and atomics over and again implying a multidimensional reality that were only scratching the surface of.

You quote scripture. . . .

[Blake]

Ooooooh the thought police is here. :rolleyes

But please feel free to enlighten me... go on and explain how EVERYTHING in the known universe came to be from nothing...?

Who said everything came from nothing?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Who said everything came from nothing?

Read my post above. It will illuminate his failings.

[RandomGuy]

All the matter, all the energy, every subatomic particle, EVERYTHING we can see, observe and measure - came from a 'singularity' infinitesimally small in magnitude (of a size infinitesimally smaller than Planck's constant).

Everything from nothing. A concept which breaks every natural law - that's why it is illogical.

Christians believe it was a special supernatural event (natural laws WERE in fact broken), which is why a Creator is essential (and they believe it on grounds of faith).

Today cosmologists would rather believe in multiverses (a wholly umprovable theory) in order to throw out the implications of time, matter, and energy having began at some finite point in the past.
They do so because then they can continue to believe in the eternal nature of a MUCH larger macro-universe which births universes such as ours in bubbles. If the universe is eternal, then it doesn't need to be created. The problem with their theory is that it cannot meet the criteria for being evaluated by the scientific method. So they believe it on grounds of faith hoping to 'solve an umprovable' riddle based on observations and conjectures that are sketchy at best.

Except natural laws didn't exist, if my understanding of the most current cosmology is correct. The equations that describe the nature of the universe breakdown when time=0

A couple of other things:
Plank's constant is not a "size". It is not a dimensional measurement.
6.62607004 × 10-34 m2 kg / s
It is units mass/time/distance.

The rest of it is a condescending strawman. I'll pass, other than to note you have distorted what others believe, and attributed motivations without evidence.

You have attempted to ascribe the kind of "theory in search of evidence" motivations in others, trying to drag the scientific method down to your level. Shame.

Science does far better than faith in any aspect of determining things about our universe. That may bug the shit out of you, but that is no reason to lie about others.

[RandomGuy]

Who said everything came from nothing?

https://scienceornot.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/552b6-2012-strawman-macleod.jpg?w=512

No one, actually.

[RandomGuy]

14 pages of this shit?

Not everybody has the attention span of a gnat. Isn't there a smiley you need to be posting somewhere?

[Phenomanul]

What you meant to do. . . For the argument 'the Phenobarbital account doesn't know what the fuck it is talking about' I will hold onto this. It reminds me of another Russell quote:



Plank's length is basically the smallest quanta where light wavelength can propagate. It's infinitesimally small but it is not zero. Then of course there is the entire nature of a theory and how unlike dogma is able to change with different observable phenomenon. I just asked a physicist at Cambridge who happens to be one of my best friends to describe what a plank length means to him and he said its a theoretical point where quantum effects become the dominant paradigm.

Anyway that takes a big ole shit on your 'something from nothing' argument because said length is greater than zero. The Russell quotes apply there as well. Then of course there is the complex plane and topology of Euler which has proven real in telecom and atomics over and again implying a multidimensional reality that were only scratching the surface of.

You quote scripture. . . .


Wait... what?????

You built your entire rebuttal on a reading comprehension error...? Rather than gloat about it like you assuredly would go back and read that I said the 'origins' singularity was "infinitesimally smaller" THAN Planck's [length]"

And don't presume to lecture me on Physics... For all practical purposes, Planck's length is the smallest working unit of measure for finite sub-atomic particles at which point the quantum effects take over. My statement was that the universe and all therein came from a space infinitesimally smaller than that. I referenced it to show how even at that finite length you couldn't possibly squeeze the contents of the entire universe.

The whole point is that people that don't believe a supernatural Creator was required to kick-start the cosmos, require belief that our universe was created from an eternally pre-existing multi-verse - despite the fact that the premise of a multiverse cannot be physically tested.

Without that alternate theory on which to fall back on, the asymptotic nature of the origins singularity (mathematically expressed) suggests that progressing from t=0, everything came from nothing.

Those scientists would rather not validate the notion that our universe had a finite, discrete origin --> as is described by Scripture.

AND so on faith they believe their multiverse alternative.

But go ahead and keep deflecting.

[Phenomanul]

Which include the 10 commandments. He breaks those like they don't exist.

LOL WHAT???? The TEN commandments are for humans... How can GOD tell Himself, "Thou shalt have no other GOD before me?"

But keep doing your 'mental gymnastics'...

[Phenomanul]

Except natural laws didn't exist, if my understanding of the most current cosmology is correct. The equations that describe the nature of the universe breakdown when time=0

A couple of other things:
Plank's constant is not a "size". It is not a dimensional measurement.
6.62607004 × 10-34 m2 kg / s
It is units mass/time/distance.

The rest of it is a condescending strawman. I'll pass, other than to note you have distorted what others believe, and attributed motivations without evidence.

You have attempted to ascribe the kind of "theory in search of evidence" motivations in others, trying to drag the scientific method down to your level. Shame.

Science does far better than faith in any aspect of determining things about our universe. That may bug the shit out of you, but that is no reason to lie about others.

That is exactly what you all do to believers.

I use applied science day-in, day-out. No where in my application of scientific principles do I have to entertain the notion of 'origins'. IT IS IRRELEVANT.

AND YET,

bouton's, and other posters on this forum INCESSANTLY suggest believers are stupid, and intellectually inferior because they don't bow at the altar of Darwin or Hawking / Dawkins.

In other words, they claim that our refusal to believe your naturalistic origins premises reduces us to attackers of science. WHEN the use of applied science has NOTHING to do with origins beliefs or theories of origins.

I can't believe you cannot see the inherent hypocrisy of such a series of statements. That's usually why these debates start in the first place. It's a clash of world views.

Is the multi-verse premise an oversimplification of the tens of alternative theories out there...? Perhaps. My point was to suggest that atheistic scientists WANT to dispel the 'Big Bang' belief because it jives with Scripture - they search for alternatives that don't require a 'kick-start' process. You all conveniently harp on my word choices but never seem to read the actual phrases. For example, you attributed condescension to my statement - when I'm simply stating my position. Whatever.

[RandomGuy]

LOL WHAT???? The TEN commandments are for humans... How can GOD tell Himself, "Thou shalt have no other GOD before me?"

But keep doing your 'mental gymnastics'...


spe·cial plead·ing
noun
noun: special pleading
argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view.


Fallacy: Special Pleading

Description of Special Pleading

Special Pleading is a fallacy in which a person applies standards, principles, rules, etc. to others while taking herself (or those she has a special interest in) to be exempt, without providing adequate justification for the exemption. This sort of "reasoning" has the following form:

Person A accepts standard(s) S and applies them to others in circumtance(s) C.
Person A is in circumstance(s) C.
Therefore A is exempt from S

Not an overly convincing form of persuasion. Harm is harm, demonstrably so. The only reason I see that you have for the "except part" is that you want to worship a perfect being.

The priests that ultimately described such a being as perfect had every motivation to reduce the amount of questioning of their own authority by making such claims about the beings they worshipped. Who would question a perfect being's proclamations?

[Phenomanul]

https://scienceornot.files.wordpress.com/2012/07/552b6-2012-strawman-macleod.jpg?w=512

No one, actually.

Cause.... this isn't condescending? :shootme

[Phenomanul]

Not an overly convincing form of persuasion. Harm is harm, demonstrably so. The only reason I see that you have for the "except part" is that you want to worship a perfect being.

The priests that ultimately described such a being as perfect had every motivation to reduce the amount of questioning of their own authority by making such claims about the beings they worshipped. Who would question a perfect being's proclamations?


Your argument makes no sense.

I think by now you should know that I don't take Blake's posts seriously. He's so disrespectful and I cannot afford to give him more time than what I already do. He should technically be on my ignore list.

In other words your rebuttals to anything I tell Blake is a side-step in the conversation not worth pursuing.

[Blake]

LOL WHAT???? The TEN commandments are for humans... How can GOD tell Himself, "Thou shalt have no other GOD before me?"

But keep doing your 'mental gymnastics'...

How can he tell humans "though shalt not kill" but does it himself on a whim?

Now avoid this question by doing some mental cart wheels.

[Blake]

Cause.... this isn't condescending? :shootme

It's what you're doing

[Phenomanul]

How can he tell humans "though shalt not kill" but does it himself on a whim?

Now avoid this question by doing some mental cart wheels.

Technically it's "murder"

otherwise we couldn't "kill" our livestock for sustenance.

"murder" implies pre-emptive hate.

Your small mind has a problem understanding GOD's Nature as you keep wanting to anthropomorph Him to the feeble magnitude of humans.

Prior to the covenant established under JESUS' grace, GOD had to exact JUSTICE when He saw fit. They payment for sin is death. You don't seem to understand the system.

[Phenomanul]

It's what you're doing

So then enlighten me. Give me YOUR origins premise for the cosmos.

[Blake]

That is exactly what you all do to believers.

I use applied science day-in, day-out. No where in my application of scientific principles do I have to entertain the notion of 'origins'. IT IS IRRELEVANT.

AND YET,

bouton's, and other posters on this forum INCESSANTLY suggest believers are stupid, and intellectually inferior because they don't bow at the altar of Darwin or Hawking / Dawkins.

In other words, they claim that our refusal to believe your naturalistic origins premises reduces us to attackers of science. WHEN the use of applied science has NOTHING to do with origins beliefs or theories of origins.

I can't believe you cannot see the inherent hypocrisy of such a series of statements. That's usually why these debates start in the first place. It's a clash of world views.

Is the multi-verse premise an oversimplification of the tens of alternative theories out there...? Perhaps. My point was to suggest that atheistic scientists WANT to dispel the 'Big Bang' belief because it jives with Scripture - they search for alternatives that don't require a 'kick-start' process. You all conveniently harp on my word choices but never seem to read the actual phrases. For example, you attributed condescension to my statement - when I'm simply stating my position. Whatever.

Yeah but you want to attribute science and everything else to bible God.

Pretty stupid, tbh.

[Blake]

Technically it's "murder"

otherwise we couldn't "kill" our livestock for sustenance.

"murder" implies pre-emptive hate.

Your small mind has a problem understanding GOD's Nature as you keep wanting to anthropomorph Him to the feeble magnitude of humans.

yeah, God "murdered" people in the Old Testament over petty ridiculous things. He also laid down laws to execute people for things like being gay.

Just keep spinning tho. It's more entertaining to me than anything else on the message board at the moment.

[Blake]

So then enlighten me. Give me YOUR origins premise for the cosmos.

I'm not sure.

But I know it wasn't bible god.

Lol young earthers

[clambake]

how can someone who believes in a god deny the possibility of other gods?

is it cuz your god said so?

[RandomGuy]

Cause.... this isn't condescending? :shootme

It uses derision/satire to deal with the dishonest act of deliberately distorting the position of someone else, so that one can fool oneself into thinking one is winning a debate, when all one is really doing is dodging the real arguments.

I think dishonesty should be treated with derision.

Very often people who attack science do so using this method. Such proclamations tend to start with "scientists believe [insert distortion]" or something similar.

Your "something from nothing" statement falls into that category. Most likely because you have not fully understood the theory. More accurate would be "something [a universe] from something else [a singularity]".

I try very, very hard to not distort other's positions for the simple reason that I would like my consideration of an idea/assertion to be as solidly reasoned as possible.

[RandomGuy]

... and again, you fail to consider the choices that the God idea you worship had to have made. It isn't about my choices. It is about the decision tree required to construct your milieu.

You ignore all sorts of common sense, and what your reason tells you, so you can continue to believe yourself a good person, which I am confident you are.

Because you are a good person though, you have to kluge when it comes to the rationalizations, for the simple reason of reducing cognitive dissonance. You can't answer simple questions truthfully here. You choose to ignore them and dissemble. Good people don't worship evil things. Those two ideas (good person and worship something evil) are generally mutually exclusive. Is mental anguish harmful? Is it evil to hack children to death?

Your choice is to ignore the gun pointed at your head, so you can convince yourself that the thing pointing it at you is worth worshipping, without considering the choice it made to hold the gun.

The decision to hold the gun is still a choice. God's choice.



I think this is your biggest mischaracterization of my position - and ultimately where Christianity is different from all of the other religions (despite whatever brand of Catholicism you are familiar with that believes the opposite).

Namely that we're not "good," no matter how hard we try to be. I explained this earlier, "our good deeds are like garbage before GOD". We can't 'earn' heaven/eternal salvation by being 'good' because none of us are. That is why judgment of our brothers is futile, given that none of us are worthy - not one... Committing only one sin (however slight the infraction) is enough to separate us from GOD eternally. On those grounds, ultimately everyone falls short of heaven.



"ultimately where Christianity is different from all of the other religions"

Provably false. Christianity is not the only religion that teaches that human beings are innately flawed. Struggling against our base nature is a very common thread in MOST religions. If you want me to prove this, I will be happy to do so at great length. This idea is very easy for me to reject as false.

Moving on, in the interest of accuracy then replace "good" with "decent" or "moral" or "faithful" whatever you want to. Or try this: "you have convinced yourself you have made the right decisions, i.e. to worship something based on what you think are good reasons".

If your reasons are then shown to be shitty, then your own thinking about yourself "made the right decision" would be called into question. Hence the cognitive dissonance.

[RandomGuy]

Only one human was perfect (never sinned), and because He didn't rely on His divinity to defeat sin, His triumph over sin ultimately allowed SIN to condemn us all. That same triumph however was enough for him to mediate on our behalf.

IF we accept JESUS' offer of atonement - a gift that none of us deserve (grace) to prevent sure death that we did deserve (mercy) THEN sin cannot condemn us.

All that to say, that Christ's perfect blood (payment of 'life' to defeat 'death') was enough to atone for the sins of all humanity. Except people still reject his gift. A choice. Their choice. So they must be held accountable for that choice --> which means that they will be judged according to their works (which we've established aren't good enough).

JESUS' grace on the cross also saves all children who weren't of age to make that choice.

Mental anguish...??? ¡Please..! None of that matters in the context of eternity. As I said before, I'm not guaranteed a peaceful death... none of us are. Death is only a process. Our eternal destination is the key. Look up the death of the martyr Steven. Or for that matter, any martyr of the early church - many of them died agonizing deaths at the hands of their persecutors (stonings / beatings / hangings / burnings / maulings by lions / crucifixions) - yet I can assure you that in the presence of GOD none of that matters to them (and they would do it all over again).

Again, the concept of "eternity" makes God's actions so much more abominable, as it removes something infinitely precious (our infinitesimal lifespan) from those children.

Further, your argument's form is:

"It is infinitely good that these children were saved from the potential of infinite torture". Is infinite torture evil? Yes. So God is saving those children from his infinite torture? really? that's what you are going with?

Your response is then, "it is the victims fault/choice", as if that removes God's choices from the table.

God choose a shitty method (bad arguments and a flawed book) to convey it's message of "believe in me or ELSE". Then tortures people who don't find that convincing?

Why is your God choosing such a poor way to communicate its will? Surely a perfect being knows what it would take for me to believe in it.

[clambake]

to believe....you just need to be a newborn of a preacher. your indoctrination begins before you hit the fresh air.

[Phenomanul]

Yeah but you want to attribute science and everything else to bible God.

Pretty stupid, tbh.

Says the guy with the "I don't know" copout that fails to address the root of the question. Thanks for playing.

Now come back with "science is supposed to study those things to find the answer"... which of course I know. But then the fact that you've already decided that a Creator wasn't required, isn't science. It's just as speculative a statement as my own beliefs. Either way, I'm not in denial about what I believe of origins. You all keep giving the run-around to avoid answering the t=0 question.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Your argument makes no sense.

It makes sense to me. It not making sense to you is not the standard dipshit.

Your last post was so much more repetitive self assured drivel that I didn't respond to it and no one else will either.

Good job!

[RandomGuy]

So then enlighten me. Give me YOUR origins premise for the cosmos.

FWIW: "I don't know."

Science gives us some ideas, up to a point. I am willing to provisionally accept some explanations, since there are some good reasons (review of evidence, and attempt to find a theory that explains evidence) to accept it.

Your problem is that "I don't know" doesn't mean you get to fill in the blank with a favored explanation, and expect that to stick without evidence.

A thousand years ago, the explanation for the Sun would have been supernatural. "A blazing chariot being driven by an angel" or something similar to fill in the blank for "I don't know".

Today, we can safely hold that the explanation for the Sun is "a runaway fusion reaction". We did this by using evidence from billions of years ago, and current observations to put together a picture of our universe with a theory that fits the evidence, not the other way around.

The box of what "God" did keeps shrinking every year. It is impossible for us to say that we can't eventually discover where the universe came from, just as it was impossible for humans to say a thousand years ago that we would be able to pretty conclusively explain that big shiny thing that goes across the sky.

The earth moves around the sun. But it wasn't always that way. "the bible tells us the sun goes around the earth".

What changed?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

So then enlighten me. Give me YOUR origins premise for the cosmos.

This is stupid. Just because something is unknown doesn't make your interpretation right. We just don't know.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

FWIW: "I don't know."

Science gives us some ideas, up to a point. I am willing to provisionally accept some explanations, since there are some good reasons (review of evidence, and attempt to find a theory that explains evidence) to accept it.

Your problem is that "I don't know" doesn't mean you get to fill in the blank with a favored explanation, and expect that to stick without evidence.

A thousand years ago, the explanation for the Sun would have been supernatural. "A blazing chariot being driven by an angel" or something similar to fill in the blank for "I don't know".

Today, we can safely hold that the explanation for the Sun is "a runaway fusion reaction". We did this by using evidence from billions of years ago, and current observations to put together a picture of our universe with a theory that fits the evidence, not the other way around.

The box of what "God" did keeps shrinking every year. It is impossible for us to say that we can't eventually discover where the universe came from, just as it was impossible for humans to say a thousand years ago that we would be able to pretty conclusively explain that big shiny thing that goes across the sky.

The earth moves around the sun. But it wasn't always that way. "the bible tells us the sun goes around the earth".

What changed?

You're much nicer than I. I know you know he is completely disingenuous.

[Phenomanul]

Again, the concept of "eternity" makes God's actions so much more abominable, as it removes something infinitely precious (our infinitesimal lifespan) from those children.

What????

It ENSURES them 'infinitesimal lifespan' in GOD's presence as opposed to away from it.

Again, you keep saying you understand the context of eternity from a Christian standpoint, but you keep botching the basic premise.


Further, your argument's form is:

"It is infinitely good that these children were saved from the potential of infinite torture". Is infinite torture evil? Yes. So God is saving those children from his infinite torture? really? that's what you are going with?

Your response is then, "it is the victims fault/choice", as if that removes God's choices from the table.

God choose a shitty method (bad arguments and a flawed book) to convey it's message of "believe in me or ELSE". Then tortures people who don't find that convincing?

The rest of your argument is moot, in light of the fact YOU STILL don't understand that children are being spared from judgment (because they weren't at a cognitive point to understand the ramifications of their actions/choices).

The bigger issue is why you keep wanting to throw away the whole concept of accountability...? If you did, then how can you claim moral authority over a being that does require accountability...?


Why is your God choosing such a poor way to communicate its will? Surely a perfect being knows what it would take for me to believe in it.

The angels in heaven knew GOD, saw Him even... some of them still chose to rebel against Him (an unredeemable act).

Humans, as a wholly separate creation, ultimately have to believe Him on grounds of faith.

If we saw or met GOD in our current form, we would surely die because of the presence of sin in our life. At least we wouldn't be able to see GOD in the fullness of His nature. Either way, believing only after you've seen is 'the opposite' of faith - it simply isn't good enough for Him.



Everyone else is held accountable for their choices.

[clambake]

he's not disingenuous. ring this bell and he will always foam at the mouth. this only comes through training.

[RandomGuy]

Says the guy with the "I don't know" copout that fails to address the root of the question. Thanks for playing.

Now come back with "science is supposed to study those things to find the answer"... which of course I know. But then the fact that you've already decided that a Creator wasn't required, isn't science. It's just as speculative a statement as my own beliefs. Either way, I'm not in denial about what I believe of origins. You all keep giving the run-around to avoid answering the t=0 question.

"i don't know" isn't a cop out. "God did it" most assuredly is.

"I don't know" is the answer, when you don't know. Kind of hard to say that honesty is a "cop out".

This is another attempt to shift the burden of proof.

You "know" the universe was created by "god". How do you know? "this book says so". How do you know that book is true? "Because it says it is true"

Now give me, or anyone else for that matter, a good reason to accept that book over every other book that says it is the true explanation.

I haven't decided a creator isn't needed. I just see no evidence that yours is. THAT is YOUR burden of proof.

[Blake]

he's not disingenuous. ring this bell and he will always foam at the mouth. this only comes through training.

I would concur that seems to be the case

[Phenomanul]

This is stupid. Just because something is unknown doesn't make your interpretation right. We just don't know.

Show me where I say my interpretation is right...

My interpretation is speculative.

AS speculative as the next guy who claims "they don't know".

YOU all saying a believer is scientifically handicapped for reconciling his beliefs with an area where science is fundamentally limited is the crux of my argument. You can't have it both ways.

I can't believe you can't understand the distinction.

[Phenomanul]

"i don't know" isn't a cop out. "God did it" most assuredly is.

"I don't know" is the answer, when you don't know. Kind of hard to say that honesty is a "cop out".

This is another attempt to shift the burden of proof.

You "know" the universe was created by "god". How do you know? "this book says so". How do you know that book is true? "Because it says it is true"

Now give me, or anyone else for that matter, a good reason to accept that book over every other book that says it is the true explanation.

I haven't decided a creator isn't needed. I just see no evidence that yours is. THAT is YOUR burden of proof.

Semantics... like I said, you all LOVE to harp on the words and phrasings but gloss over the entire concept.

Again:



Show me where I say my interpretation is right...

My interpretation is speculative.

AS speculative as the next guy who claims "they don't know".

YOU all saying a believer is scientifically handicapped for reconciling his beliefs with an area where science is fundamentally limited is the crux of my argument. You can't have it both ways.

I can't believe you can't understand the distinction.

[Blake]

Show me where I say my interpretation is right...

My interpretation is speculative.

AS speculative as the next guy who claims "they don't know".

YOU all saying a believer is scientifically handicapped for reconciling his beliefs with an area where science is fundamentally limited is the crux of my argument. You can't have it both ways.

I can't believe you can't understand the distinction.

Yeah that's called god of the gaps

[Phenomanul]

he's not disingenuous. ring this bell and he will always foam at the mouth. this only comes through training.

I don't know, the only rabid person here is you. Always spewing hate and derision. Congratulations... I suppose. Yay you....!

[RandomGuy]

The bigger issue is why you keep wanting to throw away the whole concept of accountability...? If you did, then how can you claim moral authority over a being that does require accountability...?

Quite the opposite. I am not throwing away the concept of accountability. You are.


spe·cial plead·ing
noun
argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view.


Special pleading is a form of fallacious argument that involves an attempt to cite something as an exception to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exception.[1][2]

The lack of criticism may be a simple oversight (e.g., a reference to common sense) or an application of a double standard.

God is accountable for his evil, just as a human is.

You are the one granting the exception, NOT ME.

God makes choices, just like we do. You make excuses for those choices no matter how evil they are, because to do otherwise, would invite the infinite torture you can't admit is evil.

[Blake]

Yours is a murderous child killing god of the gaps

But he loves you!

[RandomGuy]

Yeah that's called god of the gaps

better:

Argument from ignorance (Latin: argumentum ad ignorantiam), also known as appeal to ignorance (in which ignorance stands for "a lack of contrary evidence"), is a fallacy in informal logic. It asserts that a proposition is true because it has not yet been proven false (or vice versa). This represents a type of false dichotomy in that it excludes a third option, which is that: there may have been an insufficient investigation, and therefore there is insufficient information to prove the proposition be either true or false. Nor does it allow the admission that the choices may in fact not be two (true or false), but may be as many as four,

true
false
unknown between true or false
being unknowable (among the first three).[1]
In debates, appeals to ignorance are sometimes used in an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

[Phenomanul]

Yeah that's called god of the gaps

But now you can't claim that your disbelief of GOD is scientifically supported, IT NEVER was... capiche?

[clambake]

I don't know, the only rabid person here is you. Always spewing hate and derision. Congratulations... I suppose. Yay you....!

just trying to remind others of what was pounded into you since birth.

you never had a chance to believe anything else.

[Blake]

better:

Sure. I was referring to that part about reconciling beliefs where science is limited...

[RandomGuy]

Show me where I say my interpretation is right...

My interpretation is speculative.

AS speculative as the next guy who claims "they don't know".

Every time you present a bible quote, and say you have "faith" that is a statement of truth.

"this is true, because I have faith it is true".

To say it is speculative, is to admit you don't have faith. Do you doubt God's Word?

[Phenomanul]

Quite the opposite. I am not throwing away the concept of accountability. You are.




God is accountable for his evil, just as a human is.

You are the one granting the exception, NOT ME.

God makes choices, just like we do. You make excuses for those choices no matter how evil they are, because to do otherwise, would invite the infinite torture you can't admit is evil.

NO... YOU are the one that keeps redefining the framework to attribute evil to GOD's actions. YOUR evil mind is doing that. Yet you claim moral superiority. You still don't get it.

Sin requires death ---> That's justice.

GOD justice requires execution of said verdict ---> People are accountable for their choices.

GOD isn't a human. He transcends us. Your entire premise is built on this fallacious footing.

[Phenomanul]

just trying to remind others of what was pounded into you since birth.

you never had a chance to believe anything else.


See now you're just assuming. Please, go on... tell others my life story. Do you deliberately lie for everything?

[Blake]

But now you can't claim that your disbelief of GOD is scientifically supported, IT NEVER was... capiche?

I never would make that claim, never need to. I'm not sure you'll ever capiche that it's on you to prove bible god is real.

Lol you go off on so many fucking irrelevant strawnan tangents it's hard to recall the original point. I'll give you credit for the these aren't the droids you're looking for straw goal post moving subtle moves

[Blake]

See now you're just assuming. Please, go on... tell others my life story. Do you deliberately lie for everything?

Lol says dude that's been telling others what they believe here

[Phenomanul]

Sure. I was referring to that part about reconciling beliefs where science is limited...

Saying 'limited' is selling it high. The scientific toolset grotesquely falls short of being able to answer the 'origins' question because everything we know about the laws of this universe, quantum physics, all the universal constants ---> it all breaks down at the point of origins.

[Blake]

NO... YOU are the one that keeps redefining the framework to attribute evil to GOD's actions. YOUR evil mind is doing that. Yet you claim moral superiority. You still don't get it.

Sin requires death ---> That's justice.

GOD justice requires execution of said verdict ---> People are accountable for their choices.

GOD isn't a human. He transcends us. Your entire premise is built on this fallacious footing.

Bible God provided his own rules of right and wrong. He broke a bunch of these rules.

It's as simple as that, retard.

[Blake]

Saying 'limited' is selling it high. The scientific toolset grotesquely falls short of being able to answer the 'origins' question because everything we know about the laws of this universe, quantum physics, all the universal constants ---> it all breaks down at the point of origins.

Yah, that sounds like God of the gaps to me. RG?

[Phenomanul]

I never would make that claim, never need to. I'm not sure you'll ever capiche that it's on you to prove bible god is real.

Lol you go off on so many fucking irrelevant strawnan tangents it's hard to recall the original point. I'll give you credit for the these aren't the droids you're looking for straw goal post moving subtle moves

LOL subtle moves.

EVERY OTHER THREAD IN THIS FORUM routinely suggests abiogenesis driven Evolution (life from non-life) and Naturalistic Origins (everything from nothing) are scientific fact.

You don't get to backpedal and state you weren't tossing in your 2 cents in support of those unsubstantiated premises.

[Phenomanul]

Bible God provided his own rules of right and wrong. He broke a bunch of these rules.

It's as simple as that, retard.

By exacting JUSTICE???

Ummm no. You just don't want to admit that accountability must be rendered. GOD's never sinned. We have.

GOD as an executioner of JUSTICE is no more amoral than a Judge or a Jury who renders a guilty verdict.

[clambake]

See now you're just assuming. Please, go on... tell others my life story. Do you deliberately lie for everything?

what am i lying about?

not expecting a response, but if so.....good luck

[Phenomanul]

Every time you present a bible quote, and say you have "faith" that is a statement of truth.

"this is true, because I have faith it is true".

To say it is speculative, is to admit you don't have faith. Do you doubt God's Word?

Saying that something is truth for me doesn't mean it isn't speculative by scientific standards.

My anecdote about what I witnessed in Chiapas Mexico was truth for me. I didn't write a thesis level publication to purport it as truth. But you need to acknowledge that science isn't the sole revealer of truth. That is the problem around this forum --> you all routinely act as though it is.

[Phenomanul]

what am i lying about?

not expecting a response, but if so.....good luck

For starters, saying I was born into indoctrination... but go on... fill in the rest of the gap with a convenient narrative for you to keep snickering at your strawmen.

[Blake]

LOL subtle moves.

EVERY OTHER THREAD IN THIS FORUM routinely suggests Evolution (life from non-life) and Naturalistic Origins (everything from nothing) are scientific fact.

You don't get to backpedal and state you weren't tossing in your 2 cents in support of those unsubstantiated premises.

Lol "evolution=life from non life" lolol

Are you talking about origin of the universe or evolution? Two different things, genius.

Evolution is fact. It's taught in universities as fact. There is plenty of evidence to support it as fact. Even the Pope recognizes it.

Let me know when you have any evidence of bible God.

[clambake]

your dad is a preacher man.

maybe you consider "indoctrination" to be an evil word.

do you have a different definition that you prefer?

[clambake]

look, i suggest you can't help it.

[Phenomanul]

Lol "evolution=life from non life" lolol

Are you talking about origin of the universe or evolution? Two different things, genius.

Evolution is fact. It's taught in universities as fact. There is plenty of evidence to support it as fact. Even the Pope recognizes it.

Let me know when you have any evidence of bible God.

Origin of Life (Kick-starting Evolution with Abiogenesis)

[Blake]

By exacting JUSTICE???

Ummm no. You just don't want to admit that accountability must be rendered. GOD's never sinned. We have.

GOD as an executioner of JUSTICE is no more amoral than a Judge or a Jury who renders a guilty verdict.

bible god being a hypocrite is my entire point. Yes, he's sinned.

You just let him off the hook because you want the prize offered at the end of the book.

[Blake]

Origin of Life (Kick-starting Evolution with Abiogenesis)

Plenty of Christians say it was god that Kickstarted evolution

You should really look up the definition of evolution before discussing it further

[Phenomanul]

your dad is a preacher man.

maybe you consider "indoctrination" to be an evil word.

do you have a different definition that you prefer?

Your whole premise is that religion IS evil.

Nazi-led Germany was indoctrinated in Aryanism...

Stalin-led (Russia) later turned Soviet Union and Mao Zedong-led China were indoctrinated with Communism...

Greed, Power, Corruption, can turn anything evil.

Yet none of the tenets of my beliefs rely on any of those things.

[Phenomanul]

Plenty of Christians say it was god that Kickstarted evolution

Their choice.

[Blake]

Their choice.

Not the point, jedi

[clambake]

wrong. adam and eve did that.

well.....only after dumping that first chick and replacing her with eve.

[Blake]

Your whole premise is that religion IS evil.

Nazi-led Germany was indoctrinated in Aryanism...

Stalin-led (Russia) later turned Soviet Union and Mao Zedong-led China were indoctrinated with Communism...

Greed, Power, Corruption, can turn anything evil.

Yet none of the tenets of my beliefs rely on any of those things.

Slavery is evil.

Bible endorses slavery.

Therefore Christianity is evil.

Pretty simple, unless you're cool with slavery

[Phenomanul]

bible god being a hypocrite is my entire point. Yes, he's sinned.

You just let him off the hook because you want the prize offered at the end of the book.

He is the author of life.

Sin is the consumer of life.

Sin demands death.

GOD's justice demands that these simple rules be met.

You want to judge Him based on a myopic and finite view of death itself.

The part YOU and RG are failing to see is that our physical death isn't the only death. Dying is a natural part of living. Our spiritual death which we bring on ourselves can far worse - that's the one that's tied having rejected GOD. Those who don't reject Him will never see a spiritual death.

[Phenomanul]

Not the point, jedi

So I'm supposed to believe what everyone else believes? I'm not you.

[clambake]

when you released evil from that ouija board, where did it go?

again....not expecting a response.

[Phenomanul]

when you released evil from that ouija board, where did it go?

again....not expecting a response.

LOL you need to go back and find the context of that thread. Before you start lying some more.

[Phenomanul]

Slavery is evil.

Bible endorses slavery.

Therefore Christianity is evil.

Pretty simple, unless you're cool with slavery

Respecting your masters is not the same as endorsing slavery but whatever. Ancient traditions aren't what are being endorsed by Christianity. Last I checked I don't have to marry my brother's wife should he perish.

Lots of teachings in the NT have that context... For example:

Where JESUS says, "If someone strikes you in the right cheek, offer him your left cheek" The passage isn't endorsing subjugation by beatings, in fact it acknowledges the fact that the beating might be unjust in nature - nevertheless, the point JESUS was trying to convey was temperance and restraint - and at a more powerful level forgiveness.

[clambake]

LOL you need to go back and find the context of that thread. Before you start lying some more.

you said evil arose from a ouija board.

you said

[Phenomanul]

you said evil arose from a ouija board.

you said

That's not what I said specifically. But go on... lie some more.

[clambake]

"temperance and restraint" was not in the witness statement from the money changers.

[clambake]

That's not what I said specifically. But go on... lie some more.

you'd probably rather not proceed with this.

am i right?

[DarrinS]

http://assets.sbnation.com/assets/2817947/billbored.gif

[Blake]

He is the author of life.

Sin is the consumer of life.

Sin demands death.

GOD's justice demands that these simple rules be met.

You want to judge Him based on a myopic and finite view of death itself.

The part YOU and RG are failing to see is that our physical death isn't the only death. Dying is a natural part of living. Our spiritual death which we bring on ourselves can far worse - that's the one that's tied having rejected GOD. Those who don't reject Him will never see a spiritual death.

Why do you go off on these tangents?

Bible god murdered children. Period. Where's the justice for them?

[Blake]

Respecting your masters is not the same as endorsing slavery but whatever. Ancient traditions aren't what are being endorsed by Christianity. Last I checked I don't have to marry my brother's wife should he perish.

Lots of teachings in the NT have that context... For example:

Where JESUS says, "If someone strikes you in the right cheek, offer him your left cheek" The passage isn't endorsing subjugation by beatings, in fact it acknowledges the fact that the beating might be unjust in nature - nevertheless, the point JESUS was trying to convey was temperance and restraint - and at a more powerful level forgiveness.

Nope, not referring to "respect your masters"

I'm referring to the parts that say "slavery is OK :tu"

[Blake]

So I'm supposed to believe what everyone else believes? I'm not you.

You're free to dismiss evidence. I'm free to lol at your dismissal of it and putting an invisible sky man in there instead.