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??
Printable View
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??
Now, now, who is being a sophist? That isn't even consistent with your own delusional framework.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phenomanul
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?
Once again, wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phenomanul
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?
I have already answered this rather directly.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phenomanul
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
Or wonder why God was so concerned with foreskins.
A God Of Foreskins
Ewwww. Really?Quote:
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
Think of God as a priest claiming that God wants that and the stories start to fall into place almost universally.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
Eyup.Quote:
Originally Posted by FuzzyLumpkins
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"
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
But yeah... If you would happily go to hell, how then do you consider that infinite torture?
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:Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
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.
You believe in eternal time. ummm ok.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandomGuy
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."
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by 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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake
Stubbornness is one of my flaws... so sue me.Quote:
Originally Posted by Th'Pusher
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phenomanul
Bible God is a hypocritical piece of shit that breaks his own commandments.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phenomanul
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.
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 :lmaoQuote:
Originally Posted by Th'Pusher
blah blah blah blah... LOL innocent. None of us are. The standard of perfection was set too high.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake
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'.Quote:
Originally Posted by Blake
You're an idiotQuote:
Originally Posted by Phenomanul
Lol. that google search didn't take long.
http://www.nola.com/religion/index.s..._scholars.html
Money quote incoming.Quote:
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.
Here's another.Quote:
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.
Quote:
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.
Bible God's communication skills suck badly
It is a free message board. I am personally requesting that you continue to argue with RG and Fuzzy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phenomanul
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phenomanul
Define "human spirit". I can't tell you if I believe something is true without understanding what you mean.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phenomanul
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.
Quote:
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.
I am pointing out the logical implications of your beliefs.Quote:
Originally Posted by Phenomanul
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?