Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: You do not believe that God has committed numerous atrocities against mankind. Will you please give us your definition of the word "atrocity"?

Berggy

It is based upon requirement. You present the situation that there is not enough evidence to support the notion that the Gods of the Bible exist because they dont show themselves physically when either you or someone else wants them. Therefore, God doesnt have to when everything about them are in the Bible.

These same people, who are not certain, are "certainly" willing to listen to the church denominations and/or The Roman Catholic Church concerning what they preach about the Bible, yet, these same people wont sit down to see if what is being said about the Bible is actually true.

They believe what the preachers states about the Bible, but they wont labor to prove if its true or not. Therein lies their uncertainty and their error. Its either the preachers are wrong, or the Bible is wrong. I say the preachers are wrong and the Bible is right.

Have never considered that the natural laws of physics and nature simply have something like an earthquake or tornado happen? Are you really that ignorant of how the world works that just because it happens and God doesnt stop it, whether or not it hurts anyone, that God is evil and to blame?

In addition, as I said before, there is no evidence to show that there were unborn babies or infants within Sodom and Gomorrah. They were all homosexuals. The only ones who were not were Lot and His family and they fled.

I contend that the Bible teaches that the wages of sin is death and to be punished for your sins, you are thrown into the Lake of Fire and are burned until you are consumed. Then, you are dead. Period. You will never live again, in anyway and that you never go to an ever-burning pit of flame to be tortured forever by fire and flame; that is ROMAN CATHOLIC teaching and its not Biblical.

I also contend that the Bible teaches that "Hell" is nothing but the state of being dead and/or the grave. I also contend that the Bible teaches that you "DONT" go to heaven when you die, but you are dead unless you are resurrected from the dead, ergo, brought back to life.

Basically;

1. You dont go to heaven or hell when you die. You are dead, period, until resurrected.
2. There is no fire-pit that you are thrown into to where you burn in writing agony in fire and flame forever and ever.

Johnny Skeptic

That is patently false. Have you ever heard of negligence? We have laws against negligence. I assume that you approve of those laws. If a man can easily prevent a person from drowning, and chooses not to, would you approve?

You mean when the Jews were not executing people themselves, including children, right?

Are you saying that you do not believe that policemen should not try to prevent crimes from occuring?

The majority of the one million people who died of starvation in the Irish Potato Famine were Christians. God refused to give food to those people. Are you saying that those people were bums off the street, and that God shouldn't have given them food?

Now who do you suppose created the bacteria (Bubonic Plague) that killed one fourth of the people in Europe, most of whom were Christians?

When I told you that God punishes people for sins that their ancestors committed, reference Exodus 20:5, you said that that was because they were committing sins to. However, babies do not have any concept of sin, but God kills them anyway.

Luke 6:28-35 say "Bless them that curse you, and pray for them which despitefully use you. And unto him that smiteth thee on the one cheek offer also the other; and him that taketh away thy cloak forbid not to take thy coat also. Give to every man that asketh of thee; and of him that taketh away thy goods ask them not again. And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise. For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them. And if ye do good to them which do good to you, what thank have ye? for sinners also do even the same. And if ye lend to them of whom ye hope to receive, what thank have ye? for sinners also lend to sinners, to receive as much again. But love ye your enemies, and do good, and lend, hoping for nothing again; and your reward shall be great, and ye shall be the children of the Highest: for he is kind unto the unthankful and to the evil."

So, Christians are supposed to help everyone, not just fellow Christians.

Berggy

You are comparing apples to oranges. It is one thing to be specifically invovled in a situation as to where things depend upon you else they would not survive. It is another thing to give the tools to fend for yourself and live your own life and then let people do so.

Prevention can only go so far. God has already given us the means to prevent unrighteousness and its written within God's Laws, however, it is upon the shoulders of the people to choose whethor or not they wish to follow God's Laws.

You may call them Christians, but until I see evidence that each and every single one of those people that you say were Christians "were" Christians, then I dont believe a word your saying.

Even more so, you have no evidence at all to say or even hint that God created the bacteria that caused the Bubonic Plauge.

We have been over this. I dont desire to re-hash subjects that you ignore my evidence for.

The key word in that entire passage of Luke that you have quoted is the word "enemies". It is the Greek word "echthros" and it means an adversary, enemy, foe. According to Biblical context, according to Matthew 10:36, it states that man's foes shall be those of his own house-hold. The same Greek word for enemies in Luke 6:35 is used in this passage.

Therefore, according to this context, to love your enemies would be to love those of your own house-hold, not the entire world, for also according to Biblical context, New Covenant Christians, would be following God's Law and therefore, why should righteousness have to with unrighteousness? What fellowship?

Even more so, according to 1 John 5:3, to have the love of God is to keep God's Law and the definition of "love", by itself, is Romans 13:10, which is the fulfilling of the Law, which means, accordingly, if you wish to love someone, you treat them according to God's Law; couple this with Isaiah 8:20, which includes the testimony along with the Law, and then you have the Bible. So, in essence and only in this way, would Christians help someone who was not a Christian - they would treat them accordingly to God's Law, which is through the Bible.

Now, either you can debate me, on the myriad of different subjects that I have suggested to you, or not. If not, then I am done talking with you. Im tired of these circles that you insist on going through, re-hashing the subjects over and over in an rediculous attempt to try to prove a point that was already refuted.

Angra Mainyu

He would be the cause of them too, but in those cases, there would be no negative consequences.

Assuming God’s existence, it’d be because God created the whole universe, the world, etc.

For instance, if scientists make genetically modified mice that will develop cancer, then those scientists are one of the causes of those mice developing cancer – which could be useful, actually. But the point is that they could be considered causal agents. Now, what if they made genetically modified humans that would develop cancer? Would they not be considered responsible?

Still, as I mentioned, natural disasters would be only one more example in my view; God would be responsible for creating a bad universe, with all the pain, suffering, death, etc.

Of course, as I mentioned earlier in the thread, we compare a persons (or a fictional characters’ ) actions with our own moral views, if we are to pass judgment.

If I argue that the actions of the Nazis were unacceptable, it’s because I’m judging them on my moral standards - though according to the standards of most people, the conclusion would be the same.

In the case of God, His actions would definitely be unjustifiable when I see them in light of my views. But my point is that, based on moral views that are generally accepted by most people (theists included) BG should be considered evil. For some reason, people seem to make an exception for this particular entity.

And I would argue that no book can do that, and that includes the Bible.
What does it mean to say that a book “says” something?
The book is an inanimate object.

If the statement is not a quotation (i.e., book A says “B”), it would seem to mean that readers would interpret it in a certain manner – readers with a certain cultural background; for instance, they need to understand (of course) the language of the text; also, they need to be familiar with things the text refers to, etc.

In the specific case of the Bible, interpretations vary widely and wildly, and there does not seem to be enough common ground to reach agreement on what it says, on many themes at least. So, unless the context is clear, I prefer to say that the Bible says something according to X person/group of people, or something along those lines.

I disagree. Again, I don’t know what you considers that existed in the beginning, but the world I was referring to, was the world many Christians believe with: a world with Hell and eternal suffering.

Further, even in the real world, there’s disease, pain, death, etc. That’s not dependant on people’s actions, in all cases – in some cases, people might cause that, but that’s not always the case, and even in those instances, God’s responsibility could be argued: again, He’s the creator; He knew how the world would turn out.

First, the selectors didn’t know that the Books were the word of God – they had no evidence that would suggest so.

Second, they didn’t do such a good job at avoiding contradictions. As I see it, whenever someone points to a contradiction, believers tend to argue that “in context”, the paragraph means something else to what would appear at first. But with that criteria, almost anything would be explicable, it seems.

Third, you argue that the translators condemned homosexuality because it was unnatural and completely against everything was designed for. However, there’s no proof that there’s such thing as design, and the argument that something is “unnatural” seems to always fail in my view. But before I get into that, I have to ask:

Why would you (or they) say homosexuality is unnatural?
In other words, what are the specific reasons? How would you define “unnatural”?

The belief in the literal truth of the Creation myth contained in the Bible, as understood by those who called themselves Creationists. In other words, that God created the Earth and life forms (plants, animals, etc.), in the way explained in Genesis (again, by the most usual interpretations of Genesis; you may have a different one, of course).

That partially answers my questions, but I still don’t know what you think about homosexuality. Ok, you believe what the Bible says about that. But I don’t know what the Bible says about it, according to you. All I know is that there are conflicting views on what the Bible teaches. Most (but not all) people seem to believe that God condemns homosexuality (and bisexuality). However, whether gay people are punished is another story. Opinions vary widely.

On that note, your view on Hell does not appear to be the most common one. Incidentally, Roman Catholics do not teach that there’s an ever-burning put of flame. Many Conservative Protestants do. Roman Catholics seem to have an ambiguous view of Hell – it’d still be harsh, but apparently no pit of flame; further, it seems it wouldn’t even be a place (e.g. , http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/jo...071999_en.html )



If not, what would happen to them, in your view?

On a side note, it’s ironic that that the harshest take on your views would come from a Christian perspective: rhutchin argued that the punishment for blasphemers should be the death penalty, and he considers that “Blasphemy is telling people that the Bible says something that it does not and thereby misleads a person to believe a lie”, and “
Let me revise what I said to also specify that a blasphemer is one who openly opposes that which the Bible says and teaches others to do so also. Those who know what the Bible says and are content with that, ever though they do not believe it, are not blasphemers.”

It would seem to me than arguing that there’s no eternal torment in Hell, that Adam and Eve were not the first two people, or that the Flood wasn’t global, would fall into rhutchin’s “blasphemy” category (rhutchin, if I’ve misinterpreted, could you please explain your definition of “blasphemy” in more detail? ).


And the Quran makes claims about Qurangod’s existence, etc. However, there’s no evidence that the claims about Biblegod’s (or QG’s, for that matter) existence contained in the Bible, are true.

The point is: there is no proof that BG exists, and in absence of any solid evidence, it’s clear that He doesn’t exist (the same could be said about other deities, of course). These arguments were made earlier in the thread, where they were explained in much greater detail.

If your argument is that there’s sufficient evidence, I would disagree, but further, I would counter that it would still be God’s fault that I cannot believe in Him, because He would not have made me capable of understanding the evidence that you can understand.

But others would say that you’re wrong, and that your interpretation of the Bible is incorrect – rhutchin, for instance, would agree that the Bible condemns homosexuality, but would reject your view that there’s no eternal torment. And that’s only an example.

Is the Bible wrong?
I think the more precise question would be: is Christianity (according to X) wrong?
Based on the available evidence, I think that that could be said (i.e., it’s wrong) about every version of Christianity I’ve come across.

Everyone were homosexuals?
Of course, it would still have been mass-murder to kill them, but it would seem extremely unlikely that 100% of the inhabitants of a city were gay, and that there were no children. Does the Bible make such claim, in your view?
If not, I’d say that a better interpretation would be that it accepts there were straight people and children as well, simply because that’s the case in all cities we know about. But to clarify, if you still consider that they were all gay, I accept that of course, as your version of the Bible.

Still, I would argue that God's actions would be just as unjust as if He'd killed straight adults, as well as children.

That’s not the Roman Catholic teaching. It used to be a Roman Catholic teaching, as well as a teaching of most Protestant denominations, but Catholics seem to have dropped it. But it seems to be what rhutchin, who is not a Roman Catholic, believes.

In any case, that punishment would be atrocious. The death penalty – and in a particularly heinous manner – for thought “crimes” and for “sins” that were inevitable.

Johnny Skeptic

But you don't know what God's law is regarding homosexuality, only what the Bible writers say it is. That is one the problems that comes when a God uses human proxies to tell people what to do instead of telling them himself. It is not at all difficult to change the Bible. Today, it would be a simple matter for some skeptics to change parts of the Bible, take it to some remote jungle regions, and deceive at least a few people at least some of the time.

It is a well-established fact that the Bible in not inerrant. Consider the following:

http://www.infidels.org/library/maga.../4evide92.html

Farrell Till

Despite the editing process by which the canonical books were selected, the biblical text is still fraught with inconsistencies that make Mr. Miller's claim of "unequaled internal harmony" a myth that is believed only by gullible bibliolaters who haven't bothered to investigate the claim. As noted in an earlier article ("A Perfect Work of Harmony?" TSR, Spring 1990, p. 12), whoever wrote 2 Kings 10:30 obviously believed that Jehu's massacre of the Israelite royal family was the will of Yahweh, but the prophet Hosea just as obviously disagreed and pronounced a curse upon the house of Jehu to avenge the "blood of Jezreel" that Jehu shed in the massacre (Hosea 1:4). Apparently, the "inspired" prophets and biblical writers had their theological and political differences as much as modern-day religious leaders.

Any present day inerrantist would affirm with his dying breath that the book of Ezekiel was unquestionably inspired of God, yet the rabbis who made the canonical selection were of a different mind. A bitter controversy surrounded this book before it was finally selected for inclusion in the Hebrew canon. The rabbis were bothered by chapters 40-48, which contained information that was difficult to reconcile with the Torah. Ezekiel 46:6 is just one example of the problems the rabbis had to deal with in these chapters. Here Ezekiel said that the sacrifice for the new moon should consist of "a [one] young bullock without blemish, six lambs, and a ram," but the instructions for this same sacrificial ceremony in Numbers 28:11 stipulated two young bullocks, seven lambs, and a ram." The discrepancy or, if you please, lack of "internal harmony" is readily apparent to anyone who wants to see it.

At least it was apparent to the rabbis who had to decide whether the book should be considered canonical. According to Hebrew tradition, Rabbi Haniniah ben Hezekiah retired to a room with 300 "measures of oil" and worked day and night until he arrived at explanations that would "dispose of the discrepancies" (The Cambridge History of the Bible, vol. 1, Cambridge University press, 1970, p. 134). One wonders why such an undertaking as this was necessary to decide the canonicity of a book that exhibits "unequaled internal harmony." Could it be that Rabbi Haniniah ben Hezekiah was merely the Bible inerrantist of his day, who rather than accepting the face value of what was written spent several days searching for innovative interpretations that would make doctrinally embarrassing passages not mean what they obviously were intended to mean?

As an example of an "alleged" Bible contradiction that has been "successfully explained," let's just review one that was recently noted in "The Resurrection Maze" (TSR, Spring 1992, p. 13). According to Matthew, Mark, and Luke, Mary Magdalene was in the group of women who were told by angels at the empty tomb that Jesus had risen "even as he said," and Luke even said that when the women heard this, "they remembered his words" (24:9). Such statements as these (aside from the fact that Matthew even claimed that the women saw Jesus, held him, and worshipped him as they were running from the tomb to tell the disciples what they had seen, 28:9) definitely indicate that the women left the tomb convinced that Jesus has risen from the dead. Despite the clarity of these statements, John's account of the resurrection had Mary saying, after she had found the disciples, "They have taken away the Lord out of the tomb, and we know not where they have laid him" (20:1).

Johnny: By the way, Farrell Till invites Christians to post their arguments about inerracy at the Skeptical Review. The Skeptical Review is at http://www.infidels.org/library/maga...sr/index.shtml. If you go there and particpate in debates about inerrancy, you will get much more than you bargained for.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Berggy: From a Christian perspective, everything that happens in the world except for the choices that humans make is caused or allowed by God, so you obviously do not have any idea whatsoever what you are talking about. No hurricane can injure and kill people, including babies, without God's permission. No rapist can rape a woman unless he has God's permission. Now are you actually going to claim that the Devil originally created hurricanes, and has always determined where they go? God did not allow the firstborn males in Egypt to die. He deliberately killed them.

From a Christian perspective, either God created microorganisms, or someone else did. Who do you believe created microorganisms? If the Devil created the Bubonic Plague, who gave him the power to do it?

From a Christian perspective, there is no such thing as a natural disaster. If God created the earth, the weather, earthquakes, and tornados, he did so supernaturally.

It is evil for God to refuse to protect women from rapists, and to refuse to protect people from being killed in traffic accidents that are not their fault. Have you ever heard of negligence? We have laws against negligence. I assume that you approve of those laws. Loving humans try to prevent crime and traffic accidents. There is no evidence that God consistently prevents crime and traffic accidents, if at all. The simple truth is that Christians do not receive any more tangible benefits than anyone else does, often much less. One million people who died of starvation in the Irish Potato Famine, most of whom were Christians. If you had been alive back then, if you had had enough food to feed those people, would you have fed them, or would you have conducted months of research to try to determine whether or not they were Christians? How could James possibly have known which Christians were brothers and sisters? Many people masquerade as Christians. The Bible tells Christians to help everyone, not just Christians.

But surely there must have been some children who were under 12 years old. Is it your position that all children who are under 12 years old practice homosexuality. What about all of the firstborn males that God killed in Egypt? Some of them must have been under 12 years of age, and I doubt that you will claim that they were all homosexuals. Surely homosexuality existed all over the world, not just in Sodom and Gomorrah, so there is no way that God killed everyone in Sodom and Gomorrah only because of homosexuality.

Homosexuality is not uncommon among birds and animals.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: You do not believe that God has committed numerous atrocities against mankind. Will you please give us your definition of the word "atrocity"?

A web definition for the word "atrocity" is "the quality of being shockingly cruel and inhumane."

The Merriam-Wester's Online Dictionary defines the word "atrocious" as "1 : extremely wicked, brutal, or cruel : BARBARIC

2 : APPALLING, HORRIFYING <the atrocious weapons of modern war>

3 a : utterly revolting : ABOMINABLE <atrocious working conditions> b : of very poor quality <atrocious handwriting>"

Johnny: Is it your position that none of God's actions and allowances fit those definitions?

Are you aware that Christians do not receive any more tangible benefits than anyone else does?

Berggy

The laws of nature are created to be what they are and there must always be a positive side to things and a negative side to things. However, if you get involved with the negative of things, why should God be to blame? You are the one who put yourself into that situation, either knowingly or unknowingly and just because God created the environment, doesnt mean that God is responsible for what happens to you in that environment when what happens is dependant on a myriad of different factors. Thats also like saying that because you move into the forst and a bear attacks you that God is responsble because they initially created bears and the forest and because of that, it caused them to attack you and you got hurt.

Not the same thing.

Yes, those scientists would be considered a cause of what happened, but I dont agree that is the same thing as saying that because you upsides and down-sides to your existence within this world, that you can be emotionally and/or physically hurt, that God is just a sadistic bastard. It means that this was just the way it was made.

Even more so, you can take this to the extreme, I can call "you" responsible for all the hurt and pain that you children(if you have them that is) would experience in this world because "you" decided to help bring them into this world full of all that it has. Therefore, you are the one responsible for "ALL" of the negative things that happen to your children. How is that fair? You wouldnt be responsible for a child's descision to murder someone else would you, when you raised them not to murder? Its because "they" chose to do so - "they" chose to cause pain and sorrow.

Well, thats just it. You do what is right in your own eyes. Nothing more and nothing less.

I can prove that the Bible specifically states that there is to be "no" personal interpretation to anything that it states. However, as with my challenges to formal debates, I would wager that this wouldnt get far either.

Those are not Christians, they are Judeo-Christians. There is a difference.

There is pain, disease and death because there is also pleasure, health and life. Its a balanced equation. You cannot have one without the other. Its part of the natural cycles of things that we have in this world. Its so easy to look at all the negative aspects of life and never consider the positive ones.

Oh really? There is more evidence suggest so than to suggest to the contrary. The evidence resides in the fact that the Bible doesnt contradict science like people have been taught, prophecies written within the Bible have been fulfilled (yeah, I know - no evidence for this right? Well take it one step at a time :P ) and there is consistancy throughout its pages.

Yeah, Ive read some supposed contradictions and I would be happy to go through some of them at a later time, if you would like.

Do I really need to go through the anatomical differences between males and females and how they completely fit together as opposed to male on male and female on female and how it just doesnt "naturally" work?

I have no desire to get into a discussion concerning why I think its unnatural when its so blatantly obvious.

Yes, I contend that the Bible teaches a literal creation of the planet in seven days.

Oh, then I must surely keep up with the times, because Im very familiar with the selling of indulges in the middles ages, give by those who served the Roman Catholic Church, to spare them from hell and gain entry to heaven.

So let me clarify, I contend the Bible doesnt teach what the Roman Catholic Church, at this present time or in the past teaches about Hell, nor what most of the church denominations state about being continually burned in fire by God for all enternity.

I contend that the Bible states that the punishment of sins is to be thrown into the lake of fire, yes, but that you will burn until you die, period. I contend that the Bible states that death is the opposite of life and that when you die, your dead.

I would merely show the context of the scriptures as to what the word "Blasphemy" means. It is the Greek word "blasphemia" and/or "blasphemeo" and it simply means to vilify, slander, to speak reproachfully, rail at, revile, calumniate, to be evil spoken of - specifically of those who by comptemptuous speech intentionally come short of the reverence due to God or to sacred things. In addition, it means use impious and reproachful speech injurious to the divine majesty.

Im not that familiar with the Quran, althought I have looked at it briefly.

Yes, I understand the arguments and I dont think they are applicable.

Frankly, thats a cheap excuse to serves only to render you guiltless for any and all your actions, no matter what they might be.

It depends on what you mean by eternal torment. If you mean that the eternal torment lies withint he fact that the dead will be dead forever and that they will never live again, then I would agree, but if your talking about them being in hell, moaning and be-wailing their existence because they are seperate from their loved ones and from God and/or being burned continuously by fire and flame, then I would prove from the Bible that that is not a Biblical teaching, but a church denomination teaching who are paid to brain-wash the people with lies about the Bible.

The reason for their destruction was because they were all engaging in homosexual activity, which I can "prove" from the scriptures to be so. In addition, if the city was full of children and/or babies, which would be innocents, then Abraham would have found them, plain and simple and would have gotten then out, but he only found Lot and his family.

Therein lies the difference. You view the destruction of evil as being evil. Homosexuality is abnormal, its not natural. Woman and Man go together, they are each other's counterparts and it goes against all that is natural and good.

It might have been inevitable that someone would have sinned, or, as 1 John 3:4 states, the violation of God's Laws, but it would be that person's choice to committ those sins.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Berggy: God needlessly withholds evidence of his existence and will from some people who would accept it if they were aware of it. Those people have rejected God out of ignorance, not out of intent. Under our legal system, although a man can be punished for breaking a law that he is not aware of, no man can be sentenced to life in prison or death for breaking a law that he is not aware of. It is a question of how badly God wants to help ensure that as many people as possible go to heaven, and as few people as possible go to hell. If I believed that heaven and hell exist, if I had God's power, I would do much more than he does to help ensure that as many people as possible go to heaven, and as few people as possible go to hell.

It is evil for God to refuse to protect women from rapists, and to refuse to protect people who are involved in traffic accidents that are not their fault.

You believe that God killed all of the firstborn males in Egypt, including young firstborn males, right?

It is your position that the Devil creates hurricanes and harmful microorganisms? If so, who gave him the power to do it?

Mark 14:21 says "The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born." How do you interpret that verse?