bfniii

no, those are examples of what we think are originals. there's no guarantee that there wasn't an earlier version that was radically different and the one we have now is a flawed copy.



in the historical sense. in terms of what we know from antiquity, there isn't another opus that even comes close. it's amazing the special pleading that goes on with works from antiquity.



it's a bunch of semantics



who is "we"? nothing i have seen on this website convinces that your statement is true.



what test exists to prove that something is divinely inspired?



no, it isn't. if you disagree, prove it.



until someone proves otherwise, why should i not?

bfniii

endowing people with the ability to choose.



given what is required for that outcome to happen, yes.



that depends. what have you done for me lately?

Jack the Bodiless

bfniii:
Temple inscriptions are those originally carved when the temple was built (they are part of the temple decorations), they are not copies. That's why later tampering (such as the chiselling-out of cartouches) is so obvious. And just how often do you think Hammrabi's 8-foot-tall basalt pillar has been copied and replaced? Stone is obviously a far superior medium to paper for this sort of thing. And the Egyptian Book of the Dead has been preserved in tombs: grave-robbers weren't in the habit of replacing it with an updated copy during the robbery!
Apologetic hyperbole.
It means that you have no case, no argument.
Another "reversal of the burden of proof" fallacy. You have presented nothing whatsoever which would convince anyone else that this statement is FALSE.

(...and, of course, the Bible's inaccuracies are well-known)
Yes, it is. If you disagree, prove it. Billions of Christians think you're wrong. Indeed, even YOU say so: because you keep quoting Romans 10:9 as your definition of what is a "Christian", and that doesn't specify a requirement to believe in all parts of the OT.
I have proved otherwise (and not for the first time). So will you desist now?

Withered

Okay, this is getting old.
God is not unmerciful for allowing suffering and death.
God is unmerciful because he kills people for their offenses, when other more reasonable options are available.
Maybe a severe talking to? Maybe some sort of other, less than lethal punishment. You know, a merciful one that is in line with wanting to be perceived as merciful. Maybe god could have built a prison, or maybe have instituted a penalty system that would keep people out of heaven for a period of time based on their crimes. This sort of thing would even allow those condemned to hell to get out of hell after serving a finite period of time for the very finite crimes they committed against god, thus allowing him to exhibit even more mercy, thus reinforcing the merciful thing.

Of course the god myth character chose to condemn and kill those that did not obey him, then sentencing their souls to eternal hell.
First, there is no contrived distinction between allowing and inflicting.
The words have two different meanings. You can understand that, can't you?

Second, it is NOT sophistry. I can call what god does to the people of the flood story "inflicting", and be totally correct. Here is how: Bible god killed those people. He could have allowed them a natural and timely death, despite his wrath. However he inflicted his punishment on them, that punishment being death.

Doctors inflicting pain are not a good analogy to use. Yes they do inflict pain, for a greater good. But they use anesthesia, and then make their best efforts to repair the damage they do while trying to heal.

Let us look at god in comparison, in regards to mercy.
God saw that mankind was sick (with sin), and instead of trying to heal people, he simply killed them.

Score one for doctors for taking an oath and trying to save even the terminally ill, and suicides. God not so much.

Doctors try to make the process of healing painless. God just drowns the everything in the world. Score doctors, god not so much.

In order for doctors to be as terrible as the god character, they would have to break into your house without warning, demand that you worship them for bringing you into the world, then stab you to death if you refuse, all the while telling you it is wrong to kill. That would make doctors cruel and hypocritical. Just like the god you chose to worship.

Yeah, i can see that you are pretty much out of ideas, and unable to do anything to further the point of this discussion.
On the contrary, i am completely comfortable saying you have only applied human standards to god, as no other standards for judging god exist. Are you claiming that there are standards that apply to god that are not human? Please elaborate on these without falling back on special pleading or special exemptions, or any other faulty logic.
Misunderstanding. Axiom. True. Atheism.

I do not think those words mean what you think they mean.
You are not questioning anything. You are viewing the evidence provided and dismissing it out of hand, in an obtuse and smug manner that makes it clear you find the ideas laughable, and then refusing to support your own positive claims with even the smallest shred of evidence. Instead relying on some school yard antics of "is not...". That is why the debate is becoming both repetitive and useless.

What you are doing is representing the utter inability of christians to give their god the support that he so desperately needs in order to stay relevant.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to bfniii: Prove that God is merciful.

What evidence do you have that God is not an imposter? Paul says that it is not surprising that Satan masquerades as an angel of light. Now how could Paul have known that it was not actually God who is masquerading as an angel of light? The simple truth is that if God is evil, it would not be surprising if he deceived Paul.

By the way, I do not call creating hurricanes and killing people with them merciful, or sending people to hell for eternity without parole.

bfniii

first, they could be copies of another work that existed before it that was different. the medium does not make it original. second, just because we don't have another of the same in the same medium does not mean it didn't exist before.



it's the possibility that is relevant.



i accept your concession of the point



no, it means that you have merely posted your opinion, not objective fact.



there is no such thing in an open forum.



other than to respond and refute every point or source that is directed at me.



the mistaken opinion of a few people who claim to be christian is no more proof that the OT shouldn't be believed any more than madeleine murray o'hair should be lauded as the quintessential atheist.



you have inaccurately conflated two different ideas. just because some flawed poll shows that some christians don't believe in inerrancy does not mean that they all necessarily think that any one thing in the bible is false. furthermore, were the people in the poll you cite able to adequately define the very thing they reject? not all skeptics accurately represent skepticism.



but it certainly is a logical conclusion. otherwise, why even bothering acknowledging that verse?



i sure must have missed it. could you run it past me again?

bfniii

aside from being laughable, how can you prove this would be more effective? forget that. how can you prove it would be effective at all?



at some point, the punishment has to be administered. otherwise, you are caught in an eternal pardon and god is then unjust for not logically implementing the system he created.



apparently, he did.



this is a quintessential example of infidel reasoning. all you are asking for is just one more chance than what god has already built into the system. why is your number of chances the correct number?



eventually, it can't be any other way if god is to be just.



prove that their death wasn't natural or timely. why do you get to choose who dies when and how? even if do state it, how can you prove you are right? it doesn't even matter. death and suffering are a part of this life. you still haven't answered why god is unjust for allowing it.



death is not punishment. it is a reality of this existence and it serves a purpose. punishment is something else. besides, the unpleasant aspects of this existence are temporary. each person is allowed the opportunity to be ultimately redeemed of their own free choice.



prove that god does not have a greater good.



sophistry. the point is that they inflict pain and they have a reason why they are doing it.



you are operating from the hidden assumptions that:

god was unjust for allowing them to have free choice in their decisions

god was unjust for allowing suffering or a degenerated state

god did nothing to ultimately redeem each person despite their choices.



but some pain cannot be avoided regardless of their efforts. that's the point. you assume that god can avoid allowing pain but you have neither the knowledge nor the experience for such an assumption to be anything more than idle speculation.



wow. that is a completely absurd analogy. first problem, god does not break into our existence. he created it. doctors do not create their patients. second problem, you are implying that god is unjust for adhering to a system of justice. third problem, god has told humans it is wrong to murder and he is right for doing so.



except for the ones that he has revealed to us. now just prove that an omnipotent god is incapable of doing so.



we only have a cursory understanding of how to apply morality to our existence. god logically operates from a superset in comparison. it is illogical of us to state we can know that what god is doing is unjust.



brave response. very pointed.

Mageth

Has it been a while since you read Genesis 3, or the rest of the Bible for that matter?

Perhaps you should forego the frequent use of the term "logical", as you don't seem to know what it means.

bfniii

i see in genesis 3 that death is a consequence of a choice we made. you can play semantics and call it punishment if you like. it still doesn't answer the question that i have asked many times, why is god wrong for allowing death in this existence?



ad hominems are interesting. they usually confirm that a person has reached the limit of their understanding.

i tell you what pal, when i see some people around here not acting dogmatically (not responding to my questions about authority, ignoring alternate viewpoints, hiding behind made-up burden of proof excuses, repeating original assertions when faced with critique), then your statement might have a scrap of credibility.

Mageth

You stated that "it [death] is a reality of this existence and it serves a purpose." However, in Gen. 3, which I assume is contained in a book from which you garner some of your notions, death was not a "reality" of this existence until A&E disobeyed.

A&E were warned beforehand that, if they ate of (or touched) the fruit, they would die. Well, they did, and (eventually), sure enough, they died. That (death) was certainly part of the punishment inflicted on them by YHWH for their disobedience (who else had the power to set up such a system but YHWH? The scheme was his doing), though not all of it (YHWH lists some other punishments for their disobedience, e.g. pain in childbirth, thorns growing in the crops, and so on). But it was the only part he warned them about prior to their disobedience.

Further, the Bible gives no "purpose" to death beyond as a sort of punishment for or result of sin - sin requires death, or death results from sin. Either way, God set up the system, therefore God determined that sin requires death, or results in death. Therefore, death can certainly be viewed as a form of punishment established by God. Is God "wrong" to do so? I can't say; I don't know the rules for cosmic creation games. But it seems to me like he could have come up with something a bit more...fair; a bit less draconian.

That little story in Genesis is meant to convey to us how death entered the world, I suppose. It's a good story.

Well, let's look at that story. Note that YHWH placed that magical, deadly (but extremely tempting) tree right smack dab in the middle of the garden, accessible to A&E, and let the serpent wander around therein. Knowing all the time that A&E would die (and suffer other inconveniences and pains) if they gave in and partook of the fruit thereof. Now, I suppose YHWH didn't have to put the tree there...but he did anyway. And in any case, YHWH is supposed to know what will happen, so supposedly he knew they would give in and eat the fruit.

YHWH was wrong to do that (place the tempting, deadly tree in the garden, accessible to his prized creations) unless he wanted A&E to eat the fruit. But he told them not to, and promised that they'd suffer if they did. If he wanted them to, eat it then why the little game? Such duplicitousness is wrong. Sneaky, sneaky God!

To be honest, the story doesn't really make much sense at all from YHWH's perspective. YHWH doesn't come out looking too good no matter how you slice the apple. (Unless you twist the story to your liking because you assume from the get-go that YHWH can do no wrong, as you seem to do).

Of course, you can just write off the whole story as an interesting allegory, but not literally true. That's what I do. Death is a natural part of the world. We didn't earn death by disobeying God. Eating a fruit didn't introduce death into the world. That, I'm afraid, is just a silly notion (colorful, but silly). God ain't got nothin' to do with it (death), as God has nothin' to do with the natural world at all. God, you see, is just as mythical as Genesis 3.

Then why did you just use one?

JK; that's not really an ad hom, as my comment was not really an ad hom. Apparently, you don't know the proper definition of ad hom either.

And you're kinda stepping onto thin ice. Anyone can look at the comment of yours that I mentioned to see if what I said has any basis. However, your comment (that an ad hom "usually confirms that a person has reached the limit of their understanding"), which offhandedly implies that I have reached a limit of my understanding, would be hard for anyone to verify in the context of this thread. (Plus, many people around here are familiar with me, and I assume (hope?) they realize that I'm not anywhere close here to "reaching the limit of my understanding" here, and that my comment certainly did not "confirm", or even suggest, that I am getting close to that point...)

Stop right there. Please do not call me "pal", "son", or anything like that. I consider that personally insulting in this context. (I'm serious).

I'll return the favor and not call you names (or use the more subtle insults like "pal") in our conversation.

I think it's pretty obvious from your use of "logical" in the quote I provided that my statement has more than just a scrap of credibility.

You tossed around "logical" like bubble gum in places where it had no context or real meaning. E.g.:

"god logically operates from a superset in comparison"

WTF is "logically" suppossed to mean in that phrase? Likewise in:

"it is illogical of us to state we can know that what god is doing is unjust"

Why would it be illogical of me to state that I can know what god is doing is unjust? If I have a notion of justice (which I do), and I know of something God is doing or has done, then I can make a judgment about what God is doing or has done (e.g., whether it is just or unjust) without violating any laws of logic.

You're making broad, and poorly-formed, statements, without providing much if any support for them.

Again, I recommend to you that you not use words if you don't know how (and where) to use them properly.