Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Ed · 03-10-2003, 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Starboy
Ed, get serious. No one on earth knows if Dahlmer of Hitler are in heaven or hell. How could that possibly be an example to anyone?

Starboy

While we don't know for certain, from what we know about God and his standards, we can say that they probably are. And people that believe in God my be impacted by that possibilty.

Ed · 03-10-2003, 09:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NOGO
Ed,

You keep saying ... "I demonstrated this and I demonstrated that".

Ignoring evidence and fabricating apologetic red herrings does not in any way constitute "demonstration".

You have the delusion or at least you pretend that you are actually debating with us.

Where have I ignored evidence and fabricated apologetic red herrings?

Ed · 03-10-2003, 09:19 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Eudaimonist

Originally posted by Ed
Actually, there is strong evidence that matter and energy came into existence at the big bang.

Eudi: What evidence is this? I am not aware of any strong evidence for this claim..

Because if you go back further enough in time all that exists is a point with no dimensions, ie nothing, therefore there is no matter and energy at that time. But seconds later the Big Bang occurs and presto! There is matter and energy!

Jack the Bodiless · 03-11-2003, 01:52 AM

Quote:

Neither fornication nor rape is punishable by death. Only ADULTERY is punishable by death.

No, the key phrase in Deut. 22:28-29, is "and THEY are found out", this plainly implies they both were trying to hide their behavior and implies that it was consensual. The woman would not try to hide her being raped. So both these verses refer to consensual sex. Try again. Rape is punishable by death, see the verses just prior to this in Deut.

No, it implies that there were WITNESSES. In fact, it implies that a woman's word is worthless: a woman cannot simply claim to have been raped, she will not be believed without witnesses. This rule still exists today in Muslim countries.

The rape is made clear from the use of the phrase "lay hold on her", and also from the fact that seduction and consensual sex was already covered earlier in that same chapter: there is no need to cover it twice.

Rape was NOT punishable by death, and YET AGAIN you have sought to justify your position by citing the punishment for ADULTEROUS rape. Note the use of the word BETROTHED.

Why do you continue to cite Biblical verses which YOU KNOW don't support your position?

Quote:

Where have I ignored evidence and fabricated apologetic red herrings?

In the many, many deliberate lies you have used on this thread.

Quote:

Because if you go back further enough in time all that exists is a point with no dimensions, ie nothing, therefore there is no matter and energy at that time. But seconds later the Big Bang occurs and presto! There is matter and energy!

It's time you learned some science. If time itself began in the Big Bang, then "seconds later the Big Bang occurs" is a nonsensical statement. There never was a time in which the Universe did not exist!

NOGO · 03-11-2003, 07:19 AM

Quote:

Ed:
While Jude may have believed that Enoch was inspired, later when the time came for the Canon to be determined, the church, led by the Holy Spirit, rejected Enoch but accepted Jude. IOW it did not endorse whatever views that Jude may have had about the works from which he took these citations, but it did endorse the explicit teaching in his letter. Another thing to consider is that, true statements and the recording of true events can be found outside the scriptures. Just because he quoted excerpts from the book does not necessarily mean that the whole book is inspired or that he believed it was. The apostle Paul quotes some pagans as making true statements but he plainly did not think that they were making inspired statements.

"Jude may have believed that Enoch was inspired"

So Jude who was inspired by God made a mistake ... it that your point, Ed?

Ed · 03-11-2003, 08:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NOGO

Ed
Actually, there is strong evidence that matter and energy came into existence at the big bang. Therefore it has not always existed and therefore needs a cause "outside" of itself, this fits God quite well.

ng: Ed, I do not believe that you know the meaning of the word evidence.

Still, if all you say is true and it would fit God quite well, it would not fit the Bible at all.

What Genesis describe does not compare at all with the Big Bang.

Genesis teaches that there is a definite beginning to the universe and so does BB theory. BB theory also means that space time and matter came into existence ex nihilo. This is also what Genesis teaches.

Starboy · 03-11-2003, 09:00 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed
While we don't know for certain, from what we know about God and his standards, we can say that they probably are. And people that believe in God my be impacted by that possibilty.

But Ed, that is the point. No one knows. And for all you know they are both in heaven. But Ed, that still doesn't answer the question of what good was the deterence in the case of Hitler and Dahlmer. It didn't work. You see Ed, it should be impossible for a mere mortal to break the commandments of a real god. Or the other possiblity is that there is a god but your religion has little to no reliable knowledge regarding it.

Starboy

Ed · 03-11-2003, 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by winstonjen

Originally posted by Ed

No, I was referring to their immediate fathers.

wj: So you're changing the playing field AGAIN!

In any case, the IMMEDIATE fathers were NOT the ones who commited the crime to begin with.

We have all committed crimes against God, read Romans 3:9-23.

Quote:

Ed: In some cases during the Holocaust I am sure God ended some suffering quickly to prevent long term suffering. Why is that evil? As long as it is done by someone that knows the entire situation exhaustively, ie God.

wj: Well, why didn't your god prevent any of the suffering from occuring IN THE FIRST PLACE? Because he doesn't really care, perhaps?

Because he usually lets man use his free will. And also, he sometimes allows evil in order to bring about a greater good. But we don't always know what the greater good is. And we don't always know why he usually lets man use his free will other than that he considers that gift of extreme importance, even though it may be used for great evil.

winstonjen · 03-11-2003, 09:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed
We have all committed crimes against God, read Romans 3:9-23.

In that case, 'god' is a thin-skinned cunt of a deity not worth worshipping. See, I can dodge the topic and the question too, just as you avoided dealing with the issue of the Amakelites.

Quote:

Because he usually lets man use his free will. And also, he sometimes allows evil in order to bring about a greater good. But we don't always know what the greater good is. And we don't always know why he usually lets man use his free will other than that he considers that gift of extreme importance, even though it may be used for great evil.

Not good enough. Man also lets man use free will, in most circumstances. Just because your god 'let' bad things happen 'for a greater good' does not let him off the hook! Being guilty by omission is as guilty as committing the act himself.

Ed · 03-11-2003, 09:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
[B]
Ed: I asked you a question first. Answer my question and then I will answer yours.

jtb: Forcing women to marry the murderers of their families, genocide, and the punishment of innocents for the crimes of others, are evil because they cause unnecessary and undeserved suffering. That is evil, by definition.

Therefore, by endorsing these, you are supporting evil.

You are contradicting yourself, because if evolution is true then suffering and death ARE necessary and therefore actually GOOD. There is no such thing as unnecessary and undeserved suffering and therefore there is no such thing as evil.

Quote:

Ed: Well that contradicts your own earlier weird point that most men want to be sexually attacked by a stronger woman.

jtb: If a rapist wants to force himself upon a specific woman, then he generally won't mind if that specific woman initiates sex with him instead. Hence the misapplication of the Golden Rule.

Ed: Rape is hardly equivalent to "initiating sex."

jtb: To you and me, no. To the rapist, yes. Some rapists just want sex, and see violence simply as a means to that end: they don't want to be violent (these are the rapists who will use date-rape drugs such as rohypnol). And others are into sado-masochism, which is part of sex as far as they're concerned.

But most rapists want to be in control, not have the woman in control like your weird scenario.

Quote:

jtb: But this is irrelevant anyhow, because we're talking about the Israelite society described in the Old Testament. You cannot use New Testament teachings to describe the legality of rape in Old Testament times.

Ed: No, in this exchange you said that both Christ and the entire bible allowed rape. Obviously your attempt to change the venue to just the OT is a sign that I have proven my point.

jtb: Even the New Testament allows rape: it doesn't specifically declare rape to be wrong. But your attempt to change the venue to just the NT is a sign that I have proven MY point.

Just because it doesnt specifically mention rape does not mean it allows it. In addition to the Golden Rule, Paul taught that we are to treat women as our sisters, so this plainly rules out rape.

This is the end of part I of my response.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.