Freethought & Rationalism Archive

winstonjen · 03-18-2003, 08:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed

Dealt with in earlier posts AGAIN.

Then, post a link. Put up or SHUT UP.

Quote:

I didnt say that they were guilty of any crime against men, I said that everyone has a natural desire of rebellion against God.

No, everyone deserves death from the hand of God, not man.

Then god is just as guilty as us, and he should be punished. And why doesn't he stop those genocides? Is it because he would have to kill them anyway, and so he is saving time?

Quote:

No, God can fix your spiritual DNA, all you have to do is repent and ask Christ to do it. Evidence for your other assertions about Genesis?

And then go on murderous, genocidal rampages like Hitler and all those Christians in the Crusades did? No thanks, Ed. I have more respect for my fellow humand beings than that.

Ed · 03-18-2003, 09:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless
Ed:

This issue has been addressed. Several times.

RE-READ THIS THREAD. NOW.

Here's a clue: look for where I pointed out that NEITHER of us has a RATIONAL basis for "what OUGHT to be".

Look for where I pointed out that this is an EMOTIONAL issue.

Look for where I pointed out that my worldview is superior to yours precisely because it provides a RATIONAL basis for the EXISTENCE of the EMOTION.

No, the Christian DOES have a rational basis for what OUGHT to be. As I demonstrated using laws of logic to demonstrate the existence of the Christian God and his moral character, upon which Christian morality is based on. God's existence also provides a rational basis for the existence of emotion. Whereas atheism does not, because it believes that emotion comes from non-emotion. While Christianity teaches that our emotion comes from a pre-existing form of emotion.

Ed · 03-18-2003, 09:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NOGO

Ed:
It is not an exact analogy but having an omniscient being choose your representative is better than having a human judge choose him which is the case if you are too poor to pay a lawyer. And You do have to face the consequences of your lawyer or legislator or president if he errs. Most western legal scholars believe representative justice and government is fair and is in fact the best form of justice or government.

ng: Totally irrelavant. It is true that if your lawyer makes mistakes in representing you then you will suffer the consequences. In such cases you have been misrepresented and therefore unjustly found guilty. This is where the analogy falls apart. Not just a bit but completely falls apart.

Perhaps for humans law and justice system we have to make due. Ignorance of the law or its application can lead to improper defence however God's system of law and justice should be above any such considerations.

No, the difference is we have not been misrepresented. Our representative was perfect.

Quote:

Ed:
Read I Kings 8:46. And also David said he was conceived in sin. So it is in the OT.

ng: 1 Kings 8:46 does not talk about birth at all. Are you sure that you got reference right?

The Kings reference says "for there is no one who does not sin".

Quote:

Usually when somebody says that he was conceived in sin he is talking about being a bastard. David was a tenth generation bastard, that is, his great grandfather to the tenth degree was not married when he copulated and had a son. So technically David should not have been king since a law in the OT bars bastards from any public office to the tenth generation.

Reference please?

Quote:

ng: So it isn't in the OT.

Fraid so, read also Genesis 6:5.

Quote:

ng: Even if David said what you say that he said (and he did not) it is not sufficient. This topic is far too important to just have a passing comment while discussing another subject. The OT should have discussed the original sin, its consequences and the need for a saviour, as a subject IN ITS OWN RIGHT. There should have been a whole chapter at least if not a whole book or several chapters from different authors throughout the OT.

A short inconclusive comments while discussing some other subject is simple not enough. But you don't even have that.

All of those things ARE covered in the OT. Though not all in one place. Original sin is obvious, just look at human history and also you can learn about it by raising children. So there was no need to go into any indepth discussion with the hebrews, it was obvious to them also. The need for a savior is implied in the Passover event, in the Psalms, Isaiah, in Job, in Daniel and many other places.

Jack the Bodiless · 03-19-2003, 01:56 AM

Quote:

jtb: Again, I think the phrase "you are lying" is appropriate here. If the reasons given in the Bible were sufficient, you wouldn't keep inventing new material, and you know that.

Ed: What new material? Everything I have presented is a logical deduction from the explicit and implicit teachings of the scriptures.

Jack the bodiless: Nope, you're lying AGAIN. (Then Jack sticks his fingers in his ears and says "nah, nah, nah, nah, liar, liar, pants on fire!, I can't hear you Ed!")

Ed just shakes his head in exasperation.

The Amalekites being killed for "celebration" is new material.

Your bizarre interpretation of "became the ancestor of" is new material.

Your belief that non-adulterous rape was punishable by death is new material (which directly contradicts what the Bible says).

And so it goes...

Quote:

jtb: YHWH is a storm god adopted as a tribal totem and war god! In the OT he demands blood sacrifices! He perpetrates genocide and commands others to do so! It is a FACT that the Bible describes a vindictive, bad-tempered, bloodthirsty war-god who enjoys blood sacrifices (including human sacrifices). No "tunnel vision" required!

Dealt with in earlier posts AGAIN.

There are no earlier posts in which this was refuted. It remains an accurate description of the Biblical God.

Quote:

jtb: See my previous post about the morality-crippling effect of your religion. It is perfectly obvious to any sane person that MANY people are entirely innocent of any crime, and also perfectly obvious to any sane person who reads the Bible that the punishment of people FOR THE CRIMES OF OTHERS is a common theme.

I didnt say that they were guilty of any crime against men, I said that everyone has a natural desire of rebellion against God.

The Bible is quite clear on the reason for the punishment: for the crimes of others.

Quote:

jtb: If you believe that everyone deserves death, then ANY atrocity is justifiable. This is the morality of the Holocaust.

No, everyone deserves death from the hand of God, not man.

Either they DESERVE death, or they do NOT deserve death!

But God doesn't do all his killings himself. According to the Bible, he also uses MEN to kill other men. If they DESERVE death, then it doesn't matter HOW they get killed, right?

Quote:

jtb: You are lying AGAIN, Ed. Every verse I have cited is IN CONTEXT. It is the inerrantist who takes verses out of context.

No, reread this entire thread, NOW.

I challenge you to provide even ONE example of where I have used a Biblical verse out of context.

Quote:

jtb: There are NO competent Biblical scholars who are inerrantists. NONE.

No, that comment is just based on your presupposition of metaphysical naturalism, which I have demonstrated earlier is fatally flawed, ie it has no rational basis for believing in an objective reality.

You have NEVER demonstrated that metaphysical naturalism is "fatally flawed". And EVOLUTION provides the rational basis, as I have pointed out MANY times.

So you're lying again.

Quote:

Humans are OBJECTIVELY successful as a species because of our mental and physical characteristics. But "speciesism" is SUBJECTIVE: it is a form of prejudice. Evolution explains why speciesism exists: it provides a rational foundation for the existence of speciesism.

But you know this already. Or you should, by now. It is very difficult to determine if you are feigning ignorance, or if this comes naturally to you.

I am not referring to its existence, I am referring to you not having a rational basis for practicing it. And yet you continue to practice it, ie killing organisms for food and clothing and etc.

Just how many times do I need to point out that "speciesism" is an EMOTION?

Quote:

jtb: If God was omniscient, I wouldn't NEED a "representative".

The only way you could know that is if YOU were omnscient.

Nonsense. BY DEFINITION, an omniscient God wouln't need to study or test a representative. He would know ME directly.

Quote:

jtb: It is perfectly clear to ANY SANE PERSON that the guilt or innocence of every single one of us is entirely independent of any decision made by Adam and Eve.

The story of Adam and Eve was originally a story of God's FEAR of them: the fear that they would become rival gods. THAT is why they were kicked out of Eden.

Later, this story was perverted into a story of "spiritual poisoning": Adam and Eve "infected" the human race with sin, which God (being NON-omnipotent) was initially powerless to remove. This is your "spiritual DNA" argument: God is powerless to fix "spiritual DNA", and is therefore NON-omnipotent.

So it isn't OUR fault. We are INNOCENT.

No, God can fix your spiritual DNA, all you have to do is repent and ask Christ to do it. Evidence for your other assertions about Genesis?

By this argument, no child of Christians will EVER commit a crime, because their "spiritual DNA" has been fixed. This is obviously nonsense.

And God's reason for ejecting Adam and Eve from Eden is plainly stated in Genesis: "Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever: Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden". You really don't know your Bible very well, do you?

Quote:

No, the Christian DOES have a rational basis for what OUGHT to be. As I demonstrated using laws of logic to demonstrate the existence of the Christian God and his moral character, upon which Christian morality is based on. God's existence also provides a rational basis for the existence of emotion. Whereas atheism does not, because it believes that emotion comes from non-emotion. While Christianity teaches that our emotion comes from a pre-existing form of emotion.

You have never demonstrated the existence of the Christian God, or his moral character. Nor have you ever provided a rational basis for the existence of God's emotions, and you admitted that you had none. And there is absolutely no reason why emotion cannot come from non-emotion: this is more "things with a label cannot come from things without that label" garbage. Furthermore, EVERY emotional being we know of was originally non-emotional (before its brain developed).

Quote:

ng: Totally irrelavant. It is true that if your lawyer makes mistakes in representing you then you will suffer the consequences. In such cases you have been misrepresented and therefore unjustly found guilty. This is where the analogy falls apart. Not just a bit but completely falls apart.

Perhaps for humans law and justice system we have to make due. Ignorance of the law or its application can lead to improper defence however God's system of law and justice should be above any such considerations.

No, the difference is we have not been misrepresented. Our representative was perfect.

It is absolutely impossible for billions upon billions of very different people to be perfectly represented by TWO people.

winstonjen · 03-19-2003, 02:08 AM

Quote:

So you're lying again.

But Ed's lying for JESUS! Which of course justifies it and makes it all better, right?

/off sarcasm

Sorry for going slightly off-topic, but I felt that some humour would help liven up this topic.

On-topic - JTB, what are your tactics for being able to deal with Ed for so long. It's clear that he never takes you seriously or review his own "arguments".

Jack the Bodiless · 03-19-2003, 04:30 AM

I think this has become a daily ritual for me.

It doesn't actually take much effort, because Ed hasn't introduced anything new for months. It's the same few variations on the same BS, every day.

NOGO · 03-19-2003, 10:44 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed
No, the concept of original sin is based on representative justice. Like a lawyer representing you in a court case. Adam and Eve were chosen by God to be our representatives...

Ed:
No, but if your lawyer fails the case then you are liable for punishment.

NOGO:
It is true that if your lawyer makes mistakes in representing you then you will suffer the consequences. In such cases you have been misrepresented and therefore unjustly found guilty. This is where the analogy falls apart. Not just a bit but completely falls apart.

Ed:
No, the difference is we have not been misrepresented. Our representative was perfect.

You are contradicting yourself, Ed.

So Adam and Eve did not misrepresent us!!!
We did not do anything wrong at the time since we were not born yet.

BUT ... you claim

Quote:

Ed:
... what Adam and Eve did caused all humans afterwards to have a desire to disobey God and reject him.

So through no fault of our own and without our knowledge God gave us a desire to disobey and reject him BECAUSE of what our representatives (Adam and Eve) did.

Yet you claim that they did not misrepresent us.

Ahhhh! The warped logic of belief.

NOGO · 03-19-2003, 11:10 AM

Ed:
The Kings reference says "for there is no one who does not sin".

Romans 3:10 as it is written,
"THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE;

NOGO
How wrong can you be ...

Noah

Genesis 6:9
... Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his time; Noah walked with God.

Genesis 7:1
Then the LORD said to Noah, "Enter the ark, you and all your household, for you alone I have seen to be righteous before Me in this time.

JOB

Job 2:3 The LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered My servant Job? For there is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man fearing God and turning away from evil. And he still holds fast his integrity, although you incited Me against him to ruin him without cause."

Zechariah and Elizabeth were righteous.

Luke 1:5-6 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord.

All Christians

1 John 3
6 No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him.
7 Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous;
8 the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil.
9 No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

NOGO · 03-19-2003, 11:37 AM

Quote:

Ed:
Reference please?

Deuteronomy 23:2
A bastard shall not enter into the congregation of the LORD; even to his tenth generation shall he not enter into the congregation of the LORD.

Here again Yahweh blames children for the acts of their parents. Bastards were considered impure and therefore not fit to enter in the congregation of Yahweh.

Biblical genealogies show that David was a ninth-generation descendant of Perez, the bastard son of Judah and Tamar (Gen. 38:24-30; Ruth 4:18; 1 Chron. 2:5-14), Obviously David was not denied entry into the assembly despite being a descendent of a bastard.

Here again Yahweh breaks his own rules.

lpetrich · 03-19-2003, 09:42 PM

Ed:
... everyone deserves death from the hand of God, not man.

Doesn't seem like a benevolent deity.

... God's existence also provides a rational basis for the existence of emotion. Whereas atheism does not, because it believes that emotion comes from non-emotion. While Christianity teaches that our emotion comes from a pre-existing form of emotion.

Ed once again uses his favorite "principle of logic": his Law of Resemblance, that an effect must always resemble its cause.

Which is easy to satirize.

There are so many examples of X from non-X that I don't see the point of mentioning them.

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

03-19-2003, 04:30 AM	#666
Jack the Bodiless Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: UK Posts: 5,815	I think this has become a daily ritual for me. It doesn't actually take much effort, because Ed hasn't introduced anything new for months. It's the same few variations on the same BS, every day.

03-19-2003, 11:10 AM	#668
NOGO Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Canada Posts: 1,562	Ed: The Kings reference says "for there is no one who does not sin". Romans 3:10 as it is written, "THERE IS NONE RIGHTEOUS, NOT EVEN ONE; NOGO How wrong can you be ... Noah Genesis 6:9 ... Noah was a righteous man, blameless in his time; Noah walked with God. Genesis 7:1 Then the LORD said to Noah, "Enter the ark, you and all your household, for you alone I have seen to be righteous before Me in this time. JOB Job 2:3 The LORD said to Satan, "Have you considered My servant Job? For there is no one like him on the earth, a blameless and upright man fearing God and turning away from evil. And he still holds fast his integrity, although you incited Me against him to ruin him without cause." Zechariah and Elizabeth were righteous. Luke 1:5-6 In the days of Herod, king of Judea, there was a priest named Zacharias, of the division of Abijah; and he had a wife from the daughters of Aaron, and her name was Elizabeth. They were both righteous in the sight of God, walking blamelessly in all the commandments and requirements of the Lord. All Christians 1 John 3 6 No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him. 7 Little children, make sure no one deceives you; the one who practices righteousness is righteous, just as He is righteous; 8 the one who practices sin is of the devil; for the devil has sinned from the beginning. The Son of God appeared for this purpose, to destroy the works of the devil. 9 No one who is born of God practices sin, because His seed abides in him; and he cannot sin, because he is born of God.

03-19-2003, 09:42 PM	#670
lpetrich Contributor Join Date: Jul 2000 Location: Lebanon, OR, USA Posts: 16,829	Ed: ... everyone deserves death from the hand of God, not man. Doesn't seem like a benevolent deity. ... God's existence also provides a rational basis for the existence of emotion. Whereas atheism does not, because it believes that emotion comes from non-emotion. While Christianity teaches that our emotion comes from a pre-existing form of emotion. Ed once again uses his favorite "principle of logic": his Law of Resemblance, that an effect must always resemble its cause. Which is easy to satirize. There are so many examples of X from non-X that I don't see the point of mentioning them.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.