phlebas

Exactly.

But that also begs the question of why God would need to create any "beings" at all. The standard Christian god normally isn't described as the type who is prone to lonliness. (And even if he were, surrounding himself with such comparitively limited creatures would be like a lonely human looking for companionship in a bunch of peat moss.)

Jayhawker Soule

<img src="graemlins/notworthy.gif" border="0" alt="[Not Worthy]" />

Pomp

You leave me and my peat moss alone! We're happy, I tell you!

Princess of Peace

Let's see if I understand...

God created everything, including good and evil. God created humans, knowing that every single one of them would choose the evil that he created (for all have sinned). God then sends someone to be killed, and if we believe in both God and the one he had killed by others, then we are made to spend eternity with the barbaric sadist who made sure we were inadequate to his standards before we even got here. Sounds like entrapment to me.

Incidentally, if all have sinned, that means that Jesus sinned. Right? It doesn't say all except for Jesus have sinned, it say ALL. That means that Jesus could not have been a perfect sacrifice, if perfection even could be said to exist. Why didn't he just kill Hitler for all of our sins then? Or why bother killing anyone at all? If he's God, and omnipotent, then he doesn't need to kill in order to forgive. He could just forgive, much as I could do to the person who cuts me off on the freeway. I simply forgive. I don't require their death or a fine for cutting me off. Why can't God just forgive? And don't tell me about how God needs to fulfill justice. If a mother can forgive her raper without sending him to jail, then God can forgive without pressing charges as well.

Of course, this whole theological problem goes away entirely if there isn't actually a God.

phlebas

Sorry Pomp -- your peat moss and I have been having an internet affair for months now. Apparently you are "too docile."

Ah well... there's always more fungus in the forest

Kalestia

Oh man haha, I go away for a few days and there's like 50 things to reply to!! I'm not gonna really address many specifics right now (unless you insist) because it seems that the most basic "problem" is a misunderstanding of what Christians believe. Am I a Christian? Of course, if you couldnt tell by now lol. But the reason I didn't flat-out state it was cuz I wanted to leave people personally out of it, including myself. But, according to all the sarcastic remarks made by some, I see that people get more pleasure out of poking fun rather than having a real discussion.

But putting all that aside lemme make a few basic points. Jesus did not sin (he was both man AND god), therefore he was indeed the perfect sacrifice. Why did God do everything the way he did? Personally, I do not know because I am not God. He didn't NEED us, and he didn't HAVE to limit himself to the rules he did- but he CHOSE to. If he really does know the future, then I'm sure he has good reason for doing things the way he did, maybe it's the best thing he could do for us and we just don't see the whole picture.

Quite frankly, we have more historical evidence on the existance and doings of Jesus than we do on Alexander the Great. The Bible is a main source of history- most people just leave out the God-stuff. But the Bible isn't the only evidence for Jesus, there's also other Christian writings and even from agnostics and athiests about Jesus of Nazareth. A few names are Josephus, Tacitus, Pliny the Younger, and Thallus. They are very well respected historians among all those scholarly people, but you can look up some info on them yourself if you're interested. There's a book of the athiest historian, Josephus' writings called "Josephus: the essential works" written by Paul L. Maier. Here's a quick exerpt:

"At this time there was a wise man called Jesus, and his conduct was good, and he was known to be virtuous. Many people among the Jews and the other nations became his disciples. Pilate condemned him to be crucified and to die. But those who had become his disciples did not abandon his discipleship. They reported that he had appeared to them three days after his crucifixion and that he was alive. Accordingly, he was perhaps the Messiah, concerning whom the prophets have reported wonders. And the tribe of the Christians, so named after him, has not disappeared to this day."

Of course, does this claim that Jesus was/is God? Nope, but it does show that the people of that time believed it. This was written in 33AD.

Another quick point... archeology has never proved anything in the Bible flat-out wrong. In fact, many archeological excavations have confirmed things, such as the geography of palestine back then, the existance of Nazareth, landmarks such as the Pool of Bathesda, the Pool of Siloam, the stone pavement near Jaffa Gate (where Pilate condemned Jesus), Pilate's own identity, the time period of Herod's rule/Quirinius, the city boundaries of Jericho, etc etc.

The Bible is basically a historical account of many people's eye-witness experiences of the Christian God. In court, claims of eye-witnesses are taken very seriously if they can't be proved faulty, and people can be condemned to death simply on their account. So why isn't written, unfaulty history of eye witnesses taken as seriously? Becuz it requires a bit of faith.

scumble

Faith - exactly. If you have faith you don't have to be reasonable or rational, you can just shrug and say "I don't know what God is doing, it must be the best way" and so on.

Perhaps you haven't listened to what people have said about the Bible. To state that no evidence contradicts the Bible is a) what everyone usually says, b) ignorant, if you've ever investigated some real archaeology.

Most of what is confirmed in the Bible is the text. This is not enough to assure historical accuracy. There's no way of telling, without tangible archaeological evidence, whether the texts are accurate accounts. Can you, yourself, think of a way to verify, with tangible evidence, that people have had contact with God?

I read a book about Christianity, and you sound just like it. When I hear about the Bible being historically accurate, I go and find out if it's true, and I found lots to counter the claim. I am therefore a bit skeptical about outrageous claims of the Bible's "utter reliability".

I mean, with Jericho, they couldn't find a trace of the city walls, apparently.

All this is really beside the point. Despite all the Christian rationalisation, if God is not assumed from the start, you don't really need God in any discussion - it really makes no difference. Stuff still happens that we don't understand, whether or not it has a God at the other end.

[ July 26, 2002: Message edited by: scumble ]</p>

phlebas

Surely you don't expect this to mean anything to people who don't believe in "sin"

Many unbelievers, including myself, find it odd that Christians can just spit out some variant of "we cannot know the mind of God" as if that's proof or even a compelling argument. If that's the best you can come with, don't bother.

By chosing to limit himself to his own rules, he's condemned billions to eternal torture. As a human, I find this abhorrent. But Christians take this shocking que sera sera attitude.

<strong> Speaking as one who will apparently get stuck with the wrong end of this grand plan of his, I decline to have any enthusiasm for it and request that he kindly refrain from doing me any further favors.

<strong> *snort*

And we have more evidence on the existence of Batman than we do Jesus and Alexander the Great put together.

But I'm willing to concede that the Biblical Jesus was probably based on a real person. It's going to take more than the Bible to convince me of his miracles, though.

<strong> Unless you count things like global floods. That's flat-out wrong. Although I'll grant that it's the geologists who have done more to disprove it than the archaeologists.

<strong> Ummmm.... what does this prove? That the Bible was written by people who lived at the time the Bible was written? Not compelling. What would be compelling is the stars rearranging to spell out MENE MENE TEKEL UPHARSIN.

<strong> Okay, not technically archaeology in it's strictest sense.

You might want to look at <a href="http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science.html." target="_blank">http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/science.html.</a> For example, Joshua 8, where the Israelities destroy the city of Ai, does not match up with archaeological finds.

Or I Chronicles 29:7, when King David collects 10,000 drams to build the temple in Jerusalem. THis again shows the power of God, since drams were coins named after a king who came along some 500 years later.

Oh yeah -- Psalms 19:5-6? No real conflict with archaeology, but ask an astronomer if the sun really moves around the earth, and he might just contradict the Bible.

Next time you're in Atlanta, let me know and I'll take you to the Atlanta Zoo and we can check out the cockatrice exhibit. (Isaiah 11:8) Last time I was there I couldn't get in because of the EXHIBIT CLOSED DUE TO ANIMAL'S NONEXISTENCE sign. Damn zoologists and their science contradicting the Bible.

Gosh, this is fun. What else?

Oh, biology. I won't go into evolution, but Matthew 13:31-32 quotes Jesus as saying that the mustard seed is the smallest seed yet grows into the greatest of all trees. Was Mr. Perfect wrong on two counts, or was he lying?

<strong> Well, some people certainly make that claim.

<strong> If these eyewitness accounts in the Bible were consistent with each other, not to mention what we know of basic science, it would be a more impressive book.

Suppose you're in court watching a murder trial. The eyewitness stands up and says the victim got shot by a purple flying goldfish holding a shotgun in it's mouth. If this was the only eyewitness, would you believe the testimony?

What if another eyewitness came forward and claimed that the victim was roasted alive by a 20-foot dragon that lives in the sewers?

And another comes up and says the victim was caught in a crossfire in a phaser battle between some Klingon on Romulan soldiers?

And then finally a coroner, who did not witness anything, stands up and says the victim overdosed on sleeping pills.

Who do you believe?

<strong> Becuz it's obviously a pile of crap scribbled down some 40 years after the fact by people whose credibility depended on convincing others that Jesus was more than a normal man.

Jamie_L

Kalestia:

I won't get into a discussion of the Bible's historical accuracy here. There's a whole other forum for that (Biblical Criticism & Archaeology), and the people there are much more knowledgeable than I. My impression, however, is that there's a fair amount of argument and evidence contrary to your claims. If you're interested in a challenge to that part of your beliefs, you should check out that forum.

One comment though: I've got real trouble dealing with the "mysterious ways" notion of God. Most Christians clearly have a set of beliefs they have great confidence in. That confidence derives from their faith in God's teachings. However, at the same time, these Christians accept things they don't understand by using statements like "I cannot know the mind of God," and "If God made it that way, he must have a reason. We just don't understand it."

However, if God has intentions that are so complex that we can't understand them, and those intensions clearly involve humans being subjected to suffering, how can we trust any of god's supposed teachings? It would seem quite possible to me that god's plan could involve just about anything that seems unfair - up to and including completely false teachings. If god's intensions are so far beyond us, why should we have any faith at all in his supposed benevolence? The "mysterious ways" defense would seem to me to leave us in a position where we are unable to trust any conclusions we might have about god.

Jamie

southernhybrid

Even if, the Xian Bible has some degree of historical accuracy, it does not give much of a case for the supernatural nature of Jesus or the OT god and it doesn't explain why such a being would make his creation suffer. Those who speak of miracles in the Bible are hardly reliable or credible witnesses in today's world. It doesn't explain in any rational way, how some have so much hardship or others have easy, joyful lives.

Yes, I'm guilty of sarcasm. I still must have a little emotional baggage left over from my Xian upbringing. Let me say it without the sarcasm. If in fact, god created man in his own image as the Bible says, god would not want or allow his creation to suffer unless he was truly a bad or misguided parent. The best parents love their children and they make many sacrifices for their children, always wanting the best for them. The Biblical god is always making things difficult for his chilren, testing them, threatening them with punishments if they don't accept his will. There is no rational explanation for the suffering that the Bibical god bestows upon his very own creation. Suffering is a result of either poor choices or random circumstances.

Please spare us, the "God works in mysterious ways. You don't understand the wisdom of God." Can't you see that's nonsense? Don't you know that it was created as a way to control an ancient civilization? Doesn't that type of thinking sound oddly familiar to so many other mythologies?

Excuse my earlier sarcasm but it's hard to be serious about the Xian god, when he is so moody and capricious.