Sue Sponte

O.J. killed her? When did this news come out?

Jack the Bodiless

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.
No, we don't "know" that.
The Bible describes a vindictive, bad-tempered, bloodthirsty war-god who enjoys blood sacrifices (including human sacrifices). It is part of the NATURE of the Biblical God to kill indiscriminately, and to enjoy killing.
Nope.
No amount of omniscience can possibly justify the punishment of innocents for the crimes of others, as clearly stated in the Bible.

As for winstonjen's list:
This is another lie, Ed.

These claims result from reading what the Bible actually says. It is the APOLOGIST who must read the Bible "superficially" to avoid comprehending too much of it. Only a VERY superficial reading of the Bible allows apologists to claim that God is good, for instance: there are verses claiming this, but many contradictory verses that must be skipped.

All Biblical inerrantists are incompetent scholars, Ed. No competent Biblical scholar can remain an inerrantist.
On the contrary, speciesism has a rational foundation BECAUSE evolution is true.

And, again, you know this by now. So you're lying AGAIN.

NOGO

Ed, you are totally confused.
A lawyer in court represents you after YOU HAVE BEEN ACCUSED of wrong doing. Generally you chose your lawyer to defend you.

You do not chose your lawyer to be tested in your place and then you have to suffer the consequences of his error. :banghead: :banghead:

The idea of original sin is an absurd idea created by Paul. It is nowhere to be found in either the OT nor in Jesus' mouth.

Plase see my post "God's Plan - a challenge for Christians" in Biblical Criticism and archaeology.

Ed

From experience.

Ed

Huh? Who the heck are you quoting? I never said either one of those things. Please use your brain and read my posts before responding to them!

Quote:

wj: To me, good = reducing harm or increasing pleasure. evil = increasing harm or reducing pleasure Long and short-term harm and pleasure are important to my definition. Therefore, from the bible, god = 99% evil. He plays favourites the other 1% of the time, and there is ALWAYS a net loss of happiness.

Your conclusion is based on a 99.9% superficial and out of context reading of the scriptures.

Ed

No, I know he is good from experience.

Quote:

jtb: This is why my worldview is superior to yours. I see both good and evil in the world, and I can explain why both exist. You IMAGINE that God is good, but cannot explain WHY. Therefore there is no rational basis for the assumption that God actually IS good: because there's no reason why he should be good.

No, if atheistic evolution is true then there is no such thing as good and evil. There is just that which makes you feel bad=evil.
And that which makes you feel happy=good.

Quote:

Ed: What is special about humans? If evolution is true then there is nothing special about humans. It is just sentimentality for your own species, not rationality. jtb: Evolution provides a rational explanation of WHY "sentimentality for your own species" should exist.

Yes, but it doesnt provide a rational explanation for why sentimentality for your own species is good.

Quote:

Ed: No, if we follow his word we see that only the ancient hebrew army was commanded to do such a thing and only this one time. No individuals or governments are allowed to do such a thing, see Deut. 24:16. jtb: We already have, and it says nothing of the sort. So why urge us to read it again? Your wishful thiking won't change what the Bible actually says.

No, it must be understood in context, all scholars agree that these commands were directed to the hebrew society and government.

Quote:

Ed: Well not specifically atheists but there is evidence that people who are not religious are less moral than religious people. Harvard economist Richard Freeman did a study on young inner city men and found that church attendance was the best predictor of which of the young men would likely end up in prison or gangs or etc. jtb: Gang members aren't average citizens, Ed.

Huh? They only became gang members after they quit attending church. They were not originally gang members.

Quote:

jtb: For average citizens, atheists are apparently LESS likely to end up in prison than Christians. Atheists are under-represented in prison populations.

No, many studies including the one above are strong evidence against your claim. Just because someone claims they are a christian doesnt mean that they are a practicing one.

Quote:

Ed: No, God does not arbitrarily just declare what is good, he acts according to his moral character which is good. jtb: But we have already established that you have absolutely no basis whatsoever for making such a claim.

Fraid not, I do have a basis, it's called experience.

Ed

No, I already stated my position above, God DOES NOT just arbitrarily declare what is good and evil. God cannot break his own moral laws. God cannot be both good and evil. God must comply with the law because to do otherwise would be going against is own nature and character, this is a logical impossibility.

Quote:

ng: In the case of the Amalekites Yahweh told Samuel to massacre people because of something that occurred 400 before in direct contradiction with another law which states that children should not be put to death because of their parents. Every man shall be put to death for HIS OWN SINS. So Yahweh breaks his own laws. This is what prompted these statements.

No, as I told Jack, this verse only refers to the hebrew government and society. And also they were put to death for their own sins in addition to their father's sins. In that if their fathers had not done what they did the descendents would not have had their lives ended at the time they did. We learn these things by studying the incident in the context of the whole bible.

Quote:

ng: If you say that God defines morality then he cannot be good because of his moral character. Whatever God does is moral by definition according to you. Let me give you an analogy. Let's say that I am a dictator in country xyz. My word is law. I can then claim that I am the most law abiding person on earth. I have never broken the law and cannot break the law. I am good because I am law abiding.

No, your dictator is arbitrarily declaring what is good and what is not. That is not what God does as I stated above. God's character is good therefore his moral laws are good. Morality is NOT defined by God's proclamations, it is defined by his character and his proclamations are based on his character.

winstonjen

Evidently, you have never been subjected to the numerous injustices that the biblical god has perpetrated. See the rest of this thread for examples, you arrogant *@#*#$&. Sorry, but you're really getting on my nerves. I, and others on this topic, have tried arguing against you using the bible, and you accuse us all of 'superficial' reading and understanding.

Why don't you give us concrete examples of this experience?

Ed

No, studies have shown that dogs ARE direct descendants of wolves.

Quote:

Ed: Hardly. Besides Louis Pasteur's formal experiments over 100 yrs ago disproving spontaneous generation, my position has possibly 2 million years of empirical observation. jtb: Ed, if you think that Pasteur's experiment (disproving the spontaneous ganeration of bacteria in a flask over a period of a few weeks under present-day conditions) says anything at all about the formation of self-replicating molecules under early-Earth conditions in entire oceans over millions of years: you are profoundly ignorant of biology.

Although his experiment alone does not disprove abiogenesis, it is strong evidence that life can only come from life, ie the Law of Biogenesis, a foundational law of biology.

Quote:

jtb: And how can you claim 2 million years of empirical observation of an event that happened 4 billion years ago, under conditions which no longer exist on Earth?

I was referring to 2 million years of observations of life only coming from life.

Quote:

jtb: Ed, the ONLY reason you won't accept evolution is because it contradicts the primitive beliefs of Hebrew goat-herders. Stop pretending that you're giving an answer that has anything to do with any form of SCIENCE. Ed: No, given that I believe one can be a devout Christian and still believe in evolution, my objection to evolution is primarily based on science. jtb: There is no SCIENTIFIC argument against evolution. Therefore your objection is ENTIRELY religious. Therefore you are lying.

Fraid so, read my posts in the Evolution/Creation thread. I notice you threw another ad hominem attack. Is this is sign of desperation setting in?

Quote:

Ed: No, there are different roles in society and the universe. Just as you dont have the authority to put to death your son's murderer but a judge does. Human governments not being omniscient cannot punish descendents for collective guilt because we cannot see all the spiritual ramifications that God can. See also my comments above. jtb: You have it backwards. "Collective guilt" is for those who lack the power to separate the truly guilty from the truly innocent. An omniscient being would have no use for "collective guilt". God, being nonexistent, isn't omniscient.

Not necessarily, if they all condone the action. Also noone is truly innocent.

Quote:

jtb: What if the kids had already been born when he committed the crime? Can it be transferred into existing kids, unlike normal DNA? Ed: All human beings because of Adam's sin are born with a sinful nature, i.e. an inclination toward rebellion against God. jtb: Translation: "I refuse to answer this question". Reciting random sentences of Christian dogma is no substitute for thinking, Ed. Ed: No, this is not random, it answers your question if you think a little deeper. In other words, it is already in the kids. jtb: If a man with exsiting kids decides to commit a specific crime, then the guilt for that specific crime is already in the kids. All murderers have kids who are already guilty of murder. All rapists have kids who are already guilty of rape. And so on. You are a very, very sick individual, Ed. You are, in fact, hopelessly insane.

No, use your noggin please, that is not what I meant. I meant that children already have an inclination to rebel against God. Again you resort to ad hominems.

Quote:

jtb: But, according to Christians, the sin is itself PREVENTING many people from asking God to take it away! Ed: No, our natural desire is not to ask Him so they are just preventing themselves. jtb: So the natural desire NOT to turn to God... ...isn't a sin! Unbelief isn't a sin! Even wilful rejection of a God you actually believe in isn't a sin!

No, the desire isnt a sin but the acting on it is.

Quote:

jtb: If it's causing suffering and injustice, God should just get rid of it. ALL of it. NOW. ...Why doesn't he do this? Because he CAN'T. Ed: No, because he doesn't want us to be just automatons. We are the ones causing suffering and injustice. jtb: No, Ed. According to you, WE are NOT the ones causing suffering and injustice. According to you, GOD is the one causing suffering and injustice, because God created "spiritual DNA" for this purpose.

No, WE caused our "spiritual DNA" to become corrupted.

Quote:

jtb: They specifically legislated against the FIRST commandment, Ed. Ed: If they legislated against it then why did they have the government print bibles not long after the US formed? jtb: That doesn't change the FACT that they legislated AGAINST the First Commandment, Ed. We are commanded not to worship other gods. The First Amendment guarantees the right to worship other gods.

But the government itself recognized the Creator God in the DOI. So they incorporated that principle into the government, but of course not into the laws of the land, because they wanted to follow Christ's teaching regarding freedom of conscience. I am not saying that they incorporated every detail of the ten commandments into the law of the land, but general princples derived from them were incorporated into it.

Quote:

jtb: See above. The Bible talks repeatedly of punishing innocents for the crimes of their ancestors. Ed: Where? jtb: Re-read this entire thread. NOW.

You primarily just talk about the Amalekite case. And I have dealt with that.

Quote:

Ed: No, God wants us to use logical reasoning and historical and experiential evidence to help us understand his written word. jtb: Let me know when you're ready to begin this process, Ed.

That is what I have been doing.

Quote:

Deuteronomy 24:16 ... neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers: every man shall be put to death for his own sin. Ed: No, Deut. 24:16 refers to the government of Israel and by extension, all human governments unless specifically commanded by God to do so and this was only done during the Hebrew theocracy. jtb: In other words: when God commands them to do so, it is perfectly OK to put children to death for the sins of their fathers, and NOT for "celebration". THANK YOU for finally admitting that God is evil and unjust! Ed: No, see above. jtb: There is nothing "above" that refutes this. You have plainly stated that God can break the rules of moral behavior. God is evil and unjust.

No, as I stated before this is just how it appears to humans. From God's perspective he knows what would happen in the future to the children so actually he is rescuing them from committing the same heinous sins that their fathers did. See also my comment about the universal reason for human death.

Quote:

jtb: Therefore the "time of accounting" for the Amalekites as a whole will never come. It was NOT due. Ed: No, apparently God felt that a physical accounting was needed besides a spiritual accounting in hell. jtb: ...A "physical accounting" for what? Not for the initial killing. And not for many subsequent generations "celebrating" it..

For collective guilt.

Ed

Nevertheless, my statement still stands, it doesnt matter HOW persons produce persons, the ultimate cause and effect is persons producing persons and the personal.