Freethought & Rationalism Archive

NOGO · 12-13-2002, 05:44 PM

Ed, I wish you would stick to one topic until we finish it.

Quote:

The existence of God was demonstrated using the Law of Causality. The universe is an effect and therefore requires a Cause.

Wrong!
When you say that everything has a cause in this universe you are commiting an error.
When you take some wood and make furniture you can say that you are the cause and the furniture is the effect. But this is an oversimplification of actually happens. All the atoms in the furniture were there before you were even born.

Of all the things that happen in this universe matter/energy is neither destroyed nor created. We just transform things.

We have succeded in destroying and creating matter through nuclear fusion and fission but the quantity of energy remains unchanged. Therefore this also is just transformation.

Therefore the cause/effect rule which you use in your "proof" applies only to transformations and NOT to creation/destruction. Nothing was ever created nor destroyed.

The arguement of causality therefore falls apart. It is illogical.

You can state that every transformation has a cause but even if that is always true it does not imply that energy must have been created since creation of energy is NOT a transformation.

Quote:

So once His existence is demonstrated then we can see that the Christian God best fits that cause. And the Christian God has a written communication to us, the Bible and in that communication he tells us his rules by which we can live the most fulfilled life.

His existance is not demonstrated at all.
This is just your wish. To me the Christian God does not fit that cause.
The written communication is man-made.
The rules that you speak of are immoral as I have shown in both the Amalekite and the slave girl and many others which we can discuss.

Quote:

Ancient genealogies were not exhaustive as we would tend to do today. They primarily dealt with just noteworthy ancestors. So it is possible that he left out ancestors he did not consider of major importance to also come up with 14 which is a 2 times 7, and 7 was the number of completeness to the Jews.

This is about the worse apologetic explanation that I have ever heard.

Matthew clearly means his genealogy to be complete. First he uses the word "begat" or "father of" so skipping people makes the statement untrue. But the clincher is verse 17

Mt1:17 So all the generations from Abraham to David are fourteen generations; from David to the deportation to Babylon, fourteen generations; and from the deportation to Babylon to the Messiah, fourteen generations.

Note the word "all".
Matthew is trying to show a pattern of 14-14-14 between important historic events. Skipping generations in this context is self defeating. If Matthew skipped generations in order to achieve the 14-14-14 pattern then he is knowingly lying to his readers.

[ December 14, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]

NOGO · 12-13-2002, 05:51 PM

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,
Before you answer anything else you MUST tell do you agree with the above or not?

What is morally correct for you, Ed?

1. Children put to death for their father's sins.
2. Every man shall be put to death for his own sins.

1 or 2, where does your morality stand?

I will stop posting on this thread until you answer this question.

[ December 14, 2002: Message edited by: NOGO ]

Ed · 12-14-2002, 08:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by NOGO:
Jack

There are others such as

Matthew 23
29 Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! For you build the tombs of the prophets and adorn the monuments of the righteous,
30 and say, "If we had been living in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partners with them in shedding the blood of the prophets."
31 "So you testify against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.
32 Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers.
33 You serpents, you brood of vipers, how will you escape the sentence of hell?"

First, Jesus says that the pharisees testify against themselves when they say that they are the sons of those who killed the prophets.

Second, he says that they should fill up with the guilt of their fathers.

So Jesus is saying that children are responsible for the crimes of their ancestors. I wonder where he got such ideas from?

Actually I know. He read the Bible.
We can expect more apologetics from Ed.

No, you are totally missing the point of this passage. He is saying that the Pharisees are not only the physical descendants of their fathers but also the spiritual descendents of their fathers, ie they hate God's messengers and are hypocrites. He sees that they are just building these tombs and monuments for their own aggrandizement.

NOGO · 12-15-2002, 06:44 PM

Quote:

Ed:
No, you are totally missing the point of this passage. He is saying that the Pharisees are not only the physical descendants of their fathers but also the spiritual descendents of their fathers, ie they hate God's messengers and are hypocrites. He sees that they are just building these tombs and monuments for their own aggrandizement.

As usual you totally ignore the text.

Matthew 23
31 "So you testify against yourselves, that you are sons of those who murdered the prophets.

Jesus tells them that they testify against themselves.
How are they testifying against themselves?
Because they claim that they "are the sons of those who murdered the prophets"

Matthew 23
32 Fill up, then, the measure of the guilt of your fathers.

Jesus wants to transfer the guilt of the fathers to the sons for the murder of the prophets. Your problem, Ed, is that you ignore what the text says and chose to believe whatever you want.

Jesus does not fault these people for something that they have done. He does not say that they are just building these tombs and monuments for their own aggrandizement. He tells them that because they are the sons of those who murdered the prophets then they too are guilty. Are verses 31 and 32 missing in your version of the Bible?

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,
Before you answer anything else you MUST say, do you agree with the above or not?

What is morally correct for you, Ed?
1. Children put to death for their father's sins.
2. Every man shall be put to death for his own sins.
1 or 2, where does your morality stand?

I need an answer, Ed?

Ed · 12-15-2002, 08:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Jack the Bodiless:
[QB]
Ed: Christianity considers all races and religions human and in fact is more inclusionary than many atheists. Many atheists do not consider unborn children human but all Christians that accept the authority of the scriptures do.

jack: Most Christians are pro-choice. It is meaningless to attempt the old "True Christians"(tm) argument here, because the Bible is silent on this topic.

No, while the scriptures do not explicitly deal with topic of abortion, it does plainly teach that the unborn are human beings. Therefore, it can be extrapolated to teach that killing the unborn is immoral.

winstonjen · 12-15-2002, 08:47 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed:


No, while the scriptures do not explicitly deal with topic of abortion, it does plainly teach that the unborn are human beings. Therefore, it can be extrapolated to teach that killing the unborn is immoral.

What the Bible teaches us is that God can take life and judge people, but we can't. Basically, that means do not put criminals behind bars. Let them go, because in the great scheme of things, God will look after everything.

Jack the Bodiless · 12-16-2002, 12:44 AM

Quote:

No, while the scriptures do not explicitly deal with topic of abortion, it does plainly teach that the unborn are human beings. Therefore, it can be extrapolated to teach that killing the unborn is immoral.

No, it does not. The closest it gets is the claim that God can see his chosen in the womb. However, the Bible also says that he can see them "from the beginning of time".

According to the Bible, if a man suspects his wife of being unfaithful, she should be given an abortifacient (Numbers 5:11-31). Here is a <a href="http://iidb.org/ubb/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic&f=45&t=001579&p=" target="_blank">thread</a> on the subject.

Abortion is Biblically authorized.

Any other distractions you'd like to bring up, Ed?

I presume you accept your defeat on the issue of the punishment of innocents for the crimes of others?

Ed · 12-16-2002, 08:08 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Starboy:


Hi Ed,

It has been awhile since we have traded posts. How have you been?

I am doing ok, I have not seen you post anything lately.

Quote:

sb: You were not answering any of my posts so I had given up on you. I see that you are up to your old tricks.

Christianity is exclusionary because the Christian god is exclusionary. If everyone made it to heaven no matter what they thought or did then you might have a point, but one example of inclusion does not negate all the other instances of Christian exclusion. In this regard they are no different than the Nazis. It all stems from the fact that Christians view themselves as "gods chosen" and everyone else is not.

Starboy

[ November 16, 2002: Message edited by: Starboy ]

If you are referring to God's justice, yes he is exclusionary. I am sorry to disappoint you, but Hitler is not going to be in heaven and neither is Jeffery Dahmer. Would you like to live in a society where the man who raped your daughter was let go scot free? That would be your version of inclusiveness. Without Hell justice would not exist for all those who got away with doing evil in this world.

Starboy · 12-16-2002, 08:17 PM

Yikes! It has taken you more than a month to respond to that post. Why does it take you so long?

You do bring up something that I don�t understand. Why would it matter if Hitler or Dahlmer were in heaven? What harm could they do there? What is the point of sending them to hell? It is not as if sending them to heaven or hell had any effect on how they behaved while they were on Earth. Sending them to hell is like closing the barn doors after all the cows have run away. Seems pretty stupid for a supreme being.

Starboy

winstonjen · 12-16-2002, 09:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Ed:

If you are referring to God's justice, yes he is exclusionary.

So, God is above the law? I'm sorry, but someone who does not lead by example does not deserve to be followed or worshipped.

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

12-16-2002, 08:17 PM	#249
Starboy Banned Join Date: Jun 2002 Location: Tallahassee, FL Reality Adventurer Posts: 5,276	Yikes! It has taken you more than a month to respond to that post. Why does it take you so long? You do bring up something that I don�t understand. Why would it matter if Hitler or Dahlmer were in heaven? What harm could they do there? What is the point of sending them to hell? It is not as if sending them to heaven or hell had any effect on how they behaved while they were on Earth. Sending them to hell is like closing the barn doors after all the cows have run away. Seems pretty stupid for a supreme being. Starboy

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.