How would one eliminate fundamentalism?

[Colonel Olrik]

--It is truly amazing people here even bother with him after the first few rounds. Why do the idiots deserve so much attention?

Well, the site title does say take your fill of mockery of stupid people, and he's a whole group of them on his own.

[Coyote]

Jonathan, what Historical Evidence supports the New Testament? Archaeology only supprts that fact that places mentioned in the Bible actually existed but nowehere does it say that Miracles happened. All that exists is the Bible, which was written by people with an agenda. In other words, untrustable evidence.

So... "mah karah?"

That's a Hebrew "What's up?"

[Jonathan]

Well, not necessarily. Scientists can live their religious lives however they wish. But Boyd passing off his beliefs as fact is dishonest.

It's dishonest to misrepresent the actions of others. I do not pass my beliefs off as facts. I pass them off as beliefs supported by evidence. evidence which people could draw other conclusions from. conclusions which I think are wrong and unlikely, but they're still conclusions which ould be drawn. I've pointed this out to you before, so why do you perpetuate this myth about what I'm doing?

[data_link]

By the way, Mr. The Bible Is A Reliable Historical Document, how do you explain these:

1. According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). Herod died in March of 4 B.C., so Jesus had to have been born BEFORE that time. BUT, according to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Cyrenius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This census took place in 6 AD and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death.

2. According to Matthew 1:16, Joseph (Mary's husband) was the son of Jacob. But according to Luke 3:23, Josph's father was Heli.

3. According to Luke 23:46, Jesus's last words were " Father, into thy hands I commend my spirit," and having said thus, he gave up the ghost. But according to John 19:30, his last words were "It is finished." Surely something as important as Jesus's last words would be recorded clearly?

4. Compare John 20:1, Matthew 28:1, Mk. 16:1, and Luke 24:10. How did these accounts become mixed up? It wouldn't perhaps be a case of embellishment by the suthors, would it?

5. According to Mt. 27:5, Judas hanged himself. But according to Acts 1:18, he was killed hen he "burst asunder in the midst" and "all his bowels gushed out"

Care to answer?

[Durandal]

It's dishonest to misrepresent the actions of others. I do not pass my beliefs off as facts. I pass them off as beliefs supported by evidence. evidence which people could draw other conclusions from. conclusions which I think are wrong and unlikely, but they're still conclusions which ould be drawn. I've pointed this out to you before, so why do you perpetuate this myth about what I'm doing?

Really? There is evidence to support the belief that people can come back to life after having nails pounded through their hands and feet, and being speared in the side? There is evidence to support the fact that the aforementioned undead people have sufficient strength and leverage to move giant rocks?

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

It's dishonest to misrepresent the actions of others. I do not pass my beliefs off as facts. I pass them off as beliefs supported by evidence. evidence which people could draw other conclusions from. conclusions which I think are wrong and unlikely, but they're still conclusions which ould be drawn. I've pointed this out to you before, so why do you perpetuate this myth about what I'm doing?

Really? There is evidence to support the belief that people can come back to life after having nails pounded through their hands and feet, and being speared in the side? There is evidence to support the fact that the aforementioned undead people have sufficient strength and leverage to move giant rocks?

Sure! Haven'tcha ever watched Buffy the Vampire Slayer ? lol

[Wicked Pilot]

Really? There is evidence to support the belief that people can come back to life after having nails pounded through their hands and feet, and being speared in the side? There is evidence to support the fact that the aforementioned undead people have sufficient strength and leverage to move giant rocks?

The authors of the NT said it happened so it must be true.

[Durandal]

Sure! Haven'tcha ever watched Buffy the Vampire Slayer ? lol

Of course! I'm a huge Buffy fan! But even I recognize the difference between fact and fiction.

[Jonathan]

He didn't change the law. And God cannot change his nature. Even for an omnipotent being, some things are intrinsically impossible. A perfectly good being could not commit an evil act for instance. A perfectly just being could not change the law because doing so would only make it less just.

The solution to this problem - the law condemning us to Hell, with no hope of redeeming ourselves - was not to change the law, since that was impossible, but rather to remove the cause of our condemnation - sin. We cannot earn our way out of sin by good deeds, therefore it had to be removed by the willing sacrifice of perfect innocent. Only God is perfectly good therefore Jesus had to die for us so that are sins could be removed.
Next you're going to ask why, if this has been done, do we need to bother about Christianity, right? Well, in order for us to be forgiven, we have to accept God's offer. That's it.

I'm sorry, but did you just say that God cannot change his nature? Then perhaps you would like to explain why I can change my own nature at will, being one moment a kind young man and the next a cold-clooded bastard. Does this mean I am more powerful than God?

No.

Take the premise that God is perfectly just.
If God was to change, then he would be capable of doing unjust things.
This would make him unjust.
This, however, would go against his nature as a just god.
It is therefore impossible for God, is he is perfectly just, to lower the standards of justice, because it would be an unjust action.

This is known as the intrinsically impossible. It is be definition impossible for a perfectly just being to make himself less just because such a change would be an unjust action.

Besides, according to the bible, God has commited many evil acts.

The bible never describes God as evil. In fact it says just the opposite.

See Genesis - God kills every living thing that breathes air.

God gave us the gift of life. It is his to take away since we don't deserve it, being sinful beings. It is entirely consistent with God being perfectly just.

Even if you want to make the absurd argument that everyone save Noah and his family was unspeakably evil,

Why is it absurd? The wages of sin is death. Are you saying that everyone was perfect? The burden of proof is on you to prove that.

why does God kill all the innocent animals? What have they done to deserve his wrath?

Animals don't have souls. And he didn't kill all the animals. And he gave them life, so he can take it away.

Or see the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah in Gen. 19

And he said he would spare the city if anyone innocent was found therein. None were.

- God kills everyone except Lot and his family - Lot, who is so "just and righteous" that he sends his daughters out to be raped by the mob surrounding his house.

Lot was trying to protect his guests. I hardly think he wanted his daughters to be raped and it doesn't say they objected to his suggestion. Why would he want them raped? The chances are that they were offering to take the place of his guests and suffer instead of them. Lot being righteous is not inconsistent with the story.

Is this your idea of justice? or Gen. 38:7, where God kills Judah's firstborn. For what? God doesn't say. And all that from Genesis. Shall we move on to Exodus?

Err, yes it does. In verse 7.

'But Er, Judah's firstborn, was wicked in the LORD's sight; so the LORD put him to death.'

Exodus 4:24 - God threatens to kill Moses for being uncircumsised.

As you quote below, God had commanded that everyone be circumcised. Moses was disobeying this command nd therefore sinning, brining the punishment of death upon himself.

Or all the plauges that God casts upon Egypt.

They were sinful people and holding the Hebrews as slaves. They were warned it would happen.

These would not be nessecary if the Pharaoh's heart wasn't hardened. Who hardened the pharoh's heart? God did.

A more accurate translation would be that he allowed his heart to harden i.e. he let Pharaoh have his own way, rather than forcing him to change.

See Ex. 4:21, 7:3, 7:13, 9:12, 10:1, 10:20, 10:27, 11:10, 14:4, and 14:8. Then, after hardening the Pharonh's heart some more, he ruthlessly drowns his entire army in the sea for an act which He caused them to do.

Pharaoh ordered his army out, not God.

in 19:12, God threatens to kill anyone who touches Mt. Siani.

The people were sinful and not worthy of entering his presence. And he gave them a clear warning.

In 20:24, he instructs his people to make "burnt offerings" What kind of sick God is pleased by the killing and burning of innocent animals?

Sins must be atoned for. Under the Law, the way to do this was the sacrifice of an animal. God was entirely consistent with what he had declared righteous.

22:18 - Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

The translation is more accurately poisoner, rather than witch. Entirely understandable in a desert culture where water was scarce.

Thousand of innocent women have suffered excruciating deaths because of this verse - why would a just God put it in the bible?

Because it was a sin to poison wells and therefore those caught doing it were worthy of death.

The consequences of the verse are irrelevant. It should be examined purely on the basis of whether it is in of itself just or not.

22:20 - God says that anyone who believes in a different God shall be utterly destroyed.

And what is unjust abut that? God commands people to worship him as he is the one true God. To worship others would therefore be a sin. You would not be giving glory to God or showing him love, therefore you would be a sinner and worthy of death.

Ex. 29 - instructions for animal sacrifice.

See above. Justice requires that the price of sin be paid.

31:14 - everyone who does work on Sunday shall be put to death. (Gee, does this mean Jesus is put to death for his actions in John 5:16?) He says the same thing in 35:2-3.

Jesus is Lord of the Sabbath, (Mark 2:23-3:6). He makes it clear that the Sabbath is for man's benefit, suggesting that that law (and here I distinguish between law and Law) is one that was specific to the Israelites at the time. They were to be molded into God's people and lived in a climate where ill-discipline was dangerous to the entire society. I would say here that the sin is not in working on the Sabbath, but rather in disobeying God when he says that you should not work on the Sabbath.

This is all from the first two books of the bible, and I'm not touching Leviticus. So, I think it's safe to say that God's nature is not perfectly good and just

The problem here is that you are placing yourself as an objective source capable of saying for certain what right and wrong are. If God, however, is the source and does not violate any of the laws he makes, then the argument that he is perfectly just is entirely self-consistent. It is not a proof, but it is not inconsistent and is therefore rational.

and that He should have no problen allowing unrepentant sinners to go to Heaven. Of course, why would he want to when he can torture them in hell for all eternity?

If he was happy to allow that, why die on the cross? Your argument is not consistent with the whole Bible. Mine is.

You get out because you are deemed to have repaid your debt to society. I'm sure that if anyone in Hell honestly repented of their sins, they would go to Heaven. Jesus went there at one point to preach to sinners and offer them the chance of repentance. However people there are there because they haven't and won't repent.

You said that anyone in hell who is honestly repentant of their sins would go to heaven. We are honestly repentant of the things we do wrong.[/quote

You don't acknowledge Jesus as Lord and Saviour. You do not worship God as the one true God. That is a sin you are unrepentant of.

You on the other hand, think that because you are a Christian that you're getting a get out of hell free card.

Yes, I do. but only if I am a sincere Christian. I don't think for one moment that there's anything I can do to save myself, therefore I rely on God and his grace. And it's freely available to anyone, so yes, I guess it is a 'get out of jail free' card.

If there is a God and He is even remotely just, you are going to end up in hell.

Hang on, You say you don't deserve to go to Hell, yet I definitely do. And yet people claim that I am the one taking the moral high ground, despite the fact that I say I'm as guilty as anyone and better than no-one. I don't see how the accusation holds.

Yes, on the basis of pure Justice, if there is only Law, then I am condemned to Hell. However Christ came not to condemn the world, but rather through his actions, save it. We have Grace as ell as Law - God has taken my place therefore I a not going to Hell because I can be judged righteous before the Law through his sacrifice (not through any deed of my own, so I can not boast of any righteousness).

If, however, God acts the way he does in the Bible (which is not even remotely just),

You are judging God by your standards. What makes them more reliable than his? He is entirely consistent with his own laws.

then frankly, I'd feel better going to Hell and serving in the resistance movement organized by Satan.

If you so badly want to be there, why complain when Christians point out that that's where you're destined for?

What do you mean by objective reality?

I mean the reality that exists regardless of your point of veiw.

Objective reality is that which is absolute. True regardless of who you are or what you believe. If what I believe is true, then it is related to objective reality. Do you know the absolute truth of the universe? Are you in a position to conclusively say that I am wrong?

You have repeatedly demonstrated your total lack of ability to understand objective reality in the past,

Care to back that up by quoting me where this happens?

therefore I deduce that it is unlikely that your POV will have any correlation with reality in the future. So far I have been proven correct.

where did you prove that God didn't exist?

Where did you prove that God's actions were inconsistent with what he had defined as just?

Where did you prove that Jesus was not God?

Where did you prove that the Bible was false?

What exactly do you claim to have proven?

How is it anything other than purely subjective. You decide the criteria for something being wrong. You decide what is harmful to people. It's all stuff you've made up, rather than being based on a reliable external source. Totally subjective, in other words.

ROTFLMAO! Excuse me but, how is harm to others a subjective quality?

Easy. I think that it is a sin to not worship God. You think you aren't harming anyone by not worshipping him. I think you're harming yourself because you're sinning.

Are you perhaps suggesting that it is a subjective matter whether breaking someone's arm is harmful? And what is this external source, by the way? Would it be the personal whims of a made-up entity perhaps? How objective.

Neither you nor I are in a position to say whether it is an objective source or not. I believe that it is, but can't prove it. You believe it isn't and can't prove it. Neither of us can known without knowing what the absolute truth of reality is, something neither of us know. We can theorise, but we can't prove.

How so? Neme one verse in the bible that condemns slavery.

Leviticus 19:33-34
'When an alien lives with you in your land, do not mistreat him. The alien living with you must be treated as one of your native-born. Love him as yourself, for you were aliens in Egypt. I am the LORD your God.'

Foreigners should not be treated as slaves as the Israelites were in Egypt.

Deuteronomy 23:15-16
'If a slave has taken refuge with you, do not hand him over to his master. Let him live among you wherever he likes and in whatever town he chooses. Do not oppress him.'

If someone doesn't like being a slave, they are able to go free. Obviously the translation of 'slave' leaves a lot to be desired as it doesn't resemble the practice of slavery as we know it. In fact, it would appear to be more a job as a servant. In many ways, it would appear to be a good thing as it would mean a guaranteed supply of food, water and shelter, valuable in a desert culture.

24:17-18
'Do not deprive the alien or the fatherless of justice, or take the cloak of a widow as a pledge. Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and the LORD your God may bless you in all the work of your hands.'

Be just to people and remember how bad slavery was.

On the other hand, I can name several that support it. Gen. 9:25, for instance.

You do know the difference between Noah and God, right?

Try Gen. 7:10 - "This is my covenant which ye shall keep between me and you and they seed after thee: Every man and child among you shall be circumcised." Or the example above og God trying to kill Moses for being uncircumcised.

That is a covenant between the Jews and God. I am not a Jew. It was a symbol of who they were, so that they would stand out as different. That is no longer necessary as we are all God's people now.

And direct order from God. Lev. 20:9 - "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him."

Similar to what I said earlier.

Read what I said and tell me how the bible can be interpreted to mean God is just.

It is entirely self-consistent with the idea of God being just if he is the source of justice. You are declaring him unjust by assuming that you are an absolute source on justice. You haven't pointed out any self-inconsistencies with the viewpoint that he is just. Where does he make a law and then break it? where does God do anything he calls a sin?

I never said that. Stupidity is lack of intelligence. Ignorance is lack of knowledge.

Then why did you say that Christianity is for "intelligent and ignorant alike" as though they were diametrically opposed to one another?

I was using the word in the colloquial sense. It's a Northern-Irish-ism. I should have worded it differently for the benefit of the international audience. I apologise for any confusion it may have caused. Plus I like alliteration

What reasons would these be?

Personal experience, testimonies of others, historical evidence of the Gospels.

And yet you used a sample of one to "prove" that Christianity is logical.

Where did I do that?

Good. Then stop using the number of people who believe in a phenomenon as evidence of its truth, as you were doing here.

I did no such thing. Quote me where I say that or stop making things up.

So you believe that if you repent you have done no wrong?

I believe that all record of my wrongdoing is removed, that the burden of the sin is passed form me to Jesus so that I am not responsible for any wrongdoing and am instead found righteous.

This is what I was talking about when I said "Just because you are a Christian you think you get a 'get out of hell free' card." Logical people don't suffer from the delusion that they are in the clear just because they are sorry for what they've done;

Appeal to authority. Show where my beliefs can be disproved purely from logic, rather than simply saying 'logical people...'

It's a strawman anyway. I don't believe that the being sorry is it what makes everything okay. I believe that it's Jesus taking the punishment for me, after I accept his offer by repenting, that makes everything okay. there's a world of difference. If Jesus hadn't died and risen, then all the sorrow in the world wouldn't help. I feel I've been quite clear on this point.

we also do everything in our power to make it right.

And what would that be? And what logical reason have you for thinking that this will erase what you've done wrong and make everything okay?

But you don't, because you think "well I said I'm sorry, so I don't have any rsponsibility for what I did wrong." And you wonder why we hold you in contempt.

Once again, this is arrogant presumption on my part. Why don't you ask me what I believe and do, rather than deciding yourself?

Romans 6:1-2
'What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning, so that grace may increase? By no means! We died to sin; how can we live in it longer?'

You have contempt for me for a view I never claimed to hold, but you assumed I must hold. You hold contempt for me because of prejudicial assumptions, rather than any truthful reality. Being saved does not mean that you have a license to sin. On the contrary, it means that you should try to live a righteous life.

I hold you stupid for holing the opinion that the Bible is true,

Why shouldn't I? there is historical evidence that the Gospels are accurate. It is a matter o faith that the rest is.

the opinion that the Biblical God is just,

IOW, you think I'm stupid because I disagree with your view of morality, suggesting that your view of morality is the only possible valid one suggesting that you believe you know some absolute truth about morality. Is this true?

and the opinion that the bible has nothing to say about scientific matters.

That's a disagreement in interpretation. You have yet to prove, or even offer plausible evidence that the Bible claims authority as a scientific document. The 4 corners thing is poetic and creation attempts to provide no details about how the universe works, merely saying that Gos is responsible for it existing.

You insult science because you claim that it's models are contrivances used to describe reality,

Actually, that's an accurate description of science. Would you care to point out where I'm wrong?

yet where they contradict the bible (the instances I've mentioned) you think that they do not, in fact, have any connection to reality.

You assume that you are right about the contradiction. You are not allowing for alternative interpretations which are themselves perfectly reasonable. And what do you think I think has no connection to reality? The Bible or science?

You may think that is irrelevant because this is all events in the past, but if Science's models do in fact have some connection to past reality, the biblical account of God's actions is invalidated

1) That's an 'if', not a certainty.
2) there's nothing to prevent God creating the world in a state which it would resemble if it was 15 billion years old, so the appearance of 15 billion years old universe is not contradictory with a 6 day creation
3) I said that the 6 days could well represent ages

and your faith has no basis,

No faith is founded on the cross, not a scientific theory of creation.

because you admit that the bible is a lie.

I have not said that the Bible is a lie and I have pointed out that contradiction is not necessary between Bible and science. Why do you not concede that other valid viewpoints and interpretations aside from your own could exist?

So instead of following this path, you say that "God just created things to appear that way, but they aren't actually that way." THAT is the insult to science

No it's not because science doesn't care if it tells us exactly how the universe works, as long as it describes how it appears to work. Out of curiosity, what is your profession? I'm a Physics student you see, surrounded by a great many other scientists, many of them leaders in their field. I can't think of any who would disagree with me on this. Professor Artur Ekert, formerly of Keble College, Oxford, now of the chair of Quantum Mechanics at Cambridge, and one of the experts on quantum computing said as much to me when giving a tutorial on the Schrodinger equation. I think he's qualified to talk about science.

- to say that its models do not describe the way the universe actually works,

So Special relativity is an insult to science because it showed Newton to be wrong? don't be daft.

and it's an insult to God as well, because it says he is such a sadistic bastard that he would deliberately create a massive illusion instead of giving us a decent chance to know the truth.

I said he had the power to, not that he actually did do it for sure. That can hardly be an insult. And in what way would such an illusion affect us negatively, that you have reason to all him such things? It certainly doesn't affect our understanding of science if the universe acts as if it was 15 billion years old. Let's say for a moment that God did create the world in 6 days. 6 days wouldn't be long enough for trees or animals to grow, so they would have to be created as if they were a certain age. This would be an 'illusion'.

No, it wouldn't, because of Ex. 22:20. You certainly are intolerant of homosexuality and atheism.

Matthew 28:19
'Go and make disciples of all nations'

I.e. go and convert people to Christianity. There is a difference between Judaism and its relationship with the world, which necessitated that passage and Christianity and its relationship with the world, which brings about my passage.

You are free to chose atheism if you want, but that doesn't mean I have to agree with your choice, or that it must be acknowledged as right. the same gos for homosexuality. It is a sin like any other. That doesn't mean that I am called to love a homosexual any less than anyone else. How does that, therefore, qualify as intolerant? Surely to deny me the right to believe that

How so? Since when were you persecuted for following Jesus? IIRC, you don't believe he was the Son of God

And exactly why is it that our beloved president publicly stated that anyone who didn't believe in God wasn't a citizen of the United States?

Because you elected someone with the intellectual capacity of a banana and less benefit to your health. He seems to be under the impression that God cares about some countries more than others. My ass he does. He cares about everyone, loving us all equally. America is no more important to him than Russia or Ireland or Iraq or Somalia. And no less. I'd like to beat Bush abut the head with an inflatable sign saying 'Corruption: this way ->' for all his bridge between church and state comments. the two should have a gulf between them. The government has no business running the church and the church should ot be tempted by the power of government. We all know how disastrous that's been for the Catholic Church. In short, your president is a dunce.

Anyway, how does this relate to you being persecuted for being a Christian?

Christians may have been persecuted once upon a time, but I challenge you to name ONE time in history, prior to the founding of America, where an atheist would NOT have been burned at the stake for heracy.

You're making the claim that atheists have always been burned at the stake. The burden of proof is on you. It's a ludicrous argument.

And may I remind you that for over 1500 years, it was YOU doing the persecuting. Keep this in mind before you go whining about how christians were persecuted throughout history.

Do you deny that Christians were persecuted and still are being? The persecution of atheists and persecution of Chrisitans are independent variables. Just because there's more of one, doesn't mean there's less of the other. The 20th century has seen more people martyred because they were Christians than any other time in history. Try looking outside the 'land of hope and glory' some time. Society is increasingly intolerant of Christians voicing their opinions. Protestantism has been declared a cult in France and street evangelism is outlawed (freedom of speech restricted). There are dozens of countries where declaring that you are a Christian will get you executed.

[Jonathan]

I'm not the one erecting the wall. I'm providing evidence which people ignore. People construct strawmen and attack them instead of my arguments. It's very frustrating for me to face a dozen people doing this.

It is not "evidence" to state your conclusions (eg- "God is perfectly good", "God loves us", etc) as premises and then use them to justify themselves. It is circular logic. Your abject stupidity doth not a valid argument make.

Your slander does not a truth make. I never claimed that God is perfectly good was a justification for itself. Try Reading my posts.

[Jonathan]

I can't use my own experiences to formulate a belief?

You can use whatever you wish to formulate whatever idiotic belief you wish. But, you can't use personal experience to formulate a belief and then expect it to be considered a valid belief.

For the last fucking time, appeal to personal experience is the name of a logical fallacy.

I have repeatedly said that my beliefs are founded on more than just personal experience and that I understand that evidence other than them is required. Stop beating that strawman and read my posts for a change.

[Jonathan]

People don't admit defeat because they either think they're right, as I do or they know they're wrong, but are too proud to concede it to others.

Or they're too goddamned stupid to know any better, like your average Christian fundie moron.

I believe that that is known as thinking they're right.. This is equivalent to me saying

'The answer could be 1 or 2'

and you saying I'm an idiot for not realising that (4-3) is also an option.

[Raoul Duke, Jr.]

Because you elected someone with the intellectual capacity of a banana and less benefit to your health. He seems to be under the impression that God cares about some countries more than others. My ass he does. He cares about everyone, loving us all equally. America is no more important to him than Russia or Ireland or Iraq or Somalia. And no less.

Okay, even I know that's incorrect. If JHVH-1 (lol) loves all countries and all peoples equally, why does that Bible state (several times) that the people of Isreal, specifically, are God's "chosen people"?

[Darth Wong]

Your slander does not a truth make. I never claimed that God is perfectly good was a justification for itself. Try Reading my posts.

Bullshit. Every single one of your arguments assumes the following premises:

1) God is perfectly just
2) The Bible is "evidence"

And when people point out the glaring holes in those premises, you simply repeat them. For example:

Take the premise that God is perfectly just. If God was to change, then he would be capable of doing unjust things. This would make him unjust.

This, however, would go against his nature as a just god.
It is therefore impossible for God, is he is perfectly just, to lower the standards of justice, because it would be an unjust action.

This is known as the intrinsically impossible. It is be definition impossible for a perfectly just being to make himself less just because such a change would be an unjust action.

In other words, if we assume that God is perfect and just, then God must still be perfectly just. Hooray, you just made a circle. And:

Besides, according to the bible, God has commited many evil acts.

The bible never describes God as evil. In fact it says just the opposite.

In other words, the Bible cannot possibly depict an evil God because it says God isn't evil ... even though he's a mass murderer. In short, you refuse to admit that mass murder is evil, because of your "special pleading fallacy" (and you quietly ignored the question I posed, so I will ask it again: if we genetically engineered a slave race, that would make us its creators; according to your "reasoning", ie- leap in logic, that means we can commit unlimited cruelty upon them and it's OK).

In short, you simply refuse to discuss this issue without assuming your conclusions as premises, not to mention the validity of various bogus leaps in logic, such as "if you create something, it's OK to be wantonly cruel and violent toward it". And when people point out these glaring, gigantic holes in your logic, you simply put up your towering wall of ignorance and say that it's totally untrue, blah blah blah, etc. And you wonder why we think you're a blithering idiot.

[Jonathan]

"Special pleading" fallacy.

How so?

Your God is an asshole.

Trying to be objective?

Tell me, if we used genetic engineering to create a race of slaves, would it be OK to treat them with unlimited cruelty? According to your "logic", the answer would be yes.

No it wouldn't because
1) we can't create life
2) God doesn't treat us with unlimited cruelty

Nazis wanted the Jews to die because they were Jews. Do you want me to die because I'm a Bible-believing Christian?

Drop this attempt at self-righteous indignation, asshole.

How is me saying that I'm as guilty as anyone else, fully deserving of death and no better than anyone here, me being self-righteous? Do you have a problem with me asking questions? I wanted to clarify his position and put it in a light he had not considered. At no point did I claim a moral high ground over him, so put down that strawman and try to act as if you're interested in a debate.

You spout justifications for mass-murder and unlimited cruelty

No, I give reasons why God's actions were not murderous and show you that he wants people to go to Heaven rather than suffer.

while simultaneously pretending to hold the moral high ground.

That's a blatant lie. see above. Shouldn't you be setting a better example on your own forum? If you think I'm wrong, why don't you quote me where I've claimed moral superiority over people?

You have no morality;

That's subjective viewpoint surely and not something you can state a a fact unless you believe yourself to be an objective source of morality. And surely this is you taking a moral high ground, claiming that you know what is moral and that I don't obey it? Or do I misunderstand you?

your entire system of "morality" is based on pure abdication of personal moral responsibility to the teachings of long-dead prophets claiming to represent an imaginary invisible man in the sky, and you are obviously ignorant of the definition of appeals to authority.

And you hide behind phrases like that, unable or unwilling to intelligently debate the subject. Why would I, a flawed person, be a good source of morality? Or any man? If God exits, then why not listen to him about morality? What makes you an objective source of ethics?

It is fallacious to appeal to any authority, because it presumes that the authority in question is completely, literally infallible with no possibility of error or even ambiguity or misinterpretation.

And that's an arrogant presumption on your part, made presumably to justify your vilification of the evil intolerant fundies.

I believe the bible to be inerrant. However, I concede that I may be mistaken in my belief. Just asking me about that would have saved a lot of grief and anger. I have certainly never said that it is impossible to misinterpret it. Considering that we are disagreeing on interpretation, it is blatantly obvious that it can be misinterpreted. In fact, I've told you in the past that you are misinterpreting it. You seem rather quick to forget that fact.

The Bible is not infallible, nor is it unambigious or immune to misinterpretation. So it's a logical fallacy to appeal to its authority for anything (not that you would know or care about logic, of course).

Keep on beating that strawman. It's much less effort than debating a real opponent.

Is there a certain amount of faith required for me to believe that my wife loves me? Yes. Is it as much faith as is required to believe that your God exists and loves us? Not even close.

In your opinion. It depends on how much evidence you've seen. You're not ina position to quantify the two things for the entire human race.

[Jonathan]

Bullshit. Every single one of your arguments assumes the following premises:

1) God is perfectly just
2) The Bible is "evidence"

And when people point out the glaring holes in those premises, you simply repeat them. For example:

It seems you are doomed to repeat your mistakes.

Take the premise that God is perfectly just. If God was to change, then he would be capable of doing unjust things. This would make him unjust.

This, however, would go against his nature as a just god.
It is therefore impossible for God, is he is perfectly just, to lower the standards of justice, because it would be an unjust action.

This is known as the intrinsically impossible. It is be definition impossible for a perfectly just being to make himself less just because such a change would be an unjust action.

In other words, if we assume that God is perfect and just, then God must still be perfectly just. Hooray, you just made a circle. And:[/quote]

I was illustrating why a perfectly God just cannot change his nature. I was not attempting to prove that God was perfectly just. If you'd bothered to read the post, you would be aware of this.

Besides, according to the bible, God has commited many evil acts.

The bible never describes God as evil. In fact it says just the opposite.

In other words, the Bible cannot possibly depict an evil God because it says God isn't evil ... even though he's a mass murderer. In short, you refuse to admit that mass murder is evil, because of your "special pleading fallacy"[/quote]

The claim was that the bible describes God as evil. My rebuttal was that the bible describes God as just and never shows him deviating from his laws, therefore it never claimed he was evil. I was not trying to use it as a proof that he wasn't evil. As should have been obvious from the post.

(and you quietly ignored the question I posed, so I will ask it again: if we genetically engineered a slave race, that would make us its creators; according to your "reasoning", ie- leap in logic, that means we can commit unlimited cruelty upon them and it's OK).

No i didn't, I answered it by saying that your logic was wrong.

In short, you simply refuse to discuss this issue without assuming your conclusions as premises,

you refuse to read my arguments and instead I assume that I'm talking about something different. You draw your conclusion independently of the evidence at hand, which is hardly logical.

not to mention the validity of various bogus leaps in logic, such as "if you create something, it's OK to be wantonly cruel and violent toward it".

That's a lie. Point to one place where I've said that What I've said is that God gave us life, we sinned and are deserving of death, so god has the right to take it away. What have you done to deserve to live? What have you done to redeem yourself from what you've done wrong?

And when people point out these glaring, gigantic holes in your logic, you simply put up your towering wall of ignorance and say that it's totally untrue, blah blah blah, etc. And you wonder why we think you're a blithering idiot.

See above. you can't even understand a simple post. I was defining the intrinsically impossible and you thought I was trying to prove God was just. I'm not the one begin ignorant. Your examples were useless.

[Jonathan]

Bullshit. God has not demonstrated his "love" for us in any way,

I'd say that dying on the cross was a pretty effective demonstration.

while my wife has demonstrated her love for me in many ways.

How do you know it's done out of love?

God has demonstrated cruelty toward us,

When? How?

while my wife has never demonstrated cruelty toward me. God's very existence is unsupportable, while my wife obviously exists, since she can be seen, heard, videotaped, etc. Your moronic comparison does not work.

God's existence is not in conflict with the facts therefore it is a matter of faith. Personal experience, which isn't much use as evidence for anyone else, can be evidence for me personally of his existence. Unless you wan tot say that I'm not allowed to use my own experiences to build up my own faith. I've already talked about historical evidence elsewhere. I'll go into in detail in a reply to a different post.

[Jonathan]

Okay, even I know that's incorrect. If JHVH-1 (lol) loves all countries and all peoples equally, why does that Bible state (several times) that the people of Isreal, specifically, are God's "chosen people"?

Because prior to Jesus, they were his people and had special status. Now we are all his people. We are all anew Israel effectively. there's a lot of symbolism about it in Mark 3 for instance. Jesus calling 12 apostles to lead his ministry and found a new Israel c.f. 12 tribes of original Israel.

And thanks for asking a question without chucking in a random insult or sneering remark. It makes pleasant change

[Darth Wong]

"Special pleading" fallacy.

How so?

You think it's OK for God to commit murder.

Your God is an asshole.

Trying to be objective?

Your God glorifies murder. That makes him an asshole, albeit a fictional one.

Tell me, if we used genetic engineering to create a race of slaves, would it be OK to treat them with unlimited cruelty? According to your "logic", the answer would be yes.

No it wouldn't because
1) we can't create life
2) God doesn't treat us with unlimited cruelty

Pathetic evasion. You can't evade a hypothetical question by saying it's not feasible, nor can you pretend that God's promise of eternal torture for unbelievers does not constitute unlimited cruelty.

How is me saying that I'm as guilty as anyone else, fully deserving of death and no better than anyone here, me being self-righteous?

I've heard this bullshit before. God will spare you but not me, and you say he is perfectly just. Don't you see the problem? If we both deserve eternal damnation equally but he chooses to spare you and not me, then he is not just, and he is engaging in cronyism. If, on the other hand, you believe he is just, then he must have a good reason to sentencing me to damnation but not you, which in turn means that you think you're better than me.

You can't have your cake and eat it too. Choose. If your God corrupt and unjust, or are you a self-righteous asshole?

Do you have a problem with me asking questions? I wanted to clarify his position and put it in a light he had not considered. At no point did I claim a moral high ground over him, so put down that strawman and try to act as if you're interested in a debate.

You throw the term "strawman" around as if you actually know what it means.

No, I give reasons why God's actions were not murderous and show you that he wants people to go to Heaven rather than suffer.

If he wanted people to go to Heaven, he could simply open the gates. Why force us to worship him in order to get in?

And BTW, this does not change the fact that the definition of murder is to kill someone, which is what your God does in spades. Your method of judging morality by imagined after-death rewards is precisely the same mentality that drove the Crusaders, the Inquisitioners, and lunatics who fly airplanes into buildings. We can judge morality only by that which is objective, otherwise we fall into the trap of using subjective beliefs to justify actions, as you do.

You have no morality;

That's subjective viewpoint surely and not something you can state a a fact unless you believe yourself to be an objective source of morality.

Wrong. I base morality entirely on objective actions. You base your idea of morality on appeals to divine authority and subjective belief systems which can be used to justify any atrocity.

your entire system of "morality" is based on pure abdication of personal moral responsibility to the teachings of long-dead prophets claiming to represent an imaginary invisible man in the sky, and you are obviously ignorant of the definition of appeals to authority.

And you hide behind phrases like that, unable or unwilling to intelligently debate the subject. Why would I, a flawed person, be a good source of morality? Or any man? If God exits, then why not listen to him about morality? What makes you an objective source of ethics?

I exist. God doesn't. I discuss only events and things which are known to exist. The Bible doesn't. That makes me objective, and it makes my arguments objective. Your God is just your subjective superstition; nothing more. It has no more objective validity than the story of Santa Claus.

And that's an arrogant presumption on your part, made presumably to justify your vilification of the evil intolerant fundies.

I believe the bible to be inerrant. However, I concede that I may be mistaken in my belief. Just asking me about that would have saved a lot of grief and anger. I have certainly never said that it is impossible to misinterpret it. Considering that we are disagreeing on interpretation, it is blatantly obvious that it can be misinterpreted. In fact, I've told you in the past that you are misinterpreting it. You seem rather quick to forget that fact.

So many words, so little content. You insist on treating the Bible as objective evidence. That means you are appealing to its authority, assuming its total inerrancy, assuming the impossibility of misinterpretation, and assuming no ambiguity. Without ALL of those assumptions, you cannot use the Bible as evidence.

Is there a certain amount of faith required for me to believe that my wife loves me? Yes. Is it as much faith as is required to believe that your God exists and loves us? Not even close.

In your opinion. It depends on how much evidence you've seen. You're not ina position to quantify the two things for the entire human race.

Wrong. I can state facts, and those facts, like 2+2=4, do apply to the entire human race. One of those facts is that a living, breathing person's actions can be observed and require less faith to recognize than those of an imaginary deity.

Like most fundies, you seem fond of the idea that it is "arrogant" to trumpet the superiority of objectivity and logic. In fact, nothing is more arrogant than the conceit that your own beliefs supersede objective reality.

[Durandal]

No it wouldn't because
1) we can't create life

It's called sex, Jon.

2) God doesn't treat us with unlimited cruelty

So, flooding the entire world wasn't cruel? Murdering all the first-born of Egypt wasn't cruel?

[HemlockGrey]

-eats popcorn-

Jon, for future reference: Biblical literalism = bad. Take it from a fellow Christian.

[Darth Wong]

Bullshit. God has not demonstrated his "love" for us in any way,

I'd say that dying on the cross was a pretty effective demonstration.

And meaningless, if he sacrificed himself to himself to save us from himself. Besides, you accept without question his disciples' laughable claim that he wanted it to happen. It was the Romans who made it happen.

while my wife has demonstrated her love for me in many ways.

How do you know it's done out of love?

I don't. However, I know that these actions took place, and were deliberate. That is more than I can say for Biblical myths.

God has demonstrated cruelty toward us,

When? How?

Stop this bullshit. Mauling of youths with bears, murder of millions, torturing people in Hell, none of this strikes you as cruelty?

God's existence is not in conflict with the facts therefore it is a matter of faith.

Actually, the Biblical God's existence is is conflict with the facts, insofar as the Bible's factual accuracy is simply laughable. The Vague God's existence is not necessarily in conflict with the facts. But then again, he might be Buddha, or Odin.

Personal experience, which isn't much use as evidence for anyone else, can be evidence for me personally of his existence. Unless you wan tot say that I'm not allowed to use my own experiences to build up my own faith. I've already talked about historical evidence elsewhere. I'll go into in detail in a reply to a different post.

Your attempts to shore up Biblical reliability are a joke too. Hogan's Heroes describes Nazis. We know that Nazis existed. Does this mean Hogan's Heroes is a valid source of evidence about that era?

[Jonathan]

So, they don't hate homosexuals, they just want to force them straight.

I never said that. It wouldn't be loving to force that on someone. And how exactly do you think someone could force that one them?

They deny them love

I never said homosexuals couldn't feel love.

and marriage,

In the religious sense, yes, because God made us to be together as man and woman, not man and man or woman and woman.

but they don't hate them. If fact, "love the sinner". All the homosexuals in the world must be very relieved by now, due to your subtle distinction. By the way, I don't hate jews. I hate the jewish people as a whole. It sounds so much better, doesn't it?

No, ti doesn't. I fail to see how it is an apt analogy. We are called no love homosexuals, while hating the sin they commit. There is no incompatibility here.

BECAUSE THERE ARE MANY WHO DO NOT HOLD THAT STANCE, you moron.

And what does that have to do with my stance? I fail to see the relevance of it o the belief I hold to.

The article mentioned an ancient flood that could be the origin of the mith. Very different from the Biblical "kill everybody, they deserve" Flood

In what way do you mean?

Says who? It says so in the Bible.

It doesn't explicitly say 'the earth is flat square/rectangle/quadrilteral.' 4 corners can easily be interpreted as a poetical thing. You're grasping at straws.

Taking it literally, you should consider the chance of the Earth's round shape being an illusion. Doesn't God have the power to do that?

Yes he does. But as long as the universe functions as if the Earth was a sphere, it really doesn't matter.

Or is it more reasonable to simple assume the Bible to be mistaken in this scientific matter? And in all others?

False dilemma. I think it's more reasonable to assume that it's poetic license. There is no reason to introduce conflict if both sources can be easily reconciled.

You choose to take some science of the Bible literally and to assume an alegorism in other? Interesting. No doubt, worthy of your new title.

What 'science' of the bible do I take literally? And the 4 corners thing is a poetic, non-literal expression. Why do you insist on contradiction where none is necessary?

[Jonathan]

-eats popcorn-

Jon, for future reference: Biblical literalism = bad. Take it from a fellow Christian.

Thanks, but I'd rather take it from Jesus that all scripture is god breathed. I think he's more of an authority on it

[Durandal]

It doesn't explicitly say 'the earth is flat square/rectangle/quadrilteral.' 4 corners can easily be interpreted as a poetical thing. You're grasping at straws.

Taking passages at face value is "grasping at straws"?