Heaven Runs out of Room

[Androsphinx]

No no no, Mr. Zuul —the idea in a debate is to advance points which help, not hinder, your argument. If Yahweh is all-powerful as his fan club's sales-pitch always has it, he's not supposed to either be stopped by iron chariots or need to rely on his flunkies to get the job done. For fuck's sake, Zeus kicked ass when he decided to take on anybody in direct combat and never needed an army of devout flunkies to do his work for him and here we see Yahweh apparently unable to act to the same level of prowess as Zeus.

Yahweh never entered direct combat, he either does everything by proxy (i.e. angels and religious leaders).

Except when he wrestles with Jacob in Gen. 32 and fails to beat him.

[CaptainChewbacca]

He DID beat Jacob, using a dirty trick to dislocate his leg, I believe.

[Rye]

He DID beat Jacob, using a dirty trick to dislocate his leg, I believe.

Yeah, I'd forgotten that bit; it even cites this as the reason why eating thigh-meat is prohibited, though amusingly, the prohibition isn't mentioned anywhere else in the Bible.

[Androsphinx]

He DID beat Jacob, using a dirty trick to dislocate his leg, I believe.

Yeah, I'd forgotten that bit; it even cites this as the reason why eating thigh-meat is prohibited, though amusingly, the prohibition isn't mentioned anywhere else in the Bible.[/quote

YHWH was unable to beat Jacob even with a dislocated leg.

Gen 35:25-7 "And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day. And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was strained, as he wrestled with him. And he said: 'Let me go, for the day breaketh...'"

[Stuart]

Maybe because the crew of an Abrams tank, seeing some nutter in front of him waving a sword about, knows that said nutter will wind up making a mess on his treads but nothing more. So what's to panic?

Another point here is that the "armies" back in those days were really just masses of civilians pulled straight out of the fields and told they were soldiers. Traininga nd discipline were non-existant, most of them probably had their farm implements as weapons. The few professional troops that were around were the King's bodyguard etc. Now, rag tag bunches of peasants like that do panic at the slightest excuse (or even no excuse at all). On the other hand, todays trained, disciplined and heavily armed troops are likely to respond to a sword-waving nutter with an enthusiastic "hey guys, track grease"

Also, I don't see any modern general being dumb enough to let some woman he met only a couple of days before get close enough to drive a nail through his skull (BTW, just why couldn't the supposedly all-powerful Yahweh knock off Sisera on his own?). Nor would that be enough (even if such a ludicrous assassination attempt succeeded) to prevent the second-in-command from taking over and leading his tanks forward with combined air and artillery support backing him up.

Precisely. This feeds back to the point above. In the old days, the idea that the big boss just got whacked would cause an army to panic, today, the next in the food chain takes over (and lady with a tent peg meets a horrible, lingering end).

PS Armageddon Part Two is up.

[Lagmonster]

Doesn't the Bible describe the weapons that are used when Jesus comes back? The guy comes back with a sword in his mouth. Don't you think that if a guy could upgrade from a sword in his mouth to 120mm smoothbore, he would have done so? It seems to me that their technology is in stasis.

As I mentioned earlier in the thread, Revelations describes three main weapons used against earth: Jesus's mouth sword, the unnamed column of fire, and the heavenly army which wields swords and rides white horses.

[Molyneux]

He DID beat Jacob, using a dirty trick to dislocate his leg, I believe.

Yeah, I'd forgotten that bit; it even cites this as the reason why eating thigh-meat is prohibited, though amusingly, the prohibition isn't mentioned anywhere else in the Bible.[/quote

YHWH was unable to beat Jacob even with a dislocated leg.

Gen 35:25-7 "And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day. And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was strained, as he wrestled with him. And he said: 'Let me go, for the day breaketh...'"

Er...that's supposedly an angel, not God. Bit of a difference of power level, there.

And if Jacob wrestled for the entire night, a pulled groin muscle is to be expected...

[Androsphinx]

Quote:
Also, I don't see any modern general being dumb enough to let some woman he met only a couple of days before get close enough to drive a nail through his skull (BTW, just why couldn't the supposedly all-powerful Yahweh knock off Sisera on his own?). Nor would that be enough (even if such a ludicrous assassination attempt succeeded) to prevent the second-in-command from taking over and leading his tanks forward with combined air and artillery support backing him up.


Precisely. This feeds back to the point above. In the old days, the idea that the big boss just got whacked would cause an army to panic, today, the next in the food chain takes over (and lady with a tent peg meets a horrible, lingering end).

Actually, in this case Sisera's army had been beaten and killed "to the last man", and he took refuge with the nearest friendly village - who promptly switched sides.

[Androsphinx]

Yeah, I'd forgotten that bit; it even cites this as the reason why eating thigh-meat is prohibited, though amusingly, the prohibition isn't mentioned anywhere else in the Bible.[/quote

YHWH was unable to beat Jacob even with a dislocated leg.

Gen 35:25-7 "And Jacob was left alone; and there wrestled a man with him until the breaking of the day. And when he saw that he prevailed not against him, he touched the hollow of his thigh; and the hollow of Jacob's thigh was strained, as he wrestled with him. And he said: 'Let me go, for the day breaketh...'"

Er...that's supposedly an angel, not God. Bit of a difference of power level, there.

And if Jacob wrestled for the entire night, a pulled groin muscle is to be expected...

No, it's YHWH. Polite religious opinion held for a very long time that God could not be anthromorphic, and thus if a physical being was mentioned it had to be an angel or emissary - this is true even in later sections of the Bible (see Hoshea 12:5). Jacob names the place of the struggle "Penu-el" (Face of God" - "for I have seen God face to face". YHWH is also clearly present in physical form in Gen 18 -19, when he eats and drinks.

I should note that, especially in the oldest strata of the Bible, the line between angels and God is not clearly defined (see also Ex. 3). Scholarly opinion is divided, but this seems generally to be a literary convention, possibly even of later interpolation.

[Rye]

It is God there, not an angel. That's why Jacob is renamed Israel, "He who struggles with God" and he himself proclaims he has spoken to God face to face and survived.

[Androsphinx]

Nit-pick: Israel actually means "God will prevail" or thereabouts. The narrative inverts it for etiological purposes.

[Junghalli]

No, it's YHWH. Polite religious opinion held for a very long time that God could not be anthromorphic, and thus if a physical being was mentioned it had to be an angel or emissary - this is true even in later sections of the Bible (see Hoshea 12:5). Jacob names the place of the struggle "Penu-el" (Face of God" - "for I have seen God face to face". YHWH is also clearly present in physical form in Gen 18 -19, when he eats and drinks.

As an aside, couldn't you easily reconcile that by saying God makes a human form for himself when he wrestles with Jacob?

[Androsphinx]

No, it's YHWH. Polite religious opinion held for a very long time that God could not be anthromorphic, and thus if a physical being was mentioned it had to be an angel or emissary - this is true even in later sections of the Bible (see Hoshea 12:5). Jacob names the place of the struggle "Penu-el" (Face of God" - "for I have seen God face to face". YHWH is also clearly present in physical form in Gen 18 -19, when he eats and drinks.

As an aside, couldn't you easily reconcile that by saying God makes a human form for himself when he wrestles with Jacob?

The main forms of worship in First Temple Israel (10th-6th century) which were in opposition to the temple cult (cult in the technical sense) were based very much on images and idols. The great innovation of the Temple cult was to image God as transcendent and immaterial, and ultimately to assume the form which we know today. In fact, it's specifically the "P" text (as opposed to the JE, D and H elements) which has distinctly anti-anthropomorphic elements, and cuts out as many elements as it can of God's direct involvement (Eden, Babel and so forth - Aaron is often brought in as an intermediary). The Jacob/Angel story is JE.

The "modern" idea of God as omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent is still a way off, as is the sophisticated theology which allows for the sort of nuance which you suggest. So the "P" theology which gained ascendency as the temple cult did likewise with the centralisation of worship in Jerusalem (especially after the fall of the Northern Kingdom) couldn't accept from either a socio-political or a theological postion the existence of an image- or idol- based group, and enveigled heavily against it. That's where the knee-jerk Jewish and Christian opposition to "graven images" and the likes originates. Jesus is very much the exception which proves the rule, but that's by the by. And then Aristotelian philosophy and science came along, and really killed off the idea of a physical God amongst the educated elites.

That's not to say there weren't significant anthropomorphic elements throughout - even in Judaism, which after the rise of Christianity had an even bigger reason to exclude the possibility of God taking human form, only in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries did anti-anthropomorphism prevail. But the (ironically) more conciliatory position of an intermediary being prevailed, being satisfactory to both groups.

[Darth Wong]

Maybe because the crew of an Abrams tank, seeing some nutter in front of him waving a sword about, knows that said nutter will wind up making a mess on his treads but nothing more. So what's to panic?

Another point here is that the "armies" back in those days were really just masses of civilians pulled straight out of the fields and told they were soldiers. Traininga nd discipline were non-existant, most of them probably had their farm implements as weapons. The few professional troops that were around were the King's bodyguard etc. Now, rag tag bunches of peasants like that do panic at the slightest excuse (or even no excuse at all). On the other hand, todays trained, disciplined and heavily armed troops are likely to respond to a sword-waving nutter with an enthusiastic "hey guys, track grease"

I seem to recall reading that armies back then (>3000 years ago) tended to avoid large battles entirely, and that military conflicts tended to consist mostly of raiding actions. According to that source, it wasn't until the iron age that you started seeing large armies clashing in open battle.

[Patrick Degan]

"The majority of the planet" at that time being what was known as the Roman Empire —which was not the majority of the planet even then.

Yes, that's entirely what they meant. They meant the end of the world was actually just about the Mediterranean area. I'm sure. Yeah. Yeah.

Yes, that is what they meant:



That is what John of Patmos and his contemporaries thought of as "the whole world". Also, the total world population of the time was around 300 million by estimate. Approximately the size of the present population of the United States.

Also, a third part of mankind is not a majority, which is what Revelation alleges in its so-called "prophecy".

Everyone dies in judeo-christian eschatology.

Wrong. Revelation is very sketchy on just how many will die and for how long they'll remain dead.

Leaving aside your ridiculous red herring of alien technology for the moment, the fact that there aren't regular exchanges between Hell and Earth points to a Hell which is isolated culturally and politically, as well as scientifically, from a world which has far outstripped it in terms of destructive capability.

Why would they be scientifically isolated? They can go anywhere they want without being detected. The fact they're not doing deals for stuff they don't even need as immortal intangible spirits means precisely dick.

Then why haven't they come up and taken over if they're up to our level of advancement? And where in the Bible does it say demons can go anywhere without being detected? Or from any other source? Indeed, according to the lore, demons use their alleged abilities to essentially pull the same medieval shit they've been doing for millenia now. And if they haven't figured out how to resist control from a book of magick words and phrases, that shows that scientific analysis isn't top in their catalogue of skills.

No, you are missing the point entirely. If a demon can be bound and controlled simply by a book of magick words and phrases and not by any physical coercion, that means that it's not capable of managing a feat which oppressed humans are capable of and have demonstrated time and time and time again throughout history —the ability to resist, rise up, and overthrow a master.

I don't see why not. Presumably they keep their real names from one another.

Handwaving does not save your "argument". Try actually answering the fucking question.

No no no, Mr. Zuul —the idea in a debate is to advance points which help, not hinder, your argument. If Yahweh is all-powerful as his fan club's sales-pitch always has it, he's not supposed to either be stopped by iron chariots or need to rely on his flunkies to get the job done. For fuck's sake, Zeus kicked ass when he decided to take on anybody in direct combat and never needed an army of devout flunkies to do his work for him and here we see Yahweh apparently unable to act to the same level of prowess as Zeus.

Yahweh never entered direct combat, he either does everything by proxy (i.e. angels and religious leaders).

I see the statement I made about making points which hinder your argument just sailed right over your head. Doesn't say much for Yahweh that he needs proxies to act for him, now does it?

Maybe because the crew of an Abrams tank, seeing some nutter in front of him waving a sword about, knows that said nutter will wind up making a mess on his treads but nothing more.

Why wouldn't that be the case with charioteers?

As Stuart and others have pointed out, the modern combat soldier is far more disciplined and trained than a charioteer of Sisera's time and is not likely to break and run when thrust into a battle situation and encountering somebody using scare tactics. Somebody waving a sword about isn't likely even to impress all that much.

So what's to panic? Also, I don't see any modern general being dumb enough to let some woman he met only a couple of days before get close enough to drive a nail through his skull (BTW, just why couldn't the supposedly all-powerful Yahweh knock off Sisera on his own?).

He barely does anything on his own except in Genesis when he creates the world and floods it and destroys Sodom and Gomorrah.

And afterward... nothing. Which shows that either Yahweh shot his wad, power-wise, early on, or has taken far too much credit for things he might not actually have managed to do. Or rather, his fan club exaggerating his prowess.

[Stuart]

I seem to recall reading that armies back then (>3000 years ago) tended to avoid large battles entirely, and that military conflicts tended to consist mostly of raiding actions. According to that source, it wasn't until the iron age that you started seeing large armies clashing in open battle.

That's very true (and, in fact in many parts of the world its still true). A part of the same phenomena is that armies back then were laughably small. "Large armies" is a comparative term, what is basically meant was armies that were larger than an extended family. To put this into context, we had a very similar form of warfare back in the UK during the dark ages, especially when the Danish invaders were consolidating the Danelaw. That was a "war" which consisted almost entirely of raiding and a "battle" would be an extended family beating off (or failing to do so) the raiders. There could be as few as a dozen men involved on each side and the battle was probably decided by the first couple of casualties.

That puts much of the biblical era warfare into perspective. It's probable that the majority of the battles were on much the same scale. Now, there's an interesting cut on that. Sisera, who was a mighty power and a warlord of renown whose influence was estensive had (so they say) 900 chariots. 900 Chariots equates to 1,800 men. Suddenly, he's shrunk a lot. He was the local big cheese remember. And that's assuming the 900 chariots actually existed; numbers of men in ancient armies can be multiplied by anywhere between 3 and 10. So, we can make an educated guess that Sisera's actual army was somewhere between 180 and 600 men. Allowing the usual 3:1 attack ratio (IIRC Sisera was attacking), we have an action where between 60 and 200 Israelites were fighting an attack by 180 - 600 Siserites.

When we're down to force levels that low, the random factor is dominant. In short, battles are not decided by skill, tactics or valor but by sheer blind chance. If a few important people get cut down early or something else unfortunate happens, its all over for the unlucky side. As battles get bigger, the effect of blind chance tends to even out as it works both ways.

A last factor that cuts in here is comamnd control. Basically, armies were led by example. What would happen is that the King would look at the enemy, wave his sword and cry out "Forward!" He would then set off on his charge. Here we have the first form of battlefield communication; as he charges the enemy army he looks over his shoulder to see if his own army are following him. If they are all standing still and waving bye-bye, its going to be a very short battle. In effect, the command control radius of the king was as far as his voice would reach and that forced down army sizes as well; there was no point in having a lot of men because only so many could fit into that command radius and the remainder would be down at a local village, sampling the local beer and women.

Isn't it interesting that, as command structures evolved and ranks started to appear (thus extending the command radius thus army size) the idea of a God turning up and standing beside one side or another vanishes? It could almost be that pure blind chance was no longer a battle-deciding factor and thus didn;t need to get explained.

[Rye]

"The majority of the planet" at that time being what was known as the Roman Empire —which was not the majority of the planet even then.

Yes, that's entirely what they meant. They meant the end of the world was actually just about the Mediterranean area. I'm sure. Yeah. Yeah.

Yes, that is what they meant:

Not in the context of Christianity it's not. Do you honestly think that for instance the Phelps' think that they're out of range of God because the Bible authors didn't know about America? Of course fucking not. Like it or not, a religion does evolve.

Wrong. Revelation is very sketchy on just how many will die and for how long they'll remain dead.

Revelation is the be all and end all of judeo-christian eschatology is it? Revelation barely even got into the Bible, whereas Jesus himself was pretty clear on the incoming doom for the world. "Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand. So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away." You honestly think that refers to the local area, conceptually? You honestly think that Christians read that and think "oh, I'm okay, then, because I'm outside the Mediterranean"? Gawd.

Then why haven't they come up and taken over if they're up to our level of advancement?

Why haven't we gone down to them and taken over if we're up to our level of advancement?

And where in the Bible does it say demons can go anywhere without being detected?

We would call demons mental illness wouldn't we? We have no empirical evidence for the existence of demons, do we? We know for a fact that our modern technology doesn't detect them. If they actually did exist, this would mean that they can go places without being detected.

Or from any other source? Indeed, according to the lore, demons use their alleged abilities to essentially pull the same medieval shit they've been doing for millenia now.

Maybe that's what they do for fun?

And if they haven't figured out how to resist control from a book of magick words and phrases, that shows that scientific analysis isn't top in their catalogue of skills.

Maybe they have? Maybe they were just messing with the authors, or perhaps the authors just made it up. How about you try it? Read out a few demon names and try to gain control over them. Report back how successful you are.

Handwaving does not save your "argument". Try actually answering the fucking question.

I did. I pointed out that overthrowing a master is not required to gain technological progress. You are simply too prooud to recognise this.

I see the statement I made about making points which hinder your argument just sailed right over your head. Doesn't say much for Yahweh that he needs proxies to act for him, now does it?

It doesn't say he "needs" them, just that he uses them.

And afterward... nothing. Which shows that either Yahweh shot his wad, power-wise, early on, or has taken far too much credit for things he might not actually have managed to do. Or rather, his fan club exaggerating his prowess.

Well then, it would all boil down to what Stravo thought, as author of the thread, wouldn't it?

[Molyneux]

"The majority of the planet" at that time being what was known as the Roman Empire —which was not the majority of the planet even then.

Yes, that's entirely what they meant. They meant the end of the world was actually just about the Mediterranean area. I'm sure. Yeah. Yeah.

We're talking about people who had never been more than a hundred miles from where they were born. Most of them never even traveled TEN miles from their birthplaces.

They thought that the Mediterranean region was all there was, bounded by ocean.

Everyone dies in judeo-christian eschatology.

The fuck do you mean, judeo-christian? Keep your mushroom-eating, poorly-written Revelations bullshit out of my stone-age religion. There is no end-of-the-world myth in Judaism; the whole fucking point of the Messiah story is that Heaven comes to Earth.

[Rye]

The fuck do you mean, judeo-christian? Keep your mushroom-eating, poorly-written Revelations bullshit out of my stone-age religion.

Where do you think Jesus got his ideas of the end of the world and Hell from?

There is no end-of-the-world myth in Judaism; the whole fucking point of the Messiah story is that Heaven comes to Earth.

There was in first century judaism and the religion has never been monolithic on the subject. Where do you think the Christians, all initially jews, got it from? What do you think "olam haba" refers to? Like it or not, Christian theology is a direct continuation of first century jewish notions of messianism and the afterlife, including their variant of hell, Gehinnom, which, when it comes to the "truly wicked" there is no consensus on what happens to people, they could burn forever, they could be annihilated, both of which are characteristics of the Christian depictions of Hell.

It goes back even further than the jews that were present around Jesus, too.

Take Isaiah, one of the most important books when it comes to eschatology and messianism:

• "24.1. Behold, the LORD makes the earth empty, He makes it waste, and turns it upside down, and scatters abroad its inhabitants.
  
  2 And it shall be, that as it is with the people, so with the priest; as it is with the servant, so with his master; as it is with the maid, so with her mistress; as it is with the buyer, so with the seller; as it is with the lender, so with the borrower; as it is with the taker of usury, so with the payer of usury to him.
  
  3 The land shall be utterly emptied, and utterly spoiled: for the LORD has spoken this word. 4 The earth mourns and fades away, the world languishes and fades away, the haughty people of the earth languish.
  
  17 Fear, and the pit, and the snare, are upon you, O inhabitant of the earth. 18 And it shall be, that he who flees from the noise of the fear shall fall into the pit; and he who comes up out of the midst of the pit shall be caught in the snare: for the windows from on high are open, and the foundations of the earth shake. 19 The earth is completely broken down, the earth is fully dissolved, the earth is exceedingly moved. 20 The earth shall reel to and fro like a drunkard, and shall be removed like a cottage; and its transgression shall be heavy upon it; and it shall fall, and not rise again.
  
  21 And it shall happen in that day, that the LORD shall punish the host of the highest of those on high, and the kings of the earth upon the earth.
  
  22 And they shall be gathered together, as prisoners are gathered in the pit, and shall be shut up in the prison, and after many days they shall be visited. 23 Then the moon shall be confounded, and the sun ashamed, when the LORD of hosts shall reign in mount Zion, and in Jerusalem, and before his ancients gloriously."

Yeah, the Christians made it all up separate to judaism! And took it from pagans!

[Patrick Degan]

Yes, that's entirely what they meant. They meant the end of the world was actually just about the Mediterranean area. I'm sure. Yeah. Yeah.

Yes, that is what they meant:

Not in the context of Christianity it's not. Do you honestly think that for instance the Phelps' think that they're out of range of God because the Bible authors didn't know about America? Of course fucking not. Like it or not, a religion does evolve.

I don't give a flying fuck what drivel Phelps and his crowd believe in. We're talking about how the delusional little man who actually wrote Revelation conceived the world as, and that was a small place with barely the population of a major world power. BTW, it's that same "evolution" of religious thought which led the Catholic Church and the more mainstream Protestant sects to dismiss Revelation altogether as anything other than metaphor instead of a prediction about how our world will turn out.

Wrong. Revelation is very sketchy on just how many will die and for how long they'll remain dead.

Revelation is the be all and end all of judeo-christian eschatology is it? Revelation barely even got into the Bible, whereas Jesus himself was pretty clear on the incoming doom for the world. "Behold the fig tree, and all the trees; When they now shoot forth, ye see and know of your own selves that summer is now nigh at hand. So likewise ye, when ye see these things come to pass, know ye that the kingdom of God is nigh at hand. Verily I say unto you, This generation shall not pass away, till all be fulfilled. Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away." You honestly think that refers to the local area, conceptually? You honestly think that Christians read that and think "oh, I'm okay, then, because I'm outside the Mediterranean"? Gawd.

You've already had it pointed out to you that Revelation has nothing to do with Judiasm. Further, Jesus word is not supporting Revelation. He is not saying the world is coming to a violent end. Also, the very fact that he's apparently talking about the generation contemporaneous to his own time shows that no thought of a world beyond what they know of in that time is entering into their thinking. Just what the fuck do you think the phrase "this generation" is referring to? Us in the far future? Finally, I'm not responsible for how people in the present day interpret their little fairy-tale book's ending. And for your information, the Catholic Church does hold that Revelation is an allegory to the Roman Empire of John of Patmos' time and not a reference to the modern world.

Then why haven't they come up and taken over if they're up to our level of advancement?

Why haven't we gone down to them and taken over if we're up to our level of advancement?

Just what is there for our benefit in a shithole like Hell? What would make it worth the effort and expense? That would be the same thing as sending armies to conquer and occupy the North Pole. Pointless.

And where in the Bible does it say demons can go anywhere without being detected?

We would call demons mental illness wouldn't we? We have no empirical evidence for the existence of demons, do we? We know for a fact that our modern technology doesn't detect them. If they actually did exist, this would mean that they can go places without being detected.

Not according to the Bible. Or the Ars Goetia. Moving the Goalposts will not save you in this thread.

Or from any other source? Indeed, according to the lore, demons use their alleged abilities to essentially pull the same medieval shit they've been doing for millenia now.

Maybe that's what they do for fun?

Translation: you have no argument.

And if they haven't figured out how to resist control from a book of magick words and phrases, that shows that scientific analysis isn't top in their catalogue of skills.

Maybe they have? Maybe they were just messing with the authors, or perhaps the authors just made it up. How about you try it? Read out a few demon names and try to gain control over them. Report back how successful you are.

Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy and a Burden of Proof Fallacy in the same package. How efficient of you.

Handwaving does not save your "argument". Try actually answering the fucking question.

I did. I pointed out that overthrowing a master is not required to gain technological progress. You are simply too prooud to recognise this.

No, you answered nothing whatsoever —particularly as the point had no bearing on the question of gaining technological prowess. That is YOUR red herring entirely. Again, you have no argument.

I see the statement I made about making points which hinder your argument just sailed right over your head. Doesn't say much for Yahweh that he needs proxies to act for him, now does it?

It doesn't say he "needs" them, just that he uses them.

Another predictable non-answer coming from you. Why am I not surprised? I don't know where you're used to playing, but in these parts, "he just uses them" doesn't cut it as an answer to anything.

And afterward... nothing. Which shows that either Yahweh shot his wad, power-wise, early on, or has taken far too much credit for things he might not actually have managed to do. Or rather, his fan club exaggerating his prowess.

Well then, it would all boil down to what Stravo thought, as author of the thread, wouldn't it?

No, it would boil down to an analysis of the facts at hand and what humanity devises as a counter-response.

[Rye]

I hope this is my last post to captain tiresome as he's pathologically incapable of admitting any sort of wrongness on his part. I suppose I should consider myself lucky I've not had huge blocks of yellow text or the emoticon to wade through.

I don't give a flying fuck what drivel Phelps and his crowd believe in.

Highly interesting, given that they're pretty much correct by the OP. Probably the most correct christian fundie group.

We're talking about how the delusional little man who actually wrote Revelation conceived the world as, and that was a small place with barely the population of a major world power.

Actually no, I was talking about eschatology in general (in regards to the theological amendments in-thread, i.e. now there are no chosen people and everyone is hellbound), YOU equivocated that to Revelation you dishonest or ignorant dipshit.

BTW, it's that same "evolution" of religious thought which led the Catholic Church and the more mainstream Protestant sects to dismiss Revelation altogether as anything other than metaphor instead of a prediction about how our world will turn out.

So?

You've already had it pointed out to you that Revelation has nothing to do with Judiasm. Further, Jesus word is not supporting Revelation.

Stop bringing up this red herring, you blathering retard.

He is not saying the world is coming to a violent end.

Yes he is. This was understood by his peers, the signs of God's coming kingdom included, among other things, the parts from Isaiah that I quoted above and multiple times Jesus says things to the effect of "cities that reject me will be destroyed worse than Sodom" and people will burn in Hell.

Also, the very fact that he's apparently talking about the generation contemporaneous to his own time shows that no thought of a world beyond what they know of in that time is entering into their thinking. Just what the fuck do you think the phrase "this generation" is referring to?

Yes, Jesus was referring to an imminent apocalypse. Yes, he believed it would destroy the whole world.

Us in the far future? Finally, I'm not responsible for how people in the present day interpret their little fairy-tale book's ending.

No, and you don't seem to understand your requirements as a participant in the thread to grasp at least some of that in regards to the OP either.

And for your information, the Catholic Church does hold that Revelation is an allegory to the Roman Empire of John of Patmos' time and not a reference to the modern world.

And rightly so.

Just what is there for our benefit in a shithole like Hell? What would make it worth the effort and expense? That would be the same thing as sending armies to conquer and occupy the North Pole. Pointless.

There appears to be significant benefit since half this thread is people saying we should invade Hell.

Not according to the Bible. Or the Ars Goetia. Moving the Goalposts will not save you in this thread.

Read the OP again. It's set in this world. This means that demons are undetectable but exist (assuming Stravo wants them to exist).

Translation: you have no argument.

Ars Goetia and similar demonic-dominance literature do not work in this world. Hence, assuming demons exist, it presumably isn't effective. It may be accurate in other ways, it may not.

Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy and a Burden of Proof Fallacy in the same package. How efficient of you.

I disagree. You made the positive claim that demons that would actually exist as per the partial truth of the mythology described in the OP, can be dominated by knowing their names, I just pointed out that that is by no means certain since we have evidence to the contrary in reality which is where the OP's whole scenario would go down.

No, you answered nothing whatsoever —particularly as the point had no bearing on the question of gaining technological prowess. That is YOUR red herring entirely. Again, you have no argument.

Your argument that a stable and relatively successful (immortal) society cannot exist without the ability to overthrow masters is unsubstantiated. There is nothing to refute. You simply made a claim and then nodded to yourself in agreement to the truth of it.

Another predictable non-answer coming from you. Why am I not surprised? I don't know where you're used to playing, but in these parts, "he just uses them" doesn't cut it as an answer to anything.

I didn't write the Bible, they made all sorts of self-contradictory errors and stupid decisions regarding depicting gods, I am just telling you what it says. You might as well ask why Jedi and Sith use fucking lightsabres, spears and giant styracosaurs when they ought to be firing at one another from space, then the answer would be "the author depicted it that way for silly stylistic reasons." Your answer would then be, "That's a non-answer! Clearly Jedi and Sith can't use spacecraft weapons anymore even though they did elsewhere! They must've "used up" all their space-borne weapon power earlier."

No, it would boil down to an analysis of the facts at hand and what humanity devises as a counter-response.

Uh-huh.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Yeah, I do find it hilarious that the only winner in this whole scenario is Fred Phelps.

Perhaps he should be brought in for interrogation to find out where he got his information

[The Duchess of Zeon]

Remember that in 1274 BC, at the very height of power of the two greatest Empires up to that date, the Egyptian New Kingdom and the Hittite Kingdom, the largest battle then fought in the world was waged, a decisive struggle between the two greatest nations the Earth had ever seen, which in the case of Egypt had already been developing for more than 3,000 years. The Hittites brought 3,500 chariots and 37,000 infantry to the field and the Egyptians brought 2,000 chariots and 20,000 infantry. That was more or less the largest bronze-age battle ever fought, and it was anomalously big and between the two leading world-powers of the period. Each of those world-powers didn't just have its own army there, as well, but all of its tributary allies and vassals between its home territory and the scene of the battle; all of Palestine for the Egyptians, all of Syria for the Hittites, so it was actually two huge coalition armies fighting.

A comparable battle from less than 200 years ago saw Napoleon and his tributary states with 195,000 men face 365,000 troops of Sixth Coalition. Or the combined strength at Kadesh, the world's largest battle at that time, a title that it would hold for several centuries afterwards, was 12% of that at Leipzig, at most, despite having be formed out of a similar decisive action between two great powers at the height of their strength, and each leading a massive coalition of smaller tributaries and major allied states.

So army sizes had increased by an order of magnitude over those of the bronze age--Before industrialization caused massive improvements in logistics, coupled with massive population growth.

[Patrick Degan]

I hope this is my last post to captain tiresome as he's pathologically incapable of admitting any sort of wrongness on his part.

Look who's talking.

I don't give a flying fuck what drivel Phelps and his crowd believe in.

Highly interesting, given that they're pretty much correct by the OP. Probably the most correct christian fundie group.

Um, the OP is not confirming Revelation. The OP is confiming the Old Testament version of God as a tyrant willing to break his covenants when the mood takes him.

We're talking about how the delusional little man who actually wrote Revelation conceived the world as, and that was a small place with barely the population of a major world power.

Actually no, I was talking about eschatology in general (in regards to the theological amendments in-thread, i.e. now there are no chosen people and everyone is hellbound), YOU equivocated that to Revelation you dishonest or ignorant dipshit.

An eschatology which isn't universally accepted even amongst Christian denominations, particulary the Catholic Church and rejected by Judiasm altogether but which you have attempted to extend as applying as prophecy to the modern world which its author could not have conceived of. You're the last person to accuse anybody of dishonesty or ignorance.

BTW, it's that same "evolution" of religious thought which led the Catholic Church and the more mainstream Protestant sects to dismiss Revelation altogether as anything other than metaphor instead of a prediction about how our world will turn out.

So?

See above, you tapdancing little asshole. I grow tired of your handwaving and evasions.

You've already had it pointed out to you that Revelation has nothing to do with Judiasm. Further, Jesus word is not supporting Revelation.

Stop bringing up this red herring, you blathering retard.

YOU were the one who labeled Revelation as the culmination of Judaeo-Christian religious philosophy, you dishonest fuck.

YOUR words, asshole:

Everyone dies in judeo-christian eschatology.

—which YOU used in an attempted rebuttal regarding the applicability of Revelation to the modern world and proceeded to defend against Molyneux's objections as well.

He is not saying the world is coming to a violent end.

Yes he is. This was understood by his peers, the signs of God's coming kingdom included, among other things, the parts from Isaiah that I quoted above and multiple times Jesus says things to the effect of "cities that reject me will be destroyed worse than Sodom" and people will burn in Hell.

The problem with your little attempt at an argument is that Jesus' words are vague to the point of meaninglessness, rather like all prophecies. Also, he is referring to his own generation in his own time, and quite clearly, everything was not fulfilled and his generation did pass away to be replaced by succeeding generations which also never saw any of the prophecy come to pass.

Also, the very fact that he's apparently talking about the generation contemporaneous to his own time shows that no thought of a world beyond what they know of in that time is entering into their thinking. Just what the fuck do you think the phrase "this generation" is referring to?

Yes, Jesus was referring to an imminent apocalypse. Yes, he believed it would destroy the whole world.

And didn't. What's your point?

Us in the far future? Finally, I'm not responsible for how people in the present day interpret their little fairy-tale book's ending.

No, and you don't seem to understand your requirements as a participant in the thread to grasp at least some of that in regards to the OP either.

You should try taking your own advice, as the OP is not confirming the view of Revelation but rather the Old Testament of Yahweh as a capricious tyrant.

And for your information, the Catholic Church does hold that Revelation is an allegory to the Roman Empire of John of Patmos' time and not a reference to the modern world.

And rightly so.

So again, what's your point? You can't have it both ways.

Just what is there for our benefit in a shithole like Hell? What would make it worth the effort and expense? That would be the same thing as sending armies to conquer and occupy the North Pole. Pointless.

There appears to be significant benefit since half this thread is people saying we should invade Hell.

In reaction to a radical change in the world situation and to secure the future of humanity. Up to that point, though, there is no benefit.

Not according to the Bible. Or the Ars Goetia. Moving the Goalposts will not save you in this thread.

Read the OP again. It's set in this world. This means that demons are undetectable but exist (assuming Stravo wants them to exist).

Pardon me, but the OP says NO SUCH FUCKING THING.

To quote the OP DIRECTLY:

Say there is incontrovertible proof that when we die, no matter what we do, we're going to hell. God appears to the world and washes his hands of us and says from this point forward, whoever dies goes straight to hell, do not pass go do not collect $200 no exceptions. Yes, even the Pope, yes, innocent babies, yes your grandmother is going to hell.

And no, Atheists, we're not talking about nice peaceful oblivion. We're talking eternity of torment, blood and fire. No respite and no chance of salvation.

How would something like that effect humanity? Would people panic and freak out? Would murderers become the most heinous criminals of all? (Not that they weren't but you get my drift, if you kill someone you are also consigning them to hell for all eternity.) Would having children be seen as reprehensible? Would nations go to war anymore knowing the price their soldiers pay and even if they did would their soldiers fight? Would suicide bombing cease over night? Has religion lost its meaning now that no matter what you say or do you are damned?

Perhaps I'm missing a much more basic reaction. Would humanity simply blow itself up in a fit of suicidal insanity at the prospects facing us?

Or would humanity actually go on, perhaps drop significantly in population but still go on. And on a moral level is it per se evil to have children if you know they will eventually suffer for all eternity?

You tell me where it speaks to invisible demons in all that, liar.

Translation: you have no argument.

Ars Goetia and similar demonic-dominance literature do not work in this world. Hence, assuming demons exist, it presumably isn't effective. It may be accurate in other ways, it may not.

Your non-arguments shift with the breeze. Typical.

Appeal to Ignorance Fallacy and a Burden of Proof Fallacy in the same package. How efficient of you.

I disagree. You made the positive claim that demons that would actually exist as per the partial truth of the mythology described in the OP, can be dominated by knowing their names, I just pointed out that that is by no means certain since we have evidence to the contrary in reality which is where the OP's whole scenario would go down.

Once again, the OP says NO SUCH FUCKING THING.

To quote the OP DIRECTLY:

Say there is incontrovertible proof that when we die, no matter what we do, we're going to hell. God appears to the world and washes his hands of us and says from this point forward, whoever dies goes straight to hell, do not pass go do not collect $200 no exceptions. Yes, even the Pope, yes, innocent babies, yes your grandmother is going to hell.

And no, Atheists, we're not talking about nice peaceful oblivion. We're talking eternity of torment, blood and fire. No respite and no chance of salvation.

How would something like that effect humanity? Would people panic and freak out? Would murderers become the most heinous criminals of all? (Not that they weren't but you get my drift, if you kill someone you are also consigning them to hell for all eternity.) Would having children be seen as reprehensible? Would nations go to war anymore knowing the price their soldiers pay and even if they did would their soldiers fight? Would suicide bombing cease over night? Has religion lost its meaning now that no matter what you say or do you are damned?

Perhaps I'm missing a much more basic reaction. Would humanity simply blow itself up in a fit of suicidal insanity at the prospects facing us?

Or would humanity actually go on, perhaps drop significantly in population but still go on. And on a moral level is it per se evil to have children if you know they will eventually suffer for all eternity?

You tell me where the supports for your assertion exists in all that, liar.

No, you answered nothing whatsoever —particularly as the point had no bearing on the question of gaining technological prowess. That is YOUR red herring entirely. Again, you have no argument.

Your argument that a stable and relatively successful (immortal) society cannot exist without the ability to overthrow masters is unsubstantiated. There is nothing to refute. You simply made a claim and then nodded to yourself in agreement to the truth of it.

Nevermind that this was not what I was arguing in regard to that point, but then you are either dishonest or have a fundamental reading-comprehension problem.

Another predictable non-answer coming from you. Why am I not surprised? I don't know where you're used to playing, but in these parts, "he just uses them" doesn't cut it as an answer to anything.

I didn't write the Bible, they made all sorts of self-contradictory errors and stupid decisions regarding depicting gods, I am just telling you what it says. You might as well ask why Jedi and Sith use fucking lightsabres, spears and giant styracosaurs when they ought to be firing at one another from space, then the answer would be "the author depicted it that way for silly stylistic reasons." Your answer would then be, "That's a non-answer! Clearly Jedi and Sith can't use spacecraft weapons anymore even though they did elsewhere! They must've "used up" all their space-borne weapon power earlier."

Wrong. We evaluate evidence here. When we see an alleged all-powerful god being unable to perform some rather basic feats for such a being, the default assumption is that he can't do it in view of the lack of supporting evidence for omnipotence or even the power of the other gods of mythology.

No, it would boil down to an analysis of the facts at hand and what humanity devises as a counter-response.

Uh-huh.

And once more, you have no argument.

[Rye]

There we go.

Um, the OP is not confirming Revelation. The OP is confiming the Old Testament version of God as a tyrant willing to break his covenants when the mood takes him.

Which is...what Phelps believes, along with the majority of humanity going to Hell, all humanity outside his little cult in fact.

An eschatology which isn't universally accepted even amongst Christian denominations, particulary the Catholic Church and rejected by Judiasm altogether but which you have attempted to extend as applying as prophecy to the modern world which its author could not have conceived of. You're the last person to accuse anybody of dishonesty or ignorance.

You are dishonest or ignorant since you equivocated between all eschatology and Revelation. You even do it in the above quote and you still don't seem to understand what you're being accused of. If it were rejected by judaism altogether, there wouldn't be any apocalyptic jewish texts, and there are.

See above, you tapdancing little asshole. I grow tired of your handwaving and evasions.

I'm not evading anything. You claimed God had shot his load, I pointed out that many of the oldest biblical texts contain the future destruction of the Earth, and this apocalypticism is present in the various religions.

YOU were the one who labeled Revelation as the culmination of Judaeo-Christian religious philosophy, you dishonest fuck.

No, I gave it as an example. I also gave Isaiah as an example when it was claimed that such notions were separate from judaism.

Everyone dies in judeo-christian eschatology.

—which YOU used in an attempted rebuttal regarding the applicability of Revelation to the modern world and proceeded to defend against Molyneux's objections as well.

Quite rightly, too.

The problem with your little attempt at an argument is that Jesus' words are vague to the point of meaninglessness, rather like all prophecies. Also, he is referring to his own generation in his own time, and quite clearly, everything was not fulfilled and his generation did pass away to be replaced by succeeding generations which also never saw any of the prophecy come to pass.

Firstly, his prophecies aren't meaningless, they have a perfectly understandable meaning as even you can manage to identify them as false. This wouldn't be the case if they weren't meaningful.

Secondly, it would mean either Jesus was a false prophet, or it was a misquotation.

And didn't. What's your point?

You do know the gospels were written before Revelation, right?

You should try taking your own advice, as the OP is not confirming the view of Revelation but rather the Old Testament of Yahweh as a capricious tyrant.

Like in Isaiah then, that I already quoted in this thread, with another violent depiction of the end of the world, not dissimilar to revelation, like I've been pointing out again and again.

So again, what's your point? You can't have it both ways.

Revelation being false doesn't mean the other eschatological passages are. As I said to you ages ago, Revelation is not the be all and end all of judeo christian eschatology, it is an example of it. There's lots of others, too.

I may get around to the rest later.