Christian school.

[Lagmonster]

If God was a sadistic prick as you claim, why die on the cross for our sakes?

If God was omnipotent, as you claim, why do the whole painful death thing AT ALL. Wouldn't it be more effective a symbol if Jesus had been visibly immortal and omnipotent, and still alive today?

I think that the whole 'I need blood to be spilt for things to come to pass' attitude with God pretty much defines his sadism.

[Sir Sirius]

Double post removed.

[Ted C]

If God was a sadistic prick as you claim, why die on the cross for our sakes?

If God is supremely benevolent, as you claim, why define an unattainable standard of behavior for his creations and then condemn them to eternal suffering for failing to attain it?

Why not just forgive "sin" outright, instead of continuing to insist on faith without evidence? (Note: The Bible is testimony, not evidence. Evidence should be verifiable and repeatable, not anecdotal.)

That's probably a pointless question to ask, though, since you will undoubtedly say something to the effect: "That's the way God wants to do it, and God is always right."

[Jonathan]

Bias is an irrelevant ad-hominem.

I was merely pointing out a fact. You assumed that he believed without evidence because you think there is no evidence for Christianity, rather than asking if there was reason for him to believe. That's a bias.

You are not even trying to address my points. If he has such good evidence, then why haven't you provided it?

Because that's a huge debate I don't have time for right now.

I say again: people who think that beliefs without a shred of evidence are just as tangible and reliable as physical observations and logic are either delusional or they're morons. Take your pick.

Yes, thank you, I read it fine the first time, which is why I told you that he had evidence.

If you disagree with that, you should try to find something wrong in that statement, rather than simply saying "oh yeah? You're biased!"

You mean like telling you that he had evidence and was therefore no believing 'without a shred of evidence' as you claimed? You did read my whole post rather than just the first line didn't you? Because I see only a very few options here:

1) you didn't read my post and were therefore totally unjustified in claiming I amde no point since you couldn't no I made no point.
2) you read my whole post, saw that I did make a rebuttal, but forgot, in which case I suggest you get some sleep.
3) you read my post, saw that I made a rebuttal, but didn't understand what I said, in which case you should stop calling me a moron.
4) you read what I said, ignored the fact that it was a rebuttal and are therefore behaving in an intellectualy dishonest manner and should change your attitude or get out of debate.

PS. a theory is not proven by showing that parts of it are consistent with observation; a theory is DISPROVEN by showing that key parts of it are severely INCONSISTENT with observation.

Thank you, being a science studnet at a top university, I was unaware of the working of the scientific method.

Any discrepancy between the Bible and our knowledge of the world disproves it as a literal authority, ie- the foundation of your particular belief system.

No, because science only gives us a model of how the universe appears to work. It is incapable of telling the difference between a universe that was created 15 billion years ago and one which was created 6 thousand years ago in a pre-aged state to appear 15 billion years old. I have already explained this to you, but all you do is say 'No, that's not right' rather than pointing out a flaw in my reasoning. I'm not basing science off the Bible, but off thoery and experiment and I'm not basing theology off science because it does not tell us about the supernatural.

Science does not and cannot tell us the way the world works. It can only give us a model of how it appears to be working based on theory and experiment.

[Jonathan]

If God was a sadistic prick as you claim, why die on the cross for our sakes?

If God was omnipotent, as you claim, why do the whole painful death thing AT ALL. Wouldn't it be more effective a symbol if Jesus had been visibly immortal and omnipotent, and still alive today?

I think that the whole 'I need blood to be spilt for things to come to pass' attitude with God pretty much defines his sadism.

Because our sins would not be forgiven. There have to be consequences for evil acts. And people don't want forgiven. As I've said before, if people want cut off from God, which is what you are asking for, then that's what they get.

[Jonathan]

If God is supremely benevolent, as you claim, why define an unattainable standard of behavior for his creations and then condemn them to eternal suffering for failing to attain it?

Because what is right is right and what is wrong is wrong. It's part of his nature. And anyone who fails to live up to the standards condemns themselves.

Why not just forgive "sin" outright, instead of continuing to insist on faith without evidence?

We do have evidence, as I have repeatedly said.

(Note: The Bible is testimony, not evidence.

Testimony is evidence.

Evidence should be verifiable and repeatable, not anecdotal.)

Rubbish. Legal and historical evidence doesn't have to be repeatable. You're stuck in the definition of scientific evidence which is not applicable to every situation.

[Keevan_Colton]

Bias is an irrelevant ad-hominem.

I was merely pointing out a fact. You assumed that he believed without evidence because you think there is no evidence for Christianity, rather than asking if there was reason for him to believe. That's a bias.

BS, there is no actual evidence therefore it cannot be based on evidence, so what you're saying is a pile of shit.

You are not even trying to address my points. If he has such good evidence, then why haven't you provided it?

Because that's a huge debate I don't have time for right now.

See what I just said above.

I say again: people who think that beliefs without a shred of evidence are just as tangible and reliable as physical observations and logic are either delusional or they're morons. Take your pick.

Yes, thank you, I read it fine the first time, which is why I told you that he had evidence.

Which you arent presenting because you dont have it....which means, you are full of shit...please see the previous two statements.

If you disagree with that, you should try to find something wrong in that statement, rather than simply saying "oh yeah? You're biased!"

You mean like telling you that he had evidence and was therefore no believing 'without a shred of evidence' as you claimed? You did read my whole post rather than just the first line didn't you? Because I see only a very few options here:

1) you didn't read my post and were therefore totally unjustified in claiming I amde no point since you couldn't no I made no point.
2) you read my whole post, saw that I did make a rebuttal, but forgot, in which case I suggest you get some sleep.
3) you read my post, saw that I made a rebuttal, but didn't understand what I said, in which case you should stop calling me a moron.
4) you read what I said, ignored the fact that it was a rebuttal and are therefore behaving in an intellectualy dishonest manner and should change your attitude or get out of debate.

Inellectually dishonest manner....thank you for giving me a laughing fit, you are the one who keeps acting in such a manner.

PS. a theory is not proven by showing that parts of it are consistent with observation; a theory is DISPROVEN by showing that key parts of it are severely INCONSISTENT with observation.

Thank you, being a science studnet at a top university, I was unaware of the working of the scientific method.

Ah, ignoring the point....good for you....so you either
a) Dont understand your ass from your elbow
OR
b) Choose to disregard this....see above note on intelectual dishonesty.

Any discrepancy between the Bible and our knowledge of the world disproves it as a literal authority, ie- the foundation of your particular belief system.

No, because science only gives us a model of how the universe appears to work. It is incapable of telling the difference between a universe that was created 15 billion years ago and one which was created 6 thousand years ago in a pre-aged state to appear 15 billion years old. I have already explained this to you, but all you do is say 'No, that's not right' rather than pointing out a flaw in my reasoning. I'm not basing science off the Bible, but off thoery and experiment and I'm not basing theology off science because it does not tell us about the supernatural.

Science does not and cannot tell us the way the world works. It can only give us a model of how it appears to be working based on theory and experiment.

[/quote]

Ah, let me give you a wonderful counter point....
If, it looks like shit, smells like shit and tastes like shit....chances are....its shit.
Choke on Occams Razor.

[Lagmonster]

Because our sins would not be forgiven. There have to be consequences for evil acts. And people don't want forgiven. As I've said before, if people want cut off from God, which is what you are asking for, then that's what they get.

I am not at all sure what this means. I'm suggesting that the fact that, since God sets the standards, he chose the standard of death and torture of his human incarnation rather than snapping his fingers and making everyone sinless. And I suggested that this is what defines him as a sadist: Rather than use his powers of creation to make things perfect (ie, Eden), he sets standards of death and suffering and eternal torture and allows imperfection and evil to persist for no defined reason other than the fact that it is his will (ie., he wants it this way).

And that's *fine*. Lots of people have worshipped beings who are percieved to have both creative and destructive aspects. See the Greeks and Vikings and Hindus for other references. Although, as far as I remember, only the Christians believe that gods are not immoral.

[Darth Gojira]

If God is supremely benevolent, as you claim, why define an unattainable standard of behavior for his creations and then condemn them to eternal suffering for failing to attain it?

Because what is right is right and what is wrong is wrong. It's part of his nature. And anyone who fails to live up to the standards condemns themselves.

That's a whole lot of people that can't reach the "standards". Is "He" making it hard on purpose?

Why not just forgive "sin" outright, instead of continuing to insist on faith without evidence?

We do have evidence, as I have repeatedly said.[/quote] Evidence which is highly suspect, and an easy target for Occam's Razor

(Note: The Bible is testimony, not evidence.

Testimony is evidence.[/quote] Bullshit. Does that mean that Bigfoots ("BigFEET") stalk the NW American coast?

Evidence should be verifiable and repeatable, not anecdotal.)

Rubbish. Legal and historical evidence doesn't have to be repeatable. You're stuck in the definition of scientific evidence which is not applicable to every situation.[/quote] Evidence, however, must conform to scientfic observances. For example, the high counts of armies by Herodotus can't be true, due to logistical concerns.

I'll let Ted and the rest finish you off.

[Ted C]

If God is supremely benevolent, as you claim, why define an unattainable standard of behavior for his creations and then condemn them to eternal suffering for failing to attain it?

Because what is right is right and what is wrong is wrong. It's part of his nature. And anyone who fails to live up to the standards condemns themselves.

According to you, right is "what God says is right" and wrong is "what God says is wrong". I repeat, he set an unattainable standard for his creations. I believe you have claimed that everyone sins, so God created beings who are universally unable to live up to his expectations.

Furthermore, we earn eternal torment for failing to live up to God's expectations, even though none of us can do that. You are claiming that God is just to condemn us for failing to meet standards which are obviously impossible for us to attain.

It would appear that humans are flawed creations, since they can't live up to the Creator's standards. Furthermore, it would appear that God is punishing his creations for his own flawed workmanship.

Why not just forgive "sin" outright, instead of continuing to insist on faith without evidence?

We do have evidence, as I have repeatedly said.

(Note: The Bible is testimony, not evidence.

Testimony is evidence.

Evidence should be verifiable and repeatable, not anecdotal.)

Rubbish. Legal and historical evidence doesn't have to be repeatable. You're stuck in the definition of scientific evidence which is not applicable to every situation.

Well, if you want to hold this to a legal standard, then the evidence should either establish the existence of God "beyond a reasonable doubt" (if you want to use the criminal standards of the US) or "by a preponderance of the evidence" (if you want to use the US civil standard).

Testimony is admissable in court, but physical evidence is superior to testimony: a DNA test can clear a rape suspect, no matter how many witnesses claim he was the perpetrator. Consequently, by a legal standard, physical evidence that contradicts Biblical testimony will invalidate the testimony.

Since plenty of scientific evidence does discredit the Bible as a source (at least as an inerrant source), there is no preponderance of evidence in favor of God, and he certainly hasn't been proven to exist beyond a reasonable doubt.

I therefore continue to hold that God insists on faith without evidence in order to grant forgiveness to humans for transgressions they could not help making because God did not make them capable of living up to his standards.

[Jonathan]

BS, there is no actual evidence therefore it cannot be based on evidence, so what you're saying is a pile of shit.

Oh I see, you're omniscient, therefore you know everything about the world and know for certain that no evidence exists? Please.

See what I just said above.

I already have, thanks and it's still just as wrong. I'm packing today to fly to England tomorrow. I have an essay to hand in on Thursday and exams to sit on Friday and Saturday. I'll be at church and visiting friends on Sunday, spending the day in labs on Monday and Tuesday and probably doing tutoria work the rest of the week. In other words, my holidays just ended and I'm about to get very busy, so I didn't enter into a debate I know I don't have the time for.

Which you arent presenting because you dont have it....which means, you are full of shit...please see the previous two statements.

Again, an arrogant presumption with no basis in fact.

Inellectually dishonest manner....thank you for giving me a laughing fit, you are the one who keeps acting in such a manner.

Yeah, okay. This coming from the guy who claims omniscience.

Ah, ignoring the point....good for you....so you either
a) Dont understand your ass from your elbow
OR
b) Choose to disregard this....see above note on intelectual dishonesty.

Oh look, exactly the same flaw as Mike. You don't bother to read the rest of the post and see that I answer the point further down. In the very next section in fact. Just like I said in the bit you wre quoting. Did you even read it?

Ah, let me give you a wonderful counter point....
If, it looks like shit, smells like shit and tastes like shit....chances are....its shit.
Choke on Occams Razor.

Actually, that would be an irrelevant bunch of insults that doesn't add anything to the debate. You answered none of the points I made other than to say 'it's wrong'. Except ruder. If you have the intellectual capaccity for debate, use it. Don't just make insulting comments and assume it constitutes a valid rebuttal becasue it doesn't.

[Keevan_Colton]

Let me put it really really simply for you
Put up or shut up....

If this evidence exists show it, prove your point....otherwise, shut up.

I'm sorry but I dont do polite when people are bullshiting.

[Darth Wong]

BS, there is no actual evidence therefore it cannot be based on evidence, so what you're saying is a pile of shit.

Oh I see, you're omniscient, therefore you know everything about the world and know for certain that no evidence exists? Please.

That's a classic "appeal to ignorance" fallacy, asshole. If you've got evidence, bring it. Otherwise, you have no right to protest when I state that creationists are idiots, because they are believing in something for which no evidence has been presented.

I already have, thanks and it's still just as wrong. I'm packing today to fly to England tomorrow. I have an essay to hand in on Thursday and exams to sit on Friday and Saturday. I'll be at church and visiting friends on Sunday, spending the day in labs on Monday and Tuesday and probably doing tutoria work the rest of the week. In other words, my holidays just ended and I'm about to get very busy, so I didn't enter into a debate I know I don't have the time for.

So you have enough time to clog this forum with posts debating a half-dozen people at a time, but when every single one of those people makes the same demand for evidence, you suddenly have no time, not even to present a single example?

Again, an arrogant presumption with no basis in fact.

Speak for yourself; you tell others that they're wrong, claim to have evidence to back you up, and then refuse to present it.

Actually, that would be an irrelevant bunch of insults that doesn't add anything to the debate. You answered none of the points I made other than to say 'it's wrong'. Except ruder. If you have the intellectual capaccity for debate, use it. Don't just make insulting comments and assume it constitutes a valid rebuttal becasue it doesn't.

You haven't made any points at all. You admitted that life/pleasure is good and death/suffering is bad, then turned around and said that it's the opposite if God says so. You have no system of morality to speak of, and your claims of evidence for Biblical literalism are unsupported bullshit.

[Queeb Salaron]

::Steps in as supreme Judge and Guru of all things.::

I'm gonna hafta give this one to the Wong. Sorry, Jon, but you're losing this one pretty bad.

The point is this: Believe what you want, but there's NO PROOF. People have every right to be skeptical of a religion based on premises that have never been proven to exist. Yes, there is proof that Jesus existed. Yes, he probably said the things that he did. But A) there's no proof that any of his "miracles" occured, and that includes the Paschal mystery, and B) pre-Jesus, the Bible is filled with incredible myth and legend of which science finds no record, and which does NOT account for a number of scientific phenomena that have been proven to exist.

The major point here is this: You can believe it if you'd like. But don't try and pass off morals as absolute truth. I say this for several reasons.
One: the Catholic church at very least has come out and blatantly said that Religion does not breed Morality.
Two: God has never acted in the interests of man after the Creation. God imposed a set of morals on humans, who are by nature dually hedonistic and dependent on society. When man strayed from God's preconceived notion of what is right and wrong, man was punished. Never in the bible was man allowed to freely think and act for himself without being punished. Never was man allowed to right his own wrongs. Never was free will used to our advantage. God gave us free will, so the Christians say, but when does he let us use it without punishing us for doing so? (Free will was, after all, a gift from God.) Therefore, there can be no supreme law to the laws that man creates for himself, because those laws serve a God who has never acted in the best interests of man.
Three: Because the fact behind Christianity has been called into question, it necessarily follows that when Christians call on this Biblical "fact" to act as evidence for modern morality, those morals must ALSO be called into question. To base morality on a set of facts that cannot be scientifically proven is absurd to say the least. Morals must have tangible roots, or else they CANNOT apply. If anything, the history of Christianity that we CAN prove (I refer to the Crusades, Inquisition, etc.) points in the exact opposite direction of the morals founded on historical fact that we CANNOT prove (I refer to the Great Flood, Sodom and Gammorah, etc.).

::Shrugs:: Sorry, pal. I mean, believe all you want. But NOTHING about ANY religion is absolute. God's law is not supreme anymore than Allah's, Brahma's, Buddha's or Satan's law is supreme. Sorry. You lose.

The winner, in the blue corner... MASTER WONG!
::Raises Wong's hand in victory::

[Darth Yoshi]

If God is supremely benevolent, as you claim, why define an unattainable standard of behavior for his creations and then condemn them to eternal suffering for failing to attain it?

Because what is right is right and what is wrong is wrong. It's part of his nature. And anyone who fails to live up to the standards condemns themselves.

Y'know, when most of his creations fail to live up to his standards, that's a pretty clear sign that he's doing something wrong.

[Saurencaerthai]

The not-so-obvious answer: Bowing your head is a sign of respect.

Here's the best rule to follow, I think: Stand when everyone stands, sit when everyone sits, but NEVER, should you feel obligated to bow when everyone bows. Bowing, I feel, implies a bit more than just showing respect for everyone else. It implies, at least to me, that you are accepting their beliefs. One should never feel obligated to do that.

[Keevan_Colton]

The not-so-obvious answer: Bowing your head is a sign of respect.

Here's the best rule to follow, I think: Stand when everyone stands, sit when everyone sits, but NEVER, should you feel obligated to bow when everyone bows. Bowing, I feel, implies a bit more than just showing respect for everyone else. It implies, at least to me, that you are accepting their beliefs. One should never feel obligated to do that.

I may sound like a SOB for this, but that's pretty much how I am, even at my gran's funeral....
Stand when they stand and sit when they sit...but when it came to bowing heads or singing hymns about how we're all sheep*...nope. Though my family understood, even if the priest seemed somewhat put out by it.

*Am I the only one that finds the constant comparisons to sheep in hymns and the like soo funny...what after all do sheep generally do other than hang around going "baa" waiting to get eaten by something?

[Saurencaerthai]

Saurencaerthai wrote:
Quote:
The not-so-obvious answer: Bowing your head is a sign of respect.


Here's the best rule to follow, I think: Stand when everyone stands, sit when everyone sits, but NEVER, should you feel obligated to bow when everyone bows. Bowing, I feel, implies a bit more than just showing respect for everyone else. It implies, at least to me, that you are accepting their beliefs. One should never feel obligated to do that.


I may sound like a SOB for this, but that's pretty much how I am, even at my gran's funeral....
Stand when they stand and sit when they sit...but when it came to bowing heads or singing hymns about how we're all sheep*...nope. Though my family understood, even if the priest seemed somewhat put out by it.

You came to pay your respects to the departed. That's what you were there for, right? Not affirming your belief in something you don't believe in. No reason for the priest to be put off.

[Queeb Salaron]

*Am I the only one that finds the constant comparisons to sheep in hymns and the like soo funny...what after all do sheep generally do other than hang around going "baa" waiting to get eaten by something?

No. Whenever the priest said that God is my Shepherd, I would bleat like a sheep.

Priest: Lamb of God,
Me and my sister: BAAAAA!!!
P: You take away the sins...
M&S:BAAAA! BAAAAAAAAA!!!!
P: ...of the word, have mercy...
M&S: BAAAAAAA! BAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!
P: THAT IS NOT NECESSARY!!

[Enforcer Talen]

heh. Ive to try that.

[Ted C]

Because what is right is right and what is wrong is wrong. It's part of his nature. And anyone who fails to live up to the standards condemns themselves.

According to you, right is "what God says is right" and wrong is "what God says is wrong". I repeat, he set an unattainable standard for his creations. I believe you have claimed that everyone sins, so God created beings who are universally unable to live up to his expectations.

Furthermore, we earn eternal torment for failing to live up to God's expectations, even though none of us can do that. You are claiming that God is just to condemn us for failing to meet standards which are obviously impossible for us to attain.

It would appear that humans are flawed creations, since they can't live up to the Creator's standards. Furthermore, it would appear that God is punishing his creations for his own flawed workmanship.

Rubbish. Legal and historical evidence doesn't have to be repeatable. You're stuck in the definition of scientific evidence which is not applicable to every situation.

Well, if you want to hold this to a legal standard, then the evidence should either establish the existence of God "beyond a reasonable doubt" (if you want to use the criminal standards of the US) or "by a preponderance of the evidence" (if you want to use the US civil standard).

Testimony is admissable in court, but physical evidence is superior to testimony: a DNA test can clear a rape suspect, no matter how many witnesses claim he was the perpetrator. Consequently, by a legal standard, physical evidence that contradicts Biblical testimony will invalidate the testimony.

Since plenty of scientific evidence does discredit the Bible as a source (at least as an inerrant source), there is no preponderance of evidence in favor of God, and he certainly hasn't been proven to exist beyond a reasonable doubt.

I therefore continue to hold that God insists on faith without evidence in order to grant forgiveness to humans for transgressions they could not help making because God did not make them capable of living up to his standards.

I'm rather disappointed that Jonathan decided to "go on vacation" before he could answer these points...

[Durandal]

If God was a sadistic prick as you claim, why die on the cross for our sakes?

Simple. He felt guilty for treating mankind like shit.

[Queeb Salaron]

Simple. He felt guilty for treating mankind like shit.

And then, post-Jesus, we never saw God again... Strange, eh?

[Darth Servo]

I'm rather disappointed that Jonathan decided to "go on vacation" before he could answer these points...

Oh, come on. Even if he didn't go on vacation he wouldn't have answered them. He never answers points, just evades them with standard fundie rhetoric. You know that.

[Ted C]

I'm rather disappointed that Jonathan decided to "go on vacation" before he could answer these points...

Oh, come on. Even if he didn't go on vacation he wouldn't have answered them. He never answers points, just evades them with standard fundie rhetoric. You know that.

But it's so much fun to watch him squirm, trying to find an angle that let's him stay a fundie without seeming like a complete asshole (not that we're fooled, of course).