In Defense of a Kind God

TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
In Defense of a Kind God

I've noticed that atheists tend to be a glass half empty person when it comes to discussions on God.  They put extreme focus on the negative, declaring God to be a brute, unjust, unloving, unmeriful Creator as it this perspective somehow validates the notion that God is a man-made construct.

 

I'm here to tilt things back a bit in the other directions.  Over the weekend, I was reminded on just how GOOD God is when reflecting on the gifts of God.  God has given us quite a lot to make it through this life without being completely miserable.   

 

Here are a few in no particular order:

 

1. Gift of Sleep -  Sleep is a wonderful invention.  Not only does it allow our bodies to recharge and renew energies,  sleep gives us an opportunity to shut off from the world.   No matter how tough my life is, I can always look forward to 6-8 hours a night escaping from reality. 

 

2.  Laughter -  God gave us this ability to have a physical release called laughter that for a moment, brings happiness and joy.  Science can only explain the mechanism behind the act.  There are well documented medical benefits to having a good laugh as well. 

 

3.  Taste buds -  we have up to 8,000 taste buds designed to give us sensations of pleasure with certain tastes.  God certainly didn't have to do this.   Taste of food is not necessary to substain the human body.  Taste doesn't matter to the digestive system.  But we have taste to enjoy a wide variety of foods.

 

4.  Sex -  I don't think anyone will argue with this one.  Sex is an amazing creation.  Our society is obsessed with it.   On a physical level, sex offers many benefits such as stress reduction and lower blood pressure.   It also serves to bring an emotional bond to a couple on a level that can't be experienced any other way.    However, whenevery you mess around with this powerful force outside God's requirements then the act has several consequences.  Spread of STDS, for example.

 

Yeah, there are many negatives to this existence.  I believe the introduction of sin is the root of these negatives, but God also gave us these gifts to help us make it through each day.  Whenever I think about the gifts, I realize just how ridiculous the belief in evolution really is.  We would have to be extremely lucky for random events to give us such great things to enjoy.  Evolution may have determined the need for a food source, but not the need for taste buds. 


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Good post pauljohn.

Good post pauljohn.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
ThunderJones wrote:Good post

ThunderJones wrote:

Good post pauljohn.

Thanks!

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:LOL, oh yeah all

TWD39 wrote:
LOL, oh yeah all those sick verses about forgiveness, unconditional love, helping others.

Too bad they are outnumbered by verses on torture, slavery, murder, genocide, infanticide, cruelty, and sheer stupidity.

Just because your book has a few chapters talking about love does not dismiss the greater number of chapters on hate.

Either you are the one who has yet to read the bible, or you are a very sick individual.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:Ahh playing the

TWD39 wrote:
Really, so you was there personally to witness the Big Bang and abiogenesis?  No? Then you can't say it's fact that we were created in this fashion.

Were you there when your god made creation? Then how do you know the bible isn't a lie?

Dumb ass theists get owned by their own arguments.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 339
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
Absolutely good post

Absolutely good post PaulJohn!

TWD, still waiting on your explanation for Matthew 5:17. 

 


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
ThunderJones wrote:Good post

ThunderJones wrote:

Good post pauljohn.

 

Rather weak post actually. 

I give him kudos for crafting a respectful reply void of profanity and insults unlike yourself, but most of his bold claims are insubstational particular his comments regarding the NT.  I will address it directly tomorrow if I have time.


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:Absolutely

Jabberwocky wrote:

Absolutely good post PaulJohn!

TWD, still waiting on your explanation for Matthew 5:17. 

 

 

You're the one claiming that the OT laws are still applicable, not me.  Prove something for once starting with explaining why Matthew 5:17 supports your stance.


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:ThunderJones

TWD39 wrote:

ThunderJones wrote:

Good post pauljohn.

 

Rather weak post actually. 

I give him kudos for crafting a respectful reply void of profanity and insults unlike yourself, but most of his bold claims are insubstational particular his comments regarding the NT.  I will address it directly tomorrow if I have time.

Wow, what a great response.

Profanity? Where?

Insults? A few. Mostly because you are endorsing genocide.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:Jabberwocky

TWD39 wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Absolutely good post PaulJohn!

TWD, still waiting on your explanation for Matthew 5:17. 

 

 

You're the one claiming that the OT laws are still applicable, not me.  Prove something for once starting with explaining why Matthew 5:17 supports your stance.

Your argument is that god can be considered kind. The actions of your god, and scripture in the OT demonstrate the lack of kindness.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:  I

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  I would challenge TWD39 to actually put his money where his mouth is. 

 

 So TWD39 if  God actually commanded you to pick up a rock and crush an infant's skull because God knew  that little baby was going to grow up and become the leader of an Islamic terrorist cell, woud'ja do it ? 

      A simple "yes" or "no" from you is all I require.

I'd be willing to wager that question is not going to be answered. Just like the bible, counterclaims get picked and chosen when debating with this type of narrow-minded ilk.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  I would challenge TWD39 to actually put his money where his mouth is. 

 

 So TWD39 if  God actually commanded you to pick up a rock and crush an infant's skull because God knew  that little baby was going to grow up and become the leader of an Islamic terrorist cell, woud'ja do it ? 

      A simple "yes" or "no" from you is all I require.

I'd be willing to wager that question is not going to be answered. Just like the bible, counterclaims get picked and chosen when debating with this type of narrow-minded ilk.

No way am I betting against that. : /

Especially since TWD has ignored many posts or parts of posts so far.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
Yes

 

TWD39 wrote:

So that's how you approach life?  Everything is fiction until proven otherwise?  You must have had a hard time in history class.  The Bible meets every standard for proof of historical events.  Hundreds of archaelogy finds have been discovered to  SUPPORT not disprove the Bible. 

 

We are mostly fallibilists here and generally don't accept things to be true without detailed supporting hypotheses. And at no time do we insist that any truth is beyond being challenged and reinterpreted on the basis of new data. 

As a result of this, your endless objective truth claims utterly unsupported by data of any kind are not going to wash with us. You insist the bible is true, that god is good, you even imply you know the mind of god. You tell us on the basis of no proof that we are

evil, you write off entire human populations as evil and deserving of death without any but the one-sided evidence of the OT authors. You appeal to every possible fallacy. You are a classic case of the Kruger-Dunning effect. 

Since you want to claim you are a rationalist, please give us a coherent definition of god that is not simply a big list of undefinable assertions. Please define your god concept in the first instance. What are you talking about?

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 339
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:You're the one

TWD39 wrote:

You're the one claiming that the OT laws are still applicable, not me.  Prove something for once starting with explaining why Matthew 5:17 supports your stance.

I'm claiming no such thing. I'm claiming both testaments are incoherent and contradict each-other. Matthew 5:17 reads:

 

"“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." -New international Version

 

Why say this if we are not to follow the Law? The capitalization makes it quite obvious that he is indeed referring to the old testament. If I'm wrong, tell me what he is referring to.

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


Ktulu
atheist
Posts: 1830
Joined: 2010-12-21
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

TWD39 wrote:

So that's how you approach life?  Everything is fiction until proven otherwise?  You must have had a hard time in history class.  The Bible meets every standard for proof of historical events.  Hundreds of archaelogy finds have been discovered to  SUPPORT not disprove the Bible. 

 

We are mostly fallibilists here and generally don't accept things to be true without detailed supporting hypotheses. And at no time do we insist that any truth is beyond being challenged and reinterpreted on the basis of new data. 

As a result of this, your endless objective truth claims utterly unsupported by data of any kind are not going to wash with us. You insist the bible is true, that god is good, you even imply you know the mind of god. You tell us on the basis of no proof that we are

evil, you write off entire human populations as evil and deserving of death without any but the one-sided evidence of the OT authors. You appeal to every possible fallacy. You are a classic case of the Kruger-Dunning effect. 

Since you want to claim you are a rationalist, please give us a coherent definition of god that is not simply a big list of undefinable assertions. Please define your god concept in the first instance. What are you talking about?

I bet you this will get answered quite eloquently.  Smiling  I am amazed at how an undefined concept's vague properties can spark such an emotional debate.  It's as though we're arguing about the shoe size of Big-Foot, or the number of teeth of the Loch Ness monster.  It completely misses the point. 

"Don't seek these laws to understand. Only the mad can comprehend..." -- George Cosbuc


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Ktulu wrote:I bet you this

Ktulu wrote:

I bet you this will get answered quite eloquently.  Smiling  I am amazed at how an undefined concept's vague properties can spark such an emotional debate.  It's as though we're arguing about the shoe size of Big-Foot, or the number of teeth of the Loch Ness monster.  It completely misses the point. 

I would agree but half of this forum is devoted to that undefined concept and the discussion thereof so...

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
@TWDWatch this if you don't

@TWD

Watch this if you don't understand why YOU need to prove God and the Bible and I do not need to prove it wrong.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KayBys8gaJY&feature=autoplay&list=UUc_xdkOBgSYLmXTn-VSQ4uA&playnext=1

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3436
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:It's funny that

TWD39 wrote:

It's funny that atheists are so fevorant in their defense of the Amalekites, a group of ppl who actually burned children in sacrifice.

the only evidence we have of amalekites sacrificing children is found in the hebrew bible, and we have no evidence that those passages were written any earlier than a good 5 centuries after those mythical times supposedly took place.  its called political propaganda.  "they were a bunch of monsters, we have every right to be here," etc., etc.

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:TWD39

iwbiek wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

It's funny that atheists are so fevorant in their defense of the Amalekites, a group of ppl who actually burned children in sacrifice.

the only evidence we have of amalekites sacrificing children is found in the hebrew bible, and we have no evidence that those passages were written any earlier than a good 5 centuries after those mythical times supposedly took place.  its called political propaganda.  "they were a bunch of monsters, we have every right to be here," etc., etc.

 

We have great evidence that the translations and copying of the ancient text was handled with great care and detail so it's doubtful that these are just stories some desert dudes made up centuries later.  The dead sea scrolls can attest to that.

 

Atheists once made the same bold claim about the Hitties.  Oh they never existed because the Bible is the only record of them.  Then archaelogy finally shut them up.


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:  Too bad

Vastet wrote:

 

 

Too bad they are outnumbered by verses on torture, slavery, murder, genocide, infanticide, cruelty, and sheer stupidity. Just because your book has a few chapters talking about love does not dismiss the greater number of chapters on hate. Either you are the one who has yet to read the bible, or you are a very sick individual.

Thanks for the chuckle.  So if the local news reports on a murder story, that means the news station approves and supports the crime?  That is essentially what you are saying about God.  The Bible simply reported the history as it REALLY happened.  If the Bible was a work of fiction, I would think the authors would paint their heroes in a more glamorous light, especially if the goal is to convert people to a false religion.


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:TWD39

Jabberwocky wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

You're the one claiming that the OT laws are still applicable, not me.  Prove something for once starting with explaining why Matthew 5:17 supports your stance.

I'm claiming no such thing. I'm claiming both testaments are incoherent and contradict each-other. Matthew 5:17 reads:

 

"“Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." -New international Version

 

Why say this if we are not to follow the Law? The capitalization makes it quite obvious that he is indeed referring to the old testament. If I'm wrong, tell me what he is referring to.

 

Thank you for proving you are ignorant about the Bible.  Verse 18 explains it. 

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

 

The OT law was applicable until Jesus fullfilled it.  He fullfilled it when He died on the cross and became the blood sacrifice payment to cover everyone's sins. Jesus met all the requirements of being completely sinless which no human being has ever done.  Jesus met all the OT prophecies as well like

Isaiah 7:14

 

 

After the cruxification, the OT laws requiring complete obedience from humans was no longer needed.  A new covent was born.


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:  I

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  I would challenge TWD39 to actually put his money where his mouth is. 

 

 So TWD39 if  God actually commanded you to pick up a rock and crush an infant's skull because God knew  that little baby was going to grow up and become the leader of an Islamic terrorist cell, woud'ja do it ? 

      A simple "yes" or "no" from you is all I require.

 

The question is irrelevant because I am a Gentile living under the new covenant which teaches love and forgiveness even for your enemies.  Such a command would make me question the truth of the scriptures.


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
TWD39

TWD39 wrote:

ThunderJones wrote:

Good post pauljohn.

 

Rather weak post actually. 

I give him kudos for crafting a respectful reply void of profanity and insults unlike yourself, but most of his bold claims are insubstational particular his comments regarding the NT.  I will address it directly tomorrow if I have time.

We will see where you go with your response.

Like all humans, until you demonstrate otherwise you will be treated in a respectful way. Your beliefs, not so much.

Until then, Waiting . . . . . .

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:Vastet

TWD39 wrote:

Vastet wrote:

Too bad they are outnumbered by verses on torture, slavery, murder, genocide, infanticide, cruelty, and sheer stupidity. Just because your book has a few chapters talking about love does not dismiss the greater number of chapters on hate. Either you are the one who has yet to read the bible, or you are a very sick individual.

Thanks for the chuckle.  So if the local news reports on a murder story, that means the news station approves and supports the crime?  That is essentially what you are saying about God.  The Bible simply reported the history as it REALLY happened.  If the Bible was a work of fiction, I would think the authors would paint their heroes in a more glamorous light, especially if the goal is to convert people to a false religion.

No. The reason we think God supports the crimes of murder is because he commited and ordered his followers to commit them by the thousands, Mass slaughter of infants, and people.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:ProzacDeathWish

TWD39 wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  I would challenge TWD39 to actually put his money where his mouth is. 

 

 So TWD39 if  God actually commanded you to pick up a rock and crush an infant's skull because God knew  that little baby was going to grow up and become the leader of an Islamic terrorist cell, woud'ja do it ? 

      A simple "yes" or "no" from you is all I require.

 

The question is irrelevant because I am a Gentile living under the new covenant which teaches love and forgiveness even for your enemies.  Such a command would make me question the truth of the scriptures.

 

This isn't your enemies. God himself is telling you to kill your own son, just as he told Abraham to. BTW God loved Abraham so much because he was about to murder his own son for no reason other than that God told him to. Killing innocents is so kind, I know.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 Perhaps some of us have studied in parochial schools and have graduate degrees from Jesuit universities. Perhaps some of us have read and studied in minute detail the OT and the NT.

What the OT seems to be is a storytelling adventure. My opinion. Much never happened, including the supposed slaughter of the Amalekites you have been fighting about. There was no country of Israel at the time to do slaughtering. You don't have to take my word for it, research the population density of Palestine from Iron Age I through Iron Age II. Jerusalem was not a large city, Judah had low population density, especially compared to Samaria in the North ( I do not use Israel for that city state of the period). The 100s of thousands claimed in the OT are not possible for the time period.

 

 

Those are some bold claims.  Too bad you don't present any hard evidence to back it up.  The Bible does not read as merely a storytelling adventure.  Great care was taken to preserve the translations, and multiple copies were produced.  The Bible contains a book of laws for the Israelities in Leviticus.  The Bible contains detailed geneologies.  The Bible is a prophetic book with hundreds of fullfilled prophecies many about the coming of Christ.  The Bible is dynamic demonstrating Christ from the very beginning.  In Genesis 1:26, God says "let us" not "let me".  Christ is part of that plural.  Genesis 3:15 refers to Christ.  It would be a really strange verse to include if the Bible was a work of fiction.

Furthermore, you have archaeological finds supporting the Bible.  At the very least,  you would have to claim that the fiction writers somehow add detailed knowledge of the inside workings of other ancient cultures.  The story of Joseph gives us insight into the culture and law of Egypt for example.  Biblical figures are record in other texts as well.

From wiki:

The main sources for identifying people from the Hebrew Bible are Assyrian and Babylonian inscriptions as well as seals and bullae (seal impressions) from the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. These date from the 9th century through the late 5th century BCE.

Note: fathers of biblical figures who have no important part in the biblical narrative are not listed separately. So while Baruch, son of Neriah is listed here, Neriah, Baruch's father is not.

  • Ahab, king of Israel: Mentioned extensively in Kings and Chronicles. Identified in the contemporary Kurkh Monolith inscription of Shalmaneser III [1] which describes the Battle of Qarqar and mentions 2,000 chariots, 10,000 soldiers of Ahab the Israelite defeated by Shalmaneser.[2]
  • Ahaz (Jehoahaz), king of Judah: Mentioned extensively in Kings, Chronicles and Isaiah as well as in Hosea 1:1 and Micah 1:1. Identified in the contemporary Summary Inscription of Tiglath-Pileser III which records that he received tribute from Jehoahaz the Judahite, as mentioned in 2 Kings 16:7-8 and 2 Chronicles 28:21.[3] Also identified in a contemporary clay bulla, reading of Ahaz [son of] Jotham king of Judah.[4] (A third bulla mentioning Ahaz as the father of Hezekiah is being investigated as a possible forgery.)
  • Apries (Hophra), pharaoh of Egypt: Mentioned in Jeremiah 44:30. Identified in numerous contemporary inscriptions including those of the capitals of the columns of his palace.[5][6] Herodotus speaks of him in Histories II, 161-171.[7]
  • Artaxerxes I of Persia is widely identified with Artaxerxes in the book of Nehemiah.[8][9] He is also found in the writings of contemporary historian Thucydides.[10] Scholars are divided over whether the king in Ezra's time was the same, or Artaxerxes II.
  • Ashurbanipal (Asenappar/Sardanapalus), king of Assyria: Mentioned in Ezra 4:10. Identified in numerous contemporary inscriptions,[11] including those that tell of his conquest of Elam and Babylon which accords with Ezra 4:9-10 where people that he exiled from these regions are mentioned.[12] Diodorus Siculus (book II, 21) preserved a fanciful account of him by Ctesias. (See Sardanapalus in.[13])
  • Baruch ben Neriah, a scribe in the time of Jeremiah. Two identical imprints of his seal were discovered in 1975 and 1996. They read 'to Berachyahu son of Neriyahu the scribe'.[14][15]
  • Belshazzar, coregent of Babylon, son of king Nabonidus,[16] see Nabonidus Cylinder.
  • Ben-hadad son of Hazael, king of Aram Damascus. He is mentioned in the Zakkur Stele.[17]
  • Cyrus II of Persia, appears in many ancient inscriptions, most notably the Cyrus Cylinder.[18]
  • Darius I, king of Persia, is mentioned in the books of Haggai, Zechariah and Ezra.[19][20] He is the author of the famous Behistun Inscription.
  • Esarhaddon, son of Sennacherib, was king of Assyria. His name survives in his own writings, as well as in those of his son Ashurbanipal.[11][21]
  • Evil Merodach, king of Babylon son of Nebuchadnezzar II. His name (Akkadian 'Amēl-Marduk') and title were found on a vase from his palace,[22] and on several cuneiform tablets.[23]
  • Hazael, king of Aram Damascus. According to the Book of Kings, he was anointed by the prophet Elijah (1 Kings 19:15). Shalmaneser III of Assyria records that he defeated Hazael in battle and captured many chariots and horses from him.[24] Most scholars think that Hazael was the author of the Tel Dan Stele.[25]
  • Hezekiah, king of Judah enacted religious reforms, countering the idol-worshipping of his predecessors (2 Kings 18:1-6). An account is preserved by Sennacherib of how he besieged 'Hezekiah, the Jew', who 'did not submit to my yoke', in his capital city of Jerusalem.[11] A bulla was also found bearing Hezekia's name and title.[26]
  • Hoshea, king of Israel, was put into power by Tilgath-Pileser III, king of Assyria, as recorded in his 'Annals', found in Calah.[11]
  • Jehoash, king of Israel, is mentioned in records of Adad-nirari III of Assyria as 'Jehoash of Samaria'.[27][28]
  • Jehoiachin, King of Judah, was taken captive to Babylon after Nebuchadrezzar first captured Jerusalem (2 Kings 24:15). Texts from Nebuchadrezzar's Southern Palace record the rations given to "Jehoiachin king of the Judeans" (Ya'ukin sar Yaudaya).[29]
  • Jehu, king of Israel; see: Black Obelisk[24]
  • Johanan, high priest during the reign of Darius II. His name is found in Nehemiah 12:22,23 and also in a letter from the Elephantine Papyri[11]
  • Manasseh, king of Judah, mentioned in the writings of Esarhaddon, who lists him as one of the kings who had brought him gifts and aided his conquest of Egypt.[11][21]
  • Menahem, king of Israel is recorded in the annals of Tiglath-Pileser to have paid tribute to him.[11]
  • Mesha, king of Moab, author of the Mesha Stele.[30]
  • Merodach-baladan, king of Babylon is found in the Great Inscription of Sargon II in his palace at Khorsabat.[31]
  • Nebuchadnezzar II, king of Babylon is mentioned in numerous contemporary sources, including the inscription of the Ishtar Gate, which he built.[32]
  • Necho, pharaoh of Egypt, mentioned in the writings of Ashurbanipal[11]
  • Omri, king of Israel is mentioned on the Mesha Stele.[30]
  • Pekah, became king of Israel after assassinating Pekahiah, his predecessor. (2 Kings 15:25). He is mentioned in the annals of Tiglath-Pileser III.[11]
  • Rezin, king of Aram was a tributary of Tiglath-Pileser III of Assyria.[33] According to the bible, he was later put to death by Tiglath-Pileser (2 Kings 16:7-9).
  • Sanballat, governor of Samaria the leading figure of the opposition which Nehemiah encountered during the rebuilding of the walls around the temple in Jerusalem. Sanballat is mentioned in the Elephantine Papyri.[11][34]
  • Sargon II, king of Assyria besieged and conquered the city of Samaria and took many thousands captive, as recorded in the bible and in an inscription in his royal palace.[35] His name, however does not appear in the biblical account of this siege, but in Isaiah 20:1, in reference to his siege of Ashdod.
  • Sennacherib, king of Assyria is the author of a number of inscriptions discovered near Nineveh.[36]
  • Shalmaneser V, king of Assyria is mentioned on several royal palace weights found at Nimrud.[37] Another inscription was found that is thought to be his, but the name of the author is only partly preserved.[38]
  • Taharqa, pharaoh of Egypt. Several sources mention him and fragments of three statues bearing his name were excavated at Nineveh.[39]
  • Tattenai, governor of 'Beyond the River' (Hebrew: עֲבַר-נַהֲרָה, Ezra 5:6) during the reign of Darius I, is known from contemporary Babylonian documents.[40][41]
  • Tiglath-Pileser III, king of Assyria exiled inhabitants of cities he captured in Israel (2 Kings 15:29). Numerous writings are ascribed to him and he is mentioned, among others, in an inscription by Barrakab, king of Sam'al[11] and also in the Assyrian king list.
  • Xerxes I (Ahasuerus), king of Persia, is named in the books of Ezra and Esther.[40][42] Xerxes is known in archaeology through a number of tablets and monuments,[43] notably the 'Gate of All Nations' in Persepolis.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biblical_figures_identified_in_extra-biblical_sources

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 As the Book of Matthew is plagiarized from the Book of Mark and was not written by a guy named Matthew, or a supposed disciple and most certainly is not Jesus talking at all, not to mention all of the purported events of fiction in regard to the nativity and early years, you fail at go with this. Matthew's copied and edited storytelling is not the Jesus talking. The character Jesus may or may not be a real person, it's impossible to verify at this point. I lean towards him being a desert prophet, that sometimes spent far too much time in the Sun. He was trying to bring his people back to the pure law of Moses, which included rebellion. Jesus was in a sense a rebel against established rule, namely the Romans. For the crimes he committed (alleged in the Gospels anyway) he would have been executed, no community service for insurrection in the Temple at the time.

If the Law was dumped, then why after John the Baptist is beheaded (and Jesus and his group seem to be fleeing) did he justify the stealing (taking if you want) of corn from the fields on the Sabbath as what David did with the show bread?

 See also James 2:14-26 -which details that faith without works is pretty pointless as well. And works were part of the Law.

So you know for a fact that it is plagarized?  Please share your concrete evidence.  The fact that we have four gospels of similiar but not exact duplicates of the same stories is evidence to me that they were written by real eye witnesses.  No two people tell the same story in the exact way.

 

As for the Law,  it was not disregarded until after Jesus was crucified.  This was symbolized by the tearing of the temple veil after His death.  Now Christians don't have to physically enter a temple to commune with God.

See Hebrews 10:19–20.

 

Works is not a requirement of salvation. You can't work your way to heaven.  But a reborn Christian will want to do works.  If they don't then they have a dead faith.  That's what James is talking about.

 

 

 

 


Vastet
atheistBloggerHigh Level ModeratorSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 10688
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:Thanks for the

TWD39 wrote:
Thanks for the chuckle.

It's only fair. You've been putting me into hysterical laughter sessions with almost every post you make. Glad I could return the favour.

TWD39 wrote:
So if the local news reports on a murder story, that means the news station approves and supports the crime?

When the reporter committed the murder at the behest of the news station in order to make news, you're damn skippy it does.
This is essentially what you're saying about god.

Also, the bible is not an accurate depiction of history just because it got a few things right.
Star Trek, more or less, accurately depicts the history of humanity and Earth up until the 19th century or so. That doesn't mean the events in Star Trek actually happened, or will happen.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:  It's only

Vastet wrote:

 

 

It's only fair. You've been putting me into hysterical laughter sessions with almost every post you make. Glad I could return the favour.

Hysterical laughter?  I know I'm not that much of a comedian.

 

TWD39 wrote:

 

When the reporter committed the murder at the behest of the news station in order to make news, you're damn skippy it does. This is essentially what you're saying about god. Also, the bible is not an accurate depiction of history just because it got a few things right. Star Trek, more or less, accurately depicts the history of humanity and Earth up until the 19th century or so. That doesn't mean the events in Star Trek actually happened, or will happen. 

 

No you are saying that just because man commited evil acts in the OT then that means it is ALL God approved.  Men was sinful and the Bible reported the truth in all its ugly glory.  And judging by recent events in Syria, it doesn't sound like they are much more civilized these days either.

It got more than just a few things right.  It holds up to every standard of establishing historical fact vs historical fiction.  How do you know aliens didn't really build the pyramids?   Star Trek, OTOH, is a well established work of fiction. You can trace its origin.  You have ZERO evidence that the Bible is fiction and the history of the Jews never happened.


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster

harleysportster wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  I would challenge TWD39 to actually put his money where his mouth is. 

 

 So TWD39 if  God actually commanded you to pick up a rock and crush an infant's skull because God knew  that little baby was going to grow up and become the leader of an Islamic terrorist cell, woud'ja do it ? 

      A simple "yes" or "no" from you is all I require.

I'd be willing to wager that question is not going to be answered. Just like the bible, counterclaims get picked and chosen when debating with this type of narrow-minded ilk.

 

Lookie there, you lost the bet.  haha  I haven't dodged any of your questions, idiot.


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:harleysportster

TWD39 wrote:

harleysportster wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  I would challenge TWD39 to actually put his money where his mouth is. 

 

 So TWD39 if  God actually commanded you to pick up a rock and crush an infant's skull because God knew  that little baby was going to grow up and become the leader of an Islamic terrorist cell, woud'ja do it ? 

      A simple "yes" or "no" from you is all I require.

I'd be willing to wager that question is not going to be answered. Just like the bible, counterclaims get picked and chosen when debating with this type of narrow-minded ilk.

 

Lookie there, you lost the bet.  haha  I haven't dodged any of your questions, idiot.

 

Now who is resorting to insults? Is that your good Christian morals finally coming out?

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:Vastet

TWD39 wrote:

Vastet wrote:

 

 

It's only fair. You've been putting me into hysterical laughter sessions with almost every post you make. Glad I could return the favour.

Hysterical laughter?  I know I'm not that much of a comedian.

 

TWD39 wrote:

 

When the reporter committed the murder at the behest of the news station in order to make news, you're damn skippy it does. This is essentially what you're saying about god. Also, the bible is not an accurate depiction of history just because it got a few things right. Star Trek, more or less, accurately depicts the history of humanity and Earth up until the 19th century or so. That doesn't mean the events in Star Trek actually happened, or will happen. 

 

No you are saying that just because man commited evil acts in the OT then that means it is ALL God approved.  Men was sinful and the Bible reported the truth in all its ugly glory.  And judging by recent events in Syria, it doesn't sound like they are much more civilized these days either.

It got more than just a few things right.  It holds up to every standard of establishing historical fact vs historical fiction.  How do you know aliens didn't really build the pyramids?   Star Trek, OTOH, is a well established work of fiction. You can trace its origin.  You have ZERO evidence that the Bible is fiction and the history of the Jews never happened.

Just because not all acts by man are god approved doesn't mean most of them weren't. God has apparently murdered billions if the Bible is to be believe. He has also commanded or personally committed wanton slaughter of innocent animals, even killing every innocent animal in the world along side man with the flood.

Was it really nessecary to kill every firstborn of Eygpt, even though the Pharaoh was forced by God into refusing him, and believed a lie by Abraham? The Bible is full of random extreme acts of murder and cruelty by God and ordered by him.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 3436
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:We have great

TWD39 wrote:

We have great evidence that the translations and copying of the ancient text was handled with great care and detail so it's doubtful that these are just stories some desert dudes made up centuries later. 

i didn't say anything about translation and copying.  the original material could well be flawed, hoss.  f-l-a-w-e-d.  a bunch of propaganda.  just like the romans used to say that the early christians literally drank blood and ate babies.  just because somebody writes something doesn't mean it's true, regardless of if they're roman, hebrew, greek, or whatever.

 

TWD39 wrote:
 

Atheists once made the same bold claim about the Hitties.  Oh they never existed because the Bible is the only record of them.  Then archaelogy finally shut them up.

did i say the amalekites didn't exist?

"I asked my father,
I said, 'Father change my name.'
The one I'm using now it's covered up
with fear and filth and cowardice and shame."
--Leonard Cohen


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
TWD39

TWD39 wrote:


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:


 Perhaps some of us have studied in parochial schools and have graduate degrees from Jesuit universities. Perhaps some of us have read and studied in minute detail the OT and the NT.

What the OT seems to be is a storytelling adventure. My opinion. Much never happened, including the supposed slaughter of the Amalekites you have been fighting about. There was no country of Israel at the time to do slaughtering. You don't have to take my word for it, research the population density of Palestine from Iron Age I through Iron Age II. Jerusalem was not a large city, Judah had low population density, especially compared to Samaria in the North ( I do not use Israel for that city state of the period). The 100s of thousands claimed in the OT are not possible for the time period.

 



 

Those are some bold claims.


No more bold then the assertions that the Bible is a true account of the non-existent country depicted.

TWD39 wrote:


Too bad you don't present any hard evidence to back it up. 


I did say it was my opinion. My opinion is based on years of study and research.

Specifically, where would you like to start?

I have a thread that I started in early 2009 that deals with this subject. Another believer named Caposkia and I have been going through the OT from Genesis on. We are currently in 1 Kings. There I have presented plenty of arguments to show it is storytelling.

TWD39 wrote:


The Bible does not read as merely a storytelling adventure.


No, there are other reasons such as propaganda, control of the populace, creation of a historical backdrop for the 2nd century BCE Judeans. And more, but we'd need to specifically discuss each part and why we think it was written beyond storytelling.

TWD39 wrote:


  Great care was taken to preserve the translations, and multiple copies were produced.


The following is courtesy of another poster, A_Nony_Mouse, he has some extreme views at times, he's rather anti-Zionist,  but he has some major points on the OT:

Simply put - "The Letter of Aristas is a forgery, therefore the Septuagint is not a translation" Since it appeared late 3rd or early 2nd century BCE, it was created then.

See his web site here for the detail - http://www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/index.html and specifically on the Septuagint - http://www.giwersworld.org/made-in-alexandria/septuagint-original.html

 

TWD39 wrote:


  The Bible contains a book of laws for the Israelities in Leviticus.  The Bible contains detailed geneologies.


So too are various Sumerian tablets. And?

There is the Code of Hammurabi, predating any date you'd like to assert for OT creation.

There is the Sumerian kings list, detailing many kings of Mesopotamia.

And, the point is?

 

TWD39 wrote:


The Bible is a prophetic book with hundreds of fullfilled prophecies many about the coming of Christ. 


A very bold assertion. Do you want to discuss each one that you claim is a prophecy one at a time. I see no hard evidence here.


TWD39 wrote:


The Bible is dynamic demonstrating Christ from the very beginning.  In Genesis 1:26, God says "let us" not "let me".  Christ is part of that plural.


Nice guesswork. The us has been argued in many ways. As you point out, there have been many translations. It is just as likely that the us is the multiple gods as suggested in the book of Psalms 89:5-7 where in the Hebrew version or the Old Greek you have multiple gods.

TWD39 wrote:


Genesis 3:15 refers to Christ.  It would be a really strange verse to include if the Bible was a work of fiction.


I did not use the word fiction, I used the word storytelling. Most of the time storytelling has some sort of basis, but the elaboration does include much of what you call fiction, though it may have been more likely to have been ignorance and misunderstanding in general.

TWD39 wrote:


Furthermore, you have archaeological finds supporting the Bible.  At the very least,  you would have to claim that the fiction writers somehow add detailed knowledge of the inside workings of other ancient cultures.  The story of Joseph gives us insight into the culture and law of Egypt for example.  Biblical figures are record in other texts as well.


No, the story of Abraham, Joseph and others gaining an audience with the pharaoh shows complete ignorance on ancient Egypt.

And specifically in the story of Joseph, what was the name of the pharaoh?

Block posting chunks of Wiki is really not providing verification or validation. Many posters here will completely ignore such as inadequate. Keep that in mind in the future.

TWD39 wrote:


From wiki:

The main sources for identifying people from the Hebrew Bible are Assyrian and Babylonian inscriptions as well as seals and bullae (seal impressions) from the kingdoms of Israel and Judah.


I didn't think we were questioning Assyria or Babylon, are we?

Also note - when you do block post from Wiki, at least change the color blue to white on the links. I copied the whole thing into wordpad and deleted all the formatting and links as it was awful to work with the way you posted it.

Thanks.

TWD39 from Wiki wrote:


These date from the 9th century through the late 5th century BCE.

Note: fathers of biblical figures who have no important part in the biblical narrative are not listed separately. So while Baruch, son of Neriah is listed here, Neriah, Baruch's father is not.

    Ahab, king of Israel: Mentioned extensively in Kings and Chronicles. Identified in the contemporary Kurkh Monolith inscription of Shalmaneser III [1] which describes the Battle of Qarqar and mentions 2,000 chariots, 10,000 soldiers of Ahab the Israelite defeated by Shalmaneser.[2]



Yet, further study of this leads to many questions in regard to errors made by the OT.

Did Shalmaneser really defeat the combined forces of the 11 kings, the text says 12, but that was typical Assyrian to mean an alliance? If so, why did he go right back home and stay there?
 

TWD39 from Wiki wrote:

    Ahaz (Jehoahaz), king of Judah: Mentioned extensively in Kings, Chronicles and Isaiah as well as in Hosea 1:1 and Micah 1:1. Identified in the contemporary Summary Inscription of Tiglath-Pileser III which records that he received tribute from Jehoahaz the Judahite, as mentioned in 2 Kings 16:7-8 and 2 Chronicles 28:21.[3] Also identified in a contemporary clay bulla, reading of Ahaz [son of] Jotham king of Judah.[4] (A third bulla mentioning Ahaz as the father of Hezekiah is being investigated as a possible forgery.)


Which inscription is this from? Since you presented the Wiki as your proof, you need to validate when the Wiki leaves out an independent source name and link. The link to Tiglath-Pileser III does not present the inscription.

 

 

TWD39 from Wiki wrote:



    Apries (Hophra), pharaoh of Egypt: Mentioned in Jeremiah 44:30. Identified in numerous contemporary inscriptions including those of the capitals of the columns of his palace.[5][6] Herodotus speaks of him in Histories II, 161-171.[7]


    Artaxerxes I of Persia is widely identified with Artaxerxes in the book of Nehemiah.[8][9] He is also found in the writings of contemporary historian Thucydides.[10] Scholars are divided over whether the king in Ezra's time was the same, or Artaxerxes II.


    Ashurbanipal (Asenappar/Sardanapalus), king of Assyria: Mentioned in Ezra 4:10. Identified in numerous contemporary inscriptions,[11] including those that tell of his conquest of Elam and Babylon which accords with Ezra 4:9-10 where people that he exiled from these regions are mentioned.[12] Diodorus Siculus (book II, 21) preserved a fanciful account of him by Ctesias. (See Sardanapalus in.[13])


    Baruch ben Neriah, a scribe in the time of Jeremiah. Two identical imprints of his seal were discovered in 1975 and 1996. They read 'to Berachyahu son of Neriyahu the scribe'.[14][15]


    Belshazzar, coregent of Babylon, son of king Nabonidus,[16] see Nabonidus Cylinder.


    Ben-hadad son of Hazael, king of Aram Damascus. He is mentioned in the Zakkur Stele.[17]


    Cyrus II of Persia, appears in many ancient inscriptions, most notably the Cyrus Cylinder.[18]


    Darius I, king of Persia, is mentioned in the books of Haggai, Zechariah and Ezra.[19][20] He is the author of the famous Behistun Inscription.


    Esarhaddon, son of Sennacherib, was king of Assyria. His name survives in his own writings, as well as in those of his son Ashurbanipal.[11][21]


    Evil Merodach, king of Babylon son of Nebuchadnezzar II. His name (Akkadian 'Amēl-Marduk') and title were found on a vase from his palace,[22] and on several cuneiform tablets.[23]


    Hazael, king of Aram Damascus. According to the Book of Kings, he was anointed by the prophet Elijah (1 Kings 19:15). Shalmaneser III of Assyria records that he defeated Hazael in battle and captured many chariots and horses from him.[24] Most scholars think that Hazael was the author of the Tel Dan Stele.[25]


    Hezekiah, king of Judah enacted religious reforms, countering the idol-worshipping of his predecessors (2 Kings 18:1-6). An account is preserved by Sennacherib of how he besieged 'Hezekiah, the Jew', who 'did not submit to my yoke', in his capital city of Jerusalem.[11] A bulla was also found bearing Hezekia's name and title.[26]


    Hoshea, king of Israel, was put into power by Tilgath-Pileser III, king of Assyria, as recorded in his 'Annals', found in Calah.[11]


    Jehoash, king of Israel, is mentioned in records of Adad-nirari III of Assyria as 'Jehoash of Samaria'.[27][28]


    Jehoiachin, King of Judah, was taken captive to Babylon after Nebuchadrezzar first captured Jerusalem (2 Kings 24:15). Texts from Nebuchadrezzar's Southern Palace record the rations given to "Jehoiachin king of the Judeans" (Ya'ukin sar Yaudaya).[29]
    Jehu, king of Israel; see: Black Obelisk[24]


    Johanan, high priest during the reign of Darius II. His name is found in Nehemiah 12:22,23 and also in a letter from the Elephantine Papyri[11]


    Manasseh, king of Judah, mentioned in the writings of Esarhaddon, who lists him as one of the kings who had brought him gifts and aided his conquest of Egypt.[11][21]


    Menahem, king of Israel is recorded in the annals of Tiglath-Pileser to have paid tribute to him.[11]


    Mesha, king of Moab, author of the Mesha Stele.[30]


    Merodach-baladan, king of Babylon is found in the Great Inscription of Sargon II in his palace at Khorsabat.[31]


    Nebuchadnezzar II, king of Babylon is mentioned in numerous contemporary sources, including the inscription of the Ishtar Gate, which he built.[32]
    Necho, pharaoh of Egypt, mentioned in the writings of Ashurbanipal[11]


    Omri, king of Israel is mentioned on the Mesha Stele.[30]


    Pekah, became king of Israel after assassinating Pekahiah, his predecessor. (2 Kings 15:25). He is mentioned in the annals of Tiglath-Pileser III.[11]


    Rezin, king of Aram was a tributary of Tiglath-Pileser III of Assyria.[33] According to the bible, he was later put to death by Tiglath-Pileser (2 Kings 16:7-9).


    Sanballat, governor of Samaria the leading figure of the opposition which Nehemiah encountered during the rebuilding of the walls around the temple in Jerusalem. Sanballat is mentioned in the Elephantine Papyri.[11][34]


    Sargon II, king of Assyria besieged and conquered the city of Samaria and took many thousands captive, as recorded in the bible and in an inscription in his royal palace.[35] His name, however does not appear in the biblical account of this siege, but in Isaiah 20:1, in reference to his siege of Ashdod.


    Sennacherib, king of Assyria is the author of a number of inscriptions discovered near Nineveh.[36]


    Shalmaneser V, king of Assyria is mentioned on several royal palace weights found at Nimrud.[37] Another inscription was found that is thought to be his, but the name of the author is only partly preserved.[38]


    Taharqa, pharaoh of Egypt. Several sources mention him and fragments of three statues bearing his name were excavated at Nineveh.[39]


    Tattenai, governor of 'Beyond the River' (Hebrew: עֲבַר-נַהֲרָה, Ezra 5:6) during the reign of Darius I, is known from contemporary Babylonian documents.[40][41]


    Tiglath-Pileser III, king of Assyria exiled inhabitants of cities he captured in Israel (2 Kings 15:29). Numerous writings are ascribed to him and he is mentioned, among others, in an inscription by Barrakab, king of Sam'al[11] and also in the Assyrian king list.
    Xerxes I (Ahasuerus), king of Persia, is named in the books of Ezra and Esther.[40][42] Xerxes is known in archaeology through a number of tablets and monuments,[43] notably the 'Gate of All Nations' in Persepolis.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_biblical_figures_identified_in_extra-biblical_sources

 


I was going to go through these, but since you posted it the way you did it would be too messy. If you like, we can do them one at a time and discuss their relationships and what it proves if anything in regard to the OT.

Do you want to do that?

So, I acknowledge that there were kings and city states in the world during the time period. That writers may have known of some of them should be obvious.

In regard to specifically Daniel, he has no clue in regard to who was the king, Nabonidus, why the Babylonians were quick to go over to Cyrus, and what really happened in the invasion. Nothing in regard to Nabonidus is included.

Do you want to get more specific and present this in a way given to discussion?

 

TWD39 wrote:


pauljohntheskeptic wrote:


 As the Book of Matthew is plagiarized from the Book of Mark and was not written by a guy named Matthew, or a supposed disciple and most certainly is not Jesus talking at all, not to mention all of the purported events of fiction in regard to the nativity and early years, you fail at go with this. Matthew's copied and edited storytelling is not the Jesus talking. The character Jesus may or may not be a real person, it's impossible to verify at this point. I lean towards him being a desert prophet, that sometimes spent far too much time in the Sun. He was trying to bring his people back to the pure law of Moses, which included rebellion. Jesus was in a sense a rebel against established rule, namely the Romans. For the crimes he committed (alleged in the Gospels anyway) he would have been executed, no community service for insurrection in the Temple at the time.

If the Law was dumped, then why after John the Baptist is beheaded (and Jesus and his group seem to be fleeing) did he justify the stealing (taking if you want) of corn from the fields on the Sabbath as what David did with the show bread?

 See also James 2:14-26 -which details that faith without works is pretty pointless as well. And works were part of the Law.



So you know for a fact that it is plagarized?  Please share your concrete evidence.  The fact that we have four gospels of similiar but not exact duplicates of the same stories is evidence to me that they were written by real eye witnesses.  No two people tell the same story in the exact way.


Yes I know for a fact it was plagiarized. The nice words people use are Mark was source material, yet many verses are word for word. When an earlier manuscript is copied word for word and other text is added around it what would you call it? The dictionary calls it plagiarism. See Forged by Bart Ehhrman pp239-249.

See - http://www.bergen.edu/phr/bible/bible9.1_outline.pdf which also presents the detail in regard to what was copied if you don't like Ehrman.

 
TWD39 wrote:


As for the Law,  it was not disregarded until after Jesus was crucified.  This was symbolized by the tearing of the temple veil after His death.  Now Christians don't have to physically enter a temple to commune with God.

Since you mentioned the veil tearing, I take it you are familar with the Passion stories?

If so, in regard to the Gospels we can go over the details of the multiple choice accounts of the Passion storytelling if you'd like, it's like a choose your own adventure book from the 1980s.

I see you had no response to the taking of corn on the Sabbath and the relationship Jesus indicated to the case with David.

TWD39 wrote:


See Hebrews 10:19–20.


More opinions from an unknown writer. You need to show this writer has some basis that his opinions are worthy of study or consideration. Asserting this unknown writer's opinion is nothing but that.

 

 
TWD39 wrote:


Works is not a requirement of salvation. You can't work your way to heaven.  But a reborn Christian will want to do works.  If they don't then they have a dead faith.  That's what James is talking about. 



I know what James was discussing. Do you not see the relationship to the Law here?

What is your level of understanding of Judaism?

Also, did you forget to address the request I made in regard to Mark 11:12-14?

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


harleysportster
atheist
harleysportster's picture
Posts: 3312
Joined: 2010-10-17
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:harleysportster

TWD39 wrote:

harleysportster wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  I would challenge TWD39 to actually put his money where his mouth is. 

 

 So TWD39 if  God actually commanded you to pick up a rock and crush an infant's skull because God knew  that little baby was going to grow up and become the leader of an Islamic terrorist cell, woud'ja do it ? 

      A simple "yes" or "no" from you is all I require.

I'd be willing to wager that question is not going to be answered. Just like the bible, counterclaims get picked and chosen when debating with this type of narrow-minded ilk.

 

Lookie there, you lost the bet.  haha  I haven't dodged any of your questions, idiot.

Are you just playing stupid or plain stupid, as someone on here used to ask. You dodged the question just now, by changing around the context of the question to suit your needs. What if god told you to do so ? Would you tell god that you would not have to because the scriptures have been fulfilled ?  I believe Prozac said a simple yes or no is all that was required. Which you did not answer.

You'd make a good politician.

“It is proof of a base and low mind for one to wish to think with the masses or majority, merely because the majority is the majority. Truth does not change because it is, or is not, believed by a majority of the people.”
― Giordano Bruno


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote: It got more

TWD39 wrote:

It got more than just a few things right.  It holds up to every standard of establishing historical fact vs historical fiction.  How do you know aliens didn't really build the pyramids?   Star Trek, OTOH, is a well established work of fiction. You can trace its origin.  You have ZERO evidence that the Bible is fiction and the history of the Jews never happened.

 

We know the pyramids were not built by aliens, because archaeologists have excavated the villages that were built to support the workers who were building the pyramids.  They were not slaves and they were not "Jews" as the Jewish people did not exist as a people at that time, they were a diverse population that ate well, had medical care, and what was decent housing for the time.

 

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2002/08/0805_020805_giza.html wrote:

"The picture of a highly centralized bureaucracy going through the land and conscripting people for labor by force—it's highly doubtful," said Lehner. "Instead, it's the local rulers, heads of villages, large estates, that the royal house goes to when they need labor."

Because the labor pool was a rotating force, contributed by local authorities from all over Egypt, the Pyramids project may have had a tremendous socializing effect.

 

There is also a National Geographic program on the subject -

"The new discoveries were featured in a National Geographic Channel global television event on September 16, 2002.

The live two-hour documentary aired in 141 countries."

 

Youtube is such fun - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LsEwVgNbyZg

 

 

 

 

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
harleysportster wrote:TWD39

harleysportster wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

harleysportster wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  I would challenge TWD39 to actually put his money where his mouth is. 

 

 So TWD39 if  God actually commanded you to pick up a rock and crush an infant's skull because God knew  that little baby was going to grow up and become the leader of an Islamic terrorist cell, woud'ja do it ? 

      A simple "yes" or "no" from you is all I require.

I'd be willing to wager that question is not going to be answered. Just like the bible, counterclaims get picked and chosen when debating with this type of narrow-minded ilk.

 

Lookie there, you lost the bet.  haha  I haven't dodged any of your questions, idiot.

Are you just playing stupid or plain stupid, as someone on here used to ask. You dodged the question just now, by changing around the context of the question to suit your needs. What if god told you to do so ? Would you tell god that you would not have to because the scriptures have been fulfilled ?  I believe Prozac said a simple yes or no is all that was required. Which you did not answer.

You'd make a good politician.

 

It's a pathetic trap question, and I explained perfectly why it is not applicable to modern day Christians.  If you are too stupid to comprehend, that's not my problem.


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:harleysportster

TWD39 wrote:

harleysportster wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

harleysportster wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  I would challenge TWD39 to actually put his money where his mouth is. 

 

 So TWD39 if  God actually commanded you to pick up a rock and crush an infant's skull because God knew  that little baby was going to grow up and become the leader of an Islamic terrorist cell, woud'ja do it ? 

      A simple "yes" or "no" from you is all I require.

I'd be willing to wager that question is not going to be answered. Just like the bible, counterclaims get picked and chosen when debating with this type of narrow-minded ilk.

 

Lookie there, you lost the bet.  haha  I haven't dodged any of your questions, idiot.

Are you just playing stupid or plain stupid, as someone on here used to ask. You dodged the question just now, by changing around the context of the question to suit your needs. What if god told you to do so ? Would you tell god that you would not have to because the scriptures have been fulfilled ?  I believe Prozac said a simple yes or no is all that was required. Which you did not answer.

You'd make a good politician.

 

It's a pathetic trap question, and I explained perfectly why it is not applicable to modern day Christians.  If you are too stupid to comprehend, that's not my problem.

No you didn't you idiot. Just because you think the OT doesn't apply, doesn't mean you can just dodge the question. What if God TOLD you to kill your child?

Would. You. Do. It. Yes or No.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
ThunderJones wrote:TWD39

ThunderJones wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

harleysportster wrote:

TWD39 wrote:

harleysportster wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

  I would challenge TWD39 to actually put his money where his mouth is. 

 

 So TWD39 if  God actually commanded you to pick up a rock and crush an infant's skull because God knew  that little baby was going to grow up and become the leader of an Islamic terrorist cell, woud'ja do it ? 

      A simple "yes" or "no" from you is all I require.

I'd be willing to wager that question is not going to be answered. Just like the bible, counterclaims get picked and chosen when debating with this type of narrow-minded ilk.

 

Lookie there, you lost the bet.  haha  I haven't dodged any of your questions, idiot.

Are you just playing stupid or plain stupid, as someone on here used to ask. You dodged the question just now, by changing around the context of the question to suit your needs. What if god told you to do so ? Would you tell god that you would not have to because the scriptures have been fulfilled ?  I believe Prozac said a simple yes or no is all that was required. Which you did not answer.

You'd make a good politician.

 

It's a pathetic trap question, and I explained perfectly why it is not applicable to modern day Christians.  If you are too stupid to comprehend, that's not my problem.

No you didn't you idiot. Just because you think the OT doesn't apply, doesn't mean you can just dodge the question. What if God TOLD you to kill your child?

Would. You. Do. It. Yes or No.

 

Again, it's a POINTLESS question because God would not ask this of modern day Christians.  It's a stupid attempt to get me to say that I would kill a child.  I can see right through your games.

 

It's sad that the atheist tries to appear intellectually superior by just simply denying anything a Christian says.  


Judging from the previous posts, it seems that you are perfectly ok with Christians being killed or commiting suicide.  Talk about a lack of basic morality.


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
cj wrote:  We know the

cj wrote:

 

 

We know the pyramids were not built by aliens, because archaeologists have excavated the villages that were built to support the workers who were building the pyramids.  They were not slaves and they were not "Jews" as the Jewish people did not exist as a people at that time, they were a diverse population that ate well, had medical care, and what was decent housing for the time.

 

 

Oh but according to you, archaeology doesn't count of evidence.  So what if there is villages?  That doesn't prove that the inhabitants actually physically worked on the pryamids.

 

 


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
pauljohntheskeptic

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 

 

I did say it was my opinion. My opinion is based on years of study and research.

Which demonstrates the intellectual dishonesty of atheists.  Notice that not one atheist questioned your opinion.  They praised you for dumping a big steaming pile of garbage on my thread.  My point is that atheists will never question evidence if it is anti-Christian including anti-Bible. 

If you studied the Bible for years, and gained nothing from it then it's obvious you took the approach of desperately trying to disprove the Bible.


 

Specifically, where would you like to start?

 

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:


I have a thread that I started in early 2009 that deals with this subject. Another believer named Caposkia and I have been going through the OT from Genesis on. We are currently in 1 Kings. There I have presented plenty of arguments to show it is storytelling.

 

It's quite obvious that nothing I present will change your opinion so why bother?  I'm not going to invest years in an argument.

 

 

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 


No, there are other reasons such as propaganda, control of the populace, creation of a historical backdrop for the 2nd century BCE Judeans. And more, but we'd need to specifically discuss each part and why we think it was written beyond storytelling.

 


Very unlikely reasons.  As your ilk loves to point out, there is a lot of ugliness in the OT.  Every Biblical hero is showed at some point in a state of sin.  The Israelites complained, sinned and betrayed God.  Why in the world would this be a source of propaganda?  Oh wait,  you believe the Jews never existed in the first place.  Silly me.

 



 


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote: Again, it's a

TWD39 wrote:

 

Again, it's a POINTLESS question because God would not ask this of modern day Christians.  It's a stupid attempt to get me to say that I would kill a child.  I can see right through your games.

 

It's sad that the atheist tries to appear intellectually superior by just simply denying anything a Christian says.  


Judging from the previous posts, it seems that you are perfectly ok with Christians being killed or commiting suicide.  Talk about a lack of basic morality.

 

Why did he ask it of anyone? What could possibly be good about killing an innocent child?

You cannot say that atheists are ignoring your answers, because you have JUST done this. PaulJohn has given you a rational and thorough and now you are gonna just ignore it? You are just afraid because he is winning. Your pathetic strawman arguments are doing nothing but defeating your own case.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:cj wrote:  We

TWD39 wrote:

cj wrote:

 

 

We know the pyramids were not built by aliens, because archaeologists have excavated the villages that were built to support the workers who were building the pyramids.  They were not slaves and they were not "Jews" as the Jewish people did not exist as a people at that time, they were a diverse population that ate well, had medical care, and what was decent housing for the time.

 

 

Oh but according to you, archaeology doesn't count of evidence.  So what if there is villages?  That doesn't prove that the inhabitants actually physically worked on the pryamids.

 

 

 

Ok wow. If archaeology did not count as evidence to CJ than she would not have used an archaeological find in her argument.

Are you really this stupid? I believe she or someone else explained why one would think they actually worked on the pyramids.

You have also yet to respond to the evidence against your people of Israel even existing as a culture at the time of the Pyramids. Your story has plotholes galore.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote: It's quite

TWD39 wrote:

 

It's quite obvious that nothing I present will change your opinion so why bother?  I'm not going to invest years in an argument.

 

Than why are you here? Why did you even start arguing your position if you are just gonna give up when it "gets too hard"?

Im sure pauljohn would be perfectly willing to change his position if you actually had any good evidence to support yours, sadly I cannot say the same for you. You will continue to ignore our arguments that challenge yours. Cherrypickings and strawman is not a debate.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


pauljohntheskeptic
atheistSilver Member
pauljohntheskeptic's picture
Posts: 2484
Joined: 2008-02-26
User is offlineOffline
TWD39

TWD39 wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

  

I did say it was my opinion. My opinion is based on years of study and research.



Which demonstrates the intellectual dishonesty of atheists.  Notice that not one atheist questioned your opinion.  They praised you for dumping a big steaming pile of garbage on my thread.  My point is that atheists will never question evidence if it is anti-Christian including anti-Bible. 

If you studied the Bible for years, and gained nothing from it then it's obvious you took the approach of desperately trying to disprove the Bible.


Explain how the realization that what I was taught was untrue is "the intellectual dishonesty of atheists." 

Most of the forum members here are familiar with my views, I have been posting here for over 4 years. 

If questioning your assertions is "a big steaming pile of garbage" you are definitely not interested in any kind of discussion. 

You don't know what I gained or learned, and since you are so closed minded you won't get the opportunity it would seem as you indicate your have no interest in discussing the subject matter. It is apparently your interpretation that must be accepted and is the only possibility. This has occurred many times, which is why there are so many different denominations and divergent understanding. 

 

TWD39 wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:


I have a thread that I started in early 2009 that deals with this subject. Another believer named Caposkia and I have been going through the OT from Genesis on. We are currently in 1 Kings. There I have presented plenty of arguments to show it is storytelling.

 

It's quite obvious that nothing I present will change your opinion so why bother?  I'm not going to invest years in an argument.

Why would you have a goal of changing my opinion? I'm clearly aware from your posts that little could be shown you that would sway your beliefs.

That is not the point of doing this.

Your refusal is noted. 

 

 

 

TWD39 wrote:

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

 


No, there are other reasons such as propaganda, control of the populace, creation of a historical backdrop for the 2nd century BCE Judeans. And more, but we'd need to specifically discuss each part and why we think it was written beyond storytelling.

 


Very unlikely reasons.  As your ilk loves to point out, there is a lot of ugliness in the OT.  Every Biblical hero is showed at some point in a state of sin.  The Israelites complained, sinned and betrayed God.  Why in the world would this be a source of propaganda?  Oh wait,  you believe the Jews never existed in the first place.  Silly me.

You're free to have your own opinion.

There is a lot of violence in all ancient literature and storytelling, so?

You claim you don't want a discussion yet you ask questions. 

I said the country portrayed in the OT did not exist as claimed. There were obviously people living in Palestine, but the OT does not portray the situation as it really was. A bit of research of archeology will show you this. 

 



 

 

 

____________________________________________________________
"I guess it's time to ask if you live under high voltage power transmission lines which have been shown to cause stimulation of the fantasy centers of the brain due to electromagnetic waves?" - Me

"God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, - it says so right here on the label. If you have a mind capable of believing all three of these divine attributes simultaneously, I have a wonderful bargain for you. No checks please. Cash and in small bills." - Robert A Heinlein.


cj
atheistRational VIP!
cj's picture
Posts: 3330
Joined: 2007-01-05
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:cj wrote:We know

TWD39 wrote:

cj wrote:

We know the pyramids were not built by aliens, because archaeologists have excavated the villages that were built to support the workers who were building the pyramids.  They were not slaves and they were not "Jews" as the Jewish people did not exist as a people at that time, they were a diverse population that ate well, had medical care, and what was decent housing for the time.

 

Oh but according to you, archaeology doesn't count of evidence.  So what if there is villages?  That doesn't prove that the inhabitants actually physically worked on the pryamids.

 

 

Since when did I say archaeology doesn't count for evidence? 

And, if you had bothered to watch the youtube video or looked it up on the National Geographic web site (you can watch entire programs there) you would have seen where there are hieroglyphics on the walls with names and tasks the person performed engraved.  Why would anyone take the time to engrave a name, profession, and a picture of the person performing their task if the person didn't actually exist?

 

-- I feel so much better since I stopped trying to believe.

"We are entitled to our own opinions. We're not entitled to our own facts"- Al Franken

"If death isn't sweet oblivion, I will be severely disappointed" - Ruth M.


Atheistextremist
atheistSilver Member
Atheistextremist's picture
Posts: 5102
Joined: 2009-09-17
User is offlineOffline
So what

 

TWD39 wrote:

cj wrote:

 

We know the pyramids were not built by aliens, because archaeologists have excavated the villages that were built to support the workers who were building the pyramids.  They were not slaves and they were not "Jews" as the Jewish people did not exist as a people at that time, they were a diverse population that ate well, had medical care, and what was decent housing for the time.

 

 

Oh but according to you, archaeology doesn't count of evidence.  So what if there is villages?  That doesn't prove that the inhabitants actually physically worked on the pryamids.

 

 

if the bible contains references to certain sites that actually existed around the time it was written - that doesn't prove christ physically rose from the dead. 

 

 

"Experiments are the only means of knowledge at our disposal. The rest is poetry, imagination." Max Planck


Beyond Saving
Silver Member
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 4626
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
 A list of unanswered

 A list of unanswered questions from pages 1-4.

 

 

harleysportster wrote:

Can you prove that a god "gave" us any of those things and are not a product of evolution ?

 

harleysportster wrote:

What would happen if I walked up to a guy on the street, that has just buried his daughter, or has terminal cancer, or has just lost his home and told him to be "happy" about all of these "god-given gifts" ? 

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

What kind of a god makes sex so wonderful then denies it to us?

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Are you a "glass half empty" Christian when it comes to discussing the gods of other world religions ?...

Do you think Allah, the God of Islam is worthy of your admiration or are you just focusing on the negative ?

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

These are assertions without proof. How do you know the created character of the Jews that morphed into the Christian god exists? The book of storytales told you so, right? Why pick the fantasy tales of a people that likely has all been invented?....

 

tonyjeffers wrote:

So do you think if I enjoy and just have a general feeling of appreciation for those things, but I tend to find evolution a more plausible explanation for them rather than the stories in the christian bible that I will suffer eternal torture after my body gives out?

 

harleysportster wrote:
 

Sin equals death ? The wages of sin is death ? I've been hearing that my whole life and see no reason for it. So little children in the hospital with leukemia are dying because of sin ? ....

What about people that do not have spouses nor want to have relationships ? Why are more secular countries with legalized prostitution lower in STD'S and crime ? 

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

What would you say about somebody who deliberately punished you for something I did?

 

Jabberwocky wrote:
 

Why are you and I being punished for something done by another person before we were born? 

Beyond Saving wrote:

If we could live forever, would you want to?

 

harleysportster wrote:
 

If the painting is bad, do you blame the paint or the painter ? 

If the watch doesn't keep time, do you blame the watch or the watchmaker ? ....

What kind of a screwed up being would create things for the sole purpose of praying to it, and thanking it, for it's whole entire existence ? ...

Would you deliberately set up tests for your children if you KNEW that they were bound to fail them and then punish them forever ? 

 

Ktulu wrote:

Within our newly defined epistemic paradigm, how is one to be a "half empty type of person" regarding a non existent entity?  Do you mean this theoretically? Perhaps I am regarding supposed god pessimistically as I would a villain in a novel?  Are you implying that atheists consider god an evil protagonist, as opposed to a hero?

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

So man found a way around an omnipotent, all knowing god? If a god created us, and we are imperfect, how can it be any fault but his?...

You have evidence that god is real? Outside of just the bible? Or is everything you have reliant on a book that tells stories of magic?

 

danatemporary wrote:

What is proved by archaeological finds ?

 

Beyond Saving wrote:
 

Which explanation is more likely, that she didn't see angels and her believing she did is a psychological issue or that she saw legions of invisible angels which no one else could see, don't show up on any of the millions of pictures taken that day, left no radar signature and completely undetectable to everyone and all technology?....

Do you have any verifiable evidence of a person being divinely healed, say for example an amputee growing an arm back? 

 

ex-minister wrote:

Can you admit that atheist are decent people?

Do you feel you have an automatic bias against atheist particularly shown by your judgment above? 

 

Jabberwocky wrote:
 

God apparently is the only one exempt from having to be created isn't he?

 

ThunderJones wrote:
 

Relying on claims that have no external substantiation (i.e. god exists out of time) This is true why? You know this how? NOT The Bible, because that is not external substantiation, that is "The Bible is true because The Bible"

Ktulu wrote:

How was your vacation?  Did you have fun praying and going to church and stuff?

 

 

Seriously, that was a softball question and you couldn't even answer that one...

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

But when every case we can examine shows there is nothing mystical about it should we believe the cases where we don't have data were different? And every time we could get data we were just unlucky?

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

I'm interested to hear though, if visions during near death experiences aren't brain related, what are they?

Vastet wrote:

 But that just brings up another flaw with creation: why disease? And why are some susceptible when others are not?

 

Vastet wrote:

What was the last global treaty they joined or signed? When was the last time the UN assembled in Israel? When was the last time Israel dictated to the world to jump, and everyone asked how high? 

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Abortion is worse than killing children? Why? 

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

So we should judge children based on what their parents do? ...

Wait, it is disgusting that they killed their elderly so your solution is to go in and kill them ALL including the children and elderly? WTF!?! How is that any better?...

Should we go kill every German on the face of the planet because of the holocaust? 

 

Beyond Saving wrote:
 

Are children wicked?....

Suppose I was stranded on an island with some guy and his kid. The guy goes crazy and tries to kill me so wanting to live myself I kill him. Should I now kill the kid too?.....

Yet you are cool with murdering said infant? 

 

Beyond Saving wrote:
 

Why is it implausible that those infants would be different from their parents when (I assume) you don't do any of the terrible and barbaric things your ancestors might have done? 

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

So was god once cruel and immoral and then changed to become kind, loving and moral?

 

ThunderJones wrote:

What about the sacrifice, bigotry, incest, and genocide? What about "suffer not a witch to live"?

 

ThunderJones wrote:

How is he kind, when he has done these things? Unless you want to ignore the whole OT?

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

So here is the question, do god's morals evolve too? Or are they constant? If they are constant, how can you say that god is moral after commanding such immoral actions in the past?

As for the OT/NT thing, you tell me. It is your crazy religion, should I consider both to be 100% accurate? Or are parts of the bible inaccurate?  

 

ThunderJones wrote:

So telling the Israelites to wipe out the cities of non-believers if they didnt surrendur right away is ok? Telling them to kill all the males and women who arent virgins and then taking the virgin women as spoils (rape marriage)? That is all ok with you, aslong as it is called "protecting his people"?....

 If the Bible is really a communication vessel then why can no-one agree about what it is meant to say? Why is this up for interpretation? Why not have a perfect Bible that anyone can understand and get the same basic message from? Or is God not capable of making a perfect Bible?

 

Beyond Saving wrote:
 

So death is good because you get to go to heaven... yet you use avoiding death as an excuse to commit heinous acts? If death is so wonderful, why would you do something so terrible to avoid it?...

Then why are you against abortion?

 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

So TWD39 if  God actually commanded you to pick up a rock and crush an infant's skull because God knew  that little baby was going to grow up and become the leader of an Islamic terrorist cell, woud'ja do it ? 

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Since the book of Hebrews was written by an unknown author, not Paul, not that it would matter if it was anyway, why should this unknown person's opinion have bearing?

 

Was this later writer privy to some insider information? If so, why not sign the book with your name so you could give it some legitimacy?

 

 

 

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


ThunderJones
atheist
ThunderJones's picture
Posts: 433
Joined: 2012-04-23
User is offlineOffline
Please note TWD39 that

Please note TWD39 that although some of those questions you replied too, as far as I can tell (and any examination of your replies can show), everything Beyond quoted are things you avoided or evaded giving full or real answers to.

Secularist, Atheist, Skeptic, Freethinker


Jabberwocky
atheist
Posts: 339
Joined: 2012-04-21
User is offlineOffline
TWD39 wrote:Thank you for

TWD39 wrote:

Thank you for proving you are ignorant about the Bible.  Verse 18 explains it. 

For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.

 

The OT law was applicable until Jesus fullfilled it.  He fullfilled it when He died on the cross and became the blood sacrifice payment to cover everyone's sins.

I don't know how you get "Till (I die) on the cross and (become) the blood sacrifice payment to cover everyone's sins." from "Till heaven and earth pass". That seems to be your implication here. He does not say "until I pass through heaven and earth" or "until my blood is spilt". It's quite clear he means until the very last day of existence. 

So you're wrong about that. Even if you were right (let's pretend for a moment, ok?) what Jesus is saying here is "stoning your wife to death on your neighbours doorstep if she is not a virgin when you marry her is still ok, until a bunch of people torture and slaughter me. So if you see Judas acting weird and shuffling off, get it all out of your system, because it will be not allowed soon."

TWD39 wrote:

Jesus met all the requirements of being completely sinless which no human being has ever done. 

"Who is my mother?" - Matthew 12:48. Violation of the commandment to honour one's father and MOTHER! Then gets all hypocritical when Peter denies him. Doesn't sound like he has much in the way of integrity. That's one thing, but I'm too lazy to scour for more. The bible is very un-fascinating and hard to read for a very long time. 

TWD39 wrote:

Jesus met all the OT prophecies as well like

Isaiah 7:14

Well, if you've ever read any of the information concerning the original Hebrew text here, you might have heard that the word where "virgin" is used in English translations of that verse is actually better translated as "young woman". While there very well may be some ambiguity to the original Hebrew word, I'm not entirely sure since I don't speak Hebrew. Since I don't, though, I felt I should investigate what I can. While I don't speak Hebrew, I do speak Polish fluently. The word used in Isaiah 7:14 there is "panna", which in essence means young woman (and in modern speech at least, it implies a single woman, and does NOT imply virginity). In the sidebar of the verse I found, it describes the meaning of the Hebrew word as follows (translation by myself, Polish text attached for anyone who wants to verify)

A young (młoda) single woman (panna) or a young (młoda) married woman, (kobieta zamęzna) who is not yet a mother; the word stresses the young age of the person and typically pre-supposes virginity

młoda panna lub młoda kobieta zamężna, nie będąca jeszcze matką; wyraz ten podkreśla młodość osoby i normalnie suponuje dziewictwo.

http://biblia.deon.pl/rozdzial.php?id=479&werset=14#W14

So if the verse meant to say she was a virgin, why did they not use the word "dziewica" (which actually MEANS virgin) in the Polish translation? The fact that they retained the word "panna" says to me that the ambiguous term is more true to the original text, than confirming this person's virginity.

Now, if in earlier times, "panna" did imply virginity, why not update it in the new editions? The edition I got this from is less than a decade old. If they could change that word, they would. The only time in modern Polish conversation that it implies virginity is when you refer to "Maryja panna"....guess who that is? 

Also, the sidebar there goes on to translate more literally, in a less fluid manner the original text:

"Behold, a young woman [is] with child, and is bearing a son, who she will call Emmanuel" or even better "conceived, and is giving birth"

"Oto panna brzemienna [jest] i rodzi syna, którego imię nazwie Emmanuel"; jeszcze lepiej: "poczęła i rodzi".

Funny thing, if you type "panna brzemienna" into google translate, you get "virgin with child", but pretty well don't get virgin whatever else you type into google involving the word "panna". Interesting, and a good testament to the ambiguity of the word itself once again. 

"So behold a virgin shall conceive" (or perhaps a young woman will conceive, or maybe she is already pregnant)

"And bear a son" (they had a 50/50 chance of getting that one right if she was to give birth)

"And shall call his name Emmanuel" (because Emmanuel = Jesus)

The first line is in major dispute. The second line is correct (with a coin flip's chance of being right). The third line is wrong. Nothing to see here. 

TWD39 wrote:

After the cruxification, the OT laws requiring complete obedience from humans was no longer needed.  A new covent was born.

No response here other than admiration for creative spelling and grammar. 

 

EDIT - BeyondSaving, I was thinking of doing that myself. Well done. 

Theists - If your god is omnipotent, remember the following: He (or she) has the cure for cancer, but won't tell us what it is.


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote: A list

Beyond Saving wrote:

 A list of unanswered questions from pages 1-4.

 

 

harleysportster wrote:

Can you prove that a god "gave" us any of those things and are not a product of evolution ?

 

harleysportster wrote:

What would happen if I walked up to a guy on the street, that has just buried his daughter, or has terminal cancer, or has just lost his home and told him to be "happy" about all of these "god-given gifts" ? 

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

What kind of a god makes sex so wonderful then denies it to us?

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Are you a "glass half empty" Christian when it comes to discussing the gods of other world religions ?...

Do you think Allah, the God of Islam is worthy of your admiration or are you just focusing on the negative ?

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

These are assertions without proof. How do you know the created character of the Jews that morphed into the Christian god exists? The book of storytales told you so, right? Why pick the fantasy tales of a people that likely has all been invented?....

 

tonyjeffers wrote:

So do you think if I enjoy and just have a general feeling of appreciation for those things, but I tend to find evolution a more plausible explanation for them rather than the stories in the christian bible that I will suffer eternal torture after my body gives out?

 

harleysportster wrote:
 

Sin equals death ? The wages of sin is death ? I've been hearing that my whole life and see no reason for it. So little children in the hospital with leukemia are dying because of sin ? ....

What about people that do not have spouses nor want to have relationships ? Why are more secular countries with legalized prostitution lower in STD'S and crime ? 

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

What would you say about somebody who deliberately punished you for something I did?

 

Jabberwocky wrote:
 

Why are you and I being punished for something done by another person before we were born? 

Beyond Saving wrote:

If we could live forever, would you want to?

 

harleysportster wrote:
 

If the painting is bad, do you blame the paint or the painter ? 

If the watch doesn't keep time, do you blame the watch or the watchmaker ? ....

What kind of a screwed up being would create things for the sole purpose of praying to it, and thanking it, for it's whole entire existence ? ...

Would you deliberately set up tests for your children if you KNEW that they were bound to fail them and then punish them forever ? 

 

Ktulu wrote:

Within our newly defined epistemic paradigm, how is one to be a "half empty type of person" regarding a non existent entity?  Do you mean this theoretically? Perhaps I am regarding supposed god pessimistically as I would a villain in a novel?  Are you implying that atheists consider god an evil protagonist, as opposed to a hero?

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

So man found a way around an omnipotent, all knowing god? If a god created us, and we are imperfect, how can it be any fault but his?...

You have evidence that god is real? Outside of just the bible? Or is everything you have reliant on a book that tells stories of magic?

 

danatemporary wrote:

What is proved by archaeological finds ?

 

Beyond Saving wrote:
 

Which explanation is more likely, that she didn't see angels and her believing she did is a psychological issue or that she saw legions of invisible angels which no one else could see, don't show up on any of the millions of pictures taken that day, left no radar signature and completely undetectable to everyone and all technology?....

Do you have any verifiable evidence of a person being divinely healed, say for example an amputee growing an arm back? 

 

ex-minister wrote:

Can you admit that atheist are decent people?

Do you feel you have an automatic bias against atheist particularly shown by your judgment above? 

 

Jabberwocky wrote:
 

God apparently is the only one exempt from having to be created isn't he?

 

ThunderJones wrote:
 

Relying on claims that have no external substantiation (i.e. god exists out of time) This is true why? You know this how? NOT The Bible, because that is not external substantiation, that is "The Bible is true because The Bible"

Ktulu wrote:

How was your vacation?  Did you have fun praying and going to church and stuff?

 

 

Seriously, that was a softball question and you couldn't even answer that one...

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

But when every case we can examine shows there is nothing mystical about it should we believe the cases where we don't have data were different? And every time we could get data we were just unlucky?

 

Jabberwocky wrote:

I'm interested to hear though, if visions during near death experiences aren't brain related, what are they?

Vastet wrote:

 But that just brings up another flaw with creation: why disease? And why are some susceptible when others are not?

 

Vastet wrote:

What was the last global treaty they joined or signed? When was the last time the UN assembled in Israel? When was the last time Israel dictated to the world to jump, and everyone asked how high? 

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Abortion is worse than killing children? Why? 

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

So we should judge children based on what their parents do? ...

Wait, it is disgusting that they killed their elderly so your solution is to go in and kill them ALL including the children and elderly? WTF!?! How is that any better?...

Should we go kill every German on the face of the planet because of the holocaust? 

 

Beyond Saving wrote:
 

Are children wicked?....

Suppose I was stranded on an island with some guy and his kid. The guy goes crazy and tries to kill me so wanting to live myself I kill him. Should I now kill the kid too?.....

Yet you are cool with murdering said infant? 

 

Beyond Saving wrote:
 

Why is it implausible that those infants would be different from their parents when (I assume) you don't do any of the terrible and barbaric things your ancestors might have done? 

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

So was god once cruel and immoral and then changed to become kind, loving and moral?

 

ThunderJones wrote:

What about the sacrifice, bigotry, incest, and genocide? What about "suffer not a witch to live"?

 

ThunderJones wrote:

How is he kind, when he has done these things? Unless you want to ignore the whole OT?

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

So here is the question, do god's morals evolve too? Or are they constant? If they are constant, how can you say that god is moral after commanding such immoral actions in the past?

As for the OT/NT thing, you tell me. It is your crazy religion, should I consider both to be 100% accurate? Or are parts of the bible inaccurate?  

 

ThunderJones wrote:

So telling the Israelites to wipe out the cities of non-believers if they didnt surrendur right away is ok? Telling them to kill all the males and women who arent virgins and then taking the virgin women as spoils (rape marriage)? That is all ok with you, aslong as it is called "protecting his people"?....

 If the Bible is really a communication vessel then why can no-one agree about what it is meant to say? Why is this up for interpretation? Why not have a perfect Bible that anyone can understand and get the same basic message from? Or is God not capable of making a perfect Bible?

 

Beyond Saving wrote:
 

So death is good because you get to go to heaven... yet you use avoiding death as an excuse to commit heinous acts? If death is so wonderful, why would you do something so terrible to avoid it?...

Then why are you against abortion?

 

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

So TWD39 if  God actually commanded you to pick up a rock and crush an infant's skull because God knew  that little baby was going to grow up and become the leader of an Islamic terrorist cell, woud'ja do it ? 

 

pauljohntheskeptic wrote:

Since the book of Hebrews was written by an unknown author, not Paul, not that it would matter if it was anyway, why should this unknown person's opinion have bearing?

 

Was this later writer privy to some insider information? If so, why not sign the book with your name so you could give it some legitimacy?

 

 

 

 

 

Typical atheist gangbang tactic.  Bury me with dozens of questions with multiple people attacking me and then gloating because I don't immediately reply to every question.   At least be honest and admit that the playing field is a bit unbalanced.  Oh wait, you're an atheist, I shouldn't expect honesty and fairness. 

 

How about you go to a Christian forum and field questions from a dozen or more Bible believing Christians?  Let's see how fast you run for the hills.

 


TWD39
Theist
Posts: 300
Joined: 2012-07-02
User is offlineOffline
ThunderJones wrote:Please

ThunderJones wrote:

Please note TWD39 that although some of those questions you replied too, as far as I can tell (and any examination of your replies can show), everything Beyond quoted are things you avoided or evaded giving full or real answers to.

 

 

Bite me, I owe you nothing especially if you are going to bury me in replies.  I have more important priorities than to waste several hours of my day on a God hating forum.  It's merely a time killer to shed light into your darkness.