God is Evil

[oumahexi]

Yes but that part is so ambiguous and open to interpretation that I took it to mean that other animals are purely creatures of instinct that do not plan or create so I gave a counter example.

Also just because other animals don't think and create like we do doesn't necessarily mean they can't. Maybe they can and have decided it isn't worth the trouble?

LOL, I know a lot of humans like that

Sorry for being ambiguous, it didn't seem that way when I wrote it.

 

[Mike375]

If there are other beings who are as far above us as we are above animals then they could do things which determine outcomes for us and which would be beyond explanation.

 

[oumahexi]

If there are other beings who are as far above us as we are above animals then they could do things which determine outcomes for us and which would be beyond explanation.

OK, it's Friday and it's nearly finishing time so it has to be said I know loads of people in that category too

 

[ColinEssex]

Why are you so intent on something being at the top???

Maybe because we are talking about gods and God

Surely there can't be a higher supreme force other than the USA? They seem convinced they are gods. They certainly brought the planet to it's knees financially.

Col

 

[Rich]

But isn't the New Testament something of a history book?

No it's a book of fairy tales

 

[ShaneMan]

No it's a book of fairy tales

Is Julius Caesars Gallic Wars a fairy tale? The writings of Homer or Aristotle?

 

[Alc]

Is Julius Caesars Guild Wars a fairy tale? The writings of Homer or Aristotle?

No, I think those are regarded as more reliable because:
a) Most importantly, they don't make any claims that appear to suggest magic or supernatural powers. If they said that Caesar had arrived in the UK after walking across the English channel, or that the Greeks had fed their army with a loaf and a few fish, they'd be regarded as just as implausible.
b) There is no suggestion that they were written long after the described events occurred.
c) They contain less self-contradictory passages e.g. http://www.skeptically.org/bible/id6.html

 

[ShaneMan]

No, I think those are regarded as more reliable because:
a) Most importantly, they don't make any claims that appear to suggest magic or supernatural powers. If they said that Caesar had arrived in the UK after walking across the English channel, or that the Greeks had fed their army with a loaf and a few fish, they'd be regarded as just as implausible.
b) There is no suggestion that they were written long after the described events occurred.
c) They contain less self-contradictory passages e.g. http://www.skeptically.org/bible/id6.html

Perhaps so, but The New Testament was written by men just like the Gallic Wars or Histories of Herodotus and etc. (and I do understand the supernatural claims comparatively) but my point is that there are thousands more manuscripts and partial manuscripts of the books in the New Testament than any other historical writings that we humans have and at much closer dates written to the life of the writers but we don't seem to be as skeptical of the claims of the other writers. The New Testament writers claim to have been eyewitnesses to the events that they wrote down and claim that there were big numbers present that we also eyewitnesses. We have no written documents from the time frame that these men were writing that says the claims of these men were wrong, made up or fairy tales (at least not that I have found). Choosing to not believe what these men wrote down is one thing but I think it takes a lot of liberty to take it to the point of saying it's a book of fairy tales.

 

[Rich]

Is Julius Caesars Gallic Wars a fairy tale? The writings of Homer or Aristotle?

Homer and Aristotle aren't in the Bible surely? Homer Simpson certainly isn't

 

[Alc]

Perhaps so, but The New Testament was written by men just like the Gallic Wars or Histories of Herodotus and etc. (and I do understand the supernatural claims comparatively) but my point is that there are thousands more manuscripts and partial manuscripts of the books in the New Testament than any other historical writings that we humans have and at much closer dates written to the life of the writers but we don't seem to be as skeptical of the claims of the other writers. The New Testament writers claim to have been eyewitnesses to the events that they wrote down and claim that there were big numbers present that we also eyewitnesses. We have no written documents from the time frame that these men were writing that says the claims of these men were wrong, made up or fairy tales (at least not that I have found). Choosing to not believe what these men wrote down is one thing but I think it takes a lot of liberty to take it to the point of saying it's a book of fairy tales.

Possibly so, but we have pretty good evidence that men like Caesar existed. Other than the bible itself, what evidence is there to support what it says?

Surely the fact that so many contradictions exist is proof that it can't be taken too literally?

 

[Rich]

but I think it takes a lot of liberty to take it to the point of saying it's a book of fairy tales.

It's certainly a book of stories, or so a Baptist preacher always told us

 

[ShaneMan]

Possibly so, but we have pretty good evidence that men like Caesar existed. Other than the bible itself, what evidence is there to support what it says?

Surely the fact that so many contradictions exist is proof that it can't be taken too literally?

I believe we have very good evidence that Jesus and the men mentioned in the Bible also existed. Josephus never claimed Christianity nor a belief in Jesus teaching but he does collaborate many of the events and people in the New Testament writings. As far as the contradictions goes, that's probably something for another thread, but I don't believe the claims of the contradictions are as accurate as folks would lead us to believe, so for me, it hasn't fallen in the category of proof yet.

 

[ShaneMan]

It's certainly a book of stories, or so a Baptist preacher always told us

I can go along with that. One of the issues that I think makes the Bible so controversial is that the men who wrote and told these stories claimed them to be true and claimed to be eyewitnesses. They believed their stories and claims to the point of dying a martyr's death. All of them but John but as the story goes with him they threw him in boiling oil but he was not consumed so the Romans exiled him to the Isle of Patmos.

 

[ShaneMan]

Homer and Aristotle aren't in the Bible surely? Homer Simpson certainly isn't

I think he might have been. It's he the really strong guy that pulled the temple down on top of the Philistines?

 

[speakers_86]

I think that scares a lot of people because what hope have we if THIS is the BEST? People need something to aspire to, something better than they are, a perception of perfection, whether it's perfectly good (as in god-followers) or perfectly evil (as in satanists). Find me the perfect man (or woman) and I'll concede that we could be the highest form of life.

On reflection, this thread seems to state that god is less than perfect, so perhaps there's something higher still?

Agreed.


Also, there seems to be a lot of debate about the "top" of the evolutionary ladder. Let me point out, that every creature alive today is at the top. Survival is the top. Since we are alive, and ants are alive, we can not say that we are "superior" or higher on the ladder. If ants perish before us, then we can, but until then...we are only superior to creatures that have gone extinct.

Even when put like that, it can certainly be argued. Ex - If an asteroid killed the dinosaurs, how can we possibly claim to be superior since we weren't even there. But I think you should get my point.

 

[speakers_86]

...but I think it takes a lot of liberty to take it to the point of saying it's a book of fairy tales.

A burning bush that speaks to people isnt a fairy tail?

I believe we have very good evidence that Jesus and the men mentioned in the Bible also existed.

Its my understanding that Jesus' existence is a fact. Whether he was a messiah is what is disputed, and he never claimed to be a messiah.

 

[speakers_86]

If we were gods to animals they would be building us churches and laying down before us when ever we pass.

Unfortunately for us, the animals did not eat the fruit of knowledge. That, and the lack of possable (sp?) thumbs hinders their engineering ability.


Col-you can stop bringing up America now. Everyone knows you don't like any word that starts with an A. My crystal ball says you might pick on my spelling and grammar now. Just as a fore warning-I don't really care. But if you attempt to correct me anyway, please take it here.

 

[shadow9449]

The New Testament writers claim to have been eyewitnesses to the events that they wrote down and claim that there were big numbers present that we also eyewitnesses. .

Which book of the New Testament makes this claim? The only thing I'm aware of is Luke's claim that OTHERS have been eyewitnesses (Luke 1:2).

Moreover, the New Testament is supposed to be predicated by the Old Testament that makes claims of how humans were made and how the world got here which I'm sure you'd agree no one was eyewitness to.

 

[shadow9449]

... They believed their stories and claims to the point of dying a martyr's death. All of them but John but as the story goes with him they threw him in boiling oil but he was not consumed so the Romans exiled him to the Isle of Patmos.

- Every religion has its martyrs (many Jews and Muslims and Christians at the hands of Christians, of course). They can't all be right. Being a martyr doesn't mean being credible.

- Outside of legend, is there any historically-accepted basis for believing that the Aspostles were martyred?

This is starting to sound a lot like material from Josh McDowell!

SHADOW

 

[ColinEssex]

Col-you can stop bringing up America now.

That's difficult when the Americans posting here make so many elementary mistakes in their grammar. It's no wonder you never learn anything, you just don't like being taught anything - as usual you think you know it all.

Everyone knows you don't like any word that starts with an A.

Not true, where did you get that idea from?

My crystal ball says you might pick on my spelling and grammar now.

Wrong again. Oh by the way, I'm sorry you have had an implant, but it does sound good if it speaks to you.

Just as a fore warning-I don't really care.

I'm aware of that. It's not easy trying to teach people with a "don't care" attitude, but you'll thank me in the end.

But if you attempt to correct me anyway, please take it here.

If I did that, it would lose continuity.

Col