God is Evil

[shadow9449]

Seriously? Have you read the New Testament? You don't have to read it long to quickly understand what Jesus claimed.

Actually, there is only ONE such indirect reference in all four Gospels where he asked Peter who he thinks he is. It's the Gospel authors who may have made the claim but very scant direct statement from Jesus in this regard.

As a matter of fact, He didn't stop there with His claims. He also claimed to be God Himself.

Again, indirectly and there have been many debates over the millenia if Jesus did imply that he's God.

Of course if you want to differ, you're welcome to cite verse references rather than making statements with no support.

SHADOW

 

[shadow9449]

All of them.

Chapter and verse, please. Matthew, for example only even met Jesus about 30 years into the latter's life. It's implausible that Matthew witnessed anything regarding the early years of Jesus. Again, you're welcome to show where any Gospel author claims to have witnessed all the events in their book.

Paul contributes the most in the New Testament and his claim is that he met with Jesus after His death.

Ok, let's get this straight. You are telling us here that the New Testament is absolutely reliable because it was written by people who were eyewitnesses, and you consider someone who claims to have had a vision of Jesus 20-30 years after the latter's death as an "eyewitness"?

I will agree that there were no eyewitnesses, at least not until day six.

Sorry, but Adam did not write the Old Testament. Neither did Abrahm nor Joseph. Therefore there are some key parts of the Old Testament that were written ceturies or millenia AFTER they happened by people who could not have witnessed the events.

My point here is that since the New Testament heavily relies on the veracity of the Old Testament, the claim of eyewitness accounts that you posit is only as strong as the reliability of the latter.

SHADOW

 

[shadow9449]

Just because someone claims to be a Christian doesn't always make them a Christian, especially when they commit acts contrary to Biblical teaching and then turn around and try to say they did it in the name of God.

I'm not sure what the relevance of this is. It does deserve being addressed on its own, though.

My point of stating they were martyr's was not to try to make their claims credible. My point was to say these men claimed to be eyewitnesses and believed what they taught and wrote down to the point that they were martyred. They believed what they were saying was credible enough to die for it. .

Does that make their belief more reliable to us?

Sure. Foxes Book of Martyr's would be a good start. If I remember right I believe even Josephus wrote down some of who died and how they died.
.

Foxe's pretty much deals with Catholics killing Protestants. If you have a specific reference in Foxe's to where he claims how the Apostles died, I'd be interested in reading it.

I have heard of Josh McDowell but I have never read one of his books nor his teachings.

You're not missing much. He's poorly researched, illogical and won't respond to rebuttal.

SHADOW

 

[speakers_86]

You're welcome. If I wrote a book, it would never reach people like you, but obviously my posts do, so I'll continue with them I think.

Now, your simply insulting me. Again, you are generalizing. I do not believe you really care, but the last book I read was Rendezvous with Rama. The next book I intend to read is a Brief History of Time. Perhaps you can tell by what I read, I am not at all interested in what you could teach me, unless of course you are a student of theoretical physics.

Try reading it.

Anyway, what evidence is there that the bible is factual.

Thank you for contributing something meaningful for once.

 

[speakers_86]

Why do atheists feel an overpowering urge to start threads.

I thought this was insanely funny. When I posted this, I meant nothing by it. I simply wanted to get other peoples opinions. If God can set rules he knows will be broken, and then punish us all forever for breaking them, what other conclusion can we come to? I think they talked about this idea in the Devil's Advocate. At the very end Al Pacino calls God a sadist because of this.

However, there are some atheists on this thread who practice proper English.

I try! I just dont want to be hounded over something as silly as punctuation. As long as my message is clear, there should be no need to correct somebody.

 

[ShaneMan]

Actually, there is only ONE such indirect reference in all four Gospels where he asked Peter who he thinks he is. It's the Gospel authors who may have made the claim but very scant direct statement from Jesus in this regard.



Again, indirectly and there have been many debates over the millenia if Jesus did imply that he's God.

Of course if you want to differ, you're welcome to cite verse references rather than making statements with no support.

SHADOW

Hey Shadow,

I would like to give you some verses on both topics and please understand that there are more but I got tired of writing down verse references so hopefully this will be sufficient.

Messiah: John 4" 25-26; Matt 16:15-17; Your reference to Peter in several places Mark 8:29-30; Luke 9: 20-21; Mark 14: 61-62; To the high priest Matt 26: 63-64, Luke 22:70

God (I am citing several verses with support this time. There are more but I sure hope you don't ask for them cause it's a lot of work to look them up. I didn't know I needed to "cite verse references rather than making statements with no support", I thought it was pretty common knowledge that Jesus claimed to be God on many occasions, so my bad)
John 10: 24-38; John 13:13; Forgives sin which only God can do Mark 2: 5-11, Luke 5: 20-24; John 8:57-58; John 6:46; John 3: 10-13; John 15: 23; John 14:9; John 20: 28-29

Shane

 

[ShaneMan]

Chapter and verse, please. Matthew, for example only even met Jesus about 30 years into the latter's life. It's implausible that Matthew witnessed anything regarding the early years of Jesus. Again, you're welcome to show where any Gospel author claims to have witnessed all the events in their book.

Ok, I didn't follow your bouncing ball very well so now allow me to clarify my statement of being eyewitnesses. Jesus ministry did not start until He was around 30 years old and these men who gave us an account as eyewitnesses are giving accounts to that ministry. As to His life before 30 years old. Luke does make it pretty clear that he gathered his information from eyewitnesses and recorded their accounts. I concentrate much more on Jesus ministry than I do His early years because that time period is when He made His claims and His followers witnessed miracles and teaching. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Ok, let's get this straight. You are telling us here that the New Testament is absolutely reliable because it was written by people who were eyewitnesses, and you consider someone who claims to have had a vision of Jesus 20-30 years after the latter's death as an "eyewitness"?

I didn't say it was a vision and I did not give a time frame of when it happened. If your giving a time frame then I would like for you to give me your source of this information, please.

Sorry, but Adam did not write the Old Testament. Neither did Abrahm nor Joseph. Therefore there are some key parts of the Old Testament that were written ceturies or millenia AFTER they happened by people who could not have witnessed the events.

My point here is that since the New Testament heavily relies on the veracity of the Old Testament, the claim of eyewitness accounts that you posit is only as strong as the reliability of the latter.

SHADOW

This was just a little attempt at humor. Sorry if it didn't come across that way. So while we are on the point, what key parts of the Old Testament where written centuries or millennia AFTER they happened? What authors claimed to have been eyewitnesses to something long after the events happened?

 

[ShaneMan]

I'm not sure what the relevance of this is. It does deserve being addressed on its own, though.

You put in parentheses that folks were killed at the hands of Christians. My comment was basically that just because someone claims to be a Christian doesn't make them one.

Does that make their belief more reliable to us?

No and that was not my point either time I made it. The point is THEY believed what they wrote and taught to the point of being willing to die for it.

Foxe's pretty much deals with Catholics killing Protestants. If you have a specific reference in Foxe's to where he claims how the Apostles died, I'd be interested in reading it.

Thought you never read a book? He begins with the Apostles and keeps going. Yes, the reformation martyrs are in there too.

You're not missing much. He's poorly researched, illogical and won't respond to rebuttal.
SHADOW

That's probably wise on his part, not responding to rebuttal. I'm starting wish I hadn't dove in on this one. It really never seems to accomplish anything. People believe what they believe and in most cases nothing is going to change their beliefs and I doubt seriously if it will via the internet. People find what they are looking for.

Hope your weekend finishes well,
Shane

 

[shadow9449]

Messiah: John 4" 25-26; Matt 16:15-17; Your reference to Peter in several places Mark 8:29-30; Luke 9: 20-21; Mark 14: 61-62; To the high priest Matt 26: 63-64, Luke 22:70

All of these are indirect, as I indicated. I.e. he either agreed to it or coaxed it out of someone rather than making a direct statement. (Two of them refer to the same incidet that I referenced regarding Peter - i.e. Mat 16 and Mark 14)

. I didn't know I needed to "cite verse references rather than making statements with no support", I thought it was pretty common knowledge that Jesus claimed to be God on many occasions, so my bad)

No problem. It's just been a matter of debate for the past 2000 years. I guess now you know

If you go through the verses you cite in John 10, he is saying that he's God's son, not God.

. Forgives sin which only God can do

If God can have human relatives, why can't they forgive sin? Both are conceptually as ridiculous and one does't prove the other.

Etc...

 

[shadow9449]

I didn't say it was a vision and I did not give a time frame of when it happened. If your giving a time frame then I would like for you to give me your source of this information, please.

I'm making reference to your citing Paul - who contributed close to half of the New Testament - as an eyewitness. Do you really need references that Paul only saw Jesus in a vision and lived 20-30 years after Jesus' death? I am assuming that the wires in the dialogue got crossed here.

what key parts of the Old Testament where written centuries or millennia AFTER they happened?

Everything up to at LEAST the book of Exodus.

What authors claimed to have been eyewitnesses to something long after the events happened?

None...

 

[shadow9449]

No and that was not my point either time I made it. The point is THEY believed what they wrote and taught to the point of being willing to die for it.

Ok, understood

Thought you never read a book?

I think that was someone else. I never made that claim.

He begins with the Apostles and keeps going.

Now that you've clarified how you are using the argument of the alleged martyrdom of the Apostles, it's not as revelant. Besides, Foxes was written in the 1560s, which means that the stories in there about the apostles remained oral legend for 1500 years...hardly historically-acceptable.

That's probably wise on his part, not responding to rebuttal.

True. It's the hallmark of many evangelists to make claims (often knowingly false) and then not be willing to support them when asked. They think that they are "sowing seeds" or something.

I'm starting wish I hadn't dove in on this one. It really never seems to accomplish anything.

Well, I think your initial objective was to answer Speaker's question as to whether God is evil because of the incident of the Garden of Eden. You were the only one here to answer the question so you probably at very least contributed an alternate way of viewing what some people saw as "evil". Whether it helped anyone or changed their way of thinking is difficult to determine.

People believe what they believe and in most cases nothing is going to change their beliefs and I doubt seriously if it will via the internet. People find what they are looking for.

I do agree with that.

However, sometimes you can have dialogue where both sides present a point of view - without necessarily trying to convince the other side - where the people participating and people reading the dialogue do gain some insight from seeing the points of view. In other words, changing peoples' beliefs is not the only valuable goal in a well-constructed dialogue. My intention in participating certainly wasn't to change your or anyone else's belief, just to clarify some of the points you raised and to understand your intention in presenting them, and I think that at this point I've achieved my goal.

Do you agree?

Hope your weekend finishes well,
Shane

You as well

 

[Mike375]

It really never seems to accomplish anything. People believe what they believe and in most cases nothing is going to change their beliefs and I doubt seriously if it will via the internet. People find what they are looking for.

Probably not change the central belief but changes to details can occur.

The people whose beliefs are most likely to change are those who watch a thread but don't participate.

 

[ColinEssex]

Speakers - Can you explain why in an earlier post you said this? -

No, never read any book.

Then in a later post you say this -

the last book I read was Rendezvous with Rama. The next book I intend to read is a Brief History of Time.

I put forward the proposition that you are making the latter up to give an impression of something you obviously are not.

As you are American I think we have all learnt to take what Americans say with a pinch of salt anyway. Most of it is exaggeration or fabrication, and it seems you fall nicely into those categories.

Col

 

[ShaneMan]

I think that was someone else. I never made that claim.

Now that you've clarified how you are using the argument of the alleged martyrdom of the Apostles, it's not as revelant. Besides, Foxes was written in the 1560s, which means that the stories in there about the apostles remained oral legend for 1500 years...hardly historically-acceptable.

True. It's the hallmark of many evangelists to make claims (often knowingly false) and then not be willing to support them when asked. They think that they are "sowing seeds" or something.



Well, I think your initial objective was to answer Speaker's question as to whether God is evil because of the incident of the Garden of Eden. You were the only one here to answer the question so you probably at very least contributed an alternate way of viewing what some people saw as "evil". Whether it helped anyone or changed their way of thinking is difficult to determine.



I do agree with that.

However, sometimes you can have dialogue where both sides present a point of view - without necessarily trying to convince the other side - where the people participating and people reading the dialogue do gain some insight from seeing the points of view. In other words, changing peoples' beliefs is not the only valuable goal in a well-constructed dialogue. My intention in participating certainly wasn't to change your or anyone else's belief, just to clarify some of the points you raised and to understand your intention in presenting them, and I think that at this point I've achieved my goal.

Do you agree?



You as well

Hey Shadow,

If you don't mind and it won't look too bad, I think I'm going to bow out of the conversation. Not with my tail tucked but I really think this is too big of a subject to try to keep typing out point/counterpoint. Too bad we live so far apart because I would enjoy the dialogue that you mentioned. I do agree that two opposing sides can have a dialogue, as long as that is where it stays. I have had a number of those conversations and I believe that are enjoyable and informative, but that it is a conversation. I find typing and trying to make your point far too taxing. On the other hand I have had it go the other way too. My experiences have been that I don't see much difference between the two sides when it comes to being a verbal bully. Christian as well as atheist. I appreciate your calm exchange and that you did not resort to implications. Just made your points.

I got the "reading books" part mixed up. It was Speaker and not you that said that so once again, my bad.

Lastly, you are right about I just wanted to give a different approach or thought to the subject, which wasn't responded to, and then it went from there to the Bible is a fairy tale subject. I really do think both camps have valid points and I find both sides to be very interesting to listen to, when they stay on subject.

Enjoyed it!

 

[speakers_86]

Then in a later post you say this -

Before I posted that, someone had asked me if I had read any of the New Testament books. Your quote was my answer, and it referred to books of the New Testament. If you honestly think that I have never read a book in my entire life, you are awfully naive.

I put forward the proposition that you are making the latter up to give an impression of something you obviously are not.

Are you trying to call me illiterate? I think you may have a hard time proving that.

As you are American I think we have all learnt to take what Americans say with a pinch of salt anyway. Most of it is exaggeration or fabrication, and it seems you fall nicely into those categories.

Col

Stop generalizing. Until you catch me in a lie, you have no reason to believe I am dishonest.

 

[ColinEssex]

Before I posted that, someone had asked me if I had read any of the New Testament books. Your quote was my answer, and it referred to books of the New Testament. If you honestly think that I have never read a book in my entire life, you are awfully naive.

Nice get-out. Suggest you make it clearer next time.

Are you trying to call me illiterate? I think you may have a hard time proving that.

Did I say that? Don't misread the posts - it can lead to confusion.

Stop generalizing.

As if I'd do that. But Americans do exaggerate alot, just meet some on holiday and they think they're gods gift. Fabrication? - it starts from the white house down.

Col

 

[speakers_86]

Nice get-out. Suggest you make it clearer next time.

Of course it is my fault that you couldn't follow the continuity of the thread.

Did I say that? Don't misread the posts - it can lead to confusion.

You certainly alluded to it. You quoted me as saying I had never read, then concluded that I was lying about reading Rendezvous with Rama. If you try and say that I had never read any book in my life, the only possible reason would be illiteracy.

As if I'd do that. But Americans do exaggerate alot...

How thick are you?

 

[Rabbie]

Of course it is my fault that you couldn't follow the continuity of the thread.

We all have to take responsibility for the effectiveness of our communications.

......

How thick are you?

Lets try not to sink to the level of personal abuse even if provoked.

 

[speakers_86]

We all have to take responsibility for the effectiveness of our communications.

He caught the tail end of the conversation (or so it seems).

Lets try not to sink to the level of personal abuse even if provoked.

Okay.

 

[chergh]

Lets try not to sink to the level of personal abuse even if provoked.

Colin is aggressive, abusive and racist and someone else gets warned for calling him thick