A Question of Christian Theology (3 Viewers)

[Scorch]

the amount of historical evidence for the new testament is embarrassingly wealthy.
ill post more in about a weeks time.

No, it's not. That's the thing. Can you please, if you are able to, post contemporary sources that do anything apart from confirm the extremely basic aspects of Jesus' existence (life, area, general time period, death)? There are none beyond the Bible.

i must thank you for your thought out post though.

You're welcome.

BIBLE STUDY MANUALS: THE BIRTH DATE OF JESUS CHRIST
not sure how good that is though.

That article is quite honestly historical tripe. Varus was not untrustworthy, simply unfortunate and perhaps not the best general. It provides no evidence to support absurd claims.

i will have to disagree with you here.

As you are free to do, but I've backed everything I've said up with facts and quotes.

this article for example.
although it is written about how long Jesus' Ministry was, it is quite fascinating how accurate the gospels were, written nearly 2000 years ago.

As I pointed out, the authors of the Gospels repeatedly altered accounts and we see that the Gospels evolve theologically from the earliest to the latest ones in terms of changing details of Jesus' life to fit as many Old Testament prophecies as possible.

However there is no element of historical accuracy outlined in that article. Only flee

so you believe that Jesus did indeed exist?

was he Lord, Liar, or Lunatic?

Of course. I believe he existed because there is evidence for his existence. Only foolish scholars will deny his existence outright. However there is no contemporary evidence to support what the Gospels have to say about him. In fact there is a wealth of evidence to suggest that the Gospels manipulated their accounts of events of Jesus' life and death to accommodate shifting dogma and to deal with as many Old Testament prophecies as possible, even when these ideas are complete historical inventions on the parts of the authors.

They are simply not trustworthy and historically inaccurate.

mm the gnostic gospels/accounts.
they were destoryed because obviously they weren't accurate.
they were hearsay.

No, I was referring to the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. The concept of virgin birth was one that developed extremely late and was most likely borrowed from Ionian Mystery Cults. Matthew and Luke include genealogies of David which show that Joseph was related to David, thus Jesus fulfilled the prophecy of the messiah being a descendant of David. However when the Church invented the idea of the virgin birth of Christ, they rendered these genealogies absolutely meaningless, as clearly Jesus is not of the "seed of David" at all, because he has no biological relation to David at all.

This is what I was referring to. This is the trace of mythological progression that we can see in the contradicting gospels. The presence of these genealogies in Matthew and Luke, the gospels which were written earlier than the others, is a trace of how the Church and gospel authors changed their accounts of Jesus and his life to meet their own agendas: the further growth of their religious sect.

Also, the Last Supper was stolen by the early Church from Mithraism, the mystery religion that existed long before Christianity and was Christianity's chief competitor up until the time of Constantine. In Mithraism, the central figure is the mythical Mithras, who died for the sins of mankind and was resurrected. Believers in Mithras were rewarded with eternal life. Part of the Mithraic communion liturgy included the words, "He who will not eat of my body and drink of my blood, so that he will be made one with me and I with him, the same shall not know salvation." Sound familiar? I thought so.

They changed details, ideas, concepts and invented historical fallacies to further their agenda via the Gospels. They are in no way trustworthy.

If you'd like to point out if there's anything I've said that is historically inaccurate without referring to faith or distracting the issue, that would be a more effective way to go about this discussion.

Enjoy your holidays or wherever you're going for a week.

 

[Ferox]

That would be a highly, highly flawed argument for obvious reasons. I hope you're not serious. So because God is perfect, he can act however the fuck he likes, murdering and butchering as he does in the Old Testament, and we cannot question it because he is perfect? No. Perfection cannot be constantly in and of itself regardless of the actions of said perfect being.

Were a Christian to argue thusly, it would be an absurd supposition to somehow justify the fact that the basis for their religion is violent and intolerant even by the standards of the first millennium BC.

(Ignoring that "thusly" not a word) It's not a question of whether murdering someone is right (it's most certainly not), it's a question of what context you place God's actions in. What you're doing is taking the Biblical God's actions out of the Bible, but not his attributes. You may as well argue that God was a pineapple if you don't abide by your prepositions, i.e. that we're taking of the Biblical God.

God is omniscient, apparently. Playing by the rules of the Bible he knew that we would have fallen from the garden of Eden. Also, why did he create flawed humans and then create the Devil to tempt us? That's really just the height of irresponsibility, to be honest.

Again, were a Christian to say that it would be a logical absurdity.

Again, you take one supposed attribute of God (his omniscient), but not his others (perfection).

Now, you'll notice I'm not arguing for or against God's actions. I'm just pointing out that your arguments are completely and utterly invalid because you haven't defined your prepositions or kept to your assumed ones.

What you should be doing is just saying the Bibical God doesn't exist. Trying to use the Bible to prove he's evil is a pointless task, and could only be achieved by taking his actions out of context. In which case, what exactly have you proved?

 

[Scorch]

(Ignoring that "thusly" not a word) It's not a question of whether murdering someone is right (it's most certainly not), it's a question of what context you place God's actions in. What you're doing is taking the Biblical God's actions out of the Bible, but not his attributes. You may as well argue that God was a pineapple if you don't abide by your prepositions, i.e. that we're taking of the Biblical God.

What I'm saying is that I would question that simply because the Bible says God is perfect does not necessarily excuse the butchery and murder of the Old Testament. You're confusing the issue far too much. The Biblical God is claimed to be perfect, yes, and I am pointing to the fact that he is both commits and encourages the committal of horrendous crimes against his own creations in the same book that claims he is loving and perfect and believe that such crimes and violence logically defeat such claims.

However if you want to talk context, the Old Testament is, as I said, a propaganda piece to justify the Isreali treatment and displacement of native tribes in Judea, filled with historical inventions and fallacies, generic mythology and God's convenient endorsement of any of the horrible things they did to the peoples around them in their conquests.

Thusly is, also, a word. A variant, for sure, but I find "argued thus" to sound rather clumsy because naturally you would use an adverb rather than an adjective in such a situation. Not that it's at all relevant.

Again, you take one supposed attribute of God (his omniscient), but not his others (perfection).

I'm not 'taking' any attributes, I'm arguing that there are logical inconsistencies, because in my mind, and those of most other rational people, a perfect and loving being would not slaughter his creations at a whim for whatever offense he happens to be offended by when he wakes up this morning.

As Dawkins says: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

 

[Ferox]

But there's quite simply nothing wrong with a Perfect Being killing the entire human race. Why would there be? Presumably man was created by this said Perfect Being, presumably man will be received by this Perfect Being when he dies, and presumably the Perfect Being's actions were just.

Don't like my prepositions? Tough luck, that's the context of the OT.

What you proven is that if the Biblical God weren't, as it were, God but still did the Biblical God's actions, he would be evil. What's the point of that argument?


And, more importantly, "thusly" is a word in the sense that it was made up to mock people who try to sound sophisticated by overusing the word "thus".

 

[lonely-lass]

I am sorry to say but I have to after what you quoted Dawkin's saying. All the violence that is going on in the world or whatever that happened at the time of Moses or Jesus was the result of people's deeds. What we reap we sow.

 

[the eye eht]

As Dawkins says: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

Epic quote. I learnt something new today. Thanks.

 

[Scorch]

But there's quite simply nothing wrong with a Perfect Being killing the entire human race. Why would there be? Presumably man was created by this said Perfect Being, presumably man will be received by this Perfect Being when he dies, and presumably the Perfect Being's actions were just.

Don't like my prepositions? Tough luck, that's the context of the OT.

What you proven is that if the Biblical God weren't, as it were, God but still did the Biblical God's actions, he would be evil. What the point of that argument?

The logic in your statements is absolutely ridiculous. Correct me if I'm wrong but this is my understanding of your argument:

1. The Bible says that God is perfect, omniscient, omnipotent, loving and many other things.
2. However whilst the Bible itself presents logical problems with many of the other aspects of God's being (omniscient yet blames humanity for something he evidently should have foreseen, omnipotent but leaves no trace of his existence, loving but slaughtered people in the thousands and has promised to slaughter us in the billions in the future), because the Bible claims that God is perfect, that is all acceptable.
3. Thus the issue is not up for debate ("Tough luck, that's the context of the OT").

Now I may understand slightly where you are coming from.

What you are saying that in terms of the Bible, they have given themselves an acceptable escape clause to justify the fact that God is responsible for a lot of bad things by giving him the characteristic of being 'perfect', thus implying that the logical problems presented in the Bible are not problems but simply beyond the comprehension of mere mortals? Have I understood you correctly?

There are some problems with this line of reasoning. I was not criticizing the Bible in terms of the Bible but in terms of a rational, morally-aware human being. I understand that perhaps the Bible has its own way (albeit highly logically flawed) way of deflecting criticism, though I'd be interested in hearing your quotes of the OT to support such an assertion. However I think that any rational being should question the inconsistencies in the claim that God is perfect yet slaughters homosexuals, Egyptian children and whoever else he feels like in their thousands when he feels like it, and the fact that the Bible says he is perfect really is no excuse at all.

The fact that the Bible says God is a perfect being does not make it at all illogical to find it difficult to reconcile the fact that he is perfect, loving and kind yet slaughters people whenever it fits his agenda. Your refusal to accept any questioning of God's actions in the Old Testament simply because the Bible says he is perfect is illogical.

I am sorry to say but I have to after what you quoted Dawkin's saying. All the violence that is going on in the world or whatever that happened at the time of Moses or Jesus was the result of people's deeds. What we reap we sow.

You have summed up my point exactly, though I suspect you didn't intend to. Of course they were all done by men. There is no evidence that God exists or has done anything ever. The Old Testament essentially foists onto God the actions of the Israelites against native people of the Levant where they slaughtered and murdered with impunity in order to justify, through a religious medium, their own actions.

Epic quote. I learnt something new today. Thanks.

Most welcome.

 

[Ferox]

Prepositions:
1. God is Perfect, etc.
2. God created Man
3. Man will be received by this Perfect Being when he dies

Those prepositions naturally arise out of the OT.

Argument 1:
1. God kills people in the OT
2. But any killing by God is just (from Prep. 1)
3. Furthermore, death is not the end, and in fact results in a better life (from prep. 3)
4. Therefore God killing man is not evil

That's a valid argument. It's not great, it's crude, but it's valid. I challenge you with those prepositions to argue that God's actions are evil.

If you think the prepositions are a giant get-out-of-gaol-free card, you're probably right, but that's the Bible: just reject it and move on, don't try to use it to prove absurdities.

I'm not even going to bother addressing that idea that man's wrongful actions are God's fault because he could foresee them, because it is self-evident that having foresight into something doesn't mean other people's failures become yours.

Dawkins feels that doing away with God would advance his positivist worldview and quite frankly his livelihood. That's fine, but quoting him brings nothing to this debate because his not here to account for his words.

 

[Titburger]

Prepositions:
1. God is Perfect, etc.
2. God created Man
3. Man will be received by this Perfect Being when he dies

Those prepositions naturally arise out of the OT.

Argument 1:
1. God kills people in the OT
2. But any killing by God is just (from Prep. 1)
3. Furthermore, death is not the end, and in fact results in a better life (from prep. 3)
4. Therefore God killing man is not evil

That's a valid argument. It's not great, it's crude, but it's valid. I challenge you with those prepositions to argue that God's actions are evil.

If you think the prepositions are a giant get-out-of-gaol-free card, you're probably right, but that's the Bible: just reject it and move on, don't try to use it to prove absurdities.

I'm not even going to bother addressing that idea that man's wrongful actions are God's fault because he could foresee them, because it is self-evident that having foresight into something doesn't mean other people's failures become yours.

Dawkins feels that doing away with God would advance his positivist worldview and quite frankly his livelihood. That's fine, but quoting him brings nothing to this debate because his not here to account for his words.

So I can justify muder by saying that they will be recived by God and have a better life? I don't think that argument would hold up in court

 

[Name_Taken]

As Dawkins says: “The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully.”

In the words of Job; "Naked I came from my mothers womb, and naked I will depart. The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away, may the name of the Lord be praised".

To the comment of his wife "Are you still holding on to your integrity? Curse God and die!", he replied "You are talking like a foolish women. Shall we accept good from God and not the trouble?".

God isn't a genie in a bottle.

Prepositions:
1. God is Perfect, etc.
2. God created Man
3. Man will be received by this Perfect Being when he dies

Those prepositions naturally arise out of the OT.

Argument 1:
1. God kills people in the OT
2. But any killing by God is just (from Prep. 1)
3. Furthermore, death is not the end, and in fact results in a better life (from prep. 3)
4. Therefore God killing man is not evil

That's a valid argument. It's not great, it's crude, but it's valid. I challenge you with those prepositions to argue that God's actions are evil.

Yes; God is merciful and compassionate beyond the limits of human understanding and capability, but that doesn't mean is is incapable or unwilling to distribute due justice upon those who choce it upon themselves.

 

[Name_Taken]

So I can justify muder by saying that they will be recived by God and have a better life? I don't think that argument would hold up in court

Wouldn't sit to well with you either, since God commanded you against murder, and Christ told you to love thy neighbour...

 

[Titburger]

Wouldn't sit to well with you either, since God commanded you against murder, and Christ told you to love thy neighbour...

I was saying that there seems to be double standards. When god murders in the OT it's merciful and noble but when a human murders it's immoral. If humans were created in God's image doesn't this present an inherent contradiction in our 'absolute' moral construct?

 

[Scorch]

Prepositions:
1. God is Perfect, etc.
2. God created Man
3. Man will be received by this Perfect Being when he dies

Those prepositions naturally arise out of the OT.

Argument 1:
1. God kills people in the OT
2. But any killing by God is just (from Prep. 1)
3. Furthermore, death is not the end, and in fact results in a better life (from prep. 3)
4. Therefore God killing man is not evil

That's a valid argument. It's not great, it's crude, but it's valid. I challenge you with those prepositions to argue that God's actions are evil.

Simply because it adheres with the flawed logic of the Bible and Christian apologetic arguments to combat the problematic nature of God's slaughter in the Old Testament does not mean it is excused from having to make sense.

As I said, for rational people there must be evidence of God's perfection for such an assertion to be accepted, and his actions are not those of such a being that is loving and caring.

Your approach to this argument however, that one must accept that God is perfect and thus his brutal killing of innocents makes sense and move on, is not one that will ever be receptive to productive debate so I suspect that the discussion is better served by moving on.

In the words of Job; "Naked I came from my mothers womb, and naked I will depart. The Lord gave and the Lord has taken away, may the name of the Lord be praised".

To the comment of his wife "Are you still holding on to your integrity? Curse God and die!", he replied "You are talking like a foolish women. Shall we accept good from God and not the trouble?".

How is this relevant in the slightest?

God isn't a genie in a bottle.

Of course not. Genies are markedly nicer.

 

[Name_Taken]

I was saying that there seems to be double standards. When god murders in the OT it's merciful and noble but when a human murders it's immoral. If humans were created in God's image doesn't this present an inherent contradiction in our 'absolute' moral construct?

But simply because we are created in His image, doesn't make us equal at all to Him!

You can't really refer to it as double standards, becuase we are not His peers.

We are told not to judge people, that only God can judge people etc.

Your approach to this argument however, that one must accept that God is perfect and thus his brutal killing of innocents makes sense and move on, is not one that will ever be receptive to productive debate so I suspect that the discussion is better served by moving on.

But the point I'm trying to make is that they were not innocent, hence why God expelled them from the face of the Earth.

And say a few truly innocent people were taken out as like collatoral damage or soemthing, they have nothing to fear of death, because according to the scriptures, they will pass into Heaven regardless. However, even in the largest stories of destruction in the Bible, Sodom, or the Ark etc, God is seen always to go out of His way to spare the lifes of the righteous.

How is this relevant in the slightest?

If God gave you life, what right doesn't He have to take it away?

Job tells us that is not fair or reasonable to expect that simply because you believe in Him, that you will never experience hardship or suffering. You can't priase God one second for giving you something you want, and then curse Him the next, when something goes wrong.

Of course not. Genies are markedly nicer.

I would argue they're not, considering that they are incapable for forgiveness the way God is, and didn't sacrifice their son in order for us to be absolved of our sins etc.

 

[Titburger]

But simply because we are created in His image, doesn't make us equal at all to Him!

You can't really refer to it as double standards, becuase we are not His peers.

We are told not to judge people, that only God can judge people etc.

If God created an absolute moral construct for us to follow, then why does this not apply to God himself?

 

[mcflystargirl]

If God created an absolute moral construct for us to follow, then why does this not apply to God himself?

it did. Have people never heard of Jesus.

 

[Scorch]

But simply because we are created in His image, doesn't make us equal at all to Him!

You can't really refer to it as double standards, becuase we are not His peers.

We are told not to judge people, that only God can judge people etc.

This is only adequate for you as we have already established that Christianity is based on blind faith. It is a terribly flawed argument.

But the point I'm trying to make is that they were not innocent, hence why God expelled them from the face of the Earth.

And say a few truly innocent people were taken out as like collatoral damage or soemthing, they have nothing to fear of death, because according to the scriptures, they will pass into Heaven regardless. However, even in the largest stories of destruction in the Bible, Sodom, or the Ark etc, God is seen always to go out of His way to spare the lifes of the righteous.

They weren't innocent? Okay let's see. Here is a list of just a section of the people killed in the Old Testament:
1. A man who refused to impregnate his brother's widow (Ge 38:7-10).

2. Two men who offered God incense that he had not authorized (Le 10:1-2).

3. A group of about 300 people who opposed Moses politically (Nu 16:1-35).

4. Another group of 14,700 who sympathized with the first group (Nu 16:49).

5. More people who complained about the food and other matters (Nu 21:4-6).

6. 24,000 more because of some who worshiped Baal (Nu 25:3,9).

7. The Amorites who besieged Gibeon (Jos 10:10-11).

8. Seventy men who looked into a box (1Sa 6:19).

9. Another man who, with good intention, touched the box (2Sa 6:6-7).

10. A man who refused to use his weapon against another man (1Ki 20:35-36).

11. Forty-two children who called Elisha "baldy" (2Ki 2:23-24).

12. 185,000 Assyrian soldiers (2Ki 19:35).

God also killed all of Pharaoh's horsemen in the Red Sea (Ex 14:26-28). He could instead have simply made their horses lame, which would have been far more effective than removing the wheels from the chariots so that the horses had to drag the chariots slowly along the ground (Ex 14:25). That would have also spared the horsemen.

In addition to killing people directly, God also ordered several people killed (despite his commandment not to kill). Here are some examples of people who died by God's order (and in some cases with God's help):

1. Three thousand of the Levites' brothers, friends, and neighbors, who had become unruly (Exodus 32:27-28).

2. All the men, women, and children in all seven of the tribes who were the Israelites' neighbors (Dt 2:34, 3:6, 7:1-2,16, 20:16-17). [Some Biblical verses imply that the Israelites numbered 2-3 million, which would make the total population of their neighbors more than 14 million. What God was here ordering, then, if we could go by those verses, was a kind of Holocaust.]

3. All the men, women, and children of the cities of Jericho, Ai, and dozens more cities and towns (Jos 6:21, 8:24-26, 10:26-42, 11:10-23, 21:44).

4. All the Amalekites, including children, and even animals (1Sa 15:3,18), [where Saul was severely punished for sparing some of them].

5. All the members of the house of Ahab and ministers of Baal within Israel, the latter accomplished through deception (2Ki 10:11-25), though approved by God (10:30).

6. All the citizens of Jerusalem, including children, who did not grieve and lament over sins committed in it (Eze 9:4-6).

It seems quite unethical for God to order the execution of so many people, whatever their offense might have been, especially in the case of the children, who were presumably innocent.

Closely related to the above is the extravagant use of capital punishment among God's chosen people. God ordered people put to death for such minor offenses as the following:

1. Consulting a witch (Le 20:6; Dt 18:11).

2. Blasphemy or merely having a different religion (Ex 22:20; Le 24:10-23; Dt 13:1-15, 17:2-5, 18:20; Jos 23:7,16; 1Ki 18:40).

3. Gathering sticks or kindling a fire on the Sabbath (Ex 31:14-15, 35:2-3; Nu 15:32-36).

4. Eating the wrong food (Ex 12:15,19; Le 3:16-17, 7:22,25-27, 17:10-16).

5. Being a disrespectful or disobedient child (Le 20:9; Dt 21:18-21).

If God gave you life, what right doesn't He have to take it away?

Job tells us that is not fair or reasonable to expect that simply because you believe in Him, that you will never experience hardship or suffering. You can't priase God one second for giving you something you want, and then curse Him the next, when something goes wrong.

So if you created a race of sentient androids over whom you had power, who could feel suffering just as much as humans could, it would be completely fine for you to inflict suffering and pain on them when they are innocent and simply murder them for not doing what you wanted whenever the fuck you feel like it?

I would argue they're not, considering that they are incapable for forgiveness the way God is, and didn't sacrifice their son in order for us to be absolved of our sins etc.

There are many, many Gods throughout history that are much nicer than your God and there is just as much evidence for the existence of those Gods as yours. Tell me, what, then, makes Christianity better than other religions, given your God slaughters children and innocents whenever the fuck he feels like it?

it did. Have people never heard of Jesus.

So because he sends his son to die for a flaw in humanity that is his fault anyway, it makes up for the fact that he and his chosen people wantonly butchered their way through the children and women of the Near East a couple of hundred years earlier? No. This would not and should not satisfy the mind of any rational person.

 

[Ferox]

So I can justify murder by saying that they will be received by God and have a better life? I don't think that argument would hold up in court

No, because unlike in the OT, in real life we don't know if God exists; and even if we were certain he did, it's not your place to kill your equals (that's why I slipped in prep 2) and unlike God you wouldn't necessarily be just.

 

[Scorch]

And that's where the logical absurdity comes in ... God hands down rules, doesn't follow them and we must be in reverence to his slaughter and cold-blooded murder of women, children and whoever the fuck he feels like when he wakes up of a morning simply because that same book says he is perfect as if that fixes the logical problem of a loving being coldly butchering children.

That will not wash with any rational person.

 

[mirakon]

Even if God was say omnibenevolent, then his simultaneous omnipotence is contradictory (see the Does GOd Exist? thread)