(July 14, 2018 at 8:53 pm)Graufreud Wrote: First, I would like to say that it's 3 a.m. where I live, and despite the late hour I'll try to make a clear and intelligent post.

I've been thinking about Massacre of the Innocents

"The Massacre of the Innocents is the biblical account of infanticide by Herod the Great, the Roman-appointed King of the Jews. According to the Gospel of Matthew,[1] Herod ordered the execution of all young male children in the vicinity of Bethlehem, so as to avoid the loss of his throne to a newborn King of the Jews whose birth had been announced to him by the . " (quoted from Wikipedia)

What do you think about this event?  

Yes christianity's* obsession with having its "holy" men rape innocent children on a mass scale is truly horrific.

Oh, wait you're talking about the fairy story from that bad fiction novel. Yeah, never happened.


*Every branch of christianity has had an epidemic of paedophile rape as far back as records go, not just the rcc.

Quote:Hey that's just what man has done, 

Last i checked if some random guy said he should get away with murder because don't understand his reasons we would book him .

Quote:get real and quit denying what is man's fault. 

In a world were a god who could interfere at any time but chooses not to he bares the blame for not dong so .So shifting the blame to humans is just sad .

Quote:We have caused the problem and it should be up to us to fix it

Nope god started the problem by greating human in the first place

Quote: You might think on this, Jesus told His disciples that the poor would always be with us, 

Not if their is an all powerful god it won't 

Quote:might be because He knew human nature oh so well.

Or because he's an uncaring asshole or better yet isn't their .Oh and who's fault is human nature? 

GC

---

God cannot declare himself authoritative on the fact he created us and then bare no responsibility for our condition . Frankenstein doesn't get to blame the monster for it's rampage or violent nature he bares the blame for creating it in the first place and creating it's violent nature .

(July 16, 2018 at 2:02 am)Godscreated Wrote:

(July 15, 2018 at 12:11 pm)vorlon13 Wrote: Referring to the infants killed in lieu of baby Jesus as 'innocents' is heresy in that it denies their culpability in original sin.



Glad to have cleared that up for everyone.

Again your lack of understanding is atrocious. Your understanding of the concepts of biblical ideas is even more atrocious. The word innocent as applied to those male children would mean they did not deserve to die at the command of man, especially one that was as crazy and insecure as Herod. God punishes sin and man commits the sin as Herod did with those children.

GC

Actually, GC, his knowledge is on the spot. He said that Christians don't consider any baby to be innocent because of their culpability in original sin.

And there is nothing more that Christians have been thumping around than the idiotic concept of the Original Sin which, according to Augustine, is transmitted in the semen so is there from the moment of conception.

Or like Reverend Michael Horton who said and wrote stuff in his book "The Agony of Deceit" like

Christians believe in guilty babies; Catholics believe in guilty embryos. (Psalm 51:5)

The idea meant by the expression 'original sin' is that all humans are born sinners. There is no such thing as an innocent little baby. From conception, each of us merits the wrath and judgment of God (Psalm 51:5) ... Due to original sin, I am bent toward myself and I am charged with Adam's guilt. I can be sent to hell whether I have personally committed a sin or not.

(July 17, 2018 at 4:12 am)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(July 16, 2018 at 2:02 am)Godscreated Wrote: Again your lack of understanding is atrocious. Your understanding of the concepts of biblical ideas is even more atrocious. The word innocent as applied to those male children would mean they did not deserve to die at the command of man, especially one that was as crazy and insecure as Herod. God punishes sin and man commits the sin as Herod did with those children.

GC

Actually, GC, his knowledge is on the spot. He said that Christians don't consider any baby to be innocent because of their culpability in original sin.

And there is nothing more that Christians have been thumping around than the idiotic concept of the Original Sin which, according to Augustine, is transmitted in the semen so is there from the moment of conception.

Or like Reverend Michael Horton who said and wrote stuff in his book "The Agony of Deceit" like

Christians believe in guilty babies; Catholics believe in guilty embryos. (Psalm 51:5)

The idea meant by the expression 'original sin' is that all humans are born sinners. There is no such thing as an innocent little baby. From conception, each of us merits the wrath and judgment of God (Psalm 51:5) ... Due to original sin, I am bent toward myself and I am charged with Adam's guilt. I can be sent to hell whether I have personally committed a sin or not.

Of course Christians found that so awful they tried to invent reason to make it less awful.It's especially for modern Christians because of the whole pro life thing.

(July 17, 2018 at 1:46 am)Godscreated Wrote:

(July 16, 2018 at 11:07 am)mh.brewer Wrote: Fantasy delusion turning bad stories into reality?

Ding, ding, ding. What do I win?

 What I said applies to you also, there is a good response to this story through science and yet no one here has the guts to tke a look and why because they are scared to death that it might just make sense and boy then what.

GC

Nope, I googled the science. None of it fits the fantasy story.

(July 17, 2018 at 1:19 am)Godscreated Wrote: Chad32I've never personally killed a child, or ordered someone else to do so. Now maybe I'm not running around the world trying to adopt as many children as I can, but I'm a limited Human with his own life to live. I'm still better than your god, though.

A simple answer will do here, no you are not. If you live in the United States you could have called your senator's office and gave your opinion.

GC

Even if you're right, and my inaction is causing harm, that's still better than your god personally going out and killing children because he's mad at their parents. Yes, I'm still a better person than your god. The difference between me and him is, he's supposed to be all knowing, powerful, and present. Meaning nothing bad happens that he doesn't condone.

I'll tell you one thing, though. Just the other day, my roommate and I saved a puppy that was being savaged by a neighbor. We could have left her there, and just called the neighbor a sinner, but we didn't. See, when something happens right next door, and I know I can do something about it, I will. I just don't call a senator in the hopes that he'll care what I say, or travel around feeding the hungry. That doesn't mean I'm a bad guy for that.

(July 17, 2018 at 4:12 am)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(July 16, 2018 at 2:02 am)Godscreated Wrote: Again your lack of understanding is atrocious. Your understanding of the concepts of biblical ideas is even more atrocious. The word innocent as applied to those male children would mean they did not deserve to die at the command of man, especially one that was as crazy and insecure as Herod. God punishes sin and man commits the sin as Herod did with those children.

GC

Actually, GC, his knowledge is on the spot. He said that Christians don't consider any baby to be innocent because of their culpability in original sin.

And there is nothing more that Christians have been thumping around than the idiotic concept of the Original Sin which, according to Augustine, is transmitted in the semen so is there from the moment of conception.

Or like Reverend Michael Horton who said and wrote stuff in his book "The Agony of Deceit" like

Christians believe in guilty babies; Catholics believe in guilty embryos. (Psalm 51:5)

The idea meant by the expression 'original sin' is that all humans are born sinners. There is no such thing as an innocent little baby. From conception, each of us merits the wrath and judgment of God (Psalm 51:5) ... Due to original sin, I am bent toward myself and I am charged with Adam's guilt. I can be sent to hell whether I have personally committed a sin or not.

Some days it seems the "Christians" here turn our Atheist Forums into Heretics Forums, don't it ??

Goddamn fucking heretics out parading as Holy Joes and winning more hearts for SATAN with their scheming lies, treachery and apostasy.

(July 16, 2018 at 1:43 am)Godscreated Wrote: It pointed out a specific town not a building read the Bible and you can find such simple answers. The star set past the horizon where the town was. At a certain time of year i can watch the sun set exactly where the city I grew up in is. Stars do the same, this particular star was a planet in retrograde. 

GC

You not only need an education in astronomy but you also need one in geography.

The Magi first travelled "from the East" to Jerusalem.  Any star or the planets Mars, Jupiter and Saturn (including these planets in apparent retrograde motion) would rise in the East and appear to travel across the sky during the night and set in the West.  Thus, the "star" would not set "past the horizon where the town was" (your words).  It would set behind the Magi as they travelled East towards Jerusalem.

After arriving in Jerusalem they continued to follow the same star which (according to the story) led them to Bethlehem.  However, Bethlehem is basically about 10 miles due South of Jerusalem.  Again, that star would set in the West, not the South.

As to the two inferior plants relative to the Earth, Mercury and Venus, they will either appear in the West at sundown and set shortly after that, or appear in the East shortly before sunrise and disappear from view when the sun rises.  So, it is possible that either Mercury or Venus could have acted as a guide for the Magi on their journey East to Jerusalem, but only in the early morning before dawn.  Neither planet would guide anyone traveling South.

But don't be sad.  Fictional stories often do not follow reality.

(July 16, 2018 at 2:02 am)Godscreated Wrote:  Your trying to say a very specific place and I'm saying that it was the city where the Christ child was born. The Bible doesn't say the star stopped over the stable, it says the place. A planet in retrograde will stop at a specific point in the sky and from a persons perspective at the time and place they are it would look as it it stopped over a certain place. I've challenged you to look at the DVD "The Star of Bethlehem," but stubborn you just can't do it. I read the book you sent me when I first came to this site, I took your challenge. The star and the planet both had names and yes at that time with significant meaning to who the Christ child was to be, imagine that.



The Bible did not say the star appeared directly over head and that would not be a necessity. The star was a planet in retrograde that's why it appeared to stop.

GC

---

A planet demonstrating apparent retrograde motion will not stop in the sky.  It will appear to move across the sky from East to West due to the Earth's rotation, just like any star does.

Planets appear to change there location in the night sky relative to stars (i) because of their own orbits around the sun and (ii) (in the case of apparent retrograde motion) because of the parallax effect of the Earth's orbit around the sun relative to the particular plant's orbit around the sun.  Such apparent retrograde motion takes weeks to months to cycle.

How long did it take the Magi to walk 10 miles from Jerusalem to Bethlehem?  Why did they travel at night and not during the day?

(July 17, 2018 at 1:19 am)Godscreated Wrote: The star (planet) was over the city because God knew exactly where they would be when the planet stopped. You're trying to place things in a light that did not exist, they were where they were and no other place, these people knew more about the movement of the stars than most people today do. You call them dummies yet they were at the top of the knowledge of the day. 

GC

The planet did not stop.  Yes, many folks back then certainly knew more about stellar and planetary apparent motions than you do.  Of course, writers of fiction do not necessarily have to comport with reality.

(July 16, 2018 at 2:02 am)Godscreated Wrote: Your trying to say a very specific place and I'm saying that it was the city where the Christ child was born. The Bible doesn't say the star stopped over the stable, it says the place. A planet in retrograde will stop at a specific point in the sky and from a persons perspective at the time and place they are it would look as it it stopped over a certain place. I've challenged you to look at the DVD "The Star of Bethlehem," but stubborn you just can't do it. I read the book you sent me when I first came to this site, I took your challenge. The star and the planet both had names and yes at that time with significant meaning to who the Christ child was to be, imagine that.

GC

Okay, GC, I watched your video, and discovered about what I expected, it didn't answer the necessary questions.  What does it mean for a star to stop over a specific place on earth?  He makes the speculation that this referred to the turning phase of Jupiter through its retrograde motion within the sky.  Even if I accepted that speculation, that gives us a 'when', not a 'where'.  The only reasonable interpretation one can give to the idea of Jupiter or the conjunction being "over the place where the Child was" is that one can draw a direct line between the center of the earth, and that object in the sky, and that when this line intersects the surface of the earth, it does so at Bethlehem.  Mr. Larson demonstrated no such thing, and given the position of the objects in the sky at the time, it seems highly unlikely that such a line would have intersected Bethlehem.  A more pressing concern would be how magi would be able to determine this fact from visual observation, and the fact is that they wouldn't have been able to do so.  Any determinations made from visual observation would have placed them in a large general region, not a specific town.  Moreover, we know why they went to Bethlehem, and it was because of prophesy, not because of any star in the sky.

So even if one can make an appropriate interpretation of what it means for a star to stop over a certain location, your video did not in any way demonstrate that such had occurred.  As Mr. Larson says on his website, "Magi viewing from Jerusalem would have seen it stopped in the sky above the little town of Bethlehem."  Whether this was even possible, much less something actual, Larson doesn't even begin to explore.  So your video answered basically nothing.  It gave one more speculation that an object might have been in the night sky at the time of the birth, but no indication that said object localized to a specific town, nor that a human observer could have even determined that it had done so.  In short, the video was just more speculative crap that didn't answer the basic questions.

So, as expected, your video showed absolutely dick.  What it did, however, show, was what a gullible twat you are.  But then, we already knew that.

Quote:Flaw 3: The theory is unable to give a plausible account of the Star’s behaviour over Bethlehem

Larson’s explanation of the Star’s behaviour at the climax of the Magi’s journey is inadequate. Matthew 2:9b strongly suggests that the Star was observed to “stand over” a particular house, not the town as a whole, leading the Magi to the exact place where the child was. This is indicated by the context. Matthew in v. 8 underlines how difficult finding the Messianic child would be for the Magi. Then, immediately after Matthew mentions that the Star stood over the place where the child was, he emphasizes the Magi’s joy at seeing this.  Finally, in v. 11 he makes explicit what “the place” was—it was a house. Advocates of the 3–2 BC hypothesis are unable to offer a plausible explanation of what Matthew describes in v. 9b.

The Star’s “standing” could not refer to Jupiter becoming stationary relative to the fixed stars immediately before changing apparent direction, as Martin and Larson suggest, because that is not detectable by the human eye in the short space of a few hours.  Moreover, as surviving records from Babylon reveal, ancient astronomers would have known when Jupiter would change its apparent direction well before it happened....Moreover, since the Star’s “standing” occurred at the end of the Magi’s journey from Jerusalem to Bethlehem, not its start, in order to be perceived to be “over” Bethlehem, it would have had to be in the very roof of the sky (the zenith) or near the horizon. However, it was neither.  Jupiter never got higher than 67½ degrees over the southern horizon on December 25 and so was 22½ degrees from the zenith.

What Is Wrong with Rick Larson’s 'Star of Bethlehem' DVD Documentary  [emphasis mine]