(June 20, 2015 at 12:02 am)Spacetime Wrote:

(June 19, 2015 at 11:33 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: Theorectically if a person is a good Christian and true believer he wouldn't expect his favorite ethnocentric deity to feed starving children.  He would take steps to feed the starving children himself as stated in the fairy tale.  If you know there's a need and if you don't take steps to fill that need how can you expect mercy from your deity when you never followed his commandments about feeding and clothing the needy as stated in Matthew 25:42-46?

<In Character; stuffing hands in pockets>
Ahhh... but you see... that's a little much to ask.  You see, I'm after blessings.  I earned those blessings.  Those blessings have my name on them.  I can't share a blessing as illustrated by Jacob and Esau.  Surely... all the things that come from a blessing belong to me and can't be shared
</Out of Character>

Scientists do that sort of thing.  Work for meaningless pay for the betterment of our species.  Clergy make you feel good about ignoring man's problems.

---

---

(June 19, 2015 at 11:29 pm)SteelCurtain Wrote: Lol I love this guy!

Spacetime you are the shiggles. I believe a rep is in order...

Meh.  Not really.  Everyone poops.  Tone it down... there's too much kindness and humanity in here.  You atheists have a reputation to keep.

lol

---

Well, I suppose if people get hungry enough they can eat their own children in accordance with biblical rules and it will be OK.

(June 19, 2015 at 11:47 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:

(June 18, 2015 at 11:35 pm)Rhythm Wrote: Yes, it does.  
http://www.catholic.com/tracts/adam-eve-and-evolution

There was no Adam and Eve, we are not their ancestors, there isn't even a -possibility- of this story being true.  The church demands that it be -held to be true-...regardless. 

Perhaps another example would be both factually correct, and help to elucidate the point you wish to make?

Damn, what planet do you live on where we are Adam and Eve's ANCESTORS?

I slowly transitioned from calling those I admire in history (from the days when Christianity meant you stayed behind in Rome to offer free healthcare for anyone while everyone else was getting the heck out of Dodge) saints to calling them "ancestors".  Because my kinship to their stories was more powerful than the idea that they could somehow convince God to do something I couldn't otherwise (intercessory prayer).

Ancestor is a powerful word.  I take offense that people look down on our genetic cousins.  I think "Do you know how many millions of years these animals struggled so that you could procure milk, make cheese, figure out fermentation, and have the greatest damn late evening snack that no other species, as of late, has enjoyed!?!"  

Ancestors.  Now-a-days I include those that carved out our *RIGHT* to have our eloquently refined 5 senses in my definition of "Saint". Millions of years and millions of my own species were spent so that I can sit down to saltines, mild cheddar, and a bottle of the dryest red on the shelf.  That in 13.7 billions years, I have this cosmological *wink* of cognizance to enjoy the universe around me.........

....... here's to the *real* ancestors.

@Wyrd
Well caught, well caught, typo...though..I'll say this, it would be a world no less fanciful than the one in which they are -our- ancestors.

(June 20, 2015 at 12:01 am)Minimalist Wrote:

Quote:"Why does our personal God sit idle when children smaller than my own are starving to death?

He's a dick.

Next question.

Plain and simple.

(June 20, 2015 at 12:18 am)Rhythm Wrote: @Wyrd
Well caught, well caught, typo...though..I'll say this, it would be a world no less fanciful than the one in which they are -our- ancestors.

It was too good to pass up!  I just had to mess with you.

Get em while you can, where you can, motherfucker...because you know I'm waiting to eviscerate you and lick the blood from your eyesockets next time we get into a disagreement.....

It's the source of my powa.

As it has come up here, I thought I'd mention this:

Even if Jesus really did come back from the dead, it proves nothing about the rest if the claims in the bible. It doesn't prove there is a god, it doesn't prove he is God, and it doesn't make anything he said true. All it would be is an example of a very strange phenomena, as yet unexplained.

It's also worth noting that "the ressurection" is suspected by scholars to be a later addition to the text; the original ending simply has a guy spreading the rumour Jesus has risen after the empty tomb is discovered.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16

You are clearly very well read and familiar with the bible and its history. This is a great defence against apologetics looking to claw you back, as has already been demonstrated in this thread! I've noticed a trend of atheists knowing more about the bible than Christians. Kind of ironic on many levels...

(June 19, 2015 at 5:26 pm)Spacetime Wrote:

(June 18, 2015 at 11:24 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: No offense taken.

You're looking for evidence that God exists? How can I present physical evidence when God is pure spirit? Even when God did take on flesh, not many believed...though the miracles were performed before their eyes.

That's because that ancient culture didn't understand things the way we do.  If someone saw a man having a seizure and said "See, the devil's in him!"  That's wouldn't conflict with their understanding of the world around them.  If you transported a scientist who could medically induce a coma on someone, when the patient came to, most people would think you performed a miracle.  But "odd" things like "miracles" happened all the time, because that ancient culture had very little understanding of the world around them.  Physical laws seemed to be suspended all the time with things like earthquakes, etc.  If miracles were performed today, in Christ's name, like walking on water... believe me, people would convert.

Of course they would. But that IS the kind of miracle that Jesus performed, but despite that, you're walking away from Him. Why?

Quote:

Quote:However, the physical resurrection of Christ suggests that his claims about being divine were legit. Why would He lie? Let me ask that another way: You love Christ, and He loves you beyond all measure. Why would He intentionally lie to you about being God?

I don't know that Christ loves me.  I never said that he did/does.  You made that assumption, and you can't know that.  The physical resurrection of a man who had been clinically dead for 3 days is impossible.  We've never seen it since.  I've seen all sorts of theories on how it could have literally happened, but it's probably one of the most improbable things in scripture.  Christ's story was embellished through the oral tradition, before the stories were written down.  I don't believe Christ would lie, I believe the first members of the Church would to win over converts.

Yes, it is impossible. No, we've never seen it since. Yes, it is improbable. But multiple eyewitnesses attested to the fact that it actually happened.

Now, if the disciples simply made up the story to win converts, why were they willing to die for something they knew was not true? When a gun was put to their heads, why didn't at least one of them say, "Okay, enough. I admit it...we made the whole thing up."

Lots of people are willing to die for what they believe in, but no one dies for what they know to be false. The disciples knew the resurrection was true, and they were willing to die for what they knew.

Quote:

Quote:Now, imagine that God makes His presence known in a dramatic way that is unmistakable. You know He's God, and you know He's watching. How long would it be before you resented God for interfering in your affairs?

1) You don't know me, and your assuming I would resent God.  I've mixed diesel fuel and human feces in 55 gallon barrels and burned them on orders.  I didn't like it, but it was for good reason.  You'd be surprised what you'd do if there was good reason... even when no one's watching.  God is supposed to be the reason, but he has a history of not explaining anything.  Especially when it comes to killing your own child, until you almost do it... then he stops you.  But even when he told Abraham why.... it really wasn't a reason.

I disagree. I think God has told us why. Through the scriptures, through Sacred Tradition and through the Church.

But several people in this forum have specifically expressed the resentment that they would feel if they knew God was watching them all the time. Christopher Hitchens was very clear about this.

Quote:2) Give me a reason to believe that doesn't include holding the gun of "hell" to my head.

Quote:

Quote:You speak of God not doing anything for humanity while the scientists are doing all the heavy lifting when it comes to curing diseases, etc. Great! God has given us the ability to develop technology and medicine to improve our lives. Animals were not given that ability, so thank you, Lord.

I used to think like that.  But then I remembered he "wrote a book"... with at least 360 points of contradiction (many more if you could holy tradition).  If God were really concerned about humanity out of love for us, perhaps he would have given us a book that contained medical and mental health science.  Wrote a guide to the literate on how to treat and prevent common diseases, that *DIDN'T* include shunning people from villages.  Maybe even scientific literature that would help us design optical glass for microscopes so that we could understand the very processes that keep people healthy (developing vaccines, etc.)

Sort of a field manual or textbook of some sort? Yeah, that might have been helpful.

OR (and I'm just spitballing here) maybe God could inspire a book that deals with some of the bigger issues we face in the few years we have here in preparation for the ETERNITY to come.

I'm gonna go with that.

Quote:

Quote:But let's say for the sake of argument that God did begin to heal this one person...or prevent a murder of another. If He does that for one or two, wouldn't He be obligated to heal us all? To prevent every murder? Every rape? Every divorce? Eventually, our lives would be so free from suffering that we would consider a hangnail to be a great injustice requiring God's intervention? But at what point would God have to eliminate free will in order to accomplish this utopian existence? And if we are not morally free, and we are forced to serve and obey God, why would we love Him since we had no other choice?

No you see... he could empower us to prevent those things through his infinite knowledge, and his "unmistakable" presence (obvious to everyone) would be something worthy of worship.  His book could have empowered us... but instead, we get to learn how much whores love big penises and larger than average quantities of ejaculate (Ezekiel 23:20).  Instead we get to learn how pissy the most perfect man can be when a fig tree has no fruit (Matthew 21).  Instead we get to learn about just how primitive we were as a primates when it came to our female counterparts (Timothy 2:11).

Is that all you have gotten out of your reading of scripture? When is the last time you read the NT cover to cover?

Quote:The reason I came to an atheist forum is this; most atheists want to see people make rational decisions to increase their health and wellbeing, theists want people to get back in the pew... but only after apologizing for getting up in the first place.

Baloney. I want to see people make rational decisions by becoming Catholics.

PM me if the emptiness of your new unbelief finally sinks in. I'll be around.

(June 20, 2015 at 2:30 am)robvalue Wrote: As it has come up here, I thought I'd mention this:

Even if Jesus really did come back from the dead, it proves nothing about the rest if the claims in the bible. It doesn't prove there is a god, it doesn't prove he is God, and it doesn't make anything he said true. All it would be is an example of a very strange phenomena, as yet unexplained.

It's also worth noting that "the ressurection" is suspected by scholars to be a later addition to the text; the original ending simply has a guy spreading the rumour Jesus has risen after the empty tomb is discovered.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_16

You are clearly very well read and familiar with the bible and its history. This is a great defence against apologetics looking to claw you back, as has already been demonstrated in this thread! I've noticed a trend of atheists knowing more about the bible than Christians. Kind of ironic on many levels...

It shouldn't be surprising though.  What should be ironic is that the core doctrinal sources of this system (Christianity) are the very thing that make it not work.  I know... I'm going full-eAtheist on you... but there's real evidence that Christians haven't "read their own book" or investigated their own faith.  If they had... why have so many of them not read the Didache or "The Teaching of the Twelve Apostles"?  Even if I were drunk on sola scriptura... you'd think I'd at least be curious about what those guys said.  But... ....nope.

Now I'm not claiming to be remotely conversant on that literature with real historians or theologians, but I've at least read it.  Studied what's in it to the degree that it would reach it's logical conclusion.  But that's very difficult to do...........

..........Here's why.  When your God is leather-bound.... and "he" tells you fairy tales that you can believe are fairy tales, it's difficult to convince yourself that any other source of fairy tale would offer anything relevant.  That most modern Western Christians haven't read the Didache is evidence that they think the bible is bullshit.  That modern Western Christians, for the most part, haven't read the Early Church Fathers is evidence that they are more skeptical than their apologists and clergy (who know of these problems with the faith, but do not address them on Sundays... because empty pews don't pay).

Regarding the resurrection... the Apostles Creed sums up Christian belief.  Ask a Christian to really take a look at it in a text document and delete the parts that they *really* don't believe... none of them would be Christians in the doctrinal sense.

You're absolutely right!

---

(June 20, 2015 at 9:29 pm)Randy Carson Wrote: Of course they would. But that IS the kind of miracle that Jesus performed, but despite that, you're walking away from Him. Why?

So God thought it relevant to reveal his truths in the form of miracles at one time, but not anymore? We don't deserve this sort of proof because we've lived beyond the one generation of believers that were supposed to see the fulfillment of Christian prophecy in the first have of the 1st century? If you're going to tell me that you believe that prophecy was fulfilled when the Jewish temple was destroyed... you will admit you're, at least in part, a preterist. You very seriously don't want to go down the road of preterism, especially when it comes to your doctrine of hell.

But to answer your question directly... because he gave me secondary sources as a proof, which isn't proof of any kind.[/quote]

Quote:But multiple eyewitnesses attested to the fact that it actually happened.

And who were they? The anonymous authors of the gospels? The ones whose names had to be written in the margins so that their authority could take seed, when they didn't write them in the first place? Oh... holy tradition says "Mark wrote the Gospel of Mark". Where's the evidence?

Quote:Now, if the disciples simply made up the story to win converts, why were they willing to die for something they knew was not true? When a gun was put to their heads, why didn't at least one of them say, "Okay, enough. I admit it...we made the whole thing up."
Lots of people are willing to die for what they believe in, but no one dies for what they know to be false. The disciples knew the resurrection was true, and they were willing to die for what they knew.

Negative ghost rider, the pattern is full. You cannot appeal to that argument when so many Manichaeans (your church called them heretics) were willing to die for their beliefs also. Let's turn up the "time" on this argument of yours and come to present day... fundamental Islamic suicide bombers. They get credit too? Your argument is ... fundamentally flawed. /sigh/ Dude. Stop. I'd ask "can't you see it"... but I was you when I was in my infancy of understanding about the world around us.

Quote:I disagree. I think God has told us why. Through the scriptures, through Sacred Tradition*** and through the Church.

BOOM! And there it goes. I was wondering when it would happen, but didn't suppose it would be this early. Sacred tradition verses holy tradition. Look it up.

Quote:But several people in this forum have specifically expressed the resentment that they would feel if they knew God was watching them all the time. Christopher Hitchens was very clear about this.

But you're talking to me... and I'm not several people. Thanks for noticing.

Quote:Sort of a field manual or textbook of some sort? Yeah, that might have been helpful.

Might have been helpful? Are you so far disconnected from your own species that you fail to see the certainty that a field guide from your omniscient, omnipotent, and omnibenevolent god would have done a better job of saving humanity? Either you've never left your own country or you've done so on a mission from god with 10 very watchful and suspicious members of your church.

Quote:OR (and I'm just spitballing here) maybe God could inspire a book that deals with some of the bigger issues we face in the few years we have here in preparation for the ETERNITY to come.

What bigger issues could we face than medical and scientific understanding about ourselves and the world around us? Eternity? You see, eternity is a manifestation of your God though. Shouldn't eternity be perfect? Or is there a hiccup in your theology that leads to the dead end of theodicy?

Quote:I'm gonna go with that.

Please don't. For your own sake.

Quote:

Quote:No you see... he could empower us to prevent those things through his infinite knowledge, and his "unmistakable" presence (obvious to everyone) would be something worthy of worship.  His book could have empowered us... but instead, we get to learn how much whores love big penises and larger than average quantities of ejaculate (Ezekiel 23:20).  Instead we get to learn how pissy the most perfect man can be when a fig tree has no fruit (Matthew 21).  Instead we get to learn about just how primitive we were as a primates when it came to our female counterparts (Timothy 2:11).

Is that all you have gotten out of your reading of scripture? When is the last time you read the NT cover to cover?

Clearly you have no understanding of reductio ad absurdum. Clearly. But nice try.

Quote:

Quote:The reason I came to an atheist forum is this; most atheists want to see people make rational decisions to increase their health and wellbeing, theists want people to get back in the pew... but only after apologizing for getting up in the first place.

Baloney. I want to see people make rational decisions by becoming Catholics.

Sorry, mate. Believing that a man was clinically dead for 3 days and came back to life is irrational. Loving the entity that suggests stoning your children because of disobedience is good, then still loving him after he changes his mind later, only after sending his only begotten son to be horribly tortured.... irrational. But it doesn't matter if those things are irrational... because they are also wicked.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_uWMOZ0vaCY

You're conflicting and torturing children with your irrational, wicked doctrines. And you're defending this. Wake up, brother... Wake... up.

(June 19, 2015 at 5:26 pm)Spacetime Wrote: I used to LOVE to quote Irenaeus when someone was arguing a point to me like I am with you now.  Problem is, Irenaeus was born how long after Paul was beheaded?  

About 55 years. Why would that be a problem? Is there some particular point that you think is thereby undermined?

Polycarp was a disciple of the Apostle John. Irenaeus was a disciple of Polycarp.

Now, if you want to argue that Polycarp and Irenaeus were playing fast and loose with the facts of the gospel which had been handed down to them by John, then I'm interested to hear how you plan to make that case. Have you read the Martyrdom of Polycarp?

Quote:What was the earliest known canonical document in the New Testament?  Who authored it?  

The Letter of James. James.

Quote:What does it say about Christ's miracles?  

Nothing. It was a pastoral letter...not a biography.

Quote:Then how long after that book was written were the gospels?

About eight years or so for the Gospel of Mark. And as I'm guessing you know by the way you have carefully phrased your questions, the Q document may have been in circulation before this. Additionally, Luke mentions in his prologue that many (not just Mark) had undertaken to write an account of all that Jesus had said and done. Finally, Matthew probably wrote his gospel in Aramaic first...if so, that would also have been done at a fairly early date.

Finally, I'm intrigued by the idea that Matthew was a tax collector who probably had some skills with pen and ink. It may well have been the case that Jesus, like many of the religious teachers of his day, had students taking notes during his various sermons. Matthew would have been able to do this, and this may be one reason why he was chosen to be one of the Twelve.

But you must have a reason for asking all these questions...

Quote:...You see, the catholic church didn't make hell up.  It simply HAD to start taking things literally in order to make Christ divine.

You mean like the resurrection? Yep. Took that literally.
You mean like "this is my body...this is my blood" at the last Supper (and in John 6)? Yep. Took that literally.
You mean like priests have the authority to hear confessions and forgive sins? Yep. Took that literally.

Quote:And regarding Sheol... What is *your* understanding of Sheol?

Sheol is the place of the dead. This is where Jesus went to liberate those who were waiting for their salvation. The Catechism of the Catholic Church explains it this way:

632 The frequent New Testament affirmations that Jesus was "raised from the dead" presuppose that the crucified one sojourned in the realm of the dead prior to his resurrection.478 This was the first meaning given in the apostolic preaching to Christ's descent into hell: that Jesus, like all men, experienced death and in his soul joined the others in the realm of the dead. But he descended there as Savior, proclaiming the Good News to the spirits imprisoned there.479

633 Scripture calls the abode of the dead, to which the dead Christ went down, "hell" - Sheol in Hebrew or Hades in Greek - because those who are there are deprived of the vision of God.480 Such is the case for all the dead, whether evil or righteous, while they await the Redeemer: which does not mean that their lot is identical, as Jesus shows through the parable of the poor man Lazarus who was received into "Abraham's bosom":481 "It is precisely these holy souls, who awaited their Savior in Abraham's bosom, whom Christ the Lord delivered when he descended into hell."482 Jesus did not descend into hell to deliver the damned, nor to destroy the hell of damnation, but to free the just who had gone before him.483

634 "The gospel was preached even to the dead."484 The descent into hell brings the Gospel message of salvation to complete fulfillment. This is the last phase of Jesus' messianic mission, a phase which is condensed in time but vast in its real significance: the spread of Christ's redemptive work to all men of all times and all places, for all who are saved have been made sharers in the redemption.

635 Christ went down into the depths of death so that "the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God, and those who hear will live."485 Jesus, "the Author of life", by dying destroyed "him who has the power of death, that is, the devil, and [delivered] all those who through fear of death were subject to lifelong bondage."486 Henceforth the risen Christ holds "the keys of Death and Hades", so that "at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, in heaven and on earth and under the earth."487