Conflicting statements in the bible

[Statler Waldorf]

Name calling? It's an accurate description.

You have some growing up to do.

You're evil for thinking that. Tell me, how long should Stalin be punished for his crime in this imaginary Hell of yours? 100 years? 1,000? Maybe we should keep score for how long each life, so each life killed becomes "adequate" to punishment received. But wait, even after, says 20 million lives times whatever amount of years per life murdered, he's gonna continue his immortal existence in Hell. That's me some "justice" right there.

Crimes against an infinite authority necessitate an infinite punishment, makes sense.

Says you.

And is necessitated by logic.

Well that point went straight over your head.

No it didn’t, he said he didn’t feel the need to rape children, but the only reason he doesn’t feel that need is because of God’s upholding grace.

It's morally wrong because they don't consent to being molested, hence the word "molestation".

That’s not a syllogism, much less a sound one. Care to try again? Why is it morally wrong to violate someone’s consent in an atheistic Universe?

Nice try again; he was postulating something a theist would say, but I reckon you wouldn't want to lie now? I expect nothing less from such an evil douchebag like yourself.

How do you know I am evil? Why is it morally wrong to lie in a Universe that has no God? You’re just confounding your problems my child.

Which is why you're evil. And I won't flinch in calling you evil.

Why am I evil? How do you define evil?

Actually, never deconvert - because the only reason you're not out murdering, raping and pillaging, I reckon, is because you fear your imaginary Hell and not because you think it's wrong to do so, but because God tells you not to - not that you'd even be able to realize this Euthyphro dilemma.

O’ brother; Euthyphro’s dilemma? Seriously?

Pure speculation, with only religious masturbation to back it up.

No, a logical deduction from an infallible source. Trump card!

[Sal]

You're evil for thinking that. Tell me, how long should Stalin be punished for his crime in this imaginary Hell of yours? 100 years? 1,000? Maybe we should keep score for how long each life, so each life killed becomes "adequate" to punishment received. But wait, even after, says 20 million lives times whatever amount of years per life murdered, he's gonna continue his immortal existence in Hell. That's me some "justice" right there.

Crimes against an infinite authority necessitate an infinite punishment, makes sense.

Says you.

And is necessitated by logic.

[citation needed]

Well that point went straight over your head.

No it didn’t, he said he didn’t feel the need to rape children, but the only reason he doesn’t feel that need is because of God’s upholding grace.

My point still stands, because you still don't get it. I reckon it's because you have special meanings for each word he said:

Don't fret, Sal. Just remember that every time you hear something like "from an atheistic perspective you cannot even defend the claim that these child molesters did anything morally wrong" what they're really saying is "if it wasn't for my belief that god was watching over my shoulder, I would be out molesting children right now."

Notice those ["] symbols? He's using a phrase to make a point that theists have a warped view and special meanings for their detractors. Basically two people who talk past each other.

It's morally wrong because they don't consent to being molested, hence the word "molestation".

That’s not a syllogism, much less a sound one. Care to try again? Why is it morally wrong to violate someone’s consent in an atheistic Universe?

Because of the experience of allowing for consent to be violated increases suffering - I don't believe in an objective morality, if that's what you're getting at.

Nice try again; he was postulating something a theist would say, but I reckon you wouldn't want to lie now? I expect nothing less from such an evil douchebag like yourself.

How do you know I am evil? Why is it morally wrong to lie in a Universe that has no God? You’re just confounding your problems my child.

From your statements.

Tell me, in this hypothetical scenario, what course of action would you do: A murderer comes to your house and will believe everything you tell him, and is looking to kill your wife and asks where your wife is. What do you do?

Do you A) Lie about her location, in essence saving your wife from this murderer, or B) tell the truth, resulting in your wife's death by this murderer?

Which is why you're evil. And I won't flinch in calling you evil.

Why am I evil? How do you define evil?

You're evil because of excusing and even condoning the malice perpetrated by your imaginary god, and in particularly your statement about people being thrown into Hell, where they suffer indefinitely.

I define evil as an action, statement and even belief that excuses malice, and you are doing that.

Actually, never deconvert - because the only reason you're not out murdering, raping and pillaging, I reckon, is because you fear your imaginary Hell and not because you think it's wrong to do so, but because God tells you not to - not that you'd even be able to realize this Euthyphro dilemma.

O’ brother; Euthyphro’s dilemma? Seriously?

Nice hand-wave.

Pure speculation, with only religious masturbation to back it up.

No, a logical deduction from an infallible source. Trump card!

Infallible?

[Tonus]

You do not find satisfaction in eternal glory for the righteous and eternal punishment for the wicked? I sure do.

I would find satisfaction in knowing that someone who did such awful things with such a cavalier attitude suffered for it tenfold, yes. And that those who suffered at the hands of people like him are rewarded tenfold. It is certainly comforting to think that at some point, justice is served in full. I don't think that this is the case, and it's terrible to think that the universe can be so unfair. But I can't believe based on what I wish were true. I think Hugh Hefner may be the only person who pulled that off.

I liked that part of the Jehovah's Witnesses belief system. They believe that Adam and Eve's actions derailed god's plan, but that his intent was to return things to the way he intended at the start. At some point, he would turn the whole planet into one big Garden of Eden and hand it over to a perfected humanity, free of disease and suffering and death. The alternative, as I understand it, is for this world to continue as it is and basically serve as a factory that pumps out souls heading to heaven and souls heading to hell. That is somewhat depressing, in that Earth winds up as little more than a forgettable way station. The idea that humanity is mostly destined for pain and suffering and then more pain and suffering (or depending on your views, a return to nothingness) is even more depressing.

Do you believe that there is a point at which we get off of the treadmill and Earth becomes what it might have been, and not just a short and unpleasant stop on the way to an afterlife?

[Statler Waldorf]

Why is that funny? You have no rational response?

[citation needed]

You do not cite logic.

My point still stands, because you still don't get it. I reckon it's because you have special meanings for each word he said:

What point is that?

Notice those ["] symbols? He's using a phrase to make a point that theists have a warped view and special meanings for their detractors. Basically two people who talk past each other.

No, he’s using quotation marks to quote what a theist might say; it has nothing to do with special meanings.

Because of the experience of allowing for consent to be violated increases suffering - I don't believe in an objective morality, if that's what you're getting at.

So now I must ask, why is it morally wrong to increase suffering in an atheistic Universe?

From your statements.

Why do any of my statements make me evil? How is evil defined?

Tell me, in this hypothetical scenario, what course of action would you do: A murderer comes to your house and will believe everything you tell him, and is looking to kill your wife and asks where your wife is. What do you do?

I do not answer his question. You forgot that option.

You're evil because of excusing and even condoning the malice perpetrated by your imaginary god, and in particularly your statement about people being thrown into Hell, where they suffer indefinitely.
I define evil as an action, statement and even belief that excuses malice, and you are doing that.

Why is that the definition of evil? According to what authority is that evil? You?

Nice hand-wave.

Philosophically sophisticated atheists know that that particular dilemma does not apply to the Christian God.

Infallible?

Why is that funny?

I would find satisfaction in knowing that someone who did such awful things with such a cavalier attitude suffered for it tenfold, yes. And that those who suffered at the hands of people like him are rewarded tenfold. It is certainly comforting to think that at some point, justice is served in full. I don't think that this is the case, and it's terrible to think that the universe can be so unfair. But I can't believe based on what I wish were true. I think Hugh Hefner may be the only person who pulled that off.

Fair enough; sometime I would be very interested in hearing how you derive your concept of how things ought to be from the way things really are. The Hefner reference killed me; that was very good by the way.

I liked that part of the Jehovah's Witnesses belief system. They believe that Adam and Eve's actions derailed god's plan, but that his intent was to return things to the way he intended at the start. At some point, he would turn the whole planet into one big Garden of Eden and hand it over to a perfected humanity, free of disease and suffering and death. The alternative, as I understand it, is for this world to continue as it is and basically serve as a factory that pumps out souls heading to heaven and souls heading to hell. That is somewhat depressing, in that Earth winds up as little more than a forgettable way station. The idea that humanity is mostly destined for pain and suffering and then more pain and suffering (or depending on your views, a return to nothingness) is even more depressing.

I think the Watchtower struggles with defending God’s omnipotence and foreknowledge in that scenario where Adam and Eve somehow thwarted His initial plans. I like the teaching that it was all part of the plan and those whom God saved get to inhabit the New Earth for eternity, which I think is clearly taught in scripture.

Do you believe that there is a point at which we get off of the treadmill and Earth becomes what it might have been, and not just a short and unpleasant stop on the way to an afterlife?

This is the eschatology I believe scripture supports.
- If a person dies, one of two things happens. If they are part of God’s elect their soul goes immediately to Heaven and reigns there with Christ until Judgment Day. If they were not part of God’s elect their soul will go to Hades, which is where they will wait for Judgment Day.
- On Judgment Day Christ will defeat Satan and His armies and they will be tossed into the Lake of Fire for eternity. Those who were not part of the elect will receive judgment for their sins and also be tossed into the Lake of Fire for eternity. God will destroy the Old Heavens and the Old Earth and create a New Heavens and a New Earth. God’s elect will receive their new glorified bodies and will inhabit the New Earth, free of suffering and pain for all of eternity.

Unfortunately, the modern Church has been taken over by a newer view of Eschatology that involves secret raptures, seven year tribulations, an anti-Christ setting himself up in the Jewish Temple as God, a global currency and so on. I believe this loses focus on the real purpose of Biblical Eschatology and turns Christians into very poor fortune tellers. That’s enough ranting for now though.

[Neo-Scholastic]

Nice hand-wave.

That's all an appeal to that 'dilemma' deserves because it only applies to polytheistic gods.

[Whateverist]

I would consider it a small comfort if he was enduring punishment for his crimes, since I would rather that he had not been allowed to carry out such acts in the first place. Leaving us to our own devices, only to reward or punish us after the end, strikes me as unsatisfying.

You do not find satisfaction in eternal glory for the righteous and eternal punishment for the wicked? I sure do.

I can appreciate the wit in the answer, but beware. Perhaps one's feeling regarding the idea of eternal reward and punishment, is a hidden clause in your Christian afterlife contract. Gloating may result in the revocation of your ticket. Just saying.

Also, did you hear that the new pope has declared that we are all saved by the sacrifice of that guy, what's his name .. oh yeah, Jesus. Atheists too. Good works are now officially enough. So if that was all that was holding you back from joining we godless, you need no longer worry.

[The Reality Salesman01]

You do not find satisfaction in eternal glory for the righteous and eternal punishment for the wicked? I sure do.

I can appreciate the wit in the answer, but beware. Perhaps one's feeling regarding the idea of eternal reward and punishment, is a hidden clause in your Christian afterlife contract. Gloating may result in the revocation of your ticket. Just saying.

Also, did you hear that the new pope has declared that we are all saved by the sacrifice of that guy, what's his name .. oh yeah, Jesus. Atheists too. Good works are now officially enough. So if that was all that was holding you back from joining we godless, you need no longer worry.

I've been on vacation for a week, and have not been able to cruise through the forum from my desk as usual. I've missed the tactful and enlightened nature of your posts. Too bad I can't Rep you again, because I thoroughly enjoyed that one. You'll have to settle for a kudos equipped with my unsatisfied intentions to Rep!

[Neo-Scholastic]

...the new pope has declared that we are all saved by the sacrifice of that guy, what's his name .. oh yeah, Jesus. Atheists too. Good works are now officially enough.

The Whore of Babylon never ceases to arrogate the authority of God to itself. =-0

[The Reality Salesman01]

It's all still just an appeal to authority...even if from a scumbag atheist like whateverist!

[Minimalist]

Hey, now. No picking on Babylonian whores.

"There is one custom amongst these people which is wholly shameful: every woman who is a native of the country must once in her life go and sit in the temple of Aphrodite [Ishtar] and there give herself to a strange man." (Herodotus, Book I, para 199)

According to the historian, a man throws the woman a silver coin of any value and utters a prescribed phrase invoking the goddess. Once propositioned thusly, the woman cannot refuse the offer, and must prostitute herself. There has been speculation that the description of this custom, combined with the mention of the "prostitution of all girls of the lower classes" (Herodotus, Book I, para 199) are the root causes of Babylon’s reputation for sexual impropriety – specifically within portions of the Bible. For example, "Babylon the great, the mother of prostitutes, and of the abominations of the earth"

If religion was like this I might have given it a chance.