Acountability, never got a good answer to this.

[Reforged]

Next question: Who do you think wrote the Bible, where is the evidence that they did and where did they get their information from?

Lots of people wrote the bible, after the verbal tradition had passed it down a few generations.
The evidence of this can be found in good bookshops everywhere.
They got their information from varied sources. Poets and songwriters from their imaginations, theologions from their ponderances on the subject. Christians and Jews use the blanket term "god inspired". There is the rabbinical tradition where a Rabbi's teaching has to be cross verified by two established Rabbi's before anything new is accepted as correct. The church fathers scrutinised the texts and came up with the canon.

So, you are telling me that you are basing your assertion God is just on a book from various authors from various generations that were supposedly inspired by God.
Now, ignoring the fact that theres no evidence they were inspired by God as opposed to primitive superstition and severe delusions of grandeur, why should we acknowledge what essentially amounts to God telling us he is just through various glove puppets.
We'd all like to write our own reviews after all and if what you say is to be believed, he did.

[fr0d0]

So, you are telling me that you are basing your assertion God is just on a book from various authors from various generations that were supposedly inspired by God.
Now, ignoring the fact that theres no evidence they were inspired by God as opposed to primitive superstition and severe delusions of grandeur, why should we acknowledge what essentially amounts to God telling us he is just through various glove puppets.
We'd all like to write our own reviews after all and if what you say is to be believed, he did.

My assertion god what? You're going to have to tidy that up to make sense before I can reply.

You assert there is no evidence, but you don't make the claim so your assertion is meaningless.

God isn't the author according to what I've just written to you, but the one that inspired it.

Again you aren't addressing what I've only just told you. It's like you're talking to an imaginary friend.

Please rewrite your response and make it relevant to me if you want me to answer.

Thanks.

[jonb]

God isn't the author according to what I've just written to you, but the one that inspired it.

Did your god also inspire you to say you had no knowledge of Martin Luther's writings, and use a little symbol shrugging its shoulders Mr Pilot?

[fr0d0]

Did your god also inspire you to say you had no knowledge of Martin Luther's writings, and use a little symbol shrugging its shoulders Mr Pilot?

Well I hadn't actually said that god inspired me to do anything there

And I do acknowledge Martin Luther's writings, which you would know if you knew anything about my stated religious position above.

[jonb]

Well I hadn't actually said that god inspired me to do anything there

At this point I would normally apologise, that I had taken a personal position, as representative of a group and made an error, but the above statement is so disconcerting I don't see any reason to continue.

[Reforged]

So, you are telling me that you are basing your assertion God is just on a book from various authors from various generations that were supposedly inspired by God.
Now, ignoring the fact that theres no evidence they were inspired by God as opposed to primitive superstition and severe delusions of grandeur, why should we acknowledge what essentially amounts to God telling us he is just through various glove puppets.
We'd all like to write our own reviews after all and if what you say is to be believed, he did.

My assertion god what? You're going to have to tidy that up to make sense before I can reply.

You assert there is no evidence, but you don't make the claim so your assertion is meaningless.

God isn't the author according to what I've just written to you, but the one that inspired it.

Again you aren't addressing what I've only just told you. It's like you're talking to an imaginary friend.

Please rewrite your response and make it relevant to me if you want me to answer.

Thanks.

"So, you are telling me that you are basing your assertion God is just on a book from various authors from various generations that were supposedly inspired by God."
Which part of this was hard for you to understand?

Alright, I claim, no, outright state that you have no evidence whatsoever to back up your claim God is just. Better?

Yes, based on your statement he inspired people to write God as saying he is just.
Very modest of him, why should we believe him or his followers? What is this based on?

Yes I am. Your statements are so ridiculous they need to be repeated and clarified so people can appreciate them and laugh at them with maximum efficiency. I sincerely hope you are imaginary, an intellect as low as yours really shouldn't be possible. It wouldn't surprise me if it took the majority of your mental power to focus on breathing in and out properly.

I do hope this was relevant and simple enough for your mind to absorb. I would hate for it to go over your head like so much so often does. If you're quite done with substituting a trading of insults for debate would you care to get back to my question? As much as I enjoy ripping your rather feeble attempts of wit to pieces I would rather get a straight answer out of you if possible.

Incase you forgot my query thanks to your relatively short attention span:
Yes, based on your statement he inspired people to write God as saying he is just.
Very modest of him, why should we believe him or his followers? What is this based on?

[fr0d0]

"So, you are telling me that you are basing your assertion God is just on a book from various authors from various generations that were supposedly inspired by God."
Which part of this was hard for you to understand?

Ok I assume that you mean 'basing your assertion THAT God is just', or: 'basing your assertion "God is just". Your sentance, as it stood, made no sense.

No. I'm saying that my assertion that "God is just" is based upon various authors verified to have been inspired by God and collectively claiming the truth statement.

Alright, I claim, no, outright state that you have no evidence whatsoever to back up your claim God is just. Better?

A little clearer, yes, thank you.

To be clear (again), there can be no transferable evidence. Ok, now we've got that out of the way... the evidence you dispute is what the Abrahamic faiths, including the original authors both wrote and concluded from previous writings that God is Just. Now you're disagreeing with this evidence... you can't say that it doesn't exist because it clearly does.

Yes, based on your statement he inspired people to write God as saying he is just.
Very modest of him, why should we believe him or his followers? What is this based on?

How is God being immodest there lol? He didn't make them write it. "Inspired" doesn't mean forced or coerced. See above for where it came from, and add to that what human beings have deduced to be what God is, by means of rational process.

As much as I enjoy ripping your rather feeble attempts of wit to pieces I would rather get a straight answer out of you if possible.

lol and there was me reading that you'd written simple questions only. Where is this cutting retort you refer to??

Yes, based on your statement he inspired people to write God as saying he is just.

Wow another train crash of a sentance.

[Reforged]

"So, you are telling me that you are basing your assertion God is just on a book from various authors from various generations that were supposedly inspired by God."
Which part of this was hard for you to understand?

Ok I assume that you mean 'basing your assertion THAT God is just', or: 'basing your assertion "God is just". Your sentance, as it stood, made no sense.

No. I'm saying that my assertion that "God is just" is based upon various authors verified to have been inspired by God and collectively claiming the truth statement.

Alright, I claim, no, outright state that you have no evidence whatsoever to back up your claim God is just. Better?

A little clearer, yes, thank you.

To be clear (again), there can be no transferable evidence. Ok, now we've got that out of the way... the evidence you dispute is what the Abrahamic faiths, including the original authors both wrote and concluded from previous writings that God is Just. Now you're disagreeing with this evidence... you can't say that it doesn't exist because it clearly does.

Yes, based on your statement he inspired people to write God as saying he is just.
Very modest of him, why should we believe him or his followers? What is this based on?

How is God being immodest there lol? He didn't make them write it. "Inspired" doesn't mean forced or coerced. See above for where it came from, and add to that what human beings have deduced to be what God is, by means of rational process.

As much as I enjoy ripping your rather feeble attempts of wit to pieces I would rather get a straight answer out of you if possible.

lol and there was me reading that you'd written simple questions only. Where is this cutting retort you refer to??

Yes, based on your statement he inspired people to write God as saying he is just.

Wow another train crash of a sentance.

Oh wow, really? I can end this right here then. If by inspiration you mean the idea of God made them write that book as opposed to God actually inspired them with his divine presence then there is no divine source. They're not getting their info from God. Without a divine source then it is basically humans writing whatever they want without any primary source whatsoever. Any information in that book referring to God should therefore be concluded to be implausible and unusable, including the notion God is just.

"the evidence you dispute is what the Abrahamic faiths, including the original authors both wrote and concluded from previous writings that God is Just."
Thats a very long way of saying the Bible now isn't it? Well done. Thats not evidence. Writings of writings of writings is not evidence. Its a game of chinese whispers without a provable point of origin.
It is ridiculous to say the least that anyone would try to use this to prove anything other than the incompetence of its creators.

So, conclusion; You yourself say that the bible is written by humans only "thinking" of God as opposed to actually communicating with him. Well anyone can think of a particular subject, it doesn't make them anymore informed or plausible without a primary source.
So basing your assertion God is just on this book only tells me that the founders of your religion wanted you to think he was just. It doesn't make their assertion true.

Bottom line: Do you have any evidence God is just or not?

[fr0d0]

Le sigh. Unlike with yourself raff, the thoughts compiled in the bible present a rational conclusion of Gods attributes. Yet again, and this is getting tiresome, you ignore a part of the words you reply to. There can be no empirical evidence <--- in case you missed it. You refuse to use your brain. That's fine. Personally I'm glad humankind has this capacity and I don't exclude such endeavour from my consideration. I wish you all the best in your journey.

[Reforged]

Le sigh. Unlike with yourself raff, the thoughts compiled in the bible present a rational conclusion of Gods attributes. Yet again, and this is getting tiresome, you ignore a part of the words you reply to. There can be no empirical evidence <--- in case you missed it. You refuse to use your brain. That's fine. Personally I'm glad humankind has this capacity and I don't exclude such endeavour from my consideration. I wish you all the best in your journey.

LMAO I'm sorry? What? So flooding the world, talking through a burning bush, sending two angels to be threatened with rape, raze an entire city and turn some poor bastards wife to salt, sending his son to be tortured and murdered, having every first born child in Egypt killed, (this is off the top of my head by the way, there is plenty more) letting Moses kill every heretic at the bottom of the mountain after the ten commandments, letting that priest have his concubine raped and murdered in place of him, instructing the binding of isaac before revealing it was a practical joke, letting Abrahams two daughters bare his children, the prompting for the systematic murder, torture and plunder of other religions and civilizations, the stoning of unruly children, the stoning of women who dared to have relations outside of wedlock and all the other messed up shit in the Bible ALL of which supposedly happened with Gods consent and his full knowledge of all events past, present and future.
Thats all rational, thats all ok, thats all alright. You are perfectly at peace with saying God is just when reading such damning "evidence" presented by *his* advocates.

No sir, I ignore nothing. It is you who seem to ignore a damn site more than most people I have ever met. Empirical evidence is not the only kind of evidence and that is something you seem to overlook. You're not just failing to present empirical evidence, you're failing to provide *any* kind of evidence other than the writings, of the writings, of the writings of superstitious, ignorant peasants who themselves never attempted to preserve any solid evidence which most people would consider unusual.
Not only have you not any evidence God is just but even if we were to accept the nonsense you are presenting we would have no alternative but to come to the opposite conclusion based on it. That he is *not* moral, that he is *not* loving and assuming he is even real; he is certainly *not* just.

With that you have not a leg to stand on and with that I have nothing further to add... :-)