If Only The Romans

[Thumpalumpacus]

God created the universe and God created the tempter. Since we can choose to do evil or good, we create evil when we sin. If no one would sin, then there would be no evil. It was really up to Adam and Eve in the first place and for us to carry it on.

No, evil existed before sin. Genesis is very clear about that. Even as Adam and Eve were pure, your god allegedly created a "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil". If evil didn't exist, what knowledge could the fruit pass on to sully humans?

Additionally, you're absolving your god of his responsibility in creating evil. If I built a bomb and gave it to a child who knew nothing about bombs, and that child subsequently placed it unwittingly in a bus station and it killed 37 and maimed 174, would you throw the child in jail but absolve the bombmaker? Of course not. Yet your god is alleged to have created evil, created an agent to tempt humans into evil, and explicitly forbade his pet humans to learn about the nature of good and evil -- and for that, you castigate all humans as fallen, even as you exalt your god and claim him as the font of morality?

I'd suggest you think more about the nature of responsibility. If you left a loaded gun laying around the house and your toddler picked it up and killed himself while playing with it, you'd be prosecuted for felony child endangerment at the very least -- and rightfully so.

[Lek]

A very large percentage of seminarians are completely blind-sided by the historical-critical method. They come in with the expectation of learning the pious truths of the Bible so that they can pass them along in their sermons, as their own pastors have done for
them. Nothing prepares them for historical criticism. To their surprise they learn, instead of material for sermons, all the results of what historical critics have established on the basis of centuries of research. The Bible is filled with discrepancies, many of them irreconcilable contradictions. Moses did not write the Pentateuch (the first five books of the Old Testament) and Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John did not write the Gospels. There are other books that did not make it into the Bible that at one time or another were considered canonical—other Gospels, for example, allegedly written by Jesus’ followers Peter, Thomas, and Mary. The Exodus probably did not happen as described in the Old Testament. The conquest of the Promised Land is probably based on legend. The Gospels are at odds on numerous points and contain nonhistorical material. It is hard to know whether Moses ever existed and what, exactly, the historical Jesus taught. The historical narratives of the Old Testament are filled with legendary fabrications and the book of Acts in the New Testament contains historically unreliable information about the life and teachings of Paul. Many of the books of the New Testament are pseudonymous—written not by the apostles but by later writers claiming to be apostles. The list goes on.

Jesus Interrupted

Pages 5-6 (it only goes downhill for your holy horseshit from there!)

Why do you accept Bart Ehrman's conclusions over the conclusions of other modern day bible scholars? I understand the historical-critical method and it's very inconclusive based on the great lack of conclusive evidence to back up the findings. That can be your opinion, but that's not the opinion of many other qualified scholars of day. The further away one get's from the event, the less ability he has to determine what actually happened. As for now, I'll go with the opinions of the ancient scholars who accept the traditional view of authorship.

---

No, evil existed before sin. Genesis is very clear about that. Even as Adam and Eve were pure, your god allegedly created a "Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil". If evil didn't exist, what knowledge could the fruit pass on to sully humans?

Additionally, you're absolving your god of his responsibility in creating evil. If I built a bomb and gave it to a child who knew nothing about bombs, and that child subsequently placed it unwittingly in a bus station and it killed 37 and maimed 174, would you throw the child in jail but absolve the bombmaker? Of course not. Yet your god is alleged to have created evil, created an agent to tempt humans into evil, and explicitly forbade his pet humans to learn about the nature of good and evil -- and for that, you castigate all humans as fallen, even as you exalt your god and claim him as the font of morality?

I'd suggest you think more about the nature of responsibility. If you left a loaded gun laying around the house and your toddler picked it up and killed himself while playing with it, you'd be prosecuted for felony child endangerment at the very least -- and rightfully so.

Even if God created evil as you say, he didn't create Adam and Eve containing evil. They chose evil when they chose to disobey God. I agree that we should all think more about the nature of responsibility. Adam and Eve, and us all, have a responsibility to make the right choices. Even as we are born into a sinful world, we still have the option to make moral or immoral choices. Atheists talk about our personal responsibility to make our lives to be meaningful and satisfying. Yet they go on and on about how it's all God's fault and we're all innocent pawns in the world. At the same time, They face the same messed up world as christians do and talk about how we can be happy and fulfilled. Which is it? Do we have responsibility for our lives or are we just innocent pawns under the thumb of an evil and monstrous God?

---

I'm afraid that if I grow up I'll become like you Mini!

Then remain a child, boy. You sound as if you are 8 and a not very precocious 8 at that!

You sound like a grouchy old curmudgeon. Why don't you lighten up and enjoy life for a change? Smile a little. It helps.

[The Grand Nudger]

You think that "modern day bible scholars" believe those books to be eyewitness testimony, or even an account of eyewitness testimony? Do you think that "ancient scholars" had a better method or more powerful instrumentation with which to generate their conclusions? I'm honestly surprised to see you espousing this viewpoint Lek.......

[Lek]

You think that "modern day bible scholars" believe those books to be eyewitness testimony, or even an account of eyewitness testimony? Do you think that "ancient scholars" had a better method or more powerful instrumentation with which to generate their conclusions? I'm honestly surprised to see you espousing this viewpoint Lek.......

Modern day bible scholars who don't ignore tradition as a source are more likely to credit authorship to the writers that the church has recognized through the centuries than those who don't. If an author fails to recognize the tradition of the christian church, he will not come to a conclusion based on all pertinent evidence available. I can't disregard the opinions of early biblical scholars and church fathers who lived within such a short time of the actual writings.

[The Grand Nudger]

Tradition as a source...for what? I'm sorry, you've essentially stated that those who agree with the mythology of the medieval christian tradition- are more likely to agree with the mythology of the medieval christian tradition. Granted...and?

Is there anyone in particular, that you'd like to cite - or are you shitting in my earholes? I'd really like to see where you got the idea that a Peter, John or James, was written by a Peter, John...or fucking James. Or that those books, specifically, represent the core of even what sympathetic scholars consider to be a narrative of the life of some christ, or even a Jesus - or writings from some contemporary of a jesus.........relative to other offerings on the table.

[Lek]

Tradition as a source...for what? I'm sorry, you've essentially stated that those who agree with the mythology of the medieval christian tradition- are more likely to agree with the mythology of the medieval christian tradition. Granted...and?

I'm speaking of considering the process of tradition in general that carried along the knowledge of the writers of the bible.

Is there anyone in particular, that you'd like to cite - or are you shitting in my earholes? I'd really like to see where you got the idea that a Peter, John or James, was written by a Peter, John...or fucking James. Or that those books, specifically, represent the core of even what sympathetic scholars consider to be a narrative of the life of some christ, or even a Jesus - or writings from some contemporary of a jesus.........relative to other offerings on the table.

In the commentaries for the books of Peter, John and James in the New International Version (1984) and the New American Bible (1987), the various opinions and conclusions of modern bible scholars were discussed. These bible translations were completed by teams of experts in the field, including reputable bible scholars. The NIV commentaries favored the traditional authors--the apostles Peter and John and James, the brother of Jesus. The commentaries from the NAB just presented the various opinions and conclusions without taking a position. There is no general consensus among scholars on the subject.

[The Grand Nudger]

So you -were- shitting in my earholes then. Sigh.

[Minimalist]

Why do you accept Bart Ehrman's conclusions over the conclusions of other modern day bible scholars?

You can stop with the 'kill the messenger' routine. If you knew anything at all about this subject you would understand that Ehrman is recounting over 3 centuries of biblical scholarship. He is not the first. He is merely one of a long chain of people who know far more about this stuff than you do.

Do try to remember that Ehrman was a fundie moron until he began studying this shit and realized that he had been conned. You would do well to learn that lesson.

You sound like a grouchy old curmudgeon. Why don't you lighten up and enjoy life for a change? Smile a little. It helps.

I not only smile, I laugh out loud when I shit on believers!

[Mudhammam]

Sin is not the same thing as moral evil and natural evil. Sin is disobedience to God. Hence, atheists don't believe in sin because we don't believe that any gods are or can be offended by our actions. Moral evil is when a person acts as if he or she is a god and places themselves above their fellow mortals, disregarding the wills of others, making no allowance for self-criticism. The causes for this lie beyond the perpetrator, however. Natural evil is the pain and suffering wrought upon sentient life as a consequence of natural laws.

So, Lek, your God is responsible for moral evil and natural evil. He is also indirectly responsible for sin, of course, because anything not god or in perfect accordance with his will, which only he can be as only he is perfect, is by definition sinful.