pauldla wrote: » I'm just glad that I have lived to see the much-neglected 'cat kills human bad, therefore god' argument finally being presented. What a time to be alive!
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » I wasn't making statements, I was asking questions and there's no harm in that - unless you think that religious belief is immune from being questioned?
That's rather... convenient, isn't it? Does your god require you to do "good works" or give to charity or do anything at all, or is it all one way? You get the good feels and don't have to really do anything?
Bannasidhe wrote: » of course in ancient Egypt this argument went 'cat kills bad human therefore is god' :P
Ty Straight Villa wrote: » The above authors try to put forward various arguments for the historicity of the Gospels. They are arguments, not conclusive proofs, therefore they do differ from each other. However, what is important is that they are all quite reasonable. From what I remember of reading him, I think Dunn's argument was that the evangelists described those events of Christ's life in which they were personally interested. That is why not all of them have extended narratives of Christ's infancy etc, but they might instead focus on how he fulfills the Old Testament (this was very important for Matthew, for example).
Ty Straight Villa wrote: » Well the large diversity of detail of the Gospel accounts would argue against this. John's prologue is very philosophical. Matthew and Luke are all about the parables.
Ty Straight Villa wrote: » This would have been a massive deal. Read the account to see how uncomfortable John the Baptist is with baptising Christ. He is told to "suffer it for now". John was basically baptising God.
Ty Straight Villa wrote: » Again, this is not a proof but an argument. Nevertheless, I think it is a good one. As stated above, the apocryphal Gospel of Philip, which contains a gnostic understanding of Baptism and the Eucharist more appropriate to the second or third century, was rejected as inauthentic. It is a mechanism used to discern error.
Ty Straight Villa wrote: » (the existence of God itself can be reached by reason alone though).
Ty Straight Villa wrote: » This requires faith - an assent of the mind to what God reveals about Himself. Moreover, this faith is a gift from God to those who want it.
Jordan2077 wrote: » Ok so if you dont believe in God then what is good and bad, why dont we just make up good and bad for ourselves and do what we want? why do we let other things create what is good and bad for us?
Ty Straight Villa wrote: » Some people claim that they can feel God with them, around them - fair enough, this is something quite personal so you can never say that they do or they do not with complete certitude.
Ty Straight Villa wrote: » Going to quote something I posted in an earlier thread
Ty Straight Villa wrote: » Jesus is either mad, bad or God; he cannot be simply a good man walking around and helping people because he never claimed to be this persona
Ty Straight Villa wrote: » If what he was saying is true, then he is God.
Ty Straight Villa wrote: » The third test used by Ehrman is called “the criterion of contextual credibility”. This means that historical texts have to “conform with historical and social contexts to which they relate” in order to be credible.
Ty Straight Villa wrote: » What I have shown with the above arguments is that belief in God is reasonable
Ty Straight Villa wrote: » This requires faith - an assent of the mind to what God reveals about Himself.
Jordan2077 wrote: » You don't have to convince people, there is no excuse for not believing in God for the evidence has been clearly displayed in all of creation.
Jordan2077 wrote: » Ok so if you dont believe in God then what is good and bad, why dont we just make up good and bad for ourselves and do what we want?
Jordan2077 wrote: » If a cat kills a bird why is that not bad. But if a cat kills a human that is bad.
Jordan2077 wrote: » What makes our life worth more than theirs?
mlem123 wrote: » I'd argue that belief has nothing to do with proof. A belief is just something you believe in.
Jordan2077 wrote: » Ok so if you dont believe in God then what is good and bad, why dont we just make up good and bad for ourselves and do what we want? why do we let other things create what is good and bad for us? If a cat kills a bird why is that not bad. But if a cat kills a human that is bad. What makes our life worth more than theirs? Yet if any other creature or thing kills any other creature or thing it is not bad?
spacecoyote wrote: » I always find this line of argument quite depressing, and it actually makes me more fearful of religious people. In essence (and I know that I'm making a bit of a small leap here), it amounts to...if there is no all powerful punishment for "sin" to be scared of, then religious people would just go around killing, raping, robbing etc... because there is no ultimate consequence/hell. As opposed to atheists, who define their morals & sense of right or wrong, on the basis of society and how they believe you should treat your fellow man.
Bannasidhe wrote: » It's a terrifying line of thinking imo. Plus it allows for horrific act to be carried out 'because it's God's will', and therefore doing them will be rewarded in the hereafter.
Marhay70 wrote: » If you are to believe the Old Testament, not only did God forgive the Israelite heroes like Joshua, David etc for committing horrific acts of depravity, He actually encouraged it.
Bannasidhe wrote: » The Crusaders were absolved in advance for anything...bloody...or rapey...or whatever... they might happened to do while rescuing 'The Holy Land' from the people who lived there.
smacl wrote: » Not just the rescuing the Holy Land but also smiting heretics in Europe too as the Cathars and Bogomils found out.
Marhay70 wrote: » That was by mere mortals though, the Biblical events were first hand. Wasn't any fun to be a Hittite or a Caananite or an Amorite among many, when the big guy got pissed off. Deuteronomy is a lively read, murder, rape, enslavement, child abuse, cannibalism, you name it, the loving God was happy to give it his enthusiastic approval.
Bannasidhe wrote: » Oh I have read that particular book many times. I am of the opinion that in it the big guy gets the credit for an awful lot of things that happened - X city falls - God did that because 'punishment', blood thirsty victory - God won that, and what occurred during/after is also 'God'. It's like saying Lindisfarne was raided because Odin was angry. Ireland was conquered because we lost faith in the Dagda. India got independence because Kali was on their side.
spacecoyote wrote: » As opposed to atheists, who define their morals & sense of right or wrong, on the basis of society and how they believe you should treat your fellow man.
Ty Straight Villa wrote: » The single biggest human killing machine in the history of the world has been atheistic Communism/Socialism, all pretty much in the space of a century. We are talking 100 million people and counting (mostly because of China). Not even Hitler could rival that. Deaths through the Inquisition or during Crusades compared to that - you must be 'avin' a laf m8'. Source: The Black Book of Communism
Social critic Noam Chomsky has criticized the book and its reception as one-sided by outlining economist Amartya Sen's research on hunger. While India's democratic institutions prevented famines, its excess of mortality over China—potentially attributable to the latter's more equal distribution of medical and other resources—was nonetheless close to 4 million per year for non-famine years. Chomsky argued that "supposing we now apply the methodology of the Black Book" to India, "the democratic capitalist 'experiment' has caused more deaths than in the entire history of [...] Communism everywhere since 1917: over 100 million deaths by 1979, and tens of millions more since, in India alone".
Ty Straight Villa wrote: » Hi spacecoyote and Bannasidhethe Crusades. It is true that during the Israelite exodus pagan nations were put to the sword. This is something many Christians find puzzling. Why did a good God allow this, right? It is a big deal but just concluding that 'God is boo-boo' without engaging with the Scriptures and historical research is, well, far from perfect. Most of us know what it is like to teach a child. You have to go step-by-step, slowly, incrementally. You cannot start teaching computer science to a five year old. He or she just would not have the capacity to receive, comprehend and live out the information given. Start small, think big. What did the world look like at the time of the Exodus? We have widespread slavery, massacres and destruction. Infants were regularly exposed to die if they were female or defective. People were sacrificed to cruel pagan 'gods' who demanded blood in return for a good harvest etc (something akin to what the Aztecs were doing centuries later). God chose one nation, the tribe of Abraham, to teach them what it means to be human and what it means to live in harmony with Him. He couldn't bring them from 0 to 100, the education would take centuries. The sad thing is that even with the little He demanded from them, the Jews continuously rebelled and disobeyed. Israel is described as a 'harlot' in the OT - they continued to go back to the feral ways of the peoples and nations around them. The Jews took out the tribes in modern day Palestine (the Canaanites) because: a) that was the nature of war in these troubled times - they would not have known, and not accepted, any different; b) if the Canaanites stayed behind, they would have infected the Jews with their customs - as in fact happened, when remnants of the Canaanites were allowed to remain; c) the Canaanites were known for child sacrifice, and this fact appears in sources besides the Bible. Their land was taken from them as punishment - 'No, it is on account of the wickedness of these nations that the Lord is going to drive them out before you.' (Deuteronomy 9:4); d) God gave the Canaanites 400 years to repent. There is a curious line in Genesis where Abraham wants to posses the Promised Land immediately. He is prevented by God, because ‘the sin of the Amorites (one of the Canaanite tribes) has not yet reached its full measure’ (Genesis 15:16). Now that's patience; e) Moreover, historians claim that the entry of the Israelites into the Promised Land led to a massive flight of the Canaanite population. If they largely fled, this would mean that only the remnants were killed. To progress the story, the pedagogical law of the OT was replaced by Christ in the NT. Even then the people were hardly ready to accept what He had to say. We still wince at giving our cloak to a man who has none, at loving a neighbour as much as ourselves, at turning the other cheek and at keeping all lustful thoughts out of our heart. It is also worth mentioning that ideas of equality, dignity, care and support for the weak, and a systematic renunciation of self for others are essentially Christian. Our society would be worse for the lack of them.
Ty Straight Villa wrote: » ............... It is also worth mentioning that ideas of equality, dignity, care and support for the weak, and a systematic renunciation of self for others are essentially Christian. Our society would be worse for the lack of them.
Ty Straight Villa wrote: » Hi spacecoyote and Bannasidhe The single biggest human killing machine in the history of the world has been [whataboutery]
Ty Straight Villa wrote: » Hi spacecoyote and Bannasidhe The single biggest human killing machine in the history of the world has been atheistic Communism/Socialism, all pretty much in the space of a century. We are talking 100 million people and counting (mostly because of China). Not even Hitler could rival that. Deaths through the Inquisition or during Crusades compared to that - you must be 'avin' a laf m8'. Now the Crusades, that famous Christian-baiting club. Most serious historians would agree that they were defensive wars. .
It was indeed the righteous judgment of God which ordained that those who had profaned the sanctuary of the Lord by their superstitious rites and had caused it to be an alien place to His faithful people should expiate their sin by death and, by pouring out their own blood, purify the sacred precincts.It was impossible to look upon the vast numbers of the slain without horror; everywhere lay fragments of human bodies, and the very ground was covered with the blood of the slain. It was not alone the spectacle of headless bodies and mutilated limbs strewn in all directions that roused horror in all who looked upon them. Still more dreadful was it to gaze upon the victors themselves, dripping with blood from head to foot, an ominous sight which brought terror to all who met them. It is reported that within the Temple enclosure alone about ten thousand infidels perished, in addition to those who lay slain everywhere throughout the city in the streets and squares, the number of whom was estimated as no less. The rest of the soldiers roved through the city in search of wretched survivors who might be hiding in the narrow portals and byways to escape death. These were dragged out into public view and slain like sheep. Some formed into bands and broke into houses where they laid violent hands on heads of families, on their wives children, and their entire households. These victims were either put to the sword or dashed headlong to the ground from some elevated place so that they perished miserably. Each marauder claimed as his own in perpetuity the particular house which he had entered, together with all it contained. For before the capture of the city the pilgrims had agreed that, after it had been taken by force, whatever each man might win for himself should be his forever by right of possession, without molestation. Consequently the pilgrims searched the city most carefully and boldly killed the citizens. They penetrated into the most retired and out-of-the-way places and broke open the most private apartments of the foe. At the entrance of each house, as it was taken the victor hung up his shield and his arms, as a sign to all who approached not to pause there but to pass by that place as already in possession of another.
Posters are not allowed to refer to each other, directly or indirectly, as "liars", "trolls", "bigots", "bullies", "soap-boxers" or any other terms which impute antisocial motives to other posters. In the normal run of discussion, posters should avoid disputed terms without agreeing on what precisely the terms might mean, and should definitions be agreed, these terms should be used sparingly and only to bring the discussion forward. An example of such a disputed term is "murder" in the context of abortion.
Hotblack Desiato wrote: » In the innocent part of my mind the question would be WHY would you convince people god exists?
ILoveYourVibes wrote: » Evolution etc. Why do people believe in god. I am not saying whether i do or not. That's not the argument. Logically one should not. So why do people?
