Question for Christians about Judas

[12 Monkeys]

The point of asking those Questions IMO is that there was more than one god  as it appears or God would not limit himself to just one group. To the people who invented Jewish and Christian religions there must have been more gods at the time,so they invented their own.

The single God focusing on one group of people is just small thinking on the part of the peoples who wrote the books in the first place....or God is a failure who has to start over and over again because his humans are a big failure....A single God for the whole world would not focus on one small group.

 IF he was not invented by people ignorant of the rest of the world Judas and Jesus would not need be at all. But the inventors of this God were so small minded they could not see beyond the region in which they lived.

[kaziglu bey]

SimpleCaveman: sorry for not getting back to you sooner.

Sin is disobedience against God. If a person were to kill another of their own choice, they would be disobeying God’s command to not kill, which is a sin. If they killed a person at God’s command they would be obeying God’s command, which is not a sin.

I think this creates a little bit of a problem: If someone kills their baby, and the say that it was God's command, how could we prove their statement false? God clearly commands plenty of children to be killed in the Bible, so it's not unreasonable to suspect that he would command someone nowadays to kill their child. In fact it's more surprising that he does NOT command many child killings these days. Children are slaughtered in the Bible at God's command left and right, thousands, possibly even millions of children. In what way can a newborn disobey God?

As to why there’s not a “Thou Shalt Not Rape” it’s in there a couple of times. I have to be careful here. I’m saying this in a technical way and should not be misconstrued. Rape of someone not your wife would likely be considered adultery and there’s a command against it. The lust would also fall under “Thou shalt not covet they neighbor’s wife.” More importantly, rape of any kind, is not a sexual act, but rather an act of violence. As such it falls under “Thou shalt not kill.”

First of all, the last sentence of that statement is just ridiculous. While rape is certainly a horrible crime, the commandment is not "That shalt not commit any form of violence unto another person (without the prior approval of God)." That is the commandment you are suggesting, but that is not the commandment given to Moses. Rape is NOT killing (even in circumstances where the victim is killed, as the two are entirely separate crimes). Yet again, we see vast quantities of God approved rape in the bible. You could tentatively re-title the Bible " A Story of the murders, rapes, genocides, adultery, misogyny, and killing of babies perpetrated by the God Yahweh". It would certainly be a more descriptive title. In some situations in the Bible, it even instructs that the rape VICTIMS be put to death How lovely. So very compassionate and just.

Whether it’s a “standard” or not, I don’t know. I don’t think I would call it “punish”, though, and I certainly wouldn’t say “forever”. There are even secular analogies. Say I was a millionaire and, by making a bad decision, I blew all my money. My children wouldn’t have the benefit of that money. Neither would their children or their children.

This is simply a false analogy. Losing your personal fortune, and thus your offspring do not receive the money, is not at ALL comparable to suffering eternal damnation for two people eating a fruit a really long time ago. Plus, your children and their children ill still have the opportunity (if they are lucky) to gain their own fortune and become millionaires. This is not through an act of blind faith, as is required by God in order to be spared eternal punishment. Also, in the case of the squandering millionaire, the children are not really being punished. It is merely a natural consequence of the situation.Also, not being a millionaire doesn't mean not being happy. Eternal punishment is certainly not a happy time. The natural consequence of eating a fruit is not eternal damnation. I don't see how you can suggest that a person who does not accept Jesus as their savior will be punished forever, that seems to pretty much be one of the few things that Christians generally agree on. 

We can call it punishment, but I don’t think of it as punishment. Adam and Eve, though particularly Adam, were tested and did not have the courage to pass. They incurred the consequences of their decision. Whether it was holy and just in our opinion can be debated, but it is not forever. Yes, all people contract Original Sin, but it is easily removed, and the reason it can be removed is because of what God did. So, even though we disobeyed Him, He took it upon Himself to make things right and give us a way back to something even greater than what we had in Eden.

But if God is God, why would he have to require yet more suffering and death, this time of his own son? Why could he just wave his magic hand and make everything better again? why does God always seem to REQUIRE suffering and death for things that he claims to have foreseen before creation? Why does one have to accept human sacrifice on their behalf in order to be redeemed? God must be a fan of the Saw series.

I would agree with you if God had abandoned us, but he didn’t.

Sure, he didn't abandon us, to the extent that he approves of so much suffering, death, rape and foreskins.

Thank you very much. I appreciate your approach as well. It seems immature to me to make personal attacks.

At my previous place of employment, I had to make frequent contact both with violent, irrational people and egocentric Judges. Needless to say, dealing with both requires a bit of delicacy.

[velkyn]

I’m not sure if you have to be insane, but I agree with you. A person has to be pretty messed up in one way or another to kill anyone.

SC seems to have rendered a judgement.   Per the bible, he knows as much about good and evil as this god of his. 

God kills a lot of people per the bible.

God must be the most insane of all with supposedly killing a planet's worth of people, animals, plants, etc.  I'm guessing the excuse will be that this god can do anything it wants.   

[velkyn]

Let me first clarify the question. It’s one thing to ask "how to resolve killing by order of God?”, and another to ask “how to resolve God commanding to kill someone?”

The first one is simple. If God orders something you do it. (Truly “God” and truly “ordering,” etc.) That one we’ve addressed before.

  and since you can't show that the parents who have killed their children weren't "truly" getting an order directly from this god, there should be no reason to doubt them, other than by the very human reasoning you went though and not the obedience to your deity, without thought, as you seem to be advocating above.

We can't tell that anyone is getting anything "truly" from this god.  Not one single shred of evidence, just theists needing to feel special and to make others think that they are special.

[12 Monkeys]

Let me first clarify the question. It’s one thing to ask "how to resolve killing by order of God?”, and another to ask “how to resolve God commanding to kill someone?”

The first one is simple. If God orders something you do it. (Truly “God” and truly “ordering,” etc.) That one we’ve addressed before.

  and since you can't show that the parents who have killed their children weren't "truly" getting an order directly from this god, there should be no reason to doubt them, other than by the very human reasoning you went though and not the obedience to your deity, without thought, as you seem to be advocating above.

We can't tell that anyone is getting anything "truly" from this god.  Not one single shred of evidence, just theists needing to feel special and to make others think that they are special.

How does a country like America convict someone of murder if they are getting an order from God? Any defence lawyer putting the case before the courts would surley mount an insanity defence. Even if the defendant stood up and held to his word God told him to. As a D.A. trying the case you would probably agree with the defence lawyer.

 The court reaches its verdict based on evidence,how,without an insanity defence could a lawyer defend you without proof?  How can a court(Christian based I am assuming) not take the defendant at his word? Well,based on no real evidence,he would have to be found insane,or there would be a whole lot of murderers mounting this defence.

[SimpleCaveman]

Hi 12 Monkeys,

Thanks for clearing that up. I’m glad that I didn’t guess, because I would have been way off base.

The point of asking those Questions IMO is that there was more than one god  as it appears or God would not limit himself to just one group.

I hope you read my response to your other questions. God did not limit himself to one small group, and you are correct, it was a small group. He did focus on that group in the successive covenants that he made with them, and at each stage the group became larger – couple, family, tribe, nation, and kingdom, until with Jesus it became universal.

I realize you think that was not the best way for God to do that, but our opinions are not sufficient to conclude that there is no God. It goes back to the discussions on omniscience earlier in the thread with monkeymind and kaziglu bey. (Not sure where monkeymind went.) People seem to think that we can understand things at the same level as an omniscient mind. Not sure if it’s a too high regard for our minds or not enough regard for omniscience. If you take the intelligence of all the people who’ve ever lived and combine it all together in, say, a logarithmic fashion and add Deep Blue times Watson times a Turing machine times whatever. Take all that to the 100th power and you still wouldn’t have omniscience. To look at it another way, take our intelligence to the level of a pencil, then God’s would be at the level of Einstein.

Now, before people yell at me, no, I don’t know how smart God is. I am likely way underestimating omniscience. However, the description above is a better picture than assuming that we can comprehend the “mind” of an omniscient being. So, to say that “because God didn’t do something the way we think it should be done, he doesn’t exist” doesn’t make any sense.

But let’s look at some of the things you said

To the people who invented Jewish and Christian religions there must have been more gods at the time,so they invented their own.

I don’t see the logic in this. There were many gods at the time and many people had no problem believing in them. Even the Israelites had no problem with it. They sacrificed to the Egyptian gods. They worshipped the Canaanite gods. Why would they invent their own? You could try to blame it on the leaders, like Moses, but that doesn’t make sense either. The leaders had to fight with the people to get them to be faithful to God. It would have been so much easier to capitalize on what they already believed. The God of Israel and Jesus were so contrary to what the rest of the world believed that it would have been crazy to make them up. I’m sorry, but that just doesn’t make sense.

IF he was not invented by people ignorant of the rest of the world Judas and Jesus would not need be at all. But the inventors of this God were so small minded they could not see beyond the region in which they lived.

Why do you think they would be ignorant of the rest of the world? Maybe they didn’t know about Aztecs or Japanese, but they certainly knew about the world from Africa to Southern Europe to Persia. As far back as Genesis 10 the authors name the peoples of that part of the world. Civilizations had risen and fallen for 6000 years before Abraham came from Ur, which is over by the Persian Gulf. The Israelites spent 400 years in Egypt which ruled empires of mighty size. No, they were not ignorant of the rest of the world.

The only reason that the Israelite people would have followed God was because there was something to follow.

[SimpleCaveman]

Hi kaziglu bey,

How’s it going? You and your son doing well?

SimpleCaveman: sorry for not getting back to you sooner.

No worries at all. I understand how it gets sometimes. Thank you for coming back. It’s admirable. Others have stopped posting in the thread. I’m not assuming it means they give up, but it is suspicious.

I think this creates a little bit of a problem: If someone kills their baby, and the say that it was God's command, how could we prove their statement false?

From the sin perspective it doesn’t matter what we can prove. That’s up to those people and God on their judgment day. From a justice perspective, we do what the system does now, checking for mental illness, right from wrong, etc. My personal opinion is that God would not command someone to kill their own baby.

First of all, the last sentence of that statement is just ridiculous. While rape is certainly a horrible crime, the commandment is not "That shalt not commit any form of violence unto another person (without the prior approval of God)."

You’re right. Those aren’t the literal words of the commandment, but the commandment goes beyond that. Jesus came here to fulfill the law. In the Gospel of Matthew Jesus says

“You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna.

So, yes, particularly since Christ, the commandment is "That shalt not commit any form of violence unto another person or even think of committing violence unto another person."

Plus, your children and their children ill still have the opportunity (if they are lucky) to gain their own fortune and become millionaires. This is not through an act of blind faith, as is required by God in order to be spared eternal punishment.

That’s not an argument against the analogy. We can very easily regain our divine inheritance through Baptism, the other Sacraments and obedience to God. You may consider that blind faith. I do not.

Also, in the case of the squandering millionaire, the children are not really being punished. It is merely a natural consequence of the situation.

Same thing. In the Garden of Eden, we were given a divine life on top of our natural life. When we couldn’t handle, we lost it, and returned to the natural life we had before. It’s not a punishment as much as it is a (super)natural consequence.

Also, not being a millionaire doesn't mean not being happy. Eternal punishment is certainly not a happy time. The natural consequence of eating a fruit is not eternal damnation. I don't see how you can suggest that a person who does not accept Jesus as their savior will be punished forever, that seems to pretty much be one of the few things that Christians generally agree on. 

You’re mixing two different things. You’re completely right to say that the natural consequence of eating the fruit is not eternal damnation. Jesus saw to that. He saved us so that we would NOT be punished forever. If we don’t want that salvation, then we are choosing the punishment. You have before you life and death, which do you choose? I choose life. It’s that simple.

But if God is God, why would he have to require yet more suffering and death, this time of his own son? Why could he just wave his magic hand and make everything better again?

Because God is just. The covenant was broken and had to be restored. He couldn’t ignore the covenant or the breaking of the covenant. But at the same time, in a way, as far as we’re concerned he did just wave his hand. It was God himself who suffered death to restore the covenant, not us. He took it on himself. Why was it suffering and death? In large part in order to show us true love. He took on all the sin and suffering of the world out of love for us. He sacrificed his life for us. That’s the greatest love there is. I would die to defend my country, because I love it. I would die to defend my family, because I love them even more.

Maybe God waving His hand could have freed us from Original Sin, but, as above, it’s not that which gets us to eternal damnation. It’s what we do on our own. By becoming one of us, living like us, suffering and dying on the cross, Jesus gives us the example that we are to follow. Frankly, if more people in this world weren’t self-centered, but instead looked out for other people, even dying to save others, like those on Flight 93, this world would be a lot better off.

Sorry for the long post. I try to keep these short, since I don’t have much time even with short posts. Thanks for your patience.

[SimpleCaveman]

How does a country like America convict someone of murder if they are getting an order from God? Any defence lawyer putting the case before the courts would surley mount an insanity defence. Even if the defendant stood up and held to his word God told him to. As a D.A. trying the case you would probably agree with the defence lawyer.

If I were the DA, I would push for the truth about what happened. If the person is mentally insane, then so be it. However, murder is against our laws and rightly so. You don’t think that God knows that? If he truly asked someone to commit murder, if it was really God who was asking, then don’t you think he’d be taking all of that into account? We are to obey the lawful authority and the laws of our government. Unless God changed those, we would be expected to obey them and he’d take care of the rest. His plan is bigger than a courtroom. It’s even bigger than the United States. His plan is for all people in all time.

The court reaches its verdict based on evidence,how,without an insanity defence could a lawyer defend you without proof?  How can a court(Christian based I am assuming) not take the defendant at his word? Well,based on no real evidence,he would have to be found insane,or there would be a whole lot of murderers mounting this defence.

I don’t think that a defense of “God made me do it” (or “devil made me do it” for that matter) is a valid defense. If I was on the jury, and there weren’t other legally extenuating circumstance, then I would find the defendant guilty. Why not? They murdered someone. As I said before, if God truly commanded them to do it, then he’d have the rest figured out, too. Right?

[12 Monkeys]

Hi 12 Monkeys,

Thanks for clearing that up. I’m glad that I didn’t guess, because I would have been way off base.

The point of asking those Questions IMO is that there was more than one god  as it appears or God would not limit himself to just one group.

I hope you read my response to your other questions. God did not limit himself to one small group, and you are correct, it was a small group. He did focus on that group in the successive covenants that he made with them, and at each stage the group became larger – couple, family, tribe, nation, and kingdom, until with Jesus it became universal.

I realize you think that was not the best way for God to do that, but our opinions are not sufficient to conclude that there is no God. It goes back to the discussions on omniscience earlier in the thread with monkeymind and kaziglu bey. (Not sure where monkeymind went.) People seem to think that we can understand things at the same level as an omniscient mind. Not sure if it’s a too high regard for our minds or not enough regard for omniscience. If you take the intelligence of all the people who’ve ever lived and combine it all together in, say, a logarithmic fashion and add Deep Blue times Watson times a Turing machine times whatever. Take all that to the 100th power and you still wouldn’t have omniscience. To look at it another way, take our intelligence to the level of a pencil, then God’s would be at the level of Einstein.

Now, before people yell at me, no, I don’t know how smart God is. I am likely way underestimating omniscience. However, the description above is a better picture than assuming that we can comprehend the “mind” of an omniscient being. So, to say that “because God didn’t do something the way we think it should be done, he doesn’t exist” doesn’t make any sense.

But let’s look at some of the things you said

To the people who invented Jewish and Christian religions there must have been more gods at the time,so they invented their own.

I don’t see the logic in this. There were many gods at the time and many people had no problem believing in them. Even the Israelites had no problem with it. They sacrificed to the Egyptian gods. They worshipped the Canaanite gods. Why would they invent their own? You could try to blame it on the leaders, like Moses, but that doesn’t make sense either. The leaders had to fight with the people to get them to be faithful to God. It would have been so much easier to capitalize on what they already believed. The God of Israel and Jesus were so contrary to what the rest of the world believed that it would have been crazy to make them up. I’m sorry, but that just doesn’t make sense.

IF he was not invented by people ignorant of the rest of the world Judas and Jesus would not need be at all. But the inventors of this God were so small minded they could not see beyond the region in which they lived.

Why do you think they would be ignorant of the rest of the world? Maybe they didn’t know about Aztecs or Japanese, but they certainly knew about the world from Africa to Southern Europe to Persia. As far back as Genesis 10 the authors name the peoples of that part of the world. Civilizations had risen and fallen for 6000 years before Abraham came from Ur, which is over by the Persian Gulf. The Israelites spent 400 years in Egypt which ruled empires of mighty size. No, they were not ignorant of the rest of the world.

The only reason that the Israelite people would have followed God was because there was something to follow.

to response #1
The reason the small tribe became a bigger one is from the God ordered killing and following assimilation of the remainders of the conquered people (I am an aboriginal Canadian and have seen this first hand) If you did not assimilate and start following the new God they simply kill you off. After the land has been stolen and resources harvested,,,,,suddenly there is little interest to convert or murder those who say no.
Ommnii everything.....If God were real and as smart as you state,why did he fail right from the first two people(Adam and Eve) through the very rough middle ages to the new world ?

[12 Monkeys]

How does a country like America convict someone of murder if they are getting an order from God? Any defence lawyer putting the case before the courts would surley mount an insanity defence. Even if the defendant stood up and held to his word God told him to. As a D.A. trying the case you would probably agree with the defence lawyer.

If I were the DA, I would push for the truth about what happened. If the person is mentally insane, then so be it. However, murder is against our laws and rightly so. You don’t think that God knows that? If he truly asked someone to commit murder, if it was really God who was asking, then don’t you think he’d be taking all of that into account? We are to obey the lawful authority and the laws of our government. Unless God changed those, we would be expected to obey them and he’d take care of the rest. His plan is bigger than a courtroom. It’s even bigger than the United States. His plan is for all people in all time.

The court reaches its verdict based on evidence,how,without an insanity defence could a lawyer defend you without proof?  How can a court(Christian based I am assuming) not take the defendant at his word? Well,based on no real evidence,he would have to be found insane,or there would be a whole lot of murderers mounting this defence.

I don’t think that a defense of “God made me do it” (or “devil made me do it” for that matter) is a valid defense. If I was on the jury, and there weren’t other legally extenuating circumstance, then I would find the defendant guilty. Why not? They murdered someone. As I said before, if God truly commanded them to do it, then he’d have the rest figured out, too. Right?

So you like the rest of the civilizied world would deem the defendant as insane?

[12 Monkeys]

To response #2

 As the people came to be murdered and assimilated,did they abandon their gods because the gods failed them ? And did they assume the enemy and their god was stronger?

 Remember if you did not join the program,you usually ended up dead.

  Since we have come out of the "wild west" and the "dark ages" there are a handful of religous zealots who want to kill all who oppose ther god,but most have adopted a live and let live ideal,why have they stopped killing all who oppose their God? It worked well for them in the past.

 Is it the fact there are no more places left for these God lovers to conquer? or is it the fierce resistance of those who still oppose their God that stops them (China and North Korea)?

[12 Monkeys]

to response #3

1492,,,,,a new world of heathens to "assimilate" the might and power of the lord takes the new world. Do you think they were really interested in sharing the word of God or did the resources make them salivate?

 Do you think Christians and Jews will give up on their God in the next couple hundred years when either a new better God comes along (the Mormons and themuslums have tried to bring them around) or when they realize God no longer works for them?

[SimpleCaveman]

Hi 12 Monkeys,

to response #1
The reason the small tribe became a bigger one is from the God ordered killing and following assimilation of the remainders of the conquered people (I am an aboriginal Canadian and have seen this first hand) If you did not assimilate and start following the new God they simply kill you off.

That is incorrect.The small tribe became bigger because of covenants and marriage. And because of time. They were in Egypt for about 400 years, assimilating with the other people like them and having babies.

Yes, there was a period when they conquered others, just like everyone did in that time and had for thousands of years and did for thousands of years afterwards. But that period was not the sole reason for their growth, nor the primary reason for their growth.

[SimpleCaveman]

To response #2

You put this, but I don’t know which response is #2. Do you mean this one?

You ask (2). Since you’re not specific, I’ll take that question as referring to the Canaanites.

As the people came to be murdered and assimilated,did they abandon their gods because the gods failed them ? And did they assume the enemy and their god was stronger?

I’m sure I don’t know. Does it say one way or the other in the Bible?

Remember if you did not join the program,you usually ended up dead.

No, I don’t think so. There were even Israeli laws protecting foreigners, that is people who don’t believe in Yahweh.

Since we have come out of the "wild west" and the "dark ages" there are a handful of religous zealots who want to kill all who oppose ther god,but most have adopted a live and let live ideal,why have they stopped killing all who oppose their God? It worked well for them in the past.

I would look to Jesus himself for this answer. What was he like? What did he teach? How did he live? He is the reason for our religion. When we live like Jesus according to his truths, we are being true to him.

[SimpleCaveman]

to response #3

1492,,,,,a new world of heathens to "assimilate" the might and power of the lord takes the new world. Do you think they were really interested in sharing the word of God or did the resources make them salivate?

 Do you think Christians and Jews will give up on their God in the next couple hundred years when either a new better God comes along (the Mormons and themuslums have tried to bring them around) or when they realize God no longer works for them?

You seem to be taking these topics far off track. Instead of addressing the comments in my post, you come up with other questions that are only tangentially related to the original.

I’m not going to chase you around the world. I’ve enjoyed our conversation, but I think I’m done. I will finish the conversation with kaziglu bey and then move to the debate with screwtape.

Thank you, 12 Monkeys. It’s been challenging and enlightening. I hope to talk with you again.

[kaziglu bey]

Hi kaziglu bey,

How’s it going? You and your son doing well?

Unfortunately we are both a little under the weather right now, but should recover quickly. Thanks.

No worries at all. I understand how it gets sometimes. Thank you for coming back. It’s admirable. Others have stopped posting in the thread. I’m not assuming it means they give up, but it is suspicious.

The forum being messed up for several days didn't help, and then it took a few days for me to be inspired.

From the sin perspective it doesn’t matter what we can prove. That’s up to those people and God on their judgment day. From a justice perspective, we do what the system does now, checking for mental illness, right from wrong, etc. My personal opinion is that God would not command someone to kill their own baby.

But like you say, that's just your opinion. You have no way of KNOWING whether or not God would command such a thing. As I have said, the Bible is good evidence that God has no problem killing babies (or having others do it for him). Also, didn't God command Abraham to kill his son? (Granted, his son was not a "baby" and God didn't actually have him go through with it. He still commanded it. Also, how does someone separate mental illness from legitimate commands from God? Why would we have a legal system that punishes things that God could have potentially commanded people to do? I have no answers to these, other than that for me, faith itself is delusion.

You’re right. Those aren’t the literal words of the commandment, but the commandment goes beyond that.

Please support this assertion. I entirely disagree. I know of nothing in the Bible that says that this commandment means more than "don't kill". There may be places where the prophet of the day (whoever is God's #1 dude at the time) say that it is also God's wish not to do whatever, such as rape or murder or what not, but yet that is meaningless to me because God is constantly having his followers rape and murder people. It's seriously almost all they do. Enslave, rape, murder, repeat. The majority of the content of the bible in 4 words. 

Jesus came here to fulfill the law.

but "thou shalt not rape" is NOT one of God's laws. Show me where it says that, and if you can, then please explain why thousands upon thousands of females are raped on God's command. How can rape EVER be good?

In the Gospel of Matthew Jesus says

“You have heard that it was said to your ancestors, ‘You shall not kill; and whoever kills will be liable to judgment.’ But I say to you, whoever is angry with his brother will be liable to judgment, and whoever says to his brother, ‘Raqa,’ will be answerable to the Sanhedrin, and whoever says, ‘You fool,’ will be liable to fiery Gehenna.

Mentions NOTHING about not raping people. "Kill" and "angry" and "fool" do not equal rape.

So, yes, particularly since Christ, the commandment is "That shalt not commit any form of violence unto another person or even think of committing violence unto another person."

and what verse does Jesus actually say that?? Certainly not in the one you posted above. Again, this seems to preclude God approved violence (and there's a LOT of it).

That’s not an argument against the analogy. We can very easily regain our divine inheritance through Baptism, the other Sacraments and obedience to God. You may consider that blind faith. I do not.

Well that may be what people believe, but it's not what happens in the real world. Furthermore, not being a millionaire is NOT equal to eternal punishment. The situations are not the same at all. The kids who do not inherit millions or not reduced to a worst possible state. They are just at a normal state. Also, the non millionaire kids are not in that state because someone more powerful than them arbitrarily decided to dick them over, which is the case with God. A person could be a millionaire and lose that money for a lot of reasons, but I doubt that one of the reasons is to screw over their EVERYONE ELSE who ever lives for all eternity.

Same thing. In the Garden of Eden, we were given a divine life on top of our natural life. When we couldn’t handle, we lost it, and returned to the natural life we had before. It’s not a punishment as much as it is a (super)natural consequence.

You've got to be kidding me. It is pretty clear that such things are punishment, and not some (super)natural consequence. Eve (and all other women forever) is punished by having to endure pain in childbirth.[1]

You’re mixing two different things. You’re completely right to say that the natural consequence of eating the fruit is not eternal damnation. Jesus saw to that.

There were a hell of a lot of people between Adam and Eve and Jesus. So they had to suffer all those thousands of years, but everyone after Jesus gets a free pass as long as they submit?

  He saved us so that we would NOT be punished forever. If we don’t want that salvation, then we are choosing the punishment. You have before you life and death, which do you choose? I choose life. It’s that simple.

how about this. There are no gods, there is no life after death, it's all a bunch of mind games manipulated by the powerful to strengthen and gain wealth for themselves while oppressing others. It's that simple. The God of the Bible is a cosmic dictator, more cruel and bloodthirsty than Vlad the Impaler, Ghengis Khan, Hitler, Stalin, Hussein, Milosovic, Mugabe, etc etc combined.

Because God is just. The covenant was broken and had to be restored.

The Covenant was ällegedly" broken, by TWO PEOPLE. If God was Just, he would have dealt consequences only to the violating party. He could have killed them and made new people, and given them a chance. He could have spared them, but made them infertile, and created another couple that was pure. But no, God has to go to the most extreme measure possible, to ensure maximum suffering, torment, death, rape and foreskins. Should we then kill all Germans because some of them were Nazis? That would be God's type of Justice.

  He couldn’t ignore the covenant or the breaking of the covenant. But at the same time, in a way, as far as we’re concerned he did just wave his hand. It was God himself who suffered death to restore the covenant, not us.

I'd be willing to bet there were a lot more people (like, in the billions) who have endured deaths far worse than Crucifixion. Sure it would suck, but not as bad as starving to death, or death by dehydration, or Scaphism, or probably a million other things that could be worse than a few hours of ridicule and pain. God is leaving it up to people who were not the responsible party to begin with. Again this is not justice. If a parent drives while drunk and hits a pedestrian and kills them, should we punish the parents children too? That would be God style justice. 

He took it on himself. Why was it suffering and death? In large part in order to show us true love. He took on all the sin and suffering of the world out of love for us.

Yet there is still suffering in abundance. If you think of the billions of people who have suffered and died horribly throughout human history, the suffering of one guy for a few hours is not really much of an exchange, especially since the guy knew his stay was temporary, and that he would be resurrected and live forever and wield unlimited power. Gee what a sacrifice. Who WOULDN'T take that deal?

He sacrificed his life for us. That’s the greatest love there is. I would die to defend my country, because I love it. I would die to defend my family, because I love them even more.

Too bad for him, that was his choice. Again, we have to be held accountable for God's choices and the choices of others. What a load.

Maybe God waving His hand could have freed us from Original Sin, but, as above, it’s not that which gets us to eternal damnation. It’s what we do on our own.

I disagree. The default is damnation. Only by choosing to submit to a God that approves of murder, rape, genocide and slavery can we get supposed "salvation". No thanks. I can be a good person and not have to submit to God. If he has a problem with it, then I submit that he is a dick. Especially since I have never had anyone raped or murdered, you know, like he has.

  By becoming one of us, living like us, suffering and dying on the cross, Jesus gives us the example that we are to follow.

But yet again, it was God that CHOSE suffering and death as the means for redemption. It could have NOT included those things. and again, the suffering and death of one guy is not much when compared to billions.

Frankly, if more people in this world weren’t self-centered, but instead looked out for other people, even dying to save others, like those on Flight 93, this world would be a lot better off.

But that doesn't require any religion. Most people in jail are religious. Most people in jail are probably not there because they were serving the greater good. Why so few atheists in prison? I agree people should help each other more, but religion PREVENTS that from happening. For examples see the Middle East. With the resources and manpower present there, Muslims and Jews (and Christians) alike could all be working together in harmony for each others benefit, and it wouldn't be a bunch of 3rd world countries ravished by poverty and corruption. But, thanks to religion and God's faithful followers, the place has been a hot seat of violence and turmoil since like, recorded history. The Bible (and other sacred texts as well) even encourage war and genocide against those of other faiths. it is for THAT reason that people are not able to work together.

Sorry for the long post. I try to keep these short, since I don’t have much time even with short posts. Thanks for your patience.

Not a problem, however many words you need to make your point is fine by me. Mine's not short either.

1.	This is actually due to the fact that humans have evolved in such a way that a baby's head is quite large relative to the birth canal. It has nothing to do with God, talking snakes, cursed fruit or original sin.

[12 Monkeys]

SC when I was talking about assimilate or die I was talking Christians,not Jews......The might makes right works as well for his followers as it does for God of the Bible.

[velkyn]

Now, before people yell at me, no, I don’t know how smart God is. I am likely way underestimating omniscience. However, the I don’t see the logic in this. There were many gods at the time and many people had no problem believing in them. Even the Israelites had no problem with it. They sacrificed to the Egyptian gods. They worshipped the Canaanite gods. Why would they invent their own? You could try to blame it on the leaders, like Moses, but that doesn’t make sense either. The leaders had to fight with the people to get them to be faithful to God. It would have been so much easier to capitalize on what they already believed. The God of Israel and Jesus were so contrary to what the rest of the world believed that it would have been crazy to make them up. I’m sorry, but that just doesn’t make sense.

Considering the numerous sects of Christianity, we can see people inventing their own religions right now.  Christainity and Judaism aren't anything special, not when looking at the religions of the time.  They are syntheses of those religions, some things changed as they like them.  Always some new flavor.  Just like Catholics do and protestants do, and the LDS does and JWs do. 

Why do you think they would be ignorant of the rest of the world? Maybe they didn’t know about Aztecs or Japanese, but they certainly knew about the world from Africa to Southern Europe to Persia. As far back as Genesis 10 the authors name the peoples of that part of the world. Civilizations had risen and fallen for 6000 years before Abraham came from Ur, which is over by the Persian Gulf. The Israelites spent 400 years in Egypt which ruled empires of mighty size. No, they were not ignorant of the rest of the world.

  No evidence for the Israelites being slaves or in Egypt.  No evidence that Abraham came from Ur. 

The only reason that the Israelite people would have followed God was because there was something to follow.

See any cult ever to know how wrong this is. 

[Hatter23]

The only reason that the Israelite people would have followed God was because there was something to follow.

Wow, that's an amazingly dumb statement. If you want to say that, then the only thing anyone followed anything ever is because it is real, and lots of belief and particularly religious cosmologies are contradictory.

What you doing here is an extreme example of special pleading. Hell, it even ignores your own book of mythology where the Isrealites follow other gods!

[screwtape]

The only reason that the Israelite people would have followed God was because there was something to follow.

(technically the jews didn't follow yhwh.  they followed moses and aaron.)

Is that why the arab people followed Mohammed?  Because there was something to follow?

[Brakeman]

The only reason that the Israelite people would have followed God was because there was something to follow.

The only reason the Manson followers followed Charles Manson was because there was something to follow.

The only reason the mormons followed joe smith was because there was something to follow.

Sounds really stupid doesn't it?

[SimpleCaveman]

Hi kaziglu bey,

I see that you were well enough for a loooong post. Hope you’re feeling better today. (I think! )

Also, how does someone separate mental illness from legitimate commands from God? Why would we have a legal system that punishes things that God could have potentially commanded people to do? I have no answers to these, other than that for me, faith itself is delusion.

Please read my post to 12 Monkeys. I don’t consider “God made me do it” as a viable defense in our legal system. The post explains.

So, yes, particularly since Christ, the commandment is "That shalt not commit any form of violence unto another person or even think of committing violence unto another person."

and what verse does Jesus actually say that?? Certainly not in the one you posted above. Again, this seems to preclude God approved violence (and there's a LOT of it).

Please look at the verses I posted again. Jesus lifts the “shall not kill” commandment to a higher level by saying that anyone who is even angry with his brother will be liable to judgment. That addresses all kinds of physical violence and even other kinds of violence, such as mental bullying. If you don’t agree, then you’ll have to explain to me why not.

Well that may be what people believe, but it's not what happens in the real world. Furthermore, not being a millionaire is NOT equal to eternal punishment. The situations are not the same at all.

Okay. I’m not going to argue this with you.

There were a hell of a lot of people between Adam and Eve and Jesus. So they had to suffer all those thousands of years, but everyone after Jesus gets a free pass as long as they submit?

Not sure they would suffer for thousands of years. It seems that time does not exist outside of this existence. If they suffer after death, then it would be the same as people after Jesus, either in Purgatory or Hell. From the earliest years the Church has taught that Jesus descended into hell. By that is meant that he went to those people who died before his resurrection and brought them to salvation, as appropriate.

They would be like a person at any time who does not know about Jesus. If a person is a good person, but does not know about Jesus, then they would not automatically be damned. They have to reject Jesus in order to go to Hell. A person can’t reject Jesus if they don’t know about him, can they?

You've got to be kidding me. It is pretty clear that such things are punishment, and not some (super)natural consequence. Eve (and all other women forever) is punished by having to endure pain in childbirth.

Let’s suppose that there is a God as we see in the Bible. Can we do that for a minute? It’s tough because you have to set aside your animosity towards God and think of this objectively. If you can do that, then say so and I’ll have some other questions. If you can’t, then that’s fine.

how about this. There are no gods, there is no life after death, it's all a bunch of mind games manipulated by the powerful to strengthen and gain wealth for themselves while oppressing others. It's that simple.

Okay.

Yet there is still suffering in abundance. If you think of the billions of people who have suffered and died horribly throughout human history, the suffering of one guy for a few hours is not really much of an exchange, especially since the guy knew his stay was temporary, and that he would be resurrected and live forever and wield unlimited power. Gee what a sacrifice. Who WOULDN'T take that deal?

But no one said that the suffering of Jesus was intended as an exchange for the suffering of humanity here on Earth. His suffering freed us from eternal suffering. We would have suffered for eternity if he had not died and rose from the dead. That’s a tremendous exchange. We got the immensely better end of that deal.

By becoming one of us, living like us, suffering and dying on the cross, Jesus gives us the example that we are to follow.

But yet again, it was God that CHOSE suffering and death as the means for redemption. It could have NOT included those things. and again, the suffering and death of one guy is not much when compared to billions.

I think you’re missing the point. I agree with you. However, you asked why Jesus saved us by suffering and death. My point is that he is giving us an example for us to follow. We are to lay down our lives for each other, and if God does that, as Christians believe, then it’s an example we better follow.

Most people in jail are religious. Most people in jail are probably not there because they were serving the greater good. Why so few atheists in prison?

Show me your statistics and I’ll show you mine. In fact, most people in prison have a stated religious preference because most Americans have a stated religious preference. That doesn’t mean they practice their religion. A disproportionately high number of prisoners were not in any way practicing religion prior to going to prison. Let’s not make conclusions based on faulty data.

I agree people should help each other more, but religion PREVENTS that from happening. For examples see the Middle East. With the resources and manpower present there, Muslims and Jews (and Christians) alike could all be working together in harmony for each others benefit, and it wouldn't be a bunch of 3rd world countries ravished by poverty and corruption. But, thanks to religion and God's faithful followers, the place has been a hot seat of violence and turmoil since like, recorded history. The Bible (and other sacred texts as well) even encourage war and genocide against those of other faiths. it is for THAT reason that people are not able to work together.

Only a superficial understanding of the Bible, by atheists or theists, would say that it encourages war and genocide. It’s important to know that Jesus is the fullest revelation of the Bible. What he taught and how he lived is what we are to follow. All of the Old Testament has to be read with respect to him and understood through his revelation.

Yes, religion may be a delineator between two fighting groups, but a) it’s not the only delineator. There are other factors that differentiate the two groups and cause the violence and hatred. To say that religion is the sole cause or maybe even primary cause is a grave misunderstanding of the reality of the situation.

and b) it’s when they act against the Bible that they get into the violence and turmoil you’re talking about.

FYI, If there’s another round of posts, I’m probably going to skip some sub-topics. These get too long and difficult to follow. Please don’t think I’m dodging anything. By the way, as a general comment to the group (not you specifically), I do take the claim that I’m dodging something as a personal attack. I work hard to understand the questions and answer them fully. Sometimes I may not understand a question or the person may not like my answer, but I do try to answer them. Saying that I’m dodging a question, being deceitful in my answers, or anything like that is an attack on my character. I put up with it because I understand that’s how people on this forum (again not you kaziglu bey) behave. However, I think it’s immature and it does get old. There’s even one person who I won’t communicate with because all of their posts were riddled with those kinds of comments. I offered to be more responsive if they would stop and they refused. I don’t need that.

[SimpleCaveman]

Hello All,

Not sure which specific post to reply to, so I’ll respond to the set of them. I had said

The only reason that the Israelite people would have followed God was because there was something to follow.

The responses used analogies (the bane of the forums!) to prove that the statement above is wrong. The problem is that the analogies don’t prove it’s wrong, in fact they prove it to be right. Here’s what we have. . .

Is that why the arab people followed Mohammed?  Because there was something to follow?

The only reason the Manson followers followed Charles Manson was because there was something to follow.

The only reason the mormons followed joe smith was because there was something to follow.

Yes, in each of those cases people followed Mohammed/Manson/Smith because there was something to be followed. In these cases it was Mohammed, Manson and Smith. So, in that sense the statement is very right. The problem with reading the statement in this way is that it becomes a tautology, and that is of no use to us.

The reason that what I said doesn’t follow into that trap is because the analogies compare apples to oranges. screwtape tried to paint the orange red (or the apple orange, I’m not sure which) by saying that technically the Jewish people followed Moses and Aaron. But that’s a reduction of the situation to false proportions. We’re not talking about a bunch of people who listened to Moses and said we like you Moses. We talking about a bunch of people who, as a group, experienced some powerful things.

Let’s take the Exodus. Someone tried to claim that the Exodus didn’t exist. We have a people who’s writings (by multiple people at multiple times) are permeated with the Exodus, who’s beliefs are founded on the Exodus, who to this day still celebrate the Passover. And you try to say it doesn’t exist?

So what do you say happened? Moses told the stories about the plagues and the parting of the sea and Mt. Sinai and the manna, which as you say didn’t happen, and the people just believed them? It sounds like part of a Steve Martin SNL routine. He says

This is my thesis -- the public has a short memory and, like-- How many people remember, a couple of years ago, when the Earth blew up? How many people? See? So few people remember. And you would think that something like that, people would remember. But NOOO! You don't remember that? The Earth blew up and was completely destroyed? And we escaped to this planet on the giant Space Ark? Where have you people been? And the government decided not to tell the stupider people 'cause they thought that it might affect-- [dawning realization, looks around] Ohhhh! Okay! Uh, let's move on!

Maybe it was a big conspiracy? When Moses and Aaron would talk about Egypt, the Exodus, manna, and the 10 commandments, all the Israelites nodded and gave each other those sly little winks.

Maybe it was something else? I’m all ears.

[velkyn]

Please look at the verses I posted again. Jesus lifts the “shall not kill” commandment to a higher level by saying that anyone who is even angry with his brother will be liable to judgment. That addresses all kinds of physical violence and even other kinds of violence, such as mental bullying. If you don’t agree, then you’ll have to explain to me why not.

However, this supposed messiah said

luke19:26 “He replied, ‘I tell you that to everyone who has, more will be given, but as for the one who has nothing, even what they have will be taken away. 27 But those enemies of mine who did not want me to be king over them—bring them here and kill them in front of me.’”

They would be like a person at any time who does not know about Jesus. If a person is a good person, but does not know about Jesus, then they would not automatically be damned. They have to reject Jesus in order to go to Hell. A person can’t reject Jesus if they don’t know about him, can they?

alas, John 3 and Romans 9 disagrees with SC.  One must beleive in JC to be saved.  There is no exception to those who simply didn't get the chance.  And JC in various places, and Romans 9, say that some are prevented by this god from ever being able to believe.  The only time where goodness comes into it might be when JC is speaking about the sheep and goats or when James indicates that works get one saved. 

Let’s suppose that there is a God as we see in the Bible. Can we do that for a minute? It’s tough because you have to set aside your animosity towards God and think of this objectively. If you can do that, then say so and I’ll have some other questions. If you can’t, then that’s fine.

and nice little baseless assumption here.  Poor SC, has to return to the vomit of "but but all atheists are just angry with god". 

I think you’re missing the point. I agree with you. However, you asked why Jesus saved us by suffering and death. My point is that he is giving us an example for us to follow. We are to lay down our lives for each other, and if God does that, as Christians believe, then it’s an example we better follow.

Hmmm, SC's bible also says to give up all of one's possessions too.  Funny how that also doesn't get done.  Where are the armies of Christians who are clearing land mines in southeast Asia?

Only a superficial understanding of the Bible, by atheists or theists, would say that it encourages war and genocide. It’s important to know that Jesus is the fullest revelation of the Bible. What he taught and how he lived is what we are to follow. All of the Old Testament has to be read with respect to him and understood through his revelation.

and the magic decoder ring comes out.  Suddenly anyone not SC has only a “superficial” understanding of the bible.  Well, SC, how about that altar test to see who can get your god to actually respond?  Then we can see which Christian has the “right” way to understand the bible, with all of your claims of all having divine revelation, the holy spirit, “church fathers” etc. Oh and your messiah, he also advocated violence, see above.

and oh my that next post that fails so dramatically.  We see SC claiming a tautology.  Yep, your claim matchs the others, people follow other people.  Again, no evidence of any divine truth here.   It’s quite useful in seeing that your religion is nothing special at all.  They are comparing apples to apples, and your claim that it is oranges is pretty amusing.  None of these people have or had any evidence that the magical claims of their leaders were real.  Christians still don’t.  The only difference between Charles Manson and JC is that we know Chuck existed.  There is no evidence these people experienced anything “powerful” or divine.  That is a baseless assumption you use to support your baseless claims.  People at the People’s Temple also were sure that they felt something.  And they all drank the kool-aid. 

There is no evidence for any “exodus”.  Not one scrap.  Yep, the Jews write about it.  So?  The Greeks wrote about magical event too permeate their culture, that their beliefs were founded on, that have no evidence, does that mean that those events were real too?  Or did people “just believe them”?

It’s just so sad, SC to see you make such ridiculous attempts at arguments.  Egypt has no record of any of the exodus events.  No kingdom that would have taken advantage of any such events in Egypt did so.  The army of Egypt was supposedly destroyed but golly, no one though to do anything about it.  There is no evidence of hundreds of thousands of people wandering around in the Sinai for decades.  No evidence of encampments, no latrines, nothing. 

so, yes, I, and others, are saying it doesn’t exist.  It, and your messiah, are both legends that people wanted to believe.  Humans love to think that they have some magical origins and special snowflakeness, that they are magically “right”.  Heaven’s Gate, Christianity, Islam, Wicca, etc, all the same.   

[screwtape]

The reason that what I said doesn’t follow into that trap is because the analogies compare apples to oranges. screwtape tried to paint the orange red (or the apple orange, I’m not sure which) by saying that technically the Jewish people followed Moses and Aaron. But that’s a reduction of the situation to false proportions. We’re not talking about a bunch of people who listened to Moses and said we like you Moses. We talking about a bunch of people who, as a group, experienced some powerful things.

We could take that same shifted goal post and apply it to our analogies.  Check it:

"the arabs weren't  a bunch of people who listened to Mohammed and said we like you Mohammed. We talking about a bunch of people who, as a group, experienced some powerful things. "

"the mormons weren't a bunch of people who listened to Joe Smith and said we like you Joe. We talking about a bunch of people who, as a group, experienced some powerful things."

"the mansonites weren't  a bunch of people who listened to Charles Manson and said we like you Chuck. We talking about a bunch of people who, as a group, experienced some powerful things."

The analogy still holds.  You may say "nope.  Those groups were deluded,"[1] but then that puts you in the exact position as us, only now you are exercising special pleading.  "Oh yeah, all those other kooks had false beliefs.  But with my beliefs it's totally different.  My beliefs are the Real Deal."

I totally agree with you about those other scoundrels.  The problem is, I find your claims equally dubious and insubstantial.  Isn't it a simpler, more elegant explanation to say all these religious claims are baloney rather than having to carve out one, preposterously improbable exception?

 

Let’s take the Exodus. Someone tried to claim that the Exodus didn’t exist. We have a people who’s writings (by multiple people at multiple times) are permeated with the Exodus, who’s beliefs are founded on the Exodus, who to this day still celebrate the Passover. And you try to say it doesn’t exist?

Absolutely.  It is a national myth.  It is a story that, while not necessarily true, gives people a narrative[2] about themselves and their nation.  It helps give them a national identity.  In the US we have a national myth as well, and just like the hebrew national myth, much of it is also false.  It is narrative about oppressed, industrious, creative, independent people struggling for liberty.  Of couse, that is not really how it happened.  George Washington never chopped down a cherry tree.  A lot of Northerners were against freeing the slaves.  We were not innocent vicitms at Pearl Harbor. We like to think or ourselves as being a "melting pot", yet we are reluctant to allow immigrants who are too brown different.  etc.  We have untrue beliefs about ourselves that make up our identity as Americans.  So did the hebrews. 

I try to believe what is actually true based on evidence.  As far as I know, the only evidence for exodus is exodus.  And that is some shakey evidence at best. And if we are to take exodus at face value, then why not take the noahide flood at face value too?  Great leapin' jesus, Caveman, next thing you know you will be professing sola scriptura!

Maybe it was something else? I’m all ears.

You really aren't.  You are not interested in believing what is true.  You are interested in showing what you believe is true.



ed: Charles --> Charles

1.	in fact, you did: "Yes, in each of those cases people followed Mohammed/Manson/Smith because there was something to be followed. In these cases it was Mohammed, Manson and Smith."
2.	people sort of need narratives to understand anything

[Omen]

However, what kind of moron would base the credibility of a religious cultural movement based on how many people believe it?

Are you saying that’s what I’m doing? That’s the argument I made?

Yep, that is EXACTLY the implication you just made, otherwise you responded with a red herring that has no impact on any point to be made.

You make some assumptions in the next part that I’ve bolded. These assumptions are not supported by the text of the Bible. If you think they are, you’ll have to show me.

If someone so close to the events as to observe them directly and to be immediately impressed with the reality of what was going on can so quickly and obviously act in a manner that is totally indifferent as if the events never really occurred at all, then what does that say about the impact of the events being asserted?
. . .  You pass over the ease with which someone, having supposedly witness the son of god in a manner so real as to leave absolutely no doubt whatsoever, acts as if its just another everyday occurrence.

You assume that Judas was impressed. You assume that he acted quickly and easily. And you assume that he acted in a manner indifferent to past events. Maybe your assumptions are right, and maybe not. However, they are assumptions not supported by the text.

Is it really your assertion or counter claim that Judas just happened to be around the corner every time Jesus was doing something magical and miraculous? 

Is it really your assertion that the plagues of egypt, the giant column of cloud by day and fire by night, mana raining from heaven, the waters splitting before half a million jews in exodus.. didn't have any impact on their sensibilities?

I assume nothing and all of it is in the text, your response is tantamount to special pleading.. trying to reduce the qualification for knowing to a ridiculous and incredulously stupid moniker.

Are we supposed to believe that of the people who escaped in the exodus?  Who saw water magically split apart before them? Who saw columns of cloud and flame that guided them?  Who saw the plagues of egypt? 

Who, once Moses stepped away, immediately fell back on the worship of golden statues?  They didn't seem to find it very convincing either. It is as if it is either the events never occurred or that its a fictional narrative that stresses credulity to relay some kind of idea.

Are you saying that people who see, or even experience, monumentally important things that greatly impact their lives can’t turn around and “forget” what happened

Yes, that is EXACTLY what I'm saying.

after the attacks on 9/11 everyone in the U.S. was about working together and the common good, and now we’re at each other’s throats again.

Moses was gone for 40 days and nights, not 10 years.  Plus, people opposed the war early on anyway because they predicted accurately exactly what it would do, be an unnecessary war of aggression and serve no purpose but to provide contracts to US corporations.  9/11 is not an adequate nor even accurate example through analogy and is seemingly informed by your seriously biased perception of what exactly the US did afterwards and what justifications were used to do it.

No, that argument is baseless.

You're making an argument from personal incredulity based on a false analogy.  Your argument is baseless.

You have to deal with the reality that in 40 days and nights, half a million jews.. simply 'forgot' that all the amazing things they experienced occurred and began worshiping pagan idols again like it wasn't anything out of the ordinary.  The same for Judas, who conveniently forgets that Jesus is the son of god and the only means to be saved or redeemed.

[Brakeman]

Let’s take the Exodus. Someone tried to claim that the Exodus didn’t exist. We have a people who’s writings (by multiple people at multiple times) are permeated with the Exodus, who’s beliefs are founded on the Exodus, who to this day still celebrate the Passover. And you try to say it doesn’t exist?

So what do you say happened? Moses told the stories about the plagues and the parting of the sea and Mt. Sinai and the manna, which as you say didn’t happen, and the people just believed them?

You weren't there! You believed all of that just like they did, because somebody wrote a book that some con man said was the historical word of god.

If you are not a mormon, do you believe that the israelites lived in north America and had great cities and that the native Americans are the descendants of a mid-eastern clan? Do you believe that a couple of stones with holes in them allowed Joe Smith to translate Egyptian Hieroglyphics found on golden or copper plates?

Why do so many mormons believe all this nonsense? Are the intrinsically different than the old israelites?

[Omen]

Let’s take the Exodus. Someone tried to claim that the Exodus didn’t exist. We have a people who’s writings (by multiple people at multiple times) are permeated with the Exodus, who’s beliefs are founded on the Exodus, who to this day still celebrate the Passover. And you try to say it doesn’t exist?

The actual writing of the old testament occurs centuries after the events it is supposed to describe and only isolated to a singular cultural frame.  No other civilization that would have existed at the time the Exodus was to have occurred made any mention of the event, nor do the events in the bible accurately line up with historical narratives from the records of other civilizations that existed in that period.  It is so totally absent of both historical and archaeological support, as a historical 'event' the general consensus among scholars, archaeologist, historians is that it did not occur at all.

This is normal historical academic background.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Exodus#Archaeology

"The archaeological evidence of the largely indigenous origins of Israel is "overwhelming," and leaves "no room for an Exodus from Egypt or a 40-year pilgrimage through the Sinai wilderness."[21] For this reason, most archaeologists have abandoned the archaeological investigation of Moses and the Exodus as "a fruitless pursuit."[21] A century of research by archaeologists and Egyptologists has found no evidence which can be directly related to the Exodus narrative of an Egyptian captivity and the escape and travels through the wilderness,[18] and it has become increasingly clear that Iron Age Israel - the kingdoms of Judah and Israel - has its origins in Canaan, not Egypt:[22][23] the culture of the earliest Israelite settlements is Canaanite, their cult-objects are those of the Canaanite god El, the pottery remains in the local Canaanite tradition, and the alphabet used is early Canaanite. Almost the sole marker distinguishing the "Israelite" villages from Canaanite sites is an absence of pig bones, although whether this can be taken as an ethnic marker or is due to other factors remains a matter of dispute.[24]"

^ a b Dever, William G. (2002). What Did the Biblical Writers Know and When Did They Know It?. Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. ISBN 0-8028-2126-X.p.99
^ Finkelstein, Israel and Nadav Naaman, eds. (1994). From Nomadism to Monarchy: Archaeological and Historical Aspects of Early Israel. Israel Exploration Society. ISBN 1880317206.
^ Ian Shaw; Robert Jameson. Ian Shaw. ed. A dictionary of archaeology (New edition (17 Feb 2002) ed.). Wiley Blackwell. p. 313. ISBN 978-0631235835.
^ Anne E. Killebrew, "Biblical Peoples and Ethnicity" (Society of Biblical Literature, 2005) p.176

The actual sources for this information come from leading figures in the field of archaeology, working in the field ( as in actually on their knees digging ), leading state funded digs, and at universities in Israel itself.

There is absolutely no support for the exodus in any shape or form and every evidential basis to suggest that it did not occur.  Much less the tower of babel, noahs flood, the garden of eden, and the rest of mumbo jumbo mythological nonsense.

[kaziglu bey]

Hi kaziglu bey,

I see that you were well enough for a loooong post. Hope you’re feeling better today. (I think! )

Unfortunately still sick, but sick leads to boredom, leads to internet leads to WWGHA.

Please read my post to 12 Monkeys. I don’t consider “God made me do it” as a viable defense in our legal system. The post explains.

Oh come on, your post to 12 monkeys assumes that God always has a perfectly functional plan that takes all things into account. Given that he is Omnimax, that SHOULD be what happens. But in the Bible, God is seen as being surprised, and having plans that don't work out the way he intended (example: creation). Also, since God made his own law that you shouldn't kill, yet commanded his followers to kill, it goes to show that God doesn't really have a problem setting laws aside, even his own.

Please look at the verses I posted again. Jesus lifts the “shall not kill” commandment to a higher level by saying that anyone who is even angry with his brother will be liable to judgment. That addresses all kinds of physical violence and even other kinds of violence, such as mental bullying. If you don’t agree, then you’ll have to explain to me why not.

I think that this is taking a terribly liberal interpretation of Jesus' words. Also, what about the physical violence Jesus deployed in trashing the Temple?

Okay. I’m not going to argue this with you.

it doesn't seem like you are going to agree with me either.

Not sure they would suffer for thousands of years. It seems that time does not exist outside of this existence. If they suffer after death, then it would be the same as people after Jesus, either in Purgatory or Hell. From the earliest years the Church has taught that Jesus descended into hell. By that is meant that he went to those people who died before his resurrection and brought them to salvation, as appropriate.

But if Jesus salvation was necessary to enable an Original Sin Loophole, then all who came before Jesus would have, by default, gone to hell. Even the good people. Also, how could you possibly have any idea what exists outside of "this existence"? Sounds like an Argument from Amazing Familiarity.

They would be like a person at any time who does not know about Jesus. If a person is a good person, but does not know about Jesus, then they would not automatically be damned. They have to reject Jesus in order to go to Hell. A person can’t reject Jesus if they don’t know about him, can they?

Then why bother spreading Christianity? We would be better off not knowing anything at all, because we could avoid Hell without all of the guilt and shame. Also, it's worth noting that a lot of believers think that not accepting Jesus means going to hell, even if you aren't aware. Who's right and who's wrong, and how do we tell?

Let’s suppose that there is a God as we see in the Bible. Can we do that for a minute? It’s tough because you have to set aside your animosity towards God and think of this objectively. If you can do that, then say so and I’ll have some other questions. If you can’t, then that’s fine.

Forgive me, but it's not clear to me what you are asking for here. Would you be able to rephrase/clarify?

Okay.

But no one said that the suffering of Jesus was intended as an exchange for the suffering of humanity here on Earth. His suffering freed us from eternal suffering. We would have suffered for eternity if he had not died and rose from the dead. That’s a tremendous exchange. We got the immensely better end of that deal.

eternal suffering that is because of the actions of 2 people. Let's punish all of humanity for all time with eternal suffering, for the actions of two people. Can't you see that as being a little bit overkill? Should we follow God's example? Why is it that God is always able to do stuff that is considered evil, but when he does it, it's God's Just Will? That is seriously just twisted.

I think you’re missing the point. I agree with you. However, you asked why Jesus saved us by suffering and death. My point is that he is giving us an example for us to follow. We are to lay down our lives for each other, and if God does that, as Christians believe, then it’s an example we better follow.

An example to follow. Admittedly, Jesus actual behavior is better than his dad's (Jesus himself doesn't really kill or rape anyone or personally commanded ethnic cleansing, like Dear Old Dad). However, should we follow God's example? Should we be vengeful, wrathful, punish those who don't obey us, order rape and genocide, murder children, drown an entire planet of living beings? These are all terrible things, yet when God does them, it's YAY GOD! Again, that is just twisted.

Show me your statistics and I’ll show you mine.

Wish granted, says the blonde, bearded Genie. http://freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Percentage_of_atheists#1997_Federal_Bureau_of_Prisons_Statistics

In fact, most people in prison have a stated religious preference because most Americans have a stated religious preference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_atheism#North_America The percentage of US prison population who are atheists is quite a bit less than the percentage of Atheists in America.

That doesn’t mean they practice their religion. A disproportionately high number of prisoners were not in any way practicing religion prior to going to prison. Let’s not make conclusions based on faulty data.

I did no such thing.

Only a superficial understanding of the Bible, by atheists or theists, would say that it encourages war and genocide. It’s important to know that Jesus is the fullest revelation of the Bible. What he taught and how he lived is what we are to follow. All of the Old Testament has to be read with respect to him and understood through his revelation.

OK. so how then does one read the old testament in respect to Jesus in regards to the slaughter of Midianites and the mass rape of their young women/girls? How is Jesus love and sacrifice present in that situation?

Yes, religion may be a delineator between two fighting groups, but a) it’s not the only delineator. There are other factors that differentiate the two groups and cause the violence and hatred. To say that religion is the sole cause or maybe even primary cause is a grave misunderstanding of the reality of the situation.

I honestly don't know how you can say this. So when Jews, Christians and Muslims declare a Holy War, how is religion NOT the primary factor there? Even the Iraq war was a Crusade, per the President who started it. I'm sorry, but this seems like a pretty naive statement. Jews Christians and Muslims all supposedly worship the same God. Shouldn't they be united under one God then? Why the continuing violence in the Holy Land? It has seen more violence as a result of the Abrahamic religions than probably anywhere else in the world. What a holy place indeed.

and b) it’s when they act against the Bible that they get into the violence and turmoil you’re talking about.

Could you explain how they are acting against the Bible, when God doesn't really have a problem killing people of other faiths just for being of other faiths?

FYI, If there’s another round of posts, I’m probably going to skip some sub-topics. These get too long and difficult to follow. Please don’t think I’m dodging anything. By the way, as a general comment to the group (not you specifically), I do take the claim that I’m dodging something as a personal attack. I work hard to understand the questions and answer them fully. Sometimes I may not understand a question or the person may not like my answer, but I do try to answer them. Saying that I’m dodging a question, being deceitful in my answers, or anything like that is an attack on my character. I put up with it because I understand that’s how people on this forum (again not you kaziglu bey) behave. However, I think it’s immature and it does get old. There’s even one person who I won’t communicate with because all of their posts were riddled with those kinds of comments. I offered to be more responsive if they would stop and they refused. I don’t need that.

I will always be happy to clarify my posts if there is a lack of understanding. Just ask.