My Opinion on WWGHA?

[Dante]

God punishes people collectively. Maybe it is primitive and uncivilized but that's the way it was done.

Why, did your god change is omniscient mind?

[One Above All]

BM

[Hatter23]

God punishes people collectively. Maybe it is primitive and uncivilized but that's the way it was done.

That's my point exactly, this Yahweh character operates just like the morality of the time, not above it, not better than it; and wouldn't you expect a Omni-being to have more advanced morals than the primitve Nomads that worshipped him. Why would this fantastic being, capable of creating a universe be less advanced than a 21rst century humanist?

[kaziglu bey]

God punishes people collectively. Maybe it is primitive and uncivilized but that's the way it was done.

So has God become more sophisticated and civilized? Always at the same rate as human society? How convenient. The unchanging God of absolute morals, who shifts his views to fit the SPAG of his followers.

[Hatter23]

The new testament is consistent even Bart Ehrman would agree.

Coink, what did the "thieves" say and do?  What did the apostles do after the cruxifiction? what did JC do just before the cruxifiction? 

why do paul and jesus disagree if what you say is true?

How did Judas die?

[Co.Inkadink]

The new testament is consistent even Bart Ehrman would agree.

Just so we're all on the same page[1], which version?

1.	bad pun intended

Bart Ehrman does textual criticism from the ancient Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. There are 5,366 plus N.T. Greek autographs in existence today and more being found all the time. The New Testament has more copies than any other ancient book in existence. The copies that have been found so far and Ehrman agrees that there are only about 24 points of disagreement in the New testament and the essential Christian beliefs are not affected by textual variants in the manuscript tradition of the New Testament.

So the version he's using is the 5,366 Greek manuscripts.  This is the "version" that anyone who wants to seriously study the Bible would use.
 
We have their findings that textual scholars and critics have been using for hundreds of years online. We have something called a Strong's Exhaustive Concordance that has every word in the original language for study.

[naemhni]

God punishes people collectively. Maybe it is primitive and uncivilized but that's the way it was done.

No, not necessarily.  Have you ever heard of the Code of Hammurabi, for example?  It dates back to the 18th century BCE or so (more than a millennium earlier than even the book of Genesis, and created by a man who worshipped Marduk, not Yahweh).  Hammurabi had ideas about justice that would be considered progressive even today by some society's standards -- presumption of innocence, for example, and it doesn't appear that "mass punishment" was something that was ever even considered; penalties were prescribed only for a person found guilty of a crime.

[Co.Inkadink]

The new testament is consistent even Bart Ehrman would agree.

Coink, what did the "thieves" say and do?  What did the apostles do after the cruxifiction? what did JC do just before the cruxifiction? 

why do paul and jesus disagree if what you say is true?

How did Judas die?

   
Matthew 27:5 Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself.
Acts 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out.


Judas’ dead body hung in the hot sun of Jerusalem, and the bacteria inside his body would have been actively breaking down tissues and cells. A byproduct of bacterial metabolism is often gas. The pressure created by the gas forces fluid out of the cells and tissues and into the body cavities. The body becomes bloated as a result. In addition, tissue decomposition occurs compromising the integrity of the skin. Judas’ body was similar to an overinflated balloon, and as he hit the ground (due to the branch he hung on or the rope itself breaking) the skin easily broke and he burst open with his internal organs spilling out.

[Co.Inkadink]

God punishes people collectively. Maybe it is primitive and uncivilized but that's the way it was done.

No, not necessarily.  Have you ever heard of the Code of Hammurabi, for example?  It dates back to the 18th century BCE or so (more than a millennium earlier than even the book of Genesis, and created by a man who worshipped Marduk, not Yahweh).  Hammurabi had ideas about justice that would be considered progressive even today by some society's standards -- presumption of innocence, for example, and it doesn't appear that "mass punishment" was something that was ever even considered; penalties were prescribed only for a person found guilty of a crime.

Ammendment.
That's the way it was done in the Bible.

[One Above All]

Ammendment.
That's the way it was done in the Bible.

You got the verb tense wrong.

[velkyn]

it's grand fun to watch coink run to Ehrman when convenient.  So, coink do you believe everything else Ehrman says about your religion? 

and I love the attempts to make belive that one can hang himself, die, and then burst his guts out and die again.  one doesn't fall "headlong" if one drops off like rotten fruit from a tree.  Nice cribbing from AiG, but it still fails.   

[naemhni]

God punishes people collectively. Maybe it is primitive and uncivilized but that's the way it was done.

No, not necessarily.  Have you ever heard of the Code of Hammurabi, for example?  It dates back to the 18th century BCE or so (more than a millennium earlier than even the book of Genesis, and created by a man who worshipped Marduk, not Yahweh).  Hammurabi had ideas about justice that would be considered progressive even today by some society's standards -- presumption of innocence, for example, and it doesn't appear that "mass punishment" was something that was ever even considered; penalties were prescribed only for a person found guilty of a crime.

Ammendment.
That's the way it was done in the Bible.

The point still stands: how could Hammurabi have come up with a more just legal system than Yahweh?

As you've been told, most of the atheists here are former believers, and for many of them, this was one of the things that caused them to question their faith: when they read about things like this in the Bible, it made them realize that they had a higher ethical standard than the deity that they were worshipping, which should, of course, not be possible.

[Aaron123]

Co.Inkadink, you said in post #58 that torturing babies is an example of something that is "actually wrong no matter what".  In post #79, I asked if this extended to killing babies as well.

I'm still waiting for an answer on that.

[Hatter23]

   
Matthew 27:5 Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself.
Acts 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out.


Judas’ dead body hung in the hot sun of Jerusalem, and the bacteria inside his body would have been actively breaking down tissues and cells. A byproduct of bacterial metabolism is often gas. The pressure created by the gas forces fluid out of the cells and tissues and into the body cavities. The body becomes bloated as a result. In addition, tissue decomposition occurs compromising the integrity of the skin. Judas’ body was similar to an overinflated balloon, and as he hit the ground (due to the branch he hung on or the rope itself breaking) the skin easily broke and he burst open with his internal organs spilling out.

That quite a strech there, and one I've heard before. It requires that the author in Acts to have completely ignored the hanging to describe what might have happen days or weeks later. It is like someone talking about the death of Lincoln ignoring the whole shooting in Ford's theater and just talking about the body being moved in the Illinois graveyard. Secondly, if the body rotted, it does not fall headlong, if the rope broke, it does not fall headlong, if the treebranch broke, the body does not fall headlong. Did Yahweh mess with the laws of physics again?

[Co.Inkadink]

God punishes people collectively. Maybe it is primitive and uncivilized but that's the way it was done.

So has God become more sophisticated and civilized? Always at the same rate as human society? How convenient. The unchanging God of absolute morals, who shifts his views to fit the SPAG of his followers.

I guess he has if you look at as being more sophisticated and civilized. God set apart Israel for a reason, he had them obey dietary laws and the way they dressed and their government was a theocracy. Some of the laws became null and void once they stopped wandering in the desert and established a nation they were only to set themselves apart from the heathen nations and not to intermingle. Then when they became a nation and demanded a King they became a democracy, the temple cleanliness laws were still to be obeyed such as diet and such because of temple purity. The priests sacrificed animals on the altar for the sins of the people, something that started with Abraham a Chaldean Jew. This was a picture or a promise of the messiah that would come and present a final sacrifice for the people. Every sacrifice for sin in the old testament was foreshadowing what was to come. The people had to stay pure and sacrifice once a year. The OT prophecies Isa 53 Psalm 22 and many others portrayed a suffering servant who would die for the sins of the people.
Jesus in the NT was sinless and perfect and became that sacrifice. Once he did that he fulfilled the OT law regarding sin sacrifice and the OT Jewish laws for temple purity diet clothing etc were unnecessary because there would be no more animals sacrificed since He was the sacrificial Lamb. The Jews haven't had animal sacrifice in 2000 years because when Jesus died he said it is finished "promise fulfilled" and the curtain of the Holy of Holies was ripped in two making it impossible to perform sacrifices there. People in the new covenant or promise that God promised in the OT when the old covenant was broken are now judged as individuals. I can't bring sin offerings for my sons and daughter they have to come to God themselves and make that commitment.
God hasn't changed his morals He has changed the methods and practices of how he deals with people. The Jews had a moral law in the OT but added all kinds of other laws and traditions that made it impossible for outsiders to become part of God's family. Jesus came to set things straight and establish the new covenant Jeremiah 31:31-34 as promised. Today Christianity has done the same thing. God clearly wanted the Jews to become a great nation Genesis 18:18 and all the world to come to know him through them. They made Judaism and exclusive club. Today many Christian denominations have added rules traditions and laws that need to be followed in order to be in God's family but that is not how God intended it.
Genesis15:6 And he [Abraham] believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
Abraham was saved by faith in God alone the sacrifice for sin that messiah would bring.
Christians are saved by faith in God alone through Christ and the sacrifice he made.
The Jews looked forward in the sacrifices, Christians look back to the once and for all sacrifice.

[naemhni]

   
Matthew 27:5 Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself.
Acts 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out.


Judas’ dead body hung in the hot sun of Jerusalem, and the bacteria inside his body would have been actively breaking down tissues and cells. A byproduct of bacterial metabolism is often gas. The pressure created by the gas forces fluid out of the cells and tissues and into the body cavities. The body becomes bloated as a result. In addition, tissue decomposition occurs compromising the integrity of the skin. Judas’ body was similar to an overinflated balloon, and as he hit the ground (due to the branch he hung on or the rope itself breaking) the skin easily broke and he burst open with his internal organs spilling out.

That quite a strech there, and one I've heard before. It requires that the author in Acts to have completely ignored the hanging to describe what might have happen days or weeks later. It is like someone talking about the death of Lincoln ignoring the whole shooting in Ford's theater and just talking about the body being moved in the Illinois graveyard. Secondly, if the body rotted, it does not fall headlong, if the rope broke, it does not fall headlong, if the treebranch brok, the body does not fall headlong. Did Yahweh mess with the laws of physics again?

Not to mention which, it also strongly suggests that the author of Acts was not familiar with at least this portion of Matthew.  Note that Luke says that Judas bought a field with the thirty pieces of silver, but Matthew says that Judas threw the money away.

[Co.Inkadink]

   
Matthew 27:5 Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself.
Acts 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out.


Judas’ dead body hung in the hot sun of Jerusalem, and the bacteria inside his body would have been actively breaking down tissues and cells. A byproduct of bacterial metabolism is often gas. The pressure created by the gas forces fluid out of the cells and tissues and into the body cavities. The body becomes bloated as a result. In addition, tissue decomposition occurs compromising the integrity of the skin. Judas’ body was similar to an overinflated balloon, and as he hit the ground (due to the branch he hung on or the rope itself breaking) the skin easily broke and he burst open with his internal organs spilling out.

That quite a stretch there, and one I've heard before. It requires that the author in Acts to have completely ignored the hanging to describe what might have happen days or weeks later. It is like someone talking about the death of Lincoln ignoring the whole shooting in Ford's theater and just talking about the body being moved in the Illinois graveyard. Secondly, if the body rotted, it does not fall headlong, if the rope broke, it does not fall headlong, if the tree branch broke, the body does not fall headlong. Did Yahweh mess with the laws of physics again?

It may be a stretch but it is possible and plausible. The branch could pull the body down head first or if the legs were at an angle the feet could hit something and flip the body head first.

[One Above All]

It may be a stretch but it is possible and plausible. The branch could pull the body down head first or if the legs were at an angle the feet could hit something and flip the body head first.

Sure, if the body had been hung[1] from a 30 meter-tall tree. My guess is it wasn't, assuming the story to be true.

1.	Not sure if this is the proper verb tense.

[Hatter23]

It may be a stretch but it is possible and plausible. The branch could pull the body down head first or if the legs were at an angle the feet could hit something and flip the body head first.

Are you forgetting basic phsics, that a heavy branch isn't going to fall to earth any faster than a light branch?
The feet being at an angle would be possible, except that if the body was at the state of decomposition that it would burst from a fall, it is beyond the stage of atp hydrolysis, so the makes it exceedingly unlikely that even if the feet struck something that it would fall headlong.

And that still ignores the Lincoln analogy.

[Co.Inkadink]

   
Matthew 27:5 Then he threw down the pieces of silver in the temple and departed, and went and hanged himself.
Acts 1:18 Now this man purchased a field with the wages of iniquity; and falling headlong he burst open in the middle and all his entrails gushed out.


Judas’ dead body hung in the hot sun of Jerusalem, and the bacteria inside his body would have been actively breaking down tissues and cells. A byproduct of bacterial metabolism is often gas. The pressure created by the gas forces fluid out of the cells and tissues and into the body cavities. The body becomes bloated as a result. In addition, tissue decomposition occurs compromising the integrity of the skin. Judas’ body was similar to an overinflated balloon, and as he hit the ground (due to the branch he hung on or the rope itself breaking) the skin easily broke and he burst open with his internal organs spilling out.

That quite a strech there, and one I've heard before. It requires that the author in Acts to have completely ignored the hanging to describe what might have happen days or weeks later. It is like someone talking about the death of Lincoln ignoring the whole shooting in Ford's theater and just talking about the body being moved in the Illinois graveyard. Secondly, if the body rotted, it does not fall headlong, if the rope broke, it does not fall headlong, if the treebranch brok, the body does not fall headlong. Did Yahweh mess with the laws of physics again?

Not to mention which, it also strongly suggests that the author of Acts was not familiar with at least this portion of Matthew.  Note that Luke says that Judas bought a field with the thirty pieces of silver, but Matthew says that Judas threw the money away.

I found a pretty good explanation online. Notice when you look this stuff up all the same Greek and Hebrew words are used? It's almost like there's a standard version of the Bible that people study.
   

The chief priests did not want to put the money paid for the betrayal of Jesus back into the temple treasury as it was "blood money." So they bought an "agros:" a field to bury strangers in. Because blood money was used to purchase the field it was called "the field [agros] of blood." This is different than the property [chorion] that Judas purchased himself referred to in Acts Chapter 1. The problem here is that both Acts and Matthew connect the purchase specifically with Judas' act of treachery. Thus I cannot accept this solution. However, it does lead into our own answer. There are a few factors here -- one linguistic, the others sociological. The word used by Matthew for "bought" is agorazo -- a general term meaning, "to go to market." It means to purchase, but also to redeem. It is a verb that refers to the transaction of business. Note how Luke uses it in opposition to another word:     Luke 22:36 Then said he unto them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip: and he that hath no sword, let him sell (poleo) his garment, and buy (agorazo) one. Poleo can mean "sell" but it's primary meaning has to do with trading and bartering. Therefore the translation of "buy" (and "sell") is made according to context. How does this mean anything with regard to Judas? First, note the word Luke uses. It is ktaomai, which means to "get, acquire, obtain, possess, provide, purchase." This word has the connotations of ownership that agorazo does not. Matthew says that the priests transacted business for the obtaining of the field, but they did not thereby have possession of the field. The money they used was Judas' and the field was bought in his name; the field was technically and legally his. And that leads to another question no one has yet raised, but which I will: It seems too much of a coincidence, that the priests managed to buy the exact same field that Judas died in. Not at all. Once Judas died in the field, the land became defiled by his corpse. Hence it would become perfectly suited to become a full-time cemetery. In this ancient collectivist society, the gossip would readily get around as to where and how Judas died and it would not be a burden for the decision to be made to purchase the field in Judas' name (see below) to turn into a cemetery. If Judas threw the money away, it wasn't his anymore, it belonged to the priests. This is where our social factor comes into play. Note that the money cannot be put in the treasury -- it cannot be made to belong to the temple again -- because it is blood money. Keener observes in his Matthean commentary [657-8]:     Ancient Eastern peoples regarded very seriously the guilt of innocent blood, sometimes viewed in terms of corporate responsibility. Like Pilate the priestly officials wanted nothing further to do with the situation, and likewise understand that the blood was innocent... The money was profaned and tainted by the way it was used. By ancient thinking, it was ritually unclean -- though even today a charity may refuse money if it is gained by ill-gotten means. Now it follows that when they transacted the business of the field for the temple, to avoid association with ritual uncleanness, the priests would have to have bought it in the name of Judas Iscariot, the one whose blood money it was. The property and transaction records available to the public and probably consulted by Luke would reflect that Judas bought the field -- or else Luke is indeed aware of what transpired and is using just the right verb to make the point.

[Co.Inkadink]

It may be a stretch but it is possible and plausible. The branch could pull the body down head first or if the legs were at an angle the feet could hit something and flip the body head first.

Sure, if the body had been hung[1] from a 30 meter-tall tree. My guess is it wasn't, assuming the story to be true.

1.	Not sure if this is the proper verb tense.

I've seen people trip over a rock and land head first on the ground.

[Co.Inkadink]

God punishes people collectively. Maybe it is primitive and uncivilized but that's the way it was done.

Why, did your god change is omniscient mind?

omniscient
having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.

So having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, understanding; and perceiving all things means you can't change your mind?
How does that follow?

[One Above All]

I've seen people trip over a rock and land head first on the ground.

Emphasis on "trip". Their feet were touching the ground. This body's were not.

[Dante]

Why, did your god change is omniscient mind?

omniscient
having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.

So having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, understanding; and perceiving all things means you can't change your mind?
How does that follow?

Cmon, Johnny, use that coconut.

Why did a perfect being change his mind? Was he wrong the first time? He allegedly already knows everything, forever and ever. Yet, he changed his mind on punishments. THAT does not follow.

[Alzael]

Co.Inkadink, you said in post #58 that torturing babies is an example of something that is "actually wrong no matter what".  In post #79, I asked if this extended to killing babies as well.

I'm still waiting for an answer on that.

I'm still waiting for the slavery thing. Funny how he just went ahead on a new track rather than dealing with the implications of what he had previously said.

[Co.Inkadink]

Well this has been fun but I have to get ready for work. I work the night shift but my real dream is to be a Comic book artist.
http://imageshack.us/f/88/shockcops1x.gif/
I'm going to try to go back and answer some of the questions from earlier pages next time I get on. I tried to do that this time but then more questions were asked.  It's hard to keep up. Every answer spawns another question it seems.
 
Someone pages back asked why I'm doing this. I'll tell you, I was an unbeliever for 22 years and then I was saved. I began to research the tenets and reasons of the Christian faith and it strengthened my faith. I am annoyed at Christians who don't understand why they believe what they believe. I question everything and look for answers, I have some problems with the Bible as well but the problems I have are small comparatively. I want to be able to communicate better my convictions and beliefs.
My best friend for 18 years I met him 2 weeks after I was saved was an atheist, I loved him like a brother, he was best man at my wedding and I at his. 4 years ago the 28th he wrote me off forever. He was a very moral person and we debated a lot on these topics.
As time wore on he became increasingly anger and bitter at the world he did many immoral things that he didn't consider wrong according to his worldview but I called him on, I often bit my tongue and didn't say anything but some things were too wrong not to mention. Then his wife cheated on him and all his morality went out the window.
The last time I talked to him he was bitter and angry and full of hate at just about everybody, the people he was hanging around with acted the same. I could see a direct way his worldview affected him for the worse. He believed life had no ultimate meaning or purpose and that humans are just animals. I've met many atheists just like him.
I've been studying apologetics and debate for years now in the hope of trying to bring understanding to people. I think Christianity is true logical and beneficial. I don't think anyone can be talked into being a christian though.

I will continue to try and talk with you good people as long as you will listen. I don't really respond much to the sarcasm and cussing it's really unnecessary but I do respond a little to those who do it because I understand many Christians have been poor witnesses or ambassadors of the faith they supposedly hold.

[Co.Inkadink]

Co.Inkadink, you said in post #58 that torturing babies is an example of something that is "actually wrong no matter what".  In post #79, I asked if this extended to killing babies as well.

I'm still waiting for an answer on that.

I'm still waiting for the slavery thing. Funny how he just went ahead on a new track rather than dealing with the implications of what he had previously said.

Is it funny? Really? Truly?

I'm going to start separate threads on slavery and the suffering issues later as I've already said. Feel free to bring it up over and over again until I do.
Hey Co.ink? Howcum you haven't answered MY IMPORTANT QUESTION ON PAGE 4 POST 7?
Maybe because I'm busy answering the 10 other questions I received while answering the question from page 1.

Sorry I'm one guy here, I have some good stuff on the slavery issue and I'll post it later so you'll just have to wait "if you even care". You could just Google Bible Slavery apologetics and find out some of this stuff for yourself but I'll start a thread about it later.

I have to eat supper and go to work.

[nogodsforme]

Co.Inkadink, you said in post #58 that torturing babies is an example of something that is "actually wrong no matter what".  In post #79, I asked if this extended to killing babies as well.

I'm still waiting for an answer on that.

I'm still waiting for the slavery thing. Funny how he just went ahead on a new track rather than dealing with the implications of what he had previously said.

Slavery remains a major sticking point for me as well. I don't care whether it was for life, for 7 years or 7 months or 7 days. For a time period, not determined by the slave, one human being, again, not determined by the slave, owns another human being. During this time, the slave must do whatever the master demands, cannot leave or quit, and is not paid. That is what it means to be a slave.

As velkyn said, does any modern Christian want to be a slave, under any circumstances? Does any modern Christian want their children to be enslaved? It's only for 7 years, and we promise to follow all biblical laws regarding their care and treatment. How much money would you take for your pre-teen daughter or son, bible believer?

If the master treats the slaves badly or well, it is up to the master. And the slaves can't change the way the master treats them. It is still slavery, ie ownership of one human by another. And if it is not life-threatening, anything goes.[1]

Christians, Muslims, Jews and all other ancient religions were fine with slavery. None of these religions banned it outright or said it was evil or wrong. Various cultures tinkered around with the rules, said it would be nice to treat slaves well or that masters should set certain slaves free (like your own kids by your slave mistress).

But none got rid of enslavement altogether during the 10,000 years of human existence that we can document. Until the development of our terrible, sinful, atheistic, humanistic, modern, secular democracies during the past 200 years, the concept of universal human rights did not even exist. So much for an all-knowing, benevolent transcendent god. 

1.	Suppose I think slaves should have to perform all work in the nude, weather permitting. It's not like I would be beating them or anything, just constant ogling and suggestive comments. For only 7 years...how about it, Christians?

[Aaron123]

Is it funny? Really? Truly?

I'm going to start separate threads on slavery and the suffering issues later as I've already said. Feel free to bring it up over and over again until I do.
Hey Co.ink? Howcum you haven't answered MY IMPORTANT QUESTION ON PAGE 4 POST 7?
Maybe because I'm busy answering the 10 other questions I received while answering the question from page 1.

I just want an answer on the killing babies thing.

Is killing babies "actually wrong no matter what"?  Yes or no.  How hard can it be to answer that?