"Satan doesnt want people talking about God."

[Feck]

1. Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil
2. No knowledge of Good and Evil
3. "Disobeying God" could not be seen as an 'evil' act.
4. lol.

Brought to you by the fuckers that invented original sin ....yes roll up roll up give us 10% of your money while we explain why your dead baby is going to hell .

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Hi All,
I can’t believe it. 6 Pages.
Here’s the replies I owe a couple of people.

@ Gawdzilla
Reichsministerium für Volksaufklärung und Propaganda or Propagandaministerium never got back to me. I left heaps of messages. How many years worth and billions of bibles need to get printed before everyone has 3 or 4 dozen laying around at home gathering dust? The storyline doesn’t change. The characters don’t change. Why so many unwanted copies still getting produced after all these years? Coito ergo sum basically said that the MORE the text is read the MORE likely it is to be found false. Wouldn’t that be an argument AGAINST Christians printing lots of bibles and handing them out? I think the opposite. Christians have faith that the words have an effect to the advantage of Christianity not against.

You should go see Goebbels yourself, Lyin. And The Bronze Age Goat-herders' Anthology of Campfire Tales for Boys has changed hugely since they started making those bullshit tales up.

[Eduard]

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Ah, perhaps we could have something straight from the Fallen Angel?

[Eduard]

Ah, perhaps we could have something straight from the Fallen Angel?

fuck me sideways, if I were Satan (and I actually existed) I'd be facepalming through this whole thread

Is this the fora Lion comes to for inspiration on what to post at RatSkep?

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Ah, perhaps we could have something straight from the Fallen Angel?

fuck me sideways, if I were Satan (and I actually existed) I'd be facepalming through this whole thread

Is this the fora Lion comes to for inspiration on what to post at RatSkep?

He apparently thinks our home is his litter box.

[Eduard]

Actually, this discussion reminds me of the Ricky Gervais sketch on Creation (sorry can't link youtube at work). That's a really good sketch by Gervais

I love the part where he elaborates on God's punishment for the snake and his interpretation of the snake receiving the punishment, lol

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Actually, this discussion reminds me of the Ricky Gervais sketch on Creation (sorry can't link youtube at work). That's a really good sketch by Gervais

I love the part where he elaborates on God's punishment for the snake and his interpretation of the snake receiving the punishment, lol

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gBr77o7O ... re=related[/youtube]

"Oh, right, that's done for me then!"

[Coito ergo sum]

@ Coito ergo sum

Thanks for answering Charlou’s query about the verse where satan says you will not die to Adam and Eve.

You're welcome.

I understand you don’t think the bible is true.

Not its metaphysical claims, or its miraculous claims. The Bible, however, was written in the context of the many times/ages in which its writers' lived (I say "its" which is really not accurate - it's not a book - it is a collection of books written over the course something on the order of 1,000 years, and selected by vote from a wider pool of books that were considered, depending on who you talked to, as holy and canonical). I do not suggest that every jot and tittle in the Bible is wholesale invention. There was Egypt, and there were Pharaohs. There was a Canaan and a Land of Israel - Jerusalem existed and so did Herod and the Roman Emperors. The mentions of Persia reference a real place. However, just because Egypt is mentioned and actually exists, doesn't mean everything the Bible says is true. Capice?"

Do you think there was ever an Assyrian King named Sargon?

Technically, I have no personal knowledge.

Neither did archaeologists until the 1840’s The bible mentions places like Petra which wasn’t corroborated by archaeology until 1812.

The City of Troy was thought to be mythological until Schleeman discovered it in the 1800's. What does that tell you about the truth value of the metaphysical and miraculous claims in Homer's writings? Answer: nothing.

The Bible was written by people living a long time ago, and those people knew about certain things happening at that time, and about persons and places and things. It is not unexpected that they will know of towns that later disappeared and then were discovered again in our time.

The hydrological cycle mentioned in the bible wasn’t verified by science until…..etc etc etc.

Is this what you mean by the hydrological cycle mentioned in the Bible?

Psalm 135:7

He makes clouds rise from the ends of the earth;
he sends lightning with the rain
and brings out the wind from his storehouses.

Sounds perfectly mythological to me. "He makes clouds rise from the ends of the Earth?" The Earth doesn't have ends, and clouds rise from the entirety of the Earth's surface - the whole globe. Psalm 135:7 sounds like a person describing what one sees when one looks to the horizon - clouds meet the ends of the Earth at the horizon. And, God sends lightning with the rain? That's what people see. When it rains, we sometimes get lighting. And, God brings out wind from the storehouses? What? Storehouses? No. The wind is caused by an array of forces. There isn't a "wind storehouse" from which additional force is added to the atmosphere.

I think you should be a bit more specific about which parts in the bible you don’t “believe”.

I've been quite specific.

You say the bible didn't even exist as a single book until the late 4th century and yet that is like dismissing the books in a library simply because they weren’t all stored in one place until after a certain date.

My point is that the Bible is no different than a library of books. The reason why it's important to note that the Bible was cobbled together, by vote, from a variety of different sources, some of which voted canonical and the rest labeled heretical, is that it demonstrates the man-made quality of the Bible. I don't consider everything in the Library to be true, inerrant, and certainly not "literal" and absolutely not "divine." The story of the creation of the Bible screams of humanity, not divinity.

Christians accept as Canon books written long before the 4th century. So what’s the argument? If one of the eye witnesses to a biblical event gets arthritis and starts going blind does that prevent them from having their account which they have been repeating orally for years eventually having their story recorded for posterity before they die and it is lost forever?

No. Oral histories may, of course, be written down after centuries of oral tradition. However, we don't accept them as divine and we don't, not by a long shop, accept them as "true." Historians and archeologists try to find corroborating written and archeological evidence.

You made reference to the Gnostic gospels - the partly true gospels, the wannabes, the outright fakes, the heretical gospels, the well intentioned but misheard gospels (Jesus said Peace makers not Cheesemakers) I don’t think it is fair to expect there to be none of these given the magnitude of the event in question. The fact that so many assorted texts about the event needed to be codified to sort the real from the not quite right actually seems quite logical. The exclusion of certain books as non-canonical by one denomination over another doesn’t detract from the books which both denominations HAVE adopted as required reading.

The question becomes, why were some books chosen by the few, faulty humans in charge of cobbling the Bible together and other's excluded? On what basis was the truth value determined for each book?

Be careful with your "there were so many assorted texts, so it must be all true" argument - recall the sheer number of texts and stories about the Norse Gods, and the Greek Gods, and Egyptian Gods - countless pagan god stories.....there were a lot of them....must be true?

Abraham didn’t have ANY books to read – Protestant or Catholic.

And, Abraham wasn't a Christian, either.

You assert that the four Gospels conflict. I don’t accept that.

Well, I've read them, and conflicting provisions can be placed side by side.

The bible errancy crowd call it a contradiction when one person says purple and another says scarlet.

Not me. I say it's a contradiction when Matthew and Luke give two contradictory genealogies for Joseph (Matthew 1:2-17 and Luke 3:23-38). It's also curious that there is contradiction as to something so basic as the date of Jesus' birth. According to Matthew, Jesus was born during the reign of Herod the Great (Matthew 2:1). According to Luke, Jesus was born during the first census in Israel, while Quirinius was governor of Syria (Luke 2:2). This is impossible because Herod died in March of 4 BC and the census took place in 6 and 7 AD, about 10 years after Herod's death. And, there is contradiction as to place of birth: Luke has Mary and Joseph travelling from their home in Nazareth in Galilee to Bethlehem in Judea before the birth of Jesus (Luke 2:4). Matthew, in contradiction to Luke, says that it was only after the birth of Jesus that Mary and Joseph resided in Nazareth, and then only because they were afraid to return to Judea (Matthew 2:21-23).

They say it’s a contradiction when the Gospels don’t have synchronised watches by which to agree on the exact time “the Crucifixion” happened.

No, I say its a contradiction when two verses of an allegedly god-breathed book get the same event materially different.

It would be like disputing with witnesses about when exactly did the Titanic sink?

You equate the Bible with run-of-the-mill witness statements now? Are you sure you want to do that? I would expect the witnesses of an event to get many things wrong. If two people see an accident at stop light, it's possible one will say the light was green and the other red, and both will believe they are telling the truth. That's the nature of the unreliability of "eyewitness" testimony. That's why I would not take hearsay eyewitness testimony, written by someone other than the eyewitness, two generations or more after the events purported to be described, and give it much weight.

If, however, two people in life boats recorded the date and time of the sinking, and one said that it was at 11pm, and the other said it was at 5am, I would conclude that one or the other, or both, are wrong. I wouldn't state that "the writings of the Titanic witnesses are inerrant and not in conflict." They ARE in conflict. That's the way it is.

When was the iceberg struck? When people started to think it MIGHT sink. When did it actually did start to sink? When eventually did it completely disappear under water several hours later? When it finally came to rest on the ocean floor? It simply is NOT contradictory that different observers of the exact same event report varying versions of the truth..

It is a contradiction when two statements regarding the same event make two different statements wherein if one is true the other must be false. You may find the contradiction minor or irrelevant, but it is a contradiction nevertheless.

You have a lot of bible errancy stuff bottled up. I would like to take them one at a time but sufficed to say that none of your suggested examples frightens me off from a full debate.

I haven't tried to frighten you, and I don't have anything "bottled up." I've read the Bible, multiple versions. It's a great book - the King James Version is one of the most important books ever written. However, that doesn't make its metaphysical and miraculous claims true, it doesn't make it inerrant or god-breathed.

Nobody asserts that “The Book OF Moses” should NOT include an account of Moses death.

Moses couldn't write of his own death.

Do you really think that the people who compiled all those words into one book were oblivious to your supposed …how could Moses write about his own death in the past tense “bible error”?

I'm saying the people that say that the writer of the Books of Moses was Moses were wrong, or at a minimum that the parts about his death were not written by Moses. There are other reasons to suppose that the legendary Moses didn't write any of it, though.

They didn’t need to use the word “epilogue”. They didn’t need a “post script” note to readers living in 2010. The Noachian Flood is an epic thread to try and fit in here but yes I actually do think the Flood occurred and occurred by the hand of God. I have never found myself struggling to explain that God can do anything.

Most believers don't struggle with it. Most simply say "God said it, I believe it, that settles it." It's intellectual bankruptcy.

I do think snakes can talk to each other

Nobody said anything about snakes communicating with each other. They definitely do NOT "talk," however. But, what we're talking about is a snake and donkey, etc., chatting verbally with humans. That's just plain myth.

and I have never had any difficulty understanding what a snake wanted when I found myself inadvertently blocking its escape path or accidentally standing on its tale.

And, that has exactly what to do with a snake verbally chatting with Eve about the nature of a fruit tree in the center of a garden, and suggesting that she eat of it? I'll tell you what - nothing.

I think donkeys do have the ability to make vocal noises as well as biting, kicking when someone unjustly smotes them.

That's not what the Bible says the donkey did. Numbers 22:28-30. The passage is quite clear that the donkey

said to Balaam, "What have I done to you to make you beat me these three times?" 29 Balaam answered the donkey, "You have made a fool of me! If I had a sword in my hand, I would kill you right now." 30 The donkey said to Balaam, "Am I not your own donkey, which you have always ridden, to this day? Have I been in the habit of doing this to you?" "No," he said.

We're not talking "vocal noises" or biting, kicking etc. The DONKEY TALKED VERBALLY, and Balaam heard the donkey talk, and responded. They had a conversation.

I wouldn’t argue with a person who claimed witches are real all I would do is ask them to define what they mean by witch. If they meant someone who kidnaps children (Hansel and Gretel) and tries to cook them alive in an oven I would not at all be surprised if the death penalty was applied in some legal jurisdictions.

Deuteronomy 18:10: Those who use divination, or an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a witch are to be killed. If the Bible doesn't presuppose that nonsense to be real, why impose the death penalty? If you believe the Bible, you must believe in enchantments, divination and witchcraft.

I'll give you one, though. The Bible predicted "Endor" the fictional planet in George Lucas's Star Wars: Return of the Jedi. In the Bible, though, there was a witch in Endor. In 1 Samuel 28 the witch of Endor is able to bring up the spirit of Samuel in order that Saul may talk to him. Samuel's ghost appears and chats with Saul. If you believe in the Bible, you must believe that. We all know witches like that and spirit mediums who can bring back dead ancestors to chat with you and give you advice don't exits - but, there it is in the Bible....true...inerrant...word of.........god?

Finally, you raise the “moral lesson” issue and “unjust killing of innocents”. Once again this is an epic thread topic but I can answer fairly succinctly that in the bible all war and violence is started by humans and the intervention of God comes second.

Not true at all. I can point to you examples of where God started a war and violence. Example 1: God commanded the Israelites to wage war in the promised land and slaughter its inhabitants, since it was promised to the Israelites. The Canaanites living there had done nothing to instigate it. God didn't even, as far as we know, give the Canaanites so much as an eviction notice.

And, the Amalekite babies, whose brains were dashed out on the rocks, in accordance with God's divine orders, instigated the violence, how?

I would argue (and will if you want a more formal separate discussion)

I love chatting about the Bible. I'll chat about whatever you think is the most persuasive reason to believe in the Bible and your deity.

that Gods subsequent intervention into the violence of humans against other humans from Cain and Abel onwards is based on shortening the war – not prolonging it.

That's just silly. You've never had a problem with the fact that God can "do anything," but he needs slaughter and genocide in order to shorten wars? And, frankly, I gave you an example of God ordering war to start, without any instigation by the victims.

Innocent babies were killed in Hiroshima.

Right, but humans aren't supposed to be divine, all good, all knowing, and all powerful "fathers" of all humanity. I don't think those who dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima were gods. And, sometimes humans have to do terrible things to avoid doing more terrible things - your God, the way he's described by you and the Bible, need not limit himself to human frailty.

In preventing the spread of disease among animals, innocent victims are killed when we cull 10,000 animals just because a couple dozen of them have foot and mouth disease or swine flue or avian influenza. The surgeon who removes perfectly healthy tissue to prevent the spread of cancer understands very well the notion of being cruel to be kind. When we talk about the end justifying the means do we really know what the End really is?

Or, if there is an "end" in the sense of a desired purpose? You're treading over toward the "god works in mysterious ways" argument. I.e. - we don't know what this God is up to, but we're just going to assume it's for the best.

[Lion IRC]

Ah, perhaps we could have something straight from the Fallen Angel?

fuck me sideways, if I were Satan (and I actually existed) I'd be facepalming through this whole thread

Is this the fora Lion comes to for inspiration on what to post at RatSkep?

He apparently thinks our home is his litter box.

Sorry for bothering.
Please tell Jen Tirydail I was being sincere.

[JimC]

He apparently thinks our home is his litter box.

Sorry for bothering.
Please tell Jen Tirydail I was being sincere.

I don't think you treat this place in any disrespectful way at all, Lion, you always put your views politely as far as I have seen...

Please don't let one disparaging remark stop you from visiting us.

[charlou]

He apparently thinks our home is his litter box.

Sorry for bothering.
Please tell Jen Tirydail I was being sincere.

I don't think you treat this place in any disrespectful way at all, Lion, you always put your views politely as far as I have seen...

Please don't let one disparaging remark stop you from visiting us.

+1

[Gawdzilla Sama]