Prove that jesus is imaginary in less than 5 minutes

[Ray Jones]

Yeah, how many Christians are not Christians then?

[Achilles]

Right, my mistake. Julius Caesar and William Shakespear.

That's fine, but you're still not telling me what it is that you want to know?

 

Do I think that they were actual historical figures?

 

For Julius Caesar, I would say yes. We have multiple, verifiable pieces of evidence that lend themselves towards his actual existence.

 

As for Shakespeare, well, we know that someone wrote under that name. Whether someone by that name existed or whether "William Shakespeare" was the pen-name used by someone that wrote the works we associate with that author seems to be of little significance to me.

 

But we aren't talking about an Roman statesman or a English writer, we're talking about the alleged son of god and the savior of humankind. Apples and oranges, no?

 

Whether or not jesus was actually a historical figure would seem to be a substantially more significant question. At least in my opinion.

 

And Achilles thinks Jesus (person) never existed, because there is no proof that can support it.

I'll quibble over language just so that other readers can be clear:

 

I'm skeptical of the claim. I don't hold a belief regarding his non-existance.

 

Besides, I don't know what's the problem of this matter. If christians were assassins and terrorist, I would agree in changing their minds, but Christianity, teaches good manners, which I thinks many people on this world need.

Yes, those sentiments can be cherry-picked from the NT. That doesn't mean that the other, less altruistic parts aren't also there.

 

And the target is always Christianity, never other religions very similar in teatchings. (Don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to escape from the thread.)

That may be the case in some debates you've participated in, but I think to assert that this is "always" the case is short-sighted and incorrect. Regardless, it's probably fodder for a different thread.

 

But those are not Christian teachings, so it's irrelevant what those "supposed" Christian teach or say...

There is no objective standard as to what is christian or what is not. Your definition is no more accurate or complete than any other christian's.

[Alexrd]

That's fine, but you're still not telling me what it is that you want to know?

 

Do I think that they were actual historical figures?

 

For Julius Caesar, I would say yes. We have multiple, verifiable pieces of evidence that lend themselves towards his actual existence.

 

As for Shakespeare, well, we know that someone wrote under that name. Whether someone by that name existed or whether "William Shakespeare" was the pen-name used by someone that wrote the works we associate with that author seems to be of little significance to me.

 

But we aren't talking about an Roman statesman or a English writer, we're talking about the alleged son of god and the savior of humankind. Apples and oranges, no?

 

Whether or not jesus was actually a historical figure would seem to be a substantially more significant question. At least in my opinion.

 

Yes, you're right. I just wanted to know if you were skeptical about those two too.

 

I'll quibble over language just so that other readers can be clear:

 

I'm skeptical of the claim. I don't hold a belief regarding his non-existance.

 

Ok, my mistake again. Sorry.

 

Yes, those sentiments can be cherry-picked from the NT. That doesn't mean that the other, less altruistic parts aren't also there.

 

What teachings are you reffering to? The Ten Commandments? Are they really bad?

 

That may be the case in some debates you've participated in, but I think to assert that this is "always" the case is short-sighted and incorrect. Regardless, it's probably fodder for a different thread.

 

Ok. You are right...

 

There is no objective standard as to what is christian or what is not. Your definition is no more accurate or complete than any other christian's.

 

But there is a standard, although not very objective but it's the definition used today: one who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus; one who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

 

Thanks for reading.

[Achilles]

What teachings are you reffering to? The Ten Commandments? Are they really bad?

We could have a discussion about how the ten commandments are morally insufficient, etc, but that's another topic. I was referring to the parts that advocate killing, slavery, etc. You can't just point to one passage and say, "That's what the bible really promotes" while conveniently ignoring the rest. But again, that's another topic.

 

But there is a standard, although not very objective but it's the definition used today: one who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus; one who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

You are correct in that anyone belief system that accepts jesus as the messiah would belong under the umbrella of christianity. I wasn't thinking in that context, but that part of your point is valid nonetheless.

 

The point I was trying to raise is that trying to define "real christianity" vs "fake christianity" is a completely subjective process. You have your take and that's one perfectly valid way of seeing things. Someone else has a completely different take and it is equally valid.

 

As for the "one who lives according to the teachings of jesus" part, I have to repeat the question: "which parts?".

 

I fear that we're starting to veer away from the topic of the thread though. Maybe we could continue this here instead?

 

Thanks for your response.

[SkinWalker]

No, it doesn't. It has become clear that what we are discussing here is if Jesus of Nazareth was a real person, not if He had made all those miracles.

 

And Achilles thinks Jesus (person) never existed, because there is no proof that can support it.

 

I'm not making a claim one way or the other, I'm merely inquiring and offering criticism. It seems to me that there are a few choices with regard to historicity of Jesus, and that's the point I endeavored to make:

 

1) Jesus was a god/son of a god with magical powers and the story as told in the Christian bible is true, 100%.

 

2) Jesus was normal person who caught the attention of a fanbase who ultimately embellished his story creating a new history and, thus, a new "Jesus" to fit this archetypal mold.

 

3) Jesus didn't exist at all. Not a normal person; not a magical one. First and Second century proto-Christians created the myth, perhaps based on archetypes found in other religions.

 

I see no good reason to believe the first option; some reason to believe the second; and still a bit more to believe the third. Magical beings simply don't exist; charismatic authority is known to suffer embellishment by "worshipers" and fans; and good examples of several religious figures and deities exist that pre-date Jesus which fit the "hero" and "savior" archetype.

 

As for what you've said about Shakespear, it could be a group of people, not a single person. We don't know from that point of view.

 

I could be, but literary scholars are confident that there are enough consistencies in style to say there was at least one person that was consistently present throughout the body of work. Still, I'm not defending the existence of Shakespeare (there is, by the way, an "e" on the end of the alleged Bard's name) and I would be the first in line to question his existence should it be told to me that my salvation depended upon living my life according to the teachings of MacBeth or Othello.

 

Besides, I don't know what's the problem of this matter. If christians were assassins and terrorist, I would agree in changing their minds, but Christianity, teaches good manners, which I thinks many people on this world need. And the target is always Christianity, never other religions very similar in teatchings. (Don't misunderstand me, I'm not trying to escape from the thread.)

 

There are those that would argue that there are Christians who are "assassins" and "terrorists." Timothy McVeigh, and several abortion clinic bombers would seem to support this. Indeed, some of the most brutal slayings of children in our time were related to indoctrination to Christian dogma. The woman in Houston who drowned her children one-by-one as they each watched; the woman who severed her child's arms in the Dallas area; the woman in Georgia who drove her car into a lake with her children locked inside; and others. The abuse of children by pedophile priest is, likewise, and act of terrorism -I'm sure the children who lived with the abuse would think so at any rate- and this degenerate behavior isn't limited to Catholics but is found among Protestants as well.

 

But, just as important to understanding "what's the problem of the matter," Christians, who claim that their version of Jesus is magical and must be accepted as historical, also cite this as their core belief but also wish to oppress scientific knowledge and understanding; seek to oppress homosexuals; seek to impose their particular brand of "god" and "religion" on the rest of society. This is unacceptable. Therefore, their core beliefs are open to question, inquiry and criticism. That core belief being Jesus the alleged Christ.

 

But those are not Christian teachings, so it's irrelevant what those "supposed" Christian teach or say...

 

They call themselves Christians, but they are not.

 

Your assessment and opinion of their "christianity" is irrelevant. They believe themselves to be Christian and commit their atrocities and position their societal impositions in the name of Jesus the alleged Christ. Therefore, Jesus' historicity is open to criticism and inquiry.

 

I also find it convenient for some "Christians" to simply brush off the behavior of those who believe the same doctrine as they but apply differing interpretations such that their behavior becomes embarrassing by saying, "oh, they're not real Christians." Poppycock. It is necessary and sufficient to call lump these degenerates in with all Christians simply because they believe themselves to be christian and acting under christian dogma.

 

But there is a standard, although not very objective but it's the definition used today: one who professes belief in Jesus as Christ or follows the religion based on the life and teachings of Jesus; one who lives according to the teachings of Jesus.

 

The ones you claim are "not real Christians" profess belief in "Jesus as Christ" and believe, every bit as much as you, that they are following the religion "based on the life and teachings of Jesus."

 

If the "life and teachings of Jesus" are going to be invoked to tell me how I should live and imposed upon society, limiting the freedoms and knowledge of others, then this alleged Christ requires a modicum of evidence to be accepted as a real, historical person; and an extraordinary body of evidence to be accepted as a magical being. Otherwise, we'd do better to believe in the reality of Harry Potter or Gandolf.

[Achilles]

But, just as important to understanding "what's the problem of the matter," Christians, who claim that their version of Jesus is magical and must be accepted as historical, also cite this as their core belief but also wish to oppress scientific knowledge and understanding; seek to oppress homosexuals; seek to impose their particular brand of "god" and "religion" on the rest of society. This is unacceptable. Therefore, their core beliefs are open to question, inquiry and criticism. That core belief being Jesus the alleged Christ.

Quoting this because it needs to be quoted.

[Alexrd]

But, just as important to understanding "what's the problem of the matter," Christians, who claim that their version of Jesus is magical and must be accepted as historical, also cite this as their core belief but also wish to oppress scientific knowledge and understanding; seek to oppress homosexuals; seek to impose their particular brand of "god" and "religion" on the rest of society. This is unacceptable. Therefore, their core beliefs are open to question, inquiry and criticism. That core belief being Jesus the alleged Christ.

 

The Roman Catholic Church, from where I belong, doesn't "wish to oppress scientific knowledge and understanding"; neither "seek to oppress homosexuals". If you say that, I need proofs.

 

As for "seek to impose their particular brand of "god" and "religion" on the rest of society.", they don't seek to impose. They seek to show their particular brand of God and religion on the rest of society. And that's what almost every religion on the world do.

 

The ones you claim are "not real Christians" profess belief in "Jesus as Christ" and believe, every bit as much as you, that they are following the religion "based on the life and teachings of Jesus."

 

Could you tell me where it says that "The abuse of children" and "killing" and etc... are following the teachings of Jesus?

[SkinWalker]

The Roman Catholic Church, from where I belong, doesn't "wish to oppress scientific knowledge and understanding"; neither "seek to oppress homosexuals". If you say that, I need proofs..

 

'Proofs' are generally used in math, but perhaps these two links among thousands possible will offer some evidence.

 

http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2008/mar/25/ethicsofscience.medicalresearch1

http://ncronline3.org/drupal/?q=node/2288

 

As for "seek to impose their particular brand of "god" and "religion" on the rest of society.", they don't seek to impose. They seek to show their particular brand of God and religion on the rest of society. And that's what almost every religion on the world do.

 

Proposition 8 is but one example of hundreds possible. Are you sure you want to go down that road? It would, perhaps, be a new thread.

 

Could you tell me where it says that "The abuse of children" and "killing" and etc... are following the teachings of Jesus?

 

Can you quote where I specifically stated these to be teachings of your alleged christ?

 

amon

[Achilles]

The Roman Catholic Church, from where I belong, doesn't "wish to oppress scientific knowledge and understanding"; neither "seek to oppress homosexuals". If you say that, I need proofs.

"The Catholic Church is telling people in countries stricken by Aids not to use condoms because they have tiny holes in them through which HIV can pass - potentially exposing thousands of people to risk."

 

Or we can discuss the church's stance on stem cell research. Or we can discuss the church's policy of teaching doctrine which directly contradicts all modern scientific understanding of biology and cosmology (i.e. virgin births and universe origins, etc).

 

As for "seek to impose their particular brand of "god" and "religion" on the rest of society.", they don't seek to impose. They seek to show their particular brand of God and religion on the rest of society. And that's what almost every religion on the world do.

We're probably going to go nowhere fast on this one. While you probably only see the carrot, it's important to note that there is also a stick. You see "educating the masses about christ". I see "threatening the masses with hell and then telling them there's only one way to avoid it". If only the former were happening, that would be one thing and our disagreement would be academic and nothing more. However this is not the case, therefore I cannot possibly share the perspective that your bias affords you.

 

Could you tell me where it says that "The abuse of children" and "killing" and etc... are following the teachings of Jesus?

I could kill two birds with one stone by directing you to Mark 7 (where jesus chastises the pharisees for not killing unruly children per the OT). I think Skinwalker's point is that while you may either ignore this or interpret it differently, others don't. The entire exercise is open to interpretation making it impossible for one group to claim that they are more correct than another.

[Alexrd]

We're probably going to go nowhere fast on this one. While you probably only see the carrot, it's important to note that there is also a stick. You see "educating the masses about christ". I see "threatening the masses with hell and then telling them there's only one way to avoid it". If only the former were happening, that would be one thing and our disagreement would be academic and nothing more. However this is not the case, therefore I cannot possibly share the perspective that your bias affords you.

 

I'm not saying there isn't a "stick". But "threatening the masses with hell and then telling them there's only one way to avoid it" is medieval. This doesn't mean that there are not people wich uses such teachings, but the "carrot" is the main objective nowadays of Christianity. "Regret for your sins." I can't see the problem with that. The majority of religions has some kind of "threat". This is not a Christianity exclusive.

[Achilles]

I'm not saying there isn't a "stick". But "threatening the masses with hell and then telling them there's only one way to avoid it" is medieval.

I agree it's medieval, but that doesn't mean that it isn't going on today.

 

Unless, of course, you'd like to provide evidence that christian doctrine no longer teaches that jesus christ is your lord and savior (what is he saving you from, eh?).

 

This doesn't mean that there are not people wich uses such teachings, but the "carrot" is the main objective nowadays of Christianity.

Your opinion and not iota more, sir.

 

"Regret for your sins." I can't see the problem with that. The majority of religions has some kind of "threat". This is not a Christianity exclusive.

First, "other religions do it too" is not an argument. Second, jainism.

 

Lastly, is there a reason you didn't address my other points? One might assume that you are conceding them.

[Arcesious]

"Regret for your sins." I can't see the problem with that. The

 

That's one of the biggest problems. Condemnation from a so-called loving God.

[Alexrd]

I agree it's medieval, but that doesn't mean that it isn't going on today.

 

Unless, of course, you'd like to provide evidence that christian doctrine no longer teaches that jesus christ is your lord and savior (what is he saving you from, eh?).

 

Your opinion and not iota more, sir.

 

First, "other religions do it too" is not an argument. Second, jainism.

 

Lastly, is there a reason you didn't address my other points? One might assume that you are conceding them.

 

You only read what you want, don't you?

 

First, I'm not conceding the other points, because as you said, Bible is open to interpretation, and we could discuss the other point's, but not on this thread (maybe a new one).

 

Second, I've said:"This doesn't mean that there are not people wich uses such teachings, but the "carrot" is the main objective nowadays of Christianity." Never said that it isn't going today.

 

Third, I can say the same to you: "Thats your opinion of God and not iota more, sir."

 

Fourth, and as I've said: "The majority of religions (...)", not all.

 

Thanks for reading;)

[Alexrd]

That's one of the biggest problems. Condemnation from a so-called loving God.

 

No, you misunderstood me. Where's the problem of being regreted for bad actions that I've made?

[Achilles]

First, I'm not conceding the other points, because as you said, Bible is open to interpretation, and we could discuss the other point's, but not on this thread (maybe a new one).

Sir, please do not engage in dishonest debate tactics. You asked for evidence supporting the arguments that I made. I provided it and now, rather than acknowledge the point, you ignore the fact that it was made. And when I point out that you're conveniently ignoring the point, you state that the conversation belongs in another thread.

 

While this may be the case, the fact that you're bringing it up now is poor form.

 

Second, I've said:"This doesn't mean that there are not people wich uses such teachings, but the "carrot" is the main objective nowadays of Christianity." Never said that it isn't going today.

Your exact words were: "But 'threatening the masses with hell and then telling them there's only one way to avoid it' is medieval."

 

Are you going to argue that you meant something else when you used the word "medieval"?

 

Again, your perspective is your perspective, however there is nothing objective about it. Please either provide evidence to the contrary or acknowledge that your opinion carries no more weight than any other.

 

Third, I can say the same to you: "Thats your opinion of God and not iota more, sir."

I haven't presented an opinion re: god. Your point is a non-sequitur.

 

Fourth, and as I've said: "The majority of religions (...)", not all.

You can qualify your statement however you wish. Unfortunately dressing up the strawman won't change the fact that christianiy, at it very foundation, has some big scary threats behind it. As I stated earlier, "other religions do it too" is not a valid argument for the point.

 

Thanks for reading;)

My pleasure. Thank you as well.

[Arcesious]

No, you misunderstood me. Where's the problem of being regreted for bad actions that I've made?

 

Oh, there's nothing wrong with feeling guilty for something. That is one of the things that helps us humans learn right from wrong, our feelings, such as the feeling of guilt. But religion is different. In Christianity, you're condemned for things even before you've ever been born. The verdict is 'Guilty' without any trial. Either you get Heaven or you get Hell. The Judeo-Christian God is described as sadistic, with many human fallabilities.

[Ataris]

Yeah, how many Christians are not Christians then?

 

The definition of Christian varies these days. According to the Bible, a Christian is someone who believes in God and has been saved by Him. There a numerous amount of people who claim they are Christians, not realizing that the term they are trying to convey only means that wish to be classified under being part of the Christian religion, not actually one has been saved and practices God's ways.

 

From what I've put together I believe the statistic is that 75% of people who claim they are Christian are not by the Bible's standards.

 

Oh, there's nothing wrong with feeling guilty for something. That is one of the things that helps us humans learn right from wrong, our feelings, such as the feeling of guilt. But religion is different. In Christianity, you're condemned for things even before you've ever been born. The verdict is 'Guilty' without any trial. Either you get Heaven or you get Hell. The Judeo-Christian God is described as sadistic, with many human fallabilities.

 

Allow me to join this conversation.

 

Just what sort of fallabilities are we talking about here?

 

Yes, he knows all about what will happen in the future. But every time you think of something bad and do it, does that justify your actions simply because he knew it and let you get away with it?

 

Part of obeying God is overcoming your sinful humanity as best you can, even if you have doubts.

 

Human fallabilities? Is there a time in the Bible that God once sinned, or is there a way you can think of that he is in error?

 

This is not a subjective question, but rather an objective one for now.

[Arcesious]

Allow me to join this conversation.

 

Welcome!

 

Just what sort of fallabilities are we talking about here?

 

According to the Bible, God demands praise. Also, a perfect being needs nothing else, because erfect = complete, whole, without need for any improvement, least of all praise.

 

Yes, he knows all about what will happen in the future. But every time you think of something bad and do it, does that justify your actions simply because he knew it and let you get away with it?

 

No, it does not justify my actions, but I don't see how God is needed to be an ethical person.

 

Part of obeying God is overcoming your sinful humanity as best you can, even if you have doubts.

 

Problem is why does God even need humanity? He's supposedly all-powerful after all...

 

Human fallabilities? Is there a time in the Bible that God once sinned, or is there a way you can think of that he is in error?

Technically God can't 'sin', but what he is descibed as doing is hardly just. Slaughtering entire civilizations, telling everyone to beleive or burn, declaring unjust rules about things like homosexuality... God may seem merciful in the new testament, but that doesn't make what he supposedly did according to the old testament justified.

 

His sadisticness is hardly an attribute of perfection, as seen in the numerous stories in the Old Testament and in Revelations...

[Ataris]

According to the Bible, God demands praise. Also, a perfect being needs nothing else, because erfect = complete, whole, without need for any improvement, least of all praise.

 

So you're just trying to twist the word perfect in order to serve your purposes then? God doesn't need praise, but he does demand it.

 

No, it does not justify my actions, but I don't see how God is needed to be an ethical person.

 

Perhaps I wasn't following the current line of discussion properly. But as a quick response, to be perfect you must be without ability to fail.

 

You appear to be an ethical person because you accuse God of killing many innocent people.

 

God claims he is perfect, and therefore he cannot murder people because that would be falling short of perfect. By saying falling short, I am assuming that since you dislike murder you would call a murderer imperfect.

 

Ethics has everything to do with it.

 

Problem is why does God even need humanity? He's supposedly all-powerful after all...

 

Would you mind expressing that in different words? As far I know God is not human....

 

Technically God can't 'sin', but what he is descibed as doing is hardly just. Slaughtering entire civilizations, telling everyone to beleive or burn, declaring unjust rules about things like homosexuality... God may seem merciful in the new testament, but that doesn't make what he supposedly did according to the old testament justified.

 

His sadisticness is hardly an attribute of perfection, as seen in the numerous stories in the Old Testament and in Revelations...

 

Excuse me, but why do you see this as unjust? This is your opinion, then? Formulated on what basis? If he created you, then you are the wrong by saying it is unjust, because how is that for you to decide?

 

If he created you, and he does not allow homosexuality, then he is unjust because you wish to go against the wishes of an almighty God because he is looking out for you?

 

Murdering people? Justice, I would say. They disobeyed him, and they knew that was the wrong thing to do. They deserved it.

 

Ethics, my friend. Ethics.

[Arcesious]

So you're just trying to twist the word perfect in order to serve your purposes then? God doesn't need praise, but he does demand it.

 

No I'm not. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&defl=en&q=define:perfect&sa=X&oi=glossary_definition&ct=title being complete of its kind and without defect or blemish; "a perfect circle"; "a perfect reproduction"; "perfect happiness"; "perfect manners"; "a ...

 

Complete: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&q=define%3Acomplete : having every necessary or normal part or component or step; bring to a whole, with all the necessary parts or elements; perfect and complete in every respect; having all necessary qualities;

 

A omnipotent, omniscient God described as perfect wouldn't need Humans.

 

Perhaps I wasn't following the current line of discussion properly. But as a quick response, to be perfect you must be without ability to fail.

 

Let's assume...

 

God is perfect. God creates Heaven. Angels are part of Heaven. Lucifer, an angel, rebels against God in jealousy. 1/3rd of angels follow Lucifer as God casts Lucifer out of Heaven. God makes the universe, earth, humans, etc, etc. Why does God need Humans to solve a problem when he is all-powerful? To prove soemthing about evil? Why should He prove Lucifer's being in error? He is supposedly all-knowing. Also, why would he ever need to create something that is fallible?

 

You appear to be an ethical person because you accuse God of killing many innocent people.

 

I think you're taking out of context how I'd consider myself ethical. Besides, this debate is about religion and God, not me.

 

God claims he is perfect, and therefore he cannot murder people because that would be falling short of perfect. By saying falling short, I am assuming that since you dislike murder you would call a murderer imperfect.

 

All the three of the big dogmas out there will have texts suppposedly having God saying He is perfect... Doesn't prove he is, doesn't prove he exists.

 

Here are some verses showing how God murdured people:

 

"If a man lies with a male as with a women, both of them shall be put to death for their abominable deed; they have forfeited their lives." (Leviticus 20:13 NAB)

 

They entered into a covenant to seek the Lord, the God of their fathers, with all their heart and soul; and everyone who would not seek the Lord, the God of Israel, was to be put to death, whether small or great, whether man or woman. (2 Chronicles 15:12-13 NAB)

 

And he smote of the men of Beth-shemesh, because they had looked into the ark of Jehovah, he smote of the people seventy men, `and' fifty thousand men; and the people mourned, because Jehovah had smitten the people with a great slaughter. And the men of Beth-shemesh said, Who is able to stand before Jehovah, this holy God? and to whom shall he go up from us? (1Samuel 6:19-20 ASV)

 

The ark of God was placed on a new cart and taken away from the house of Abinadab on the hill. Uzzah and Ahio, sons of Abinadab guided the cart, with Ahio walking before it, while David and all the Israelites made merry before the Lord with all their strength, with singing and with citharas, harps, tambourines, sistrums, and cymbals.

 

When they came to the threshing floor of Nodan, Uzzah reached out his hand to the ark of God to steady it, for the oxen were making it tip. But the Lord was angry with Uzzah; God struck him on that spot, and he died there before God. (2 Samuel 6:3-7 NAB)

 

Make ready to slaughter his sons for the guilt of their fathers; Lest they rise and posses the earth, and fill the breadth of the world with tyrants. (Isaiah 14:21 NAB)

 

The glory of Israel will fly away like a bird, for your children will die at birth or perish in the womb or never even be conceived. Even if your children do survive to grow up, I will take them from you. It will be a terrible day when I turn away and leave you alone. I have watched Israel become as beautiful and pleasant as Tyre. But now Israel will bring out her children to be slaughtered." O LORD, what should I request for your people? I will ask for wombs that don't give birth and breasts that give no milk. The LORD says, "All their wickedness began at Gilgal; there I began to hate them. I will drive them from my land because of their evil actions. I will love them no more because all their leaders are rebels. The people of Israel are stricken. Their roots are dried up; they will bear no more fruit. And if they give birth, I will slaughter their beloved children." (Hosea 9:11-16 NLT)

 

"Then I heard the LORD say to the other men, "Follow him through the city and kill everyone whose forehead is not marked. Show no mercy; have no pity! Kill them all – old and young, girls and women and little children. But do not touch anyone with the mark. Begin your task right here at the Temple." So they began by killing the seventy leaders. "Defile the Temple!" the LORD commanded. "Fill its courtyards with the bodies of those you kill! Go!" So they went throughout the city and did as they were told." (Ezekiel 9:5-7 NLT)

 

And at midnight the LORD killed all the firstborn sons in the land of Egypt, from the firstborn son of Pharaoh, who sat on the throne, to the firstborn son of the captive in the dungeon. Even the firstborn of their livestock were killed. Pharaoh and his officials and all the people of Egypt woke up during the night, and loud wailing was heard throughout the land of Egypt. There was not a single house where someone had not died. (Exodus 12:29-30 NLT)

 

 

"You are my battle-ax and sword," says the LORD. "With you I will shatter nations and destroy many kingdoms. With you I will shatter armies, destroying the horse and rider, the chariot and charioteer. With you I will shatter men and women, old people and children, young men and maidens. With you I will shatter shepherds and flocks, farmers and oxen, captains and rulers. "As you watch, I will repay Babylon and the people of Babylonia for all the wrong they have done to my people in Jerusalem," says the LORD. "Look, O mighty mountain, destroyer of the earth! I am your enemy," says the LORD. "I will raise my fist against you, to roll you down from the heights. When I am finished, you will be nothing but a heap of rubble. You will be desolate forever. Even your stones will never again be used for building. You will be completely wiped out," says the LORD. (Jeremiah 51:20-26)

 

If even then you remain hostile toward me and refuse to obey, I will inflict you with seven more disasters for your sins. I will release wild animals that will kill your children and destroy your cattle, so your numbers will dwindle and your roads will be deserted. (Leviticus 26:21-22 NLT)

 

Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on helpless babies and will show no compassion for the children. (Isaiah 13:15-18 NLT)

 

This is what the Lord of hosts has to say: 'I will punish what Amalek did to Israel when he barred his way as he was coming up from Egypt. Go, now, attack Amalek, and deal with him and all that he has under the ban. Do not spare him, but kill men and women, children and infants, oxen and sheep, camels and asses.' (1 Samuel 15:2-3 NAB)

 

Then the LORD said to me, "Even if Moses and Samuel stood before me pleading for these people, I wouldn't help them. Away with them! Get them out of my sight! And if they say to you, 'But where can we go?' tell them, 'This is what the LORD says: Those who are destined for death, to death; those who are destined for war, to war; those who are destined for famine, to famine; those who are destined for captivity, to captivity.' "I will send four kinds of destroyers against them," says the LORD. "I will send the sword to kill, the dogs to drag away, the vultures to devour, and the wild animals to finish up what is left. Because of the wicked things Manasseh son of Hezekiah, king of Judah, did in Jerusalem, I will make my people an object of horror to all the kingdoms of the earth." (Jeremiah 15:1-4 NLT)

 

I will make Mount Seir utterly desolate, killing off all who try to escape and any who return. I will fill your mountains with the dead. Your hills, your valleys, and your streams will be filled with people slaughtered by the sword. I will make you desolate forever. Your cities will never be rebuilt. Then you will know that I am the LORD. (Ezekiel 35:7-9 NLT)

 

My angel will go before you and bring you to the Amorites, Hittites, Perizzites, Canaanites, Hivites, and Jebusites; and I will wipe them out. (Exodus 23:23 NAB)

 

When the people heard the sound of the horns, they shouted as loud as they could. Suddenly, the walls of Jericho collapsed, and the Israelites charged straight into the city from every side and captured it. They completely destroyed everything in it – men and women, young and old, cattle, sheep, donkeys – everything. (Joshua 6:20-21 NLT)

 

The men of Israel withdrew through the territory of the Benjaminites, putting to the sword the inhabitants of the city, the livestock, and all they chanced upon. Moreover they destroyed by fire all the cities they came upon. (Judges 20:48 NAB)

 

That night the angel of the Lord went forth and struck down one hundred and eighty five thousand men in the Assyrian camp. Early the next morning, there they were, all the corpuses of the dead. (2 Kings 19:35 NAB)

 

(Moses) stood at the entrance to the camp and shouted, "All of you who are on the LORD's side, come over here and join me." And all the Levites came. He told them, "This is what the LORD, the God of Israel, says: Strap on your swords! Go back and forth from one end of the camp to the other, killing even your brothers, friends, and neighbors." The Levites obeyed Moses, and about three thousand people died that day. Then Moses told the Levites, "Today you have been ordained for the service of the LORD, for you obeyed him even though it meant killing your own sons and brothers. Because of this, he will now give you a great blessing." (Exodus 32:26-29 NLT)

 

"Go up, my warriors, against the land of Merathaim and against the people of Pekod. Yes, march against Babylon, the land of rebels, a land that I will judge! Pursue, kill, and completely destroy them, as I have commanded you," says the LORD. "Let the battle cry be heard in the land, a shout of great destruction". (Jeremiah 50:21-22 NLT)

 

Would you mind expressing that in different words? As far I know God is not human....

 

Of course he's not... So why does he act like a sadistic tyrant, as can be seen in the verses above?

 

 

Excuse me, but why do you see this as unjust? This is your opinion, then? Formulated on what basis? If he created you, then you are the wrong by saying it is unjust, because how is that for you to decide?

 

There's no proof the Judeo-Christian God created me or the universe. Also, it is smart to be sceptical of authority.

 

If he created you, and he does not allow homosexuality, then he is unjust because you wish to go against the wishes of an almighty God because he is looking out for you?

 

Well I'm not homosexual, but as I'm saying it is smart to be sceptical of authority, especially in the case of God. There are many, many different Gods and religions, with all kinds of cultural rules. Any one of them could be ture, or all of them could be wrong.

 

Let's say a politician wants to restrict my freedom of expressing my liking of starwars, even my thoughts of liking starwars, because he claims it is 'for my own good'. Is it not wise to question this? Is it then not wise to question a God described in an ancient book that says 'Homosexuals should be put to death' (Levitcus 20:13, NAB)

 

Murdering people? Justice, I would say. They disobeyed him, and they knew that was the wrong thing to do. They deserved it.

 

Uhuh. God murders women and children because they 'deserved it'... Makes perfect sense.

 

Lol please don't take my semi-sarcastic aggressiveness in this debate the wrong way. I tend to get heated up about it all. Of course, that what makes debates fun, the Adrenaline.

[Achilles]

The definition of Christian varies these days. According to the Bible, a Christian is someone who believes in God and has been saved by Him.

By that definition, jews and muslims are christians as well. Care to try again?

 

From what I've put together I believe the statistic is that 75% of people who claim they are Christian are not by the Bible's standards.

I'm naturally skeptical of statistics that aren't cited, however since you would be hard pressed to objectively define "the bible's standards" anyway I won't waste your time or mine by asking you to show your work.

 

Yes, he knows all about what will happen in the future. But every time you think of something bad and do it, does that justify your actions simply because he knew it and let you get away with it?

If god knows what will happen in the future, then he knew you were going to think the bad thoughts. God is either all-knowing or all-powerful. He can't be both.

 

Hint: we don't have any good reason to think that he exists, let alone that he is either all-powerful or all-knowing to begin with.

 

Part of obeying God is overcoming your sinful humanity as best you can, even if you have doubts.

Obey god how? Like when he tells you to kill people the pick up sticks on Sunday? Or when he tells you to stone disobedient children? How far are you willing to go to show that you don't lack dedication?

 

Human fallabilities? Is there a time in the Bible that God once sinned, or is there a way you can think of that he is in error?

Ordering the death of women and children would seem to be the most obvious of the elephants in the room. Petty jealousy and temper tantrums would be my personal choices for 2nd and 3rd place.

 

Thanks for allowing me to chime in with my 2 cents.

[Ray Jones]

There a numerous amount of people who claim they are Christians, not realizing that the term they are trying to convey only means that wish to be classified under being part of the Christian religion, not actually one has been saved and practices God's ways.

God's ways? I mean how could a human being possibly practise god's ways? Plus, god's ways as in "god doesn't need praise, but he does demand it"? Hm.

 

From what I've put together I believe the statistic is that 75% of people who claim they are Christian are not by the Bible's standards.

Please define "bible standards".

[Ataris]

No I'm not. http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...ition&ct=title being complete of its kind and without defect or blemish; "a perfect circle"; "a perfect reproduction"; "perfect happiness"; "perfect manners"; "a ...

 

Complete: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&s...#37;3Acomplete : having every necessary or normal part or component or step; bring to a whole, with all the necessary parts or elements; perfect and complete in every respect; having all necessary qualities;

 

A omnipotent, omniscient God described as perfect wouldn't need Humans.

 

Again, he doesn't need praise, but he demands it.

 

By that definition, jews and muslims are christians as well. Care to try again?

 

Muslims do not get "saved." They say that they believe in Allah and his messenger Muhammed.

 

A Christian is someone who has admitted he is a sinner, believes Jesus died on the cross for his sins, and believes that he is returning a second time.

 

Jews do not believe that he is coming a second time.

 

I hope this expanded definition clears things up.

 

Let's assume...

 

God is perfect. God creates Heaven. Angels are part of Heaven. Lucifer, an angel, rebels against God in jealousy. 1/3rd of angels follow Lucifer as God casts Lucifer out of Heaven. God makes the universe, earth, humans, etc, etc. Why does God need Humans to solve a problem when he is all-powerful? To prove soemthing about evil? Why should He prove Lucifer's being in error? He is supposedly all-knowing. Also, why would he ever need to create something that is fallible?

 

Let us assume that you have the skill required to construct your own robot. You decide that he is to be in your likeness, as you find your appearance a superior one, and he is to never disobey or do anything but accept you for who you are.

 

Does this robot really love you? It has affection for you, because you programmed it that way, and it is loyal to you, but that is not its choice. It is a machine constructed to do your bidding and you can control it however you want.

 

If God provides us with the means to make our own choices and we choose to turn to him, then it is our own decision, regardless of whether he knew we would make that decision or not. We can choose of our own free will. Love is dead if there is no other choice.

 

Wait a second, solve God's problems? What does that mean? What problems are we supposed to solve?

 

Ordering the death of women and children would seem to be the most obvious of the elephants in the room. Petty jealousy and temper tantrums would be my personal choices for 2nd and 3rd place.

 

So far you have given examples, but no explanation for why this is wrong.

 

He views it as justice because they disobeyed him.

 

If you were a creator, and if you are perfect, and your creation is not, should that creation not serve your bidding? For you are incapable of sin.

 

Let me ask a question. I do not believe in killing people without a reason, but I would like to hear the answer: Why, in your opinion, is killing people disagreeable?

[Achilles]

Again, he doesn't need praise, but he demands it.

Why would the alleged source of our objective morality behave so pettily? He/she/it doesn't seem worth praising, being so insecure.

 

Muslims do not get "saved." They say that they believe in Allah and his messenger Muhammed.

Maybe not in the context you're comfortable with.

 

A Christian is someone who has admitted he is a sinner, believes Jesus died on the cross for his sins, and believes that he is returning a second time.

So that's all one has to do to be a christian? Nothing about living well, being kind, etc?

 

Jews do not believe that he is coming a second time.

And here I thought that Jews didn't believe that jesus was the messiah at all

 

I hope this expanded definition clears things up.

Some parts yes, some parts no. You still seem to be a little confused about what it is you hope to convey.

 

Let us assume that you have the skill required to construct your own robot. You decide that he is to be in your likeness, as you find your appearance a superior one, and he is to never disobey or do anything but accept you for who you are.

 

Does this robot really love you?

If I programmed it to love me then it seems that it would, no? If I didn't program it to love me, but I wanted it to love me, then that would seem to be a commentary on my inability to plan ahead, right? If I couldn't program it to love me, but I wanted it to love me, then that would seem to be a commentary on my inability to program wouldn't it?

 

If God provides us with the means to make our own choices and we choose to turn to him, then it is our own decision, regardless of whether he knew we would make that decision or not.

But if god in omniscient (all knowing) then he already knows in advance what we're going to do. And if he truly is omnipotent (all powerful) then that means he made some of us to be saved and some of us to not be saved, which means that god is not omnibenevolent (all loving). Or the whole thing has more holes than swiss cheese and shouldn't be taken seriously by rational people anyway.

 

I tend to vote for the latter.

 

So far you have given examples, but no explanation for why this is wrong.

Ordering the murder of innocent women and children isn't wrong? I will give you credit: it is refreshing to meet someone that subscribes to their religion without the mental gymnastics. Kudos for the honesty.

 

He views it as justice because they disobeyed him.

Ah, now it is obvious to me that you haven't actually read the bible. What about the "they" that simply made the mistake of not being from god's favorite people? Where is the justice in creating all of mankind, favoring only some, then ordering the murder of the others? This isn't a just god. This isn't a god that deserves my attention, let alone my adoration. And this is hardly a shining example that should be viewed as the foundation of our morality.

 

I'll take my chances as a skeptic, thank you.

 

If you were a creator, and if you are perfect, and your creation is not, should that creation not serve your bidding? For you are incapable of sin.

The whole argument hinges on the premise that god is perfect. I don't accept that as a reasonable assumption to make.

 

Let me ask a question. I do not believe in killing people without a reason, but I would like to hear the answer: Why, in your opinion, is killing people disagreeable?

*shakes head at how hopelessly derailed this thread has become*

 

Start a new thread and I'll be happy to join you there.