Jesus Invented By The Romans?

[mike]

How did Cain populate a city, did he get really really REALLY busy with his mother ?
Given a 9 month gestation perion in the human species, its simply impossible

Absurdity of Cain Building & Populating a City On His Own


There's nothing especially subtle about the problem here: the transition from a world where just three people exist to a world that has advanced to city-based civilization with all of its attending social, political, and technological developments. One has to wonder why the editors didn't also notice and do something about this — even a bad explanation would be better than no explanation.

From Cain to Jubal and Tubalcain is just six generations, taking us from a world without technology to a world with advanced musical instruments, brass, and iron. This level of advancement is too fast to ignore. Even if we pretend that each generation is incredibly long, it's still too fast.

Academic explanations for the Cain story require treating it as something other than literal history, a position that until very recently has been anathema to a great many Christians. Most popular explanations have revolved around using Cain's story as a justification for Christian racism. Cain is either regarded as the first black person, with his skin color being the mark God placed on him, or as a white person who married into a community of sub-humans, thus producing non-white races.
In either case, the city which Cain founds is treated as the start of non-white civilization. Because later biblical stories generally adopt a negative attitude towards the descendants of Cain and the cities they build, Christians have felt justified in associating them with whatever races or ethnicities they themselves have disliked. In this way the absurdity of the Cain finding a wife and building a civilization out of nothing can be ignored because they serve larger political and ideological goals.

In short if you take an honest view of its contents, look at it without the prejudice of your cultural brainwashing, the bible disproves itself.
It does so , so often and with such breathtaking ignorance i am surprised any modern educated person cant recognise it despite their programming.

Every single logical flaw within its pages, is reconciled with the argument, god is imaginary, and the bible is just the written word of ignorant men.

 

[Burnt State]

But it has so many nice parables for the kids.

 

[breddell]

If thats your last line of defense, stacking the deck to silence the critics....... then you've lost the debate already.

It isn't my last line of defense and I don't think I've convinced anybody. I've offered to take this discussion to another thread and cover your website quotes one at a time. I've already talked the first item of each of two of your previous emails, which were taken out of context or just not understood.

I agree that a lot of that specific details you've posted do seem absurd... but again those are just details that really don't detract from the big picture of the message of the Bible.

 

[mike]

It isn't my last line of defense and I don't think I've convinced anybody. I've offered to take this discussion to another thread and cover your website quotes one at a time. I've already talked the first item of each of two of your previous emails, which were taken out of context or just not understood.

I agree that a lot of that specific details you've posted do seem absurd... but again those are just details that really don't detract from the big picture of the message of the Bible.

I havent sent you any emails

And they are data points that support my premise, trying to marginalise them by calling them details doesnt actually do anything to counter those arguments.
We could use that mechanism in any debate, for example Hitler bombed london, gassed jews, gypsies and disabled people, but these are just details and dont detract from what he was trying to achieve. These acts have been taken out of context or just not understood.

Dismissing a data point, doesnt counter it.

 

[mike]

And i notice you also dodge the whole god personally does bad things aspect of the discussion.
You claimed he never did, i quoted the bible that proved he did

And crickets.............


Isaiah 45:7: “I form the light and create darkness. I make peace and create evil. I the lord do all these things.”

Is the bible fit for worship ?

Is the Bible Fit for Worship?

According to your Bible I am to believe that human kind is sinful for Adam and Eve ate the fruit of knowledge. Why are we being punished for the original sin? After all, they ate the forbidden fruit, we didn’t. Reason would lead one to say it’s their problem, not ours. Even the bible contradicts itself by claiming in Deuteronomy 24:16, “children shall not be punished for the sins of their fathers.”
2. We are told that the Bible has no scientific errors and is utterly perfect/protected, yet it says the bat is a bird (Leviticus 11:13-19), hares chew the cud (Leviticus 11:5-6), and some fowls and insects (Leviticus 11:20-23) have four legs.
3. Heaven is supposed to be a perfect place. It is of course, the place you strive for and name “salvation”. Yet, it experienced a war (Revelation 12:7). How can there be a war in a perfect place and if it happened before why couldn’t it happen again? Why would I want to go to a place in which war can occur? That’s exactly what I’m trying to escape, aren’t you?

I find the idea that a man had to die for my sins revolting. If God was truly omnipotent he could have simply forgiven us. What kind of deity, would execute one child in order to forgive it’s others? Modern society would call an individual like this sadistic, insane and cruel. Surely, you would not worship a child killer, why do you expect me to? Would you find a judge worthy of the title who would allow my child to be executed in lieu of my sins?
14. John 14:12 states a follower in Jesus can perform any of his works and do it even greater. If you continue to insist I believe in Jesus, it is only fair I may ask of you to show just how strong your faith is. After all, you would be my “mentor” in Christ. I’m not a believer as of yet, but surely you are. Would you mind perhaps resurrecting a dead relative or walking on water?
15. Okay, obviously you didn’t do number 14 and backed out with the “this is metaphorical” excuse. Surely you can try Mark 16:17-18, which says believers can drink “any deadly thing” and “it shall not hurt” them. But I don’t think you would be naive enough to drink any arsenic offered. Perhaps I’m wrong and you would be willing to test the Book’s veracity-”lay it on the line” so to speak?

I do not accept the Bible as God’s word because it contains thousand of errors and contradictions that cannot be solved, only rationalized

And as we've seen here, if you cannot solve them, and cannot rationalise them, then you can only dodge them

 

[breddell]

I havent sent you any emails

And they are data points that support my premise, trying to marginalise them by calling them details doesnt actually do anything to counter those arguments.
We could use that mechanism in any debate, for example Hitler bombed london, gassed jews, gypsies and disabled people, but these are just details and dont detract from what he was trying to achieve. These acts have been taken out of context or just not understood.

Dismissing a data point, doesnt counter it.

I meant messages (not emails), the paracast threads that I am involved in come across as emails too.

Earlier I said (not sure how to quote my earlier text, but I've pulled it down here again) "I went to the very first web sight and looked at the very first claim of a contradiction. That whole list is not put into context. For example, Gen 1:31 says that God was happy with what he created up to that point. Gen 6:6, which is after man has sinned (which was very disappointing to him), it says he regretted he had put man on earth and it grieved him to his heart. - I see no contradiction here, but rather, pure consistency."

Your argument was to list a bunch of websites that proved contradictions in the Bible. So if you go to the first website and look, it says
"1. God is satisfied with his works
Gen 1:31
God is dissatisfied with his works.
Gen 6:6"

Based on my comment above, which puts things in perspective using the actual Bible, there is no contradiction. Please tell me how this particular item is a contradiction . . what is being contradicted? Also, the short description of the Genesis quotes on that website are the website authors [presumably] summary of those verses worded in a way to make it look like a contradiction.

 

[mike]

Genesis has inconsistent depictions of how God feels about his creation — the earth and its inhabitants. Immediately after creation, Genesis says that God was pleased with his work. Later on, though, Genesis says that God displeased — so displeased, in fact, that God regrets creating at all and attempts to kill everyone. So was God pleased or displeased with his handiwork?
God is Pleased with Creation
Genesis 1:31: And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.
God is Displeased with Creation

Genesis 6:5-6: And God saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

It might be argued that there is no inconsistency or contradiction here because God was pleased at one point in time then displeased at a later point in time after conditions had changed. This argument would work when applied to a human or any being that is like a human, but it doesn't work with a god which is supposed to be omniscient and thus would have known where things were going. What that means is that if God was pleased in Genesis 1, it was in full knowledge of events in Genesis 6.
So which depiction of God is most accurate? Is the Genesis story showing God being pleased most accurate or is the later Genesis story showing God being displeased most accurate? These biblical stories are too inconsistent for both to be treated as equally true and accurate, though they can both be false.
Is this a legitimate Bible inconsistency or can the two Genesis depictions of God's attitude be harmonized? If you think you can resolve this biblical inconsistency, explain how — but your solution cannot add anything new that's not already in the stories and cannot leave out any details that the Bible provides.


Responses (3)

the great elastic god of hipocracy
Theists frequently morph their god to be whatever fits the moment. Since the bible is full of inconsistencies they have plenty of room to maneuver. Of course they also have the unlimited ploy of going with “the bible says Y this bit what it really means is Z”But consider this. God said that he wanted all of the people to get along well to honor him and to have peace. But then at the point where man built the Tower of Babel and was doing all of those things god decided to screw things up he broke man into groups and gave them different language so they could no longer talk to each other. So at best god was a flaming A-hole.
—Guest Borsia
Documentary Hypothesis
One way of reconciling this is to point out that, according to the Documentary Hypothesis, two different authors wrote these passages. The Priestly source (P) wrote Genesis 1, while the Jahwist (J) wrote Genesis 6. It almost stands to reason that two different people, writing separately, will have different things to say. The question becomes why the Redactor (R), specifically the second Redactor, didn't bother to reconcile these? It's hard to say why, other than to point out that R also failed to reconcile many other pieces of the Torah (e.g. Genesis 1 and 2 disagree on some details). One can only guess at the reason for this. Perhaps R never finished his/their work, possibly because the task was so daunting, as many passages would have to have been painstakingly reviewed for agreement. Anyway, it's just a thought.
—psicop278
An Evolving God?
You hear many believers today make the claim that God is omniscient, knowing the beginning and the end of all things. But when I read the stories of creation and through to the flood story in the bible, I get the impression that this God is not omniscient. It seems the early writers had a different conception of him; one where he was not omniscient(and probably not omnipresent as well if you read Gen. 3:8 and the following verses). If this is so, I would say that this God was not omniscient. That, yes, at first he was pleased with his creation and then later on became displeased with it not knowing how things would turn out. So if you were to look at it from this non-omniscient point of view(which seems to be the view of these early writers), I would say there is no inconsistensy. Now I hope this doesn't count as adding anything new to the story. But this God here has always appeared closer to human-like to me. But given today's concept of God, I will have to conclude inconsistency.
—DavidABrooks

​

 

[mike]

Now my turn

My point was, is that nowhere in the Bible does it show God *directly doing anything evil*

to which i provide contrary evidence

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)
I kill ... I wound ... I will make mine arrows drunk with blood, and my sword shall devour flesh. -- Deuteronomy 32:39-42

In the place where you were created, in the land of your origin, I will judge you. I will pour out my indignation upon you, breathing my fiery wrath upon you, I will hand you over to ravaging men, artisans of destruction. You shall be fuel for the fire, your blood shall flow throughout the land. You shall not be remembered, for I, the LORD, have spoken. (Ezekiel 21:33-37 NAB)

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)

Not only does god kill these people personally

He admits he created evil


Isaiah 45:7: “I form the light and create darkness. I make peace and create evil. I the lord do all these things.”

How do you reconcile your claim he didnt directly do anything evil (and i consider killing all the firstborn evil, i consider killing all the innocent firstborn animals for the sins of man doubly evil) with the facts taken from the bible itself.

Do you despite the evidence to the contrary, still cling to the falsehood he did not "directly" kill people and innocent animals, or do you conceed your claim was false

 

[exo_doc]

Mike I would put my two cents worth in, but you're doing just fine without my butting in.

 

[mike]

Thank you thank you, i'll be playing here all week

Is god moral, some more contradictions


An important objection against the existence of the god of the Bible focuses on this god’s character. The god of the Bible isn’t simply an ideal abstraction; in Western religious traditions we find many stories about what God has done or commanded believers to do. Often such actions are contrary to basic moral principles; at the same time, God is described as the source of morality. How can this be?

What are we to make of a god which is supposed to be morally perfect and represent a moral ideal when, at the same time, religious tradition makes this god out to be a moral monster? How can a god that commands mass slaughter and rape also be the source for morality in the universe?

These are important questions because religious theists in the West believe both the truth of the claim that God is the source of morality and of the claim that God has committed or commanded atrocious acts which people today would recoil in horror from. If these two claims are contradictory, the people are worshipping a god that cannot exist.

An argument against such a god can be formally stated thus:

1. God is morally perfect (premise)
2. Any act that God condones, commands, or causes is morally permissible or mandated (from 1)
3. Any act that God forbids is morally impermissible (from 1)
4. The Bible accurately reveals many acts condoned, commanded, or caused by God
5. In the Bible there are acts which God forbids but which God also condones, commands, or causes
6. It is incoherent for a morally perfect being to condone, command, or cause immoral acts
7. The God of the Bible is incoherent and, therefore, cannot exist.

This can be described as a contradiction between three ideas common to many Western religious systems: What God commands is moral, the Bible is accurate in its description of God’s actions and commands, and there are certain acts (like rape, murder, and slavery) committed or commanded by God that are immoral.
Any of the above premises or inferences might be challenged, but not in a manner which would preserve the likely existence of the God of the Bible. Thus, even strong and effective challenges to this argument would in the end lead us to the same conclusion as the argument itself: the God of the Bible cannot or at least probably does not exist.

Either way, the theist’s position should be abandoned.

There are a number of possible challenges to the argument that if the Bible accurately describes what God has commanded and done, then this god cannot possibly be morally perfect. All fail to undermine the argument.
Here is the argument again:

1. God is morally perfect (premise)
2. Any act that God condones, commands, or causes is morally permissible or mandated (from 1)
3. Any act that God forbids is morally impermissible (from 1)
4. The Bible accurately reveals many acts condoned, commanded, or caused by God
5. In the Bible there are acts which God forbids but which God also condones, commands, or causes
6. It is incoherent for a morally perfect being to condone, command, or cause immoral acts
7. The God of the Bible is incoherent and, therefore, cannot exist.

It’s possible to deny #1, but that would undermine the claim that morality is founded on religion or theism and that God’s commands must be obeyed. There are religions where gods aren’t regarded as morally perfect and where obeying the gods is a matter of self-interest rather than belief in a connection between those commands and morality. This, however, is not compatible with religious traditions like Judaism, Christianity, or Islam.

Denial of the moral perfection of God also entails the possibility that God commits immoral acts. That is a necessary implication of imperfection. A god that acts immorally, though, wouldn’t merit worship. The whole basis for God being worthy of worship stems from the premise that God is perfect and holy. If God is not only imperfect but also immoral and unholy, then why worship it?

The strongest criticisms can be made against #4 because not all believers accept the accuracy of everything in the Bible. The rejection of this premise, however, comes at a serious cost — which explains why the religious groups that insist upon the infallibility and inerrancy of the Bible defend their position so vehemently.
First, once the accuracy of large segments of the Bible are rejected, it becomes difficult to defend the rest. If the accuracy of any of the Bible is questionable, then the security of religious beliefs founded upon the rest of text is undermined.

Second, the accuracy of the Bible is a principle foundation of moral and religious epistemology for Judaism and Christianity. The belief that God is accurately revealed in the Bible separates them not only from other religions but also from belief in a deistic God revealed only through nature. Indeed, Judaism and Christianity are practically unthinkable if one totally dismisses the Bible as the primary means by which God is revealed to humanity.

Some criticisms can be made against #5 by arguing that we do not correctly understand the text — for example, the Bible doesn’t really mean that God ordered the slaughter of large numbers of innocent people. This is a weak criticism, though, which even if effective would undermine the reliability of the Bible as an empistemological guide. After all, if such a plain meaning of the text is so deceptive, how can we trust any reading we make of it?
Some might criticize #6 by arguing that God is not bound by the moral standard required of us. Thus, while it is true that we are commanded not to rape or murder, God is not required to refrain from or order us to commit such acts. God, being the author of the moral standards, is perfectly free to disregard them whenever it seems fit. This criticism is not very strong.

First, such an argument only works if one abandons the assumption of God providing humans with unchanging, unalterable moral standards. If God can ignore or tell us to ignore those standards for any reason, then they aren’t absolute and unchanging, are they? Many believers insist on the existence of such absolute standards and argue that the existence of their god ensures the reliability of such standards, as opposed to the “relativistic” morals of humans.

Second, this criticism makes it more difficult to think of God as being morally perfect. If God is not bound by moral rules against mass slaughter and is free to commit such abominable acts, in what way can we reasonably say that God is “good”? To say that God is morally perfect despite committing immoral acts renders the concept of “morally perfect” incoherent.

In the end, none of these criticisms give us a good reason to think that the argument does not work. Even if we accepted the strongest of them, we would end up with a god which doesn’t look very much like the traditional god of the Bible — and disproving the existence of that god is point of the argument anyway.

Either way, the theist’s position should be abandoned.

 

[DaveM]

Jesus survived for 600 years?

the founder of Islam was not born until the sixth century AD, and therefore there were no "Muslims" in India or anywhere else until after he was born (570 AD).

That should have read 'Muslims living there now, present day' and I am sure you got my meaning but you wished to be witty....

 

[breddell]

Ok...I can only do 1 at a time since you still aren't putting them in context. Before I respond to the last note, just want to go back to your Genesis statement. I still disagree. The first one, God was happy with creation, the second quote, he regretted creating man. I interpret this regretting putting man on earth because he sinned (yea sure he is not happy), but he wasn't displeased at his creation of the rest of the earth. I think this is a subtle difference than what you are saying.

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)

Again, your argument picks a random quote and not having the full context. If anyone were to open up the Bible and read this, they would quickly see that this is referring to the 10th plague God imposed on the Pharaoh. So, one has to back up and understand why he is doing this. Yes, at first glance it may appear evil, but what is evil? God used Moses to confront the Pharaoh who held his [God's] people in slavery for hundreds of years (I think) and to show the Egyptians who the true God was. The Egyptians worshipped all kinds of gods. Ultimately Gods will pulled through and led to the demise of those Egyptians, thus proving God (if the events really happened that way).

The bigger issue here and the root of this debate we are having is what you are calling evil, is not evil in God's eyes. I thought about this a bunch and I don't know how to justify this. I think every case that you have brought up can be shown that God has performed no evil (because he is incapable) per the definition below, or has others do the deed for him.

Christians believe that God is ultimate standard in truthfulness and holiness, evil and sin are anything that separates from him/it from God. Since God is the ultimate standard here, this is the most fundamental definition of evil? What do you consider to be evil and by what standard?

 

[mike]

I did not pick a random quote, i picked a relevant one, a random quote would not support the argument being made, thus it is completely within the context of the matter being debated.
Once again unable to address the data point presented you try and trivialise it with words like random and context. This is not a valid counter argument its just an obvious dodge

So on the one hand we have

My point was, is that nowhere in the Bible does it show God *directly doing anything evil*

and now

the 10th plague God imposed on the Pharaoh

So you now admit he did directly do a thing, but try and move the goal posts by saying that thing wasnt evil.

Ive already dealt with the god/morals issue here Jesus Invented By The Romans? | Page 4 | The Paracast Community Forums

Understanding why he did a thing, is not the same as proving he did not do it.

God killed the firstborn including the innocent animals of egypt, his motives are irrelevant to the question did he do it.
Killing the animals is incoherant, why punish them ?.
The courts punish offenders everyday, they dont also order their pets be slaughtered for the crimes of the owners.
Notwithstanding in this narrative its clearly stated god hardened pharohs heart....

So god imposes his will on pharaoh, thus setting up the circumstances to mete out a completley unjust punishment. These poor bastards had no chance. God was deliberately creating the circumstances that led to the punishment.
God could just as easily softened pharaohs heart, but chose to harden it, thus creating the justification to kill off all those people and animals.
Even the poor sods in pharaohs dungeons copped a serve, doesnt seem very fair and reasonable does it

Just as his motives for commiting the genocide of genocides in the great flood, dont negate the fact that according to the story, he comitted the act.
Since only he had the means of doing this, its irrefutable that he did so.


Some might argue that God is not bound by the moral standard required of us. Thus, while it is true that we are commanded not to rape or murder, God is not required to refrain from or order us to commit such acts. God, being the author of the moral standards, is perfectly free to disregard them whenever it seems fit. This criticism is not very strong.

First, such an argument only works if one abandons the assumption of God providing humans with unchanging, unalterable moral standards. If God can ignore or tell us to ignore those standards for any reason, then they aren’t absolute and unchanging, are they? Many believers insist on the existence of such absolute standards and argue that the existence of their god ensures the reliability of such standards, as opposed to the “relativistic” morals of humans.

Second, this criticism makes it more difficult to think of God as being morally perfect. If God is not bound by moral rules against mass slaughter and is free to commit such abominable acts, in what way can we reasonably say that God is “good”? To say that God is morally perfect despite committing immoral acts renders the concept of “morally perfect” incoherent.


The question was did god commit these acts personally, your dodge is, well we have to understand why.

In law there is no justification for rape, your response is akin to a defense lawyer arguing his client accused of raping a girl is innocent because of the reason why he raped her.

It doesnt work that way.

He either did it or did not, the motive that led to the act dooes not count for anything.


And this

evil and sin are anything that separates from him/it from God.

Cant be true can it since

Isaiah 45:7: “I form the light and create darkness. I make peace and create evil. I the lord do all these things.”

 

[mike]

Lets try another question do you believe this

The Bible is the inerrant ... word of the living God. It is absolutely infallible,without error in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as well as in areas such as geography, science, history, etc.
-- Jerry Falwell, Finding Inner Peace and Strength


Is true or false ?

One word answer please

 

[starise]

I'll say one thing Mike your are sure gung ho.

I don't agree with even 1% of what you are attempting to say, but I'll give you an A for effort.

As part of the class I'm teaching on tough Biblical questions we went through the Skeptics Bible. We also studied the claims Charles Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.

Most of that work can't be taken seriously. Just silly.

Your message- God is bad, God makes the wrong choices, God likes to hurt people, the Bible doesn't make sense.

My message- God is good, God is just, God has reasons. Does this make him less good or less God? I say no.

Pretty much every argument you have posed involves taking something from the Bible and not looking at the entire thing in a coherent way. You are a disciple of Hitchens but what does Hitchens say about where he came from? He doesn't. The atheist view takes that away or condenses it into a purely scientific explanation, although we can't explain it through science.

 

[mike]

evil and sin are anything that separates from him/it from God.

I'll say one thing Mike your are sure gung ho.

I don't agree with even 1% of what you are attempting to say, but I'll give you an A for effort.

As part of the class I'm teaching on tough Biblical questions we went through the Skeptics Bible. We also studied the claims Charles Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens.

Most of that work can't be taken seriously. Just silly.

Your message- God is bad, God makes the wrong choices, God likes to hurt people, the Bible doesn't make sense.

My message- God is good, God is just, God has reasons. Does this make him less good or less God? I say no.

Pretty much every argument you have posed involves taking something from the Bible and not looking at the entire thing in a coherent way. You are a disciple of Hitchens but what does Hitchens say about where he came from? He doesn't. The atheist view takes that away or condenses it into a purely scientific explanation, although we can't explain it through science.

Heres the thing, where i give links and details for the reader to digest and thus make an informed opinion you give us

Most of that work can't be taken seriously. Just silly.

Why ?

Why cant it be taken seriously, why is it just silly ?

Its kind of funny that you would use those words but at the same time honestly believe

God made the entire universe
Made the entire planet and then the sun
Made all the animals with a wave of his magic hand, and then took dust and made man.
Then took a rib from man and made women
Populated the entire planet from 3 people
Then ordered an impossible boat with an impossible cargo manifest
Drowned every last man woman and child except 7
Repopulated the enitire planet from this boatload

Most of that work can't be taken seriously. Just silly


But let me ask you the same question

Is this

The Bible is the inerrant ... word of the living God. It is absolutely infallible,without error in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as well as in areas such as geography, science, history, etc.
-- Jerry Falwell, Finding Inner Peace and Strength

True or False ?

 

[Rizla]

I know when Tacitus lived, and I know that we can argue the greatness of Numbers 31 forever, I hear the same crap on the shortwave every day.

You didn't mention what it says, taken, as you said, "out of context." I don't care what context this crap was written in, and never will. Briefly, paraphrasing, to the ignorant: "Kill all the men and children (of a Midianite town), and all the women who know men by lying with them. But all the women and girls who have not known men by lying with them, keep alive for yourselves." And take as your personal slaves, etc. Family values indeed! Not the only incident like this by a very long means in the OT... and no one has ever found those wonderful castles of David and Solomon and so on, but what the hell, we can still rampage all over the planet with three wonderful religions based on a really violent, idiotic mythology! Come on... The Norse Gods and even the Greek Gods are sheer poetry compared to this.

I don't think what I said was taken out of context, as I've read more of the OT than I can ever retrieve from a sadly finite life.
Talking about this crap online is pointless. I have an opinion, so do you. So be it. I forgot never to bother with these things in online
discussion. I won't make that mistake again. Thanks for reminding me, Bredell. As for contradictions, I leave you with checking out the birth of Jesus in four books. Compare and contrast. Was there a Roman-wide census? Or not? Try the same thing with his death. Take notes. With Samuel, it's a little more difficult, but there are at least two versions
of the same story in the same very dull book which contradict each other. The Bible's "overall message"? That's been up for debate for millenia, ask the various warring Christian denominations, Talmudists, and so on. Enough blood has been spilled for the debate of this wonderful message to out-do any other so-called religions on earth, including the murderous Aztecs. Read Gibbon, Decline and Fall, Chapter 13. Rizla out on this thread permanently, cheers with a weary heart.

 

[Rizla]

Thanks, Mike, for doing a better job than anyone writing what needed to be said! Cheers!

p/s Mike ain't "gung ho", he just read the material in question and has a opinion about it. Like you, I presume?

 

[breddell]

....
So you now admit he did directly do a thing, but try and move the goal posts by saying that thing wasnt evil.

Ive already dealt with the god/morals issue here Jesus Invented By The Romans? | Page 4 | The Paracast Community Forums

Understanding why he did a thing, is not the same as proving he did not do it.

God killed the firstborn including the innocent animals of egypt, his motives are irrelevant to the question did he do it.
quote]
You are twisting my words around...there are two issues we are discussing, contradictions and God doing bad things...

Understanding why he did something makes all the difference, as it puts events (and rational thought) into context. I've tried to address your questions directy, however, you haven't directly answered my question - I would like to know what your thoughts are on evil and by what standard do you use? I still maintain that this was not an evil act for God and considering the biblical and historical context (see link at bottom of this post).

So, did God directly perfrom the 10th plague or not? The verbiage in the quote makes it sound so (like in many other cases). But that dosesn't mean that God could have had some other agent do it for him. If you actually read the complete account (again, putting into context), you will read in verse 23, when they (Moses and his people) are actually peforming the tasks to save themselves, it says, "... the Lord will pass over the door and will not allow the destroyer to enter your houses to strike you." So, if the Lord is preventing a destroyer from entering the house to kill people, then the destroyer is something different than the Lord, and therefore the Lord is not *directly* performing the 'evil'. My claim still holds here.

On the topic of this being evil, I don't think so based on my definition above (last post) about separation from God. God saved his people from a corrupt and defiled society (Egyptians at that time) who had plenty of warning and directly disobeyed the Creator. In this context, it is not an evil act. But, for a more 'down-to-earth' sense that we know and see everyday (I hate to get into a website quoting war) I think it is worth wile to take a look at this post/logic regarding if God is being 'evil' for this act (this is just to long to summarize here).

http://christianthinktank.com/killheir.html

 

[breddell]

Lets try another question do you believe this

The Bible is the inerrant ... word of the living God. It is absolutely infallible,without error in all matters pertaining to faith and practice, as well as in areas such as geography, science, history, etc.
-- Jerry Falwell, Finding Inner Peace and Strength


Is true or false ?

One word answer please

False to Jerry Falwells definition.
True to the following definition: The inerrancy of Scripture means that Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact.
My reasoning:
Now, I am not a Bible scholar (our understanding of Scripture is never perfect - including yours!), but everything I have come across fits this definition. I have read that >99% of our current manuscripts are inerrant as they are exact copies of the originals, which are the inspired word of God. I also believe that one must not pull things out of context, one must provide the actual verses with logic to really understand what is being said (in some cases this is not a simple task). Also, in some cases, it may be required to go to the original Hebrew or Greek (for which I am not a scholar). It may be possible that I might not be able to come up with a solution at the moment because of these issues - but the fact that I might not be able to come up with a solution does not mean the Bible is not inerrant. Everything I have experienced and learned over my life does not go against my definition above. Also, I think it is worth wile to point out that the Bible in it's entirety is over 1,900 years old and the alleged problem texts have been around all along too. Hundreds of years of highly competent biblical scholars have read and studied the problem texts and still have found no difficulty in holding to inerrancy- this gives me more confidence.