Of course and no it isn’t, or wouldn’t be if it were true…
Just a tiny niggle: At that time many scribes were illiterate. They could copy but not read. One reason for the Bible becoming riddles with errors.
Rather than express doubts, I guess I should simply accept everything you’ve said on faith. After all, who am I to question 2 billion catholics plus a few proddies?
Jesus fuckin’Christ people!!! Hello!!! How many Christians believe Jesus is God??? WHO wrote or “inspired” the bible? GOD.
Of course Jesus wrote it! Duh 
. And if you are thinking “He couldn’t have physically wrote it…” Well, no shit, Sherlock! Bosses dictate letters through their secretaries all the time, and get the credit for writing it (when is the last time the secretary took credit for writing the letter the boss signed???
Damn secretary! He probably added that bit in the bible about Celebrating Christmas and giving gifts to co-workers.
That’s what happens when the boss doesn’t sign the letter 
I’m suppsed to sign the letters? Damn secretary told me it was not longer necessary as everthing is electronic.
Yep. I read it. Bullshit from start to finish.
I have a personal question for you. Seeing as you’re part of a blind belief system.
If I asked you to explain your lack of belief in the other deities such as Athena (Greek), Thor (Norse) or The Aten (Egyptian), do you think your lack of belief in those gods is the exact equivalent to an Atheist like myself and others explaining their lack of belief in the Christian God?
Well I can answer that, no it absolutely isn’t, as he has decided to believe in one deity to the exclusion of those others, based on subjective anecdotal claims of personal experience that the adherents of many of the others make identical claims for. My disbelief in any one of them is based on the same standard as my disbelief in all the others, and indeed of any other claim I withhold belief from, that no objective evidence can be demonstrated for the belief.
I read a book by an American author who happened to be an atheist, living and working in Norway. He marvelled at how clean the country was, how prosperous, how happy and content and helpful the people, and how law abiding giving how little police presence was usually to be seen, and of course that it was a predominantly secular country.
There are of course theists in the country, but generally most people were “cultural Christians” in that they were atheists but adhered to some of the cultural aspects, they meticulously maintained churches, enjoyed religious holidays with some religious traditions, but solely to keep contact with their past.
However he interviewed one young woman who believed in Thor, she was representative of some of a younger generation who were exploring earlier deities from their culture.
Now to my point:
When interviewed she gave exactly the same anecdotal claim for personal experience of Thor as @Drich, and many others have given here.
yet not one of those theists has ever been able to offer any objective difference between their beliefs, they simply choose which deity to believe in, though some of them make a point of claiming the religion sought them out of course, but that seems unlikely, especially as @Drich claimed you have to believe first and then the relationship will happen.
As someone else pointed it’s a marketing ploy that seems to be universal in many religions.
how is my statement a strawman? if your argument is slavery is wrong therefore god is evil for condoning it, then by all accounts our current involvement with slavery is equally wrong even more so as we do not recognise it therefore there are no rules or regulations on it, where as God’s involvement not only restricted how slaves were used/treated it ultimately ended slavery if you follow through to its end in christianity. So unless you are saying “i do not want to answer/address your comment and need a way out so i will claim strawman” Then your use of the term is invalid.
Once again, your assumption about me is bullshit. Do you understand that I check multiple news outlets, from the BBC to Moscow Times to Korea Herald to Al Jazeera to get the news and different perspectives.
What non-state owned news outlets do you source? Newsmax? The 700 Club?
the bbc, moscow times al jazeera are the actual definition of a state run/sponsored media outlet. the literal government funds those sources, no different than npr here. the korea herald is different as it is a subsidiary of the asia news network which gets funding from china. so technically not a korean run state news agency but still partially funded by china which one can not help to assume china has a say in what is published.
So once again my assumption based on your thoughts and content have been proven correct.
Ok I’ve been pretty patient, but I have had enough of your ad hominem. Be as rude as you like about my posts, but if you are incapable of having a debate without resorting to personal insults, then I will happily reciprocate. Consider this your very last warning on the matter.
limited intelligence here has nothing to do with a personal insult. it is a diagnostic fact as to why your understanding is lacking or why you can not follow the topic as i have described. ,and continue to push an unsupported narrative.
I honestly hold no contempt or ill will towards you personally and i do not wish in any way want to needlessly offend. however if i do see a gaping lack of understand that i can not bridge with several attempts to explain, then i will point this lack of base understanding to you in hopes that you re-approach the subject matter in an attempt to resolve the lack of understanding, rather than trying to make your narrative/understanding fit my discussion.
No, the problem is that the deity claimed to have limitless power knowledge and mercy, is wholeheartedly endorsing slavery, with a set of truly barbaric laws, and encouraging primitive humans to commit mass murder in ethnic cleansing wars, and traffic women and girls who were virgins as sex slaves. It even tortures a new-born baby to death. Were it real I should want nothing to do with such a deity, luckily there is no more objective evidence it is anymore real than Zeus or Thor.
this is exactly what i mean by 'limited understanding/trying to maintain a narritive rather than listen to what it is i am telling you.
1: no where in the bible is God described as an omni max god. “all loving, all powerful, all merciful, ect…” That is not to say we can ascribe some of those attributes to God. But the take away point I am making here is God himself never claim to be an omni-max God. in this case specifically God never claimed to be all loving or all merciful. The very idea of Hell stands in contrast to this. this means your primary argument is a strawman, as God has no obligation to be all merciful here or anywhere else. You are arguing church doctrine verse what the bible says.
The fact that you want nothing to do with a deity that would allow this is moot. if you wish to press it though i would point out to the hypocrisy of it all as your inclination as an evolved ape is to have and treat slaves far worse than anything God allowed, and yet you prize your default setting to such wickedness and yet have the stones to condemn any authority who would regulate your default planet of the evolved apes settings.
No matter how you spin this the bottom line is your ‘evolved’ sensibilities in the same time frame which God gave these commands, were far more (I hate this word but it is a term you understand) “immoral” than the restriction God placed on the jews. So if you say god is evil, look at how much more evil your ancestors were in that same time period, and also take out the all merciful bs as that is your construct not anything ever God himself claimed.
White Christian planation owners cited Exodus 21 as late as the middle of the 19th century, in order to justify owning slaves, so that is again a truly asinine statement.
So… Unless those men thought themselves to be OT jews, they were wrong in what they were doing. Just because someone claims to be of God does not mean they are. Jesus himself said watch out for men who do this as they are wolves in sheep skins. it will be by their deeds we can judge them. their deeds were evil and far from what Jesus taught.
Though of course your desperate piece of sophistry fails to remotely address the contradiction of a deity with limitless mercy endorsing encouraging and performing acts of egregiously cruel barbarity.
IDK about that my guy… this is like that 2 verses thing all over again. (where you and others claimed i could not come up with the 2 verses that one follows for salvation, but yet i posted it multiple times…) I explain, you do not have the ‘base understanding’ (note: trying not to call you ignorant) to grasp the fact God makes no such claims at all in the bible. that you and most all other atheist are suffering from a collective mandala effect when it comes to this elementary understanding of god’s base nature. So hear me if you haven’t yet. GOD NEVER CLAIMS TO BE ALL LOVING. So again your argument is… moot.
This glaring contradiction of course was best expressed by Epicurus. it’s funny that any of you still quote this guy.
So his whole premise was based on a tit for tat relationship. one not offered by the God of the bible. as one in his time only the OT jews were offered access to God. this means all of his expectations are invalid.
eppi’s ignorance was based on his own hubris and pride. Meaning His sense of righteousness was based on self. or as the bible identifies it “Self righteousness” meaning he and people like him according to no other authority than their own self righteousness said they were the standard of good, when men like you right now today would condemn epicurus for living off the backs of slaves, for having sex with underaged children ect… (which is the definition of self righteousness) Every man finds a reason to justify his own evil and make his brand of evil good.
Do you see the real paradox yet?
If men like Epicurus and yourself for quoting him demand God be able to be all merciful and all powerful to cut out all evil, you would have the flood of genesis. because you are evil, and do not know it.
So the reason Epicurean paradox, is not a valid objection to the God of the bible, 1) it was never meant to describe the God of the bible. 2) is because God did, what this evolved ape was too ignorant to understand/identify. granted he did not have access to the hebrew text that tells of the flood, but you do… And before you comment on the ‘morality of the flood’ ask yourself what would a truly evil man say about his kindred being destroyed by a authority greater than themselves for being evil?
And that has what to with you claiming the biblical deity dislikes rape? When in fact the bible shows that deity encouraging it?
I said you can’t judge those people in that time with our laws. later when the laws were given rape was such a topic and there was a laws that condemned it.
Oh ffs, are seriously claiming that comparing the morality of a deity claimed to possess limitless mercy, not to mention power and knowledge, with that of evolved humans, is a like for like comparison? I fear I’m going to wear out the word asinine if you keep posting things as breathtakingly stupid as that.
i really cant wait to see where you will go now that i have taken ‘limitless mercy’ off the table biblically.
What the fuck are you blathering about you arrogant dim-witted cock? And for fucks sake stop mixing your verbiage with mine in the same quote, and use your fucking shift key and a spellchecker you pompous ignoramus.
I did warn you about your ad hominem, enjoy.
yeah… I mean: 
:tired_face that hurt my feelings what ever will i do now? only if i had 20 years of people calling me bad names non stop, to prepare me for your barrage… but alas i do not have said 20 years i only have 15… oh, have mercy, ill never call you anything negative ever again now matter how it actually applies/fits the narrative or your specific situation…
is that what you wanted to hear? you better now? all built back up and can address points even negative ones?
More unevidenced sweeping bombast. And once again you have failed to grasp the point, I suggest you scroll up and read the Epicurus quote again, if he can’t explain it to you then I’m certainly wasting my time.
defeating the epurcain paradox was like one of the first things i did when i started myon line efforts. what else you got? maybe some voltaire? erdman? crowder?
Ok I have to ask now, is English your first language? I asked why you thought rape was wrong, beyond blindly obeying divine diktat? Nothing in that response remotely answers my question?
I’m sorry i would have thought my answers gave away my position on rape really all sin… Sin in of it self all acts of sin, hold no intrinsic ‘moral value’ as there is nothing God has forbade aside from eating from the tree of knowledge that he himself has not made a provision for. meaning at some point in the bible God commanded or allowed a act that would later be considered sinful to occur. so the logic there is the acts themselves hold no moral value. it is the act of doing such an act without God authority or permission that makes sin, sin. This is in a small part how atonement can be offered through sacrifice, and final atonement though christ.
evil is a step deeper. in that all evil is sin but not all sin is evil. Evil is not an act either one can commit evil by committing a minor sin. it is the intentions of the heart that make a sin evil it is the desire to love/want or be apart of sin that makes the same forgive sin an unforgivable evil deed.
So deeds themselves have no right or wrong value or levels to them it is the intentions of one’s heart that makes a forbidden deed or though sin, or the same thought or deed evil.
I’m sorry if i over stepped you ability to extrapolate an answer to your question by me giving an indirect example. i will try to point blank answer your questions, even though this will add many many steps tot his back and fourth process. I was trying to answer your imediate question and the next 2 or three, as you guys all seemed to be programmed to think the same way.
WHY DO YOU THINK RAPE IS WRONG?
here now yes. because the law says so. and christian ‘law’ also says so. I need no other reason. was it wrong in a time where the extinction of all of man kind is on the table? no. this is no different than when we artificially inseminate pandas because they are too stupid/prudish/in the wrong environment to have sex. or tigers or eagles or any other critically endangered species.
Another unevidenced claim, and another truly idiotic one at that. have you ever read a book other than the bible?
give it time… ive only been at it a few days. i think it is a little premature to make a final conclusion on anyone’s ability to this point.
Oh I’m sure they just swam around for a fucking year, jesus wept. And again you leap away from context like a frog on amphetamines. again what makes you think there were children? God destroyed the world for an evil never before seen or will be seen again… there is a reason all manner of life was described but children.
**
Then you have no moral compass whatsoever, what an utterly moronic and egregiously immoral things to say. Your opinions are a living testament to why I dislike religion.
**
sir if you are condoning the ritual sacrifice and consumption of children, or even saying a people who practice such things should not be completely destroyed and no trace of them should be left behind… then i should say you are the reason i prat his kingdom come his will be done as the book of Daniel and revelation says it will. But now with more hast than every before.
If you think the world being destroyed by water was bad… wait to you see what fire does to baby eating monsters.
and seeings how ‘morality’ is man’s own version of righteousness… not having any is not the insult you think it to be. As I have no issue not being counted among this world’s moral/good people. Not when the destruction of baby eating monsters is offensive.
and i have a similar quote. Those who kneel at the alter of scientific discovery will sell their soul to do so. (and i didn’t even have to quote anyone as i can think and reason for myself and dont need others to do for me.)
Then you don’t know the bible as well as your arrogant claims to be an expert suggest, do you.
2 Samuel 12
15 …the Lord caused the son of David and Bathsheba, Uriah’s widow, to be very sick.
Actually i am well aware of this passage. however i have never read a translation that said God tortured a baby. it says even by your own quote, he allowed it to get sick.
Perhaps it is you who does not have the command over the english language as you think you do. as getting sick is not the same as torture… If i allow my son to play in the rain there is a high likly hood he will get sick. if i sent my child to preschool there is almost 100% chance of them getting sick, and depending on what they contract they could die. Now granted one can say i allowed a child to get sick maybe even caused it if i forced them to go to school… but this is miles from the meaning of the word torture.
so either again ignorance abounds here or you are building a strawman. (too dumb to know better and/or you allowed your feelings to choose your words for you, or you are being intentionally deceitful.) then added an ad hom claiming my ignorance? project your insecurities much?
yeah… kinda demonstrated in the last post you don’t have a basic biblical understanding of the god of the bible. rather you have created some amalgamation in your mind based off of what i suspect is personal experience and self determination, in other words you have built a strawman/straw god homage, and expect me to defend the crap you personally made up…
Sorry my guy but i can’t and/or do not want to do that. so either fix your statement or be ignored as i am not here to defend your own personal ‘strawgod’ to you. As clearly you built him with many contradictions and flaws
NyarlathotepAtheist
I don’t argue with people who defend slavery.
your life now today is not possible without slaves. so not only do you support slavery you turn a blind eye towards it so you can pretend to be morally superior. which personally disgusts me to no end. but i am willing to still have a conversation with you despite my personal feelings for someone who turns a blind eye to modern day slaves, so they can pretend to be ‘moral.’
Is there any context in which you think slavery is morally acceptable?
You think the inability to recognise what is wrong makes someone more culpable? Morality IS the ability to recognise the difference between right and wrong actions. Christianity claims their deity is perfectly moral, can you see your error yet?
Asinine nonsense, Exodus 21 (edit for typo) specifically instructed primitive humans how to buy, own, and beat slaves, even to death, whereas your assumptions are unsupported so far. Not that it matters, the more choice and knowledge one has, the more culpable one becomes for their actions. Do you think a slug has more or less culpability for it’s actions than a human? How about a chimp and a human, chimps are pretty intelligent. Now imagine a deity with LIMITLESS intelligence, and LIMITLESS power, more or less culpable?
Then you won’t be insulted when I point out your posts demonstrate that you have a remedial grasp of language, literacy, and grammar. No grasp whatsoever of basic logical principles, and the boundaries of epistemology escape you entirely. Or that your posts are breathtakingly arrogant, dishonest, poorly conceived, even by the woeful standard of religious apologetics, and are also biased and unevidenced woo woo.
hahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahhahaha, good one, irony?
Well they say hope is the best of things, but sadly your claim is demonstrably false, as can be evidenced from a cursory read of our exchanges.
It’s narrative champ, and try actually addressing my post, rather throwing cowardly ad hominem. As again, no one is being fooled here.
These are traditional Christian claims, did you not know this? More importantly are you saying you don’t believe your deity is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent?
No, it means you disagree with centuries of Christian theology, and seem happy to worship a sadistic, brutal, narcissistic mass murderer as advertised in the bible. I can hardly be expected to know which parts of christianity you have decided to subjectively jettison, and which to cherry pick as true.
On the contrary, though your arrogant and vapid dismissal is again noted.
You (and your bible & deity) are the ones who have cheerfully defended slavery not me. I have stated, and do so again, that is an egregious evil. Were it within my power I would eradicate it. Nor did I create the economic and political systems of the world that I was born into to, nor do I knowingly exploit the use of slave labour. All of which is demonstrably more than you or your imaginary sky fairy can be bothered to do.
Nope I couldn’t give a flying fuck about either, you’re the one claiming to be a Christian, I merely cite centuries of Christian doctrine and the literal text of the bible, not whatever cherry picked mish mash you have chosen to delude yourself is true. Though now I know why you have unashamedly endorsed mass murder, genocide, infanticide, rape, slavery, ethnic cleansing and sex trafficking prisoners and many more egregiously immoral and evil narratives of the bible so easily, it’s because you recognise that is the deity being described, but you simply don’t care as you have abandoned any moral compass for blind adherence to the worst of biblical doctrine.
Yes I get it, you think rape, murder, mass murder, genocide, infanticide, sex trafficking, ethnic cleansing and torturing babies is a higher moral standard than denouncing them.
That rather says it all.
I don’t believe in any god, try again. The god imagined in the bible is demonstrably evil by any objective standard we have.
Not relevant, as comparing the moral culpability of one evolved mammalian ape species to an omniscient and omnipotent deity, is an egregiously moronic comparison, to anyone who has the remotes grasp of what the word morality means, sadly you appear not to have the faintest idea of what’s being explained to you, repeatedly.
Not relevant to how the statement disproved your claim, but since you have moved the goal posts here yet again, it merely shows your dishonesty.
Liar, I never said you couldn’t.
Did I claim god said this in the bible? Please quote my post with the post number, as this strikes me as another of your straw man fallacies.
I don’t think you have a very good grasp of what atheism means, if you did it might help you see what a particularly silly thing that is to say.
I NEVER SAID HE DID?
No, you have just waved it away by claiming not to share centuries of Christian doctrine, based on your own subjective interpretation of the bible.
Now that is fucking hilarious, though again we note your arrogant dismissal of a scholar, not based on any sound or rational argument, but on pure ad hominem.
Yes, though I’d bet it’s not the one you are imagining.
You need to contact the Pope, and tell him you have solved theodicy, he will be ever so pleased.
Prima facie I’d say it was evil, if the claim is a deity with limitless power and knowledge created a global flood to commit global genocide, as well as killing all living things not on a single boat, then I’d say it was an egregiously evil act, as it cannot be viewed in any other way by anyone who understands the implications.
Again then, since you seem to have ignored it, what has that to do with you claiming the biblical deity dislikes rape? When in fact the bible shows that deity encouraging it?
I’ll point out that it’s still one of the most asinine statements I’ve ever read, as humans are neither omniscient nor omnipotent, and if you keep moving the goal posts your deity will soon become human. In which case he’ll cease to be a deity, oddly enough as Epicurus suggests in that quote, which you have utterly failed to understand.
They’ve been amateurs if you think that was a barrage. I did warn you several times your ad hominem would not be tolerated indefinitely, I am not obliged to turn the other cheek after all.
You must do as you are minded to, as must I.
By redefining the Christian deity to remove one of it’s core characteristics, I bet theologians studying theodicy are furious they didn’t think of it after thousands of years. However there is still omniscience and omnipotence for you to tackle yet, simply accepting the deity depicted in the bible is a sadistic evil narcissist has not remotely solved theodicy or defeated Epicurus. The arrogant bombast is as hilarious as ever though, given you can’t even spell Epicurean. Even more so as you clearly haven’t even understood what he meant, I’d re-read it if I were you.
Yes that’s what you think the bible says a deity thinks. I asked why you think rape is wrong, beyond blindly obeying divine diktat?"
You see the emboldened part right?
Fuck me, do you not know what the words you or why mean?
Scientific facts, but I realise these are anathema to most theists when they don’t show what you want to hear. And can you please ffs start using the quote function, and not just copying and pasting text, so that it shows who said what. I’m spending as much time editing your drivel as I do my own posts.
Don’t be a dishonest twat, I never mentioned any such thing. Your remedial reading skills are hardly my fault.
I never fucking mentioned sacrificing or cannibalising children, what the fuck are you blathering about? Though it’s pretty ironic, even for an ignorant amoral automaton like you to object to that, but then incongruously be ok with your deity torturing a new-born baby to death for 7 days, and drowning an entire planet, or murdering an entire tribe on your deity’s specific instructions, even making a clear distinctions for infants and babies. No wonder your own moral compass is so fucked up.
Bad? Spitting on the pavement is bad, global genocide requires some grasp of morality, that sadly you seem like so many theists I’ve encountered, to not possess, as you have made yourself into an amoral automaton, in order to justify what is demonstrably unjustifiable. And all to preserve a belief in a deity from an archaic superstition, that you cannot demonstrate a single shred of objective evidence for.
FYI fire will act the same as it does to all carbon based life forms, it’s basic physics. Nor do I have to wait, I learned this as a child. Nor do I believe in childish superstitious notions of hell.
Again this is just a lie you made up, as I mentioned no such thing. If you want to claim that the only people who died in the Noah flood myth in the bible were cannibalising babies, then please demonstrate sufficient objective evidence for your claim, but please don’t be a lying cock, and pretend I have mentioned it at all.
As are the egregiously immoral laws in the bible, only men write books, unless you can demonstrate objective evidence for a deity, and what it wants, I guess you’re saving that until you’re exhausted from preaching?
Just as well given you have claimed slavery, rape and genocide as morally neutral behaviours already.
I have no idea what you mean by kneel by the alter of scientific discovery, it sounds like vapid nonsense you’re using as a smoke screen to me. It also strikes me as breathtaking hypocrisy, as you’re clearly happy to benefit from science all the time. And I don’t believe in superstitious guff like souls anyway, as unlike you I require sufficient objective evidence be demonstrated for claims before I believe them.
Is that why you omitted the part I quoted where the baby was struck by god and became ill for 7 days and then died?
15 … the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s wife had borne to David, and he became ill.
18 On the seventh day the child died.
The text couldn’t be any clearer, and you couldn’t have made your own dishonesty anymore manifest, as is the vile and evil nature of a deity that would torture a newborn baby to death, in an angry rage because the baby was conceived in an adulterous affair, or of course under any circumstances.
Another irony overload, I shall leave the comedy gold of your literacy and grammar alone here, and simply point out again that you are either illiterate and cannot read, or are dishonestly ignoring the biblical text quoted, FYI getting ill is not the same as being struck ill, and for seven days and then dying. Only a cretin or a liar would argue that isn’t torturing a baby to death. Especially in the wider biblical context of the deity depicted as being enraged at the murder of a love rival and then the adulterous affair with his widow, and of course having limitless power and knowledge, which you seem determined to ignore.
Oh do fuck off you lying arrogant illiterate prick. I did warn you about your ad hominem.
You started the ad hominem and I let it go with several warnings, so please don’t be a fucking cry baby now you’re getting some back, you desist and so will I, and I don’t think ignorance about language is an accusation you should be throwing around giving the risible grammar you have used to do it, going from entirely random capitals to no capitals even at the start of a sentence, and that hilarious question mark at the end of your first sentence. Another irony overload…
Yes it is. You asked me before if I ever read the Bible. Why is it that I remember this verse but you, who stated that you were an expert does not?
“I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty.” Revelations 1:8
SheldonAtheist
1
Also infanticide, he claimed drowning children is morally acceptable behaviour for an angry deity as well.
this is an outright lie. I pointed out the bible does not mention children as being a causality of the flood. I also pointed out that the Nephilim ate children/children were scarified to them.
Mods are there no requirements on quoting the truth?
Actually…
This is what atheist teach, but it is not what the bible teaches. The bible teaches the age of the jew ended with the death of Christ on the cross and a new covenant began upon his resurrection. that is why NT christians are not OT jews
David_KillensAtheist
Like too many theists, he seems to hold the opinion that civilization, writing, and the hallmarks of a gentle and advanced civilization did not come until jesus.
Next thing you know, some theist will proclaim that jesus invented the internet.
I think this opinion of me is a sweeping dismissal based on nothing more than you want/wish to be able to trivialize what i actually think without addressing it. so i ask you sir… what have i said to make you think this way? can you quote it. or are you just creating another narrative like the “he can’t quote the two verses thing”
NyarlathotepAtheist
A long time ago; we had a Christian here so ignorant: they were under the impression Jesus wrote the Bible.
So? Christianity is not a knowledge test. we do not have to achieve a certain level of understanding to enter heaven (that is gnosticism) there are but two requirements according to christ to enter heaven.
Sheesh, Imagine that. Everyone knows that Jesus was an Aramaic speaking Jew. The bible was written in Greek. Dumb Christian theists. Jesus dictated the bible to Greek scribes and they wrote it down. Why isn’t this just obvious to anyone with half a brain?
Ah… no. Paul wrote the majority of the NT. As a jewish pharisaical priest, he was highly educated and Spoke, and wrote hebrew, greek and aramaic. He was the Father of the gentile church. Aramaic is a lot like creole or ebonics, it is a known language or rather a known amalgamation of several languages. it was like the evolution of the hebrew. which the Jewish sects of the church would have retained all of their writings and master copies in scriptoriums in jerusalem. in aramaic. (that was the first century Rome for the religion at the time)
Scriptoreams being ‘climate controlled’ libraries designed to house and preserve scrolls. these were all burned in 70ad when rome invaded killed all the jewish leadership (the Sadducees) the temple and everything else they could. The reason the greek is so prevalent is because what copies were available went to the gentile church. who common language at the time was greek. So once translated the master copies eventually dissolved in time. as to them the word took president over pravaunance.
Your question is invalid.
I am not apart of blind belief system. my time here so far has been centered around how to obtain personal proof of God. How to be sat before him if that is what you need, as God himself offers this and it is demonstrated once with doubting thomas, and again with Saul/Paul in the bible and as witnessed by millions of people since then. Again not belief but a witness, which is the difference from an ad populum fallacy, and a multi person witnessed event.
how do i know God is real? i read the book and tested him where he allowed it and he showed up. (got a video on youtube if you want details) twice in fact. years apart. but first i did the same with other religions as well. one the other religions are faith based only. meaning you can not know till after your dead. Christianity is the only one that offers you an audience with God while in this life. Sadly most of you have no idea what i am talking about and wrongfully assume christianity is faith based only, when in fact one denomination teaches that because they strayed so far from the bible, they can not explain the discrepancies between what is promised in scripture and what the denominational rules/doctrine tell them.
So bottom line i am of very little faith, even spent time as an atheist. found an opportunity to find the truth about God once and for all, and to my surprise he showed up.
i have a video on that if you wish to hear more.
SheldonAtheist
Is there any context in which you think slavery is morally acceptable?
“morally” you mean the shite standard of man based on a given generation’s societal allowances and current beliefs of right and wrong? The answer is simple; has society ever condoned it belore? does it condone it now even if under a different name? the answer is yes. I think society will again permit slavery and justify it as it does not if no other way than redefining terms like 'sweat shop, migrant workers, or by our actions like the fact we ship jobs to third world nations where there are no laws or regulations on pay or working conditions. where they have to put nets around the buildings where the slaves i mean ‘contract workers’ can’t kill themselves because there is no other way for them to stop working endless hours to pay for housing and food they’ve already been given by the co.
do i think slavery is right, no. why the bible says so, and the current laws say so. Do i think it will become moral again? it already has in everything but name.
You think the inability to recognise what is wrong makes someone more culpable? Morality IS the ability to recognise the difference between right and wrong actions. Christianity claims their deity is perfectly moral, can you see your error yet?
lol… the word morality has changed so much… In fact the word the bible uses to describe God’s morality is not morality. God is often described as righteous, or supremely righteous. which is like morality, maybe more so 100 years ago when we started using the word interchangeably. but Morality is not righteousness. Despite your claim, Morality is man’s ever changing standards… this is in contrast to Righteousness which is God’s never changing standard. Man’s morality in the bible is referred to as a righteousness derived from one’s self, or a standard of right and wrong not derived from God but from man.
an example is homosexuality. God says this is a sin. man says it is not. So god’s never changing standard always identifies homosexuality as a sin, while man’s morality slowly accepted homosexuality as being right.
So god’s authority to define what is right and what is wrong is being challenged by morality. Or in bible speak God’s righteousness is being challenged by the self righteousness of man who do not understand their standard is ever changing garbage designed to make one feel better about his life’s sinful choices. So no, when you make God’s righteousness a supreme standard meant to judge man and his self righteousness then there is no error in my statement.
Asinine nonsense, Exodus 1 specifically instructed primitive humans how to buy, own, and beat slaves, even to death, whereas your assumptions are unsupported so far. Not that it matters, the more choice and knowledge one has, the more culpable for one becomes for their actions. Do you think a slug has more or less culpability for it’s actions than a human? How about a chimp and a human, chimps are pretty intelligent. Now imagine a deity with LIMITLESS intelligence, and LIMITLESS power, more or less culpable?
I agree this is Asinine nonsense, as the treatment of the slaves here in exo 1 portrays how Egypt mistreated the jews!!! Not commands from God on how the jews were to treat their slaves! How can you pretend to have a modicum of intellegence on this topic when you don’t even know not all passages in the OT are concerning the treatment the jews were to give their slaves?!?.
Secondly no society ever, even today has not been built/funded by the work of slaves. Why would the jews in the bronze age who slaves themselves, be expected to create a society to a standard the united states of American could not build itself?
What you forget in your judgement is God may be limitless, but the jews were not. So why didn’t god just magic everything they needed? He did for 40 years in the desert and it corrupted their souls so badly not even moses was allowed to enter the promise land. That is why an all powerful all intelligent God did not require bronze age people to maintain a society equal to that of 1940s america… Because even if he is all powerful, those bronze age people were not. nor was their supporting infrastructure in other human societies to maintain a slave free living.
Then you won’t be insulted when I point out your posts demonstrate that you have a remedial grasp of language, literacy, and grammar. No grasp whatsoever of basic logical principles, and the boundaries of epistemology escape you entirely. Or that your posts are breathtakingly arrogant, dishonest, poorly conceived, even by the woeful standard of religious apologetics, and are also biased and unevidenced woo woo.
you may… however considering the source, you may come off a bit biased. As clearly you and several others were hounding me for verses i produced several times and had no idea the false narrative you were pushing had been answered several times days earlier. As you were completely oblivious to the facts or how to apply them to the conversation.
you were so completely over taken by your own hubris, your pride would not allow you to see what was in front of your own face mocking you each time you demanded i provide the scripture you already had, but clearly did not fully understand. not to mention at least 15 misuses of logical fallacy. i honestly think you still don’t know the difference between mass eye witness testimony and ad populum fallacy. either way i seemily have broken you from running to a false fallacy every time you hit a wall and do not want to address a point as stated. As such/for these reasons Your critique is like a small child calling a teacher a stupid ugly face for receiving a failing grade on your best work.
One more lesson. did you note how all of your ‘critiques’ lacked any examples? how everything was based off of your own personal standard, how you supported none of the charges you levied? how you did not cite or support even one example?
now… can you contrast that with the examples i gave concerning you lack of understanding on the two verses i provided?
what about your misuse of logical fallacy, one in particular?
That my uneducated friend is the difference between an ad hom attack (you charging me with unsubstantiated personal attacks on my intelligence), and verified critique of your short commings. For you see i provided or cited evidence and conclusively demonstrated you habitual lack of… dont want to sound mean for the sake of it, so restraint applied maybe i should say: maybe your inability to… make an honest/non bias assessment.
to be critical but in a non emotionally lead way.
Evidence! my guy. That is the different between ‘oh yeah?! Well, well your an ugly stupid face!’
and seriously dude… you are not as smart as you pretend to be, here are the hard core reasons why… so back off a little and i will happily break things down more simply for you.
I say this because i have no doubt you do not see the logic in everything i have said. I know this because Your pride, the dunning-kruger syndrome you exibit, will not allow you to consider your information is incomplete no matter how many times i have corrected you or your exegesis of scripture, but rather assume the failure is in my logic. Rather than examine your own. which if i point out a failure or general ignorance in scripture, it would demand an intellectually honest person reexamine their position concerning a topic.
for instance i demonstrated to you that no where in the bible does it say God is omni benevolent, which it seems about 75% of your arguments are based on this fact. yet rather than reexamine this information and make the necessary adjustments to your view of god, you just reword to maintain your previous god narrative, and repress your god view. This lack of personal introspection is exactly what dunning-kruger describes.
So again I demonstrate a non ad hom but accurate critique of you logical and cognitive ability here concerning this subject and integrity in which you approach the subject. one more time this is an accurate critique because; at no point have you shared nor have shown any change in narrative when a critical point about your understanding of the subject has been made. you simply reword and double down to try and fit the parameter. it’s like you know enough to know you wrong so you change the wording, but will not full admit it because you will not abandon the faulty line of questioning. this is what happens when someone has a narrative or theory first then uses anything they can to fit the theory rather than base a theory off evidence then change it when more evidence is provided.
Well they say hope is the best of things, but sadly your claim is demonstrably false, as can be evidenced from a cursory read of our exchanges.
So no please continue with you ‘observations’ while at the same time i clean up your theological mess, miss quotes and general ignorance of the subject you claim mastery over. it will only serve to prove my claim.
I am not critical because i harbor ill will towards you. being critical =/= hate, not for a christian anyway. i have absolutely no opinion of you outside what has been demonstrated by you time and time again. the critiques are a measure or an attempt for you to examine the reason i feel you are stuck/why things seem illogical to you. the vast majority is you have a narrative concerning god and will not consider what you know to be wrong. all the while my conclusions are not based on what you retain/will not let go about your version of god. but what i have found to be true.
again:
Me, i found God. or rather i allowed my eye to be open to allow me to see what was always there. you and your version of God has been tested over and over by you and has found to be demonstrably false. which leads us to my first obstical… the fact that despite sharing the same names, your god or idea of God has nothing to do with the God of the bible. You will not considered that you got it wrong. that your efforts were not enough that you failed. and what you have left are the reason why you failed. one you are looking for an omni max god. no such god exists. yet here you are despite me telling you this over and ovr you keep returning to this poisoned well.
how else am i supposed to get you to consider everything you know to be wrong outside of me repeatedly demonstrating you lack of basic knowledge… which you promptly deny, copout with a mislabeled fallacy, or proceed like i did not just prove you wrong (two verses) or, you maintain your inability to understand is my logic or exegesis is in error… when infact when infact i have shown your understanding is lacking, yet you still press with your conclusions without taking into consideration the changes what i shared would make on your overall god view.
. Hahahahaha - you’re lucky that stating true facts isn’t a requirement, otherwise your ass would have been grass.
Probably not, what with probably not existing and all .At least not as described in the Gospels or from Saul’s hallucinations.
As far as I know, literacy was rare in first century Judea. I don’t think the scriptures actually say Jesus could read and write. Same goes for all of his disciples, considering their louche backgrounds.
I guess Jesus could have written the gospels. And if my Aunt had testicles she’d be my uncle.
He refuses to answer my question on whether or not he thinks the other deities are real. I don’t know why he can’t just give a simple yes or no.
So now you have me fucking confused … you pick and choose scripture. The “laws” don’t exist except “two” BUT now “this sin” which is a never changing standard…
YET
Consenting adults - “sin”
RAPE - OK if humans are near extinct??? AND a fucked-up comparison to “stupid/prudish” to have sex (inseminate)???
What the fuck is wrong with you??? If you are an example of your God’s thinking, fuck off. YOU (and I don’t give a shit what you are using to try to validate your idea of “morality”) have a horrible moral compass.
The fact you would justify rape under any circumstances is absolutely disgusting.
Other than being mentioned in the Book of Genesis, Jude, and Peter. There is the book of Enoch and it’s not part of your bible despite the Book of Jude making a reference towards the character, Enoch. That book was written off as heretical by the Biblical Studies Foundation which consists of your fellow theists because it sympathizes with the fallen angels that slept with the women. In fact, most Christians state that it is fictional and tell you not to read it at all. Pastors claim that anything not in the Bible is not canon. Which is funny because they’re also inadvertently denying their own scripture.
if there were you’d be gone by now, and you claimed the global flood in the Noah myth was “justified”, the asinine claim it somehow didn’t drown children and babies speaks for itself.
A demonstrable lie, why would atheists teach religious laws?
You have offered nothing beyond unevidenced anecdotal claims to support this, so I think it’s another lie.
Preaching again, unevidenced assertions again, argumentum ad populum fallacy again.
No it isn’t no matter how many times you misrepresent it, it is a bare appeal to numbers, and that is all you have offered.
I don’t believe you, what objective evidence can you demonstrate for your claim?
I don’t believe you, and besides the adherents of others religions make that identical claim, neither they or you can demonstrate any objective evidence.
Another bare faced lie.
I don’t believe you as have been unable to demonstrate a single shred of objective evidence for any deity. You don’t even know what it means, as you have demonstrated repeatedly.
Again I don’t believe you.
Not unless god is in it, along with sufficient objective evidence, and self promotion is against the forum rules.
So why did your deity endorse it according to the bible?
righteous
adjective
morally right or justifiable.
Hilarious…they’re clearly synonymous, and now your deity is supremely righteous, even though you have repeatedly denied your deity should be held to a higher moral standard.
So god still thinks mass murder, ethnic cleansing, rape, sex trafficking, and slavery are still moral then? you are all at se here, and are contradicting your earlier bombast all over the place.
Another example then of the superiority of secular morality, not only does it not demonise people for who they are and love, but it can correct errors, unlike religious morality whcih is stuck in the bronze age.
Not even close, you really have no clue. Atheists don’t challenge a deity’s right to do anything that is axiomatic. Why would they when you can’t offer a shred of objective evidence for any deity in the forts place, that makes no sense?
Asinine nonsense, as has been explained the bible shows your deity specifically endorsing slavery, you can thrash about with semantics all you want, the context here is clear, and you have said you claim the deity you believe is real is "supremely righteous, yet it can’t even condemn slavery as an egregious evil or rape, instead encouraging them in primitive human tribes.
Not hard to miss two laws in your awful rambling semi literate posts, I have to spend as much time editing and separating out quotes you’ve pasted together, as I do on my own posts. Your arrogance is self evident of course, as is the woeful standard of literacy on display.
Liar.
That’s because without corroborating evidence the phrase “a mass eye witness” is the very definition of a bare appeal to numbers. You’d have to be pretty ignorant or illiterate not to understand that, but apparently you still don’t.
Liar.
Or you’re an arrogant illiterate theist with a chip on his shoulder, who hasn’t a basic grasp of logic, and a woeful grasp of English, and can’t handle his blind faith being subjected to critical scrutiny, and doesn’t even know the difference between objective evidence, and bare subjective anecdotal claims.
I don’t believe you, care to offer even one example? I’m guessing not as you’re clearly now resorting to bare faced lies.
No because firstly you have offered not one example to support your claim, and secondly you have not reference any verses here for a comparison.
I’m going to go out on a limb here, and ask…are you in your teens by any chance?
Oh fuck me the hilarity.
Your is a possessive pronoun champ, not an abbreviation of you are.
Irony?
Well given it’s irrational woo woo I won’t beat myself up too much.
Wow that took two posts for you to parrot that back at me, well done, but I’m giving you an F, because Dunning and kruger are proper nouns see champ, you might know that if you actually read the research. Seriously you’re embarrassing yourself more and more.
No assumption was required or made on my part.
Another irony overload.
The Dunning Kruger effect describes a cognitive bias, and I know what it means, which is why I stated I suspected your posts indicated it, and why you’re now parroting it back at me like a child in a playground, who doesn’t understand what it means, and can’t even capitalise the names of the researchers who discovered it.
And I pointed out I had never claimed the bible said this, no doubt it’s your incisive ability and resounding integrity that has compelled you to repeat this straw man fallacy. 
Thank you, and of course that is demonstrably more than you can achieve. As the hilarious wording of that sentence amply demonstrates.
Like theists and religious apologists who rely on blind faith.
Straw man fallacy, I have never claimed mastery of any topic on here to my knowledge, so I’m prepared to bet your lying again here.
I don’t believe you, since this is a bare unevidenced claim. Sadly you don’t seem willing or able to grasp the epistemological significance.
Liar, that’s another straw man, those characteristics have been a core part of Christian doctrinal teachings and dogma for centuries.
Poisoning of the well fallacy more like, as you have yourself in this very post claim your deity is "supremely righteous, but then deny it is omnibenevolent, which is dishonest semantics, but I don’t care, as you are still not addressing the fact a deity with limitless knowledge and power would rationally be more culpable for it’ choices and actions than fallible evolved humans.
You could try offering a rational literate cogent response for once. However I fear like my request for a demonstration of objective evidence for your claims, I may be setting the bar higher than you can achieve.
I know that was hilarious, but don’t be too hard on him, he genuinely seem to think he is a frustrated genius, bless.