Christianity

[Bombt]

Don't you think it's a little weird that an all loving God hides His existence, makes it look completely unlikely, and then tortures forever any of His children who can't force themselves to believe in something that looks highly unlikely?

You believe in original sin, don't you? Yet you deny it that your religion asserts that humans are scum? Original sin is the idea that humans are born sinning pieces of shit and can do nothing good because their earliest ancestors screwed up. Because those early ancestors screwed up, God created death, illness, starvation, and suffering. Sure, according to your religion, you can be washed clean in the blood of Jesus that God sent to earth to be tortured to death to partially redeem you. But it's only partial redemption, no matter how you look at it. The death, suffering, illness, starvation and all other sorts of misery still happen to you. You are just as likely as anyone to have a child with a deadly and painful birth defect as anyone else. Jesus' blood doesn't prevent you from being tortured (as God decreed every human must be because they are all pieces of shit because Adam and eve tasted a fruit) as punishment for original sin.

If God revealed himself to be completely real, then there would be no free will. There would be no choice but to believe in him. That belief would be meaningless, because we would be like robots, forced to believe in him.
Yes, people are fundamentally sinful, but it doesn't mean that they're worth nothing. Also, Jesus' redemption, according to the Bible, is for the next life, not this one. We still have the hardships of this world, but we will be with God in the next.

KDbeads wrote:
Bombt wrote:
Atheism is not a religion and requires no faith.

Well, how does it not require faith? To a certain extent, we all have to have faith at some point. For example, we don't really, absolutely, positively know how the world was created because none of us were there. Therefore, we need some faith to argue that the world was produced through the Big Bang or any other theories.


I do not have to have faith that there is no god and do not need it to argue anything. Scientific theory does not require faith, it requires the ability to understand mathematics and physics.

You know..... I've sat and thought some more on this. I think you must be equating faith with knowledge. I don't need faith to argue a point, I need knowledge of the subject. I don't need faith to understand science, I need knowledge.

Faith and knowledge are not the same thing and can not be used interchangeably.

What I meant is that because no one knows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, whether there really is a God or not, whatever you believe requires some faith/trust in it.

[Tank]

Bombt. In creating a sock puppet you reveal a number of very unfortunate characteristics about yourself and your arguments

1) You are disingenuous
2) You will use your disingenuousness to further your cause
3) You reveal you doubt the validity of your own point of view by feeling the need to create a sock puppet
4) You are not trustworthy
5) Your arguments can not be trusted
6) You have an extremely un-christian attitude i.e. lying is acceptable
7) You are a disgrace to your purported religion
You will go to Hell on the basis of the above (assuming such a place exists and you seem to think it does)

Your credibility as a representative of the christian religion and interlocutor are now zero.

[Gawen]

If God revealed himself to be completely real, then there would be no free will. There would be no choice but to believe in him.

Something that has overwhelming evidence of its existence...well, someone would have to be nuts not to believe it. But there is still free will. One has the choice not to worship that god.
I've been asked many times what evidence I would accept to believe in Bible God existence. My answer has always been that everyone in the world, at the exact same time, would receive the same mark (cross, lamb, fish, etc). Bible god doesn't even have to be seen for me to believe it exists if that would happen. But would I worship Bible God? Absolutely no frakkin way. And THAT'S my free will in action. And THAT refutes your next sentence:

That belief would be meaningless, because we would be like robots, forced to believe in him.

Yes, people are fundamentally sinful,

No they aren't. That's your Christian indoctrination speaking.

but it doesn't mean that they're worth nothing.

They are worth nothing if BibleGod can throw all of humanity but a 144,000 into Hell. And please reconsider the myth of your God, Noah's Arc. Even the innocent; babies, children, animals all had to die to assuage your God's cravings for blood and worship.

We still have the hardships of this world, but we will be with God in the next.

The way I see it, the way Christians tell us, is that god is with us now. He's the creator. He listens to prayer. He allows suffering and evil in this world. Why would I want to live with a sadistic bloodthirsty tyrant in the next life?

Also, Jesus' redemption, according to the Bible,

Jesus was not the Jewish Messiah. Why in the world do you think Jews don't accept him for a Messiah? Although you haven't read the links you were provided, I'll tell you anyway:
God outlined the requirements in the Hebrew Bible (Also known as the Tanakh, Masoretic Text or Miqra or otherwise known as the Old Testament in Christianity). According to the Tanakh, the missions of the messiah includes returning the world to God and His teachings;
•   He will rule at a time when all people will come to acknowledge and serve one God (Isaiah 66:23, Ezekiel 37: 24-28).  
•   He will rule at a time of world-wide peace (Micah 4:3).
•   Restoring the royal dynasty to the descendants of David;
•   Overseeing the rebuilding of Jerusalem, including the Temple;
•   Gathering the Jewish people from all over the world and bringing them home to the Land of Israel;
•   Reestablishing the Sanhedrin;
•   Restoring the sacrificial system, the Sabbatical year and Jubilee.
This simply has not happened. And Judaism has no notion of the messiah not doing these things on the first visit, let along needing a second visit.
Additionally:
•   Jesus was not a prophet. Prophecy could only exist in Israel when the land is inhabited by a majority of world Jewry. Prophecy ended upon the death of the last prophets (Haggai, Zechariah and Malachi). Jesus appeared on the scene approximately 350 years after prophecy had ended.
•   Jesus was not descended from King David. Per Genesis 49:10 and Isaiah 11:1, the Messiah must be descended on his father's side from King David. However, according to the Christian claim that Jesus was the product of a virgin birth, he had no father -- and thus could not have possibly fulfilled the messianic requirement of being descended on his father's side from King David. The Christian idea of a virgin birth is derived from Isaiah 7:10-16 describing an "alma" as giving birth. The word "alma" has always meant a young woman, but Christian theologians came centuries later and translated it as "virgin." This accords Jesus' birth with the first century pagan idea of mortals being impregnated by various Gods.  
•   In response, it is claimed that Joseph adopted Jesus, and passed on his genealogy via adoption. There are two problems with this claim:
1)   There is no (Jewish) Biblical basis for the idea of a father passing on his tribal line by adoption. A priest who adopts a son from another tribe cannot make him a priest by adoption;
2)   Joseph could never pass on by adoption that which he doesn't have. Because Joseph descended from Jeconiah (Mat. 1:11) he fell under the curse of that king that none of his descendants could ever sit as king upon the throne of David. (Jeremiah 22:30; 36:30).

To answer this, Christian apologists claim that Jesus traces himself back to King David through Mary, who allegedly descends from David, as shown in the third chapter of Luke. There are four basic problems with this claim:
1)   There is no evidence that Mary descends from David. The third chapter of Luke traces Joseph's genealogy, not Mary's.
2)   Even if Mary can trace herself back to David, that doesn't help Jesus, since tribal affiliation goes only through the father, not mother.  Num. 1:18; Ezra 2:59.
3)   Even if the family line could go through the mother, Mary was not from a legitimate Messianic family. According to the Bible, the Messiah must be a descendent of David through his son Solomon (II Sam. 7:14)
4)   Luke 3:27 lists Shealtiel and Zerubbabel in his genealogy. These two also appear in Matthew 1:12 as descendants of the cursed Jeconiah. If Mary descends from them, it would also disqualify her from being a Messianic progenitor.

•   Tradition teaches that the Messiah will lead the Jewish people to full Torah observance.
Deut. 13:1-4 states that all mitzvahs remain binding forever and anyone coming to change the Torah is immediately identified as a false prophet. The New Testament contradicts the Torah and states its commandments are no longer applicable. (John 1:45 and 9:16, Acts 3:22 and 7:37)
Also read about the Notzrim, who might have had a different view of the Jewish messiah than traditional Judaism.
Redefining the Messiah's Role
In Christianity, the role of the messiah was redefined in order to fit the man's career as written by various anonymous authors. Because it was written that Jesus was to be resurrected, the Bible was examined (ad hoc) with the purpose of finding evidence that the messiah would be killed without bringing peace to the world or redemption to Israel. Enter the 'second coming'. This however, required creation of an explanation for the first coming and its disastrous end. The result of this was to shift the function of the messiah from a visible level where it could be tested and seen (as in Tanakh, what Christians call the "Old Testament") to an invisible/supernatural level where it could not. As a result of this reworking, the messiah's goal the first time around was changed from the redemption of Israel to the atonement for "original sin". It’s a reworking of Biblical themes.

There are mistakes with respect to Jesus’ death and its foretelling. Psalms 22:17 says, "Like a lion, they are at my hands and feet." The Hebrew word ki-ari (like a lion) is grammatically similar to the word "gouged." Thus Christianity reads the verse as a reference to crucifixion: "They pierced my hands and feet." Other scholars have said that Psalms 22:17 has the Hebrew word ki-asi, which would make this verse say "They bound my hands and feet".

As for the events that led up to the crucifixion:
1)   The NT says that the trial was on a Friday, and that on the night before, Jesus celebrated the Passover meal with his disciples. That would mean that his trial was on the first day of Passover. Here is a violation of two Jewish legal principles -- his trial was not on a Thursday or Monday as required, and it was on a holiday when no trials whatsoever could be held.
2)   There were no witnesses of his actual crime. The NT account of his trial shows that he was convicted on his own testimony. This is a severe violation of the Torah.
3)   There is no account in the NT of any call for defense witnesses. Both the second and third points violate Jewish Sanhedrin law in Deut 19:15.
4)   The choice of execution methods violates Torah completely. If convicted for Sabbath violation or false prophecy, the appropriate punishment was stoning.
5)   There are several problems if the trial and execution were held on a Friday, including limited time for a trial, and limited time for the execution. A crucifixion on a Friday afternoon was certain to run through  Shabbat. Assuming that the 120 judges of the Sanhedrin would have permitted a crucifixion (which is unlikely), one would doubt that they would have risked having Jesus die on the cross after the Sabbath began Friday night (the Sabbath is on Saturday, not Sunday as Christians have assert.  Because of the Sabbath laws, they would have been unable to carry the corpse to a burial site, and leaving the corpse on the cross overnight would be a Torah violation.
6)   Finally, there is no record that the court of that era was known to be reckless with the use of the death penalty. Yet, not only was Jesus crucified, but so were two petty criminals whose crimes did not justify the death penalty under Jewish law.

{Some of the above came from Jewish sources I can't remember. Some of it comes from past debates I've had on other forums. There are several Jewish sites where this info can be gleaned. }

Believe it or not, that's the short of it.

Why do we atheists have to explain the Bible to Christian?

[KDbeads]

What I meant is that because no one knows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, whether there really is a God or not, whatever you believe requires some faith/trust in it.

What faith do I need?  Lack of a god means nothing to me other than freedom.  I need no faith for that.  I don't have to trust every morning that when I wake up there is no god.  It's fact for me.  Fact requires no faith, it just is.

Maybe you would need faith but not me or any other atheist.

[JillSwift]

What I meant is that because no one knows, beyond a shadow of a doubt, whether there really is a God or not, whatever you believe requires some faith/trust in it.

No, no, my sock-puppet using friend, atheism has no belief. It is not "I know there is no god" it is simply "I do not believe in god". There is no more faith required for that than there is for "I do not believe in invisible pink unicorns" or "I do not believe in flumpical poopysocks".

[Bombt]

Bombt. In creating a sock puppet you reveal a number of very unfortunate characteristics about yourself and your arguments

1) You are disingenuous
2) You will use your disingenuousness to further your cause
3) You reveal you doubt the validity of your own point of view by feeling the need to create a sock puppet
4) You are not trustworthy
5) Your arguments can not be trusted
6) You have an extremely un-christian attitude i.e. lying is acceptable
7) You are a disgrace to your purported religion
You will go to Hell on the basis of the above (assuming such a place exists and you seem to think it does)

Your credibility as a representative of the christian religion and interlocutor are now zero.

the louisyeah account is actually a friend of mine, he's trying to do a project, and happens to agree with me. I did NOT make this account nor did I force my friend to do so.

We still have the hardships of this world, but we will be with God in the next.
The way I see it, the way Christians tell us, is that god is with us now. He's the creator. He listens to prayer. He allows suffering and evil in this world. Why would I want to live with a sadistic bloodthirsty tyrant in the next life?

Well, Albert Einstein had a quote to a question kind of like this. Someone asked him if God created everything, then why did God create evil. To this, Einstein said that evil actually does not exist, it is actually a word created to describe the absence of God. He used examples like cold and darkness which don't exist, but are actually words created to describe the absences of heat and light, respectively. If there were no suffering or evil in the world, then then there would be nothing by which we could see God, because if everything were good, then the meaning of good would be meaningless, as there is no bad to separate the good. I'm not exactly sure if I explained that right....

[KDbeads]

Well, Albert Einstein had a quote to a question kind of like this. Someone asked him if God created everything, then why did God create evil. To this, Einstein said that evil actually does not exist, it is actually a word created to describe the absence of God. He used examples like cold and darkness which don't exist, but are actually words created to describe the absences of heat and light, respectively. If there were no suffering or evil in the world, then then there would be nothing by which we could see God, because if everything were good, then the meaning of good would be meaningless, as there is no bad to separate the good. I'm not exactly sure if I explained that right....

Your kidding right?  
http://www.snopes.com/religion/einstein.asp
Check your facts first before spreading BS like this.  It's a false story passed on by the religious, like so many other things.

[i_am_i]

Bombt. In creating a sock puppet you reveal a number of very unfortunate characteristics about yourself and your arguments

1) You are disingenuous
2) You will use your disingenuousness to further your cause
3) You reveal you doubt the validity of your own point of view by feeling the need to create a sock puppet
4) You are not trustworthy
5) Your arguments can not be trusted
6) You have an extremely un-christian attitude i.e. lying is acceptable
7) You are a disgrace to your purported religion
You will go to Hell on the basis of the above (assuming such a place exists and you seem to think it does)

Your credibility as a representative of the christian religion and interlocutor are now zero.

the louisyeah account is actually a friend of mine, he's trying to do a project, and happens to agree with me. I did NOT make this account nor did I force my friend to do so.

"Trying to do a project." Man, you don't know anything about user accounts, do you? Thank you for showing everyone here that you, sir, are a liar.

[Whitney]

the louisyeah account is actually a friend of mine, he's trying to do a project, and happens to agree with me. I did NOT make this account nor did I force my friend to do so.

Ya...a friend of yours who happens to live in your house...  

[Gawen]

Well, bombt. Since neither you or your "friend" care to reply to me, I quit speaking with you. I simply do not have the time to waste typing up stuff for you to ignore it. Carry on with the others, if you dare.

[i_am_i]

the louisyeah account is actually a friend of mine, he's trying to do a project, and happens to agree with me. I did NOT make this account nor did I force my friend to do so.

Ya...a friend of yours who happens to live in your house...  

...and uses your computer. Oh, right, sure, that's what it is, and you, innocent one most sincere, never knew anything about it.

Fess up, bombt. Who knows, we may forgive you!

[Asmodean]

the louisyeah account is actually a friend of mine, he's trying to do a project, and happens to agree with me. I did NOT make this account nor did I force my friend to do so.

Ya...a friend of yours who happens to live in your house...  

[JillSwift]

Give the fellow a break. He invoked Pascal's Wager, for pity's sake. The most worn-out easily-countered non-argument ever invented. How knowledgeable could he be?

[KDbeads]

[i_am_i]

Give the fellow a break. He invoked Pascal's Wager, for pity's sake. The most worn-out easily-countered non-argument ever invented. How knowledgeable could he be?

Yeah, but he's trying to do a project, I mean he has a friend who's trying to do a project. Yeah, that's it.

"bombt" and "louisyeah."