If the Christian God is good, why did he kill so many people? Does this make him evil?

with_all_humility

LogicVault said:

@with_all_humility
"Well, I will never be able to answer your question to the extent that you will be satisfied.  In fact, the scriptures speak of this..." At that point you can just stop. I do not care what your stories say. They were written by humans, not a god. Provide absolute proof that a god exists or you have no grounds to make any claims in regards to religion.

Mr. Logic:  So you only believe in something if there is absolutle proof?  Then you must believe that a person cannot be committed of a crime unless there is absolute proof.  Circumstantial evidence should not be used by the courts or levied upon any defendant.  You must not believe in any of today's scientific theories, for they are not absolute.  For when we have absolute in science then it is not a theory, but would be a scientific law...correct?

MayCaesar

WilliamSchulz said:

MayCaesar said:

You could take a step further and ask a more fundamental question: "Why did God make humans mortal in the first place? How does death of a human make the world a better place?"

The only logical explanation is that human death serves some important purpose. And in some situations human death is more precious to the God than human life. There is no way out of the necessity to make a definitive conclusion: the God wants people to die. And at this point in the argument, I have to question the reasoning behind worshiping a god who may want you dead. Would one ever love a human that wants them dead? Especially if that human had the power to prevent their death? Sounds strange.

While you are correct that death serves an important purpose, that does not mean that God wants people to die. I am certain that God won't come to your house and murder you, rather God allows you to live your life, and you can either die by natural or man-made causes. A God that actively wanted you dead could have pulled the cord a while ago, but it is his mercy that keeps us in existence.

Well, the God does not necessarily want you to die right now, he might be willing to wait - but in the end, he does want you to die, one way or another. A dead human is something the god made sure everyone ends up as. And it happens relatively quickly: the vast majority of people do not live past 100, while the god is supposed to have an eternal life.

Someone who has designed the world in such a way that every living being ends their life in extreme pain on a deathbed, having everyone they know cry over their death, has a very twisted set of morals, very different from that any human society in history has employed. 

I have never understood monotheistic religions, as I have always seen them as worship of a bloody sadistic dictator. Polytheistic religions are more relatable, because there gods are very similar to humans, having squabbles between themselves and using humans to further their personal goals, as we do with the beings inferior to us (such as chicken). While monotheistic gods tend to be extremely cruel, their reasoning shrouded in mystery and appearing inconsistent.

with_all_humility

Thanks again my Friend @with_all_humility I agree with everything you said here, and today, it is next to impossible to find a Bible (meaning O.T. and N.T.) believing group who are not "Christian".
I have searched for 40 years now, I have found really close to the Bible Mennonite type of churches, or like the No Name Congregation, which is what I would refer to myself belonging to, .. this was a non-trinitarian church also known as the "Two by Twos", .. you know, referring to how the Lord sent out the seventy "two by two" which they believe they are remnants of. I went to that church, small congregation 100 max, with no building just renting a space, .. and just like the Quakers and Shakers, and found out that, like the Quakers, and the Amish, or any Christian church, .. the spirit that lead them was NOT Christ, nor the Holy Spirit, but man.


Prominent early Two by Twos preachers.
Left to right: William Gill, William Irvine, George Walker

What I'm saying is that just because a church is non-trinitarian, and hold the strictest doctrines of the Early Church doesn't mean they are lead by the Holy Spirit. And I tell you this with 100% conviction that No Christian church/congregation/group whatever they want to refer to themselves as, have the Holy Spirit.
Just because a church teaches Biblical truths, or even strict teachings of Christ and the Apostles, and know the Bible forward and backward does not mean they worship Bible God, or Christ.

My good Friend @Evidence:  I've never heard of the "Two by two" movement/church; I'll have to do some research as time permits.  I attend a small conservative church of Christ, while many building may adore the name church of Christ; many if not most are not doctrinally sound congregations. 

When you say lead by the Holy Spirit what do you mean?  How do you believe the Holy Spirit reveals himself today?  Not trying to split hairs, but many have different understandings of the Holy Spirit and how the Spirit works and is received today.   Most Calvinist believe in the direct operation of the Holy Spirit or a miraculous indwelling?  Then there are those of the charismatic movement who believe in the miraculous works of the Spirit.  Then there are those who hold that miracles have ceased to happen and the Holy Spirit reveals himself in God's written word or a variation thereof.

"Again my friend, you speak from Trinity-indoctrination.  There is NO hierarchy with God. God is One, the Only Possible One, and there is None Besides Him the Infinite and Eternal Mind/Spirit. Unless you can show me how you could put something or someone next to or beside Infinite?"

• You are correct; there is NO hierarchy with God.  The book of Hebrews only tells us that Christ sits at the right hand of God (Col 3.1) and that Christ is the head of the Church (Eph 5).  All authority was/has been given to Christ (Mat 28.16) and he is the priest-king (Heb 7) and our mediator unto God (1 Tim 2.5).

"No one speaks for God, Jesus made it clear that:" Yes you are correct.


"There is no Hierarchy either with God, only God. No one instructs God, .. everyone from the Holy Spirit and Gods son now Jesus Christ to the smallest of Angels serves Him, and does His Will, ..  but of course, He gave us all Free Will."

• I believe the heavenly bodies/beings were given free will as well (cf Rev 12.7-9)

May you be richly blessed my friend!

LogicVault

@with_all_humility
I say absolute proof because if I say evidence then people just quote things from the bible, which isn't even evidence. Provide something physical that indicates a god.

with_all_humility

@LogicVault

Well, you ask for something that can never be provided.  Closest physical evidence that can be provided is the complexity of creation.  We see it in everyday life.  There are many animals that exist that defy evolution it speaks to the creator Himself.  An example would be the giraffe, the giraffe neck has several check valves down through its arteries that prevent the giraffe's brain from rupturing blood vessels.  If evolution is correct, how did the giraffe evolve these valves to regulate the flow of blood to the giraffe's head?  If it was not for these check valves the giraffe would die the instantly as soon as it bent over to get a drink.  So how does such a complex system of specialized safety mechanisms develop in animals it according to evolution things happen by chance?  If that were the case giraffes would have never existed in the first place, because they would have died the instant the bent over to drink.  

Then there is the Bible, a book you claim to a book of stories that men wrote.  There is archeological evidence to support the Bible.  Bible critics have often been embarrassed by discoveries that corroborated Bible accounts they had previously deemed to be a myth, such as the existence of the Hittites, King David, and Pontius Pilate, just to name a few.  

Jewish archaeologist Nelson Glueck summed it up very well:

"It may be stated categorically that no archeological discovery has ever controverted a single biblical reference. Scores of archeological findings have been made which confirm in clear outline or in exact detail historical statements in the Bible [1]."

Numerous transcripts that reveal the accuracy of modern Bible: 

So how reliable are the manuscripts that all these Bibles are translated from? The evidence is overwhelming and seldom disputed. Manuscripts prepared from different individuals spread over various parts of the Middle East and Mediterranean region agree remarkably with each other. Also, the manuscripts agree with the Septuagint, which was translated into Greek from Hebrew possibly as far back as the 3rd century BC. The Dead Sea scrolls discovered in 1947 also provided a profound testimony to the reliability of the centuries of transmission of the Bible text, as every Old Testament book found was virtually word for word with today’s Bible! (the few differences were “obvious slips of the pen or variations in spelling”) [2].

There are thousands of New Testament transcripts that survive and speak the accuracy, while there are few works of other ancient writings that secularist doesn't dispute whatsoever. The New Testament manuscript evidence is very impressive, with 24,000 known copies, 5,366 which are complete, and some that date as early as the second and third centuries. This manuscript authority greatly surpasses all other writings of antiquity, as illustrated in the following table:

Work	When Written	Earliest Copy	Time Span	No. of copies
New Testament	A.D. 40-100	A.D. 125	25 yrs	24,000
Homer (Iliad)	900 B.C.	400 B.C	500 yrs	643
Sophocles	496-406 B.C	A.D. 1000	1,400 yrs	193
Aristotle	384-322 B.C.	A.D. 1100	1,400 yrs	49
Caesar (Gallic Wars)	58-50 B.C.	A.D. 900	1000 yrs	10

 So you tell me who as more evidence for their existence, Sophocles, Aristotle or Christ?  Yet no one disputes the existence of Aristotle or Socrates?  Socrates is believed to live from 470-399 BC, yet there are no, zero surviving writings of his.  Yet many do not dispute the existence of Socrates.
 

However, despite all this evidence; I'm sure you will not find it sufficient enough. 

[1] Nelson Glueck, Rivers in the Desert, 1960, pg 31 
[2] Gleason Archer, Jr., A Survey of Old Testament Introduction, 1974, pg 25.

You never answer my question pertaining to circumstantial evidence?  Do you believe in the validity of circumstantial evidence?  And the quest as to believing in scientific theory, despite the fact that there are assumptions (no evidence) in the theories.  Why the double standard?  

Evidence

LogicVault said:

@with_all_humility
I say absolute proof because if I say evidence then people just quote things from the bible, which isn't even evidence. Provide something physical that indicates a god.

@LogicVault - now I'm not speaking for my friend with_all_humility, no need, but if you want to see a physical god (small 'g' god), my goodness, there are literally millions of them.
One you would love, you can go to Geneva Switzerland and visit your Big-Bang brothers at CERN and right on the front lawn is one of those gods, you can bow down and pray to.





CERN will even give you a calendar as to when you should direct your prayers to Lord Shiva who will pass your prayers toward the LHC, yours along with millions of other CERN worshippers. And if you do it consistently when the stars align just right, and keep good records of your prayers, they will invite you to the CERN's SIMMETRY worship-dance.

Erfisflat

Unless you're willing to tolerate trolling, don't bother with @LogicVault. Trolling is his entire purpose for this site. He's been caught and outed as a troll in multiple threads. Every post he makes is inflammatory, off topic and generally ignorant. 

with_all_humility

@Erfisflat

That's what I figured but wanted to give him the benefit of the doubt.  

Evidence

with_all_humility said:

Thanks again my Friend @with_all_humility I agree with everything you said here, and today, it is next to impossible to find a Bible (meaning O.T. and N.T.) believing group who are not "Christian".
I have searched for 40 years now, I have found really close to the Bible Mennonite type of churches, or like the No Name Congregation, which is what I would refer to myself belonging to, .. this was a non-trinitarian church also known as the "Two by Twos", .. you know, referring to how the Lord sent out the seventy "two by two" which they believe they are remnants of. I went to that church, small congregation 100 max, with no building just renting a space, .. and just like the Quakers and Shakers, and found out that, like the Quakers, and the Amish, or any Christian church, .. the spirit that lead them was NOT Christ, nor the Holy Spirit, but man.


Prominent early Two by Twos preachers.
Left to right: William Gill, William Irvine, George Walker

What I'm saying is that just because a church is non-trinitarian, and hold the strictest doctrines of the Early Church doesn't mean they are lead by the Holy Spirit. And I tell you this with 100% conviction that No Christian church/congregation/group whatever they want to refer to themselves as, have the Holy Spirit.
Just because a church teaches Biblical truths, or even strict teachings of Christ and the Apostles, and know the Bible forward and backward does not mean they worship Bible God, or Christ.

My good Friend @Evidence:  I've never heard of the "Two by two" movement/church; I'll have to do some research as time permits.  I attend a small conservative church of Christ, while many building may adore the name church of Christ; many if not most are not doctrinally sound congregations. 

When you say lead by the Holy Spirit what do you mean?  How do you believe the Holy Spirit reveals himself today?  Not trying to split hairs, but many have different understandings of the Holy Spirit and how the Spirit works and is received today.   Most Calvinist believe in the direct operation of the Holy Spirit or a miraculous indwelling?  Then there are those of the charismatic movement who believe in the miraculous works of the Spirit.  Then there are those who hold that miracles have ceased to happen and the Holy Spirit reveals himself in God's written word or a variation thereof.

"Again my friend, you speak from Trinity-indoctrination.  There is NO hierarchy with God. God is One, the Only Possible One, and there is None Besides Him the Infinite and Eternal Mind/Spirit. Unless you can show me how you could put something or someone next to or beside Infinite?"

• You are correct; there is NO hierarchy with God.  The book of Hebrews only tells us that Christ sits at the right hand of God (Col 3.1) and that Christ is the head of the Church (Eph 5).  All authority was/has been given to Christ (Mat 28.16) and he is the priest-king (Heb 7) and our mediator unto God (1 Tim 2.5).

"No one speaks for God, Jesus made it clear that:" Yes you are correct.


"There is no Hierarchy either with God, only God. No one instructs God, .. everyone from the Holy Spirit and Gods son now Jesus Christ to the smallest of Angels serves Him, and does His Will, ..  but of course, He gave us all Free Will."

• I believe the heavenly bodies/beings were given free will as well (cf Rev 12.7-9)

May you be richly blessed my friend!

Thank you for your blessings @with_all_humility, boy we all sure need it!

So what do you think, the Trinity doctrine is the work of Satan or not?
By making God into a plural being, this confusing three-persons-in-one-god, which is actually the three persons/beings make up the "idea" of god, which was the real intention of the RCC, to make "God" just an idea, and the Pope taking the position of "Father'. Here is the real reason behind the Trinity-gods;

Father-god = The Pope, the vicar of Jesus-god
The son-god = Lucifer
spirit-god = Mary, the goddess all Christians used to pray to, or in the spirit of Mary, ..



The thing is that the very foundation of the 'Christian' Religion is the Trinity Doctrine. So if we go by the name Christian, we automatically associate ourselves with the RCC created Doctrines, which is the plural Trinity triune-gods, or the three god-persons that make up the idea of God

notice the "What", .. when it is written that God is Spirit and no one has seen God at any time, and to make Him have a human nature is apostacy, even blasphemy! This was the whole reason the RCC with the help of pagan Constantine took the Hebrew writings, both the O.T.  Prophets and Apostles, to blend God of Abraham, Isaak and Jacob into the pagan gods Rome worshipped.

sear

"The Bible states he created good and evil so they sort of even eachother out ..." Lead

What meaning can we impart to "good" without the context of evil.
Likewise for up without down, left without right, hot without cold, etc.

    “Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

    Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

    Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

    Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?” ― Epicurus (341-270BC)

LogicVault

@with_all_humility
"Closest physical evidence that can be provided is the complexity of creation." The complexity of our reality does not mean there's a god.  Assuming there has to be a god just because reality is complex is pure speculation.

"If evolution is correct, how did the giraffe evolve these valves to regulate the flow of blood to the giraffe's head?" You essentially answered your own question, through evolution. Small changes occurred throughout generations that eventually led to what we know as a giraffe today. Before they started developing longer necks, they didn't require valves. Both evolved simultaneously.

"Bible critics have often been embarrassed by discoveries that corroborated Bible accounts they had previously deemed to be a myth, such as the existence of the Hittites, King David, and Pontius Pilate, just to name a few." Those people may have existed, but there's no proof that the stories about them are 100% true.

"The evidence is overwhelming and seldom disputed." What evidence? And which parts of the bible? Is there evidence that Jesus performed miracles other than stories claiming it? Or any other miraculous event?

"Do you believe in the validity of circumstantial evidence?" No.

"And the quest as to believing in scientific theory, despite the fact that there are assumptions (no evidence) in the theories." I don't put trust in theories until evidence is provided. The theories may turn out to be right, but until evidence is found, it remains nothing more than an assumption.

By the way, Erfisflat's comment about me is a repeat of the same thing I said about him in another thread (https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/2079/is-the-earth-a-ball/p4) hours before he repeated it here. He has recently started repeating a lot of things I say in reverse back to me as his newest tactic for trolling. Here is another example of his behavior on this site https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/2311/ive-changed-my-mind-the-earth-is-flying-ball-and-here-is-the-evidence

with_all_humility

LogicVault said:

@with_all_humility
"Closest physical evidence that can be provided is the complexity of creation." The complexity of our reality does not mean there's a god.  Assuming there has to be a god just because reality is complex is pure speculation.

"If evolution is correct, how did the giraffe evolve these valves to regulate the flow of blood to the giraffe's head?" You essentially answered your own question, through evolution. Small changes occurred throughout generations that eventually led to what we know as a giraffe today. Before they started developing longer necks, they didn't require valves. Both evolved simultaneously.

"Bible critics have often been embarrassed by discoveries that corroborated Bible accounts they had previously deemed to be a myth, such as the existence of the Hittites, King David, and Pontius Pilate, just to name a few." Those people may have existed, but there's no proof that the stories about them are 100% true.

"The evidence is overwhelming and seldom disputed." What evidence? And which parts of the bible? Is there evidence that Jesus performed miracles other than stories claiming it? Or any other miraculous event?

"Do you believe in the validity of circumstantial evidence?" No.

"And the quest as to believing in scientific theory, despite the fact that there are assumptions (no evidence) in the theories." I don't put trust in theories until evidence is provided. The theories may turn out to be right, but until evidence is found, it remains nothing more than an assumption.

By the way, Erfisflat's comment about me is a repeat of the same thing I said about him in another thread (https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/2079/is-the-earth-a-ball/p4) hours before he repeated it here. He has recently started repeating a lot of things I say in reverse back to me as his newest tactic for trolling. Here is another example of his behavior on this site https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/2311/ive-changed-my-mind-the-earth-is-flying-ball-and-here-is-the-evidence

Thanks for taking the time to respond. You said, "The complexity of our reality does not mean there's a god." I suppose this could be true but I tend to believe the complexity of living organisms gives more credence to intelligent design verse evolution.  Example how did evolution from a sling to cradle the human eye in its socket? 

How does evolution form something as complex as the human eye and in the upper right hand corner you notice that mucscle and tenden has grown in a loop to form a cradleing sling to the eyes to shock abosorb while in out heads.  Evolutoin did this by trial and error??? I don't think so, the evolutinoist answer to this problem is that it to millions of years to from. Thus the reason we have an Earth that is billions of years old.

Pretty week if you ask me.

with_all_humility

sear said:

"The Bible states he created good and evil so they sort of even eachother out ..." Lead

What meaning can we impart to "good" without the context of evil.
Likewise for up without down, left without right, hot without cold, etc.

    “Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

    Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

    Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

    Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?” ― Epicurus (341-270BC)

Show me the verse that says God created evil?  Please!

LogicVault

@with_all_humility
"Evolutoin did this by trial and error??? I don't think so, the evolutinoist answer to this problem is that it to millions of years to from. Thus the reason we have an Earth that is billions of years old." You answered your own question there. Our planet is in fact that old if not older. Evolution has had plenty of time to do this. Also, the fact that our planet is so old is physical evidence that the bible is wrong. The bible claims the planet is vastly younger even though scientific study proves it to be older.

with_all_humility

@LogicVault

Actually, the Bible does not claim an age for the earth, but I don't believe it to billion or millions of years old either.  I notice in your answers that you never really answer the questions posed.  You take the usual copout that it happened over a long period of time.   So we aren't talking about science but probability then.  The old given enough time anything can happen.  Pretty weak if you ask me, and a shame I was hoping you could explain and show evidence of the evolutionary process.   

with_all_humility

@Evidence

I agree that the Trinity you describe is a false doctrine.  However, I tend to believe that Christ and the Holy Spirit are diety and are above other heavenly bodies if you will.  Christ is the son of God, he sits at the right hand of God and will judge all men's hearts.  The Holy Spirit came with all power and knowledge to aid and guide in establishing of the Church after Pentecost.  

As state before I don't prescribe to the doctrine taught by the RCC.  Mary is never elevated to having any position of authority and there is no indication we are to worship her.  This would be blasphemy and equivalent to worshiping the golden calf if you ask me. The pope is a made up position, bishops, elders, and shepherds all the describe the same position of leadership which is in a local church/congregation.  There was no centralized church government that so many denominations have today. 

Evidence

with_all_humility said:

@Evidence

I agree that the Trinity you describe is a false doctrine.  However, I tend to believe that Christ and the Holy Spirit are diety and are above other heavenly bodies if you will.  Christ is the son of God, he sits at the right hand of God and will judge all men's hearts.  The Holy Spirit came with all power and knowledge to aid and guide in establishing of the Church after Pentecost.  

As state before I don't prescribe to the doctrine taught by the RCC.  Mary is never elevated to having any position of authority and there is no indication we are to worship her.  This would be blasphemy and equivalent to worshiping the golden calf if you ask me. The pope is a made up position, bishops, elders, and shepherds all the describe the same position of leadership which is in a local church/congregation.  There was no centralized church government that so many denominations have today. 

@with_all_humility
YES, .. that's exactly how it is my friend, as you said:
..    I tend to believe that Christ and the Holy Spirit are deity and are above other heavenly bodies if you will.  Christ is the son of God, he sits at the right hand of God and will judge all men's hearts.  The Holy Spirit came with all power and knowledge to aid and guide in establishing of the Church after Pentecost.

Christ is a deified being, not by man, but by God Himself. This is why I used to shy away from calling Jesus a deity, because the RCC does a lot of deifying, so did the Egyptians, all their Pharaohs were gods.

But you said: I agree that the Trinity you describe is a false doctrine.

So do you still believe in 'a' Trinity that makes up God?

I would really like to understand your beliefs better  (I want to hear your true feelings and understanding on this, you don't have to agree) so do we agree on the following?

* Jesus is not God, but the son of God who after taking on, and successfully completing the job of Salvation, saving all man from eternal death and damnation (those who accept him, and follow him), God raised him above every created being both in Heaven and earth, including all Principalities and powers (except Gods of course).

* God is not made up of three persons - what I mean by this is that; anyone and everyone that is either of support, or against God like Lucifer and his angles, were created by God. They are not any part of God Himself.
- this means that just because we are of one mind and spirit with God, we are not a part that makes up God, and this includes God's son Word aka Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit.

* That what I call myself, or the faith that I go by defines my beliefs. If I say I'm a Muslim and preach Christ, I would not be a true Muslim, same goes for calling myself a Hindu, a Buddhist, a Catholic or any Organized Religion like Scientology, Mormon. If I identified with these, it would be obvious that the Christ I was preaching/teaching others to follow would NOT be the Christ defined and described in the Bible.

* That the name Christian is not what any of the Apostles went by, nor did Jesus establish the Christian Religion, nor did any of the early Believers in the Church that the Apostles established went by that name, and no church after that till Constantine assimilated the mock name into his RCC, creating the RCC Christian Religion.

What I am looking for is any fault in my understanding in the name Christian. God forbid I tell people to leave the title Christian, yet the Bible shows somewhere that it was Jesus who through his Apostles actually established this name to be used, .. you know what I mean?
Here is how I understand it, and PLEASE, I do not shy away from correction or admonishment, I crave it. As long as it's Biblically sound.

Acts 11:26 And when he had found him, he brought him unto Antioch. And it came to pass, that a whole year they assembled themselves with the church, and taught much people. And the disciples were called Christians first in Antioch.

The Believers/disciples were first CALLED Christian in Antioch by the Gentiles, as a soft mockery, teasing, similar to how we refer to some people as “Goodie Two Shoes”. -The definition of a goody two shoes; is a person who always does everything right, an excessively virtuous person and always follows the rules, so much so that it becomes annoying.

Look, in Acts 11:26 it was the Gentiles who mock-called the Believers “Christian”, but in the Bible we see that they never referred to themselves as Christians, but “The Way”!

Acts 19:3 And about that time there arose a great commotion about “the Way”.

Here we see King Agrippa mocking Paul:

Acts 26:28 Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian. (He didn't use "disciple of Christ" insted the street mock name! I mean I can almost hear the laughter in the court!)

And here we see how insulting and annoying it started to become to the Early Believers, or Disciples, those who were of “the Way”:

1 Peter 4:16 Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf.

Now look, if Christian really meant "Christ-like" as I was taught it meant, then why would the disciples be ashamed of that? Never. But being called a "goodie two shoes, a person who always does everything right, an excessively virtuous person and always follows the rules, so much so that it becomes annoying"   Now that yes, that would really get on their nerves and make them ashamed walking the streets, especially the young believers.

Tell me what you or anyone reading this thinks?

Thank you!

Evidence

sear said:

"The Bible states he created good and evil so they sort of even eachother out ..." Lead

What meaning can we impart to "good" without the context of evil.
Likewise for up without down, left without right, hot without cold, etc.

    “Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

    Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

    Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

    Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?” ― Epicurus (341-270BC)

@sear “Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

Epicurus, you should have read Moses, you see in Genesis there, Moses pointed out that God created us in His image, to have free will.

    Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

Oh He is willing, and if you would have stuck around to read John 3:16, you would know that. But you could have figured that out from the Prophets.

    Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

From evil people for one, and the other evil, or calamity comes from God. Man has experienced great evil brought upon them from God when He drowned everyone, man, woman and child except for Noah and his small family in the Great Flood!

    Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?” ― Epicurus (341-270BC)

He is able and willing, all one needs to do is listen to His commandments, and follow it, and evil stops, and Satan flees!

with_all_humility

@Evidence

"So do you still believe in 'a' Trinity that makes up God?"  No, I do not teach/prescribe to the Trinity doctrine, I describe it as a Godhead or the ruling class if you will in heaven.  God is the Father, He is the I am, Christ is the son of God or the son of man, the Mesia and other titles that are given unto him.  He is the head of the Chruch and will judge all mankind on the day of judgment and sits at the right hand of God.  The Holy Spirit is the great comforter that brought power and knowledge to the apostles and other first century saints to aid in the establishment of the Church.  

I hope this clarifies my beliefs. 

with_all_humility

@Evidence & @sear

I see a lot of people trying to Epicurus to pose questions about Yahweh however in doing so you are pulling Epicurus out of context.  

Epicurus was a 4th century BC philosopher: “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” [1]

However, Epicurus posed the questions to the Greek polytheists of his day and not to the God of the Bible?  Just do a little research and you will find out what I'm saying is true.

So does Evil exist?

According to Darwinian evolutionist No, but this poses a problem.  What about morality?

Seeing the plain consequences of this fact, skeptics typically go one of two ways: 

1. Ground goodness on something other than God, or  
2. They deny good or evil exist at all.

This first group accepts value propositions as something real (good and evil exist) but tries to avoid God. 

1. Freedom from Religion founder and president Dan Barker says “’Good’ is that which enhances life, and ‘evil’ is that which threatens it.”
2. Neuroscientist Sam Harris defines morality as the “right and wrong answers to the question of how to maximize human flourishing in any moment…”[2]\

In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice.  The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.[3]

An abstract from Cornell University scientist William Provine’s second annual Darwin Day speech starts off this way: 

• “Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly” One of those consequences, he suggests, is that “no ultimate foundation for ethics exists”.[4]

If moral values aren’t real, this disrupts my first premise. There are plenty of reasons to reject the idea that moral values are a convenient social construct, but it’s important to show where this takes us if it were so.

“The position of the modern evolutionist . . . 

• Is that humans have an awareness of morality…
• Because such an awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than our hands and feet and teeth …
• Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says, ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves . . . 
• Nevertheless, . . . such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory…[5]

The late atheist Christopher Hitchens conceded that it “could be true, yes. That could well be true,” that morality is a byproduct of social evolution without any objective foundation.[6]

• He adds, “one wants to think their love for their fellow creature means more than that.” No, Christopher, they don’t merely want to think it, they actually do think it and for good reason.

Ruse, Hitchens, and other like-minded atheists may not believe in God and many despise him. However, they know that without him, they’re posed with another problem worse than the first. 

• Namely, they are unable to account for the kinds of evil that we all know is real. Worse, they deny the very evil atheists typically point to as evidence against God. This argument turns the challenge on its head. We can only make sense of evil if God exists.

So, we have to conclude evil does exist

 

Evil entails objective good

• What we mean is…absolute moral perfection by which all things of value are measured. 
• Evil isn’t really a thing at all. Rather, it’s the absence of something – namely, something good. 
• Just as darkness isn’t anything on its own without light (dark = the lack of light rays), evil only comes about when something good is taken away. 
• For many atheists; evil is when a human’s wellbeing doesn’t go the way it should. 
• Whether we base value on God or our own idea of human flourishing, evil is when something goes wrong. It’s not the way things are supposed to be. 
• This only makes sense if there’s a right way for things to be. 

Objective good must transcend, precede, hold accountable, and value humanity.

• Transcending:  First, goodness entails a moral authority which crosses all times, places, and cultures. Must have a standard.

1. People groups can’t make up their own values. Instead, value applies to all people regardless of what anyone thinks about it. 
2. That’s what philosophers mean by “mind-independent.” The Nazis can’t be just in doing what they did no matter how many people agreed with it. 
3. Instead, goodness must extend beyond the individual mind or community consensus to be the standard by which ALL people and cultures are compared. 
4. The value inherent in objective goodness must transcend humanity in this way.

• Preceding:  Second, goodness cannot have been invented by the first humans. After all, any values established by man can be later undone by men.[7]

1. It would be absurd to think the first humans could come up with whatever value system they wanted because they were first on the scene. 
2. It doesn’t take much effort to see the advantage of lying or stealing as virtues. No, that isn’t an option available to us. Goodness wasn’t invented. It was already there. Rom 1.

• Holding Accountable:  Third, there is no objective goodness if evil goes unpunished. In other words, where there’s no justice, there’s no injustice. When people are allowed to do bad things without any consequences, there is no justice. 

1. Objective goodness demands justice. But there’s not always justice in this world. 
2. In a purely natural world with no accountability for all people, there’s no justice for all people. If there’s no justice for all people, there’s no justice at all. If that’s not good, then goodness must include universal human accountability and chaos may ensue 

• Value Giving:  Fourth, objective goodness must include the intrinsic value inherent in all human life.

1. By intrinsic, I mean they all have equal worth just for being part of the species and not for any act, experience, or attribute they have or lack. 
2. It would make no sense to violate the rights of a human being if they aren’t valued in the first place. Evil and suffering experienced by humans only makes sense if the species has worth beyond itself and that their value is an objective fact of reality

Therefore, since evil exists, there is a transcendent, authoritative, human valuing source of objective goodness

 

Biblical Christianity’s explanation offers a solution that perfectly fits these facts:

1. God transcends humanity – Job 12:10, Acts 17:25, 28, Col 1:17, Heb 1:3, Eph 4:6
2. God precedes humanity – Gen 1-2, Ps 90:2, Job 36:26, Rev 1:8, Jn 8:58
3. God holds humanity accountable – Gen 3:24, Amos 9:1-4, Mt 6:20, 1 Pet 4:4-5, 2 Pet 3:9, Mt 25, Mk 9:43, Rev 14:9-11, 20:10
4. God values humanity – Gen 1:27, Ps 16:11, 73:25-26, Isa 62:5, Zep 3:17-18, Jn 3:16, Eph 5:23-32, 1 Jn 4:19
5. God is objective goodness – Gen 1:31, Ps 100:5, Lk 18:19, Rom 12:2, 1 Thes 5:18, 1 Jn  4:8

 

Here is the claim most atheists make…Read Evilbible.com claim

God Is the Creator of Evil – Evil Bible.com

I am frustrated at two specific verses in the bible, which applies to this particular topic.  The first is the biblical statement that “God is the Alpha and the Omega”.  Loosely defined it means the beginning and the end, the all-knowing.  Which of course implies that all of his actions and the results are foreknown to him.  I have a real problem with this notion.  For if God was to know ahead of time that someday he would send me to hell for being an Atheist, I ask what was the purpose in him creating me in the first place?  Was it simply to watch me be tortured?  That seems to be the most logical explanation.  I can think of no other rational explanation, nor neither has any Christian who I posed this question to.  Some people have attempted to tell me that God has a purpose unknown to us and that we must simply accept his will.  Would you keep a friend who commits evil and offers no self-justification or remorse?  Of course not, so why is this same judgment not applied to God?  It seems rather contradictory that this trait is despised in humanity, yet, it is worshiped in religion.

Secondly, I want to reinforce the fact that God is indeed the creator of evil.  Please read verse Isaiah 45:7.  “I form the light and create darkness.  I make peace and create evil.  I the Lord do all these things”.  The Christian God outright claims that he is indeed the source of evil.  So how can he then claim to be sinless?

To be more specific, let’s talk about the Lord's creation of evil, let’s talk about the conception of Satan.  This being was created and unleashed by God.  Jehovah knew (for he is the all-knowing) that at the time of Lucifer’s creation he would eventually become Satan and spend his existence wreaking havoc on mankind.  Leading people into criminal activities.  Suppose I were to build an evil robot, that I knew would go around torturing and murdering people.  Whose fault would it be if I let it loose?  Mine or the robot’s?  Of course, it would be mine, for I created it with that purpose and unleashed it for that purpose.  Now I ask you, whose fault is deviltry in the world?  Is it the PUPPET Satan or the being that deliberately created Satan’s evil?

Now God Plays Switch-A-Roo And Humans Are The Creators Of Evil Not only does the bible imply, but so do many Christians, that we as a people are the creator of evil.  It is clear for reading the bible that this is untrue, but the speculation still remains.  Supposedly, when Adam and Eve fell from grace, they single-handedly brought evil into the world.  All you have to do is think logically for a moment, and you will obviously see something is very unjust with this concept.  Could any rational being hold a starving infant in Ethiopia responsible for the actions of two long-dead people?  Or perhaps, would you find it fair to be convicted of Jack the Ripper’s crimes? The connection in both of these instances is not only ludicrous but, disgusting to nod your head at.  People who use this argument are simply attempting to rationalize sadism.

 I must declare that a Christian that walks into a children’s ward and insists that it is correct that children suffer as a result of the original sin, must destroy themselves of all compassion and mercy. I insist that those who worship the Lord knowing this hypocrisy must be as cruel as the Christian God he/she believes in.  A complete and utter moral degenerate, taking stabs at protecting their belief system.  A person as such would just as easily worship Satan as God in their blindness and faith.  For apparently, no amount of evidence could convince him that God was bad once they decided to worship him; their basic assumption is that they are correct, which makes them untouchable by any amount of rationality.

God created Evil; Isa 45.7 Rebuttal (Look at my beginning arguments on the first page under this post)

Conception of Satan

1.    Is Satan Evil 

• Evil robot scenario is a fallacy
• In fact, it is called Loaded Question Fallacy: Asking a question that has an assumption built into it so that it can’t be answered without appearing guilty
• As well as Genetic Fallacy: Judging something based upon where it comes from

 Conclusion

1. God is not the creator of evil
2. Atheism does not have an answer for Evil or Morality

---

[1]Classic argument for the “problem of evil” first attributed in this form to the Greek philosopher Epicurus

[2]Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), pp. 262, 268-269. 

[3]Hitchens vs. Craig debate “Does God Exist,” Biola University (La Mirada, CA), April 4, 2009, at approximately 1:25 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tYm41hb48o

[4]Gregory Koukl, The Story of Reality, p73

---

[5]Sam Harris, bases his moral standard on what he deems human flourishing, https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/thinking-about-go

[6]Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: The Darwinian View of Life, Basic Books, 1995, p133

[7]William Provine, “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life” [abstract] from a speech given at the Second Annual Darwin Day Celebration, University of Tennessee – Knoxville on Feb. 12, 1998

https://web.archive.org/web/20070829083051/http://eeb.bio.utk.edu/darwin/Archives/1998ProvineAbstract.htm

 

---

 

poco

@sear

"The Bible states he created good and evil so they sort of even eachother out ..." Lead

What meaning can we impart to "good" without the context of evil.
Likewise for up without down, left without right, hot without cold, etc.

    “Is god willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent.

    Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent.

    Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil?

    Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him god?” ― Epicurus (341-270BC)

Epicurus was just a human being like all of us.  Why do so many people, as yourself has just done, think it's such a profound question?  Either Epicurus didn't know anything about what the bible said, or he didn't like God & chose to have others ponder this thinking he was some sort of genius, or something, & they would think "since Epicurus wrote this, it must be noteworthy."

I must ask you where you have come up with your 1st sentence of,"Bible states he created good and evil so they sort of even eachother out ..." Lead" 

Surely not out of any bible I have read.

But as "with all humanity" says above, one must know the context re why he wrote it.  This is very typical of those that do not know the bible & attempt to take a verse here & there out of context to explain their own personal narrative to criticize believers & God. 

I commend "all with ..." for taking the time to explain with biblical verses.  Me ..... I don't have that sort of time to research, so I'll give the Cliff Notes version. 

1 -  Please show me where it states that God created evil ..... with detailed explanation.  Please make sure that evil is a direct result of God ..... no one else had their hand in it, like man or Satan.  ...... That's all ...... easy enough huh?

If you are able to answer this correctly, we'll go on from there OK?  But please make sure you are using verses from the bible not out of context.  Thanx.

poco

@LogicVault

your:  "Evolutoin did this by trial and error??? I don't think so, the evolutinoist answer to this problem is that it to millions of years to from. Thus the reason we have an Earth that is billions of years old." You answered your own question there. Our planet is in fact that old if not older. Evolution has had plenty of time to do this. Also, the fact that our planet is so old is physical evidence that the bible is wrong. The bible claims the planet is vastly younger even though scientific study proves it to be older.

me:  Please explain how the bible " claims the planet is vastly younger," bc it says nothing of the sort.  Are you aware that the Ancient Hebrew language had only about 8500 words & many words had many meanings for the same spelling of it.  the word, "yom," could have meant any amount of a time period from sun up to sun down all the way to millions & millions of years.

The interpreters of the bible certainly seemed to think 'yom' meant day. A 24 hour period, which was indeed one of its meanings, but it also meant many other time periods.  So, b4 you think one has to interpret the bible as a literal read, which BTW it certainly may have been that way ..... I just do not believe it to be, so, research ..... research ...... research, b4 you say things that may be incorrect.

I also think that evolution re mankind is possible that God use it to bring mankind to where we are today.  Why not?  The bible was written with many metaphors so that the ancients would be able to understand the beginnings. 

poco

@LogicVault

You:  It seems the Christian god is the one being discussed, so I will stick to that god only unless otherwise specified. To start with, God is the rule maker. They do not have to abide by their own rules. What they set as good or evil for us is not something that applies to them. Even if it did, they know things that we do not and make their decisions based on what they know. For example: Killing an innocent person seems evil to us, but if you kill an innocent before they endure more pain and hardship than they can personally bare and they go to heaven, then it's actually mercy.

me:  You say God doesn't have to abide by His own rules. 

Hmmmm, Why/how can you say that, or is it just your opinion.  If so, please refer to the bible as you answer this, since the bible is the only resource available re God.

Your, ".... make their decisions based on what they know."  Does not the bible state over & over that God is perfect in all ways .... & is always good, never evil? 

Re your, ".... mercy (killing)," It's not up to us to kill bc we think a person is unable to bear ore pain, etc.  & how do we know someone's heart re what they believe & therefore will attain heaven when they die?   Are we not told that only God doles out justice, therefore we do not know what one deserves, & therefore are supposed to leave that only to God?

Mr_Bombastic

Am I the only one who thinks it's hilarious that some people argue about the nature of a God that they claim doesn't exist? I mean, replace God with Santa or the Easter bunny, and you'll see what I mean.

with_all_humility

Mr_Bombastic

@with_all_humility
You completely misread what I posted. I was merely pointing out the absurdity of atheists debating the nature of a God that they believe doesn't exist.

LogicVault

@with_all_humility
"Actually, the Bible does not claim an age for the earth" People have studied the generations in the bible since Adam and deduced that according to details given in the bible that creation would have been around 4004 BC.

"I notice in your answers that you never really answer the questions posed." I did answer. You simply just do not like my answer.

"You take the usual copout that it happened over a long period of time." That's not a copout, that's how evolution works. It takes a long period of time to see noticeable changes.

"I was hoping you could explain and show evidence of the evolutionary process." Any easy to understand example would be the cats and dogs that we have as pets in modern times. These were bred from larger wild animals. Through selective breeding throughout generations, we redirected the evolution of the bloodlines of the specific animals we caught and bred. We changed them slowly over generations to fit our purposes. Natural evolution does the same thing but for the purposes of survival. For more in depth explanation of evolution, read this https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4705322/

LogicVault

@poco
"Please explain how the bible " claims the planet is vastly younger," bc it says nothing of the sort." People have studied the generations in the bible since Adam and deduced that according to details given in the bible that creation would have been around 4004 BC.

"You say God doesn't have to abide by His own rules. Hmmmm, Why/how can you say that, or is it just your opinion." A being so powerful that they create the rules also would have the power to defy the rules.

"Does not the bible state over & over that God is perfect in all ways .... & is always good, never evil?" As even you stated, translation could have been wrong.

"It's not up to us to kill bc we think a person is unable to bear ore pain, etc." But it is up to God who makes the rules to begin with.

"how do we know someone's heart re what they believe & therefore will attain heaven when they die?" We're not talking about what men do, we're talking about what God does. God supposedly knows these things.

"Are we not told that only God doles out justice, therefore we do not know what one deserves, & therefore are supposed to leave that only to God?" Which was the original point of the debate. Is God evil for some of the things he does. He knows why he does what he does and we do not. There could be a reasonable purpose behind his choices that we, as humans, could never understand.

poco

you:  "Please explain how the bible " claims the planet is vastly younger," bc it says nothing of the sort." People have studied the generations in the bible since Adam and deduced that according to details given in the bible that creation would have been around 4004 BC.

me:  So, you're relying on a person that started this 'theory' in the 1700's that started this whole 6000 yr old story, as truth huh?  You'll have to do better than that.  This time use the actual bible to quote from.  Gotta ask, do you believe everything others tell you is the truth? 

you:  "You say God doesn't have to abide by His own rules. Hmmmm, Why/how can you say that, or is it just your opinion." A being so powerful that they create the rules also would have the power to defy the rules.

me:  So, you're using your personal opinion, nothing else.  Did you deduce this from study, or did it just sound good to you?  You've heard the saying how assuming things can get one in trouble right?

you:  "Does not the bible state over & over that God is perfect in all ways .... & is always good, never evil?" As even you stated, translation could have been wrong.

me:  I used a specific example, you've attempted to make it a general statement ..... typical I suppose.  Did I not say it states this many times in the bible? 

you:  "It's not up to us to kill bc we think a person is unable to bear more pain, etc." But it is up to God who makes the rules to begin with.

me:  As I think I asked you b4, let's see a biblical reference re your statement.  Once again, you assume.  Only opinion.  You need too do better than that.

you:  "how do we know someone's heart re what they believe & therefore will attain heaven when they die?" We're not talking about what men do, we're talking about what God does. God supposedly knows these things.

me:  No, you were referencing the person that was in pain, & would attain heaven.  It's as tho you knew what God's plan is for people.  If so, please tell me how you know this ...... or is it just more unsubstantiated opinion like all your other assumptions here? 

you:  "Are we not told that only God doles out justice, therefore we do not know what one deserves, & therefore are supposed to leave that only to God?" Which was the original point of the debate. Is God evil for some of the things he does. He knows why he does what he does and we do not. There could be a reasonable purpose behind his choices that we, as humans, could never understand.

me:  Ahhhh, that's why we study the bible ..... to understand God's plan better.  It seems as tho you just want to assume things that pop out at you.  I suggest that you start studying the bible to figure some of your misconceptions out ...... b4 you keep making the same mistakes as you have presented here.

The reasonable purpose behind all that God does, is for us to join Him in heaven.  Getting us there entails much example & work on God's end.  What may seem to us as ..... not fair, presents differently the more we understand God.

with_all_humility

@Mr_Bombastic. Apologize for misunderstanding your post. I'll remove it.

with_all_humility

@LogicVault

You state "It takes a long period of time to see noticeable changes."  Can you point out some of these changes in the fossil record?

You use cats and dogs as an example of the evolutionary process.  So let me get this straight, we started with canines and felines thousands of years ago...and today we have what???  Canines and felines really that's evolution?  How did the monkey turn into an ape, who then turned into a human happen?  Where's the fish that turned into an amphibian that turned into a mammal?  

You, sir, have not given an example of evolution but just everyday mutation forced by mankind.  Did you study the Galapagos finches? What the scientist called evolution in bird beak size and thickness would change depending on the type of season.  Dry season thick beak, wet season thin beak, normal season, normal beak.  The bird's beaks were constantly changing and going back to original size and shape.  But you know the funniest thing of all after 20-30 years of studying finches, in the end, the scientist still were studying finches. No evolution really took place.  The finches did not become some new animal, but that's what science claims.

So, don't give me an example of a mutation.  I want a solid example of an evolved animal. Explain how non-life became life? 

LogicVault

@with_all_humility
"Can you point out some of these changes in the fossil record?" https://biologos.org/common-questions/scientific-evidence/fossil-record

"So let me get this straight, we started with canines and felines thousands of years ago...and today we have what???  Canines and felines really that's evolution?" "Canines" and "felines" are the genus name. Dogs were bred from wolves and house cats were bred from Middle Eastern wildcats. Both were bred from larger wild versions of their genus. The process of selective breeding caused small changes over many generations, which resulted in the pets we have today. Nature also causes small changes over many generations, which is evolution. These changes happen due to two animals with specific traits producing offspring that carry on and/or combine some traits from their parents. Then that offspring mates with another animal with certain traits and the process continues. Each generation is very similar to their parents but ever so slightly different. Over many generation you end up with an animal that is noticeably different from it's distant ancestor. They are still part of the same genus (ie. canines and felines), but they are different enough that they earn a different species name.

"How did the monkey turn into an ape, who then turned into a human happen?" Monkeys didn't turn into apes. Nor did one of them turn into humans. We all split off from a common ancestor. Us humans, apes, and monkeys have a common ancestor. Just like dogs, wolves, coyotes, foxes, etc have a common ancestor and house cats, lions, tigers, jaguars, etc have a common ancestor. This is evident by the fact that each group shares a very large amount of DNA within their group.

"Where's the fish that turned into an amphibian that turned into a mammal?" https://www.theguardian.com/science/2014/jan/13/tiktaalik-fossil-fish-four-legged-land-animal

"You, sir, have not given an example of evolution but just everyday mutation forced by mankind." Mutation is how evolution works. One or a few minor mutations happen each generation. Over many generations that equals many mutations. Us humans did selective breeding which sped up the results we wanted. In nature, it may be slower because it's not being directed by an intelligent being with specific purposes. In nature it's survival of the fittest. The stronger traits dictate the evolution of the species.

"Did you study the Galapagos finches? What the scientist called evolution in bird beak size and thickness would change depending on the type of season." That is a result of evolution as well. It can be explained better and faster here https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150211141238.htm

"But you know the funniest thing of all after 20-30 years of studying finches, in the end, the scientist still were studying finches." It takes many generation before the small changes become noticeable. 20-30 years is not long enough to see noticeable changes. It takes hundred to thousands of years to see much difference, depending on the species.

"So, don't give me an example of a mutation." Mutations is how evolution happens. Mutations are passed down through offspring. Keep in mind, the "redhead" gene in humans was originally a mutation. It's a mutation of the MCR1 gene. It spread because it wasn't a mutation that made the original person with it to be considered unattractive. So, they mated and produced offspring. That spread the mutated gene and over time it has spread throughout the world.


"I want a solid example of an evolved animal." again https://biologos.org/common-questions/scientific-evidence/fossil-record

"Explain how non-life became life?" A mixture of the correct atoms. Our bodies are nothing more than a combination of atoms. Combine the right ones and anything could be possible.

LogicVault

@poco
"So, you're relying on a person that started this 'theory' in the 1700's that started this whole 6000 yr old story, as truth huh?" No, I'm going by the many people over many generations that have studied the bible.

"This time use the actual bible to quote from.  Gotta ask, do you believe everything others tell you is the truth?" Contradictory. You believe the bible which is what other people are telling you is true.

"So, you're using your personal opinion, nothing else." Logic. The person who has full power over the rules can choose to change them at any time for their own purposes. That is the power of the rule maker, especially one that is a god. 

"I used a specific example, you've attempted to make it a general statement" If one part is mistranslated, then it's possible that any part is mistranslated.

"As I think I asked you b4, let's see a biblical reference re your statement." The bible is not proven to be true. So quoting it helps my case none. Until you prove the bible to be 100% correct, "biblical" equals "fiction". The bible claims these things to be true. Burden of proof falls on those who make claims. You or other religious people must prove the bible since you claim it to be true.

"No, you were referencing the person that was in pain, & would attain heaven." No, I'm referring to how God is portrayed in the bible. He is portrayed as all knowing.

"It's as tho you knew what God's plan is for people." I don't and neither do you. That was my initial point. Us humans do not know what a god wants. We only know what we're told.

"Ahhhh, that's why we study the bible ..... to understand God's plan better." It even says in the bible than man will never understand God's plan. He works in mysterious ways.

"It seems as tho you just want to assume things that pop out at you." Just as you assume the bible to be correct.

"I suggest that you start studying the bible to figure some of your misconceptions out" Did that and found contradictions. The bible contradicts it's own self.

"Getting us there entails much example & work on God's end." When is the last time God did something directly? When is the last time he spoke to someone or impregnated them? When is the last time he did something to prove his existence? Not for thousands of years, huh? Back when people were and easily fooled.

"What may seem to us as ..... not fair, presents differently the more we understand God." My entire point. My first response was that a god knows things we don't and would know it's fair even if we do not understand.

with_all_humility

@LogicVault

"A mixture of the correct atoms. Our bodies are nothing more than a combination of atoms. Combine the right ones and anything could be possible."  

• If this is the case then why has science not been able to produce life from non-life?

https://biologos.org/common-questions/scientific-evidence/fossil-record (Nice but I find it hard to believe this is a transitional fossil, many such claims have been made and after further scrutiny has been found to be bogus. Example: 

Archaeopteryx has been found to be a bird, not a dinosaur. https://www.livescience.com/24745-archaeopteryx.html ;

However, look at the great liberty evolutionist have taken with Archaeopteryx to be a dinosaur.  The sad thing is people lap this stuff up and take it to be the truth.

 

Notice what bones were found and how the reconstruction of the animal happened to look like a whale.  Now how do you go from skull fragments to an animal that resembles a whale?

Nice try on the finches, but you still have finches.

As for your example of evolved animals.  Here are bones that are shared with animals living today, yet they did not evolve from one another. 

Man and Dog...Wait maybe we did evolve from dogs...just kidding.

 
Dog paw and leg compared to human hand and arm.  Hmmmm maybe the dog is a transitional form of mankind...



More transitional forms of bones...NOT


Here we go...the whale became a bird, that evolved into a bat, then a cat.  Which was a horse of course and finally we had humans?  See how a scientist can manipulate drawings.

LogicVault

@with_all_humility
"If this is the case then why has science not been able to produce life from non-life?" Because even as advanced as our technology is, we do not have the tools to quickly recreate what nature has done over millions of years.

"Nice but I find it hard to believe this is a transitional fossil, many such claims have been made and after further scrutiny has been found to be bogus." That's your opinion and you are entitled to it.

"Archaeopteryx has been found to be a bird, not a dinosaur." A lot of dinosaurs were very bird-like. On another note, the birds we have today did not exist during the time of the dinosaurs. Birds did exist, but the ones that exist today are different because they evolved from the ones that existed during the age of dinosaurs.

"Now how do you go from skull fragments to an animal that resembles a whale?" If you study very specific details among various species, you become able to deduce many things from just bits and pieces of information on species that you've never seen before. Is there anything in your life that you have studied extensively? If you were introduced to a new aspect of that thing, wouldn't you have a headstart in understanding it?

"As for your example of evolved animals.  Here are bones that are shared with animals living today, yet they did not evolve from one another." We didn't evolve from each other. We evolved from a common ancestor. If you was to take a group of a single animal type, split the group up, separate them into different climates for millions of years, each group would be a very different looking animal. Creatures slowly adapt to their environment over generations. We have seen this in even humans over a much shorter amount of time. Notice how the genes of humans that have lived in areas with less than world average sunlight for thousands or more years have adapted to the lower amount of sunlight by developing lighter skin in order to absorb sunlight better. Then sometimes a mutation happens that isn't even beneficial, but also doesn't harm the creature and it produces offspring which spreads the mutation throughout it's species. Like red hair in humans for example. It started in a general area but is now spread worldwide. Now it's fairly common even though it didn't exist in humans almost a hundred thousand years ago. Now take this concept and spread it across millions of years. You end up with completely different animals.

Evidence

with_all_humility said:

@Evidence & @sear

I see a lot of people trying to Epicurus to pose questions about Yahweh however in doing so you are pulling Epicurus out of context.  

Epicurus was a 4th century BC philosopher: “Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?” [1]

However, Epicurus posed the questions to the Greek polytheists of his day and not to the God of the Bible?  Just do a little research and you will find out what I'm saying is true.

So does Evil exist?

According to Darwinian evolutionist No, but this poses a problem.  What about morality?

Seeing the plain consequences of this fact, skeptics typically go one of two ways: 

1. Ground goodness on something other than God, or  
2. They deny good or evil exist at all.

This first group accepts value propositions as something real (good and evil exist) but tries to avoid God. 

1. Freedom from Religion founder and president Dan Barker says “’Good’ is that which enhances life, and ‘evil’ is that which threatens it.”
2. Neuroscientist Sam Harris defines morality as the “right and wrong answers to the question of how to maximize human flourishing in any moment…”[2]\

In a universe of electrons and selfish genes, blind physical forces and genetic replication, some people are going to get hurt, other people are going to get lucky, and you won’t find any rhyme or reason in it, nor any justice.  The universe that we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but pitiless indifference.[3]

An abstract from Cornell University scientist William Provine’s second annual Darwin Day speech starts off this way: 

• “Naturalistic evolution has clear consequences that Charles Darwin understood perfectly” One of those consequences, he suggests, is that “no ultimate foundation for ethics exists”.[4]

If moral values aren’t real, this disrupts my first premise. There are plenty of reasons to reject the idea that moral values are a convenient social construct, but it’s important to show where this takes us if it were so.

“The position of the modern evolutionist . . . 

• Is that humans have an awareness of morality…
• Because such an awareness is of biological worth. Morality is a biological adaptation no less than our hands and feet and teeth …
• Considered as a rationally justifiable set of claims about an objective something, ethics is illusory. I appreciate that when somebody says, ‘Love thy neighbor as thyself,’ they think they are referring above and beyond themselves . . . 
• Nevertheless, . . . such reference is truly without foundation. Morality is just an aid to survival and reproduction, . . . and any deeper meaning is illusory…[5]

The late atheist Christopher Hitchens conceded that it “could be true, yes. That could well be true,” that morality is a byproduct of social evolution without any objective foundation.[6]

• He adds, “one wants to think their love for their fellow creature means more than that.” No, Christopher, they don’t merely want to think it, they actually do think it and for good reason.

Ruse, Hitchens, and other like-minded atheists may not believe in God and many despise him. However, they know that without him, they’re posed with another problem worse than the first. 

• Namely, they are unable to account for the kinds of evil that we all know is real. Worse, they deny the very evil atheists typically point to as evidence against God. This argument turns the challenge on its head. We can only make sense of evil if God exists.

So, we have to conclude evil does exist

 

Evil entails objective good

• What we mean is…absolute moral perfection by which all things of value are measured. 
• Evil isn’t really a thing at all. Rather, it’s the absence of something – namely, something good. 
• Just as darkness isn’t anything on its own without light (dark = the lack of light rays), evil only comes about when something good is taken away. 
• For many atheists; evil is when a human’s wellbeing doesn’t go the way it should. 
• Whether we base value on God or our own idea of human flourishing, evil is when something goes wrong. It’s not the way things are supposed to be. 
• This only makes sense if there’s a right way for things to be. 

Objective good must transcend, precede, hold accountable, and value humanity.

• Transcending:  First, goodness entails a moral authority which crosses all times, places, and cultures. Must have a standard.

1. People groups can’t make up their own values. Instead, value applies to all people regardless of what anyone thinks about it. 
2. That’s what philosophers mean by “mind-independent.” The Nazis can’t be just in doing what they did no matter how many people agreed with it. 
3. Instead, goodness must extend beyond the individual mind or community consensus to be the standard by which ALL people and cultures are compared. 
4. The value inherent in objective goodness must transcend humanity in this way.

• Preceding:  Second, goodness cannot have been invented by the first humans. After all, any values established by man can be later undone by men.[7]

1. It would be absurd to think the first humans could come up with whatever value system they wanted because they were first on the scene. 
2. It doesn’t take much effort to see the advantage of lying or stealing as virtues. No, that isn’t an option available to us. Goodness wasn’t invented. It was already there. Rom 1.

• Holding Accountable:  Third, there is no objective goodness if evil goes unpunished. In other words, where there’s no justice, there’s no injustice. When people are allowed to do bad things without any consequences, there is no justice. 

1. Objective goodness demands justice. But there’s not always justice in this world. 
2. In a purely natural world with no accountability for all people, there’s no justice for all people. If there’s no justice for all people, there’s no justice at all. If that’s not good, then goodness must include universal human accountability and chaos may ensue 

• Value Giving:  Fourth, objective goodness must include the intrinsic value inherent in all human life.

1. By intrinsic, I mean they all have equal worth just for being part of the species and not for any act, experience, or attribute they have or lack. 
2. It would make no sense to violate the rights of a human being if they aren’t valued in the first place. Evil and suffering experienced by humans only makes sense if the species has worth beyond itself and that their value is an objective fact of reality

Therefore, since evil exists, there is a transcendent, authoritative, human valuing source of objective goodness

 

Biblical Christianity’s explanation offers a solution that perfectly fits these facts:

1. God transcends humanity – Job 12:10, Acts 17:25, 28, Col 1:17, Heb 1:3, Eph 4:6
2. God precedes humanity – Gen 1-2, Ps 90:2, Job 36:26, Rev 1:8, Jn 8:58
3. God holds humanity accountable – Gen 3:24, Amos 9:1-4, Mt 6:20, 1 Pet 4:4-5, 2 Pet 3:9, Mt 25, Mk 9:43, Rev 14:9-11, 20:10
4. God values humanity – Gen 1:27, Ps 16:11, 73:25-26, Isa 62:5, Zep 3:17-18, Jn 3:16, Eph 5:23-32, 1 Jn 4:19
5. God is objective goodness – Gen 1:31, Ps 100:5, Lk 18:19, Rom 12:2, 1 Thes 5:18, 1 Jn  4:8

 

Here is the claim most atheists make…Read Evilbible.com claim

God Is the Creator of Evil – Evil Bible.com

I am frustrated at two specific verses in the bible, which applies to this particular topic.  The first is the biblical statement that “God is the Alpha and the Omega”.  Loosely defined it means the beginning and the end, the all-knowing.  Which of course implies that all of his actions and the results are foreknown to him.  I have a real problem with this notion.  For if God was to know ahead of time that someday he would send me to hell for being an Atheist, I ask what was the purpose in him creating me in the first place?  Was it simply to watch me be tortured?  That seems to be the most logical explanation.  I can think of no other rational explanation, nor neither has any Christian who I posed this question to.  Some people have attempted to tell me that God has a purpose unknown to us and that we must simply accept his will.  Would you keep a friend who commits evil and offers no self-justification or remorse?  Of course not, so why is this same judgment not applied to God?  It seems rather contradictory that this trait is despised in humanity, yet, it is worshiped in religion.

Secondly, I want to reinforce the fact that God is indeed the creator of evil.  Please read verse Isaiah 45:7.  “I form the light and create darkness.  I make peace and create evil.  I the Lord do all these things”.  The Christian God outright claims that he is indeed the source of evil.  So how can he then claim to be sinless?

To be more specific, let’s talk about the Lord's creation of evil, let’s talk about the conception of Satan.  This being was created and unleashed by God.  Jehovah knew (for he is the all-knowing) that at the time of Lucifer’s creation he would eventually become Satan and spend his existence wreaking havoc on mankind.  Leading people into criminal activities.  Suppose I were to build an evil robot, that I knew would go around torturing and murdering people.  Whose fault would it be if I let it loose?  Mine or the robot’s?  Of course, it would be mine, for I created it with that purpose and unleashed it for that purpose.  Now I ask you, whose fault is deviltry in the world?  Is it the PUPPET Satan or the being that deliberately created Satan’s evil?

Now God Plays Switch-A-Roo And Humans Are The Creators Of Evil Not only does the bible imply, but so do many Christians, that we as a people are the creator of evil.  It is clear for reading the bible that this is untrue, but the speculation still remains.  Supposedly, when Adam and Eve fell from grace, they single-handedly brought evil into the world.  All you have to do is think logically for a moment, and you will obviously see something is very unjust with this concept.  Could any rational being hold a starving infant in Ethiopia responsible for the actions of two long-dead people?  Or perhaps, would you find it fair to be convicted of Jack the Ripper’s crimes? The connection in both of these instances is not only ludicrous but, disgusting to nod your head at.  People who use this argument are simply attempting to rationalize sadism.

 I must declare that a Christian that walks into a children’s ward and insists that it is correct that children suffer as a result of the original sin, must destroy themselves of all compassion and mercy. I insist that those who worship the Lord knowing this hypocrisy must be as cruel as the Christian God he/she believes in.  A complete and utter moral degenerate, taking stabs at protecting their belief system.  A person as such would just as easily worship Satan as God in their blindness and faith.  For apparently, no amount of evidence could convince him that God was bad once they decided to worship him; their basic assumption is that they are correct, which makes them untouchable by any amount of rationality.

God created Evil; Isa 45.7 Rebuttal (Look at my beginning arguments on the first page under this post)

Conception of Satan

1.    Is Satan Evil 

• Evil robot scenario is a fallacy
• In fact, it is called Loaded Question Fallacy: Asking a question that has an assumption built into it so that it can’t be answered without appearing guilty
• As well as Genetic Fallacy: Judging something based upon where it comes from

 Conclusion

1. God is not the creator of evil
2. Atheism does not have an answer for Evil or Morality

---

[1]Classic argument for the “problem of evil” first attributed in this form to the Greek philosopher Epicurus

[2]Michael Ruse, “Evolutionary Theory and Christian Ethics,” in The Darwinian Paradigm (London: Routledge, 1989), pp. 262, 268-269. 

[3]Hitchens vs. Craig debate “Does God Exist,” Biola University (La Mirada, CA), April 4, 2009, at approximately 1:25 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0tYm41hb48o

[4]Gregory Koukl, The Story of Reality, p73

---

[5]Sam Harris, bases his moral standard on what he deems human flourishing, https://www.samharris.org/blog/item/thinking-about-go

[6]Richard Dawkins, River Out of Eden: The Darwinian View of Life, Basic Books, 1995, p133

[7]William Provine, “Evolution: Free will and punishment and meaning in life” [abstract] from a speech given at the Second Annual Darwin Day Celebration, University of Tennessee – Knoxville on Feb. 12, 1998

https://web.archive.org/web/20070829083051/http://eeb.bio.utk.edu/darwin/Archives/1998ProvineAbstract.htm

 

---

 

@with_all_humility which parts were addressed to me? I'm not an atheist, I believe in God as Infinite, the Only Possible One, whose first creation was His son Word as described in John 1:1 - 
1:3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.
.. 14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.

Here is the claim most atheists make…Read Evilbible.com claim

God Is the Creator of Evil – Evil Bible.com

I am frustrated at two specific verses in the bible, which applies to this particular topic.  The first is the biblical statement that “God is the Alpha and the Omega”.  Loosely defined it means the beginning and the end, the all-knowing.

This is the Christian interpretation, in the OT it says; God is the beginning and the end, but only referring to Himself, because there is no other god besides Him. But the son of God Word; aka Jesus Christ is the "beginning and the end, Alpha and Omega" of all creation. Has nothing to do with God, but regarding creation only.

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Just as in the image, in the beginning was Eve, and Eve was with Adam, and Eve was Adam before God took her out of him.

2 The same was in the beginning with God.

In other words; since God is Infinite and Eternal, Him creating/begetting his son Word marked 'a' beginning with God, .. not Gods beginning.

3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made.

And now that God brought His language, His Word into an actual created being, He started creating everything through and by him, or by Gods Word: "Let there be, and it was so", just as God created it.

Now, after what Jesus achieved and succeeded remaining perfect through all his trials here even unto death, his Heavenly Father made him the Godhead, just as Moses was a Godhead over the children of Israel, just like Joseph was a Pharaoh-head, this has nothing to do with Jesus having ANY authority over God, or equal to God the way that Christians believe.

I agree that God didn't create a robot with Satan, but he was still created in Gods grand-plan. It was to bring into His Kingdom free willed created beings that willingly will chose God and his laws, seeing that no matter how beautiful, and wonderful and wise a creature can be, we can become proud and turn against God. This happened with Solomon too. So God didn't create Satan to be evil, He created him perfect in beauty, and wisdom, but God knew that perfection and beauty can bring about pride, and will turn him against God, which Satan did by and through his free will.

This is why Gods son came as a humble servant, who even washed the Apostles feet, to show those who will choose God must not be proud no matter what position, what beauty, what greatness they were created for!

God does create beings for destruction, .. like Pharaoh, God created him, then raised him up to being Pharaoh for that specific task. God raised him to be a great and mighty Pharaoh, and like Satan, God knew he will become proud which God planned so He could use this pride of Pharaoh to show all His mighty works for the whole world to see. That there is no other god on this earth like our Creator "I Am".

Another good example of this is the "Rich Young Ruler", .. God didn't create him evil, or to deny Christ, actually it says that he was a good man, kept the law, gave to the poor, but he just couldn't give up his riches. Jesus gave him an option, a chance he could have taken to get into Heaven with the rest of his Apostles, but we see he just couldn't give up "all that he had", which was a lot.

Some people can't even give up their Religion even though they know their doctrines are unbiblical.

Mathew 19:29 And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

So I guess I shouldn't complain with all the pain and suffering, with all the attempts on my life from TPTB, the wicked, those that steal even the little I get from Social Security, and just about at every turn they rob me, cheat me, ..  right?

with_all_humility

@Evidence

None of my posts was directed at you, I notice the discussion on Epicurus and thought I would share some of my research that I have done.  In hopes to help aid you in your discussion with sear.  I apologize if it appeared I was disagreeing with you, far from it, just trying to share information.  

I know it's hard for people to understand that the Bible says God created everything, but then we/I claim that He did not create evil.  As you eluded to, evil is a by-product of free will, God gave all beings earthly and heavenly free will.  However, just because He gave free will does not mean he caused us to sin.  It is the sin committed by these being that is evil.

"So I guess I shouldn't complain with all the pain and suffering, with all the attempts on my life from TPTB, the wicked, those that steal even the little I get from Social Security, and just about at every turn they rob me, cheat me, ..  right?"

• Yes, I would recommend following Paul advice that he gave the Philippians; Php 4:11 "Not that I speak in regard to need, for I have learned in whatever state I am, to be content:"
• We do need to be careful not to complain about the things we lack in this life.  All that we need is food and clothing. With these things, we should be content (1 Tim 6.6-8)

Sorry for the confusion.

poco

@LogicVault

"So, you're relying on a person that started this 'theory' in the 1700's that started this whole 6000 yr old story, as truth huh?" No, I'm going by the many people over many generations that have studied the bible.

me:  Geez, don't you even know that that whole theory was started by one person in the 1700's?  Sure, others have jumped on that bandwagon, but what biblical scholar can you reference that backs this theory.  It's easy to say, "many people," but to prove what you say has validity takes a valid & substantiated resource.  You are going on opinion of mystery people, hence your opinion here ..... not valid sir.

you:  "This time use the actual bible to quote from.  Gotta ask, do you believe everything others tell you is the truth?" Contradictory. You believe the bible which is what other people are telling you is true.

me:  A deflection I see.  1st address my initial, Use the actual bible to quote from," b4 I answer your question .... only fair.

you:  "So, you're using your personal opinion, nothing else." Logic. The person who has full power over the rules can choose to change them at any time for their own purposes. That is the power of the rule maker, especially one that is a god.

me:  Who's logic .....  yours?  With logic, many aspects of what is being discussed goes into the equation.  There is no one general one size fits all as you seem to use here.  It seems as tho you haven't used the bible as a resource to find out the aspects God has re His "rules."  Please be more specific of your "power maker" & how, in your world anyway, all power makers are similar to God ..... so to make your opinion a valid one.  What power makers are you referencing, & putting in the same boat as God to compare Him to your other "power makers?" 

you:  "I used a specific example, you've attempted to make it a general statement" If one part is mistranslated, then it's possible that any part is mistranslated.

me:  & you surmise this from what ..... the same logic you have exhibited above?  Prove what you say applies.  & also, it depends on who & what method one uses to interpret.  What you say, once again is only your opinion in a generalized manner, which is invalid here.  Making unsubstantiated statements w/o any reliable references is only opinion, which everyone has, but cannot be used in a debate forum when challenged.

you:  "As I think I asked you b4, let's see a biblical reference re your statement." The bible is not proven to be true. So quoting it helps my case none. Until you prove the bible to be 100% correct, "biblical" equals "fiction". The bible claims these things to be true. Burden of proof falls on those who make claims. You or other religious people must prove the bible since you claim it to be true.

me:  Thing i tho, you have been referencing the bible all thru this & other comments from you for your arguments.  It's the old, what's good for the goose, is good for the gander thing.  Since the only reference we glean about God comes from the bible, one must reference the only material available.  (Hmmmm, I told you this once b4).  You use the fallaacy argument of, "Argument from Ignorance."  Look it up.

you:  "No, you were referencing the person that was in pain, & would attain heaven." No, I'm referring to how God is portrayed in the bible. He is portrayed as all knowing.

me:  But you didn't portrat it as that in sentence structure.  Never mind.

you:  "It's as tho you knew what God's plan is for people." I don't and neither do you. That was my initial point. Us humans do not know what a god wants. We only know what we're told.

me:  That's where you are wrong, & it shows your inexperience re biblical knowledge.  (Seems as tho I've stated this with you b4 also .... in great detail).  The bible is to be read/studied so as we know God's plan.  (It's so frustrating with folks like you that argue from an ignorance point of view.  This is not a slight at you, but ignorance meaning ignorant of the topic being discussed. 

you:  "Ahhhh, that's why we study the bible ..... to understand God's plan better." It even says in the bible than man will never understand God's plan. He works in mysterious ways.

me:  Really?  Can you give me that chapter & verse stating exactly that?

you:  "It seems as tho you just want to assume things that pop out at you." Just as you assume the bible to be correct.

me:  As far s I know, the bible is correct.  The difference is that I have the bible, which is a real document that I am able to reference, & you only reference things that seem to pop into your head ..... unsubstantiated opinions.  Huge difference there.

you:  "I suggest that you start studying the bible to figure some of your misconceptions out" Did that and found contradictions. The bible contradicts it's own self.

me:  Really, let's discuss some.  That's the difference between reading something, & studying something.  One misses much when only reading. 

you:  "Getting us there entails much example & work on God's end." When is the last time God did something directly? When is the last time he spoke to someone or impregnated them? When is the last time he did something to prove his existence? Not for thousands of years, huh? Back when people were and easily fooled.

me:  Everyday of my life God helps me out. 

God will never do anything again overtly to prove to unbelievers that He exists.  He did it so many times in the past & we ignored Him.  God said that it takes faith, not proof.

you:  "What may seem to us as ..... not fair, presents differently the more we understand God." My entire point. My first response was that a god knows things we don't and would know it's fair even if we do not understand.

me:  Check out Mathew 13, the entire chapter .... it's not long.  It explains why God wants us to study the message to find out how it applies. 

Using your logic here, I could say I know things you don't & visa versa.  that doesn't mean we couldn't study those things to understand them tho.  It seems as tho anything that you do not know, is intentionally kept from you.  Some may think as you do, but people miss out on much of life not studying what we do not know. 

LogicVault

@poco
"Sure, others have jumped on that bandwagon, but what biblical scholar can you reference that backs this theory." Here is just the first google result for that search  Google "biblical scholars on the bible" and you will find many more professors and scholars that talk about the incorrectness of the bible.

"A deflection I see.  1st address my initial, Use the actual bible to quote from," b4 I answer your question .... only fair." Quoting the bible is quoting words written by men. It's not a deflection, it's a fact. Even according to the bible, God did not write it, men wrote it. You want quotes from a book that men wrote with no physical evidence to support what they wrote. Anyone can claim God spoke to them and write things down. You basically want me to use quotes from a fictional story to prove my point. Ok, he did have green eggs and ham in a box with a fox. It says it right there in the book. See how silly that is?

"Who's logic .....  yours?" And many others with a high level of comprehension. It's not a difficult concept. Example: I am the rule maker in my house. I tell everyone in my home that ice cream is not allowed after 9 pm. I decide to eat ice cream after 9 pm. I can do that because I am the one who decides what the rules are. I can change or break my own rules because no one has authority over me. No one can stop me. If God decides to change his own rules for his own reasons, who is going to stop him? Even according to the bible he breaks his own rules. According to the bible killing is wrong, but in the story about Moses God kills the first born of many families as one of his plagues. He killed innocent children as punishment to the ruler of that land for not setting free the Hebrew slaves. Justify that. He murdered innocent children just to punish another person.

" Please be more specific of your "power maker" & how, in your world anyway, all power makers are similar to God" I just did that. In my house, I am god. I set the rules and those who do not follow my rule will be punished. I can also choose to change my rule at any time to fit my own purposes and no one under my rule can stop me, nor will they understand why I did. God is supposedly even more powerful than this. He can do whatever he wants and no one in all of existence can stop him.

"& you surmise this from what ..... the same logic you have exhibited above?" You said yourself that parts were translated wrong. You do not get to pick and choose which parts were translated wrong. That's called cherry picking. Notice how I didn't say they WERE translated wrong, I said they COULD HAVE BEEN translated wrong. 

"Prove what you say applies." Then you prove the parts you claim were translated wrong. While you're at it, prove every part that was translated wrong. Every last word.

"What you say, once again is only your opinion in a generalized manner, which is invalid here." Ditto.

"Making unsubstantiated statements w/o any reliable references is only opinion, which everyone has, but cannot be used in a debate forum when challenged." Ditto.

I'll address the rest when I have time.

Evidence

LogicVault said:

@poco
"Sure, others have jumped on that bandwagon, but what biblical scholar can you reference that backs this theory." Here is just the first google result for that search  Google "biblical scholars on the bible" and you will find many more professors and scholars that talk about the incorrectness of the bible.

"A deflection I see.  1st address my initial, Use the actual bible to quote from," b4 I answer your question .... only fair." Quoting the bible is quoting words written by men. It's not a deflection, it's a fact. Even according to the bible, God did not write it, men wrote it. You want quotes from a book that men wrote with no physical evidence to support what they wrote. Anyone can claim God spoke to them and write things down. You basically want me to use quotes from a fictional story to prove my point. Ok, he did have green eggs and ham in a box with a fox. It says it right there in the book. See how silly that is?

"Who's logic .....  yours?" And many others with a high level of comprehension. It's not a difficult concept. Example: I am the rule maker in my house. I tell everyone in my home that ice cream is not allowed after 9 pm. I decide to eat ice cream after 9 pm. I can do that because I am the one who decides what the rules are. I can change or break my own rules because no one has authority over me. No one can stop me. If God decides to change his own rules for his own reasons, who is going to stop him? Even according to the bible he breaks his own rules. According to the bible killing is wrong, but in the story about Moses God kills the first born of many families as one of his plagues. He killed innocent children as punishment to the ruler of that land for not setting free the Hebrew slaves. Justify that. He murdered innocent children just to punish another person.

" Please be more specific of your "power maker" & how, in your world anyway, all power makers are similar to God" I just did that. In my house, I am god. I set the rules and those who do not follow my rule will be punished. I can also choose to change my rule at any time to fit my own purposes and no one under my rule can stop me, nor will they understand why I did. God is supposedly even more powerful than this. He can do whatever he wants and no one in all of existence can stop him.

"& you surmise this from what ..... the same logic you have exhibited above?" You said yourself that parts were translated wrong. You do not get to pick and choose which parts were translated wrong. That's called cherry picking. Notice how I didn't say they WERE translated wrong, I said they COULD HAVE BEEN translated wrong. 

"Prove what you say applies." Then you prove the parts you claim were translated wrong. While you're at it, prove every part that was translated wrong. Every last word.

"What you say, once again is only your opinion in a generalized manner, which is invalid here." Ditto.

"Making unsubstantiated statements w/o any reliable references is only opinion, which everyone has, but cannot be used in a debate forum when challenged." Ditto.

I'll address the rest when I have time.

First of all @LogicVault ;



Francesca Stavrakopoulou is Baphomet Star MTF (male to female) Transgender Professor of Hebrew Bible and Ancient Religion at the University of Exeter. A leading expert in religion’s interpretations of the past and influence on modern attitudes, Francesca’s research is primarily focused on ancient Israelite and Judahite religions, and portrayals of religious history in the Hebrew Bible.



Baphomet Stars are put in leading roles in almost every major organization, especially in schools, like Lynn Conway here;



Computer science
Engineers
Innovators
Leading experts in Religious Interpretation
Research leaders
Engineering Educators
described as Adventurer and Visioneer



Jahna Steely 

So if you're going to use any credible sources, please don't use Transgender Satanists opinions on God and the Bible, .. I don't know, maybe it's just me, but something tells me they may be lying!?

https://www.ranker.com/list/list-of-famous-transgender-people/famous-gay-and-lesbian

George_Horse

I would assume that he lacks morality.

LogicVault

@Evidence
"Francesca Stavrakopoulou is Baphomet Star MTF (male to female) Transgender Professor of Hebrew Bible and Ancient Religion at the University of Exeter. A leading expert in religion’s interpretations of the past and influence on modern attitudes, Francesca’s research is primarily focused on ancient Israelite and Judahite religions, and portrayals of religious history in the Hebrew Bible." Duuuuuuuuuuuuuh. And your point is?

"So if you're going to use any credible sources, please don't use Transgender Satanists opinions on God and the Bible" That's your opinion and you can keep your opinions to yourself. You're just another one of those people set in your ways that will call any evidence against your beliefs fake. Provide proof that a god exists, or even physical evidence. You have nothing but a book written by humans. Lying humans.

Evidence

George_Horse said:

I would assume that he lacks morality.

@George_Horse were you referring to my post? About Francesca Stavrakopoulou?
If so, ,.. yeah, I wouldn't just assume (unless you were being funny?) but darn right this guy lacks morality. With an agenda at that!

Evidence

LogicVault said:

@Evidence
"Francesca Stavrakopoulou is Baphomet Star MTF (male to female) Transgender Professor of Hebrew Bible and Ancient Religion at the University of Exeter. A leading expert in religion’s interpretations of the past and influence on modern attitudes, Francesca’s research is primarily focused on ancient Israelite and Judahite religions, and portrayals of religious history in the Hebrew Bible." Duuuuuuuuuuuuuh. And your point is?

"So if you're going to use any credible sources, please don't use Transgender Satanists opinions on God and the Bible" That's your opinion and you can keep your opinions to yourself. You're just another one of those people set in your ways that will call any evidence against your beliefs fake. Provide proof that a god exists, or even physical evidence. You have nothing but a book written by humans. Lying humans.

@LogicVault said: Duuuuuuuuuuuuuh. And your point is?

.. which I answered before you questioned it: "So if you're going to use any credible sources, please don't use Transgender Satanists opinions on God and the Bible" Would you like me to explain why? You haven't the clue, right?

LogicVault - That's your opinion and you can keep your opinions to yourself. You're just another one of those people set in your ways that will call any evidence against your beliefs fake.

Wait, so you want us to consider Satanist's opinion of the Bible and the God of the Bible?

LogicVault -  Provide proof that a god exists, or even physical evidence. You have nothing but a book written by humans. Lying humans.

I guess Erfisflat was right, off you go on mute from me too.

LogicVault

@Evidence
Thank you. I'd prefer that you mute me so I don't have to tolerate any more of your trolling directed my way.

Evidence

Evidence said:

George_Horse said:

I would assume that he lacks morality.

@George_Horse were you referring to my post? About Francesca Stavrakopoulou?
If so, ,.. yeah, I wouldn't just assume (unless you were being funny?) but darn right this guy lacks morality. With an agenda at that!

@Debra AI Analytics say whaaaat?
Considerate 44%
Substantial 38%?

Debra, are you a transgender Robot?

LogicVault

@Evidence
"which I answered before you questioned it: "So if you're going to use any credible sources, please don't use Transgender Satanists opinions on God and the Bible" Would you like me to explain why? You haven't the clue, right?" You questioned nothing that wasn't answered. You can knock it off with your troll game. I'm done playing nice to you.

"Wait, so you want us to consider Satanist's opinion of the Bible and the God of the Bible?" It's a fictional book of stories no matter how you look at it. Prove a god exists or . I'm done with your troll games.

"I guess Erfisflat was right, off you go on mute from me too." Coward troll that got defeated just like Erfisflat. Go crawl into your hole just like every other defeated troll.

with_all_humility

@LogicVault
So, Francesca Stavrakopoulou is transgender and oh, heshe identified themselves as an atheist (at 5:52 in the video).  Now we don't have a conflict of interest here, do we?  An atheist who professes to be a Bible scholar.  No wonder heshe is spreading propaganda about the Bible not being true.  

By the way; I believe scriptures elude to transgenderism as being wrong.  In 1 Corinthians Paul is rebuking the women for having shaved heads and men with long hair.

1Co 11:4  Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head,

1Co 11:5  but every wife who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head since it is the same as if her head were shaven.

1Co 11:6  For if a wife will not cover her head, then she should cut her hair short. But since it is disgraceful for a wife to cut off her hair or shave her head, let her cover her head.

1Co 11:14  Does not nature itself teach you that if a man wears long hair it is a disgrace for him,

1Co 11:15  but if a woman has long hair, it is her glory? For her hair is given to her for a covering.

So, why would Paul be concerned about a woman having a shaved head and a man having long hair?  While I did not put every verse for 1 Corinthians 11, Paul speaks that it is natural for a woman to have long hair because it adorns them or makes them more beautiful.  Men, on the other hand, have short hair and some no hair at all.  I believe what Paul was pointing out that not only does a woman disgrace herself with a short hair and a man with long hair.  They are also deceitful, men with long hair can appear to be a female, and when a woman shaves her head or has her hair cut like a boy give off the appearance of a man.  So, in each case is deception.

Therefore transgender is the same as lying or being deceitful and in not with the natural order of things as God intended. 

with_all_humility

An article talking about recent discoveries of Exodus from Egypt. 

http://www.biblearchaeology.org/post/2010/02/04/Amenhotep-II-and-the-Historicity-of-the-Exodus-Pharaoh.aspx

Here's some more evidence to digest on the Exodus from Egypt by the Israelites.  

http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology-exodus-date-1440bc.htm ;

poco

@LogicVault

you:  "Sure, others have jumped on that bandwagon, but what biblical scholar can you reference that backs this theory." Here is just the first google result for that search  Google "biblical scholars on the bible" and you will find many more professors and scholars that talk about the incorrectness of the bible.

me:  Once again, you deflect from the question asked, which was re the 6000yr old earth theory.  & once again, I'll address your OTHER point when you answer my initial question OK?

"A deflection I see.  1st address my initial, Use the actual bible to quote from," b4 I answer your question .... only fair." Quoting the bible is quoting words written by men. It's not a deflection, it's a fact. Even according to the bible, God did not write it, men wrote it. You want quotes from a book that men wrote with no physical evidence to support what they wrote. Anyone can claim God spoke to them and write things down. You basically want me to use quotes from a fictional story to prove my point. Ok, he did have green eggs and ham in a box with a fox. It says it right there in the book. See how silly that is?

me:  See, you're doing it again.  Avoiding the question asked, to rant about something else.  No matter if you believe the  bible or not, I'm still asking you to explain why you say what you say, when the bible is the only reference we have re God.  Anything else is opinion.  So, answer my original point b4 defecting again OK?

you:  "Who's logic .....  yours?" And many others with a high level of comprehension. It's not a difficult concept. Example: I am the rule maker in my house. I tell everyone in my home that ice cream is not allowed after 9 pm. I decide to eat ice cream after 9 pm. I can do that because I am the one who decides what the rules are. I can change or break my own rules because no one has authority over me. No one can stop me. If God decides to change his own rules for his own reasons, who is going to stop him? Even according to the bible he breaks his own rules. According to the bible killing is wrong, but in the story about Moses God kills the first born of many families as one of his plagues. He killed innocent children as punishment to the ruler of that land for not setting free the Hebrew slaves. Justify that. He murdered innocent children just to punish another person.

me:  "High level of comprehension."  Is this not an opinion that is not corroborated?  I can say all sorts of things re myself & others, but that doesn't qualify as something correct or true.  If you are able to use logic re what you said about God w/o deflecting, then by all means please do.  You just keep using human logic, as you understand it (which may or may not qualify here), & try to say that God can be explained with this same logic.  Once again, it doesn't matter if you believe in God or not, but to prove your point, you must use God's purported power/etc when addressing this point.

See what I'm getting at here re lack of debating protocol?  Going off topic to explain the topic only wastes time, & does nothing to further your explanation.

you:  " Please be more specific of your "power maker" & how, in your world anyway, all power makers are similar to God" I just did that. In my house, I am god. I set the rules and those who do not follow my rule will be punished. I can also choose to change my rule at any time to fit my own purposes and no one under my rule can stop me, nor will they understand why I did. God is supposedly even more powerful than this. He can do whatever he wants and no one in all of existence can stop him.

me:  Not even close.  God is supposedly all powerful etc right?  You s the head of your household are still impacted by extraneous things/events not under your control.  God doesn't have those constraints.  Thing is, God can only do things according to His MO ..... bc that's what God does.  What I'm saying is, God will not do evil things bc he doesn't want to, therefore He can't.

you:  "& you surmise this from what ..... the same logic you have exhibited above?" You said yourself that parts were translated wrong. You do not get to pick and choose which parts were translated wrong. That's called cherry picking. Notice how I didn't say they WERE translated wrong, I said they COULD HAVE BEEN translated wrong.

me:  Deflection once again.  I stated that people have interpreted things wrong.  I guess this is much too general of an application.  You'll have to give examples to prove your point of what you say re how you rrive at your definitive statements.

you:  "Prove what you say applies." Then you prove the parts you claim were translated wrong. While you're at it, prove every part that was translated wrong. Every last word.

me:   As I stated above, some people have translated parts of the bible incorrectly, like the offshoot religions of John Smith to say Jesus is not God.  BTW, there are many verses in the bible that reference Jesus as God.  Just type "bible Jesus is really God" or something to that effect, & you'll find verses that prove just that. 

you:  "What you say, once again is only your opinion in a generalized manner, which is invalid here." Ditto.

me:  I pretty muc have only challenged everything you've stated here asking for your explanation.  That's not opinion, that's asking for you to verify what you've said.  Once you have addressed those challenges, since I asked you 1st, I'll be happy to address anything you ask of me.

you:  "Making unsubstantiated statements w/o any reliable references is only opinion, which everyone has, but cannot be used in a debate forum when challenged." Ditto.

me:  Not ditto man.  You're the one making statements out of the blue w/o any reliable explanations, only your personal opinions.  You can go back & see what you have failed to address, but the only questions you have made of me, is like this one ...... which indicates you really cannot answer, & therefore use a deflection offense rather than directly answer my challenges.  Please look up debate protocol.  Please stay on task.  Address the questions/points I ask of you b4 saying I owe you the same.  I'll be glad to answer anything.  That's part of debate protocol my friend.

I'll address the rest when I have time.