Does The Fact That Evil Exists Mean There Is No God?

Barnardot

@JulesKorngold ;

• f God is omnipotent, then God can prevent evil.

• If God is omniscient, then God knows about evil.

• If God is morally perfect, then God wants to prevent evil.

• Evil exists.

Therefore, either God does not exist, God is not omnipotent, God is not omniscient, or God is not morally perfect.

Well if you take those points point by point then they are all wrong

The first point means nothing because just because he can prevent evil what makes you think that he does or should.

And the second point is the same. So what if he knows every thing.

And the third point is just totally dum because who said God is morally perfect because he made man in his image.

So therefore you made a real obvious non secateur because your going from one illogical assertion and making an assumption to make a totally tard conclusion.

You want to go read the book about logic and debating for dummies then you wont be so much of a looser who gets things horribly wrong so regularly.

just_sayin

@JulesKorngold

This question is often posed in the following way:

• If God is omnipotent, then God can prevent evil.

• If God is omniscient, then God knows about evil.

• If God is morally perfect, then God wants to prevent evil.

• Evil exists.

Therefore, either God does not exist, God is not omnipotent, God is not omniscient, or God is not morally perfect.

First, if objective evil exists then that is evidence that God exists.  If there is no God, then there is no objective evil.  What happens is just chance and the way the universe works.  If there is no God, then what someone calls "evil" is just something that displeases them, but it may please someone else.  But if there is true objective evil, then there is a true objective lawgiver and source of good from which to contrast evil - ie God.

Secondly, evil is not a thing unto itself.  It is a privation of good.  In the same way that darkness is not a tangible substance, but a privation of light.  You can only know evil by comparing it to that which is good, hence the need for a good ultimate lawgiver.  So evil is not a created thing, but something that is permitted.

Why would God permit evil?  Philosopher Alvin Plantiga has suggested that in his many worlds hypothesis that in any sizeable world where love and free-will exist evil is inevitable.  If someone has free-will then they are free to choose good or evil.  Inevitably someone would choose evil if that option were truly available.  It is only in a universe where people are automatons and not capable of love and true choice that there can be no evil.  So God is strong enough to create a world without evil, but that means creating people without free will and without love by logical extension.  

So if love is the highest expression of good, and many people think it is, then to create a world with love in it, means creating one with free will, because compelled love is not true love.  Therefore, if God values love, he must permit the possibility of evil - for ultimately evil is the rejection of God and His laws.  

God did not create evil.  He has not committed evil.  People commit evil.  They are responsible for their conduct, not God.  God did not force them to commit evil, he gave them free will.  

In the Bible it says that God will ultimately punish evil.  In a world without God, there is no true justice for many acts of "evil" go unpunished in this life.  Also, the Bible says that God is loving and offers forgiveness and redemption to those who will accept it.  Notice that free will is maintained even then.  

MayCaesar

"Good" and "evil" are human philosophical constructs that do not exist in the objective reality. "Murder is evil" is a statement that only makes sense from the perspective of a conscious organism having certain values that, in term, are derived from intrinsic biological pursuits - however, the Universe "sees" murder as just a rearrangement of particles.

Given that "good" and "evil" are purely philosophical concepts, their definitions are somewhat arbitrary, and it is quite plausible for "god" to have different definitions of these concepts than for any given human. What me or you would see as evil, god might see as good, or both, or neutral, or not falling under this classification at all. In the eyes of the god, it might be perfectly moral, yet in my or your eyes it would not be.

John_C_87

@JulesKorngold

The problem is GOD. How do you understand self-evident truth? Truths that need no explanation are either good or evil.

just_sayin

@John_C_87

The problem is GOD. How do you understand self-evident truth? Truths that need no explanation are either good or evil.

If there is no ultimate lawgiver, then what is called 'evil' is just someone' subjective opinion and/or natural law at work.  What seems evil to one may be good to someone else.  Objective evil only makes sense if there is an objective standard of good such as God.

JulesKorngold

Argument Topic: "Looser"

@Barnardot
So I'm a "looser", huh?  Looool!  You're a waste of oxygen. 

just_sayin

@MayCaesar

it is quite plausible for "god" to have different definitions of these concepts than for any given human. 

Thanks for bringing this up.  Of course if we behaved as God does it would be wrong for us.  We aren't God.  He is the creator.  For instance if an artist destroys his creation, he hasn't done anything wrong.  So if God destroys the planet he hasn't done anything evil - it belongs to Him and he can do with it as he wants.  The same can't be said for us.  We aren't God, we aren't the creator of the universe or the Supreme Being.  We don't own this world.  We aren't the creator.  If we murder an innocent human life it would be evil.  It isn't that good and evil are subjective, but our role, nature and very being are different than God's.  It would be like comparing the actions of a police officer killing a mass shooter in the act of murdering to that of pedophile killing his victim.  Both kill someone, but the roles of each and the circumstances are very different.  Evil and good haven't changed or been redefined.

John_C_87

@just_sayin

Again the problem is GOD.
Self-evident truth is not means of creating law, ever. It is truth which becomes subjective to all people not self-evident truth and is the means to contaian law by restriction. Govern well, appropriately. Whereas of nature, law of nature holds truth, law of nature does not hold justice. Self-evident truth need need not  be anything simular to human like for pepole to be created in the image of self-evident truth. As fact, however a self-evident truth is dependent on observation and the location of observation in describing favor which is neither described as good or bad. The truth like a compass or clock  favors a direction not an idea or belief.

How impractical does this truth sound. Let’s govern all complex law with more law. Is this real.    

Barnardot

@JulesKorngold ;So I'm a "looser", huh?  Looool!  You're a waste of oxygen. 

I wasn't meaning that in a bad sarcastic way I was meaning it quiet literary. May be you dont know it your self and I know what its like when you cant stand out from your self and think gee I made a great big boo boo there. Especially when you dont know about logic and debating skills. So the reason that I pointed out the point to you is so that you can learn from misteaks and then go moving forward and elevate your self to the next level. And I just thought that you haven't improved much since you came on after getting kicked off before for getting real offensive and abusive at every one. So at least you dont do that any more.

JulesKorngold

@Barnardot
How's your "looser" friend Nomenclature doing?  

MayCaesar

just_sayin said:

Thanks for bringing this up.  Of course if we behaved as God does it would be wrong for us.  We aren't God.  He is the creator.  For instance if an artist destroys his creation, he hasn't done anything wrong.  So if God destroys the planet he hasn't done anything evil - it belongs to Him and he can do with it as he wants.  The same can't be said for us.  We aren't God, we aren't the creator of the universe or the Supreme Being.  We don't own this world.  We aren't the creator.  If we murder an innocent human life it would be evil.  It isn't that good and evil are subjective, but our role, nature and very being are different than God's.  It would be like comparing the actions of a police officer killing a mass shooter in the act of murdering to that of pedophile killing his victim.  Both kill someone, but the roles of each and the circumstances are very different.  Evil and good haven't changed or been redefined.

First, the concept of ownership is more complicated than "I created it, thus it is mine". According to the modern legal philosophy, an individual cannot be anyone's property, thus, for instance, even if a mother "created" her son, the son does not belong to her, and she cannot raise him to be her slave. By the same token, humans do not belong to the god. Similarly, land on which you live does not belong to whoever first inhabited it; in the old feudalist systems it was assumed that all land ultimately belongs to the king, or, later, partially to king's vassal barons - and anything that was built by a baron's vassals on the land he owned or managed belonged to him. Nowadays this interpretation of ownership is considered obsolete, and much more emphasis is put on homesteading, on whoever has recently developed a piece of land - hence abandoned buildings ultimately have their ownership transferred to someone else, and uninhabited lands are open to development by anyone (albeit, in practice, governments collect a lot of bribes before allowing anyone to develop them).
The god does not necessarily own the whole Universe it created. It certainly does not own humans, and it destroying Earth with all the humans on it would be an act of transgression. Again, whether it would be evil or not depends on god's morals - it just would not be necessarily non-evil.

Nobody owns an innocent human life. That, however, does not mean that murdering it is somehow objectively evil. Again, there is no such thing as "good" or "evil" in the Universe unless defined by an intelligent individual. There is no device that we can point at something and measure its "evilness", same way as we can take scales and measure the mass of anything. The mass of this apple on my table is an objectively measurable value, while whether eating this apple while my neighbor's kid is starving is evil or not is inherently subjective.
That is not to say that morals are completely arbitrary. A proper system of morals has to satisfy certain properties, such as feasibility (it has to be applicable in the real world), viability (the individual applying it has to have the ability to survive in the real world in the long run), probably sustainability (applied on a societal scale, it must not lead to collapse of the society), practicality (it has, when applied consistently, to lead the individual to a happy and fulfilled life)... It is hard to conceive of a moral system satisfying all these properties in which murder is seen as good. For one, there is a strong argument to be made for a society in which murder is considered good to not be viable, for even a small minority of people set on being virtuous in such a society would result in unstoppable rivers of blood.
That is how morals have evolved historically. It is not that some philosopher sit down once and mathematically derived that murder is wrong. Not at all. Rather, humans living in tribes noticed that tribes do incredibly poorly when their members stop cooperating and start fighting each other, so they systematically enforced the idea that murder is wrong, and eventually many different rationalizations of this idea have been developed.

The Ancient Greek understood this very well, as well as many other societies. Most religions used to be polytheistic, with different gods embodying different virtues and vices, often conflicting with each other. People understood that moral questions are incredibly complicated and ambiguous, and more often than not there is no single answer to the question of whether something is good, evil or neither. One god says that you have to kill whoever threatens your tribe, while another god advocates for pacifism. Such a religion encourages exploring moral questions from multiple angles and appreciating their ambiguity.
Later monotheistic religions came to dominate Western societies, probably because of the challenges posed by increasing sizes of civilizations: it is pretty hard to hold a society of millions of people together when no two people can agree on most moral questions. When there is only one god and one moral doctrine, it is much easier to enforce that doctrine on a mass scale. This approach did serve the need to consolidate a large society - however, with it something crucial was lost. Humans became cogs in the machine, disallowed from questioning the central doctrine.

Nowadays we see the reversal of this trend, as Judeo-Christian and Islamic values are slowly fading away, giving rise to individualistic values and moral ambiguity. Naturally, when a transition like this occurs, many excesses and overcorrections will take place - this is what, in my view, has given birth to abominable ideologies such as socialism and fascism. Or post-modernism, taking the idea of moral subjectivity to unreasonable extreme and confusing it with perfect ambiguity ("everything is purely a human construct"). This, however, does not compromise the general idea of inherent moral subjectivity. And the way this subjectivity is resolved is not via appeals to gods or other authorities, but via intelligent thinking and consensus seeking. I do not need anyone to agree with me that murder is evil, I only need to find a practical arrangement with the rest of the society which allows me to be protected from murderers.

just_sayin

@MayCaesar

First, the concept of ownership is more complicated than "I created it, thus it is mine". According to the modern legal philosophy, an individual cannot be anyone's property, thus, for instance, even if a mother "created" her son, the son does not belong to her, and she cannot raise him to be her slave. By the same token, humans do not belong to the god. Similarly, land on which you live does not belong to whoever first inhabited it; in the old feudalist systems it was assumed that all land ultimately belongs to the king, or, later, partially to king's vassal barons - and anything that was built by a baron's vassals on the land he owned or managed belonged to him. Nowadays this interpretation of ownership is considered obsolete, and much more emphasis is put on homesteading, on whoever has recently developed a piece of land - hence abandoned buildings ultimately have their ownership transferred to someone else, and uninhabited lands are open to development by anyone (albeit, in practice, governments collect a lot of bribes before allowing anyone to develop them).
The god does not necessarily own the whole Universe it created. It certainly does not own humans, and it destroying Earth with all the humans on it would be an act of transgression. Again, whether it would be evil or not depends on god's morals - it just would not be necessarily non-evil.

Your argument is flawed.  You have assumed that God and humans are equal and similar beings.  They are not.  You compared the "God to human" relationship to a mother and child.  A mother and child are both human.  God is not human.  God created you from dust.  You are closer to a rock than a God - literally and figurately.  You quite literally are God's creation - like a rock.  And you have no claim of authority over God..  He created all of space-time from nothing. To use your analogy, He did not "steal someone else's land" or rocks, which you are more closely related to than God.  

Can you destroy a rock without it being a moral evil?  Then God can certainly destroy you, for He is a much higher being than you, who are much more similar to a rock than a God. You have mistakenly thought God was human or a being like yourself. That you could impute "oughts" and "obligations" onto him.   Human made laws don't apply to God.  Not only is God not Human, but He does not answer to you..  He is the ultimate lawgiver and not subject to your laws.  But you are subject to His, for He is the creator and sustainer of the universe.  God will judge you because it is His right to do so, but you will not judge God, for it is not your right.

The potter and his pottery is a better analogy the woman-child one.  God has the right to do with His creation anything He wants.  He made it from nothing.  No one but Himself has any rightful claim to it.  If a potter destroys a pot, he hasn't violated the rights of the pot as you suggest.  The pot has no rights regarding what the potter may or may not do to it.  

It is hard to conceive of a moral system satisfying all these properties in which murder is seen as good. For one, there is a strong argument to be made for a society in which murder is considered good to not be viable, for even a small minority of people set on being virtuous in such a society would result in unstoppable rivers of blood.

Were you drunk or high when you wrote that?  Seriously, that has to be one of the most lacking awareness quotes I've read in a while.  There are several examples where people accept murder as good - abortion is a classic example.  Many people in the US accept this a morally acceptable thing.  The intentional killing of an innocent human life is deemed good by many in our society - though it shouldn't be.  Society differs on this.  Its morality is arbitrary.

Slavery was deemed acceptable by most throughout human existence.  It is still practiced in some parts of the world today.  Yet, many societies would not agree with its practice now.  

Nazi Germany approved of the killing of Jews.  Germans were aware that Jews had their guns, businesses, and homes taken from them.  They saw Jews made to wear Davidic stars and taken by trains to concentration camps.  A whole society deemed that behavior good and moral and for the betterment of Germany.  Was that society wrong?  If so then societies and individuals are not reliable for determining what is moral.  Only an objective law giver can provide objective moral values.

Barnardot

@JulesKorngold ;How's your "looser" friend Nomenclature doing? 

The last I herd was that he got kicked off like you did. I remember when I opened up the Barnadot help desk I remember helping a lot of people from getting kicked off and there were a lot more members so may be I should open it up again. Sure youve obviously been to a shrink and stopped your anger and managing it now. All Im saying is that you need to learn a few things about logic like what is and isn't.

MayCaesar

just_sayin said:

Your argument is flawed.  You have assumed that God and humans are equal and similar beings.  They are not.  You compared the "God to human" relationship to a mother and child.  A mother and child are both human.  God is not human.  God created you from dust.  You are closer to a rock than a God - literally and figurately.  You quite literally are God's creation - like a rock.  And you have no claim of authority over God..  He created all of space-time from nothing. To use your analogy, He did not "steal someone else's land" or rocks, which you are more closely related to than God.  

Can you destroy a rock without it being a moral evil?  Then God can certainly destroy you, for He is a much higher being than you, who are much more similar to a rock than a God. You have mistakenly thought God was human or a being like yourself. That you could impute "oughts" and "obligations" onto him.   Human made laws don't apply to God.  Not only is God not Human, but He does not answer to you..  He is the ultimate lawgiver and not subject to your laws.  But you are subject to His, for He is the creator and sustainer of the universe.  God will judge you because it is His right to do so, but you will not judge God, for it is not your right.

The potter and his pottery is a better analogy the woman-child one.  God has the right to do with His creation anything He wants.  He made it from nothing.  No one but Himself has any rightful claim to it.  If a potter destroys a pot, he hasn't violated the rights of the pot as you suggest.  The pot has no rights regarding what the potter may or may not do to it.  

When talking about a philosophical concept used by humans such as "good" or "evil" and applying it to non-humans, the inherent assumption one makes is that there is a certain similarity between humans and that entity. Otherwise, it makes no sense to talk about these concepts existing for that entity. If "good" and "evil" mean anything at all to god, then it means that god thinks in a somewhat similar way to humans - similar enough that we use the same concepts.
If you believe that god and humans are not similar enough, then this whole discussion is meaningless.

Same goes for the concept of ownership. If god owns something, then god understands the concept of private ownership, same concept as we do, therefore human arguments on property are also applicable to god. If they are not applicable, then the concept of ownership does not exist in god's mind, thus saying that god owns something makes no sense. 
Same goes for laws, for judgement, for rights and so on. You have to decide whether god is sufficiently different from humans in a certain respect making application of the relevant concepts to him impossible, or not, making it possible. There is no third option.

I am okay with the idea that god is completely dissimilar from humans in every relevant respect, hence none of the arguments I have made apply to him. But in that case you also have to change your language and, for instance, not talk about god having "right" to do something. If god is just some incomprehensible force of the Universe, rather than an intelligent being that we can somewhat understand, then I am not sure what there is to talk about.

just_sayin said:

Were you drunk or high when you wrote that?  Seriously, that has to be one of the most lacking awareness quotes I've read in a while.  There are several examples where people accept murder as good - abortion is a classic example.  Many people in the US accept this a morally acceptable thing.  The intentional killing of an innocent human life is deemed good by many in our society - though it shouldn't be.  Society differs on this.  Its morality is arbitrary.

Slavery was deemed acceptable by most throughout human existence.  It is still practiced in some parts of the world today.  Yet, many societies would not agree with its practice now.  

Nazi Germany approved of the killing of Jews.  Germans were aware that Jews had their guns, businesses, and homes taken from them.  They saw Jews made to wear Davidic stars and taken by trains to concentration camps.  A whole society deemed that behavior good and moral and for the betterment of Germany.  Was that society wrong?  If so then societies and individuals are not reliable for determining what is moral.  Only an objective law giver can provide objective moral values.

People who consider abortion to be okay (I am not aware of anyone who considers it to be actually good, that is morally superior to giving birth) do not consider it to be murder, and for a good reason. Murder is not "intentional killing of an innocent human life".
Before making snarky comments, it is a good idea to try to assume that your opponent has thought his argument through and understand what he was trying to say.

Slavery is a different beast: societies with slaves are demonstrably viable. Slavery can be put into a controlled framework that does not destabilize the society, which murder, pretty much by definition, cannot. A society can be viable if certain acts of killing that nowadays we would consider to be murder are legally allowed, but it cannot be viable if any unsanctioned killing is allowed.
It is hard to imagine a moral framework in which murder is considered okay. Can you come up with a fantasy society which does not disapprove of murder in general and exists for centuries before spectacularly collapsing?

Lastly, the fact that humans make mistakes does not imply that they cannot develop a decent system of morals. Much like the fact that scientists make mistakes does not compromise the scientific method. Nazi Germany's views on the role of Jews in their society were... less than ideal - and Germans can nowadays look back and see how mistaken they were.
On the other hand, was there an objective law giver who proclaimed that Jews had to be exterminated - then Germans nowadays could not say, "Oh, we went wrong there, good thing we no longer follow Hitler's ideas", but, instead, would have to insist on Hitler having been right. In fact, Hitler himself tried to play the role of such an objective law giver, which is what "fuhrer" ultimately stands for.

It seems to me that Nazi Germany is much closer to the kind of society that you believe would provide objective moral values, than modern Western countries.

just_sayin

@MayCaesar

If god owns something, then god understands the concept of private ownership, same concept as we do, therefore human arguments on property are also applicable to god.

God is not human and therefore not subject to human laws.  Tell when, when did God relinquish His ownership of His creation?  He is the sole owner of the universe.  You've not shown that God is subject to human laws.  And to answer the question if God is sufficiently different than human beings ask yourself: Can you create a universe from nothing?  Are you all-knowing, all-powerful, eternal, immaterial, and omni-present? If not, I'd say it is OK to deduce you are a different type of being than God.  You are much closer to a rock than to God.  

Murder is not "intentional killing of an innocent human life".

What???  Just what is your definition of murder?

Before making snarky comments, it is a good idea to try to assume that your opponent has thought his argument through and understand what he was trying to say.

Snarky comments???  You mean like saying "Nazi Germany is much closer to the kind of society that you believe would provide objective moral values"?  Hey, I at least gave you the benefit of the doubt and thought you were high.

Slavery is a different beast: societies with slaves are demonstrably viable. 

Can't tell if you are for or against slavery.  I hope you are reducing slavery to an issue of utilitarianism or whatever is best for the society is what is moral.   Anyway, the point is that societies have claimed it is OK in the past, while many have claimed otherwise.   The fact that one society can say something is moral and another say it is wrong is why society is a poor judge of what is objectively moral.

On the other hand, was there an objective law giver who proclaimed that Jews had to be exterminated - then Germans nowadays could not say, "Oh, we went wrong there, good thing we no longer follow Hitler's ideas", but, instead, would have to insist on Hitler having been right. In fact, Hitler himself tried to play the role of such an objective law giver, which is what "fuhrer" ultimately stands for.

Hitler may have been your source of authority and your objective law giver, but for most people He is not.  Instead, you are proving another point I made, that individuals are also an insufficient source for objective morality. Thank you for the assist.

MayCaesar

just_sayin said:

God is not human and therefore not subject to human laws.  Tell when, when did God relinquish His ownership of His creation?  He is the sole owner of the universe.  You've not shown that God is subject to human laws.  And to answer the question if God is sufficiently different than human beings ask yourself: Can you create a universe from nothing?  Are you all-knowing, all-powerful, eternal, immaterial, and omni-present? If not, I'd say it is OK to deduce you are a different type of being than God.  You are much closer to a rock than to God. 

Did you just skip my entire argument? I have never said that "god is subject to human laws"; what I did say is that if you want to talk about human-made concepts such as "ownership" or "law", you have to assume certain similarity between humans and god, hence making the same arguments applicable to both. If such similarity is not the case, then saying that god "owns" something makes no sense whatsoever. You might as well be talking about a tree owning its roots.

just_sayin said:

What???  Just what is your definition of murder?

Something like "an unjustified act of killing of a conscious individual".

just_sayin said:

Snarky comments???  You mean like saying "Nazi Germany is much closer to the kind of society that you believe would provide objective moral values"?  Hey, I at least gave you the benefit of the doubt and thought you were high.

I provided a very calm and rational argument for that being the case. While you hypothesized that I was "drunk or high" with no reasoning or evidence provided whatsoever. 

just_sayin said:

Can't tell if you are for or against slavery.  I hope you are reducing slavery to an issue of utilitarianism or whatever is best for the society is what is moral.   Anyway, the point is that societies have claimed it is OK in the past, while many have claimed otherwise.   The fact that one society can say something is moral and another say it is wrong is why society is a poor judge of what is objectively moral.

I was merely talking about viability of slavery in human societies. It is a question completely separate of whether I personally approve of it or not, or whether I consider it to be moral or not.
Viability of something is a prerequisite to it being a sustainable moral rule, albeit it is not a sufficient condition, but merely one from the list of conditions I provided.

A society is a poor judge of anything. A rational individual mind, however, is not. It is true that there are some people who believe that the Earth is flat; that does not make the whole idea of science obsolete.

just_sayin said:

Hitler may have been your source of authority and your objective law giver, but for most people He is not.  Instead, you are proving another point I made, that individuals are also an insufficient source for objective morality. Thank you for the assist.

For most Germans he was, and who is to say that those Germans are wrong, if one is to adopt your reasoning? Christians do not present the majority in the world either, so for most people the Christian god is not the source of authority and the objective law giver. Please explain the essential different between the two. And if Christian god, despite not being accepted by the majority, can serve as a source of objective morality, then why can't Hitler? If the Bible can serve the role of the primary holy book, then why can't Mein Kampf?

Notice how these issues are automatically avoided by recognizing that morals are inherently subjective and that they have to be figured out through rational search, same way as scientific models are figured out. In that case one does not become a victim of whims of an arbitrary authority (in many case, imaginary).

Barnardot

@JulesKorngold ;How's your "looser" friend Nomenclature doing?

Like you tell me and every one since you invented him or do you think that every body here is dummer than you for some reason.

John_C_87

@MayCaesar

just_sayin asked:

What???  Just what is your definition of murder?

Something like "an unjustified act of killing of a conscious individual".
Here is the correct aswer by democracy MayCesar "Murder occurs when one human being unlawfully kills another human being."
murder | Wex | US Law | LII / Legal Information Institute (cornell.edu)

• The reason a jury listen to alibis in court is described by the powers written in a United States Constitution made on the level set by Constitutional Preamble truth, whole truth, and nothing but truth. For law, code, and permits can all be found unconstitutional by the conditions to which they have been applied or written. As a point of note we do not kill we the people of the United States of America when forming a more perfect state of the union to established justice presume our own innocence even when surrendering. We have applied lethal force and have not killed anyone, yet.

21CenturyIconoclast

@just_sayin


just_sayin,

Your Bible ignorance relative to your serial killer God named Jesus, is again, without bounds!

YOUR QUOTE: "But if there is true objective evil, then there is a true objective lawgiver and source of good from which to contrast evil - ie God."

JESUS SAID:  " I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, AND CREATE EVIL: I the LORD do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7)

Therefore, you have to accept that you worship and supplicate to your Jesus as being a brutal and bloody serial killer throughout the Bible in creating EVIL and existing, where he did abhorred sickening acts to his HEBREW followers, of which, you have to be jewish to follow Jesus!

Are you going to RUN AWAY from this post of mine as well like in other topics?  LOL!

.

just_sayin

@21CenturyIconoclast

JESUS SAID:  " I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, AND CREATE EVIL: I the LORD do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7)

Therefore, you have to accept that you worship and supplicate to your Jesus as being a brutal and bloody serial killer throughout the Bible in creating EVIL and existing, where he did abhorred sickening acts to his HEBREW followers, of which, you have to be jewish to follow Jesus!

Are you going to RUN AWAY from this post of mine as well like in other topics?  LOL!

The word translated 'evil' in Isaiah 45:7, carries a wider meaning and also means 'calamity' as in disasters.  That's how most translations of the Bible interpret here.  Here are but a few examples:

“I make success and create disaster” (HCSB);
“I make well-being and create calamity” (ESV);
“I send good times and bad times” (NLT).

A Bible scholar could have told you that, while those who aren't really interested in what the Bible says are only looking for quotes they can take out of context for their own interests, and would be lost as to the understood meaning to the original audience..  Further, the focus of the text is not to prescribe a literal thing happening, but to describe that God is the source of all things.  For example, darkness is the privation of light, darkness doesn't exist as a material object.  Its existence, like evil, is only known as a privation of something else.  So, I'd recommend that you not only learn biblical languages so you won't make the same mistakes again, but also learn different types of speech (narrative, legal, poetry, analogy, symbolism, etc.)

21CenturyIconoclast

@just_sayin

Just_sayin,

Your complete Bible ignorance and stupidity in front of the membership has no bounds, as usual in your following link herewith:  https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/166436/#Comment_166436

The King James Bible of 1611 came way before the ungodly revised versions that you embarrassingly brought forth with yet contradicting outcomes as shown below instead of using the true word in the beginning of “EVIL!” in Isaiah 45:7!

“I make success and create disaster” (HCSB);

“I make well-being and create calamity” (ESV); 

“I send good times and bad times” (NLT).

King James Bible

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Why do pseudo-christians like YOU only read the KJV? This is because  "The Textual Argument" where the KJV's Hebrew and Greek textual base is more accurate than the newer translations like you have laughably shown above!

In turn, I'd recommend that you understand the simple biblical axiom of what your serial killer god Jesus SAID ONCE in the beginning in the KJV 1611 when using "evil" in Isaiah 45:7, he did not mean for you to revise said word in later Satanic versions of the bible, so you won't make the same mistake in the future, understood continued bible fool? 

Here are the following primitive and Bronze and Iron Age bibles that show EVIL in Isaiah 45:7 at your embarrassing expense again!

American King James Version

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

American Standard Version

I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things.

A Faithful Version

I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create evil. I the LORD do all these things.

Darby Bible Translation

forming the light and creating darkness, making peace and creating evil: I, Jehovah, do all these things.

English Revised Version

I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I am the LORD, that doeth all these things.

Webster's Bible Translation

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Young's Literal Translation

Forming light, and preparing darkness, Making peace, and preparing evil, I am Jehovah, doing all these things.’

Smith's Literal Translation

I shall form light and create darkness: making peace and creating evil: I Jehovah doing all these.

Douay-Rheims Bible

I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things. 

Peshitta Holy Bible Translated

For he formed light and he created darkness, he made peace and he created evil. I AM LORD JEHOVAH, I who have done all these things

JPS Tanakh 1917

I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I am the LORD, that doeth all these things.

Brenton Septuagint Translation

I am he that prepared light, and formed darkness; who make peace, and create evil; I am the Lord God, that does all these things.

Now, not only are you to wipe the proverbial egg from your face, but also wipe your bible look off your face as well in trying to Satanically change Jesus’ inspired true words at the beginning in the King James Bible 1611, whereas in FACT, Jesus as god created evil in Isaiah 45:7, period!

NEXT BIBLE PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN LIKE "JUST_SAYIN" THAT WANTS TO CHANGE JESUS' WORDS IN THE OLDER BIBLE KJV 1611 BEFORE THE SATANIC REVISED VERSIONS CAME OUT, WILL BE ...?

.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: The Bible is a kinky book.

https://www.salon.com/2015/04/06/the_8_kinkiest_passages_of_the_bible_partner/

Just look at all the evil God has caused according to the Bible and Drunk with Blood. The fact that there is so much evil in the world might be proof of a malevolent God.

just_sayin

@21CenturyIconoclast
Its not my fault you got called out for lying and suggesting that 'evil' was the only meaning of the Hebrew word.  It isn't a bad representation of my Christian values that you lied.  

You have frequently ignored surrounding passages and context that disproves your raging hate of the Bible.  That doesn't make me a bad Christian but it may mean that you aren't being an objective reader.  Again, its not my fault that you attempted to deceive.  But, know that God can forgive you and help you to not lie so much.  

just_sayin

@Dreamer

https://www.salon.com/2015/04/06/the_8_kinkiest_passages_of_the_bible_partner/

Did you even read your link?  

Just look at all the evil God has caused according to the Bible and Drunk with Blood. 

It seems unfair to accuse God of evil when other people caused it.  Aren't we each responsible for our own actions?  Further, if God killed me today, it would not be evil.  He is the creator and can do whatever He wants to His creation.  It seems to me that you have thought God was subject to human rules.  He is not.  He could destroy the planet and he has not sinned, for it is His do do with as He pleases.  

Dreamer

Argument Topic: I am considering reading The Immoral Majority: Why Evangelicals Chose Political Power Over Christian Values Ben Howe.

@just_sayin

Yes, I read the salon article I posted about the Bible being x-rated. Christianity numbers are dwindling and it may have more to do with Trump than anything the new atheist movement has done. The reason I keep criticizing Christianity is the hope that maybe some will break their alliance with Trump. Without Trump I would become apatheism towards Christianity.

Then, I would focus on other religions or how to fix the economy. Let's face it for me anyways this discussion is not about religion at all and politics instead.

just_sayin

Argument Topic: Politics is the most dangerous religion

@Dreamer

Yes, I read the salon article I posted about the Bible being x-rated. Christianity numbers are dwindling and it may have more to do with Trump than anything the new atheist movement has done. The reason I keep criticizing Christianity is the hope that maybe some will break their alliance with Trump. Without Trump I would become apatheism towards Christianity.

Then, I would focus on other religions or how to fix the economy. Let's face it for me anyways this discussion is not about religion at all and politics instead.

Be careful that you don't allow politics to become your god.  People whose god is politics are historically immoral.  They rationalize horrific injustices such as killing innocent human lives.  They do this by dehumanizing their victims.  For example someone who believes it is OK to kill unborn babies will seek to dehumanize their victim by denying the unborn baby girl is a human life.  They will deny science and claim she isn't even alive.  Their religion demands they deny science.  As 

The Scientific Consensus on When a Human's Life Begins 

found:

Biologists from 1,058 academic institutions around the world assessed survey items on when a human's life begins and, overall, 96% (5337 out of 5577) affirmed the fertilization view. 

They will speak of the unborn child and call her a "zygote" as if she were a different life form rather than zygote denoting a stage of human development:  See The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology, 6th ed. Keith L. Moore, Ph.D. & T.V.N. Persaud, Md., (Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1998), 2-18:

"[The Zygote] results from the union of an oocyte and a sperm. A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization, the process during which a male gamete or sperm ... unites with a female gamete or oocyte ... to form a single cell called a zygote. This highly specialized, totipotent cell marks the beginning of each of us as a unique individual."

Their obeisance to the religion of politics won't allow them to be intellectually honest.  They will rationalize racism for their religion.  They believe that their racism is holy racism.  They will express support for racist policies that discriminate against someone because of their race in college admissions, employment opportunities, promotions, awarding grants, scholarships, and even government contracts.  When people point out that they want to show others favoritism based on their race while penalizing others for their race they will make up a justification for their obvious racist treatment of others.  For their religion tells them racism is OK.

So, not only do those who worship the religion of politics justify the killing of innocents and racism, they will also support harming poor Black children.  Their religion is more important than what happens to a poor Black child in their mind.  They will demand that a poor Black child remain chained to a bad public school rather than granting her the freedom to go to a good voucher school because it is what their religion calls for.  I get why teacher unions and the DNC, who gets a lot of money from teacher unions, want to keep poor Black children chained to bad public schools, but I don't understand how that benefits that poor Black child.  Individuals are expendable in their political religious dogma.  What is important is the cause and the issue.  To hell with the children it harms.

Not only does this false religion support educational slavery.  It declares that victims are the true oppressors.  Those who make politics their god will often ignore anything that presents a different view than theirs.  For instance this religion has been known to aggressively deny poor single mothers trapped in bad neighborhoods the ability to protect and defend themselves and their children from rape, robbery and murder.  It wants to take away the woman's only means of home protection, her gun.  In their holy war to take away guns from law abiders,  they are hell bent on taking away that single mother's guns, while deep down they know that the criminals who will rape and murder her will not surrender their guns.  In their minds, she is not really the victim, but the oppressor, because she dares to protect herself and her children.  

Not only do those whose religion is politics not care that the tenets of their faith will result in more rapes and murders, they celebrate it and think anyone wanting not to be raped and murdered is the evil one.  When you try to use logic with them and explain that there a many more defensive uses of guns for the protection of life and property each year than gun crimes, they can only repeat their political slogans -  "legal gun owners are evil, criminals who steal and use guns in crimes should not have to pay bail".  Their religion considers it a sin to consider others points of view.

So, again, I strongly plead with you to not follow the cult of politics, for it will brainwash you.  It will lead you to do and support heinous things.  It will corrupt your view of morality, it will cause you to see others as the enemy and lead you to remain in the compound of only those who hold your political religious views.  

Dreamer, I've written this in a humorous way, well at least from my perspective its humorous, but the underlying danger of you treating your politics as a religion does seem very much like a danger  from where I sit.

21CenturyIconoclast

@just_sayin

just_sayin you are Bible Dumb,

Are you that embarrassed and SCARED to address the following post of mine to you, where I easily make you the complete Bible fool AGAIN?  LOL!

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/166473/#Comment_166473

just_sayin

@21CenturyIconoclast
just_sayin you are Bible Dumb,

Are you that embarrassed and SCARED to address the following post of mine to you, where I easily make you the complete Bible fool AGAIN?  LOL!

https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/166473/#Comment_166473

You must have missed my response.

https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/166480/#Comment_166480

Dreamer

Argument Topic: From a legal viewpoint saying a zygote, a single celled organism has full human rights will lead to a lot of trouble.

@just_sayin

That's a lot of death certificates every-time implantation fails. If Christians keep out of politics and were more secular I would leave them alone more.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/08/27/1119684376/when-does-life-begin-as-state-laws-define-it-science-politics-and-religion-clash

"In humans, natural fecundity suggests that the chance of conception per cycle is relatively low (~30%) and two-third of lost pregnancies occur because of implantation failure."

Su-Mi Kim1 and Jong-Soo Kim1,†

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/implantation-symptoms#how-implantation-works

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5769129/

I doubt the authors who see the scientific consensus of human life as a zygote were thinking of giving full legal rights to zygotes. This would quickly add up to a lot of manslaughter and murder charges overwhelming the courts.

just_sayin

@Dreamer

That's a lot of death certificates every-time implantation fails. If Christians keep out of politics and were more secular I would leave them alone more.
https://www.npr.org/sections/health-shots/2022/08/27/1119684376/when-does-life-begin-as-state-laws-define-it-science-politics-and-religion-clash
"In humans, natural fecundity suggests that the chance of conception per cycle is relatively low (~30%) and two-third of lost pregnancies occur because of implantation failure."
Su-Mi Kim1 and Jong-Soo Kim1,†
https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/implantation-symptoms#how-implantation-works
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5769129/
I doubt the authors who see the scientific consensus of human life as a zygote were thinking of giving full legal rights to zygotes. This would quickly add up to a lot of manslaughter and murder charges overwhelming the courts.

Are you seriously equating death by natural causes with the intentional killing of an innocent human life?  Tell me, does the judicial system execute people who develop cancer?  I don't think so.  You have created a very flimsy straw man argument to rationalize the intentional killing of an innocent human life.  

Not only does virtually every biology text book for the last 100 plus years identify the start of a human life with fertilization, the most influential scientists in the field have been very outspoken on the topic:

"To accept the fact that after fertilization has taken place a new human has come into being is no longer a matter of taste or opinion...it is plain experimental evidence. Each individual has a very neat beginning, at conception." - Dr. Jerome Lejeune, "Father of Modern Genetics"

"Conception confers life and makes that life one of a kind...To deny a truth [about when life begins] should not be made a basis for legalizing abortion." - Dr. Landrum Shettles,  "Father of In Vitro Fertilization"

"By all criteria of modern molecular biology, life is present from the moment of conception...Science has a very simple conception of man; as soon as he has been conceived, a man is a man." - Gordon, Hymie, M.D., F.R.C.P., Chairman of Medical Genetics, Mayo Clinic, Rochester

"Human life begins when the ovum is fertilized and the new combined cell mass begins to divide." - Dr. Jasper Williams, Former President of the National Medical Association

Even the pro-unborn-baby-killing, Alan Guttmacher of the Guttmacher Institute said

"A facet that makes the obstetrician's burden unique in the whole field of medicine is his double obligation; he simultaneously cares for two patients, the mother and the infant...The essential step in the initiation of life is by fertilization, the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and the fusion of the two cells into a single cell." - Dr. Alan Guttmacher

Even baby slaughter house officials from Planned Parenthood admit this:

"Fertilization, then, has taken place. A baby has been conceived." - Planned Parenthood's former medical director Mary Calderone, M.D.

So, deal with the anti-science view that the unborn is not a human life.

I think it is ridiculous you think Christians should not be outspoken about government and its policies.  Jesus spoke out about taxes, and tax collectors taking more than required.  Martin Luther King Jr lead the civil rights movement because of his religious beliefs.  William Wilberforce was the most prominent person leading the end of slavery in Brittan because of his religious beliefs.  You would silence all 3.  

Most laws have some moral basis for them.  Laws on murder, stealing, slander, etc. have a moral aspect to them.  You may not know this, but many of our laws regarding debt, and bankruptcy are taken right out of the Bible.  

In my prior post about the immorality of the religion of politics, do you remember the moral issues I touched on:

1) killing of innocent human life

2) Discriminating against people in college admission, hiring, and promoting based on race (what the Bible calls favoritism and sin)

3) Educational slavery

4) Denying single mothers the right to protect themselves and their family from theft, rape and murder

Notice anything?  These are all moral issues.  Why should those whose god is politics be allowed to speak out on these issues, but Christians be silenced?  What would the world be like if you had succeeded in silencing Dr Martin Luther King Jr.  I get that he is now considered a villain by antiracists like Ibram X Kendi because he believed people should be judged by the content of their character rather than the color of their skin, which goes against antiracists pro-racism beliefs, yet, I would argue Martin Luther King Jr did a lot of good because of his faith.

Did you know that over 2/3rds of the signers of the Declaration of Independence were pastors?  That the very first official act of our country was a 4 hour prayer meeting?  Did you know that after writing to the Danbury Baptists on a Friday and using the phrase "separation of church and state", that Thomas Jefferson on Sunday, attended worship services in the Capitol building in DC and the minister was paid with federal funds?  Jefferson wanted government to stay out of religion, but it was never his desire for religion to stay out of politics.

Again, a warning.  Don't let politics become your religion. 

21CenturyIconoclast

@just_sayin

just_sayin you are Bible dumb,

YOUR PATHETIC AND WEAK RUNAWAY STATEMENT: "Its not my fault you got called out for lying and suggesting that 'evil' was the only meaning of the Hebrew word."

YES, as you RAN AWAY from my post showing that you were trying to change the word of EVIL from the many Bibles that I had shown you, where YOU are the one LYING about the word evil in trying to change it from its original position to the Satanic newly revised writings of this passage!
https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/166473/#Comment_166473


King James 1611 Bible was the first Bible written in English, and it showed the word EVIL in Isiah 45:7 that you outright deny by using recent variations of Bibles that reconfigure Isaiah 45:7 in insidiously taking the word EVIL away from this passage!   Besides, I had shown you the many Bibles that use the word EVIL in Isaiah 45:7, where your feeble attempt to say otherwise was embarrassing for you to say the least. LOL!

HOW DOES IT FEEL TO EASILY LOSE THIS DEBATE WITH AN ATHEIST? WILL YOU GO INTO HIDING BECAUSE YOU ARE SO EMBARRASSED FOR BEING SO BIBLE AGAIN?  LOL!

.

just_sayin

@21CenturyIconoclast

YOUR PATHETIC AND WEAK RUNAWAY STATEMENT: "Its not my fault you got called out for lying and suggesting that 'evil' was the only meaning of the Hebrew word." 

YES, as you RAN AWAY from my post showing that you were trying to change the word of EVIL from the many Bibles that I had shown you, where YOU are the one LYING about the word evil in trying to change it from its original position to the Satanic newly revised writings of this passage! 

https://debateisland.com/discussion/comment/166473/#Comment_166473 

King James 1611 Bible was the first Bible written in English, and it showed the word EVIL in Isiah 45:7 that you outright deny by using recent variations of Bibles that reconfigure Isaiah 45:7 in insidiously taking the word EVIL away from this passage!   Besides, I had shown you the many Bibles that use the word EVIL in Isaiah 45:7, where your feeble attempt to say otherwise was embarrassing for you to say the least. LOL!

HOW DOES IT FEEL TO EASILY LOSE THIS DEBATE WITH AN ATHEIST? WILL YOU GO INTO HIDING BECAUSE YOU ARE SO EMBARRASSED FOR BEING SO BIBLE AGAIN?  LOL!

First, I want to apologize to you for saying you lied.  I thought about it, and it just may be that you were initially ignorant and didn't know that the phrase used in Isaiah 45:7, בּוֺרֵא רָ֑ע  (ra is the word you were focused on), also has the meaning of calamity as well as evil, misery, and distress.  After, I explained the meaning to you, and you persisted with ignoring that the word has a range of meanings, you might have lied then.

You know that the New King James uses the term calamity, as do most of the major translations, right?  Your appeal to the King James Bible is laughable.  No modern Biblical scholar would consider the King James Bible a better translation than the New King James, NIV, ESV, NASB, NLT.   Do you know that the King James Bible used only a text from around 1000 AD for the Old Testament Hebrew translation?  Yep, only one.  The newer translations use much older texts - this reduces the possibility of scribal error.  And to be able to look at various texts from around the world makes determining any errors much easier.

Now when are you going to man up or are you going to cowardly run from the debate?  I keep mentioning that if there is objective evil, then there must be an objective law giver.  So, if there is objective evil in the world, that is evidence that there is a God.  Are you going to run away again form the debate topic?  

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Can we stick to one lane. You keep bringing up multiple subjects in the same comment. Gets difficult to keep track of.

@just_sayin

"Are you seriously equating death by natural causes with the intentional killing of an innocent human life?  Tell me, does the judicial system execute people who develop cancer?  I don't think so.  You have created a very flimsy straw man argument to rationalize the intentional killing of an innocent human life.  "

Wait what? Then, what is your argument?

just_sayin

@Dreamer

"Are you seriously equating death by natural causes with the intentional killing of an innocent human life?  Tell me, does the judicial system execute people who develop cancer?  I don't think so.  You have created a very flimsy straw man argument to rationalize the intentional killing of an innocent human life.  "

Wait what? Then, what is your argument?

It seems to me that you are arguing that the intentional killing of a pre-born child is OK because miscarriages happen and we don't arrest the mother when this happens.  Is that not the basic gist of your argument.  I have pointed out that there is a moral difference in death by natural causes and the intentional killing of an innocent human life.  

My overall larger point is that, whether you will admit it or not, you are at risk for allowing politics to be your God, and it is a very immoral religion.  Many adherents of this religion support the intentional killing of innocent human lives - they even celebrate their abortions.  It is common among believers of this faith to advocate for racist policies that discriminate against people based on their race in college admissions, employment opportunities, promotions, and being awarded government contracts and grants.  It is also common to hear adherents of this faith preaching that poor Black kids should remained chained to bad public schools and not be granted educational freedom.  I also mentioned how some of this false religion want poor single mothers to give up their only means of protecting their children and themselves from theft, rape, and murder, their guns.  All while you were saying that Christians should about political issues.  

I pointed out to you that religious people have often been the catalysts in major social change in the world, such as MLK Jr's civil rights influence, and that had they been silenced the world would not be a better place.  You didn't seem to reply to that point.  I believe that without people of faith speaking out about the injustices in the world, then adherents of the religion of politics would make the world a much more immoral and unjust place.

21CenturyIconoclast

@just_sayin


YOUR BIBLE STUPIDITY HAS NO BOUNDS QUOTE!!!:   " ..... in Isaiah 45:7, בּוֺרֵא רָ֑ע  (ra is the word you were focused on), also has the meaning of calamity as well as evil, misery, and distress."  

BUT, ignorant Bible fool, calamity, misery, and distress WAS NOT printed in the King James Bible in Isaiah 45:7, that was one of the first bible's in English, BUT EVIL was printed as the inspired word of Jesus!  GET IT BIBLE DUMB ?

"The King James Only movement (also known as King James Onlyism) asserts the belief that the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is superior to all other translations of the Bible. Adherents of the King James Only movement, mostly members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Conservative Anabaptist, traditionalist Anglo-Catholics, Conservative Holiness Methodist and some Baptist churches, believe that the KJV needs no further improvements because it is the greatest English translation of the Bible which was ever published, and they also believe that all other English translations of the Bible which were published after the KJV was published are corrupt."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Only_movement#:~:text="The Textual Argument"

Where in the hell do you get the authority to say as a pseudo-christian that the King James Bible had no validity?  And this is coming from you that can't even name a god of your primitive faith, other than to RUN AWAY from this proposition and HIDE!  LOL!


To your Satanic thinking, then where do you get the authority to also say that he following Bibles are also wrong when they support the word EVIL in Isaiah 45:7?  Can you answer this without looking like a continued Bible fool? WAITING!
American King James Version

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

American Standard Version

I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil. I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things.

A Faithful Version

I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create evil. I the LORD do all these things.

Darby Bible Translation

forming the light and creating darkness, making peace and creating evil: I, Jehovah, do all these things.

English Revised Version

I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I am the LORD, that doeth all these things.

Webster's Bible Translation

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.

Young's Literal Translation

Forming light, and preparing darkness, Making peace, and preparing evil, I am Jehovah, doing all these things.’

Smith's Literal Translation

I shall form light and create darkness: making peace and creating evil: I Jehovah doing all these.

Douay-Rheims Bible

I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord that do all these things. 

Peshitta Holy Bible Translated

For he formed light and he created darkness, he made peace and he created evil. I AM LORD JEHOVAH, I who have done all these things

JPS Tanakh 1917

I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create evil; I am the LORD, that doeth all these things.

Brenton Septuagint Translation

I am he that prepared light, and formed darkness; who make peace, and create evil; I am the Lord God, that does all these things.

NEXT DUMBFOUNDED PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN LIKE "JUST_SAYIN" THAT LIES IN BEHALF OF SATAN AND SAYS THE KING JAMES BIBLE AND OTHER BIBLES THAT USE "EVIL" IN ISAIAH 45:7 ARE WRONG, THEREFORE SAYING JESUS AS GOD LIED, WILL BE ...?

.

just_sayin

@21CenturyIconoclast
BUT, ignorant Bible fool, calamity, misery, and distress WAS NOT printed in the King James Bible in Isaiah 45:7, that was one of the first bible's in English, BUT EVIL was printed as the inspired word of Jesus!  GET IT BIBLE DUMB ?
"The King James Only movement (also known as King James Onlyism) asserts the belief that the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is superior to all other translations of the Bible. Adherents of the King James Only movement, mostly members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Conservative Anabaptist, traditionalist Anglo-Catholics, Conservative Holiness Methodist and some Baptist churches, believe that the KJV needs no further improvements because it is the greatest English translation of the Bible which was ever published, and they also believe that all other English translations of the Bible which were published after the KJV was published are corrupt."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_James_Only_movement#:~:text="The Textual Argument"

Where in the hell do you get the authority to say as a pseudo-christian that the King James Bible had no validity?  And this is coming from you that can't even name a god of your primitive faith, other than to RUN AWAY from this proposition and HIDE!  LOL!

I am not saying that the King James Bible has no validity.  I am pointing out to you that it is a translation from Hebrew, Koine Greek and a little Aramaic from some parts of Daniel.  As a translation into another language it has limits and can not always communicate the full meaning of words from another language.  If a word in English like 'ball' can mean 'a round thing kids play with' or 'a fancy dance people attend', I as the translator have to make a decision about which translation to use, because in other languages the same word may not carry both meanings.  

Now, I had Latin, Koine and Classical Greek (which are different from each other), and Hebrew when I was a kid, but I don't pretend I know much about the languages and I am certainly not a scholar, but I know that a word in one language may communicate many different meanings, while it might not in another language.

When I was a kid I read the New Testament from a Koine Greek translation.  I haven't in a while and doubt I could now.  One thing I liked was that it had a lot of footnotes about variations and differing meanings.  It was very helpful to clear up any questions.  

As is so often, it seems like you made a big deal about a Bible verse, when there was a very simple explanation if you had any interest in finding out what it was.  

21CenturyIconoclast

@just_sayin

All of your Clap-Trap in your ever so wanting and LYING post above relative to the EXACT WORD of EVIL in the King James 1611 Bible regarding Isaiah 45:7, is all for naught because of the simple Biblical FACT that the word EVIL was specifically used as printed, period!!!  

Furthermore, at your embarrassment AGAIN, the word EVIL in Isaiah 45:7 was also used in the following Bibles as I have explicitly shown your bible stupidity in the following link: https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/166473/#Comment_166473

Therefore,  you DO NOT have the authority to change the word EVIL is these said bibles where it stands in Jesus' inspired words, period!  Get used to your primitive Bible and the fact that your brutal serial killer Jesus as God created EVIL!

JUST_SAYIN, YOU ARE GUILTY OF THE FOLLOWING BIBLE PASSAGE:: "Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a ." (Proverbs 30:5-6)

NEXT DUMBFOUNDED PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN LIKE "JUST_SAYIN" THAT TRIES TO CHANGE THE PRINTED INSPIRED WORDS OF JESUS WITHIN THE BIBLE, AND THAT HAS ABSOLUTELY NO AUTHORITY TO DO SO, WILL BE ...?

.

just_sayin

@21CenturyIconoclast

All of your Clap-Trap in your ever so wanting and LYING post above relative to the EXACT WORD of EVIL in the King James 1611 Bible regarding Isaiah 45:7, is all for naught because of the simple Biblical FACT that the word EVIL was specifically used as printed, period!!!  

Furthermore, at your embarrassment AGAIN, the word EVIL in Isaiah 45:7 was also used in the following Bibles as I have explicitly shown your bible stupidity in the following link: https://www.debateisland.com/discussion/comment/166473/#Comment_166473

Therefore,  you DO NOT have the authority to change the word EVIL is these said bibles where it stands in Jesus' inspired words, period!  Get used to your primitive Bible and the fact that your brutal serial killer Jesus as God created EVIL!

JUST_SAYIN, YOU ARE GUILTY OF THE FOLLOWING BIBLE PASSAGE:: "Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a ." (Proverbs 30:5-6)

NEXT DUMBFOUNDED PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN LIKE "JUST_SAYIN" THAT TRIES TO CHANGE THE PRINTED INSPIRED WORDS OF JESUS WITHIN THE BIBLE, AND THAT HAS ABSOLUTELY NO AUTHORITY TO DO SO, WILL BE ...?

According to your logic, where the Hebrew word 'ra' is translated calamity in the Bible, it is a lie, because it can only be translated 'evil'.  Every time the King James Bible translated 'ra' as 'distress', it lied because as you claim, it can only be translated as 'evil'.  Yet, you appeal to it as the authority.  

It is obvious to anyone reading this, that the real problem is not with the Bible, but with you.  Your lack of understanding of the nature of languages and how they are translated is really the heart of the issue. You are the one who has distorted the Word of God, by claiming the word 'ra' does not have the full range of meanings that it has and which are used throughout the Bible.

Dreamer

Argument Topic: Deliberate killing of a single cell organism called a zygote is moral.

@just_sayin

More so, if the abortion saves the mother's life.

Deliberate killing of a single cell organism called a zygote is moral. There are plenty of religious people who have done good deeds in the past. This number seems to be decreasing. I am much more worried about the present.

I will give you that people who are atheists have also committed atrocities, Stalin, Mao, and possibly Hitler. As an atheist myself, this bothers me a lot. Let's not forget Mussolini showed atheist viewpoints, the priest eater. 

https://www.theguardian.com/books/2014/mar/06/pope-mussolini-secret-history-rise-fascism-david-kertzer-review

21CenturyIconoclast

@just_sayin

YOUR DUMB QUOTE ONCE AGAIN: "According to your logic, where the Hebrew word 'ra' is translated calamity in the Bible, it is a lie, because it can only be translated 'evil'.  Every time the King James Bible translated 'ra' as 'distress', it lied because as you claim, it can only be translated as 'evil'.  Yet, you appeal to it as the authority."

In the beginning, the King James 1611 translated into English was held in high esteem, period!  Therefore, ALL, I repeat, ALL of the following Bibles relative to Isaiah 45:7, USED AND PRINTED THE WORD "EVIL" REGARDING ISAIAH 45:7!  

American King James Version

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create EVIL: I the LORD do all these things.

American Standard Version

I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create EVIL. I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things.

A Faithful Version

I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create EVIL. I the LORD do all these things.

Darby Bible Translation

forming the light and creating darkness, making peace and creating EVIL: I, Jehovah, do all these things.

English Revised Version

I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create EVIL; I am the LORD, that doeth all these things.

Webster's Bible Translation

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create EVIL: I the LORD do all these things.

Young's Literal Translation

Forming light, and preparing darkness, Making peace, and preparing EVIL, I am Jehovah, doing all these things.’

Smith's Literal Translation

I shall form light and create darkness: making peace and creating EVIL I Jehovah doing all these.

Douay-Rheims Bible

I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create EVIL: I the Lord that do all these things. 

Peshitta Holy Bible Translated

For he formed light and he created darkness, he made peace and he created EVIL. I AM LORD JEHOVAH, I who have done all these things

JPS Tanakh 1917

I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create EVIL; I am the LORD, that doeth all these things.

Brenton Septuagint Translation

I am he that prepared light, and formed darkness; who make peace, and create EVIL; I am the Lord God, that does all these things.

ONCE AGAIN, YOU DO NOT HAVE THE AUTHORITY TO REWRITE THE BIBLE IN ANY WAY OR FORM "AS PRINTED", DO YOU UNDERSTAND YOU IGNORANT BIBLE PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN?

Jesus calls you an outright for your pseudo-christian views of rewriting his word: "Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a ." (Proverbs 30:5-6)

CASE CLOSED AT YOUR CONTINUED EMBARRASSMENT!

.

Barnardot

@21CenturyIconoclast What your got to remember is that yes God created all of these things about good and evil and there is no despute about that. But these are all just the facits that make up a diamond and there is not a diamond that doesn't have a floor at all. God created all these facits so that every man can experience all the different things that make up life like joy and happiness and even evil. And when God uses evil it is just like War. For example Putin is not an evil person but its just that he has to do evil things to fight evil. So when God intervenes and knocks off people it is the same thing. He is not evil but he needs to do evil things so that he can complete his gleaming diamond which is his ultimate goal.

just_sayin

@21CenturyIconoclast

Sorry I proved you wrong.  I have explained that the word ra has many meanings and you have ignored that and sought to add your own meaning to the Bible in violation of the scriptures.  You have appealed to some of the least known Bible translations on the face of the planet while ignoring that the most trusted ones do not render the passage the way you want.  

Instead of arguing with you I will follow the advice given in 1 Corinthians 14:38 (KJV) - "But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.".  So I will just let you be you.   

Dreamer

Argument Topic: I don't get why the translations keep changing. Why is the King James Bible so different from the New International version?

@just_sayin

Some Christians say then I am missing the word history, etymology of the word or using the wrong translation and am simply misinterpreting the Bible.  I will give one example. When three she bears killed boys, some Christians argued they killed men instead and I was misunderstanding the Bible. Really confusing.

"King James Bible
And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them."

"New International Version
He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys."

https://biblehub.com/2_kings/2-24.htm

How old were the 42 males? This is part of the reason I gave up arguing with Theists. Religion doesn't spread by logic and I feel all they have to do is stall by creating a smokescreen to slow logic down.

just_sayin

@Dreamer

Some Christians say then I am missing the word history, etymology of the word or using the wrong translation and am simply misinterpreting the Bible.  I will give one example. When three she bears killed boys, some Christians argued they killed men instead and I was misunderstanding the Bible. Really confusing.

"King James Bible
And he turned back, and looked on them, and cursed them in the name of the LORD. And there came forth two she bears out of the wood, and tare forty and two children of them."

"New International Version
He turned around, looked at them and called down a curse on them in the name of the LORD. Then two bears came out of the woods and mauled forty-two of the boys."

https://biblehub.com/2_kings/2-24.htm

How old were the 42 males? This is part of the reason I gave up arguing with Theists. Religion doesn't spread by logic and I feel all they have to do is stall by creating a smokescreen to slow logic down.

I am confused as to why it matters the exact age of the 42 males.  For the record, you are indeed wrong and your friends are correct.  Hebrew expression (ne’urim qẹtannim) is used of males ranging in age from 12 to 30.  We know this because these words were used of Isaac (who was in his 20’s, (Gen. 22:12), Joseph (who was 17, Gen. 37:2), and an army of men (1 Kings 20:14-15), who would have had to be military age.  

Did you learn a language in high school or college? If so then you know that words in one language may not have a one to one correlation in another language.  Idiomatic expressions in one language may not be present in another language.  That's just the nature of languages.  Your lack of knowledge of Hebrew doesn't disprove the Bible.

If your argument is that since God let kids get mauled by a bear then there is no God, it seems like you lose the argument.  The passage clearly indicates there is a God. If you think that is an 'evil' thing, then it is clear that God exists from the passage.

The real question is "Is it evil for God to permit or have bad things happen to people?"  I would point out to you that such a claim makes a category error.  God is not human, and is not subject to the same moral laws we are.  He is the ultimate lawgiver, and can do with and to His creation as He sees fit.  If a painter destroys his art he has not done evil to it, for it was his to do with as he chose to do.  If God, the creator of nature, allows nature (the bears) to behave like nature (maul those it considers threats) then He has not done evil.  Nature behaving as nature is not being evil, it is behaving as it was designed to behave. If God himself strikes you down without any other note of explanation he has not done evil, for He has that right as the creator to do with His creation whatever He wishes.  He is not subject to human restrictions, because He is not human.

Now if I wanted to be a good debater I would point out that the young men's taunts are really directed more at God, as he is the one speaking through Jeremiah, than about Jeremiah being folicly challenged.  They sought to discredit the words of God that Jeremiah was speaking and his legitimacy as a prophet sent by God.  God did not allow his message in this instance to be discredited, and instead used the occasion to demonstrate the seriousness of his message.  But if I was a bad debater I would just post a bunch of links and tell you to go read about it for yourself.  Here you go:

https://defendinginerrancy.com/bible-solutions/2_Kings_2.23-24.php

https://www.gotquestions.org/Elisha-baldhead.html

https://christianindex.org/stories/why-would-god-send-a-bear-to-maul-children,1778

Maybe, you should try to understand the message and context of a Bible passage, rather than hoping it will be a proof text for your own beliefs. 

Dreamer

Argument Topic: The problem always is a lack of time to really learn the Bible.

@just_sayin

For the 42 bears, I got the quote from the below book.

https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/9155239-drunk-with-blood

This wasn't Bible slam, it really was about why are there so many translations? Whose in charge of new translations?

The main problem is a lack of time to really learn the Bible. Not just reading the almost 1,000 page king James Bible, but taking an in depth understanding. The history, context, etymology of words within, what each denomination of Christianity believes and how they are different and similar from each and so forth.

With over 200,000 Bible manuscripts, 45,000 denominations of Christianity,

https://medium.com/excommunications/ten-fatal-flaws-of-the-bible-24ef7a305f3f

https://www.livescience.com/christianity-denominations.html

In the end, just learning everything there is to know about Christianity can take a very long time if not a life long journey. Leaving no room for anything else including debunking other religions. In fact Christopher Hitchen's book God is not Great is criticized for moving onto other religions while still getting facts wrong about Christianity.

Just for starters I cannot understand why Christians celebrate Christmas, a pagan holiday that the Puritans hated and outlawed. The more I learn about Christianity the more I realize how far I have to go to learn and understand everything about Christianity.

https://www.history.com/news/when-massachusetts-banned-christmas

21CenturyIconoclast

@just_sayin

YOUR LAUGHABLE QUOTE AT YOUR CONTINUED EXPENSE: "Sorry I proved you wrong.  I have explained that the word ra has many meanings and you have ignored that and sought to add your own meaning to the Bible in violation of the scriptures."

Your inept mind and thinking doesn't allow you to use plain logic 101, whereas AS PRINTED, I repeat, AS PRINTED without using your interpolated words that DO NOT mean EVIL, are shown in the following Bibles AGAIN that you are to afraid to address what they say AS PRINTED using the word EVIL, get it Bible fool?!  Yeah, deep down you do!  LOL!

American King James Version

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create EVIL: I the LORD do all these things.

American Standard Version

I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create EVIL. I am Jehovah, that doeth all these things.

A Faithful Version

I form the light and create darkness; I make peace and create EVIL. I the LORD do all these things.

Darby Bible Translation

forming the light and creating darkness, making peace and creating EVIL: I, Jehovah, do all these things.

English Revised Version

I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create EVIL; I am the LORD, that doeth all these things.

Webster's Bible Translation

I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create EVIL: I the LORD do all these things.

Young's Literal Translation

Forming light, and preparing darkness, Making peace, and preparing EVIL, I am Jehovah, doing all these things.’

Smith's Literal Translation

I shall form light and create darkness: making peace and creating EVIL I Jehovah doing all these.

Douay-Rheims Bible

I form the light, and create darkness, I make peace, and create EVIL: I the Lord that do all these things. 

Peshitta Holy Bible Translated

For he formed light and he created darkness, he made peace and he created EVIL. I AM LORD JEHOVAH, I who have done all these things

JPS Tanakh 1917

I form the light, and create darkness; I make peace, and create EVIL; I am the LORD, that doeth all these things.

Brenton Septuagint Translation

I am he that prepared light, and formed darkness; who make peace, and create EVIL; I am the Lord God, that does all these things.

YOU ARE EXCUSED ONCE AGAIN AS BEING THE 2ND MOST BIBLE AND IGNORANT FOOL OF THIS RELIGION FORUM, BAR NONE, WHERE I LITERALLY "OWN" YOUR BIBLE STUPIDITY AT YOUR EMBARRASSING EXPENSE IN FRONT OF THE MEMBERSHIP!!!

NEXT BIBLE REWRITER LIKE "JUST_SAYIN" THAT GOES AGAINST JESUS' WORDS WITHIN THE SCRIPTURES, WILL BE ...?

just_sayin

@Dreamer
This wasn't Bible slam, it really was about why are there so many translations?
There are a lot of reasons whey there are so many different Bible translations or paraphrases.  Would you be surprised to learn that the King James Version of the Bible sounded odd to people in King James time.  The reason is because it is often a literal translation of the words.  Middle Eastern idioms weren't commonly known or said, so several passages in the Bible sounded odd to people in 1611.  You can see why there would be newer translations since King James - because people today don't speak in 'thees' and 'thous'..  Another reason for some translations deals with reading level.  For example the King James is on a 12th grade reading level.  It is beyond what many people can comprehend.  The NIV is about a 7th grade level, while NIrv (which is designed for kids), GNT is for those with about a 3rd grade reading level.  

Some Bible versions are paraphrases, which are not word for word, but whose aim is to communicate the idea of the passage in a way that the reader can understand.  Examples of this would be the Living Bible or the JB Phillips translation.  

With over 200,000 Bible manuscripts,

Well, kinda.  There are several major codexes and complete manuscripts.  However most of what we have are partial manuscripts say of a particular book, or of just a small fragment - some no bigger than a postage stamp.  Bruce Metzer's Greek New Testament is a great source for this, as it has footnotes at the bottom of each page of any variations in manuscripts and confidence grades attributed to each.  

Would it surprise you to learn that the New Testament manuscripts that were used for the King James Bible are much older than the manuscripts used for the Old Testament.  The OT manuscript was from around 1000 AD.  The New Testament manuscript used was from about 300 AD if memory serves me.  They did not have access to the wealth of manuscripts that we have available now.

Just for starters I cannot understand why Christians celebrate Christmas, a pagan holiday that the Puritans hated and outlawed. 

Sit down for this, I'm going to bust your bubble.  Jesus was most likely not born on December 25th or January 6th.  The shepherds were out in the fields when the angels made the announcement, that would indicate a warmer time of year.  The reason Christmas was celebrated on December 25th is because of the pagan holiday Saturnalia.  Christmas did not 'copy" Saturnalia.  Christianity claimed the day with its own significant event and took aspects of the celebration and redefined it according to its own purpose.  Think of it as a warrior slaughtering an enemy and then wearing his enemies clothes.  That's more like what happened.  Christians weren't trying to emulate pagan religions but wipe out their meaning and redefine them.  Same goes for Easter - which is a pagan holiday, even mentioned in the Bible.  

Puritans are a sect within Christianity.  But they were never the majority view.

In the end, just learning everything there is to know about Christianity can take a very long time if not a life long journey.

Christianity is uniquely rooted in history in a way other religions are not.  I'm not just referring to events around the Bible being written, but about its authenticity being uniquely rooted in the historical event of the death and resurrection of Jesus.  If you can disprove or prove that event, then you can decide if it is worth learning more about.  We have eye witness testimony to the resurrection - Peter, John, James (his brother), Mark, Luke (compiled eye witness testimony), Paul - interviewed the disciples, Matthew, and probably Jude.  There are 42 different people who wrote about Jesus within 100 years of his resurrection - friends, family and enemies.  For perspective, in the 150 years after the life of Tiberias Caesar, the most well known person in Jesus' day, there are just 15 documents found about him (several of them being books of the Bible).

Dreamer

Argument Topic: I recommend this video to protect yourself, marjoe gortner exposes evangelists.

@just_sayin

Explains why I am so skeptical.

Dee

@just_sayin

The shepherds were out in the fields when the angels made the announcement, 

That made me laugh out loud .......what are you smoking?

just_sayin

@Dee
That made me laugh out loud .......what are you smoking?

And there were shepherds living out in the fields nearby, keeping watch over their flocks at night.  An angel of the Lord appeared to them, and the glory of the Lord shone around them, and they were terrified.  But the angel said to them, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people.  Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord.  This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.” - Luke 2:8-12 NIV