A Cumulative Case for Christianity

[SteveII]

He claims to have come here for a discussion.
Yet, .... in spite of the fact that that his deity has been proven to be evil and NOT have "objective morality" he continues to preach it and proclaim it.
Obviously, nothing anyone here has to say is regarded as having any value.
He is not now, nor ever will be a member of this community.
He's worthwhile as a "fencing foil". That's about it.

Never heard the fencing foil saying. We always say as worthwhile as an ashtray on a motorbike.

He is mixing his metaphors. He means 'foil'. I am useful so he can respond to my posts and he can get his performative, nonsense counter arguments, pseudo-history, and his demand for declaring a 'logic system' out for his audience without being challenged. It's a shame he is incapable of a reasonable discussion if he disagrees with you. I have tried.

[Bucky Ball]

Never heard the fencing foil saying. We always say as worthwhile as an ashtray on a motorbike.

He is mixing his metaphors. He means 'foil'. I am useful so he can respond to my posts and he can get his performative, nonsense counter arguments, pseudo-history, and his demand for declaring a 'logic system' out for his audience without being challenged. It's a shame he is incapable of a reasonable discussion if he disagrees with you. I have tried.

I meant what I said. As in fencing, you are a useful foil. Spouting the fundamentalist BS of what you call "Christianity". I mixed no metaphors. Just as Dr. Sean Carroll asked Craig about ten years ago, "Which human logic system do you use and how do you know it applies to the gods". Craig never answered, and neither have you. I have tried. You are a fundamentalist presuppositionalist, just as Craig is. If I have ever presented "pseudo" anything, YOU have never called it out. You're just another sad little ignorant preacher, lying for Jebus. You are dismissed.

BTW, Neuroscience has proven that decisions are made BEFORE we are fully conscious of them.
I know you know nothing about Moral Theology, but that pretty much invalidates "free will".
Of course you know nothing about neuroscience either.

[epronovost]

You are very mistaken here. The conception of God does comes from the texts (as a collection) and not somewhere else and is backfilled by scripture.

This is factually incorrect. Christianity pre-dates it's own scriptures by almost a full century.

There is nothing organic about Christianity.

The history of Christianity; it's cultural production and the fact it's composed of people makes this statement ridiculous.

I read the same material that Augustine did in 300BC. I come to the same conclusions. Don't confuse me with a Catholic.

Very ironic since Saint Augustine is a Catholic theologian as is Saint Thomas Aquinas which you also refer to often. Catholics are the largest Christian denomination and the second eldest one (the Armenian Apostolic Church might be a little bit older). Catholics are as Christians as any others. You probably did not read the same texts than him since he had access to texts which no longer exists and Saint Augustine himself was not raised Christian and his theology is heavily informed by Plato's work and that of the Manicheans hence his very platonic views on the nature of God (and I seriously doubt you ever read all of Plato's work nor that of the Manicheans). If you want to properly understand Aquinas or Augustine, you have to be well read in Greek philosophy since they use those philosophers work to inform any reading of the Scriptures. Considering you knew almost nothing on the Stoic, I don't think you know a whole lot more on platonism, neo-platonism or Eastern religions like Manicheanism or Zoroastrianism.

You are making arguments with no references, no connections to the beliefs of the author or the people at the time, no attempt at context, no attempt at placing your characterization into a systematic theology with all the other verses that apply. It seems you are working off some list that you think make good counter points. Let's look our your collection from above.

Job: useful imagery in a poetic book. God is not physical in any way, he is not actually sitting on a throne somewhere. People do not come for visits. The book is a complete story with a purpose to show the nature of God and explores how we should approach the idea of why bad things happen--it's an impressive theodicy--for 'Bronze-age goat herders' as atheists like to say.

Actually, I do know more than you about the context and actual history of the Ancient Hebrews. They did not believe in an all powerful, omnibenevolent deity. They were not even fully monotheists when they wrote that book. In fact, God, in Job, doesn't adress Job's arguments or feelings. He ignores him and belittle him because he doesn't have the power of a deity. 

God, in Job, shows this. God is a god; he is beyond you; beyond your ability to judge; God can do whatever he sees fit. The lesson of Job, is that evil happens to good people and this happens with God's aproaval, but you cannot question God's motives or morality because you are just a human. Blamming God is useless; demanding justice is pointless; asking why so much suffering is a waste of time. You must recognise that you are a tiny little human and that suffering is part of your lot; honor God in all things so that he may be merciful and just toward you but don't take this as something that is owed to you. That's why God doesn't adress Job's points nor explains his behavior. Like many other part of the OT, it enforces the idea, through fables, poetry, myths and distorted history, that you must obey God at all time and that you can't judge God. It's basically from there we god the popular Abrahamic aphorism "God works in mysterious ways". In some translation of Job, he repents for having challenged God, but in others he does not and retain the belief that God was wrong to harm him despite the fact he continues to honor him.

From a philosophical point of view, it establish the moral authority of God is based on his might. Since God is the mightest creature there is; his moral authority is thus absolute.

In Isaiah 45:7, it is also in poetic verse (did you actually read the context of God introducing himself to Cyrus, a Persian?).  Light/Darkness; good/evil = talks about God's sovereignty over everything. BUT, did you look up the Hebrew words? It is specifically not moral evil. All modern translations use the word calamity. So, the ESV:
     7       I form light and create darkness;
     I make well-being and create calamity;
     I am the LORD, who does all these things.

If calamities are not natural events, but are the product of a sentient being will; they become evil from a consequentialist view of morality. Have you ever read Socrates? That's basic ethics there. If you do things that causes harm, you are commiting evil unto beings. 

I am unsure of your point from Revelations. An eternal God can indeed be described as the Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end.

It's also a common descriptor of God's with dualistic personalities like vengeful-loving deities which is a common theme in the OT and religions of the Mid-East at the time.

I have heard atheist repeat this a lot. Jesus talked about Hell plenty:  Matthew 5:22, 5:29-30, 10:28, 18:9, and 25:41; Mark 9:43-48; Luke 12:5 and 16:19-31

I fail to see how this shows an omnibenevolent deity.

I am unsure how the Garden of Eden and the Tower of Babel shows anything about God's omnipotence. Provide some references (understand the context) and we'll see.

In both myths, it shows God making mistakes and errors. It also portrays God being surprised or even frightened. Note that the literary context is from a group of people who were neither monotheistic yet nor believed their gods, even their chief god, to be all powerful hence his use of others to do his bidding. Of course it was a divine being of immense power, but it wasn't a perfect being hence why a myth can be crafted where God seems to make mistakes. You would have to wait a good 2 or 3 centuries after the writting of Genesis to see Ancient Hebrews adopt monotheism in full and the early Middle Ages for Jews to start to consider God as something like an omnipotent and absolute being.

I don't know how you can get that God as portraid in the Bible is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being when the people who wrote it did not. Is that not a big problem? Saint Thomas Aquinas views on God's nature and those of many of other theologians like Augustine of Hippo for example are not informed by Ancient Hebrew scriptures as they view it themselves. They divorced them from their concept and relied as much as by Plato and Aristotle to name just two to get to their theological views. Modern Christianity is born from a lot of syncretism. 

Tyre seems random in this list because if a prophesy did not come true (or partially true in this case), then that would be on the prophet or the understanding of what the prophet was talking about would be the issue, not God's omniscience. Very random and indicates you are reading from a list and not your personal knowledge.

This is problematic since everything written in the Bible is written by prophets, apostles and priests. All of them claim to have received their knowledge by divine inspiration. If they make mistakes we can assume only two things: they are frauds and thus there is reason to be skeptical of all them, or God's power do not extand to make human receive perfect revelations which would not make him omnipotent. Alone this is not enough, but in conjunction with other passages, narrative structure, plot points, etc. It depict a deity that, while certainly frighteningly powerful, is not all powerful not perfectly benevolent.

Jesus on the cross. That's going to get into some deeper theological concepts (which I will do if you want), but Jesus' words don't mean what you have extrapolated from them. Why was Jesus on the cross?

Because he was criminal. The Romans executed him for treason.

What was he representing?

 

A man being killed for his belief.

He was human, he was also God.

That's a big error. Those tragic last words are found only in Mark Gospel. We do not know if the authors of Mark were of the belief that Jesus was God. The divinity of Jesus and the only trinity would only become dogma 2 centuries after the redaction of that Gospel. Many Christians believed that Jesus was just a man imbued with some powers by God, but definitely not a God. 

That's how proper textual analysis start btw. You can't assume that the people who wrote a book believe as you do or used those passages in the same ways. In fact, if one assume Jesus is just a man, some sort of prophet, one might have no problem understanding this last quote from him. If you want to go even deeper, perhapse those last words have nothing to do with his religious convictions, but are the last word of a man suffering. Who knows if the father he was calling for in his dying moments was God and not Jospeh who would have died while Jesus was a young teen.

[Bucky Ball]

You are very mistaken here. The conception of God does comes from the texts (as a collection) and not somewhere else and is backfilled by scripture.

This is factually incorrect. Christianity pre-dates it's own scriptures by almost a full century.

The texts ARE "scripture", thus the claim is meaningless.
It's the same as saying "The conception of God does comes from the texts and is backfilled by the texts".
Humans wrote the texts.
No human understands the gods. You own scripture refutes you.

The conception of the Christian god ("the Father" in the NT which Jesus repeatedly refers to), comes from the Jewish god Yahweh Sabaoth, ... who we found out when the Royal Library of King Ashurbanipal was discovered in the 19th Century, was one of the many sons of the Babylonian god "El Elyon". HISTORY knows where the gods come from. Yahweh was the war god. The Jews picked him as their god, as they wanted help in their battles.

Humans wrote the texts.
No human understands the gods. You own scripture refutes you.
We know historically when and who introduced "inspired", and where came from. Clearly you don't.

[Minimalist]

The Jews picked him as their god, as they wanted help in their battles.

They needed it.  They were always getting their asses kicked.

[epronovost]

The Jews picked him as their god, as they wanted help in their battles.

They needed it.  They were always getting their asses kicked.

Hey, how were they supposed to know that God was weak to iron chariots!

/joke

[Bucky Ball]

This is factually incorrect. Christianity pre-dates it's own scriptures by almost a full century.

The texts ARE "scripture", thus the claim is meaningless.
It's the same as saying "The conception of God does comes from the texts and is backfilled by the texts".

No shit Sherlock.

The conception of the Christian god ("the Father" in the NT which Jesus repeatedly refers to), comes from the Jewish god Yahweh Sabaoth, ... who we found out when the Royal Library of King Ashurbanipal was discovered in the 19th Century, was one of the many sons of the Babylonian god "El Elyon". HISTORY knows where the gods come from. Yahweh was the war god. The Jews picked him as their god, as they wanted help in their battles.

What we know is, there arose a (totally) Jewish apocalyptic sect known as "The Way" (also referenced in Acts by the same name). We know that the Jewish High Priest (in exile) required the reading of the Expulsion Curses (referenced in John) to be read at the end of every synagogue service at the end of the 1st Century. They were still Jews.

There were many Christianities, (as Ehrman has written about). It took centuries for orthodoxy to develop, as we can see happening, ... read the proceedings of the councils (available on Fordham University's web page).

Stevie is totally wrong about Adam and Eve being metaphorical.
Yesterday, he peppered us with shit from Romans.

Yet in the SAME scripture, Paul says he's wrong.
In Romans 5:12–21, Paul observes that "just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous" (Romans 5:19, NIV). In 1 Corinthians 15:22, Paul writes that "as in Adam all die, so in Christ all will be made alive," while in verse 45 he calls Jesus the "last/ultimate/final Adam".
Too bad for Stevie. Proven wrong again.

[Minimalist]

They needed it.  They were always getting their asses kicked.

Hey, how were they supposed to know that God was weak to iron chariots!

/joke

The really amusing part is that whatever moron wrote that had no clue how a chariot was used in battle.... probably some limp-wristed scribe who'd shit his loin cloth if he ever went near a battlefield.  Chariots were not tanks.  They were more akin to ground attack aircraft which would swoop in, strafe a target and then fly off.  The whole point was to bring an archer into range, let him fire his arrows and then retire to re-load and rest the horses while another chariot picked up the attack.  An iron chariot would be about as useful as the proverbial 'screen door on a submarine.'

Thus:

[pattylt]

@SteveII

You shouldn’t trust OT translations made by Christian’s…they weren’t written by them and they always slant the translation towards their theology. This should always make you wary.

The English translation by those that wrote the OT should be checked. It’s their language after all.
The JPS (Jewish Punlication Society) translate the word in Isaiah as evil. Plain and simple…evil.

Oh, and Job is a mishmash of two separate authors. When the two versions are separated, it’s a much more interesting read.

[epronovost]

Hey, how were they supposed to know that God was weak to iron chariots!

/joke

The really amusing part is that whatever moron wrote that had no clue how a chariot was used in battle.... probably some limp-wristed scribe who'd shit his loin cloth if he ever went near a battlefield.  Chariots were not tanks.  They were more akin to ground attack aircraft which would swoop in, strafe a target and then fly off.  The whole point was to bring an archer into range, let him fire his arrows and then retire to re-load and rest the horses while another chariot picked up the attack.  An iron chariot would be about as useful as the proverbial 'screen door on a submarine.'

Thus:

There were some experiments in using chariots as shock cavalry, but they were mostly failures. I think whoever wrote that passage was not only unfamiliar with warfare, but also living well after the glory days of chariot warfare.

[Minimalist]

Excellent point, Epy.  It is an anachronism which tells us that whoever wrote this crap down was living well after the chariot had disappeared from common usage.  The phase out of chariot warfare in the Near East began c 600 BCE and was pretty much completed by 300.  Chariots were nearly useless on anything other than flat open terrain whereas cavalry was much more versatile.  Alexander's Macedonian cavalry was a mainstay of his army along with his pikemen.

The fact that the author knew nothing about chariots strongly suggests a date of composition closer to 300 BCE - well within the Hellenistic period when the Greeks were writing every down!

[Dancefortwo]

Hey, how were they supposed to know that God was weak to iron chariots!

/joke

The really amusing part is that whatever moron wrote that had no clue how a chariot was used in battle.... probably some limp-wristed scribe who'd shit his loin cloth if he ever went near a battlefield.  Chariots were not tanks.  They were more akin to ground attack aircraft which would swoop in, strafe a target and then fly off.  The whole point was to bring an archer into range, let him fire his arrows and then retire to re-load and rest the horses while another chariot picked up the attack.  An iron chariot would be about as useful as the proverbial 'screen door on a submarine.'

Thus:

Egyptian chariots were made out of wood.  An iron chariot wouldn't have been able to maneuver quickly enough in battle and would have sunk in the sands.  Horses would have been dragging an iron chariot behind them.  Chariots were made out of wood, specifically cedar which was imported from Lebanon.   Egyptians have records of importing the wood specifically for building their chariots.   I believe the axel was metal, could be wrong about that, but I'm pretty sure that part was metal.   The only other metal was the thin lgold leaf that was applied on the outside.  It served no real structural purpose except to show the rank and power of the pharaoh   I think there were leather straps keeping some things together.  It was there for decoration.

[Dancefortwo]

It doesn't matter if it's translated as "calamity" or "evil".  The question still stands: Why would an omniscient "loving" god create people knowing in advance that they would, by their own free will, make a sinful choice and burn in hell?

Because everyone has an opportunity to respond to God and a certain percentage of people will -- and that seems to be a higher good that no one existing at all. I would be interested to see an argument laid out that shows that it is not.

That's not answering my question.  Why would a loving god create people knowing in advance that they would, through their own free will, end up burning in hell for eternity? Why would a loving, all knowing, all seeing god do this?  

This is like sending your child next door to the babysitter who you know for a fact is a convicted serial child killer but you do it anyway and then blame the child for having him or herself murderd.

[Bucky Ball]

Because everyone has an opportunity to respond to God and a certain percentage of people will -- and that seems to be a higher good that no one existing at all. I would be interested to see an argument laid out that shows that it is not.

So you're saying your god plays the numbers. LOL The Doctrine of Stevie. God is a Gambler.
Praise be the god of Vegas.

Your question presumes your deity doesn't really know which of the percentage is going to be saved. Again, you refute omniscience.

Do you EVER think through this utter shit you post ?

[isbelldl]

Seems to me like the whole religion relies on the concept of original sin. The creator knew in advance that 'the fall' would occur, in fact he manufactured it.

The being that constructed galaxies and solar systems made the decision to deliberately tempt his children with forbidden fruit fully aware that they would disobey him.

So god ruined the relationship with mankind, not the other way around. Therefore sin isn't a thing and he didn't need to sacrifice his precious son.

God, a genius on one hand, an idiot on the other.

That is not what 'original sin' means. That's a totally different doctrine than what you are talking about.

It would be nice if you characterize the belief accurately: If God created us with freewill, then we, by definition, have the ability to sin. I believe the case is airtight that if we have freewill, we will eventually sin no matter what the circumstances. So it was actually impossible for God to make a world of freewill creatures that did not contain sin. The question then becomes, how did God respond that that inevitability?

I, and most Christian, believe the Garden of Eden story allegorical. The truth the events teach are real, the actual details are not.

Does God have free will? Does God sin?
If yes to both, why couldn't God create other beings that have free will but don't sin?
If God does sin, why should other beings be judged differently from God?
If God doesn't have free will, I guess his hands were tied, & this discussion doesn't really matter.

Note, I have other thoughts regarding original sin, but I'd prefer to know your thoughts on this before adding more in.

[Bucky Ball]

He was human and he was a god.

"You are very mistaken".

Jesus was a Jew, and said he came to change nothing.
No Jew would claim to be a god. It was a stoning to death crime.
Jesus never claimed equality with Yahweh. Throughout the gospels Jesus addresses the "Father" as being "higher" than he.
"Not my will, but thine be done".

"Original Sin" was never mentioned in Christian history until Augustine. https://www.bbc.co.uk/religion/religions...0a%20child.
Jesus and the apostles never said a word about it.

[Bucky Ball]

God is evil.
It allowed the Holocaust.

What we observe is exactly what we would expect to see, if there were no gods.

“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

https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/13/world...libya.html

https://www.nytimes.com/article/morocco-earthquake.html

[Thethingaboutitis]

Seems to me like the whole religion relies on the concept of original sin. The creator knew in advance that 'the fall' would occur, in fact he manufactured it.

The being that constructed galaxies and solar systems made the decision to deliberately tempt his children with forbidden fruit fully aware that they would disobey him.

So god ruined the relationship with mankind, not the other way around. Therefore sin isn't a thing and he didn't need to sacrifice his precious son.

God, a genius on one hand, an idiot on the other.

That is not what 'original sin' means. That's a totally different doctrine than what you are talking about.

It would be nice if you characterize the belief accurately: If God created us with freewill, then we, by definition, have the ability to sin. I believe the case is airtight that if we have freewill, we will eventually sin no matter what the circumstances. So it was actually impossible for God to make a world of freewill creatures that did not contain sin. The question then becomes, how did God respond that that inevitability?

I, and most Christian, believe the Garden of Eden story allegorical. The truth the events teach are real, the actual details are not.

So it was possible for your god to fine tune the universe to support life but your god found it impossible to create creatures without the capacity for sin (whatever that is.)

Sounds like two different gods to me.

[1Sam15]

Hey, how were they supposed to know that God was weak to iron chariots!

/joke

The really amusing part is that whatever moron wrote that had no clue how a chariot was used in battle.... probably some limp-wristed scribe who'd shit his loin cloth if he ever went near a battlefield.  Chariots were not tanks.  They were more akin to ground attack aircraft which would swoop in, strafe a target and then fly off.  The whole point was to bring an archer into range, let him fire his arrows and then retire to re-load and rest the horses while another chariot picked up the attack.  An iron chariot would be about as useful as the proverbial 'screen door on a submarine.'

Thus:

Screen doors on submarines are very useful for keeping fish out of the submarine

[1Sam15]

That is not what 'original sin' means. That's a totally different doctrine than what you are talking about.

It would be nice if you characterize the belief accurately: If God created us with freewill, then we, by definition, have the ability to sin. I believe the case is airtight that if we have freewill, we will eventually sin no matter what the circumstances. So it was actually impossible for God to make a world of freewill creatures that did not contain sin. The question then becomes, how did God respond that that inevitability?

I, and most Christian, believe the Garden of Eden story allegorical. The truth the events teach are real, the actual details are not.

So it was actually impossible for God to make a world of freewill creatures that did not contain sin.

Is there sin in heaven?

Why don’t we have the free will to not be born as a sinner who could possibly end up being tortured for ever?

[Dancefortwo]

Seems to me like the whole religion relies on the concept of original sin. The creator knew in advance that 'the fall' would occur, in fact he manufactured it.

The being that constructed galaxies and solar systems made the decision to deliberately tempt his children with forbidden fruit fully aware that they would disobey him.

So god ruined the relationship with mankind, not the other way around. Therefore sin isn't a thing and he didn't need to sacrifice his precious son.

God, a genius on one hand, an idiot on the other.

That is not what 'original sin' means. That's a totally different doctrine than what you are talking about.

It would be nice if you characterize the belief accurately: If God created us with freewill, then we, by definition, have the ability to sin. I believe the case is airtight that if we have freewill, we will eventually sin no matter what the circumstances. So it was actually impossible for God to make a world of freewill creatures that did not contain sin. The question then becomes, how did God respond that that inevitability?

I, and most Christian, believe the Garden of Eden story allegorical. The truth the events teach are real, the actual details are not.

Aesop's Fables are allegorical too.  They teach morality stories without a god threatening to burn people in hell or drown the entire planet of humans or  even the need for a child sacrifice, which is basically what the Jesus story is all about....it's a child sacrifice story.  

Funny how the Biblical god can send down all kinds of plagues that wreak havoc on the Egyptians to free his favorite tribe but is totally befuddled by the barbed wire fences around the Nazi death camps.    I guess barbed wire fences and iron chariots are Yahweh's kriptonite.

[Inkubus]

...If God created us with freewill, then we, by definition, have the ability to sin. I believe the case is airtight that if we have freewill, we will eventually sin no matter what the circumstances...

Steve, this has been our point all along. Straight out of the gate we're playing against God's stacked deck.

Hebrews 4:13 Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

So how the fuck can we have free will?

[Astreja]

"Free will" is just weasel words, a pathetic way to make excuses for an impotent, uncaring or outright malicious deity.

[Cavebear]

He's got so many people on ignore that it's not really a discussion.  I know I'm on ignore and several others are as well. You're probably one of his "ignore" people too.  The ignore button is a form of sticking his finger in his ear so he doesn't have to listen to arguments against his fairytale.

I'm sure I am. It's his way of not answering the hard questions. He can't.
It's a badge of honor. It's funny, he really has next to no knowledge of the OT or wider comparative religions, and very little knowledge of the NT. All he can do is parrot his pre-packaged Christian BS. I really don't get what he thinks he's going to accomplish here. He's got nothing. It may fly where no one knows anything. It doesn't fly here. He's like 50 years behind the times.

Other than trying to send a PM and it being refused, how do you know your are on "ignore" from an individual poster?

I've put a few posters on "ignore". Most were rabid theists who were true evangelists were later blocked.

[Cavebear]

This is factually incorrect. Christianity pre-dates it's own scriptures by almost a full century.

The texts ARE "scripture", thus the claim is meaningless.
It's the same as saying "The conception of God does comes from the texts  and is backfilled by the texts".
Humans wrote the texts.
No human understands the gods. You own scripture refutes you.

The conception of the Christian god ("the Father" in the NT which Jesus repeatedly refers to), comes from the Jewish god Yahweh Sabaoth, ... who we found out when the Royal Library of King Ashurbanipal was discovered in the 19th Century, was one of the many sons of the Babylonian god "El Elyon". HISTORY knows where the gods come from. Yahweh was the war god. The Jews picked him as their god, as they wanted help in their battles.

Humans wrote the texts.
No human understands the gods. You own scripture refutes you.
We know historically when and who introduced "inspired", and where came from. Clearly you don't.

While I disagree that there are any deities, I agree that "The conception of God does comes from the texts and is backfilled by the texts". If I understand you correctly on this...