God created a weight so heavy that not even He could lift it
KingOfTheApes
weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about God.
But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go home now
and eat a banana.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
How to tell if people descend from the monkey: Give them a banana!
Then watch if they grab it like a monkey.
HotelCharlieOne
news:ae94550a-099c-48f6...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.co
m:
> "God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about
> God. But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go
> home now and eat a banana.
>
The other God paradox: God created a very intelligent creature in his
own image. Then, he spent so much time feeding bullshit about his own
greatness into this creature that the creature's brain was filled up
the the resulting creature was left stupid.... very stupid.
Braise the Lard
--
Al Gore did not invent the Internet;
he invented global warming.
~ bumper sticker
�People will do anything to save the world
� except take a course in science.�
Howard C. Hayden
Professor Emeritus of Physics, UConn
duke
<comandan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about God.
>But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go home now
>and eat a banana.
God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
The Dukester, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
Mitchell Holman
@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
> <comandan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>>
>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about God.
>>But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go home now
>>and eat a banana.
>
> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
putting a bullet in the Pope.
Why is that?
Earle Jones
<ae94550a-099c-48f6...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
KingOfTheApes <comandan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> "God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
*
As a mathematician, I tend to prefer the infinite series version:
"Can God create a weight so heavy that even He could not create
an even heavier weight?"
earle
*
J
"Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9CB54826180B4...@216.196.97.130...
Why are you asking mere mortals what God's motivations are? Perhaps you
should work on a spiritual connection with Him and you'd find the answer for
yourself.
--
J Young
Jvis...@live.com
J
"KingOfTheApes" <comandan...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ae94550a-099c-48f6...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> "God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
You must be speaking of Dale. No wonder, not even God couldn't lift her fat
ass.
--
J Young
Jvis...@live.com
Mitchell Holman
>
> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CB54826180B4...@216.196.97.130...
>> duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>> news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74
>> @4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
>>> <comandan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
>>>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>>>>
>>>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about
>>>>God. But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go
>>>>home now and eat a banana.
>>>
>>> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>>
>>
>>
>> And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
>> putting a bullet in the Pope.
>>
>> Why is that?
>>
>>
>
>
> Why are you asking mere mortals what God's motivations are?
Because you are not.
> Perhaps
> you should work on a spiritual connection with Him and you'd find the
> answer for yourself.
Why does the Pope need a bulletproof Popemobile?
Is God powerless to protect him?
Jimbo
> "Mitchell Holman" <noem...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9CB54826180B4...@216.196.97.130...
>
>
>
>
>
> > duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
> > news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74
> > @4ax.com:
>
> >> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
> >> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> >>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> >>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about God.
> >>>But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go home now
> >>>and eat a banana.
>
> >> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>
> > And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
> > putting a bullet in the Pope.
>
> > Why is that?
>
> Why are you asking mere mortals what God's motivations are?
Yeah, you might as well be asking the motivations of imaginary sky
pixies... Wait, same thing...
The Chief Instigator
Be thankful that she'd only punch you once...even you might learn something
from that experience, Junkie. (Of course, you will never be anywhere near
us, excepting your supposed Virginia residence eight years ago.)
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Grand Rapids 3, Houston 1 (October 30)
NEXT GAME: Sunday, November 1 at Texas, 5:05
duke
> Why is that?
Man is an sinful creature by definition. And, most of all, everybody dies,
including Jesus the man.
duke
Vacant lot, you have no idea what you're trying to say.
Mitchell Holman
news:c9uqe5dd5tg0fvu19...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:05:19 -0500, Mitchell Holman
> <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>>news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74 @4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
>>> <comandan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
>>>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>>>>
>>>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about
>>>>God. But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go
>>>>home now and eat a banana.
>>>
>>> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>
>> And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
>>putting a bullet in the Pope.
>
>> Why is that?
>
> Man is an sinful creature by definition. And, most of all, everybody
> dies, including Jesus the man.
So why cannot God protect the Pope?
Jimbo
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 18:04:47 -0700 (PDT), Jimbo <ckdbig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 31, 6:13 pm, "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote:
> >> "Mitchell Holman" <noem...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> >>news:Xns9CB54826180B4...@216.196.97.130...
>
> >> > duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
> >> > news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74
> >> > @4ax.com:
>
> >> >> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
> >> >> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> >> >>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> >> >>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about God.
> >> >>>But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go home now
> >> >>>and eat a banana.
>
> >> >> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>
> >> > And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
> >> > putting a bullet in the Pope.
>
> >> > Why is that?
>
> >> Why are you asking mere mortals what God's motivations are?
>
> >Yeah, you might as well be asking the motivations of imaginary sky
> >pixies... Wait, same thing...
>
> Vacant lot,
Well, pedophile earl, I know exactly what I am talking about. You on
the other hand are a perverted piece of shit.
Don Martin
<noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>news:c9uqe5dd5tg0fvu19...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:05:19 -0500, Mitchell Holman
>> <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>>>news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74 @4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
>>>> <comandan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
>>>>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>>>>>
>>>>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about
>>>>>God. But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go
>>>>>home now and eat a banana.
>>>>
>>>> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>>
>>> And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
>>>putting a bullet in the Pope.
>>
>>> Why is that?
>>
>> Man is an sinful creature by definition. And, most of all, everybody
>> dies, including Jesus the man.
>
>
> So why cannot God protect the Pope?
God converted to Buddhism some centuries ago, and does not give a shit
about the Pope?
aa #2278 If you can't be a dirty old man, what is the point of being an old man?
Fidei defensor (Hon. Antipodean)
The Squeeky Wheel: http://home.comcast.net/~drdonmartin/
The Chief Instigator
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 18:04:47 -0700 (PDT), Jimbo <ckdb...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> "Mitchell Holman" <noem...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:Xns9CB54826180B4...@216.196.97.130...
>>>
>>> > duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
>>> > news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74
>>> > @4ax.com:
>>>
>>> >> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
>>> >> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
>>> >>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>>>
>>> >>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about God.
>>> >>>But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go home now
>>> >>>and eat a banana.
>>>
>>> >> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>>>
>>> > putting a bullet in the Pope.
>>>
>>>
>>> Why are you asking mere mortals what God's motivations are?
>>
>>Yeah, you might as well be asking the motivations of imaginary sky
>>pixies... Wait, same thing...
>
> Vacant lot, you have no idea what you're trying to say.
He has a lot more ideas than you're capable of counting, Lying Cathoholic
Dook. (IMO, as always.)
Free Lunch
alt.atheism:
>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:05:19 -0500, Mitchell Holman <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74
>>@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
>>> <comandan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
>>>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>>>>
>>>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about God.
>>>>But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go home now
>>>>and eat a banana.
>>>
>>> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>
>> And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
>>putting a bullet in the Pope.
>
>> Why is that?
>
>Man is an sinful creature by definition.
Only in your perverse religious doctrine.
>And, most of all, everybody dies,
>including Jesus the man.
There is no evidence for any gods. Deal.
duke
Nah, notown. Firstly, you have NO idea what you're talking about, and that's
evident. You see a demographics associated with a wasted city as indicative of
something other than a wasted city.
Secondly, you are just dying to insult me as though I were one like you. But it
doesn't work. I'm not into children as you are.
duke
>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>news:c9uqe5dd5tg0fvu19...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:05:19 -0500, Mitchell Holman
>> <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>>>news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74 @4ax.com:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
>>>> <comandan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
>>>>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>>>>>
>>>>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about
>>>>>God. But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go
>>>>>home now and eat a banana.
>>>>
>>>> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>>
>>> And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
>>>putting a bullet in the Pope.
>>
>>> Why is that?
>>
>> Man is an sinful creature by definition. And, most of all, everybody
>> dies, including Jesus the man.
> So why cannot God protect the Pope?
I explained that to you above. And the suffering servant plays his part in
those choosing to live in the spirit of Christ.
duke
NOpe, God showed us that in the first man and (wo)man.
>>And, most of all, everybody dies,
>>including Jesus the man.
>There is no evidence for any gods. Deal.
Not in your dried-out brain, anyway.
Free Lunch
alt.atheism:
>On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 17:55:48 GMT, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 06:05:10 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>>alt.atheism:
>>
>>>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:05:19 -0500, Mitchell Holman <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74
>>>>@4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
>>>>> <comandan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
>>>>>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about God.
>>>>>>But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go home now
>>>>>>and eat a banana.
>>>>>
>>>>> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>>>
>>>> And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
>>>>putting a bullet in the Pope.
>>>
>>>> Why is that?
>
>>>Man is an sinful creature by definition.
>>Only in your perverse religious doctrine.
>
>NOpe, God showed us that in the first man and (wo)man.
You know that story is make-believe.
>>>And, most of all, everybody dies,
>>>including Jesus the man.
>
>>There is no evidence for any gods. Deal.
>
>Not in your dried-out brain, anyway.
You've been given enough chances to provide evidence. You know you don't
have any, so you make excuses for it.
Free Lunch
alt.atheism:
>On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 06:20:14 -0600, Mitchell Holman <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
Duke, you are once again confusing an explanation with an assertion.
Mitchell Holman
news:2isre5dhbidehbfs1...@4ax.com:
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 06:20:14 -0600, Mitchell Holman
> <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>>news:c9uqe5dd5tg0fvu19...@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:05:19 -0500, Mitchell Holman
>>> <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>>>>news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74 @4ax.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
>>>>> <comandan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
>>>>>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>>>>>>
>>>>>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about
>>>>>>God. But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go
>>>>>>home now and eat a banana.
>>>>>
>>>>> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>>>
>>>> And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
>>>>putting a bullet in the Pope.
>>>
>>>> Why is that?
>>>
>>> Man is an sinful creature by definition. And, most of all,
>>> everybody dies, including Jesus the man.
>
>> So why cannot God protect the Pope?
>
> I explained that to you above.
Repeating your claim is not proof.
> And the suffering servant plays his
> part in those choosing to live in the spirit of Christ.
So the shooting of the Pope was all part
of the Divine Plan?
duke
Wrongo, little foolish boy, you are once again demonstrating your total lack of
comprehension of what God told us. Which is exactly why you are an atheist
wannabe.
Only the ignorant will wander down the path you do.
duke
Ok, here we have ignorant atheist wannabe #2.
>> And the suffering servant plays his
>> part in those choosing to live in the spirit of Christ.
> So the shooting of the Pope was all part
>of the Divine Plan?
It may turn out to be all the (un)truth you can handle.
duke
>On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 14:42:43 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>alt.atheism:
>
>>On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 17:55:48 GMT, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 06:05:10 -0600, duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>>>alt.atheism:
>>>
>>>>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:05:19 -0500, Mitchell Holman <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74
>>>>>@4ax.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
>>>>>> <comandan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
>>>>>>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about God.
>>>>>>>But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go home now
>>>>>>>and eat a banana.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>>>>
>>>>> And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
>>>>>putting a bullet in the Pope.
>>>>
>>>>> Why is that?
>>
>>>>Man is an sinful creature by definition.
>>>Only in your perverse religious doctrine.
>>
>>NOpe, God showed us that in the first man and (wo)man.
>
>You know that story is make-believe.
Well, maybe to you it is, like the tooth fairy.
>>>>And, most of all, everybody dies,
>>>>including Jesus the man.
>>
>>>There is no evidence for any gods. Deal.
>>Not in your dried-out brain, anyway.
>You've been given enough chances to provide evidence. You know you don't
>have any, so you make excuses for it.
I've only been doing that for the last 10 years or so. Where have you been?
Jimbo
Yes, pedophile earl, you are a perverted piece of shit.
Jimbo
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 17:55:48 GMT, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >alt.atheism:
>
> >>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:05:19 -0500, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74
> >>>@4ax.com:
>
> >>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
> >>>> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> >>>>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> >>>>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about God.
> >>>>>But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go home now
> >>>>>and eat a banana.
>
> >>>> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>
> >>> And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
> >>>putting a bullet in the Pope.
>
> >>> Why is that?
> >>Man is an sinful creature by definition.
> >Only in your perverse religious doctrine.
>
> NOpe, God showed us that in the first man and (wo)man.
>
> >>And, most of all, everybody dies,
> >>including Jesus the man.
> >There is no evidence for any gods. Deal.
>
> Not in your dried-out brain,
Not in your moss covered, pedophile enabling brain either.
Jimbo
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:21:34 GMT, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >alt.atheism:
>
> >>On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 06:20:14 -0600, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in> >>>> <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
> >>>>>news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74 @4ax.com:
>
> >>>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
> >>>>>> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> >>>>>>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> >>>>>>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about
> >>>>>>>God. But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go
> >>>>>>>home now and eat a banana.
>
> >>>>>> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>
> >>>>> And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
> >>>>>putting a bullet in the Pope.
>
> >>>>> Why is that?
>
> >>>> Man is an sinful creature by definition. And, most of all, everybody
> >>>> dies, including Jesus the man.
>
> >>> So why cannot God protect the Pope?
>
> >>I explained that to you above. And the suffering servant plays his part in
> >>those choosing to live in the spirit of Christ.
>
> >Duke, you are once again confusing an explanation with an assertion.
>
> Wrongo,
Nope, he is 100% right. You don't know the difference, pedophile
loving earl.
Jimbo
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 20:18:36 -0600, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in> >> <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in> >>>> <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
> >>>>>news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74 @4ax.com:
>
> >>>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
> >>>>>> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> >>>>>>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> >>>>>>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about
> >>>>>>>God. But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go
> >>>>>>>home now and eat a banana.
>
> >>>>>> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>
> >>>>> And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
> >>>>>putting a bullet in the Pope.
>
> >>>>> Why is that?
>
> >>>> Man is an sinful creature by definition. And, most of all,
> >>>> everybody dies, including Jesus the man.
>
> >>> So why cannot God protect the Pope?
>
> >> I explained that to you above.
>
> > Repeating your claim is not proof.
>
> Ok, here we have ignorant atheist wannabe #2.
>
> >> And the suffering servant plays his
> >> part in those choosing to live in the spirit of Christ.
> > So the shooting of the Pope was all part
> >of the Divine Plan?
>
> It may turn out to be all the (un)truth you can handle.
>
It is certainly more truth than you are able to provide, liar earl.
Jimbo
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:06:41 GMT, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >>>alt.atheism:
>
> >>>>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:05:19 -0500, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74
> >>>>>@4ax.com:
>
> >>>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
> >>>>>> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> >>>>>>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> >>>>>>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about God.
> >>>>>>>But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go home now
> >>>>>>>and eat a banana.
>
> >>>>>> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>
> >>>>> And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
> >>>>>putting a bullet in the Pope.
>
> >>>>> Why is that?
>
> >>>>Man is an sinful creature by definition.
> >>>Only in your perverse religious doctrine.
>
> >>NOpe, God showed us that in the first man and (wo)man.
>
> >You know that story is make-believe.
>
> Well, maybe to you it is, like the tooth fairy.
No, it is simply make believe.
>
> >>>>And, most of all, everybody dies,
> >>>>including Jesus the man.
>
> >>>There is no evidence for any gods. Deal.
> >>Not in your dried-out brain, anyway.
> >You've been given enough chances to provide evidence. You know you don't
> >have any, so you make excuses for it.
>
> I've only been doing that for the last 10 years or so.
What? Lying about providing evidence? You do that quite well.
tirebiter
> "KingOfTheApes" <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:ae94550a-099c-48f6...@j24g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
>
> > "God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> > weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> You must be speaking of Dale. No wonder, not even God couldn't lift her fat
> ass.
>
does your mythical god have to hide behind your skirts like this?
---
a.a. #2273
duke
No, providing it, which I did.
Yap
> "God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
No wonder the earth is being showered with all the calamities.
We have been telling you religious nuts so !
>
> That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about God.
> But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go home now
> and eat a banana.
>
> How to tell if people descend from the monkey: Give them a banana!
> Then watch if they grab it like a monkey.
>
> http://webspawner.com/users/bananarevolution
Yap
> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
>
> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> >weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> >But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go home now
> >and eat a banana.
>
Yap
> duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74
> @4ax.com:
>
> > <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> >>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> >>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about God.
> >>But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go home now
> >>and eat a banana.
>
> > God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>
> putting a bullet in the Pope.
>
> Why is that?
killed in tsunami?
Yap
> "Mitchell Holman" <noem...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9CB54826180B4...@216.196.97.130...
>
>
>
>
>
> > news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74
> > @4ax.com:
>
> >> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
> >> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> >>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> >>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about God.
> >>>But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go home now
> >>>and eat a banana.
>
> >> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>
> > And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
> > putting a bullet in the Pope.
>
> > Why is that?
>
> should work on a spiritual connection with Him and you'd find the answer for
> yourself.
Please tell us that you have no answer.
Or simply inform us that your god weren't that great !
>
> --
> J Young
> Jvisi...@live.com
Yap
> "J" <Jvisi...@live.com> wrote innews:38f2bp....@news.alt.net:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Mitchell Holman" <noem...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> >news:Xns9CB54826180B4...@216.196.97.130...
> >> duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
> >> news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74
> >> @4ax.com:
>
> >>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
> >>> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> >>>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> >>>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about
> >>>>God. But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go
> >>>>home now and eat a banana.
>
> >>> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>
> >> And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
> >> putting a bullet in the Pope.
>
> >> Why is that?
>
> > Why are you asking mere mortals what God's motivations are?
>
>
> > Perhaps
> > you should work on a spiritual connection with Him and you'd find the
> > answer for yourself.
>
>
> Is God powerless to protect him?
It really means that there is no god.
Yap
> On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:05:19 -0500, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >@4ax.com:
>
> >> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
> >> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> >>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> >>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about God.
> >>>But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go home now
> >>>and eat a banana.
>
> >> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
> > And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
> >putting a bullet in the Pope.
> > Why is that?
>
> including Jesus the man.
Speak for yourself when you are the one with the meaningless sin.
Ah, so you admit that Jesus was not a god after all.
You better seek cover, the loons will come with big stone.
Yap
> duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote innews:c9uqe5dd5tg0fvu19...@4ax.com:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:05:19 -0500, Mitchell Holman
> > <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
> >>news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74 @4ax.com:
>
> >>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
> >>> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> >>>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> >>>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about
> >>>>God. But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go
> >>>>home now and eat a banana.
>
> >>> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>
> >> And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
> >>putting a bullet in the Pope.
>
> >> Why is that?
>
> > Man is an sinful creature by definition. And, most of all, everybody
> > dies, including Jesus the man.
>
There is no god, to protect any human.
Yap
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 06:20:14 -0600, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in> >> <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
> >>>news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74 @4ax.com:
>
> >>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
> >>>> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> >>>>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> >>>>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about
> >>>>>God. But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go
> >>>>>home now and eat a banana.
>
> >>>> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>
> >>> And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
> >>>putting a bullet in the Pope.
>
> >>> Why is that?
>
> >> Man is an sinful creature by definition. And, most of all, everybody
> >> dies, including Jesus the man.
> > So why cannot God protect the Pope?
>
> I explained that to you above. And the suffering servant plays his part in
> those choosing to live in the spirit of Christ.
But, his hope for a protection from the sky pixie failed miserably.
Yap
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 17:55:48 GMT, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >alt.atheism:
>
> >>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:05:19 -0500, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74
> >>>@4ax.com:
>
> >>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
> >>>> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> >>>>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> >>>>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about God.
> >>>>>But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go home now
> >>>>>and eat a banana.
>
> >>>> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>
> >>> And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
> >>>putting a bullet in the Pope.
>
> >>> Why is that?
> >>Man is an sinful creature by definition.
> >Only in your perverse religious doctrine.
>
> NOpe, God showed us that in the first man and (wo)man.
Your lie is hereby caught red handed.
>
> >>And, most of all, everybody dies,
> >>including Jesus the man.
> >There is no evidence for any gods. Deal.
>
> Not in your dried-out brain, anyway.
Yap
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:21:34 GMT, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >alt.atheism:
>
> >>On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 06:20:14 -0600, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in> >>>> <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in
> >>>>>news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74 @4ax.com:
>
> >>>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
> >>>>>> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> >>>>>>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> >>>>>>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about
> >>>>>>>God. But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go
> >>>>>>>home now and eat a banana.
>
> >>>>>> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>
> >>>>> And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
> >>>>>putting a bullet in the Pope.
>
> >>>>> Why is that?
>
> >>>> Man is an sinful creature by definition. And, most of all, everybody
> >>>> dies, including Jesus the man.
>
> >>> So why cannot God protect the Pope?
>
> >>I explained that to you above. And the suffering servant plays his part in
> >>those choosing to live in the spirit of Christ.
>
> >Duke, you are once again confusing an explanation with an assertion.
>
> Wrongo, little foolish boy, you are once again demonstrating your total lack of
> comprehension of what God told us. Which is exactly why you are an atheist
> wannabe.
Yet you lie again.
>
> Only the ignorant will wander down the path you do.
Mitchell Holman
news:3f0e91d4-4224-4bab...@f1g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
Either God is not capable of preventing
tragedy or he doesn't care about tragedy or
he WANTS tragedy to happen.
Yap
> On Sun, 01 Nov 2009 21:06:41 GMT, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> >>>alt.atheism:
>
> >>>>On Sat, 31 Oct 2009 07:05:19 -0500, Mitchell Holman <noem...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >>>>>duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote in news:cg8oe555bvieore3q8lcmshtimpf8kif74
> >>>>>@4ax.com:
>
> >>>>>> On Fri, 30 Oct 2009 06:54:05 -0700 (PDT), KingOfTheApes
> >>>>>> <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>"God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> >>>>>>>weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> >>>>>>>That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about God.
> >>>>>>>But the Christians do NOT want to get it. It's better we go home now
> >>>>>>>and eat a banana.
>
> >>>>>> God created the universe, and nothing is bigger than that.
>
> >>>>> And yet he could not stop one lunatic from
> >>>>>putting a bullet in the Pope.
>
> >>>>> Why is that?
>
> >>>>Man is an sinful creature by definition.
> >>>Only in your perverse religious doctrine.
>
> >>NOpe, God showed us that in the first man and (wo)man.
>
> >You know that story is make-believe.
>
> Well, maybe to you it is, like the tooth fairy.
>
> >>>>And, most of all, everybody dies,
> >>>>including Jesus the man.
>
> >>>There is no evidence for any gods. Deal.
> >>Not in your dried-out brain, anyway.
> >You've been given enough chances to provide evidence. You know you don't
> >have any, so you make excuses for it.
>
> I've only been doing that for the last 10 years or so. Where have you been?
Mavisbeacon
"Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:Xns9CB94315C3ACn...@216.196.97.130...[snip]
>
>
>
> Either God is not capable of preventing
> tragedy or he doesn't care about tragedy or
> he WANTS tragedy to happen.
>
If I see you slapping you children in public and I am capable of stopping
you and I really care about it does that imply I don't want you to stop
doing it?
Surley I might be just prepared to tolerate you doing what I don't want you
to do?
Mitchell Holman
news:5d159$4af2a06b$bc8d1d56$29...@news.upc.ie:
So what is the point of prayer? Everything that happens
is because God wants it to happen, and do you really think
you are going to get him to change his plan?
Yap
> "Mitchell Holman" <noem...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9CB94315C3ACn...@216.196.97.130...
>
> > Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >news:3f0e91d4-4224-4bab...@f1g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Either God is not capable of preventing
> > tragedy or he doesn't care about tragedy or
> > he WANTS tragedy to happen.
>
> If I see you slapping you children in public and I am capable of stopping
> you and I really care about it does that imply I don't want you to stop
> doing it?
> Surley I might be just prepared to tolerate you doing what I don't want you
> to do?
Yes, but unfortunately your god is supposed to have created and loved
human.
While it can be tolerance, it does not make any idiotic sense to allow
tragedy such as tsunami to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent
human.
Even we human, once armed with certain power, tends to exercise
justice and righteous kindness to the less unfortunate.
duke
fl is dreaming.
duke
The unknown is always fearful. God waiting for the righteous brings a lot of
comfort. Are you ready?
duke
>> NOpe, God showed us that in the first man and (wo)man.
>Show you? Hah, you must be 2000 years old at least?
>Your lie is hereby caught red handed.
Good grief. To think they let you walk among us.
Christopher A. Lee
wrote:
>On Nov 5, 5:51�pm, "Mavisbeacon" <Mavisbea...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>> "Mitchell Holman" <noem...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>
>> news:Xns9CB94315C3ACn...@216.196.97.130...
>>
>> > Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> >news:3f0e91d4-4224-4bab...@f1g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> > � � Either God is not capable of preventing
>> > tragedy or he doesn't care about tragedy or
>> > he WANTS tragedy to happen.
>>
>> If I see you slapping you children in public and I am capable of stopping
>> you and I really care about it does that imply I don't want you to stop
>> doing it?
Is Mavis supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient etc?
>> Surley I might be just prepared to tolerate you doing what I don't want you
>> to do?
>
>Yes, but unfortunately your god is supposed to have created and loved
>human.
>While it can be tolerance, it does not make any idiotic sense to allow
>tragedy such as tsunami to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent
>human.
>Even we human, once armed with certain power, tends to exercise
>justice and righteous kindness to the less unfortunate.
It was yet again a bad analogy that presumed this hypothertical "God"
of hers was as real to you as parents are. If she had provided as much
evidence for it as for parents she might have had a point. But she
hadn't, and she didn't.
I have never understood why they do this. It simply confirms they have
no answer, as well as a few unflattering things about themselves.
Mavisbeacon
"Yap" <hhya...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:b63773fa-e4dd-41f9...@a39g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 5, 5:51 pm, "Mavisbeacon" <Mavisbea...@nospam.forme> wrote:
> "Mitchell Holman" <noem...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>
> news:Xns9CB94315C3ACn...@216.196.97.130...
>
> > Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote in
> >news:3f0e91d4-4224-4bab...@f1g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>
> [snip]
>
> > Either God is not capable of preventing
> > tragedy or he doesn't care about tragedy or
> > he WANTS tragedy to happen.
>
> If I see you slapping you children in public and I am capable of stopping
> you and I really care about it does that imply I don't want you to stop
> doing it?
> Surley I might be just prepared to tolerate you doing what I don't want
> you
> to do?
...Yes, but unfortunately your god is supposed to have created and loved
human.
Who said it was MY God? I don't claim to own God and my personal beliefs
have nothing to do with an objective debate.
...While it can be tolerance, it does not make any idiotic sense to allow
tragedy such as tsunami to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent
human.
So if you can stop someone doing wrong you should always intervene and
prevent them from doing wrong rather than try to change them so that they
themselves chose not to do something wrong? It makes more sense to prevent
them expressing their freedom and denying them freedom than actually helping
them to change their ways?
How many people are alive in the world? Why do most die and what is the
quality of their life determined by? Is it God who makes a third of the
Children in the world go hungry every day? Is it God who puts people to
death for not believing in atheism or communism or Maoism or whatever? Is it
God who created WMD ? Is it God who allowed genocide in Rwanda Russia
Yugoslavia Sudan East Timor ....?
Apparently your idea seems to be all these things are the responsibility of
God because God allows them to happen! Do you really believe that? And you
think that is logical? Balme most of the death and squalor in the world on a
God in which you don't believe?
...Even we human, once armed with certain power, tends to exercise
justice and righteous kindness to the less unfortunate.
Quite the opposite in fact. Most of the "less fortunate" are in the position
they are in because of the greed and lust for power of people. surely you
already know the world is warming, the oil is running out, the richer people
overconsume and waste and interfere in poverty stricken nations to maintain
their over consumption?
The most powerfull nations in the world rather than justice and
righteousness maintain their inequitable control over the less powerfull!
You tell me you dont know this? You do not know that the US for example with
5 per cent of the worlds people uses about 25 per cent of the worlds oil
every year? That is being "kind" is it?
Mavisbeacon
> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
> news:5d159$4af2a06b$bc8d1d56$29...@news.upc.ie:
>
>>
>> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9CB94315C3ACn...@216.196.97.130...
>>> Yap <hhya...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> news:3f0e91d4-4224-4bab...@f1g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>> [snip]
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Either God is not capable of preventing
>>> tragedy or he doesn't care about tragedy or
>>> he WANTS tragedy to happen.
>>>
>>
>> If I see you slapping you children in public and I am capable of
>> stopping you and I really care about it does that imply I don't want
>> you to stop doing it?
>> Surley I might be just prepared to tolerate you doing what I don't
>> want you to do?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
> So what is the point of prayer?
Do you always answer direct questions with questions about entirely
different subjects?
Clearly the opition of God WANTS tragedy to happen isn't the sole option
left as you imagine it to be. Is it?
> Everything that happens
> is because God wants it to happen,
According to you this is determined by it being the only option loeft but it
isnt the only option left is it?
So yu are advancing it as an unsupported axiom! How do you know?
How do you know God wants bad things to happen? If I can see you are about
to slap a child does that mean I want you to?
>and do you really think
> you are going to get him to change his plan?
Oh I think I see what you are implying.
Is it the old "omniscience implies predetermination" argument?
Are you really claiming that knowing something is going to happen makes you
responsible for it?
If I know how a to make WMD am I responsible for anyone who ever uses WMD?
I would have thought that a prayer is admitting you don't know what will
happen in advance but are willing to accept the outcome if it is part of a
plan, even if you may think you are worse off in the meantime.
For example you may place all your money on a gamble and lose everything you
own. Later you might think that without sinking so low you would never have
abandonded the love of material wealth.
Do you really think that there was no point in a person at the time you
gambled thinking "lose" or "win"?
DO you think people should have no feelings at all about decisions others
take if those decisions do not directly affect them?
Mavisbeacon
"Christopher A. Lee" <ca...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:vqi5f55an5ldmpu62...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 5 Nov 2009 03:57:59 -0800 (PST), Yap <hhya...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On Nov 5, 5:51 pm, "Mavisbeacon" <Mavisbea...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>>> "Mitchell Holman" <noem...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>> news:Xns9CB94315C3ACn...@216.196.97.130...
>>>
>>> > Yap <hhyaps...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>> >news:3f0e91d4-4224-4bab...@f1g2000prf.googlegroups.com:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> > Either God is not capable of preventing
>>> > tragedy or he doesn't care about tragedy or
>>> > he WANTS tragedy to happen.
>>>
>>> If I see you slapping you children in public and I am capable of
>>> stopping
>>> you and I really care about it does that imply I don't want you to stop
>>> doing it?
>
> Is Mavis supposed to be omnipotent, omniscient etc?
No just "capable of stopping you" in this example. But faoget about me and
let us not personalise this on me. If YOU are capable of stopping someone
should you restrict their freedom?
>
>>> Surley I might be just prepared to tolerate you doing what I don't want
>>> you
>>> to do?
>>
>>Yes, but unfortunately your god is supposed to have created and loved
>>human.
>>While it can be tolerance, it does not make any idiotic sense to allow
>>tragedy such as tsunami to kill hundreds of thousands of innocent
>>human.
>>Even we human, once armed with certain power, tends to exercise
>>justice and righteous kindness to the less unfortunate.
>
> It was yet again a bad analogy that presumed this hypothertical "God"
> of hers was as real to you as parents are.
I didnt suggest it was MY God - the other person brought up the God thing!
and they argued a logical principle . You are foolish if you think analogy
only applies to things that exist! Something may be logically consistant in
principle even if the thing does not exiat! In fact the original poster was
taking this position i.e. that GOD is doing something unfair or
unreasonable! "Reduction to absurdity" is what the argument implies. I would
think they dont actually believeGod exists but that does not matter for the
sake of the argument.
>If she had provided as much
> evidence for it as for parents she might have had a point. But she
> hadn't, and she didn't.
No you miss the point entirely!
If I claim that space aliens eating people is wrong that does not depend on
space aliens existing.
They may or may not exist! But we can bring in a law saying it is illegal
for them to do something.
Likewise laws can be created which may never be broken for example we could
make stealing water on Mars capital crime. But the human race might never
get to Mars.
>
> I have never understood why they do this. It simply confirms they have
> no answer, as well as a few unflattering things about themselves.
I didnt do it! The other posted introduced the idea of God being illogical
by allowing suffering.
I just pointed out that that does not follow! And I pointed out the
ludicrous position of most of the suffering in the world being man made and
assuming the poster does not believe in God how is it they cant apply the
same criticism to man?
Mitchell Holman
news:11e6b$4af2d260$bc8d1d56$12...@news.upc.ie:
>
> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CBA3C5F1F32C...@216.196.97.130...
>> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
>> news:5d159$4af2a06b$bc8d1d56$29...@news.upc.ie:
>>
>>>
>>> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9CB94315C3ACn...@216.196.97.130...
>>>> Yap <hhya...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>> news:3f0e91d4-4224-4bab...@f1g2000prf.googlegroups.co
>>>> m:
>>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Either God is not capable of preventing
>>>> tragedy or he doesn't care about tragedy or
>>>> he WANTS tragedy to happen.
>>>>
>>>
>>> If I see you slapping you children in public and I am capable of
>>> stopping you and I really care about it does that imply I don't want
>>> you to stop doing it?
>>> Surley I might be just prepared to tolerate you doing what I don't
>>> want you to do?
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>> So what is the point of prayer?
>
> Do you always answer direct questions with questions about entirely
> different subjects?
>
> Clearly the opition of God WANTS tragedy to happen isn't the sole
> option left as you imagine it to be. Is it?
Either God wants tragedy/disease/disasters to happen
(which makes him malevolent) or he is powerless to stop
them (which means he is NOT "all-powerful").
Which is it?
>
>> Everything that happens
>> is because God wants it to happen,
>
> According to you this is determined by it being the only option loeft
> but it isnt the only option left is it?
Are you saying God cannot control events?
Mavisbeacon
So if you something bad happening like someone slapping a child and you have
the power to stop them and you chose not to that means you can logically
conculde that you must be malevolent and that you want the event to happen?
>
>>
>>> Everything that happens
>>> is because God wants it to happen,
>>
>> According to you this is determined by it being the only option loeft
>> but it isnt the only option left is it?
>
>
> Are you saying God cannot control events?
No.
Are you saying there are only two options?
Are you saying that if you can control or stop an event and you chose not
to control it then the outcome of that event is YOUR fault even if the
person doing it chose to do it and you advidsed them not to do it?
I will bring an example specific to Christians. If Christ decides to be
Human and not to use any god powers for his own benefit and used them to
prevent being crucified then would he not be breaking his own rules of
showing how he could live by human standards alone? In this example god is
able to act but does not if that action requires him to use powers which are
not within the capability of a human.
In fact if Christ used god powersd to prevent all the bad things happening
then people could not do the same as him could they?
How could they follow his example if he used God powers to advance his
position?
Alan Ford
>> Are you saying God cannot control events?
>
> No.
> Are you saying there are only two options?
> Are you saying that if you can control or stop an event and you chose not
> to control it then the outcome of that event is YOUR fault even if the
> person doing it chose to do it and you advidsed them not to do it?
>
> I will bring an example specific to Christians. If Christ decides to be
> Human and not to use any god powers for his own benefit and used them to
> prevent being crucified then would he not be breaking his own rules of
> showing how he could live by human standards alone? In this example god is
> able to act but does not if that action requires him to use powers which are
> not within the capability of a human.
>
> In fact if Christ used god powersd to prevent all the bad things happening
> then people could not do the same as him could they?
> How could they follow his example if he used God powers to advance his
> position?
And more importantly, how much drag do you think Superman's cape has
during his flight? Do you think he has to eat more in order to
compensate for that loss of energy? And if so, what is the best food for
a person from Krypton?
--
If you don't beat your meat
You can't have any pudding
How can you have any pudding
If you don't beat your meat?
Mavisbeacon
"Alan Ford" <zzz...@qqq.net> wrote in message
news:hcven4$7no$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
Your comic book analogy is not apt because it involves Superman using his
super powers. The question of principle is - could Superman ask people to
live just like him if Clark Kent ever resorted to using his powers to
advance his own position in normal life?
>
>
>
> --
> If you don't beat your meat
> You can't have any pudding
> How can you have any pudding
> If you don't beat your meat?
Given this week is the anniversary of the Wall coming down.
I think the Pink floyd quote is a misquote. The correct word is "eat"!
Mitchell Holman
news:8473a$4af2e627$bc8d1d56$5...@news.upc.ie:
>
> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CBA587E64DCn...@216.196.97.130...
>> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
>> news:11e6b$4af2d260$bc8d1d56$12...@news.upc.ie:
>>
>>>
>>> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9CBA3C5F1F32C...@216.196.97.130...
>>>> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
>>>> news:5d159$4af2a06b$bc8d1d56$29...@news.upc.ie:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:Xns9CB94315C3ACn...@216.196.97.130...
>>>>>> Yap <hhya...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>> news:3f0e91d4-4224-4bab...@f1g2000prf.googlegroups.
>>>>>> co m:
>>>>>>
>>>>> [snip]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Either God is not capable of preventing
>>>>>> tragedy or he doesn't care about tragedy or
>>>>>> he WANTS tragedy to happen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If I see you slapping you children in public and I am capable of
>>>>> stopping you and I really care about it does that imply I don't
>>>>> want you to stop doing it?
>>>>> Surley I might be just prepared to tolerate you doing what I don't
>>>>> want you to do?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So what is the point of prayer?
>>>
>>> Do you always answer direct questions with questions about entirely
>>> different subjects?
>>>
>>> Clearly the opition of God WANTS tragedy to happen isn't the sole
>>> option left as you imagine it to be. Is it?
>>
>>
>> Either God wants tragedy/disease/disasters to happen
>> (which makes him malevolent) or he is powerless to stop
>> them (which means he is NOT "all-powerful").
>>
>> Which is it?
>
> So if you something bad happening like someone slapping a child and
> you have the power to stop them and you chose not to that means you
> can logically conculde that you must be malevolent and that you want
> the event to happen?
Evasion noted.
Either God wants natural disasters to happen
or he cannot prevent them.
Which is it?
>>
>>>
>>>> Everything that happens
>>>> is because God wants it to happen,
>>>
>>> According to you this is determined by it being the only option
>>> loeft but it isnt the only option left is it?
>>
>>
>> Are you saying God cannot control events?
>
> No.
> Are you saying there are only two options?
Yes.
__God wants disasters to happen.
__God cannot prevent disasters to happen.
Which is it?
> Are you saying that if you can control or stop an event and you chose
> not to control it then the outcome of that event is YOUR fault even if
> the person doing it chose to do it and you advidsed them not to do it?
Bingo.
>
> I will bring an example specific to Christians. If Christ decides to
> be Human and not to use any god powers for his own benefit and used
> them to prevent being crucified then would he not be breaking his own
> rules of showing how he could live by human standards alone? In this
> example god is able to act but does not if that action requires him to
> use powers which are not within the capability of a human.
>
You are assume Christ had "powers". Unproven.
Mavisbeacon
The analogy id FALSE! Look up "excluded middle" . It is a fallacy!
>
> Either God wants natural disasters to happen
> or he cannot prevent them.
>
> Which is it?
PleASE LOOK UP "EXCLUDED MIDDLE" AND "FALSE ANALOGY" ! It is not a case of
either it is A or B!
Your reasoninbg is simplistic.
>
>
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Everything that happens
>>>>> is because God wants it to happen,
>>>>
>>>> According to you this is determined by it being the only option
>>>> loeft but it isnt the only option left is it?
>>>
>>>
>>> Are you saying God cannot control events?
>>
>> No.
>> Are you saying there are only two options?
>
>
> Yes.
But you are saying that if someone is hitting a child either you can stop
them ot you want it to happen. Clearly this is a silly proposition and
anyone can see there are other options and possibilities?
>
> __God wants disasters to happen.
>
> __God cannot prevent disasters to happen.
>
>
> Which is it?
It could be that God can prevent people hurting others but does not do so
not because he wants it but because he allows peopole to hurt other people.
This is basis ethics/theeology.philosophy 101 ! It has been dealt with in
the very basic of any course on it. I won't argue about angels on the heads
of pins. If you can't accept that the slapping of every child being slapped
which you witness and can stop is not your fault then I really can't help
you.
>
>
>> Are you saying that if you can control or stop an event and you chose
>> not to control it then the outcome of that event is YOUR fault even if
>> the person doing it chose to do it and you advidsed them not to do it?
>
>
> Bingo.
So yu think a person slapping a child is your fault if you witness it and
could stop them?
Even if intervening and stopping them takes away their ability to chose for
themselves?
I guess I cant help your nanny state mommy knows best attitide.
You are clearly heqavily influenced by authoritanism - someting for whiuch
youy criticise religions! You are a walking contradiction!
>
>
>
>>
>> I will bring an example specific to Christians. If Christ decides to
>> be Human and not to use any god powers for his own benefit and used
>> them to prevent being crucified then would he not be breaking his own
>> rules of showing how he could live by human standards alone? In this
>> example god is able to act but does not if that action requires him to
>> use powers which are not within the capability of a human.
>>
>
>
> You are assume Christ had "powers". Unproven.
Notice the word "IF" . I can also say "IF SUPERMAN" but superman does not
have to exist for the analogy to be valid.
Please learn something about logical argument.
But whether Superman or God exists is SEPERATE to the logical flow of the
argument.
duke
The real answer: he allows those things to happen. His promise is for
spiritual salvation,not physical salvation. After all, every man is given the
chance to live one life then die - some before birth and some at a very old age,
some peacefully, and some tragically.
Mitchell Holman
news:4moaf5dos1c8j2isg...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 06 Nov 2009 19:53:04 -0600, Mitchell Holman
> <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>"Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
>>news:8473a$4af2e627$bc8d1d56$5...@news.upc.ie:
>>
>>>
>>> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9CBA587E64DCn...@216.196.97.130...
>>>> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
>>>> news:11e6b$4af2d260$bc8d1d56$12...@news.upc.ie:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:Xns9CBA3C5F1F32C...@216.196.97.130...
>>>>>> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
>>>>>> news:5d159$4af2a06b$bc8d1d56$29...@news.upc.ie:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:Xns9CB94315C3ACn...@216.196.97.130...
>>>>>>>> Yap <hhya...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:3f0e91d4-4224-4bab...@f1g2000prf.googlegroup
>>>>>>>> s. co m:
You mean he CAUSED those things to happen, no?
> His promise is
> for spiritual salvation,not physical salvation.
How does people dying in natural disasters
contribute to their "spiritual salvation"?
> After all, every man
> is given the chance to live one life then die - some before birth and
> some at a very old age, some peacefully, and some tragically.
Sounds like your god is either malicious
or less than "all mighty".
Great Dayne
> "God is great and all-powerful. He can do anything. He created a
> weight so heavy that not even He could lift it." - God as Paradox
>
> That says it all. Even a monkey can understand the dilemma about God.
> But the Christians do NOT want to get it.
It is argumentative question. It is a loaded question.
It reaches a conclusion based on a false premise.
GOD can make a rock as large as he wants and he can also lift any rock
he wants.
You ask the suggestive question to try to place a limit on deity that
is unwarranted by the
cunning sophistry of men.
Strike 2.
Mitchell Holman
news:3e8c0$4af54315$bc8d1d47$26...@news.upc.ie:
>
> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CBBCA46CD554...@216.196.97.130...
>> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
>> news:8473a$4af2e627$bc8d1d56$5...@news.upc.ie:
>>
>>>
>>> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> news:Xns9CBA587E64DCn...@216.196.97.130...
>>>> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
>>>> news:11e6b$4af2d260$bc8d1d56$12...@news.upc.ie:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>> news:Xns9CBA3C5F1F32C...@216.196.97.130...
>>>>>> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
>>>>>> news:5d159$4af2a06b$bc8d1d56$29...@news.upc.ie:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>>>>>>> news:Xns9CB94315C3ACn...@216.196.97.130...
>>>>>>>> Yap <hhya...@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>> news:3f0e91d4-4224-4bab...@f1g2000prf.googlegroup
>>>>>>>> s. co m:
We are talking about natural disasters here.
Why do you keep changing the subject?
>
>>
>> __God wants disasters to happen.
>>
>> __God cannot prevent disasters to happen.
>>
>>
>> Which is it?
>
>
> It could be that God can prevent people hurting others but does not do
> so not because he wants it but because he allows peopole to hurt other
> people.
We are talking about natural disasters here.
Why do you keep changing the subject?
>
> This is basis ethics/theeology.philosophy 101 ! It has been dealt with
> in the very basic of any course on it. I won't argue about angels on
> the heads of pins. If you can't accept that the slapping of every
> child being slapped which you witness and can stop is not your fault
> then I really can't help you.
>
Evasion noted.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> Are you saying that if you can control or stop an event and you
>>> chose not to control it then the outcome of that event is YOUR fault
>>> even if the person doing it chose to do it and you advidsed them not
>>> to do it?
>>
>>
>> Bingo.
>
> So yu think a person slapping a child is your fault if you witness it
> and could stop them?
> Even if intervening and stopping them takes away their ability to
> chose for themselves?
>
We are talking about natural disasters here.
Why do you keep changing the subject?
Great Dayne
Damn google double post
duke
>>>>>> Clearly the opition of God WANTS tragedy to happen isn't the sole
>>>>>> option left as you imagine it to be. Is it?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Either God wants tragedy/disease/disasters to happen
>>>>> (which makes him malevolent) or he is powerless to stop
>>>>> them (which means he is NOT "all-powerful").
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is it?
>>>>
>>>> So if you something bad happening like someone slapping a child and
>>>> you have the power to stop them and you chose not to that means you
>>>> can logically conculde that you must be malevolent and that you want
>>>> the event to happen?
>>>
>>>
>>> Evasion noted.
>
>>> Either God wants natural disasters to happen
>>>or he cannot prevent them.
>>> Which is it?
>> The real answer: he allows those things to happen.
> You mean he CAUSED those things to happen, no?
No. Natural disasters are just that, natural disasters.
>> His promise is for spiritual salvation,not physical salvation.
> How does people dying in natural disasters
>contribute to their "spiritual salvation"?
It doesn't to the victims of natural disasters. But it does spiritual wonders
for bringing out the love and compassion of others.
>> After all, every man
>> is given the chance to live one life then die - some before birth and
>> some at a very old age, some peacefully, and some tragically.
> Sounds like your god is either malicious or less than "all mighty".
Nope. God does not bring about natural disasters.
Mitchell Holman
news:qs9bf5173sajcvl63...@4ax.com:
> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 10:26:27 -0600, Mitchell Holman
> <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>>>>>>> Clearly the opition of God WANTS tragedy to happen isn't the
>>>>>>> sole option left as you imagine it to be. Is it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Either God wants tragedy/disease/disasters to happen
>>>>>> (which makes him malevolent) or he is powerless to stop
>>>>>> them (which means he is NOT "all-powerful").
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is it?
>>>>>
>>>>> So if you something bad happening like someone slapping a child
>>>>> and you have the power to stop them and you chose not to that
>>>>> means you can logically conculde that you must be malevolent and
>>>>> that you want the event to happen?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Evasion noted.
>>
>>>> Either God wants natural disasters to happen
>>>>or he cannot prevent them.
>>>> Which is it?
>
>>> The real answer: he allows those things to happen.
>
>> You mean he CAUSED those things to happen, no?
>
> No. Natural disasters are just that, natural disasters.
>
If God made everything, then he made tornadoes and
hurricanes and earthquakes.
>>> His promise is for spiritual salvation,not physical salvation.
>
>> How does people dying in natural disasters
>>contribute to their "spiritual salvation"?
>
> It doesn't to the victims of natural disasters. But it does spiritual
> wonders for bringing out the love and compassion of others.
So love and compassion require death and destruction?
Amazing.
>
>>> After all, every man
>>> is given the chance to live one life then die - some before birth
>>> and some at a very old age, some peacefully, and some tragically.
>
>> Sounds like your god is either malicious or less than "all
>> mighty".
>
> Nope. God does not bring about natural disasters.
Didn't you say everything in nature was created by God?
duke
>duke <duckg...@cox.net> wrote in
>news:qs9bf5173sajcvl63...@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sat, 07 Nov 2009 10:26:27 -0600, Mitchell Holman
>> <noe...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> Clearly the opition of God WANTS tragedy to happen isn't the
>>>>>>>> sole option left as you imagine it to be. Is it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Either God wants tragedy/disease/disasters to happen
>>>>>>> (which makes him malevolent) or he is powerless to stop
>>>>>>> them (which means he is NOT "all-powerful").
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which is it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So if you something bad happening like someone slapping a child
>>>>>> and you have the power to stop them and you chose not to that
>>>>>> means you can logically conculde that you must be malevolent and
>>>>>> that you want the event to happen?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Evasion noted.
>>>
>>>>> Either God wants natural disasters to happen
>>>>>or he cannot prevent them.
>>>>> Which is it?
>>
>>>> The real answer: he allows those things to happen.
>>
>>> You mean he CAUSED those things to happen, no?
>>
>> No. Natural disasters are just that, natural disasters.
> If God made everything, then he made tornadoes and
>hurricanes and earthquakes.
No, he made the elements that can become tornadoes, hurricanes and earthquakes.
>>>> His promise is for spiritual salvation,not physical salvation.
>>
>>> How does people dying in natural disasters
>>>contribute to their "spiritual salvation"?
>>
>> It doesn't to the victims of natural disasters. But it does spiritual
>> wonders for bringing out the love and compassion of others.
> So love and compassion require death and destruction?
> Amazing.
It's the end result of evil mankind.
>>>> After all, every man
>>>> is given the chance to live one life then die - some before birth
>>>> and some at a very old age, some peacefully, and some tragically.
>>> Sounds like your god is either malicious or less than "all
>>> mighty".
>> Nope. God does not bring about natural disasters.
> Didn't you say everything in nature was created by God?
No.
Mavisbeacon
WE are talkiong about people dying in suffereing and who is responsible.
Natural disasters (in the twentieth century) at most kill millions over
decades. Man made probalems kill hundreds of times that!
>
> Why do you keep changing the subject?
I didn't the subject was about a fallacy! You contiune to post more
fallacies.
>
>
>
>>
>> This is basis ethics/theeology.philosophy 101 ! It has been dealt with
>> in the very basic of any course on it. I won't argue about angels on
>> the heads of pins. If you can't accept that the slapping of every
>> child being slapped which you witness and can stop is not your fault
>> then I really can't help you.
>>
>
> Evasion noted.
Of what? You present a fallacious situation and when the fallacy isnt
answered you call it an "evasion"?
The only thing being evaded is LOGIC and that is by you!
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Are you saying that if you can control or stop an event and you
>>>> chose not to control it then the outcome of that event is YOUR fault
>>>> even if the person doing it chose to do it and you advidsed them not
>>>> to do it?
>>>
>>>
>>> Bingo.
>>
>> So yu think a person slapping a child is your fault if you witness it
>> and could stop them?
>> Even if intervening and stopping them takes away their ability to
>> chose for themselves?
>>
>
>
>
> We are talking about natural disasters here.
WE are talking about the ability of someone to intervene and the action of
intervening That us the general case. The specific case you cited is God
intervening to stop a tsunami for example.
You claim was that if God didnt stop a tsunami either he does not care about
the people who die or he cant stop a tsunami.
It isd a false analogy!
ANd I cited a simpler example if you can intervene and chose not to. That
does noty make you responsible!
>
> Why do you keep changing the subject?
From the principle of "someoine having the ability to intervene being
responsiuble oif they dont!?
I havent changed from that!
WHy do you keep aviding answering about it?
Alan Ford
>>> I will bring an example specific to Christians. If Christ decides to be
>>> Human and not to use any god powers for his own benefit and used them to
>>> prevent being crucified then would he not be breaking his own rules of
>>> showing how he could live by human standards alone? In this example god
>>> is able to act but does not if that action requires him to use powers
>>> which are not within the capability of a human.
>>>
>>> In fact if Christ used god powersd to prevent all the bad things
>>> happening then people could not do the same as him could they?
>>> How could they follow his example if he used God powers to advance his
>>> position?
>>
>> And more importantly, how much drag do you think Superman's cape has
>> during his flight? Do you think he has to eat more in order to compensate
>> for that loss of energy? And if so, what is the best food for a person
>> from Krypton?
>
> Your comic book analogy is not apt because it involves Superman using his
> super powers.
That's right. It is a perfect analogy because both examples involve
imaginary, fictional characters, their alleged characteristics and the
methods those characters would employ as a response to certain physical
stimuli.
> The question of principle is - could Superman ask people to
> live just like him if Clark Kent ever resorted to using his powers to
> advance his own position in normal life?
There is no "question of principle" anywhere other than what you claim.
I can also come up with a random question, say "Could Jesus also deflect
bullets fired at him from modern firearms and, if so, why couldn't he
deflect primitive rusty nails and thorns?", then call it the question of
principle.
>> If you don't beat your meat
>> You can't have any pudding
>> How can you have any pudding
>> If you don't beat your meat?
>
> Given this week is the anniversary of the Wall coming down.
> I think the Pink floyd quote is a misquote. The correct word is "eat"!
It's a free country - you do what makes you happy with your meat and
I'll do what makes me happy with mine.
Puck Greenman
Yes.
>>>>>>>>> Surley I might be just prepared to tolerate you doing what I
>>>>>>>>> don't want you to do?
Then you don't care as much as you profess.
Which makes you a hypocrite.
...Is that what your god is?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So what is the point of prayer?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you always answer direct questions with questions about
>>>>>>> entirely different subjects?
>>>>>>>c
>>>>>>> Clearly the opition of God WANTS tragedy to happen isn't the sole
>>>>>>> option left as you imagine it to be. Is it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Either God wants tragedy/disease/disasters to happen
>>>>>> (which makes him malevolent) or he is powerless to stop
>>>>>> them (which means he is NOT "all-powerful").
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is it?
>>>>>
>>>>> So if you something bad happening like someone slapping a child and
>>>>> you have the power to stop them and you chose not to that means you
>>>>> can logically conculde that you must be malevolent and that you want
>>>>> the event to happen?
That, or I don't give a damn.
Are we to take it then, that your god, doesn't give a damn?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Evasion noted.
>>>
>>>
>>> The analogy id FALSE! Look up "excluded middle" . It is a fallacy!
Binary propositions, are not always fallacies.
The christian churches propose a god which is all powerful, all knowing, all loving, all
caring, all sweetness and light, etc, etc.
How does this god, which has the knowledge and the power to prevent natural disasters, and
injustices, NOT intervene, and still be all those good things which christians claim for
it?
The proposition is, of it's nature, binary; Either God, is all those good things, or it
aint.
There is no middle, to exclude.
The real fallacy here, is your insistence on using illogical analogies. You cannot
compare the natural limitations of humanity, with the omniscience, and omnipotence, of
your god.
>>>>
>>>> Either God wants natural disasters to happen
>>>> or he cannot prevent them.
>>>>
>>>> Which is it?
Perhaps it just don't give a damn, Mitchell.
>>>
>>> PleASE LOOK UP "EXCLUDED MIDDLE" AND "FALSE ANALOGY" ! It is not a
>>> case of either it is A or B!
>>> Your reasoninbg is simplistic.
So you have learned a new phrase.
Unfortunately, your use of it only serves to bring to mind, words like pot, kettle, and
black arse.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Everything that happens
>>>>>>>> is because God wants it to happen,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> According to you this is determined by it being the only option
>>>>>>> loeft but it isnt the only option left is it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you saying God cannot control events?
>>>>>
>>>>> No.
>>>>> Are you saying there are only two options?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yes.
>>>
>>>
>>> But you are saying that if someone is hitting a child either you can
>>> stop them ot you want it to happen. Clearly this is a silly proposition and
>>>anyone can see there are other options and possibilities?
Straw man.
We are not omnipotent, for us, there can be many reasons why we do not intervene, not
least of which is the law of the land.
Your god, OTOH, IS omnipotent, supposedly, and it is also touted as a loving and
beneficent god.
If this is true, then for your god to permit the innocent to suffer in these natural
disasters, is a paradox, which can only resolve it's self as - A: it has the power, but
doesn't care, or is malevolent and wants the negative events to happen. In which case, the
" loving and beneficent god.", is a lie.
Or,
B: it does not have the ability to prevent it, so it is not omnipotent.
>>>
>>
>>
>> We are talking about natural disasters here.
>>
>> Why do you keep changing the subject?
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> __God wants disasters to happen.
>>>>
>>>> __God cannot prevent disasters to happen.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Which is it?
>>>
>>>
>>> It could be that God can prevent people hurting others but does not do
>>> so not because he wants it but because he allows peopole to hurt other
>>> people.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> We are talking about natural disasters here.
>
>WE are talkiong about people dying in suffereing and who is responsible.
>Natural disasters (in the twentieth century) at most kill millions over
>decades. Man made probalems kill hundreds of times that!
>
Another straw man.
No, we are not.
There can be no comparison between the intervention of an all powerful god, and the
limited intervention of a human.
Your efforts to conflate the two, is it's self, a fallacy.
snip repetition.
Mavisbeacon
> Mavisbeacon wrote:
>
>>>> I will bring an example specific to Christians. If Christ decides to be
>>>> Human and not to use any god powers for his own benefit and used them
>>>> to prevent being crucified then would he not be breaking his own rules
>>>> of showing how he could live by human standards alone? In this example
>>>> god is able to act but does not if that action requires him to use
>>>> powers which are not within the capability of a human.
>>>>
>>>> In fact if Christ used god powersd to prevent all the bad things
>>>> happening then people could not do the same as him could they?
>>>> How could they follow his example if he used God powers to advance his
>>>> position?
>>>
>>> And more importantly, how much drag do you think Superman's cape has
>>> during his flight? Do you think he has to eat more in order to
>>> compensate for that loss of energy? And if so, what is the best food for
>>> a person from Krypton?
>>
>> Your comic book analogy is not apt because it involves Superman using his
>> super powers.
>
> That's right. It is a perfect analogy because both examples involve
> imaginary, fictional characters,
WRONG! Jesus is a historical figure as a human being as well as any claims
of him being either a Prophet or of him being God.
There is as much or more historicity and articacts for a carpenters Son two
thousand years ago then for example there is for Alexander the Great or
Socrates exiating as people in history about 300 years before that.
Superman on the other hand is a contemporary comic book charachter.
>their alleged characteristics and the methods those characters would employ
>as a response to certain physical stimuli.
I have no idea what you mean by the above.
>
>> The question of principle is - could Superman ask people to live just
>> like him if Clark Kent ever resorted to using his powers to advance his
>> own position in normal life?
>
> There is no "question of principle" anywhere
YES THERE ARE!
"that action requires him to use powers
which are not within the capability of a human."
Or from the earlier discussion "whether refusal to act is just because
acting removes free will of the other person"
>other than what you claim. I can also come up with a random question,
My point was not random. It was directly related to the false analogy of -
God is either uncaring or impotent becuase God does not prevent disasters.
>say "Could Jesus also deflect bullets fired at him from modern firearms
>and, if so, why couldn't he deflect primitive rusty nails and thorns?",
>then call it the question of principle.
If he was in fact God he COULD and he could also turn stones into bread.
But the very point is HE DIDNT - WHY didnt he?
Because the point is twofold
1. He didnt act in a way which other humans could not emulate
2. Because God does not intervene does not therefore mean God is callous.
>
>>> If you don't beat your meat
>>> You can't have any pudding
>>> How can you have any pudding
>>> If you don't beat your meat?
>>
>> Given this week is the anniversary of the Wall coming down.
>> I think the Pink floyd quote is a misquote. The correct word is "eat"!
>
> It's a free country - you do what makes you happy with your meat and I'll
> do what makes me happy with mine.
But the quote is a MISQUOTE! it should be "eat your meat"
WHERE is a free country?
Mavisbeacon
"Puck Greenman" <dubh_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:q0fgf55ca66vmm3an...@4ax.com...
No it doesn't! Clearly people may ALLOW others to do wrong because they
tolerate them and don't want to restrict their freedom to cause harm even if
harm comes from allowing others such freedom.
>
>>>>>>>>>> Surley I might be just prepared to tolerate you doing what I
>>>>>>>>>> don't want you to do?
>
> Then you don't care as much as you profess.
It is a central principle of demiocracy. for example censorship is nbanning
what people do not want. Is it therefore just?
Obviously when it comes to the group doing the banning or the group being
banned I know which group you want to be in!
>
> Which makes you a hypocrite.
>
> ...Is that what your god is?
How am I being hypocritical?
>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So what is the point of prayer?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you always answer direct questions with questions about
>>>>>>>> entirely different subjects?
>>>>>>>>c
>>>>>>>> Clearly the opition of God WANTS tragedy to happen isn't the sole
>>>>>>>> option left as you imagine it to be. Is it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Either God wants tragedy/disease/disasters to happen
>>>>>>> (which makes him malevolent) or he is powerless to stop
>>>>>>> them (which means he is NOT "all-powerful").
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which is it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So if you something bad happening like someone slapping a child and
>>>>>> you have the power to stop them and you chose not to that means you
>>>>>> can logically conculde that you must be malevolent and that you want
>>>>>> the event to happen?
>
> That, or I don't give a damn.
You just contradicted yoor "YES" above.
Clearly people may ALLOW others to do wrong because they tolerate them and
don't want to restrict their freedom to cause harm even if harm comes from
allowing others such freedom
>
> Are we to take it then, that your god, doesn't give a damn?
Where did i say anything about MY god?
I just pointed out about the other false analogy made. Please dont try to
"shift the burden".
That is another fallacy!
>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Evasion noted.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The analogy id FALSE! Look up "excluded middle" . It is a fallacy!
>
> Binary propositions, are not always fallacies.
True.
Assuming this one is not IS a fallacy!
>
> The christian churches propose a god which is all powerful, all knowing,
> all loving, all
> caring, all sweetness and light, etc, etc.
Yes so?
>
> How does this god, which has the knowledge and the power to prevent
> natural disasters, and
> injustices, NOT intervene, and still be all those good things which
> christians claim for
> it?
I think I already answered that. Intervention may remove free will. Also it
isnt the not intervening impliues not caring position you paint. Asked and
answered
>
> The proposition is, of it's nature, binary; Either God, is all those good
> things, or it
> aint.
Yes either God is good and reasonable or God is not.
Because you dont stop someone from expressing their opinion that does not
make you unreasonable does it?
Do you believe in anti Holocaust denial laws for example or in censorship or
holocaust deniers?
>
> There is no middle, to exclude.
If you CHANGE the princinple to "God is either Good or not Good) ther is no
excluded middle.
But the context was assuming "intervention to stop suffering is always good
and reasonable" . But that is not necessarily always true.
>
> The real fallacy here, is your insistence on using illogical analogies.
> You cannot
> compare the natural limitations of humanity, with the omniscience, and
> omnipotence, of
> your god.
I never mantioned anything abut MY God! I only pointed out that the position
that if an omnipotent God does not intervene that does not mean he therefore
does not care.
>
>>>>>
>>>>> Either God wants natural disasters to happen
>>>>> or he cannot prevent them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is it?
>
> Perhaps it just don't give a damn, Mitchell.
Who is Mitchell? you are babbling?
Perhaps God does not care is a valid proposition however. But not
intervening DOES NOT LOGICALLY PROVE that proposition!
>
>>>>
>>>> PleASE LOOK UP "EXCLUDED MIDDLE" AND "FALSE ANALOGY" ! It is not a
>>>> case of either it is A or B!
>>>> Your reasoninbg is simplistic.
>
> So you have learned a new phrase.
I have referred to such fallacies for years!
>
> Unfortunately, your use of it only serves to bring to mind, words like
> pot, kettle, and
> black arse.
I also used "ad hominem" before. Personbal attack wont prove your point ! In
fact is shows how desperate you are becoming.
>>>>>>>>> Everything that happens
>>>>>>>>> is because God wants it to happen,
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> According to you this is determined by it being the only option
>>>>>>>> loeft but it isnt the only option left is it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Are you saying God cannot control events?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No.
>>>>>> Are you saying there are only two options?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Yes.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> But you are saying that if someone is hitting a child either you can
>>>> stop them ot you want it to happen. Clearly this is a silly proposition
>>>> and
>>>>anyone can see there are other options and possibilities?
>
> Straw man.
NO! YOU are the one saying this binary position is the only possibility. YOU
claim either the person (God or me or you) does not care or can not stop the
other person doing wrong (or something else bad like a disaster happening).
> We are not omnipotent, for us, there can be many reasons why we do not
> intervene, not
> least of which is the law of the land.
But how would not being omnipotent change that when the position is WE CAN
INTERVENE AND HAVE THE POWER TO PREVENT THE ACT?
>
> Your god, OTOH, IS omnipotent, supposedly, and it is also touted as a
> loving and
> beneficent god.
So what even if God was of limited power and could only stop natural
disasters u to acertain size, the PRINCIPLE is the same!
>
> If this is true, then for your god to permit the innocent to suffer in
> these natural
> disasters, is a paradox,
No it isnt! People can also cause or fail to act on things they are capable
of preventing . Whether they are omnipotent is NOT THE ISSUE!
The issue is whether someoine who is CAPABLE OF PREVENTING SOMETHING and who
does not prevent it is unreasonable!
Clearly people are NOT unreasonable in every case that they refuse to act!
>which can only resolve it's self as - A: it has the power, but
> doesn't care, or is malevolent and wants the negative events to happen. In
> which case, the
> " loving and beneficent god.", is a lie.
You need lessons in philosophy and logic!
>
> Or,
>
> B: it does not have the ability to prevent it, so it is not omnipotent.
>
ASked and answered. go and get a qualification in philosophy or logic. You
will deal with such issues very early on. I have already explained it but
you continue to blindly follow your belief.
>
>
>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We are talking about natural disasters here.
>>>
>>> Why do you keep changing the subject?
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> __God wants disasters to happen.
>>>>>
>>>>> __God cannot prevent disasters to happen.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Which is it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It could be that God can prevent people hurting others but does not do
>>>> so not because he wants it but because he allows peopole to hurt other
>>>> people.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> We are talking about natural disasters here.
>>
>>WE are talkiong about people dying in suffereing and who is responsible.
>>Natural disasters (in the twentieth century) at most kill millions over
>>decades. Man made probalems kill hundreds of times that!
>>
>
> Another straw man.
No it isnt! We are talking about the principle of being able to prevent
something and not doing so!
It isnt always evil to not act or to allow others their freedom even if they
cauyse harm by having such freedom!
Yes we are! YOU claimed God can prevent natural disasters! Andpeople also
can prevent things which may cause harm. But God or people allowing such
things to happen is NOT always wrong!
>
> There can be no comparison between the intervention of an all powerful
> god, and the
> limited intervention of a human.
LOL! You are the one now reifying the argument!
You are using the "for God it is different" argument.
But that is the WHOLE PINT of Christianint isn't it? The point is that
people CAN live like Christ and it is NOT different. No god powers are
required!
>
> Your efforts to conflate the two, is it's self, a fallacy.
>
No it isnt! the laws of reason and logic apply to god just as they do to
man! Otherwist the iodea of a "fallacy" is of no value to any such argument
since you claim falliicies do not apply to a God who does not have to live
by any yardstick that man does!
Please come back when yo accept the basic proinciples of logic and reason.
Puck Greenman
>Who said it was MY God? I don't claim to own God and my personal beliefs
>have nothing to do with an objective debate.
Pathetic, childish, semantics.
About the level I would expect from a slightly slow 12 year old.
Mavisbeacon
In spite of your ad hiominem the point is that I dont need to defend
anything about anything I claimed about MY god since I didnt do so!
Yu re clearly trying to switch the focus for YOUR CLAIMS to MY god.
I didn't make any claims about MY God or whether I believed in a GOd.
So dont try to SHIFT THE BURDEN onto me to prove something I didnt claim!
I note you also avoided addressing anything else in the post to which you
replied with this waffle.
Such as:
So if you can stop someone doing wrong you should always intervene and
prevent them from doing wrong rather than try to change them so that they
themselves chose not to do something wrong? It makes more sense to prevent
them expressing their freedom and denying them freedom than actually helping
them to change their ways?
How many people are alive in the world? Why do most die and what is the
quality of their life determined by? Is it God who makes a third of the
Children in the world go hungry every day? Is it God who puts people to
death for not believing in atheism or communism or Maoism or whatever? Is it
God who created WMD ? Is it God who allowed genocide in Rwanda Russia
Yugoslavia Sudan East Timor ....?
Apparently your idea seems to be all these things are the responsibility of
God because God allows them to happen! Do you really believe that? And you
think that is logical? Blame most of the death and squalor in the world on a
God in which you don't believe?
and...
Most of the "less fortunate" are in the position
they are in because of the greed and lust for power of people. surely you
already know the world is warming, the oil is running out, the richer people
overconsume and waste and interfere in poverty stricken nations to maintain
their over consumption?
The most powerfull nations in the world rather than justice and
righteousness maintain their inequitable control over the less powerfull!
You tell me you dont know this? You do not know that the US for example with
5 per cent of the worlds people uses about 25 per cent of the worlds oil
every year? That is being "kind" is it?
Your position is are full of evasion and logical fallacy.
Alan Ford
>>>>> I will bring an example specific to Christians. If Christ decides to be
>>>>> Human and not to use any god powers for his own benefit and used them
>>>>> to prevent being crucified then would he not be breaking his own rules
>>>>> of showing how he could live by human standards alone? In this example
>>>>> god is able to act but does not if that action requires him to use
>>>>> powers which are not within the capability of a human.
>>>>>
>>>>> In fact if Christ used god powersd to prevent all the bad things
>>>>> happening then people could not do the same as him could they?
>>>>> How could they follow his example if he used God powers to advance his
>>>>> position?
>>>> And more importantly, how much drag do you think Superman's cape has
>>>> during his flight? Do you think he has to eat more in order to
>>>> compensate for that loss of energy? And if so, what is the best food for
>>>> a person from Krypton?
>>> Your comic book analogy is not apt because it involves Superman using his
>>> super powers.
>> That's right. It is a perfect analogy because both examples involve
>> imaginary, fictional characters,
>
> WRONG! Jesus is a historical figure as a human being as well as any claims
> of him being either a Prophet or of him being God.
And, of course, you'll provide evidence of that right here:
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
___________________________________________________________
>
> There is as much or more historicity and articacts for a carpenters Son two
> thousand years ago then for example there is for Alexander the Great or
> Socrates exiating as people in history about 300 years before that.
What's that got to do with anything? There may be historicity and
artifacts for hundreds of carpenters' sons, but that is beside the
point. The Bible and consequently all of Christianity rests on the claim
that Jesus was an offspring of a deity, not some dime-a-dozen son of a
carpenter. That is what the Bible claims. If you are trying to say that
Jesus could have been just a human being with no divine characteristics
whatsoever, then who gives a shit? That, if anything, disproves the
biblical claims.
>
> Superman on the other hand is a contemporary comic book charachter.
Give it a few hundred years of memetics and some clever propaganda
enforced by genocide and Superman can just as well become a person whose
"historicity and artifacts" are indisputable. Look at Scientology and
Mormonism.
>> their alleged characteristics and the methods those characters would employ
>> as a response to certain physical stimuli.
>
> I have no idea what you mean by the above.
Not my fault.
>
>>> The question of principle is - could Superman ask people to live just
>>> like him if Clark Kent ever resorted to using his powers to advance his
>>> own position in normal life?
>> There is no "question of principle" anywhere
>
> YES THERE ARE!
Oh, well, I didn't realize you were going to use capital letters. All my
bases are belong to you now.
> "that action requires him to use powers
> which are not within the capability of a human."
>
> Or from the earlier discussion "whether refusal to act is just because
> acting removes free will of the other person"
>
>> other than what you claim. I can also come up with a random question,
>
> My point was not random. It was directly related to the false analogy of -
> God is either uncaring or impotent becuase God does not prevent disasters.
This, while interesting up to a point, is really a quite irrelevant
issue because in order to even be able to address it, one first has to
show some, *any*, evidence for this alleged "God". So far, we've seen
none. Until that happens, this "God" is as real as Superman.
>
>> say "Could Jesus also deflect bullets fired at him from modern firearms
>> and, if so, why couldn't he deflect primitive rusty nails and thorns?",
>> then call it the question of principle.
>
> If he was in fact God he COULD and he could also turn stones into bread.
> But the very point is HE DIDNT - WHY didnt he?
> Because the point is twofold
> 1. He didnt act in a way which other humans could not emulate
Then why did he multiply the fish, heal [some] blind people, resurrect
[some] dead people and himself, iow he acted in a way which other humans
could not emulate?
> 2. Because God does not intervene does not therefore mean God is callous.
No, it means that he does not exist. Not because of any of this academic
logic, but because there is zero evidence for his existence and
overwhelming evidence that there is nothing even remotely similar to
what you call God.
>>>> If you don't beat your meat
>>>> You can't have any pudding
>>>> How can you have any pudding
>>>> If you don't beat your meat?
>>> Given this week is the anniversary of the Wall coming down.
>>> I think the Pink floyd quote is a misquote. The correct word is "eat"!
>> It's a free country - you do what makes you happy with your meat and I'll
>> do what makes me happy with mine.
>
> But the quote is a MISQUOTE! it should be "eat your meat"
Call the quote police.
>
> WHERE is a free country?
You got a point there. Nowhere, really.
Puck Greenman
>> That's right. It is a perfect analogy because both examples involve
>> imaginary, fictional characters,
>
>WRONG! Jesus is a historical figure
...And your evidence for that assertion is ... What, Exactly?
> as a human being as well as any claims
>of him being either a Prophet or of him being God.
>
>There is as much or more historicity and articacts for a carpenters Son two
>thousand years ago then for example there is for Alexander the Great or
>Socrates exiating as people in history about 300 years before that.
So produce some of this objective evidence.
>
>Superman on the other hand is a contemporary comic book charachter.
>
>
>>their alleged characteristics and the methods those characters would employ
>>as a response to certain physical stimuli.
>
>I have no idea what you mean by the above.
>
What: Not convenient?
snip remaining blather.
Puck Greenman
Yes,, it does.
If you cared, you would stop me.
>Clearly people may ALLOW others to do wrong because they
>tolerate them and don't want to restrict their freedom to cause harm even if
>harm comes from allowing others such freedom.
>
>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Surley I might be just prepared to tolerate you doing what I
>>>>>>>>>>> don't want you to do?
>>
>> Then you don't care as much as you profess.
>
>It is a central principle of demiocracy. for example censorship is nbanning
>what people do not want.
Censorship, is the minority, forcing their will on the majority.
What people don't want, they won't pay for.
The fact that a need is felt to censor a thing, indicates that people DO want it.
> Is it therefore just?
>Obviously when it comes to the group doing the banning or the group being
>banned I know which group you want to be in!
>
>>
>> Which makes you a hypocrite.
>>
>> ...Is that what your god is?
>
>How am I being hypocritical?
>
You tell us how much you care, yet when the situation arises whereby you have the ability,
and the opportunity, to put your caring into action, you pass by on the other side of the
road.
>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So what is the point of prayer?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Do you always answer direct questions with questions about
>>>>>>>>> entirely different subjects?
>>>>>>>>>c
>>>>>>>>> Clearly the opition of God WANTS tragedy to happen isn't the sole
>>>>>>>>> option left as you imagine it to be. Is it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Either God wants tragedy/disease/disasters to happen
>>>>>>>> (which makes him malevolent) or he is powerless to stop
>>>>>>>> them (which means he is NOT "all-powerful").
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which is it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So if you something bad happening like someone slapping a child and
>>>>>>> you have the power to stop them and you chose not to that means you
>>>>>>> can logically conculde that you must be malevolent and that you want
>>>>>>> the event to happen?
>>
>> That, or I don't give a damn.
>
>You just contradicted yoor "YES" above.
Reading for comprehension, aint your strong suit, is it, Mavis?
It the above scenario, I am the one clouting the kids.
How does my not caring if you batter your's, contradict my reply?
>Clearly people may ALLOW others to do wrong because they tolerate them and
>don't want to restrict their freedom to cause harm even if harm comes from
>allowing others such freedom
>
But we are discussing a god, and natural disasters, not people.
>
>>
>> Are we to take it then, that your god, doesn't give a damn?
>
>
>Where did i say anything about MY god?
>
That is what we are discussing, that is what all of these silly analogies of your refer
to.
Or are you trying to change the subject?
>
>I just pointed out about the other false analogy made. Please dont try to
>"shift the burden".
>That is another fallacy!
>
Word of advice: Don't use terminology, which you do not understand.
That includes all assertions to fallacies, and references to logic.
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Evasion noted.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The analogy id FALSE! Look up "excluded middle" . It is a fallacy!
>>
>> Binary propositions, are not always fallacies.
>
>True.
>Assuming this one is not IS a fallacy!
>
>>
>> The christian churches propose a god which is all powerful, all knowing,
>> all loving, all
>> caring, all sweetness and light, etc, etc.
>
>Yes so?
>
>>
>> How does this god, which has the knowledge and the power to prevent
>> natural disasters, and
>> injustices, NOT intervene, and still be all those good things which
>> christians claim for
>> it?
>
>I think I already answered that.
I do not recall reading that.
> Intervention may remove free will.
Where, in the bible, does it mention man having free will?
The only place that freewill is mentioned in the bible, IIRC, is in Leviticus, and is
referring to "freewill offerings". i.e. sacrifice.
> Also it isnt the not intervening impliues not caring position you paint.
Then what is it?
> Asked and answered
Well, asked, anyway.
>
>>
>> The proposition is, of it's nature, binary; Either God, is all those good
>> things, or it
>> aint.
>
>Yes either God is good and reasonable or God is not.
>
>Because you dont stop someone from expressing their opinion that does not
>make you unreasonable does it?
Irrelevant, I am not omnipotent and omniscient.
>
>Do you believe in anti Holocaust denial laws for example or in censorship or
>holocaust deniers?
>
I know that such, exist; belief is irrelevant.
>>
>> There is no middle, to exclude.
>
>If you CHANGE the princinple to "God is either Good or not Good) ther is no
>excluded middle.
There is nothing to change, your god id either all good, or not all good: Or are you now
going to invent gray areas, for your god.
>
>But the context was assuming "inteyrvention to stop suffering is always good
>and reasonable" . But that is not necessarily always true.
>
Suggest a scenario, where in, it is not good.
>
>>
>> The real fallacy here, is your insistence on using illogical analogies.
>> You cannot
>> compare the natural limitations of humanity, with the omniscience, and
>> omnipotence, of
>> your god.
>
>I never mantioned anything abut MY God! I only pointed out that the position
>that if an omnipotent God does not intervene that does not mean he therefore
>does not care.
So you don't believe in this "God"(capitalised); Right?
>
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Either God wants natural disasters to happen
>>>>>> or he cannot prevent them.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is it?
>>
>> Perhaps it just don't give a damn, Mitchell.
>
>
>Who is Mitchell? you are babbling?
You really are stupid, aren't you.
" Mitchell", is the person who asked, " Which is it?"
Don't you even look to see who you are talking to?
>
>Perhaps God does not care is a valid proposition however. But not
>intervening DOES NOT LOGICALLY PROVE that proposition!
>
Unless you can offer some other logical reason why an all loving, all caring, all
powerful, being would NOT intervene, given the world's history, and the atrocities
committed in it's name, if no others, also, of course assuming that such a thing exists,
then "God doesn't give a damn", must be the default position.
>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>> PleASE LOOK UP "EXCLUDED MIDDLE" AND "FALSE ANALOGY" ! It is not a
>>>>> case of either it is A or B!
>>>>> Your reasoninbg is simplistic.
>>
>> So you have learned a new phrase.
>
>I have referred to such fallacies for years!
>y
And yet, over the last several weeks, even when you have been faced with the excluded
middle fallacies, you have not only not mentioned them, but have not recognised them.
Until, that is, your own, excluded middle, fallacies, were pointed out.
Why would that be?
>>
>> Unfortunately, your use of it only serves to bring to mind, words like
>> pot, kettle, and
>> black arse.
>
>
>I also used "ad hominem" before. Personbal attack wont prove your point ! In
>fact is shows how desperate you are becoming.
>
Once again you use a term, incorrectly.
Your line, "Your reasoninbg is simplistic.",is an ad homonym.
I, OTOH, was merely making an observation, completely aside from the subject matter of the
debate.
An insult, if you understand that better.
>
>
>>>>>>>>>> Everything that happens
>>>>>>>>>> is because God wants it to happen,
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> According to you this is determined by it being the only option
>>>>>>>>> loeft but it isnt the only option left is it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Are you saying God cannot control events?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>> Are you saying there are only two options?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> But you are saying that if someone is hitting a child either you can
>>>>> stop them ot you want it to happen. Clearly this is a silly proposition
>>>>> and
>>>>>anyone can see there are other options and possibilities?
>>
>> Straw man.
>
>NO! YOU are the one saying this binary position is the only possibility. YOU
>claim either the person (God or me or you)
Diversion.
We are only discussing your god.
> does not care or can not stop the
>other person doing wrong (or something else bad like a disaster happening).
>
As I said, only your god, or any god that you care to imagine, for that matter.
>
>> We are not omnipotent, for us, there can be many reasons why we do not
>> intervene, not
>> least of which is the law of the land.
>
>But how would not being omnipotent change that when the position is WE CAN
>INTERVENE AND HAVE THE POWER TO PREVENT THE ACT?
>
Straw man.
We are discussing your god, not mortals.
>
>>
>> Your god, OTOH, IS omnipotent, supposedly, and it is also touted as a
>> loving and
>> beneficent god.
>
>
>So what even if God was of limited power and could only stop natural
>disasters u to acertain size, the PRINCIPLE is the same!
>
No, it isn't.
It is a question of ability, which is why your analogies, involving humans, are fallacies.
You expect humans, with limited ability, to act, but excuse your god, with it's UNLIMITED
ability, for not acting.
If your god had only limited ability, then it's inaction would be excusable, but that aint
the claim for your god; is it?
>>
>> If this is true, then for your god to permit the innocent to suffer in
>> these natural
>> disasters, is a paradox,
>
>No it isnt!
Yes it is.
> People
People are irrelevant, we are discussing a god.
> can also cause or fail to act on things they are capable
>of preventing . Whether they are omnipotent is NOT THE ISSUE!
>The issue is whether someoine who is CAPABLE OF PREVENTING SOMETHING and who
>does not prevent it is unreasonable!
>
>Clearly people are NOT unreasonable in every case that they refuse to act!
>
>
>>which can only resolve it's self as - A: it has the power, but
>> doesn't care, or is malevolent and wants the negative events to happen. In
>> which case, the
>> " loving and beneficent god.", is a lie.
>
>
>You need lessons in philosophy and logic!
>
Of course I do.
BTW, can you say, "Ad homonym."?
>
>>
>> Or,
>>
>> B: it does not have the ability to prevent it, so it is not omnipotent.
>>
>
>ASked and answered. go and get a qualification in philosophy or logic. You
>will deal with such issues very early on. I have already explained it but
>you continue to blindly follow your belief.
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We are talking about natural disasters here.
>>>>
>>>> Why do you keep changing the subject?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> __God wants disasters to happen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> __God cannot prevent disasters to happen.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Which is it?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It could be that God can prevent people hurting others but does not do
>>>>> so not because he wants it but because he allows peopole to hurt other
>>>>> people.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> We are talking about natural disasters here.
>>>
>>>WE are talkiong about people dying in suffereing and who is responsible.
>>>Natural disasters (in the twentieth century) at most kill millions over
>>>decades. Man made probalems kill hundreds of times that!
>>>
>>
>> Another straw man.
>
>No it isnt!
Yes it is.
> We are talking about the principle of being able to prevent
>something and not doing so!
>
Only in so far as it relates to your god.
>It isnt always evil to not act or to allow others their freedom even if they
>cauyse harm by having such freedom!
>
And what about those who are harmed, when your god could have prevented it?
Yes, a god, not people.
> Andpeople also
But only you are trying to include people, in order to avoid answering difficult questions
about your god.
>can prevent things which may cause harm. But God or people allowing such
>things to happen is NOT always wrong!
>
>>
>> There can be no comparison between the intervention of an all powerful
>> god, and the
>> limited intervention of a human.
>
>LOL! You are the one now reifying the argument!
>
Are you now denying your god, and claiming that it is merely an abstract?
>
>You are using the "for God it is different" argument.
Yes, but I am reversing it, it is only a fallacy, when used to excuse your god of
inaction, failure, etc.
I am pointing out how your mythology, proclaims your god to be capable of anything, but
cannot be shown to be responsible for anything useful, or compassionate.
>
>But that is the WHOLE PINT of Christianint isn't it? The point is that
>people CAN live like Christ and it is NOT different. No god powers are
>required!
>
Non sequitur.
>
>>
>> Your efforts to conflate the two, is it's self, a fallacy.
>>
>
>No it isnt!
Yes it is.
> the laws of reason and logic apply to god just as they do to
>man! Otherwist the iodea of a "fallacy" is of no value to any such argument
>since you claim falliicies do not apply to a God who does not have to live
>by any yardstick that man does!
And another straw man
>
>Please come back when yo accept the basic proinciples of logic and reason.
>
And again; can you say, "Ad homonym."?
Mavisbeacon
> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 17:50:48 -0000, "Mavisbeacon"
> <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>
>>> That's right. It is a perfect analogy because both examples involve
>>> imaginary, fictional characters,
>>
>>WRONG! Jesus is a historical figure
>
> ...And your evidence for that assertion is ... What, Exactly?
Posted in other reply.
And you evidence for Socrates and Alewxander the Great is?
>
>
>
>> as a human being as well as any claims
>>of him being either a Prophet or of him being God.
>>
>>There is as much or more historicity and articacts for a carpenters Son
>>two
>>thousand years ago then for example there is for Alexander the Great or
>>Socrates exiating as people in history about 300 years before that.
>
> So produce some of this objective evidence.
Posted in other reply.
Care to produce evidence for Socrates or Alexander?
>
>
>>
>>Superman on the other hand is a contemporary comic book charachter.
>>
>>
>>>their alleged characteristics and the methods those characters would
>>>employ
>>>as a response to certain physical stimuli.
>>
>>I have no idea what you mean by the above.
>>
>
> What: Not convenient?
No just not making any sense.
Mavisbeacon
> Mavisbeacon wrote:
>
>>>>>> I will bring an example specific to Christians. If Christ decides to
>>>>>> be Human and not to use any god powers for his own benefit and used
>>>>>> them to prevent being crucified then would he not be breaking his own
>>>>>> rules of showing how he could live by human standards alone? In this
>>>>>> example god is able to act but does not if that action requires him
>>>>>> to use powers which are not within the capability of a human.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> In fact if Christ used god powersd to prevent all the bad things
>>>>>> happening then people could not do the same as him could they?
>>>>>> How could they follow his example if he used God powers to advance
>>>>>> his position?
>>>>> And more importantly, how much drag do you think Superman's cape has
>>>>> during his flight? Do you think he has to eat more in order to
>>>>> compensate for that loss of energy? And if so, what is the best food
>>>>> for a person from Krypton?
>>>> Your comic book analogy is not apt because it involves Superman using
>>>> his super powers.
>>> That's right. It is a perfect analogy because both examples involve
>>> imaginary, fictional characters,
>>
>> WRONG! Jesus is a historical figure as a human being as well as any
>> claims of him being either a Prophet or of him being God.
>
> And, of course, you'll provide evidence of that right here:
Yes indeed it is called the historicity of Jesus.
From the good old wikipedia:
With few exceptions (such as Robert M. Price), scholars in the fields of
biblical studies and history agree that Jesus was a Jewish teacher from
Galilee who was regarded as a healer, was baptized by John the Baptist, was
accused of sedition against the Roman Empire, and on the orders of Roman
Governor Pontius Pilate was sentenced to death by crucifixion.
^ Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave
(New York: Doubleday, Anchor Bible Reference Library 1994), p. 964; D. A.
Carson, et al., p. 50-56; Shaye J.D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the
Mishnah, Westminster Press, 1987, p. 78, 93, 105, 108; John Dominic Crossan,
The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant,
HarperCollins, 1991, p. xi-xiii; Michael Grant, p. 34-35, 78, 166, 200;
Paula Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, Alfred A. Knopf,
1999, p. 6-7, 105-110, 232-234, 266; John P. Meier, vol. 1:68, 146, 199,
278, 386, 2:726; E.P. Sanders, pp. 12-13; Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press 1973), p. 37.; Paul L. Maier, In the Fullness
of Time, Kregel, 1991, pp. 1, 99, 121, 171; N. T. Wright, The Meaning of
Jesus: Two Visions, HarperCollins, 1998, pp. 32, 83, 100-102, 222; Ben
Witherington III, pp. 12-20.
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> ___________________________________________________________
> ___________________________________________________________
>
>>
>> There is as much or more historicity and articacts for a carpenters Son
>> two thousand years ago then for example there is for Alexander the Great
>> or Socrates exiating as people in history about 300 years before that.
>
> What's that got to do with anything?
Well you believe Alexander the Great or socrates existed don't you?
>There may be historicity and artifacts for hundreds of carpenters' sons,
>but that is beside the point.
Nope. We are discussing Jesus of Nazereth the person written about in the
Bible.
Not just any Carpenters son! and there is not to my knowledge much else
about any other carpenters sons from Nazareth about 2000 years ago!
>The Bible and consequently all of Christianity rests on the claim that
>Jesus was an offspring of a deity,
But that is NOT the issue you raised! The deity of christ and THE
HISTORICITY OF JESUS are two DIFFERENT subjects.
The exiostance of a MAN Jesus rather than an imaginary fictional charachter
is the issue your raised and NOT the claim that that man was also God!
> not some dime-a-dozen son of a carpenter.
But you have not other historical evidence for dozens of other carpenters
sons from Nazareth at that time do you?
>That is what the Bible claims.
But WHAT THE BIBLE CLAIMS is not the issue! The issue YOU raised was about
jesus being a fictional charachter. there is aas much evidence for him than
for other people that you accept existede and he was only a carpenters sonm
whereas the others may have been the greatest philosophers of all times opr
the Greatest Military rulers.
>If you are trying to say that Jesus could have been just a human being with
>no divine characteristics whatsoever, then who gives a shit?
Apparently YOU since YOU RAUISED THE ISSUE of Jesus being a fictional
charachter! I only pointed out unlike superman there is a historicity to
Jesus as a real person.
>That, if anything, disproves the biblical claims.
Actually NO it doesnt but it would be a heretical claim. But that is a
DIFFERENT ISSUE!
>
>>
>> Superman on the other hand is a contemporary comic book charachter.
>
> Give it a few hundred years of memetics and some clever propaganda
> enforced by genocide and Superman can just as well become a person whose
> "historicity and artifacts" are indisputable.
Memetics itself is disputable. Dawkings has abandoned it and the Academic
Journal is not in publication anymore!
If you believe in memetics you believe in a false science.
>Look at Scientology and Mormonism.
What should I? I diodnt make any claims abut them or about Jesus being God!
YOU introduced that red herring.
>
>>> their alleged characteristics and the methods those characters would
>>> employ as a response to certain physical stimuli.
>>
>> I have no idea what you mean by the above.
>
> Not my fault.
It is you seem incapable of using coherent English and a tenjdency to slide
into waffle qand gobbledigook with pseudo scientific leanings.
>>
>>>> The question of principle is - could Superman ask people to live just
>>>> like him if Clark Kent ever resorted to using his powers to advance
>>>> his own position in normal life?
>>> There is no "question of principle" anywhere
>>
>> YES THERE ARE!
>
> Oh, well, I didn't realize you were going to use capital letters. All my
> bases are belong to you now.
It is clearly indicated above in plain English.
>
>
>> "that action requires him to use powers
>> which are not within the capability of a human."
>>
>> Or from the earlier discussion "whether refusal to act is just because
>> acting removes free will of the other person"
>>
>>> other than what you claim. I can also come up with a random question,
>>
>> My point was not random. It was directly related to the false analogy
>> of - God is either uncaring or impotent becuase God does not prevent
>> disasters.
>
> This, while interesting up to a point, is really a quite irrelevant
n o it isnt it is germane to the discussion and your claim that NO PRINCIPLE
is asserted in the above discussion!
> issue because in order to even be able to address it, one first has to
> show some, *any*, evidence for this alleged "God". So far, we've seen
> none. Until that happens, this "God" is as real as Superman.
You have not been following the discussion this has been dealt with already.
all Pink Giraffes eat leaves
Arnold is a pink Giraffe
We can logically conclude Arnold eats leaves whether or not Pink Giraffes
god or Superman exist!
The assumption was made by the OTHER poster that IF God exists then God is
not all powerful or callaus.
There were several logical fallacies in that reasoning which have been
pointed out.
>>
>>> say "Could Jesus also deflect bullets fired at him from modern firearms
>>> and, if so, why couldn't he deflect primitive rusty nails and thorns?",
>>> then call it the question of principle.
>>
>> If he was in fact God he COULD and he could also turn stones into bread.
>> But the very point is HE DIDNT - WHY didnt he?
>> Because the point is twofold
>> 1. He didnt act in a way which other humans could not emulate
>
> Then why did he multiply the fish, heal [some] blind people, resurrect
> [some] dead people and himself, iow he acted in a way which other humans
> could not emulate?
Other humans apparently COULD and DID perform miracles!
And Jesus Christ according to the stroy never did these things for his own
personal gain but as charitable acts.
>
>> 2. Because God does not intervene does not therefore mean God is callous.
>
> No, it means that he does not exist.
No it DOES NOT! If you do not intervene does that mean you do not exist?
>Not because of any of this academic logic, but because there is zero
>evidence for his existence and overwhelming evidence that there is nothing
>even remotely similar to what you call God.
Really?
What do you mean by "evidence"?
And where did I define God?
>
>>>>> If you don't beat your meat
>>>>> You can't have any pudding
>>>>> How can you have any pudding
>>>>> If you don't beat your meat?
>>>> Given this week is the anniversary of the Wall coming down.
>>>> I think the Pink floyd quote is a misquote. The correct word is "eat"!
>>> It's a free country - you do what makes you happy with your meat and
>>> I'll do what makes me happy with mine.
>>
>> But the quote is a MISQUOTE! it should be "eat your meat"
>
> Call the quote police.
Id prefer if you actually used proper english and didnt distort what people
stated.
>>
>> WHERE is a free country?
>
> You got a point there. Nowhere, really.
Where is this "nowhere" place?
If one can be free in thios nowhere place then care to give me directions?
>
> --
> If you don't beat your meat
> You can't have any pudding
> How can you have any pudding
> If you don't beat your meat?
You are misquoting Pink Floyd
Mavisbeacon
Not necessarily. One can have a tyranny of the majority.
>
> What people don't want, they won't pay for.
Choise of what you pay for and banning of something are DIFFERENT subjects.
You might not want to pay for child porn or Holocaust denial books.
>
> The fact that a need is felt to censor a thing, indicates that people DO
> want it.
WaNTS AND NEEDS ARE DIFFERENT THINGS! You might want to take Heroine but do
you really need to?
>
>
>
>> Is it therefore just?
>>Obviously when it comes to the group doing the banning or the group being
>>banned I know which group you want to be in!
>>
>>>
>>> Which makes you a hypocrite.
>>>
>>> ...Is that what your god is?
>>
>>How am I being hypocritical?
>>
>
> You tell us how much you care,
Where?
>yet when the situation arises whereby you have the ability,
> and the opportunity, to put your caring into action, you pass by on the
> other side of the
> road.
You are assuming intervention is always the best course for the caring
person.
You have not proved that.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So what is the point of prayer?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Do you always answer direct questions with questions about
>>>>>>>>>> entirely different subjects?
>>>>>>>>>>c
>>>>>>>>>> Clearly the opition of God WANTS tragedy to happen isn't the sole
>>>>>>>>>> option left as you imagine it to be. Is it?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Either God wants tragedy/disease/disasters to happen
>>>>>>>>> (which makes him malevolent) or he is powerless to stop
>>>>>>>>> them (which means he is NOT "all-powerful").
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Which is it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So if you something bad happening like someone slapping a child and
>>>>>>>> you have the power to stop them and you chose not to that means you
>>>>>>>> can logically conculde that you must be malevolent and that you
>>>>>>>> want
>>>>>>>> the event to happen?
>>>
>>> That, or I don't give a damn.
>>
>>You just contradicted yoor "YES" above.
>
> Reading for comprehension, aint your strong suit, is it, Mavis?
>
> It the above scenario, I am the one clouting the kids.
>
> How does my not caring if you batter your's, contradict my reply?
Because the specific example was of a general case! it makes no difference
if it is I YOU or any human or God for that matter.
The GENERAL point was about a BEING who can intervene and does not do so!
>
>>Clearly people may ALLOW others to do wrong because they tolerate them and
>>don't want to restrict their freedom to cause harm even if harm comes from
>>allowing others such freedom
>>
>
> But we are discussing a god, and natural disasters, not people.
No we are discussing a PRINCIPLE or non intervention of ANY BEING in general
who has the power to interven and does not intervene.
If you are claiming that "things are different for God" then the whole point
you are making falls on its face anyway.
If you are claiming a GENERAL standard or principle of not caring then yu
haVE TO ADOPT THAT POSITION.
>>
>>>
>>> Are we to take it then, that your god, doesn't give a damn?
>>
>>
>>Where did i say anything about MY god?
>>
>
> That is what we are discussing, that is what all of these silly analogies
> of your refer
> to.
No they refer to the PRINCIPLE of noin intervention by ANY being human alien
God (whether all powerful or just partially super human Zeus for example
should he exist).
>
> Or are you trying to change the subject?
No it is the principle advanced earlier on that God (or anyone else who can
intervene to stop disasters happen) is either uncaring or not omnipotent.
>
>>
>>I just pointed out about the other false analogy made. Please dont try to
>>"shift the burden".
>>That is another fallacy!
>>
>
> Word of advice: Don't use terminology, which you do not understand.
Look up "shift the burden" ! I didnt bring up the principle did I?
>
> That includes all assertions to fallacies, and references to logic.
I think you would do beter to address the argument about the above
porinciple in a logical manner than deign to hand out advice on reasoning.
>
>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Evasion noted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The analogy id FALSE! Look up "excluded middle" . It is a fallacy!
>>>
>>> Binary propositions, are not always fallacies.
>>
>>True.
>>Assuming this one is not IS a fallacy!
I assume you understand that logic!
>>
>>>
>>> The christian churches propose a god which is all powerful, all
>>> knowing,
>>> all loving, all
>>> caring, all sweetness and light, etc, etc.
>>
>>Yes so?
>>
>>>
>>> How does this god, which has the knowledge and the power to prevent
>>> natural disasters, and
>>> injustices, NOT intervene, and still be all those good things which
>>> christians claim for
>>> it?
>>
>>I think I already answered that.
>
> I do not recall reading that.
I do.
Look up "argument from ignorance" while you are at it.
>
>> Intervention may remove free will.
>
> Where, in the bible, does it mention man having free will?
Where in the argument did i claim anythiong about the Bible stating
anything?
>
> The only place that freewill is mentioned in the bible, IIRC, is in
> Leviticus, and is
> referring to "freewill offerings". i.e. sacrifice.
So what?
>
>> Also it isnt the not intervening impliues not caring position you paint.
>
> Then what is it?
What is what?
Not intervening does not logically imply not caring! You have not shown it
does!
>
>
>
>> Asked and answered
>
> Well, asked, anyway.
The answer is above "not intervening does not imply not caring"
It does not follow!
>>
>>>
>>> The proposition is, of it's nature, binary; Either God, is all those
>>> good
>>> things, or it
>>> aint.
>>
>>Yes either God is good and reasonable or God is not.
>>
>>Because you dont stop someone from expressing their opinion that does not
>>make you unreasonable does it?
>
> Irrelevant, I am not omnipotent and omniscient.
So what? the only ability necessary for the above porinciple is the ABILITY
TO INTERVENE TO PREVENT SOME OUTCOME
>
>>
>>Do you believe in anti Holocaust denial laws for example or in censorship
>>or
>>holocaust deniers?
>>
>
> I know that such, exist; belief is irrelevant.
Do you believe they are correct laws and proper to have? I didnt ask whether
you believe they exist.
Believe and "believe in" are two different things.
Next I suppose you will say that if the Nazis had laws against Jews and
other that you know that such laws existed and belief in them is
irrelevant. Tell that to the ten million Holocaust victims!
>
>>>
>>> There is no middle, to exclude.
>>
>>If you CHANGE the princinple to "God is either Good or not Good) ther is
>>no
>>excluded middle.
>
> There is nothing to change, your god id either all good, or not all good:
Now you are back to MY god! Where did I define any God or say it was MINE?
>Or are you now
> going to invent gray areas, for your god.
Like you invented I made any claim at all about MY God?
Trying to "shift the burden" agains I see.
Where did I make such a claim?
>
>
>>
>>But the context was assuming "inteyrvention to stop suffering is always
>>good
>>and reasonable" . But that is not necessarily always true.
>>
>
> Suggest a scenario, where in, it is not good.
Interfering in the execution of Hitler is the usual philosophy 101 example
in ethics.
But Ill give you an example. suppose someone interferes in someone elses
free choise of religion and forces and atheist to send their child to a
Christian school.
And you can also take the corollary where a atheistic Statist interferes in
a christians free choice.
>
>>>
>>> The real fallacy here, is your insistence on using illogical analogies.
>>> You cannot
>>> compare the natural limitations of humanity, with the omniscience, and
>>> omnipotence, of
>>> your god.
>>
>>I never mantioned anything abut MY God! I only pointed out that the
>>position
>>that if an omnipotent God does not intervene that does not mean he
>>therefore
>>does not care.
>
> So you don't believe in this "God"(capitalised); Right?
Whether I do or not is not going to change the ruiles of logic!
One can discuss whether a pink elephant interfering is acceptable even iof
pink elephants do not exist?
>
>>
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Either God wants natural disasters to happen
>>>>>>> or he cannot prevent them.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which is it?
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>Who is Mitchell? you are babbling?
>
> You really are stupid, aren't you.
Ad hominem is no substitute for argument. You are the one who posted "
Perhaps it just don't give a damn, Mitchell"
Now you cant even explain what that means and resort to ad hominem!.
>
> " Mitchell", is the person who asked, " Which is it?"
>
> Don't you even look to see who you are talking to?
I prefer to refer tyo Holman but if you meant that Mitchell then thank you
pfor pointing that out.
It would also be unclear to anyone else reading the thread.
>
>>
>>Perhaps God does not care is a valid proposition however. But not
>>intervening DOES NOT LOGICALLY PROVE that proposition!
>>
>
> Unless you can offer some other logical reason why an all loving, all
> caring, all
> powerful, being would NOT intervene, given the world's history, and the
> atrocities
> committed in it's name, if no others, also, of course assuming that such a
> thing exists,
> then "God doesn't give a damn", must be the default position.
Buty I already DID SO! It is a theology 101 question - why does God allow
suffereing.
There are many possible reasons
-The existance of sin for example is dependant on the existance of free
choise.
If God allows free wil then god has to allow those with free will the
freedom to do wroing and hurt others.
Preventing such suffering would require remioving free will.
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> PleASE LOOK UP "EXCLUDED MIDDLE" AND "FALSE ANALOGY" ! It is not a
>>>>>> case of either it is A or B!
>>>>>> Your reasoninbg is simplistic.
>>>
>>> So you have learned a new phrase.
>>
>>I have referred to such fallacies for years!
>>y
>
> And yet, over the last several weeks, even when you have been faced with
> the excluded
> middle fallacies, you have not only not mentioned them, but have not
> recognised them.
Either God does not care or God has no power - is an excluded middle!
God might care and also have power or a god might not be all powerfull and
care or not care and not be all powerfull.
[snip]
>
>
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, your use of it only serves to bring to mind, words like
>>> pot, kettle, and
>>> black arse.
>>
>>
>>I also used "ad hominem" before. Personbal attack wont prove your point !
>>In
>>fact is shows how desperate you are becoming.
>>
>
> Once again you use a term, incorrectly.
>
> Your line, "Your reasoninbg is simplistic.",is an ad homonym.
It isdnt a personal attack on YOU it is an attack on YOUR ARGUMENT or YOUR
REASONING!
>
> I, OTOH, was merely making an observation, completely aside from the
> subject matter of the
> debate.
you were making the observation and referring to ME by using the term "you"
three times in the preceeding sentence. and then associating ME with "arse"!
>
> An insult, if you understand that better.
Ad hominem is insult. IOt is an attack on the person rather then the
argument they raise!
>
>>
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Everything that happens
>>>>>>>>>>> is because God wants it to happen,
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> According to you this is determined by it being the only option
>>>>>>>>>> loeft but it isnt the only option left is it?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Are you saying God cannot control events?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>> Are you saying there are only two options?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But you are saying that if someone is hitting a child either you can
>>>>>> stop them ot you want it to happen. Clearly this is a silly
>>>>>> proposition
>>>>>> and
>>>>>>anyone can see there are other options and possibilities?
>>>
>>> Straw man.
>>
>>NO! YOU are the one saying this binary position is the only possibility.
>>YOU
>>claim either the person (God or me or you)
>
> Diversion.
No Your claim is fallacious!
>
> We are only discussing your god.
Nope! YOU tried to CHANGE it to that! I never made any claim about MY God!
YOU are the one trying to claim that ans shift the burden to me!
If you make the claim it is for you to prove it! Please don't try to suggest
I made the claim about God being impotent or uncaring.
>
>
>> does not care or can not stop the
>>other person doing wrong (or something else bad like a disaster
>>happening).
>>
>
> As I said, only your god, or any god that you care to imagine, for that
> matter.
YOUR CLAIM!
>
>>
>>> We are not omnipotent, for us, there can be many reasons why we do not
>>> intervene, not
>>> least of which is the law of the land.
>>
>>But how would not being omnipotent change that when the position is WE CAN
>>INTERVENE AND HAVE THE POWER TO PREVENT THE ACT?
>>
>
> Straw man.
No! exactly the case raised! The point was either god (because he has the
power to intervene to stop an act) is not omnipotent or he doesnt care
becacause God does intervene.
>
> We are discussing your god, not mortals.
We are discussing whether ANY BEING refusing to intervene isa either
incapable or uncaring.
If you are claiming that there is a different set of logical rules for God
then logic is pointless in such an argument.
>>>
>>> Your god, OTOH, IS omnipotent, supposedly, and it is also touted as a
>>> loving and
>>> beneficent god.
>>
>>
>>So what even if God was of limited power and could only stop natural
>>disasters u to acertain size, the PRINCIPLE is the same!
>>
>
> No, it isn't.
Yes it is! If a PERSON can intervene and does not do so the principle is the
same!
If you reify the issue to only beings capable of stopping
>
> It is a question of ability, which is why your analogies, involving
> humans, are fallacies.
Yes ability to INTERCEDE TO PERVENT Something.
Look you were the one asking about following the discussion.
Isnt prayer meant to be for this intercession?
>
> You expect humans, with limited ability, to act, but excuse your god, with
> it's UNLIMITED
> ability, for not acting.
NO! I expect the SAME LOGIC to apply to both!
>
> If your god had only limited ability, then it's inaction would be
> excusable, but that aint
> the claim for your god; is it?
It isnt MY GOD we are discussing! And Inaction may or may not be
inexcusable.
>
>
>>>
>>> If this is true, then for your god to permit the innocent to suffer in
>>> these natural
>>> disasters, is a paradox,
>>
>>No it isnt!
>
> Yes it is.
No it isnt! Allowing suffering is not against reason. I mean the symbol of
Christ is about a man who suffered!
>
>
>
>
>> People
>
> People are irrelevant, we are discussing a god.
You are reifying the argument and assuming God has different logic!
>
>
>> can also cause or fail to act on things they are capable
>>of preventing . Whether they are omnipotent is NOT THE ISSUE!
>>The issue is whether someoine who is CAPABLE OF PREVENTING SOMETHING and
>>who
>>does not prevent it is unreasonable!
>>
>>Clearly people are NOT unreasonable in every case that they refuse to act!
>>
>>
>>>which can only resolve it's self as - A: it has the power, but
>>> doesn't care, or is malevolent and wants the negative events to happen.
>>> In
>>> which case, the
>>> " loving and beneficent god.", is a lie.
>>
>>
>>You need lessons in philosophy and logic!
>>
>
> Of course I do.
>
> BTW, can you say, "Ad homonym."?
I can spell "ad hominem"
>
>>
>>>
>>> Or,
>>>
>>> B: it does not have the ability to prevent it, so it is not omnipotent.
>>>
>>
>>ASked and answered. go and get a qualification in philosophy or logic. You
>>will deal with such issues very early on. I have already explained it but
>>you continue to blindly follow your belief.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We are talking about natural disasters here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why do you keep changing the subject?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> __God wants disasters to happen.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> __God cannot prevent disasters to happen.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Which is it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It could be that God can prevent people hurting others but does not
>>>>>> do
>>>>>> so not because he wants it but because he allows peopole to hurt
>>>>>> other
>>>>>> people.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> We are talking about natural disasters here.
>>>>
>>>>WE are talkiong about people dying in suffereing and who is responsible.
>>>>Natural disasters (in the twentieth century) at most kill millions over
>>>>decades. Man made probalems kill hundreds of times that!
>>>>
>>>
>>> Another straw man.
>>
>>No it isnt!
>
> Yes it is.
No it isnt. Allowing suffereing ar causing suffering or by inaction causing
people to come to harm is germane to the discussion.
>
>
>> We are talking about the principle of being able to prevent
>>something and not doing so!
>>
>
> Only in so far as it relates to your god.
No0 I didnt bring in God. and if you reify the argument and say different
cases and rules apply to God then you lose it already!
>
>>It isnt always evil to not act or to allow others their freedom even if
>>they
>>cauyse harm by having such freedom!
>>
>
> And what about those who are harmed, when your god could have prevented
> it?
It isnt always evil to not act or to allow others their freedom even if they
cauyse harm by having such freedom!
In fact according to the Christians Christ himself suffered.
Yes they can! People can prevent famine and plague and tsunamis killing
people!
>
>
>> Andpeople also
>
> But only you are trying to include people, in order to avoid answering
> difficult questions
> about your god.
No!
1. I didnt introduce MY god
2. If the argument for god is a seperate case you cant apply reason logic
morals or ethics to that specific case and assume the same ethics apply for
all other cases!
You can only accuse God of not caring or having double stabndards when the
standard applied to WHAT EXTENT OTHER PEOPLE would be judged for doing the
same.
>
>
>
>>can prevent things which may cause harm. But God or people allowing such
>>things to happen is NOT always wrong!
>>
>>>
>>> There can be no comparison between the intervention of an all powerful
>>> god, and the
>>> limited intervention of a human.
>>
>>LOL! You are the one now reifying the argument!
>>
>
> Are you now denying your god, and claiming that it is merely an abstract?
>
>
>>
>>You are using the "for God it is different" argument.
>
> Yes, but I am reversing it, it is only a fallacy, when used to excuse
> your god of
> inaction, failure, etc.
>
> I am pointing out how your mythology, proclaims your god to be capable of
> anything, but
> cannot be shown to be responsible for anything useful, or compassionate.
>
>
>>
>>But that is the WHOLE POINT of Christianity isn't it? The point is that
>>people CAN live like Christ and it is NOT different. No god powers are
>>required!
>>
>
> Non sequitur.
Hiow does it not follow?
You cant have UNIVERSAL standards of compassion and also say that
circumstances for it are DIFFERENT for God!
>
>>
>>>
>>> Your efforts to conflate the two, is it's self, a fallacy.
>>>
>>
>>No it isnt!
>
> Yes it is.
No it isnt !it is called having the same moral ethical and logical
standards!
>
>
>> the laws of reason and logic apply to god just as they do to
>>man! Otherwist the iodea of a "fallacy" is of no value to any such
>>argument
>>since you claim falliicies do not apply to a God who does not have to live
>>by any yardstick that man does!
>
> And another straw man
It is the EXACT point you raise! You are claiming that god is a special case
which is wholly unlike man. then when you cite the case you judge it based
on UNIVERSSAL non spoecial case standards!
>
>>
>>Please come back when yo accept the basic proinciples of logic and reason.
>>
> And again; can you say, "Ad homonym."?
Whatever you are like i can only rely on logic and reason. If you cant follw
logic I cant help you.
Alan Ford
Quoting "scholars in the fields of biblical studies" as evidence for the
alleged historicity of Jesus makes as much sense as quoting "scholars"
of any parochial human endeavor on anything.
Iow, I can find you serious and academically credentialed "scholars" who
can likewise "prove" Mohammed's claims, phrenology, white race
supremacy, Arianism, existence of ghosts and extraterrestrial aliens,
homeopathy, crystal healing, spoon bending, etc.
If you have actual evidence for the existence of Jesus, i.e. anything
other than what's been written in the Gospels, present it here:
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________
>>> There is as much or more historicity and articacts for a carpenters Son
>>> two thousand years ago then for example there is for Alexander the Great
>>> or Socrates exiating as people in history about 300 years before that.
>> What's that got to do with anything?
>
> Well you believe Alexander the Great or socrates existed don't you?
Their existence is well documented in several independent sources and
most importantly, there is nothing extraordinary about the existence of
warlords and philosophers. Jesus, otoh, is claimed to be a deity's
offspring slash deity himself. This, according to the only source of his
existence - the Bible. There is no other source.
>> There may be historicity and artifacts for hundreds of carpenters' sons,
>> but that is beside the point.
>
> Nope. We are discussing Jesus of Nazereth the person written about in the
> Bible.
> Not just any Carpenters son! and there is not to my knowledge much else
> about any other carpenters sons from Nazareth about 2000 years ago!
And? Where, other than in the Bible, which is proven to be as reliable
record of history as The Lord Of The rings, is your evidence for this
alleged son of an ancient Jewish tribe god?
>
>> The Bible and consequently all of Christianity rests on the claim that
>> Jesus was an offspring of a deity,
>
>
> But that is NOT the issue you raised! The deity of christ and THE
> HISTORICITY OF JESUS are two DIFFERENT subjects.
> The exiostance of a MAN Jesus rather than an imaginary fictional charachter
> is the issue your raised and NOT the claim that that man was also God!
The issue cannot be separated because the Bible is the *only* "document"
about Jesus' existence. Therefore, if you want to rely on the Bible, you
have to take all of its claims equally and since the Bible claims Jesus'
divine origin, this is inseparable from the issue of his historicity.
Btw, the Bible has been caught in obvious lies hundreds of times, so
pretty much anything that is written there is subject to scrutiny, if
not outright ridicule. Therefore, to insist that somehow the claim that
Jesus was a real person (while even Paul is not much sure about that) is
credible, while putting aside the laughable claim about his divinity, is
to make a mockery of the whole process of unwrapping history.
>> not some dime-a-dozen son of a carpenter.
>
> But you have not other historical evidence for dozens of other carpenters
> sons from Nazareth at that time do you?
Why would it be needed? There is no dispute that thousands of people
used to be carpenters and most of them had sons. What is so
extraordinary about that?
>
>
>> That is what the Bible claims.
>
> But WHAT THE BIBLE CLAIMS is not the issue! The issue YOU raised was about
> jesus being a fictional charachter. there is aas much evidence for him than
> for other people that you accept existede and he was only a carpenters sonm
> whereas the others may have been the greatest philosophers of all times opr
> the Greatest Military rulers.
Where is this evidence you so loudly trumpet? Post here any evidence
that does not come from the Bible (listing Wikipedia names doesn't cut it):
______________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________
>
>
>> If you are trying to say that Jesus could have been just a human being with
>> no divine characteristics whatsoever, then who gives a shit?
>
> Apparently YOU since YOU RAUISED THE ISSUE of Jesus being a fictional
> charachter! I only pointed out unlike superman there is a historicity to
> Jesus as a real person.
Where is it, then? And, more importantly, why is his actual existence to
be believed and his divinity put aside, if not denied? What is the point
of cherry-picking the Bible?
>
>> That, if anything, disproves the biblical claims.
>
> Actually NO it doesnt but it would be a heretical claim. But that is a
> DIFFERENT ISSUE!
Everything is a different issue to you. There is only one issue: you
claim that Jesus existed, you provide the evidence. The Bible doesn't
count as evidence due to well documented facts about how, when and by
whom it was written. You need a supporting source. Name one.
>
>>> Superman on the other hand is a contemporary comic book charachter.
>> Give it a few hundred years of memetics and some clever propaganda
>> enforced by genocide and Superman can just as well become a person whose
>> "historicity and artifacts" are indisputable.
>
>
> Memetics itself is disputable.
Really? How do you think religions, superstitions, fashion fads, music
trends, cultural developments, societal changes, etc, get started?
Memetics is what makes us humans.
> Dawkings has abandoned it and the Academic
> Journal is not in publication anymore!
> If you believe in memetics you believe in a false science.
Sure, whatever gets you through the night.
>> Look at Scientology and Mormonism.
>
> What should I? I diodnt make any claims abut them or about Jesus being God!
> YOU introduced that red herring.
No, the Bible and every Christian on the face of the Earth did. I simply
say that there is no extra-biblical evidence for the existence of Jesus.
Period. Therefore, why should we take his alleged existence for granted?
Sure, they may have been a person called Jesus in Galilee some time in
the first century who happened to be a son of a carpenter. What about
it? The Bible doesn't claim that - it goes way further in the claim.
To insist on your position is to insist that the historicity of Superman
is real. And, using your method, it is. There is a man in Malaysia whose
name is Superman. I've seen it on the Internet. Therefore, according to
your criteria, Superman exists.
>
>>>> their alleged characteristics and the methods those characters would
>>>> employ as a response to certain physical stimuli.
>>> I have no idea what you mean by the above.
>> Not my fault.
>
> It is you seem incapable of using coherent English and a tenjdency to slide
> into waffle qand gobbledigook with pseudo scientific leanings.
Get some education, read a little more, learn to spell and perhaps one
day you'll be able to understand this incoherent English that people use.
>>>>> The question of principle is - could Superman ask people to live just
>>>>> like him if Clark Kent ever resorted to using his powers to advance
>>>>> his own position in normal life?
>>>> There is no "question of principle" anywhere
>>> YES THERE ARE!
>> Oh, well, I didn't realize you were going to use capital letters. All my
>> bases are belong to you now.
>
> It is clearly indicated above in plain English.
Like I sad, all my bases are belong to you. ZOMG, you pwned me!!!!1111!!11!!
>>> "that action requires him to use powers
>>> which are not within the capability of a human."
>>>
>>> Or from the earlier discussion "whether refusal to act is just because
>>> acting removes free will of the other person"
>>>
>>>> other than what you claim. I can also come up with a random question,
>>> My point was not random. It was directly related to the false analogy
>>> of - God is either uncaring or impotent becuase God does not prevent
>>> disasters.
>> This, while interesting up to a point, is really a quite irrelevant
>
> n o it isnt it is germane to the discussion and your claim that NO PRINCIPLE
> is asserted in the above discussion!
The discussion, as far as I can tell, was about two things: one - about
this alleged god's involvement in his "creation" and two - whether this
alleged god's son existence is historically accurate but only to the
extent that he was a regular human.
>> issue because in order to even be able to address it, one first has to
>> show some, *any*, evidence for this alleged "God". So far, we've seen
>> none. Until that happens, this "God" is as real as Superman.
>
> You have not been following the discussion this has been dealt with already.
> all Pink Giraffes eat leaves
> Arnold is a pink Giraffe
>
> We can logically conclude Arnold eats leaves whether or not Pink Giraffes
> god or Superman exist!
Like I said, there have been two distinct threads of thought in this
exchange, one barely having to do with another.
Hence, your example is disingenuous.
> The assumption was made by the OTHER poster that IF God exists then God is
> not all powerful or callaus.
A perfectly logical counterclaim considering the believers' claims about
the characteristics of the alleged gods. One would have to be an idiot
not to raise it. However, nothing earth shattering and revolutionary.
This was raised well in the age of the ancient Greek philosophers. What
of it?
>
>
> There were several logical fallacies in that reasoning which have been
> pointed out.
No, there weren't. The Epicurus' trillema is quite elementary and no
amount of hand waving by Christians or any other religionists about
"free will" can put it under the rug.
>>>> say "Could Jesus also deflect bullets fired at him from modern firearms
>>>> and, if so, why couldn't he deflect primitive rusty nails and thorns?",
>>>> then call it the question of principle.
>>> If he was in fact God he COULD and he could also turn stones into bread.
>>> But the very point is HE DIDNT - WHY didnt he?
>>> Because the point is twofold
>>> 1. He didnt act in a way which other humans could not emulate
>> Then why did he multiply the fish, heal [some] blind people, resurrect
>> [some] dead people and himself, iow he acted in a way which other humans
>> could not emulate?
>
> Other humans apparently COULD and DID perform miracles!
1. You said "he didn't act in a way which other humans could not
emulate", not me.
2. You actually believe that people can and do perform deeds that go
against every physical law that is known to us?
> And Jesus Christ according to the stroy never did these things for his own
> personal gain but as charitable acts.
How is that relevant? Superman did, too.
>>> 2. Because God does not intervene does not therefore mean God is callous.
>> No, it means that he does not exist.
>
> No it DOES NOT! If you do not intervene does that mean you do not exist?
Read Christians' claims about their alleged god's omnipotence and
benevolence, then insert into the Epicurus' trillema.
>> Not because of any of this academic logic, but because there is zero
>> evidence for his existence and overwhelming evidence that there is nothing
>> even remotely similar to what you call God.
>
> Really?
Yes.
> What do you mean by "evidence"?
??? Are you serious?
> And where did I define God?
I don't know. How is that relevant? We are talking Yahweh/Jesus, the
Christian god, aren't we? He's well defined elsewhere.
>>>>>> If you don't beat your meat
>>>>>> You can't have any pudding
>>>>>> How can you have any pudding
>>>>>> If you don't beat your meat?
>>>>> Given this week is the anniversary of the Wall coming down.
>>>>> I think the Pink floyd quote is a misquote. The correct word is "eat"!
>>>> It's a free country - you do what makes you happy with your meat and
>>>> I'll do what makes me happy with mine.
>>> But the quote is a MISQUOTE! it should be "eat your meat"
>> Call the quote police.
>
> Id prefer if you actually used proper english and didnt distort what people
> stated.
And I'd prefer to be the king of the world, but it's not happening any
time soon.
>>> WHERE is a free country?
>> You got a point there. Nowhere, really.
>
> Where is this "nowhere" place?
In the Beatles song.
> If one can be free in thios nowhere place then care to give me directions?
Sure, go ten miles south, turn right, hang on to your left, make a sharp
left when you see a bait shop, then go fuck yourself.
Mavisbeacon
is Misquoting the words "AND HISTORY"
> as evidence for the alleged historicity of Jesus makes as much sense as
> quoting "scholars" of any parochial human endeavor on anything.
> Iow, I can find you serious and academically credentialed "scholars"
Bullshit! It is unlikely you can produce ANY historical scholars with the
credentials of Crossan or Price!
The Price position, put forward works such as the 2005 documentary The God
Who Wasn't There, is very rare among Historians and Bible scholars.
>who can likewise "prove" Mohammed's claims, phrenology, white race
>supremacy, Arianism, existence of ghosts and extraterrestrial aliens,
>homeopathy, crystal healing, spoon bending, etc.
No you can't! I doubt you can provide one single paper in a peer reviewed
journal which attests to any of thoise things except perhaps the claim about
Mohammad who also has a historicity!
>
> If you have actual evidence for the existence of Jesus, i.e. anything
> other than what's been written in the Gospels, present it here:
I did!
Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave
(New York: Doubleday, Anchor Bible Reference Library 1994), p. 964; D. A.
Carson, et al., p. 50-56; Shaye J.D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the
Mishnah, Westminster Press, 1987, p. 78, 93, 105, 108; John Dominic Crossan,
The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant,
HarperCollins, 1991, p. xi-xiii; Michael Grant, p. 34-35, 78, 166, 200;
Paula Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, Alfred A. Knopf,
1999, p. 6-7, 105-110, 232-234, 266; John P. Meier, vol. 1:68, 146, 199,
278, 386, 2:726; E.P. Sanders, pp. 12-13; Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew
(Philadelphia: Fortress Press 1973), p. 37.; Paul L. Maier, In the Fullness
of Time, Kregel, 1991, pp. 1, 99, 121, 171; N. T. Wright, The Meaning of
Jesus: Two Visions, HarperCollins, 1998, pp. 32, 83, 100-102, 222; Ben
Witherington III, pp. 12-20.
G�za Vermes is a British scholar of Jewish Hungarian origin and writer on
religious history, particularly Jewish and Christian. He is a noted
authority on the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient works in Aramaic, and on
the life and religion of Jesus. Some describe him as the greatest Jesus
scholar of his time
Outside the Gospels there are other Biblical writings:
The Acts of the apostles and various epistles.
Then there are non Biblical writings Gnostic and apocryphal tests.
Then there are Early Christian sources outside the New Testament also
mention Jesus and details of his life. Important texts from the Apostolic
Fathers are, to name just the most significant and ancient, Clement of Rome
(c. 100), Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107-110),[and Justin Martyr.
Perhaps the most significant Patristic sources are the early references of
Papias and Quadratus (d. 124), mostly reported by Eusebius in the fourth
century, which both mention eyewitnesses of Jesus' ministry and healings who
were still alive in their own time (the late first century).
There are passages relevant to Christianity in the works of four major
non-Christian writers of the late 1st and early 2nd centuries - Josephus,
Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger. However, these are generally
references to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus. Mind you if
Christians follow christ they must have believed in Jesus being Christ.
Mara was a Syrian Stoic. While imprisoned by the Romans, Mara wrote a letter
to his son that includes the following text --
For what benefit did the Athenians obtain by putting Socrates to death,
seeing that they received as retribution for it famine and pestilence? Or
the people of Samos by the burning of Pythagoras, seeing that in one hour
the whole of their country was covered with sand? Or the Jews by the murder
of their Wise King, seeing that from that very time their kingdom was driven
away from them? For with justice did God grant a recompense to the wisdom of
all three of them. For the Athenians died by famine; and the people of Samos
were covered by the sea without remedy; and the Jews, brought to desolation
and expelled from their kingdom, are driven away into every land. Nay,
Socrates did "not" die, because of Plato; nor yet Pythagoras, because of the
statue of Hera; nor yet the Wise King, because of the new laws which he
enacted. [//http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.ix.xvii.html
There is one reference to Thallus having written about events beyond 109 BC.
Julius Africanus, writing c. 221, while writing about the crucifixion of
Jesus, mentioned Thallus. Thus:
On the whole world there pressed a most fearful darkness; and the rocks
were rent by an earthquake, and many places in Judea and other districts
were thrown down. This darkness Thallus, in his third book of History, calls
(as appears to me without reason) an eclipse of the sun.[109]
Lucian, a second century Romano-Syrian satirist, who wrote in Greek, wrote:
The Christians, you know, worship a man to this day - the distinguished
personage who introduced their novel rites, and was crucified on that
account. You see, these misguided creatures start with the general
conviction that they are immortal for all time, which explains the contempt
of death and voluntary self-devotion which are so common among them; and
then it was impressed on them by their original lawgiver that they are all
brothers, from the moment that they are converted, and deny the gods of
Greece, and worship the crucified sage, and live after his laws
Irenaeus, according to Robert McQueen Grant (Professor of New Testament and
Early Christianity, The University of Chicago), not only claimed that Jesus
was at least 49 years old when he was crucified in Book 2 Chapter 22
paragraph 6 of Against Heresies but expressly made Pontius Pilate governor
under Claudius Caesar (41-54) in paragraph 74 of his Demonstration Grant
points out "if he lived to be forty or fifty, the crucifixion had to have
take place under Caligula (37-41) or Claudius (41-54)" but explains that
"Irenaeus is unduly concerned with his speculative point about ages"[Celsus
wrote, about 180, a book against the Christians, which is now only known
through Origen's refutation of it. Celsus apparently accused Jesus of being
a child and a sorcerer and is quoted as saying that Jesus was a "mere man".
Celsus wrote, about 180, a book against the Christians, which is now only
known through Origen's refutation of it. Celsus apparently accused Jesus of
being a child and a sorcerer and is quoted as saying that Jesus was a "mere
man".
The Acts of Pilate is purportedly an official document from Pilate reporting
events in Judea to the Emperor Tiberius (thus, it would have been among the
commentaii principis). It was mentioned by Justin Martyr, in his First
Apology (c. 150) to Antoninus Pius, Marcus Aurelius, and Lucius Verus. He
said that his claims concerning Jesus' crucifixion, and some miracles, could
be verified by referencing the official record, the "Acts of Pontius
Pilate". With the exception of Tertullian, no other writer is known to have
mentioned the work, and Tertullian's reference says that Tiberius debated
the details of Jesus' life before the Roman Senate, an event that is almost
universally considered absurd. There is a later apocryphal text, undoubtedly
fanciful, by the same name, and though it is generally thought to have been
inspired by Justin's reference (and thus to post-date his Apology), it is
possible that Justin actually mentioned this text, though that would give
the work an unusually early date and therefore is not a straightforward
identification.
All the above from wikipedia with over 100 back up references.
then there are Jewish records
It is a valid academic field and you can scarcely argue Socrates or
Alexander has more evidence!
>
> _______________________________________________________________
> _______________________________________________________________
> _______________________________________________________________
>
>
>>>> There is as much or more historicity and articacts for a carpenters Son
>>>> two thousand years ago then for example there is for Alexander the
>>>> Great or Socrates exiating as people in history about 300 years before
>>>> that.
>>> What's that got to do with anything?
>>
>> Well you believe Alexander the Great or socrates existed don't you?
>
> Their existence is well documented in several independent sources
LOL! REally? WHAT independent sources?
You are the one asking for evidence for Christ in history and I have
provided sources to over ahundred references of all sorts of writers and
accuts from the time of Jesus.
What doccument do you have showing the independent accounts of Alexander or
socrates written whn they were alive or written by historians withing fifty
years of them dying?
>and most importantly, there is nothing extraordinary about the existence of
>warlords and philosophers.
Wher is your evidece for the existance of Alexander the Great or Socrates?
>Jesus, otoh, is claimed to be a deity's offspring slash deity himself.
WRONG! the historicity of Jesus is about the existance of a man in history.
The CHRIST element is a different thing. whether or not the man was also God
is a DIFFERENT ISSUE to whether the man existed in history!
People believed alexander the Great was a God. Does that mean if he was not
a God that he didn't exist?
>This, according to the only source of his existence - the Bible. There is
>no other source.
Wrong! You have been shown several above!
Wher is your source for the existance of Alexander or Socrates?
>
>>> There may be historicity and artifacts for hundreds of carpenters' sons,
>>> but that is beside the point.
>>
>> Nope. We are discussing Jesus of Nazereth the person written about in the
>> Bible.
>> Not just any Carpenters son! and there is not to my knowledge much else
>> about any other carpenters sons from Nazareth about 2000 years ago!
>
> And? Where, other than in the Bible, which is proven to be as reliable
> record of history as The Lord Of The rings, is your evidence for this
> alleged son of an ancient Jewish tribe god?
Lord of the Rings mentions NOTHING about ancient history!
The Bible does!
But the other non biblical evidence is above!
Where is your evidence for Socrates?
>
>>
>>> The Bible and consequently all of Christianity rests on the claim that
>>> Jesus was an offspring of a deity,
>>
>>
>> But that is NOT the issue you raised! The deity of christ and THE
>> HISTORICITY OF JESUS are two DIFFERENT subjects.
>> The exiostance of a MAN Jesus rather than an imaginary fictional
>> charachter is the issue your raised and NOT the claim that that man was
>> also God!
>
> The issue cannot be separated
Yes it CAN! YOUR CLAIM that no such historical fugure existed is less likely
then Socrates or alexander not existing.
>because the Bible is the *only* "document" about Jesus' existence.
No it isnt! ther are a plethora of texts aboivein addition to the wide
Biblical references in different books.
>Therefore, if you want to rely on the Bible, you have to take all of its
>claims equally and since the Bible claims Jesus' divine origin,
No. aprochycal and gnostic texts make heretical claims like Jesus being man.
IF you knew about eARLY HErSIES YOU WOULD BE AWARE OF THAT.
>this is inseparable from the issue of his historicity.
No it isnt! LOL! You sound like a theologian who argued on monism and
materialism!
> Btw, the Bible has been caught in obvious lies hundreds of times,
Btw that is an unsupported throwaway phrase and not elated in any way to the
CLAIM YOU MADE about Jesus not existing in history!
>so pretty much anything that is written there is subject to scrutiny, if
>not outright ridicule.
I spite of you being unsupported and wrong you can even leave the Bible
aside and you still have a plethora of historical references above!
>Therefore, to insist that somehow the claim that Jesus was a real person
>(while even Paul is not much sure about that) is credible, while putting
>aside the laughable claim about his divinity, is to make a mockery of the
>whole process of unwrapping history.
Your reasoning is based on
1. the Bible being the only source and
2. The Bible being treated as not referring to history if it claims
divinity.
so a poersian text saying that a God alexander came is also NOT evidence for
Alexander? LOL!
>
>>> not some dime-a-dozen son of a carpenter.
>>
>> But you have not other historical evidence for dozens of other carpenters
>> sons from Nazareth at that time do you?
>
> Why would it be needed?
Because you claimed "dime a dozen carperter"
>There is no dispute that thousands of people used to be carpenters and most
>of them had sons. What is so extraordinary about that?
It is extraordinary that there was more then one Jesus the carpenters son
from Nazareth at that time.
>>
>>
>>> That is what the Bible claims.
>>
>> But WHAT THE BIBLE CLAIMS is not the issue! The issue YOU raised was
>> about jesus being a fictional charachter. there is aas much evidence for
>> him than for other people that you accept existede and he was only a
>> carpenters sonm whereas the others may have been the greatest
>> philosophers of all times opr the Greatest Military rulers.
>
> Where is this evidence you so loudly trumpet?
I posted the reference to it and I reposted some of it above.
>Post here any evidence that does not come from the Bible (listing Wikipedia
>names doesn't cut it):
I posted the article title And I didnt just list names I listed the Major
publications claiming Historicity for Jesus and the books from which they
came and the page numbers in those books wher the claims were made!
>
> ______________________________________________________________________
> ______________________________________________________________________
>
>>
>>
>>> If you are trying to say that Jesus could have been just a human being
>>> with no divine characteristics whatsoever, then who gives a shit?
>>
>> Apparently YOU since YOU RAUISED THE ISSUE of Jesus being a fictional
>> charachter! I only pointed out unlike superman there is a historicity to
>> Jesus as a real person.
>
> Where is it, then?
I posted spome of it above!
Wher is YOUR EVIDENCE for Socrates or Alexander?
>And, more importantly, why is his actual existence to be believed and his
>divinity put aside, if not denied?
Because YOU CLAIMED something sabout Jesus not existing in history!
>What is the point of cherry-picking the Bible?
As I showed you you can leave out the Bible altogether! The is still more
evidence!
>
>>
>>> That, if anything, disproves the biblical claims.
>>
>> Actually NO it doesnt but it would be a heretical claim. But that is a
>> DIFFERENT ISSUE!
>
> Everything is a different issue to you.
No a heretical claim of Jesus existing but not being God would be published
but the Church would not acept such a claim. They would regard such claims
as heresy and such wriotings would not be allowed intot eh Bible. they would
become heretical or Apocrypohal works OUTSIDE OF the Bible!
>There is only one issue: you claim that Jesus existed, you provide the
>evidence.
No I siddnt! I claimed that there is ahistoricioty to Jesus and probably
more evidence for Jesus than for socrates or Alexander.
>The Bible doesn't count as evidence due to well documented facts about how,
>when and by whom it was written.
Actually it DOES count as evidence but even leaving it aside ther are non
Biblical references.
>You need a supporting source. Name one.
I stopped at reference 128 above!
>
>>
>>>> Superman on the other hand is a contemporary comic book charachter.
>>> Give it a few hundred years of memetics and some clever propaganda
>>> enforced by genocide and Superman can just as well become a person whose
>>> "historicity and artifacts" are indisputable.
>>
>>
>> Memetics itself is disputable.
>
> Really? How do you think religions, superstitions, fashion fads, music
> trends, cultural developments, societal changes, etc, get started?
Seperate issue. If you are claiming that it is explained by memetics the
field has had problems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Memetics
Luis Benitez-Bribiesca, a critic of memetics, calls it "a pseudoscientific
dogma" and "a dangerous idea that poses a threat to the serious study of
conciousness and cultural evolution" among other things. As factual
criticism, he refers to the lack of a code script for memes, as the DNA is
for genes, and to the fact that the meme mutation mechanism (i.e., an idea
going from one brain to another) is too unstable (low replication accuracy
and high mutation rate), which would render the evolutionary process
chaotic.[3]
Another critique comes from semiotics, (e.g., Deacon[4], Kull[5]) stating
that the concept of meme is a primitivized concept of Sign. Meme is thus
described in memetics as a sign without its triadic nature. In other words,
meme is a degenerate sign, which includes only its ability of being copied.
Accordingly, in the broadest sense, the objects of copying are memes,
whereas the objects of translation and interpretation are signs.
> Memetics is what makes us humans.
So you seem to believe? That come from the Bible of Dawkings did it?
>
>> Dawkings has abandoned it and the Academic Journal is not in publication
>> anymore!
>> If you believe in memetics you believe in a false science.
>
> Sure, whatever gets you through the night.
It is pseudo science and an unsupperted belief according to Bribiesca!
>
>>> Look at Scientology and Mormonism.
>>
>> What should I? I diodnt make any claims abut them or about Jesus being
>> God! YOU introduced that red herring.
>
> No, the Bible and every Christian on the face of the Earth did.
If Christians believe Christ is god that as NOTHING to do with the academic
field of study about Jesus existing!
Likewise Christians dint believe Mohammad was a prophet but that does not
mean they do not believe Mohammad never existed!
>I simply say that there is no extra-biblical evidence for the existence of
>Jesus.
Thee is! It is above!
> Period. Therefore, why should we take his alleged existence for granted?
> Sure, they may have been a person called Jesus in Galilee some time in the
> first century who happened to be a son of a carpenter. What about it?
WEll above you said no such person existed!
The Bible doesn't claim that - it goes way further in the claim.
> To insist on your position is to insist that the historicity of Superman
> is real. And, using your method, it is. There is a man in Malaysia whose
> name is Superman. I've seen it on the Internet. Therefore, according to
> your criteria, Superman exists.
>
>>
>>>>> their alleged characteristics and the methods those characters would
>>>>> employ as a response to certain physical stimuli.
>>>> I have no idea what you mean by the above.
>>> Not my fault.
>>
>> It is you seem incapable of using coherent English and a tenjdency to
>> slide into waffle qand gobbledigook with pseudo scientific leanings.
>
[snip ]
No it isnt! God could be limited in power but even assuming all powerful
that does not imply that failure to use power asises out of not caring.
> One would have to be an idiot not to raise it. However, nothing earth
> shattering and revolutionary. This was raised well in the age of the
> ancient Greek philosophers. What of it?
>>
>>
>> There were several logical fallacies in that reasoning which have been
>> pointed out.
>
> No, there weren't. The Epicurus' trillema is quite elementary and no
> amount of hand waving by Christians or any other religionists about "free
> will" can put it under the rug.
a god might not be all powerful
Allowing something might not be evil.
>
>>>>> say "Could Jesus also deflect bullets fired at him from modern
>>>>> firearms and, if so, why couldn't he deflect primitive rusty nails and
>>>>> thorns?", then call it the question of principle.
>>>> If he was in fact God he COULD and he could also turn stones into
>>>> bread.
>>>> But the very point is HE DIDNT - WHY didnt he?
>>>> Because the point is twofold
>>>> 1. He didnt act in a way which other humans could not emulate
>>> Then why did he multiply the fish, heal [some] blind people, resurrect
>>> [some] dead people and himself, iow he acted in a way which other humans
>>> could not emulate?
>>
>> Other humans apparently COULD and DID perform miracles!
>
> 1. You said "he didn't act in a way which other humans could not emulate",
> not me.
> 2. You actually believe that people can and do perform deeds that go
> against every physical law that is known to us?
What I believe is beside the point. whether Jesus being Christ and having
God powers performing miracles is consistant with the use of power only to
help others is the point.
>
>> And Jesus Christ according to the stroy never did these things for his
>> own personal gain but as charitable acts.
>
> How is that relevant? Superman did, too.
Yes if Superman used his powers for self gain (and his does sometimes to
keep his identity hidden) then he would not be altruistic.
And dont tell me Superman is fictionl! Jesus ISNT! If you care claiming
Jesus the man is also God that might be fictiuon but you are making a claim
about the MAN!
>
>>>> 2. Because God does not intervene does not therefore mean God is
>>>> callous.
>>> No, it means that he does not exist.
>>
>> No it DOES NOT! If you do not intervene does that mean you do not exist?
>
> Read Christians' claims about their alleged god's omnipotence and
> benevolence, then insert into the Epicurus' trillema.
But you are back to claiming Jesus is God! The original claim by you was not
that Jesus is not god but that the MAN never existed!
You are conflating Christology with Historicity of Jesus.
>
>>> Not because of any of this academic logic, but because there is zero
>>> evidence for his existence and overwhelming evidence that there is
>>> nothing even remotely similar to what you call God.
>>
>> Really?
>
> Yes.
>
>> What do you mean by "evidence"?
>
> ??? Are you serious?
Yes what sort of evidence would you want?
HAve you scientific evidence for Love?
What are the SI units involved?
What evidence do you have that the Mona Lisa is a good painting?
Can you prove a song is good or a sunset is beautiful?
>> And where did I define God?
>
> I don't know. How is that relevant? We are talking Yahweh/Jesus, the
> Christian god, aren't we? He's well defined elsewhere.
No. YOU CLAIMED about what I call god. Where did I call Jesus God?
I pointed out about historicity of Jesus - NOTHING TO DO with whether he was
god or not!
>
>>>>>>> If you don't beat your meat
>>>>>>> You can't have any pudding
>>>>>>> How can you have any pudding
>>>>>>> If you don't beat your meat?
>>>>>> Given this week is the anniversary of the Wall coming down.
>>>>>> I think the Pink floyd quote is a misquote. The correct word is
>>>>>> "eat"!
>>>>> It's a free country - you do what makes you happy with your meat and
>>>>> I'll do what makes me happy with mine.
>>>> But the quote is a MISQUOTE! it should be "eat your meat"
>>> Call the quote police.
>>
>> Id prefer if you actually used proper english and didnt distort what
>> people stated.
>
> And I'd prefer to be the king of the world, but it's not happening any
> time soon.
Ironically you justy also misquoted the only existing contemporary writing I
am aware of from alexander the Great.
Wher is your evidence for him or socrates?
>
>>>> WHERE is a free country?
>>> You got a point there. Nowhere, really.
>>
>> Where is this "nowhere" place?
>
> In the Beatles song.
I am attempting to point out the inablility to conceive "nothing".
Mitchell Holman
news:dbacb$4af85cbd$bc8d1d47$28...@news.upc.ie:
>
> "Puck Greenman" <dubh_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:q0fgf55ca66vmm3an...@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 23:24:22 -0000, "Mavisbeacon"
>> <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>
>>
>> How does this god, which has the knowledge and the power to prevent
>> natural disasters, and
>> injustices, NOT intervene, and still be all those good things which
>> christians claim for
>> it?
>
> I think I already answered that. Intervention may remove free will.
How is "free will" removed by God not causing
a tsunami to strike a populated shoreline?
> Also it isnt the not intervening impliues not caring position you
> paint.
If God cares about innocent life why does he
do nothing as thousands of innocents die needlessly?
Mavisbeacon
> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
> news:dbacb$4af85cbd$bc8d1d47$28...@news.upc.ie:
>
>>
>> "Puck Greenman" <dubh_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:q0fgf55ca66vmm3an...@4ax.com...
>>> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 23:24:22 -0000, "Mavisbeacon"
>>> <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> How does this god, which has the knowledge and the power to prevent
>>> natural disasters, and
>>> injustices, NOT intervene, and still be all those good things which
>>> christians claim for
>>> it?
>>
>> I think I already answered that. Intervention may remove free will.
>
>
> How is "free will" removed by God not causing
> a tsunami to strike a populated shoreline?
In the general case freedom may be removed by intervention.
As to the specific case - there are countless science fiction stories and
movies which enable someone to go back and change the past only to find out
that "fixing things" caused unexpected consequences.
>
>
>> Also it isnt the not intervening impliues not caring position you
>> paint.
>
>
> If God cares about innocent life why does he
> do nothing as thousands of innocents die needlessly?
Well this is much the same question.
And the standard answers are:
1. He does not always do nothing.
2. He has equipped humans with the ability to do something for themselves
and wont intervene to remove that ability.
And the statement is loaded since you assume "innocent" and "needless" death
Are ALL the people whio die in a disaster innocent? Is there no one in the
whole of history you think needed to die?
Mitchell Holman
news:57880$4afa8432$bc8d1d47$13...@news.upc.ie:
>
> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CBFB637C5664...@216.196.97.130...
>> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
>> news:dbacb$4af85cbd$bc8d1d47$28...@news.upc.ie:
>>
>>>
>>> "Puck Greenman" <dubh_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:q0fgf55ca66vmm3an...@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 23:24:22 -0000, "Mavisbeacon"
>>>> <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> How does this god, which has the knowledge and the power to prevent
>>>> natural disasters, and
>>>> injustices, NOT intervene, and still be all those good things which
>>>> christians claim for
>>>> it?
>>>
>>> I think I already answered that. Intervention may remove free will.
>>
>>
>> How is "free will" removed by God not causing
>> a tsunami to strike a populated shoreline?
>
>
> In the general case freedom may be removed by intervention.
What does "freedom" have to do with natural disasters?
> As to the specific case - there are countless science fiction stories
> and movies which enable someone to go back and change the past only to
> find out that "fixing things" caused unexpected consequences.
You are using bad sci-fi plot devices to justify
your religion?
Wow.
>
>>
>>
>>> Also it isnt the not intervening impliues not caring position you
>>> paint.
>>
>>
>> If God cares about innocent life why does he
>> do nothing as thousands of innocents die needlessly?
>
> Well this is much the same question.
>
> And the standard answers are:
>
> 1. He does not always do nothing.
Either he wants disasters to happen or
he is powerless to stop them. Which is it?
> 2. He has equipped humans with the ability to do something for
> themselves and wont intervene to remove that ability.
What are humans supposed to "do" about natural disasters?
>
>
> And the statement is loaded since you assume "innocent" and "needless"
> death
You are the one who brought up "free will".
What does "free will" have to do with natural disasters?
> Are ALL the people whio die in a disaster innocent?
Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
What are the victims of natural disasters guilty of?
> Is there no one in
> the whole of history you think needed to die?
Which victims of natural disasters "need" to die?
Alan Ford
Not really, but it really has no bearing on your claim that Jesus not
only existed, but contrary to the *only* (however dubious) source about
his existence was not of a divine origin.
> The Price position, put forward works such as the 2005 documentary The God
> Who Wasn't There, is very rare among Historians and Bible scholars.
What does that have to do with anything? I asked for evidence for the
existence of Jesus. Therefore:
1. Since the Bible is the sole source of his existence, in order to
confirm this, other contemporary sources must be provided. Not only do
they not exist, but even the New Testament is known to have been written
considerably after Jesus' alleged existence.
2. Since the original biblical claim is that he was of a divine origin,
even more detailed evidence of his alleged existence *and* divinity is
to be provided. None exist.
3. His existence and his divinity cannot be separated, i.e. by claiming
that some person named Jesus existed some time in the 1st century Judea,
that he dabbled in carpentry and preaching, but that he was just a man,
is a banal claim - it would be like claiming that some guy named Joe who
was a plumber and talked some shit about politics existed in the 21st
century USA. It is a banal claim and does nothing.
>
>> who can likewise "prove" Mohammed's claims, phrenology, white race
>> supremacy, Arianism, existence of ghosts and extraterrestrial aliens,
>> homeopathy, crystal healing, spoon bending, etc.
>
>
> No you can't! I doubt you can provide one single paper in a peer reviewed
> journal which attests to any of thoise things except perhaps the claim about
> Mohammad who also has a historicity!
Like I said, by your standard of "evidence", all one has to do is print
out a whole list of so-called "experts" and their "works" which is then
somehow magically supposed to prove the claim. I don't know how, I
suppose because some of those people even have degrees and know how to
use a typewriter.
>
>> If you have actual evidence for the existence of Jesus, i.e. anything
>> other than what's been written in the Gospels, present it here:
>
> I did!
>
> Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave
> (New York: Doubleday, Anchor Bible Reference Library 1994), p. 964; D. A.
> Carson, et al., p. 50-56; Shaye J.D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the
> Mishnah, Westminster Press, 1987, p. 78, 93, 105, 108; John Dominic Crossan,
> The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish Peasant,
> HarperCollins, 1991, p. xi-xiii; Michael Grant, p. 34-35, 78, 166, 200;
> Paula Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, Alfred A. Knopf,
> 1999, p. 6-7, 105-110, 232-234, 266; John P. Meier, vol. 1:68, 146, 199,
> 278, 386, 2:726; E.P. Sanders, pp. 12-13; Geza Vermes, Jesus the Jew
> (Philadelphia: Fortress Press 1973), p. 37.; Paul L. Maier, In the Fullness
> of Time, Kregel, 1991, pp. 1, 99, 121, 171; N. T. Wright, The Meaning of
> Jesus: Two Visions, HarperCollins, 1998, pp. 32, 83, 100-102, 222; Ben
> Witherington III, pp. 12-20.
When I say evidence, I don't mean some bullshit dreamed up 2000 years
later based on wishful thinking and "knowing in one's heart", but
contemporary documents from extra-biblical sources confirming at least
something about Jesus, his life and his "works" (whatever the hell it
was he was supposed to have done). None exist.
>
> G�za Vermes is a British scholar of Jewish Hungarian origin and writer on
> religious history, particularly Jewish and Christian. He is a noted
> authority on the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient works in Aramaic, and on
> the life and religion of Jesus. Some describe him as the greatest Jesus
> scholar of his time
Yawn.
>
> Outside the Gospels there are other Biblical writings:
>
> The Acts of the apostles and various epistles.
>
> Then there are non Biblical writings Gnostic and apocryphal tests.
All written way after the fact, much like the Gospels that, by a Nicean
decree, happened to be officially sanctioned as "holy", i.e. included in
the Bible.
>
> Then there are Early Christian sources outside the New Testament also
> mention Jesus and details of his life. Important texts from the Apostolic
> Fathers are, to name just the most significant and ancient, Clement of Rome
> (c. 100), Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107-110),[and Justin Martyr.
>
> Perhaps the most significant Patristic sources are the early references of
> Papias and Quadratus (d. 124), mostly reported by Eusebius in the fourth
> century, which both mention eyewitnesses of Jesus' ministry and healings who
> were still alive in their own time (the late first century).
On the same level of relevance as all your 20th century authors you
mentioned above. Iow, not contemporary, therefore not evidence. At that
time, Christianity was a well established religion and some people wrote
about it and about its alleged messiah. Centuries later.
>
> There are passages relevant to Christianity in the works of four major
> non-Christian writers of the late 1st and early 2nd centuries - Josephus,
> Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger. However, these are generally
> references to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus.
Right. Just like pretty much all of the sources you mention. All of
describe Christians, none of them are contemporary, none are relevant to
establishing Jesus' existence.
> Mind you if
> Christians follow christ they must have believed in Jesus being Christ.
And? How is that different from any other believer in anything else?
Belief in something is not evidence for it.
>
> Mara was a Syrian Stoic. While imprisoned by the Romans, Mara wrote a letter
> to his son that includes the following text --
>
> For what benefit did the Athenians obtain by putting Socrates to death,
> seeing that they received as retribution for it famine and pestilence? Or
> the people of Samos by the burning of Pythagoras, seeing that in one hour
> the whole of their country was covered with sand? Or the Jews by the murder
> of their Wise King, seeing that from that very time their kingdom was driven
> away from them? For with justice did God grant a recompense to the wisdom of
> all three of them. For the Athenians died by famine; and the people of Samos
> were covered by the sea without remedy; and the Jews, brought to desolation
> and expelled from their kingdom, are driven away into every land. Nay,
> Socrates did "not" die, because of Plato; nor yet Pythagoras, because of the
> statue of Hera; nor yet the Wise King, because of the new laws which he
> enacted. [//http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.ix.xvii.html
??? This you consider evidence for Jesus' existence? You have now
officially scraped off the entire bottom of the barrel and are now
scraping the concrete floor.
Yet, strangely, no contemporary Roman sources about the existence (life,
prosecution, trial, execution, aftermath) of this crucial figure in
history exist. That, even though there are plenty of Roman authors whose
writings from the time have survived and even though Roman records from
the time are fairly complete. That, even though biblical claims detail
enough post-crucifixion miracles to choke a camel.
> then there are Jewish records
Where? About Jesus?
>
> It is a valid academic field and you can scarcely argue Socrates or
> Alexander has more evidence!
It may be a "valid academic field" but it hardly has any evidence, other
than a lot of speculation, rumor, gossip, third-hand testimonials, myths
and so on, all of it written way after the fact, the New Testament
included. Just like any other religion and its own creator/messiah
mythology.
>
>
>> _______________________________________________________________
>> _______________________________________________________________
>> _______________________________________________________________
>>
>>
>>>>> There is as much or more historicity and articacts for a carpenters Son
>>>>> two thousand years ago then for example there is for Alexander the
>>>>> Great or Socrates exiating as people in history about 300 years before
>>>>> that.
>>>> What's that got to do with anything?
>>> Well you believe Alexander the Great or socrates existed don't you?
>> Their existence is well documented in several independent sources
>
> LOL! REally? WHAT independent sources?
>
> You are the one asking for evidence for Christ in history and I have
> provided sources to over ahundred references of all sorts of writers and
> accuts from the time of Jesus.
>
> What doccument do you have showing the independent accounts of Alexander or
> socrates written whn they were alive or written by historians withing fifty
> years of them dying?
So now it's my turn to cut and paste from Wikipedia? Is this how it's done?
>
>
>> and most importantly, there is nothing extraordinary about the existence of
>> warlords and philosophers.
>
>
> Wher is your evidece for the existance of Alexander the Great or Socrates?
Wikipedia, where else.
>
>
>> Jesus, otoh, is claimed to be a deity's offspring slash deity himself.
>
> WRONG! the historicity of Jesus is about the existance of a man in history.
> The CHRIST element is a different thing. whether or not the man was also God
> is a DIFFERENT ISSUE to whether the man existed in history!
So you keep saying, but your claim is retarded because it goes against
the original (the Bible) which clearly states that Jesus was divine and
proceeds to list dozens of events that make no sense whatsoever if he
was not. Hence the miracles, the sacrifice, the resurrection, the
aftermath, the prophecies and so on. The Bible most emphatically does
not describe a life of a simple carpenter who just talked some shit and
died.
>
> People believed alexander the Great was a God. Does that mean if he was not
> a God that he didn't exist?
If the only source of his existence claimed his divinity, based its
entire narrative on it, claimed miracles, alleged his entire existence
and his death as some sort of a divine plan for redemption, described
extraordinary supernatural events that were not even mentioned by anyone
else at the time anywhere, and if that source was known to have been
written centuries after the fact and in addition, was full of other
obvious falsities, lies and misrepresentations, then yes, chances are he
didn't exist.
That's how myths work. How is that even surprising?
>
>
>> This, according to the only source of his existence - the Bible. There is
>> no other source.
>
> Wrong! You have been shown several above!
You've shown nothing other than stuff written way after the time he
allegedly lived. Not evidence.
>
> Wher is your source for the existance of Alexander or Socrates?
You're right. Surely a warlord and a philosopher didn't exist. A
carpenter who was the son of god, otoh...
>
>
>>>> There may be historicity and artifacts for hundreds of carpenters' sons,
>>>> but that is beside the point.
>>> Nope. We are discussing Jesus of Nazereth the person written about in the
>>> Bible.
>>> Not just any Carpenters son! and there is not to my knowledge much else
>>> about any other carpenters sons from Nazareth about 2000 years ago!
>> And? Where, other than in the Bible, which is proven to be as reliable
>> record of history as The Lord Of The rings, is your evidence for this
>> alleged son of an ancient Jewish tribe god?
>
>
> Lord of the Rings mentions NOTHING about ancient history!
> The Bible does!
Yes, and in many of those times it's flat out wrong, from events that
never happened, never could have happened, to places that didn't exist
at the time, people who didn't exist, "miracles", talking donkeys,
devious snakes, self-multiplying fish, folks living inside whales, every
species of every animal ever from every place on Earth surviving a flood
on a boat, lousy poetry, a long a tiresome list of who begat who, and a
top-ten list du jour of how to live a life if you're a Jew (from how to
handle menstruating women to what to do after you've taken a shit in the
woods).
Iow, the Bible is a poorly cobbled together collections of so many myths
that most of the time it is impossible to tell what the hell's going on,
let alone rely on it as a serious historical document. It's a fucking
joke for any historian who is not bound by his superstition.
>
>
> But the other non biblical evidence is above!
No, it isn't.
> Where is your evidence for Socrates?
Gee, I personally don't have any, but I'll talk to my secretary and I'll
make sure she gets back to you.
>
>
>>>> The Bible and consequently all of Christianity rests on the claim that
>>>> Jesus was an offspring of a deity,
>>>
>>> But that is NOT the issue you raised! The deity of christ and THE
>>> HISTORICITY OF JESUS are two DIFFERENT subjects.
>>> The exiostance of a MAN Jesus rather than an imaginary fictional
>>> charachter is the issue your raised and NOT the claim that that man was
>>> also God!
>> The issue cannot be separated
>
> Yes it CAN! YOUR CLAIM that no such historical fugure existed is less likely
> then Socrates or alexander not existing.
NO, IT CAN'T!!! How about that, I can use caps, too.
>
>
>> because the Bible is the *only* "document" about Jesus' existence.
>
> No it isnt! ther are a plethora of texts aboivein addition to the wide
> Biblical references in different books.
None contemporary, while all the actual contemporary authors are
strangely mum on the subject so huge, that it must be a conspiracy.
>
>
>> Therefore, if you want to rely on the Bible, you have to take all of its
>> claims equally and since the Bible claims Jesus' divine origin,
>
> No. aprochycal and gnostic texts make heretical claims like Jesus being man.
> IF you knew about eARLY HErSIES YOU WOULD BE AWARE OF THAT.
And? Some are even describing him as a snake-god. Was he a snake god, then?
>
>
>> this is inseparable from the issue of his historicity.
>
> No it isnt! LOL! You sound like a theologian who argued on monism and
> materialism!
I am simply going by what the Bible and the Christians claim. I couldn't
give two shits if some fucking carpenter named Yeshua lived in the 1st
century Judea and talked apocalyptic shit. Hell, there were probably
dozens of them, so what. This is as much of evidence for biblical Jesus
as is that guy in Malaysia whose name is Superman for Superman's existence.
>
>
>> Btw, the Bible has been caught in obvious lies hundreds of times,
>
>
> Btw that is an unsupported throwaway phrase and not elated in any way to the
> CLAIM YOU MADE about Jesus not existing in history!
I said that the biblical Jesus never existed in history. Again, chances
are good that some carpenter named Yeshua lived around that time, made a
chair or two and talked stupid shit about the end of the world. However,
this is irrelevant because the Bible isn't a narrative about that dope's
life.
>
>
>> so pretty much anything that is written there is subject to scrutiny, if
>> not outright ridicule.
>
>
> I spite of you being unsupported and wrong you can even leave the Bible
> aside and you still have a plethora of historical references above!
So you keep saying. None contemporary. All contemporary authors - mum.
I'ma be snippin' the rest of this exchange because I have better shit to
do than read the same tired nonsense over and over again. Seacrest out.
--
Patrick
>
> What does that have to do with anything? I asked for evidence for the
> existence of Jesus. Therefore:
>
> 1. Since the Bible is the sole source of his existence, in order to
> confirm this, other contemporary sources must be provided. Not only do
> they not exist, but even the New Testament is known to have been written
> considerably after Jesus' alleged existence.
We have had several instances where the Mother of Jesus has "appeared"
to them. Our Lady of Fatima..... Lady of Lourdes.... etc.
Do you wish to acknowledge these sources?
They exist.
> 2. Since the original biblical claim is that he was of a divine origin,
Please provide some sort of reference with your claim.
Sounds like BS to me.
I don't recall the bible stating: "divine origin."
Did you make that up?
> even more detailed evidence of his alleged existence *and* divinity is to
> be provided. None exist.
That is like stating that Virgil never existed. Merely for the reason that
only paper copies claim he wrote them.
> 3. His existence and his divinity cannot be separated, i.e. by claiming
> that some person named Jesus existed some time in the 1st century Judea,
> that he dabbled in carpentry and preaching, but that he was just a man, is
> a banal claim - it would be like claiming that some guy named Joe who was
> a plumber and talked some shit about politics existed in the 21st century
> USA. It is a banal claim and does nothing.
You don't believe in Joe, the plumber?
Would you like further proof of his existence?
> Like I said, by your standard of "evidence", all one has to do is print
> out a whole list of so-called "experts" and their "works" which is then
> somehow magically supposed to prove the claim. I don't know how, I suppose
> because some of those people even have degrees and know how to use a
> typewriter.
What are you, a "Thomas" who don believe cuz he aint seen it hisself?
WTF do you want?
> On the same level of relevance as all your 20th century authors you
> mentioned above. Iow, not contemporary, therefore not evidence. At that
> time, Christianity was a well established religion and some people wrote
> about it and about its alleged messiah. Centuries later.
So?
WTF do you want?
> no contemporary Roman sources about the existence (life, prosecution,
> trial, execution, aftermath) of this crucial figure in history exist.
> That, even though there are plenty of Roman authors whose writings from
> the time have survived and even though Roman records from the time are
> fairly complete. That, even though biblical claims detail enough
> post-crucifixion miracles to choke a camel.
Contemporary Roman Sources?
What a whiner.
>> then there are Jewish records
>
> Where? About Jesus?
Yeah, didn't you check out the census where Joseph and Mary
went to Bethlehem for the census, and Jesus was born there?
Alan Ford
> "Alan Ford" <zzz...@qqq.net> wrote
>> What does that have to do with anything? I asked for evidence for the
>> existence of Jesus. Therefore:
>>
>> 1. Since the Bible is the sole source of his existence, in order to
>> confirm this, other contemporary sources must be provided. Not only do
>> they not exist, but even the New Testament is known to have been written
>> considerably after Jesus' alleged existence.
>
> We have had several instances where the Mother of Jesus has "appeared"
> to them. Our Lady of Fatima..... Lady of Lourdes.... etc.
> Do you wish to acknowledge these sources?
> They exist.
LOLZ!!!111!11!!!
You forgot Our Lady of the Cheese Sandwich, Virgin Mary in the Office
Building Window, Lady of the Tree Stump, Madre de Dios in a Spicy
Tortilla and many others.
>> 2. Since the original biblical claim is that he was of a divine origin,
>
> Please provide some sort of reference with your claim.
> Sounds like BS to me.
> I don't recall the bible stating: "divine origin."
> Did you make that up?
Huh? Speekie English? Looky "divine" up in a pictionary.
>> even more detailed evidence of his alleged existence *and* divinity is to
>> be provided. None exist.
>
> That is like stating that Virgil never existed. Merely for the reason that
> only paper copies claim he wrote them.
This doesn't parse. Restate.
>> 3. His existence and his divinity cannot be separated, i.e. by claiming
>> that some person named Jesus existed some time in the 1st century Judea,
>> that he dabbled in carpentry and preaching, but that he was just a man, is
>> a banal claim - it would be like claiming that some guy named Joe who was
>> a plumber and talked some shit about politics existed in the 21st century
>> USA. It is a banal claim and does nothing.
>
> You don't believe in Joe, the plumber?
> Would you like further proof of his existence?
Yawn. Like I said, it is a banal claim without much point. Same for
non-divine Jesus. That's not what the Bible says, though. Hence, a need
for evidence.
>> Like I said, by your standard of "evidence", all one has to do is print
>> out a whole list of so-called "experts" and their "works" which is then
>> somehow magically supposed to prove the claim. I don't know how, I suppose
>> because some of those people even have degrees and know how to use a
>> typewriter.
>
> What are you, a "Thomas" who don believe cuz he aint seen it hisself?
> WTF do you want?
No, I'm an "Alan" who don believe cuz he aint seen it hisself. I want a
cookie.
>> On the same level of relevance as all your 20th century authors you
>> mentioned above. Iow, not contemporary, therefore not evidence. At that
>> time, Christianity was a well established religion and some people wrote
>> about it and about its alleged messiah. Centuries later.
>
> So?
> WTF do you want?
You to fuck off.
>
>> no contemporary Roman sources about the existence (life, prosecution,
>> trial, execution, aftermath) of this crucial figure in history exist.
>> That, even though there are plenty of Roman authors whose writings from
>> the time have survived and even though Roman records from the time are
>> fairly complete. That, even though biblical claims detail enough
>> post-crucifixion miracles to choke a camel.
>
> Contemporary Roman Sources?
> What a whiner.
Still here, I see...
>>> then there are Jewish records
>> Where? About Jesus?
>
> Yeah, didn't you check out the census where Joseph and Mary
> went to Bethlehem for the census, and Jesus was born there?
Oh, yeah, I forgot, the census of which there is no record in Roman
archives whatsoever and the one for which Mary, pregnant to the teeth,
had to travel on a donkey some 100 miles, and the one for which Romans,
having a perverse and twisted sense of humor, required people to take
anywhere else but where they actually lived. Yeah, that makes sense.
Puck Greenman
If your arguments are to be taken seriously, and not as mere cynicism, it is the only
conclusion one can draw.
...That you care greatly.
Of course, if you don't...
>>yet when the situation arises whereby you have the ability,
>> and the opportunity, to put your caring into action, you pass by on the
>> other side of the
>> road.
>
>You are assuming intervention is always the best course for the caring
>person.
>You have not proved that.
>
Neither have I asserted it.
But perhaps you would like to suggest a couple of reasons why it would not be.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So what is the point of prayer?
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Do you always answer direct questions with questions about
>>>>>>>>>>> entirely different subjects?
>>>>>>>>>>>c
>>>>>>>>>>> Clearly the opition of God WANTS tragedy to happen isn't the sole
>>>>>>>>>>> option left as you imagine it to be. Is it?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Either God wants tragedy/disease/disasters to happen
>>>>>>>>>> (which makes him malevolent) or he is powerless to stop
>>>>>>>>>> them (which means he is NOT "all-powerful").
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Which is it?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So if you something bad happening like someone slapping a child and
>>>>>>>>> you have the power to stop them and you chose not to that means you
>>>>>>>>> can logically conculde that you must be malevolent and that you
>>>>>>>>> want
>>>>>>>>> the event to happen?
>>>>
>>>> That, or I don't give a damn.
>>>
>>>You just contradicted yoor "YES" above.
>>
>> Reading for comprehension, aint your strong suit, is it, Mavis?
>>
>> It the above scenario, I am the one clouting the kids.
>>
>> How does my not caring if you batter your's, contradict my reply?
>
>
>Because the specific example was of a general case! it makes no difference
>if it is I YOU or any human or God for that matter.
>
>The GENERAL point was about a BEING who can intervene and does not do so!
>
Agreed, an omnipotent, omniscient, omni(everything good), being.
>>
>>>Clearly people may ALLOW others to do wrong because they tolerate them and
>>>don't want to restrict their freedom to cause harm even if harm comes from
>>>allowing others such freedom
>>>
>>
>> But we are discussing a god, and natural disasters, not people.
>
>No we are discussing a PRINCIPLE or non intervention of ANY BEING in general
>who has the power to interven and does not intervene.
>
You might be, but the rest of us, aint.
>
>If you are claiming that "things are different for God"
How can it not be? Omni everything being?
>then the whole point
>you are making falls on its face anyway.
An explanation for that would be interesting.
>
>If you are claiming a GENERAL standard or principle of not caring then yu
>haVE TO ADOPT THAT POSITION.
>
But we are not adopting a *general principle", we are adopting a very specific one, to
wit, the Abrahamic god.
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Are we to take it then, that your god, doesn't give a damn?
>>>
>>>
>>>Where did i say anything about MY god?
>>>
>>
>> That is what we are discussing, that is what all of these silly analogies
>> of your refer
>> to.
>
>No they refer to the PRINCIPLE of noin intervention by ANY being human alien
>God (whether all powerful or just partially super human Zeus for example
>should he exist).
>
>>
>> Or are you trying to change the subject?
>
>
>No it is the principle advanced earlier on that God (or anyone else who can
>intervene to stop disasters happen) is either uncaring or not omnipotent.
>
Not anyone else, just "God".
>>
>>>
>>>I just pointed out about the other false analogy made. Please dont try to
>>>"shift the burden".
>>>That is another fallacy!
>>>
>>
>> Word of advice: Don't use terminology, which you do not understand.
>
>Look up "shift the burden" ! I didnt bring up the principle did I?
>
>>
>> That includes all assertions to fallacies, and references to logic.
>
>I think you would do beter to address the argument about the above
>porinciple in a logical manner than deign to hand out advice on reasoning.
>y
...And you would be wrong.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Evasion noted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The analogy id FALSE! Look up "excluded middle" . It is a fallacy!
>>>>
>>>> Binary propositions, are not always fallacies.
>>>
>>>True.
>>>Assuming this one is not IS a fallacy!
>
>I assume you understand that logic!
>
I don't even know what it says.
It lacks both logic, and grammar.
>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The christian churches propose a god which is all powerful, all
>>>> knowing,
>>>> all loving, all
>>>> caring, all sweetness and light, etc, etc.
>>>
>>>Yes so?
>>>
>>>>
>>>> How does this god, which has the knowledge and the power to prevent
>>>> natural disasters, and
>>>> injustices, NOT intervene, and still be all those good things which
>>>> christians claim for
>>>> it?
>>>
>>>I think I already answered that.
>>
>> I do not recall reading that.
>
>I do.
>Look up "argument from ignorance" while you are at it.
>
It would be more educational for *you* to look it up.
Clue:The argument from ignorance, is an argument by lack of imagination, or negative
evidence, it is a logical fallacy in which it is claimed that a premise is true only
because it has not been proven false, or is false only because it has not been proven
true.
By the by, I have made none of those assertions.
What I said, was that I did not recall reading your claimed answer to a question about
god.
>
>>
>>> Intervention may remove free will.
>>
>> Where, in the bible, does it mention man having free will?
>
>Where in the argument did i claim anythiong about the Bible stating
>anything?
Evasion
I asked:-
>>>> How does this god, which has the knowledge and the power to prevent
>>>> natural disasters, and
>>>> injustices, NOT intervene, and still be all those good things which
>>>> christians claim for
>>>> it?
To which you replied:-
>>> Intervention may remove free will.
Why would that matter, if free will was not, supposedly, some sacred god given gift?
>
>>
>> The only place that freewill is mentioned in the bible, IIRC, is in
>> Leviticus, and is
>> referring to "freewill offerings". i.e. sacrifice.
>
>So what?
>
So what does free will have to do with anything?
>>
>>> Also it isnt the not intervening impliues not caring position you paint.
>>
>> Then what is it?
>
>What is what?
>
>Not intervening does not logically imply not caring! You have not shown it
>does!
>
>
You have not offered any alternative explanation that makes any sense.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Asked and answered
>>
>> Well, asked, anyway.
>
>The answer is above "not intervening does not imply not caring"
>It does not follow!
>
Without an explanation, as to why it does not follow, that statement is meaningless.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> The proposition is, of it's nature, binary; Either God, is all those
>>>> good
>>>> things, or it
>>>> aint.
>>>
>>>Yes either God is good and reasonable or God is not.
>>>
>>>Because you dont stop someone from expressing their opinion that does not
>>>make you unreasonable does it?
>>
>> Irrelevant, I am not omnipotent and omniscient.
>
>So what? the only ability necessary for the above porinciple is the ABILITY
>TO INTERVENE TO PREVENT SOME OUTCOME
>
Exactly, and our god, has that ability, but does nothing.
>>
>>>
>>>Do you believe in anti Holocaust denial laws for example or in censorship
>>>or
>>>holocaust deniers?
>>>
>>
>> I know that such, exist; belief is irrelevant.
>
>
>Do you believe they are correct laws and proper to have?
I really couldn't say. It is not for me to judge another society's ways.
> I didnt ask whether
>you believe they exist.
>
>Believe and "believe in" are two different things.
>
>Next I suppose you will say that if the Nazis had laws against Jews and
>other that you know that such laws existed and belief in them is
>irrelevant. Tell that to the ten million Holocaust victims!
>
Straw man.
>>
>>>>
>>>> There is no middle, to exclude.
>>>
>>>If you CHANGE the princinple to "God is either Good or not Good) ther is
>>>no
>>>excluded middle.
>>
>> There is nothing to change, your god id either all good, or not all good:
>
>Now you are back to MY god! Where did I define any God or say it was MINE?
>
So you are not a christian?
>>Or are you now
>> going to invent gray areas, for your god.
>
>Like you invented I made any claim at all about MY God?
>Trying to "shift the burden" agains I see.
Another false assertion of fallacy
>Where did I make such a claim?
Straw man.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>But the context was assuming "inteyrvention to stop suffering is always
>>>good
>>>and reasonable" . But that is not necessarily always true.
>>>
>>
>> Suggest a scenario, where in, it is not good.
>
>
>Interfering in the execution of Hitler is the usual philosophy
Hitler was not executed.
>101 example
>in ethics.
>
>But Ill give you an example. suppose someone interferes in someone elses
>free choise of religion and forces and atheist to send their child to a
>Christian school.
>And you can also take the corollary where a atheistic Statist interferes in
>a christians free choice.
>
Straw man analogy.
Where is the suffering?
All of my children, and all of my grand children, went to christian schools.
Only one of my children is christian, and only one of his children, is christian.
>>
>>>>
>>>> The real fallacy here, is your insistence on using illogical analogies.
>>>> You cannot
>>>> compare the natural limitations of humanity, with the omniscience, and
>>>> omnipotence, of
>>>> your god.
>>>
>>>I never mantioned anything abut MY God! I only pointed out that the
>>>position
>>>that if an omnipotent God does not intervene that does not mean he
>>>therefore
>>>does not care.
>>
>> So you don't believe in this "God"(capitalised); Right?
>
>Whether I do or not is not going to change the ruiles of logic!
>
Evasion.
>One can discuss whether a pink elephant interfering is acceptable even iof
>pink elephants do not exist?
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Either God wants natural disasters to happen
>>>>>>>> or he cannot prevent them.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which is it?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>Who is Mitchell? you are babbling?
>>
>> You really are stupid, aren't you.
>
>Ad hominem is no substitute for argument. You are the one who posted "
>Perhaps it just don't give a damn, Mitchell"
I offered neither ad homonym, nor argument, only an observation.
Learn the difference.
>
>Now you cant even explain what that means and resort to ad hominem!.
>
>
>>
>> " Mitchell", is the person who asked, " Which is it?"
>>
>> Don't you even look to see who you are talking to?
>
>
>I prefer to refer tyo Holman but if you meant that Mitchell then thank you
>pfor pointing that out.
>
>It would also be unclear to anyone else reading the thread.
>
Now you claim to know the minds of everyone.
>>
>>>
>>>Perhaps God does not care is a valid proposition however. But not
>>>intervening DOES NOT LOGICALLY PROVE that proposition!
>>>
>>
>> Unless you can offer some other logical reason why an all loving, all
>> caring, all
>> powerful, being would NOT intervene, given the world's history, and the
>> atrocities
>> committed in it's name, if no others, also, of course assuming that such a
>> thing exists,
>> then "God doesn't give a damn", must be the default position.
>
>
>Buty I already DID SO! It is a theology 101 question - why does God allow
>suffereing.
Theology is only logical from the POV of the believer, because for theology to be logical,
one must first accept the base premise of, in this case, christianity, that there is a
god.
That being the case, you have offered no logical reason why an all loving, all caring,
all powerful, being would NOT intervene, to prevent suffering.
>
>There are many possible reasons
>-The existance of sin for example is dependant on the existance of free
>choise.
Show that either exists, and explain where this "free choice" came from.
>
>
>If God allows free wil then god has to allow those with free will the
>freedom to do wroing and hurt others.
Where do you get the idea that god allows free will?
Who told you?
Is it in the bible?
>
>Preventing such suffering would require remioving free will.
>
Evasion.
>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> PleASE LOOK UP "EXCLUDED MIDDLE" AND "FALSE ANALOGY" ! It is not a
>>>>>>> case of either it is A or B!
>>>>>>> Your reasoninbg is simplistic.
>>>>
>>>> So you have learned a new phrase.
>>>
>>>I have referred to such fallacies for years!
>>>y
>>
>> And yet, over the last several weeks, even when you have been faced with
>> the excluded
>> middle fallacies, you have not only not mentioned them, but have not
>> recognised them.
>
>
>Either God does not care or God has no power - is an excluded middle!
>
>God might care and also have power or a god might not be all powerfull and
>care or not care and not be all powerfull.
>[snip]
>
So which applies to the christian god, that is the one which we are discussing?
BTB, what god *might*, is not an argument, so you haven't provided a middle.
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> Unfortunately, your use of it only serves to bring to mind, words like
>>>> pot, kettle, and
>>>> black arse.
>>>
>>>
>>>I also used "ad hominem" before. Personbal attack wont prove your point !
>>>In
>>>fact is shows how desperate you are becoming.
>>>
>>
>> Once again you use a term, incorrectly.
>>
>> Your line, "Your reasoninbg is simplistic.",is an ad homonym.
>
>It isdnt a personal attack on YOU it is an attack on YOUR ARGUMENT or YOUR
>REASONING!
>
How can that be true, when you are unable to show *how* my reasoning is simplistic?
>>
>> I, OTOH, was merely making an observation, completely aside from the
>> subject matter of the
>> debate.
>
>you were making the observation and referring to ME by using the term "you"
>three times in the preceeding sentence. and then associating ME with "arse"!
Is it curable ignorance, or incurable, intractable stupidity?
Do you want us to believe that with all your asserted education, you have never heard the
expression: "The pot calling the kettle, black arse"?
>>
>> An insult, if you understand that better.
>
>
>Ad hominem is insult.
Yes, but an insult is not necessarily an ad homonym.
Learn the difference.
> IOt is an attack on the person rather then the
>argument they raise!
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Everything that happens
>>>>>>>>>>>> is because God wants it to happen,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> According to you this is determined by it being the only option
>>>>>>>>>>> loeft but it isnt the only option left is it?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Are you saying God cannot control events?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No.
>>>>>>>>> Are you saying there are only two options?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But you are saying that if someone is hitting a child either you can
>>>>>>> stop them ot you want it to happen. Clearly this is a silly
>>>>>>> proposition
>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>anyone can see there are other options and possibilities?
>>>>
>>>> Straw man.
>>>
>>>NO! YOU are the one saying this binary position is the only possibility.
>>>YOU
>>>claim either the person (God or me or you)
>>
>> Diversion.
>
>No Your claim is fallacious!
>
It is not my claim, it is your distortion of it.
I am only talking about your god.
>
>>
>> We are only discussing your god.
>
>Nope!
Yes.
> YOU tried to CHANGE it to that!
No, YOU tried to change it to include people, as some feeble form of apologetic, for why
your god does nothing.
> I never made any claim about MY God!
Childish straw man.
>YOU are the one trying to claim that ans shift the burden to me!
>If you make the claim it is for you to prove it! Please don't try to suggest
>I made the claim about God being impotent or uncaring.
>
Another straw man.
I have made no such assertion.
>>
>>
>>> does not care or can not stop the
>>>other person doing wrong (or something else bad like a disaster
>>>happening).
>>>
>>
>> As I said, only your god, or any god that you care to imagine, for that
>> matter.
>
>YOUR CLAIM!
Yes.
No humans, just an all powerful god.
>>
>>>
>>>> We are not omnipotent, for us, there can be many reasons why we do not
>>>> intervene, not
>>>> least of which is the law of the land.
>>>
>>>But how would not being omnipotent change that when the position is WE CAN
>>>INTERVENE AND HAVE THE POWER TO PREVENT THE ACT?
>>>
>>
>> Straw man.
>
>
>No!
Yes.
> exactly the case raised! The point was either god (because he has the
>power to intervene to stop an act) is not omnipotent or he doesnt care
>becacause God does intervene.
A god, not a human.
>>
>> We are discussing your god, not mortals.
>
>We are discussing whether ANY BEING refusing to intervene isa either
>incapable or uncaring.
No, we are not.
>
>If you are claiming that there is a different set of logical rules for God
>then logic is pointless in such an argument.
>
There has to be.
How can a magical being, be subject to logic?
>>>>
>>>> Your god, OTOH, IS omnipotent, supposedly, and it is also touted as a
>>>> loving and
>>>> beneficent god.
>>>
>>>
>>>So what even if God was of limited power and could only stop natural
>>>disasters u to acertain size, the PRINCIPLE is the same!
>>>
>>
>> No, it isn't.
>
>Yes it is! If a PERSON can intervene and does not do so the principle is the
>same!
>
>If you reify the issue to only beings capable of stopping
>
But we are not talking about a person, we are talking about a god.
There are many reasons why a person with the ability to intervene, would not.
Not caring is just one of them.
Personal relationships, and local ordinances, are two more.
But for an all powerful, all loving, all merciful, etc, etc, god, there is NO excuse.
Either the caring is a lie, or it cannot.
Or worse, it is malevolent
>
>
>>
>> It is a question of ability, which is why your analogies, involving
>> humans, are fallacies.
>
>Yes ability to INTERCEDE TO PERVENT Something.
No, people are not all claiming to care. The vast majority, probably don't give a damn,
just so long as they are not involved.
>
>Look you were the one asking about following the discussion.
>Isnt prayer meant to be for this intercession?
>
Straw man.
>>
>> You expect humans, with limited ability, to act, but excuse your god, with
>> it's UNLIMITED
>> ability, for not acting.
>
>NO! I expect the SAME LOGIC to apply to both!
>
But it can't; can it?
Magic, is without logic.
>>
>> If your god had only limited ability, then it's inaction would be
>> excusable, but that aint
>> the claim for your god; is it?
>
>It isnt MY GOD we are discussing!
You deny your god, more often than Peter did.
> And Inaction may or may not be
>inexcusable.
>
>
There is no "may or may not", about it, it is inexcusable.
>>>> Your god, OTOH, IS omnipotent, supposedly, and it is also touted as a
>>>> loving and beneficent god. If this is true, then for your god to
>>>>permit the innocent to suffer in these natural disasters, is a paradox,
>>>
>>>No it isnt!
>>
>> Yes it is.
>
>No it isnt! Allowing suffering is not against reason.
Reason, does not enter into it.
It is a loving, caring god, that we are discussing.
It is a loving, caring god, that sits back and watches, inactive, while shit happens.
> I mean the symbol of
>Christ is about a man who suffered!
>
Straw man.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> People
>>
>> People are irrelevant, we are discussing a god.
>
>
>You are reifying the argument and assuming God has different logic!
>
Back up the page; twice.
>>
>>
>>> can also cause or fail to act on things they are capable
>>>of preventing . Whether they are omnipotent is NOT THE ISSUE!
>>>The issue is whether someoine who is CAPABLE OF PREVENTING SOMETHING and
>>>who
>>>does not prevent it is unreasonable!
>>>
>>>Clearly people are NOT unreasonable in every case that they refuse to act!
>>>
>>>
>>>>which can only resolve it's self as - A: it has the power, but
>>>> doesn't care, or is malevolent and wants the negative events to happen.
>>>> In
>>>> which case, the
>>>> " loving and beneficent god.", is a lie.
>>>
>>>
>>>You need lessons in philosophy and logic!
>>>
>>
>> Of course I do.
>>
>> BTW, can you say, "Ad homonym."?
>
>
>I can spell "ad hominem"
>
>
A spelling flame; how droll.
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Or,
>>>>
>>>> B: it does not have the ability to prevent it, so it is not omnipotent.
>>>>
>>>
>>>ASked and answered. go and get a qualification in philosophy or logic. You
>>>will deal with such issues very early on. I have already explained it but
>>>you continue to blindly follow your belief.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We are talking about natural disasters here.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why do you keep changing the subject?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> __God wants disasters to happen.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> __God cannot prevent disasters to happen.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Which is it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It could be that God can prevent people hurting others but does not
>>>>>>> do
>>>>>>> so not because he wants it but because he allows peopole to hurt
>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>> people.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We are talking about natural disasters here.
>>>>>
>>>>>WE are talkiong about people dying in suffereing and who is responsible.
>>>>>Natural disasters (in the twentieth century) at most kill millions over
>>>>>decades. Man made probalems kill hundreds of times that!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Another straw man.
>>>
>>>No it isnt!
>>
>> Yes it is.
>
>No it isnt. Allowing suffereing ar causing suffering or by inaction causing
>people to come to harm is germane to the discussion.
...And you are now trying to negate your god's responsibility, by making out that natural
disasters, are only of minimal significance, a triviality.
>>
>>
>>> We are talking about the principle of being able to prevent
>>>something and not doing so!
>>>
>>
>> Only in so far as it relates to your god.
>
>No0 I didnt bring in God.
This whole discussion, is about your god.
> and if you reify the argument and say different
>cases and rules apply to God then you lose it already!
>
For the third time.
Magical beings are not subject to logic, or to human rules or ethics.
>
>>
>>>It isnt always evil to not act or to allow others their freedom even if
>>>they
>>>cauyse harm by having such freedom!
>>>
>>
>> And what about those who are harmed, when your god could have prevented
>> it?
>
>It isnt always evil to not act or to allow others their freedom even if they
>cauyse harm by having such freedom!
>
>In fact according to the Christians Christ himself suffered.
>
Irrelevant.
How do you prevent a tsunami, killing people?
How do you prevent a dust cloud from a volcano, killing crops, or causing the very cold
winters, and cool summers, which lead to crop failures?
There is a tsunami coming, one which will start with the collapse of a volcano in the
Canaries, and which will probably wipe out America's eastern seaboard.
Do tell us how that can be prevented.
>>
>>
>>> Andpeople also
>>
>> But only you are trying to include people, in order to avoid answering
>> difficult questions
>> about your god.
>
>No!
Yes.
>1. I didnt introduce MY god
No, we did, you then tried to introduce people, as being comparable to it.
>2. If the argument for god is a seperate case you cant apply reason logic
>morals or ethics to that specific case and assume the same ethics apply for
>all other cases!
So we keep telling you.
>You can only accuse God of not caring or having double stabndards when the
>standard applied to WHAT EXTENT OTHER PEOPLE would be judged for doing the
>same.
No.
As I said above, people are not claiming to be all loving, all caring, all powerful.
Those are claims made, ostensibly, by your god.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>can prevent things which may cause harm. But God or people allowing such
>>>things to happen is NOT always wrong!
>>>
>>>>
>>>> There can be no comparison between the intervention of an all powerful
>>>> god, and the
>>>> limited intervention of a human.
>>>
>>>LOL! You are the one now reifying the argument!
>>>
>>
>> Are you now denying your god, and claiming that it is merely an abstract?
>>
>>
Evasion noted.
>>>
>>>You are using the "for God it is different" argument.
>>
>> Yes, but I am reversing it, it is only a fallacy, when used to excuse
>> your god of
>> inaction, failure, etc.
>>
>> I am pointing out how your mythology, proclaims your god to be capable of
>> anything, but
>> cannot be shown to be responsible for anything useful, or compassionate.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>But that is the WHOLE POINT of Christianity isn't it? The point is that
>>>people CAN live like Christ and it is NOT different. No god powers are
>>>required!
>>>
>>
>> Non sequitur.
>Hiow does it not follow?
>
We are not discussing christianity, only the lack of action by it's god.
>You cant have UNIVERSAL standards of compassion and also say that
>circumstances for it are DIFFERENT for God!
Oh but I can.
I can expect infinitely more compassion from the god that is supposed to be the source of
all compassion.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Your efforts to conflate the two, is it's self, a fallacy.
>>>>
>>>
>>>No it isnt!
>>
>> Yes it is.
>
>No it isnt !it is called having the same moral ethical and logical
>standards!
But clearly, that cannot be.
The being which is the source of those things, must have immeasurably more of whatever
attribute you are discussing, than humans.
>>
>>
>>> the laws of reason and logic apply to god just as they do to
>>>man! Otherwist the iodea of a "fallacy" is of no value to any such
>>>argument
>>>since you claim falliicies do not apply to a God who does not have to live
>>>by any yardstick that man does!
>>
>> And another straw man
>
>
>It is the EXACT point you raise! You are claiming that god is a special case
>which is wholly unlike man.
Which has nothing to do with fallacy
> then when you cite the case you judge it based
>on UNIVERSSAL non spoecial case standards!
>
>>
>>>
>>>Please come back when yo accept the basic proinciples of logic and reason.
>>>
>> And again; can you say, "Ad homonym."?
>
>
>Whatever you are like i can only rely on logic and reason.
I wish that you would, but theological logic, is invalid in the real world.
> If you cant follw
>logic I cant help you.
>
I can follow logic, can you offer it?
>
>
Mavisbeacon
Oh dear. Please look up "citation". I ws referring to prior work published
by several scholars who work in that field.
Look at it this way :
I suppose you claim the Big Bang didnt happen, the Universe isnt expanding
over such a long time, it is only thousands of years old and dark matter
does not exist.
Let us start with the Big Bang. Suppose I come along and say.
I could point to evidence such as the universe being the way it is today
suggests it was smaller in the past
I could point to Neuclear physicists who have published euqations which
explain where the Hydrogen and Helium came from.
I could then point to other physicists who explained where everything else
came from
The main evidence for the Big Bang being
Isotropy - ie the ASSUMPTION that the laws of physics are the same
everywhere
Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation pointing to the Universe at a
distance being very similar in all directions - suggeting common origin
Cosmological red shift- The further away things are the faster they move
AWAY from us - suggesting expansion
And the Nuclear synthesis equations above.
Now that is just a theory and one of the brightest physicists Burbridge (and
his wife) published the B squared F H paper which explained wher all the
other stuff came from. in 1957
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/B%C2%B2FH
Now both Hoyle and Burbridge were "steady state" people and didn't believe
in expansion.
however - THIS IS THE POINT - the vast majority of cosmologists would NOT
have that view and it is unlikely you can produce any cosmologists of their
caliber who do!
But this is only dealing with Big Bang cosmology and not with dark matter
age of the universe etc. although they are related.
It is CERTAINLY NOT going anywhere near - God created the Big Bang! However,
the universe would have to exist for God to have created it.
Similarly Christology depends on the existance of Jesus but the historicity
of Jesus is a DIFFERENT issue!
> but contrary to the *only* (however dubious) source about his existence
> was not of a divine origin.
First of all the bible comes from a dispate sources of DIFFERENT books.
Second the Church didnt just select out only the ones which said Jesus
existed - NON Biblical books ALSO mention Jesus _ I showed you a source for
these and some of these are regarded as heresy.
I also show you there is are more references to people in the centuries
following who mention Jesus - non believers and Jews as well as Christians.
There are also additional Roman and greek historians who reference
Christians.- now again this is a bit off the subject since they believe
Jesus was the Christ but again they would still have to believe the person
Jesus existed at that time whether or not he was God.
Finally you have all this evidence and for Alexander the great and socrates
you have produced nothing. I began by saying that you have as much or more
evidence for Jesus.
So how come you believe in an alexander or a Socrates for which you have
produced NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER?
>
>> The Price position, put forward works such as the 2005 documentary The
>> God Who Wasn't There, is very rare among Historians and Bible scholars.
>
> What does that have to do with anything? I asked for evidence for the
> existence of Jesus.
It has to do with his position on historicity of Jesus which is the topic we
are discussing!
>Therefore:
>
> 1. Since the Bible is the sole source of his existence,
Again you have NOT been paying attention. It I'SNT!
Move on!
>in order to confirm this, other contemporary sources must be provided.
And I have provided such!
You have provided NO SUCH COMTEMPORARY SOURCES for socrates or Alexander the
Great! Why do you believe they existed?
>Not only do they not exist, but even the New Testament is known to have
>been written considerably after Jesus' alleged existence.
Within decades some of the books within the new testament were written.
But the writings about Alexander are actually contemporary with the time of
Jesus - 300 YEARS LATER.
Why do you believe in alexander the Great?
> 2. Since the original biblical claim is that he was of a divine origin,
But the whole Bible was put together centuries later as you pointed out.
jewish historians also wrote about Jesus and Messianic Jews believe he
existed but not that he was God. also early first and second century
heresies suggest Jesus was not the Christ or was not God these were also
writted down and are not in the Bible.
Finally the divine nature of Christ itself has a number of ways of looking
at it which also were debated and led to the first schism.
> even more detailed evidence of his alleged existence *and* divinity is to
> be provided. None exist.
You again are going off topic! The topic is about whether hisricical
evidence exist s for Jesus. It does . It exists outsideof the Bible.
Where is your writings about socrates or alexander the Great?
But you claim that existed don't you?
you see I don't want to jump two steps ahead but after you accept there is
evidence if you say "well yes there is evidence but it is very weak" i will
ask you to compare a similar case from history. Given ther are few you can
compare a mismatched case for example one of the greatest philosophers and
one of the greatest Miliraty leaders of all times. wher is your contemporary
writings about them?
> 3. His existence and his divinity cannot be separated,
Eh YES THEY CAN! Historicity of Jesus is one topic - the Topic which I am
discussing and which was raised by others
CHRISTOLOGY is a DIFFERENT SEPERATE issue.
i.e. by claiming
> that some person named Jesus existed some time in the 1st century Judea,
> that he dabbled in carpentry and preaching, but that he was just a man, is
> a banal claim
No actually it isn't! Just as claiming Maohammad existed and was not God but
just a man is not a banal claim.
> - it would be like claiming that some guy named Joe who was a plumber and
> talked some shit about politics existed in the 21st century USA. It is a
> banal claim and does nothing.
No it isn't if Joe influenced the "joe the plumber " movement which followed
his teachings 2000 years later! In fact the "Joe the Plumber" didi not
exist! The guy who asked the question of Obama was NOT a plumber.
>
>>
>>> who can likewise "prove" Mohammed's claims, phrenology, white race
>>> supremacy, Arianism, existence of ghosts and extraterrestrial aliens,
>>> homeopathy, crystal healing, spoon bending, etc.
>>
>>
>> No you can't! I doubt you can provide one single paper in a peer reviewed
>> journal which attests to any of thoise things except perhaps the claim
>> about Mohammad who also has a historicity!
>
> Like I said, by your standard of "evidence",
No No no! Scholarchip dear boy scholarship! That is what it is called.
People who are adept in a field do research and delve into artifacts and
publiah about them.
>all one has to do is print out a whole list of so-called "experts" and
>their "works" which is then somehow magically supposed to prove the claim.
Well that is not ALL one has to do but basically YES. Similarly if I refer
to nuclear reactions in stars creating all the elements up to Iron then I
can refer to the B squared H paper.
>I don't know how, I suppose because some of those people even have degrees
>and know how to use a typewriter.
the fact thay have degrees means they have done some work in communicating
their ability to learn. That is what a Batchellor a Master and a Doctor are!
degrees of learning and communicating with their peers.
But one does not have to have a published degree to be able to relate to
that level of learning. But in short YES all anyone does in any field is
look at what others published and weigh it up. rearely does someone come
along with anything new. In fact in fields like Mathematics the whole lot is
derived from a few simple rules! That does not mean that proving things like
Fermats last Theorem isnt a great piece of work!
>>
>>> If you have actual evidence for the existence of Jesus, i.e. anything
>>> other than what's been written in the Gospels, present it here:
>>
>> I did!
>>
>> Raymond E. Brown, The Death of the Messiah: From Gethsemane to the Grave
>> (New York: Doubleday, Anchor Bible Reference Library 1994), p. 964; D. A.
>> Carson, et al., p. 50-56; Shaye J.D. Cohen, From the Maccabees to the
>> Mishnah, Westminster Press, 1987, p. 78, 93, 105, 108; John Dominic
>> Crossan, The Historical Jesus: The Life of a Mediterranean Jewish
>> Peasant, HarperCollins, 1991, p. xi-xiii; Michael Grant, p. 34-35, 78,
>> 166, 200; Paula Fredriksen, Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews, Alfred
>> A. Knopf, 1999, p. 6-7, 105-110, 232-234, 266; John P. Meier, vol. 1:68,
>> 146, 199, 278, 386, 2:726; E.P. Sanders, pp. 12-13; Geza Vermes, Jesus
>> the Jew (Philadelphia: Fortress Press 1973), p. 37.; Paul L. Maier, In
>> the Fullness of Time, Kregel, 1991, pp. 1, 99, 121, 171; N. T. Wright,
>> The Meaning of Jesus: Two Visions, HarperCollins, 1998, pp. 32, 83,
>> 100-102, 222; Ben Witherington III, pp. 12-20.
>
> When I say evidence, I don't mean some bullshit dreamed up 2000 years
> later based on wishful thinking and "knowing in one's heart",
Like the evidence for Alexander the great or socrates which you have not yet
produced?
You didnt bother to read the above page reference did you?
Ever heard of inter library loans?
You can go to a library - any library - and ask for the above books. If they
do not have them they can order them
It is a great system thought up By Ben Franklin and it means if they dont
have it they will get it - for free.
- Certainly the aboive books - if it was say the Journal of Neuroscience
December 2009 edition it might cost you.
then you can actually go to the pages above and look at the references and
see if they deal with CONTEMPORARY writings and artifacts or not.
Brown - While scholars may be staggered by Brown's exhaustively
comprehensive bibliography and assured grasp of its contents, his
introductory division of the passion's unfolding into four "Acts'' and
several "Scenes'' will especially appeal to pastors and devout lay readers.
Indeed, rarely has the gap between Christian scholars and the non-academic
faithful been bridged more successfully than in this definitive masterpiece.
http://philologos.org/guide/books/brown.raymond.2.htm
Cohen - yu can find the book on amazon and excerpts of it - page 78 refers
to legalism and to the reasonableness to assume existance of the type of
Jesus depicted in the Bible in that light.
Go and look It isnt for me to do the reading for you.
> but contemporary documents from extra-biblical sources confirming at least
> something about Jesus,
Which the above do!
> his life and his "works" (whatever the hell it was he was supposed to have
> done). None exist.
You ar talking about Artefacts like actual books written by Jesus or the
holy grail.
I don't know if they exist or not but wher are the books written by
alexander of Socrates?
There arent any! So why do you believe in them?
>
>>
>> G�za Vermes is a British scholar of Jewish Hungarian origin and writer
>> on religious history, particularly Jewish and Christian. He is a noted
>> authority on the Dead Sea Scrolls and other ancient works in Aramaic, and
>> on the life and religion of Jesus. Some describe him as the greatest
>> Jesus scholar of his time
>
> Yawn.
All I can do is point the way. If you refuse to go and look at the actual
evidence you claim does not exiat I cant help you.
You know some people refused to look through galileo's telescope because
they believed in advance what they knew they would see?
>> Outside the Gospels there are other Biblical writings:
>>
>> The Acts of the apostles and various epistles.
>>
>> Then there are non Biblical writings Gnostic and apocryphal tests.
>
> All written way after the fact,
And your writings about Socrates and alexander - you have produced NONE -
were written WHEN????
You have double standards!
> much like the Gospels that, by a Nicean decree, happened to be officially
> sanctioned as "holy",
WRONG! Please go and look into the issue. the Council of Nicea was about the
CREED not the Gospels or the New Testament. The next Nicean council -the
seventh church council - four hundred years later was driven by iconoclasts.
You seem interested int the subject. Please do some reading and don't come
to the subject of history with a closed mind looking to try to prove
something about the non existance of God and kitch popolar books with stock
atheistic mythology.
> i.e. included in the Bible.
Pleae park this nonsence and get off the Bible bashing and back to
historicity of Jesus.
>>
>> Then there are Early Christian sources outside the New Testament also
>> mention Jesus and details of his life. Important texts from the Apostolic
>> Fathers are, to name just the most significant and ancient, Clement of
>> Rome (c. 100), Ignatius of Antioch (c. 107-110),[and Justin Martyr.
>>
>> Perhaps the most significant Patristic sources are the early references
>> of Papias and Quadratus (d. 124), mostly reported by Eusebius in the
>> fourth century, which both mention eyewitnesses of Jesus' ministry and
>> healings who were still alive in their own time (the late first century).
>
> On the same level of relevance as all your 20th century authors you
> mentioned above.
Nad you people who actually met Alexander or Socrates wrote WHAT about it?
> Iow, not contemporary, therefore not evidence.
You seem to have scant knowledge about the methodology and scholarship of
ancient history!
Do you really expect people to believe Alexander and Socrates didnt exist?
>At that time, Christianity was a well established religion and some people
>wrote about it and about its alleged messiah. Centuries later.
No it wasnt! Learn some history! Christians were persecuted! This is 100AD
about 60 years after the death of Jesus. Christianity was not adopted into
the empire until constantine about 300 years later ad by a greek King about
100 years before Constantine. It isnst eve ONE CENTURY later!
But again your DOUBLE STANDARDS are showing - where is your even one century
later writings about alexander or socrates?
>>
>> There are passages relevant to Christianity in the works of four major
>> non-Christian writers of the late 1st and early 2nd centuries - Josephus,
>> Tacitus, Suetonius, and Pliny the Younger. However, these are generally
>> references to early Christians rather than a historical Jesus.
>
> Right. Just like pretty much all of the sources you mention. All of
> describe Christians, none of them are contemporary, none are relevant to
> establishing Jesus' existence.
And your references for alexander or Socrates are? - DOUBLE STANDARDS!
>
>> Mind you if Christians follow christ they must have believed in Jesus
>> being Christ.
>
> And? How is that different from any other believer in anything else?
> Belief in something is not evidence for it.
ANd your evidence for Alexander is? But you believe he existed? You have no
evidence though just belief! Double standards!
>
>>
>> Mara was a Syrian Stoic. While imprisoned by the Romans, Mara wrote a
>> letter to his son that includes the following text --
>>
>> For what benefit did the Athenians obtain by putting Socrates to death,
>> seeing that they received as retribution for it famine and pestilence? Or
>> the people of Samos by the burning of Pythagoras, seeing that in one hour
>> the whole of their country was covered with sand? Or the Jews by the
>> murder of their Wise King, seeing that from that very time their kingdom
>> was driven away from them? For with justice did God grant a recompense to
>> the wisdom of all three of them. For the Athenians died by famine; and
>> the people of Samos were covered by the sea without remedy; and the Jews,
>> brought to desolation and expelled from their kingdom, are driven away
>> into every land. Nay, Socrates did "not" die, because of Plato; nor yet
>> Pythagoras, because of the statue of Hera; nor yet the Wise King, because
>> of the new laws which he enacted.
>> [//http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.ix.xvii.html
>
> ??? This you consider evidence for Jesus' existence?
From the wikipedia reference Some scholars believe this describes the fall
of Jerusalem as the gods' punishment for the Jews having killed Jesus
because they infer that Jesus must be "the wise king" referred to by Mara.
Theissen, Gerd and Annette Merz. The historical Jesus: a comprehensive
guide. Fortress Press. 1998. translated from German (1996 edition)
Theissen you will find is well published on this:
http://www.amazon.com/Gerd-Theissen/e/B001HODGLI/ref=ntt_athr_dp_pel_1
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historicity_of_Jesus#Mara_bar_Sarapion
As much as it it for socrates! Wher is your evidence for Socrates?
>You have now officially scraped off the entire bottom of the barrel and are
>now scraping the concrete floor.
LOL! The above is to be stricken form any evidence you produce for Socrates.
Where is your evidence for socrates or Alexander?
Actually ther are! the above or the heretical section I didnt copy all 100
references. You have been shown where they are!But i will ask you again
WHERE ARE YOUR CONTEMPORARY WRITTEN SOURCES FOR ALEXANDER THE GREAT OR
SOCRATES?
surely you hae loads of writings about a great emporor and General and a
Philosopher of world renown?
But you havent produyced ANY!
> That, even though there are plenty of Roman authors whose writings from
> the time have survived
There are?
Let us see first century roman historians:
http://ancienthistory.about.com/od/greekhistorians/p/081309GreekHistorians.htm
Livy, Josephus, Tacitus, Suetonius Plutarch
Well I think I cited works by THREE of the four!
Who i didyou produce for alexander and socrates?
Oh yes NOBODY !
>and even though Roman records from the time are fairly complete.
No they arent! What a baseless and illogical comment!
>That, even though biblical claims detail enough post-crucifixion miracles
>to choke a camel.
As do roman historical records attest to the spread of Christianity even
though it was perscecuted.
>
>> then there are Jewish records
>
> Where? About Jesus?
Yes READ THE REFERENCE I PROVIDED
>>
>> It is a valid academic field and you can scarcely argue Socrates or
>> Alexander has more evidence!
>
> It may be a "valid academic field" but it hardly has any evidence,
Double standards!
WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE FOR SOCRATES?
other
[snip]
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> There is as much or more historicity and articacts for a carpenters
>>>>>> Son two thousand years ago then for example there is for Alexander
>>>>>> the Great or Socrates exiating as people in history about 300 years
>>>>>> before that.
>>>>> What's that got to do with anything?
>>>> Well you believe Alexander the Great or socrates existed don't you?
>>> Their existence is well documented in several independent sources
>>
>> LOL! REally? WHAT independent sources?
>>
>> You are the one asking for evidence for Christ in history and I have
>> provided sources to over ahundred references of all sorts of writers and
>> accuts from the time of Jesus.
>>
>> What doccument do you have showing the independent accounts of Alexander
>> or socrates written whn they were alive or written by historians withing
>> fifty years of them dying?
>
> So now it's my turn to cut and paste from Wikipedia? Is this how it's
> done?
Now it is your turn to live up to the standards you claim to have!
WHERE IS YOUR EVIDENCE FOR SOCRATES?
You claim jesus didn't exist because ther is scant evidence.
You claimed NO EVIDENCE outside the New testament.
You were shown it and shown scholars work about Jesus.
You were WRONG! the is other evidence! You just dont want to accept that!
But then I ask you to use the same yardstick for a great leader and a great
thinker of Ancient times.
Wher is your evidence for socrates or alexander.
You produce nothing!
Why can't you apply the same standard?
CLEARLY IT IS TRANSPARENT THAT YOU JUST WANT TO APPLY ONE STABNDARD FOR
JESUS AND A DIFFERENT ONE FOR SOCRATES OR ALEXANDER.
WHY?
I submit it is because you come from a bigoterd position that rjects
Christianity and because a historical Jesus is connected to this you cant
deal with the historical issue but have to bring in all you baggage about
personal beliefs!
If you didnt then you would be able to post evidence for other people around
that time!
>>
>>> and most importantly, there is nothing extraordinary about the existence
>>> of warlords and philosophers.
>>
>>
>> Wher is your evidece for the existance of Alexander the Great or
>> Socrates?
>
> Wikipedia, where else.
Wher is you evidence!
I showed you sources fromnthe first centuyry . peoiple who would have been
boirn when Jesus was alive. People who wrote histories within decades of
Jesus dying. In addition we have the Bible the earlist doccument - Q- which
probably dates also to within decades of the death of Jesus.
>>
>>> Jesus, otoh, is claimed to be a deity's offspring slash deity himself.
>>
>> WRONG! the historicity of Jesus is about the existance of a man in
>> history. The CHRIST element is a different thing. whether or not the man
>> was also God is a DIFFERENT ISSUE to whether the man existed in history!
>
> So you keep saying, but your claim is retarded because it goes against the
> original (the Bible)
NO NO NO! If a Wrioting from 333 BC claimed "Alexander the God conquered
Persia " It does suggest Alexander was ther it does not prove he was God!
Please try to pay attention.
[snip]
>
>>
>> People believed alexander the Great was a God. Does that mean if he was
>> not a God that he didn't exist?
>
> If the only source of his existence claimed his divinity,
There are NO CONTEMPORARY WRITTEN SOURCES for Alexander to my knowledge
which you can produce. Note "sources" is what I wrote.
And socrates like Jesus to my knowledge didnt write anything. Jesus no doubt
could write since he is recorded as having written twice and was a Rabbi but
I have no idea if socrates could write.
You havent produced anything by him!
[snip]
>
>>
>>
>>> This, according to the only source of his existence - the Bible. There
>>> is no other source.
>>
>> Wrong! You have been shown several above!
>
> You've shown nothing other than stuff written way after the time he
> allegedly lived. Not evidence.
LOL! "Stuff written" ie WRITINGS! And written in the FIRST CENTURY! And
written about the middle first century when Jesus is mrant to have lived.
Obviously they could not write history BEFORE it happened could they?
But you have produced NOTHING! noe even from 100 years after Alexander not
even from 200 years later!
DOUBLE STANDARDS!
>>
>> Wher is your source for the existance of Alexander or Socrates?
>
> You're right. Surely a warlord and a philosopher didn't exist. A carpenter
> who was the son of god, otoh...
Who has writings from the century in which he lived and died!
socrates and alexander wher are the writings fromn their time written by or
about them?
Your "contempoirary writings" criterion is a bit of a double standard!
>>
>>
>>>>> There may be historicity and artifacts for hundreds of carpenters'
>>>>> sons, but that is beside the point.
>>>> Nope. We are discussing Jesus of Nazereth the person written about in
>>>> the Bible.
>>>> Not just any Carpenters son! and there is not to my knowledge much else
>>>> about any other carpenters sons from Nazareth about 2000 years ago!
>>> And? Where, other than in the Bible, which is proven to be as reliable
>>> record of history as The Lord Of The rings, is your evidence for this
>>> alleged son of an ancient Jewish tribe god?
>>
>>
>> Lord of the Rings mentions NOTHING about ancient history!
>> The Bible does!
>
> Yes, and in many of those times it's flat out wrong,
You sem to have scant knowledge of Ancient historiography. are you really
claiming Plutarchs Lives is historically totally accurate? that is one of
the reasons I didnt go near it!
Please dont bring it up as evidence for alexander now! LOL!
Hoist on your own petard!
Keep digging in that hole you have got into!
>from events that never happened, never could have happened, to places that
>didn't exist at the time, people who didn't exist, "miracles", talking
>donkeys, devious snakes, self-multiplying fish, folks living inside whales,
None mentioned in relation to Jesus!
The New Terstament is an entirely DIFFERENT collection and the references to
historical evens in the Old Testament are comparable with other ancient
works.
thats how scholarship is done or sidnt you know?
[snip]
>>
>>
>> But the other non biblical evidence is above!
>
> No, it isn't.
Yes it is! Jewish and Roman historians references to non biblical works and
early church fathers. PRE NICEAN
>
>> Where is your evidence for Socrates?
>
> Gee, I personally don't have any, but I'll talk to my secretary and I'll
> make sure she gets back to you.
So you make a big hullabaloo about evidence produced for Jesus but you have
NONE for socrates or alexander?
Double standards! Hypocracy!
>>
>>
>>>>> The Bible and consequently all of Christianity rests on the claim that
>>>>> Jesus was an offspring of a deity,
>>>>
>>>> But that is NOT the issue you raised! The deity of christ and THE
>>>> HISTORICITY OF JESUS are two DIFFERENT subjects.
>>>> The exiostance of a MAN Jesus rather than an imaginary fictional
>>>> charachter is the issue your raised and NOT the claim that that man was
>>>> also God!
>>> The issue cannot be separated
>>
>> Yes it CAN! YOUR CLAIM that no such historical fugure existed is less
>> likely then Socrates or alexander not existing.
>
> NO, IT CAN'T!!! How about that, I can use caps, too.
But you cant use logic or apply the same standards!
Wher are your CONTEMPORARY WRITINGS about socrates or alexander?
You produce NONE yet you whole issue is based on the scant evidence (not NON
but SCANT) evidence for Jesus.
You have NO EVIDENCE for Alexander or Socrates but Jesus a carpenter who has
more evidence you insist never existed!
Why is that?
>
>>
>>
>>> because the Bible is the *only* "document" about Jesus' existence.
>>
>> No it isnt! ther are a plethora of texts aboivein addition to the wide
>> Biblical references in different books.
>
> None contemporary,
If contemporary being written by peopole alive when Jesus was then there
ARE!
But who could write a HISTORY until AFTER it happened!
ther are NO CONTEMPORARY writings about alexander the Great the greatest
leader of Ancient times!
Socrates wrote NOTHING!
> while all the actual contemporary authors are strangely mum on the subject
> so huge, that it must be a conspiracy.
LOL you seem to think ther were a host of authors libraries and publishing
houses at the time. I showed there are FOUR Roman foirst century historians.
I gave you quotes from THREE of them relating to Christians at the time!
>>
>>
>>> Therefore, if you want to rely on the Bible, you have to take all of its
>>> claims equally and since the Bible claims Jesus' divine origin,
>>
>> No. aprochycal and gnostic texts make heretical claims like Jesus being
>> man. IF you knew about eARLY HErSIES YOU WOULD BE AWARE OF THAT.
>
> And? Some are even describing him as a snake-god. Was he a snake god,
> then?
What one diescribe Jesus as a snake God? i am not aware of them,
If a contemporary writing describes Julius Caesar as a god yu may assume the
PERSON Julius existed!
>>
>>> this is inseparable from the issue of his historicity.
>>
>> No it isnt! LOL! You sound like a theologian who argued on monism and
>> materialism!
>
> I am simply going by what the Bible and the Christians claim.
No! If a writing says alexander the conquering king and leader of the army
who just arrived here is a God! You can assume alexander existed but not
that he was god.
>I couldn't give two shits if some fucking carpenter named Yeshua lived in
>the 1st century Judea and talked apocalyptic shit.
Exactly! WE get to the point! yu couldn't give a shit unless it has
something to do with attacking christians!
But I am arguing about history and academic fields and logic and reason and
I will not let your anti Christian bigotry get in the way of that!
Whether or not you despise Christians is not at issue - clearly it seems you
do despise them and want to persecute them - but your motivation for why you
project your personal opinion onto the issue it is a DIFFERENT issue to the
issue itself which is a VALID ACADEMIC FIELD i.e. the historicity of Jesus.
No amount of you claiming "no evidence" is going to make the actual non
biblical roman and other historical writings disappear!
No amount of "no evidence" is going to produce evidence for alexander or
Socrates which you clearly have FAILED to do!
Any amount of "no evidence" will clearly indicate the DOUBLE STANDARDS you
apply to "evidence" in history!
>Hell, there were probably dozens of them, so what.
Well you have not produced any evidence that ther were dozens of them and
you claim even one has "no evidence"! thats what.
>This is as much of evidence for biblical Jesus as is that guy in Malaysia
>whose name is Superman for Superman's existence.
Ther is more evidence for Jesus in terms of the actual methodology used by
historians of ancient history and historical writings as there is for
Alexander the Great or soctates.
But I don't see you starting a "no socrates" movement and many people accept
Socrates teachings.
>>
>>
>>> Btw, the Bible has been caught in obvious lies hundreds of times,
>>
>>
>> Btw that is an unsupported throwaway phrase and not elated in any way to
>> the CLAIM YOU MADE about Jesus not existing in history!
>
> I said that the biblical Jesus never existed in history.
No you claimed the MAN Jesus never existed in history!
The point about him being god is a different issue!
You can't slip off the hook on that one!
> Again, chances are good that some carpenter named Yeshua lived around that
> time, made a chair or two and talked stupid shit about the end of the
> world. However, this is irrelevant because the Bible isn't a narrative
> about that dope's life.
all you are doing is showing you bigotry and bias .
You dont believe that Jesus was God and you wanted to project that onto a
"jesus then man never existed" argument.
If Jesus never existed then Christ never existed.
But in doing so you would have to accept historical research methods and you
would have to conclude "no socrates" or "no alexander" as well!
now you are abandoning that line buty no doubt you will come back with you
biased approach again.
>>
>>> so pretty much anything that is written there is subject to scrutiny, if
>>> not outright ridicule.
>>
>>
>> I spite of you being unsupported and wrong you can even leave the Bible
>> aside and you still have a plethora of historical references above!
>
> So you keep saying. None contemporary. All contemporary authors - mum.
And the contemporary Scorats and Alexander references are??????
>
> I'ma be snippin' the rest of this exchange because I have better shit to
> do than read the same tired nonsense over and over again. Seacrest out.
Cut and run when you can is it?
You said NO EVIDENCE
You were given it
then it became no contemporary writings - when people could not write the
HISTORY till AFTER it happened.
You were given writings from 40 to 60 years later gradually building to
thousands of wriotings (that ois a LOT for ancient times) over the next
three centuries.
You have produced NO WRITINGS for alexander or socrates who lived about
three centuries before that.
you have produced no contemporary writings for then either!
Yet you believe in socrates and Alexander who people claimed was a god but
not in Jesus the MAN!
Mavisbeacon
"Patrick" <bark...@erinot.com> wrote in message
news:CqadnZs5Y7EIsWbX...@posted.localnet...
> "Alan Ford" <zzz...@qqq.net> wrote
>>
>> What does that have to do with anything? I asked for evidence for the
>> existence of Jesus. Therefore:
>>
>> 1. Since the Bible is the sole source of his existence, in order to
>> confirm this, other contemporary sources must be provided. Not only do
>> they not exist, but even the New Testament is known to have been written
>> considerably after Jesus' alleged existence.
>
> We have had several instances where the Mother of Jesus has "appeared"
> to them. Our Lady of Fatima..... Lady of Lourdes.... etc.
> Do you wish to acknowledge these sources?
> They exist.
I acknowledge these sources as they exist.
I am not a Marianist and even the Church does not insist these "apparitions"
are articles of Faith.
Modern history is also a different field to ancient history.
The New Testament could not have been written BEFORE Jesus existed could it?
>
>
>> 2. Since the original biblical claim is that he was of a divine origin,
>
> Please provide some sort of reference with your claim.
> Sounds like BS to me.
> I don't recall the bible stating: "divine origin."
> Did you make that up?
I had some problems with what was meant by this.
I think he probably picked it up second hand and nevr looked ito what it
meant.
Jewish scholars to my knowledge also had some dialogue with Christians about
this and came to the conclusion that even if Jesus was the Messiah he need
not necessarily be divine.
He could be a prophet- like Mahammad
>
>
>
>> even more detailed evidence of his alleged existence *and* divinity is to
>> be provided. None exist.
>
> That is like stating that Virgil never existed. Merely for the reason
> that
> only paper copies claim he wrote them.
Which is similar to the socrates example - and Socrates never wrote
anything!
>
>
>
>> 3. His existence and his divinity cannot be separated, i.e. by claiming
>> that some person named Jesus existed some time in the 1st century Judea,
>> that he dabbled in carpentry and preaching, but that he was just a man,
>> is a banal claim - it would be like claiming that some guy named Joe who
>> was a plumber and talked some shit about politics existed in the 21st
>> century USA. It is a banal claim and does nothing.
>
> You don't believe in Joe, the plumber?
> Would you like further proof of his existence?
I think actuall it was a myth. the man was not a plumber at all AFAIK.
>
>
>> Like I said, by your standard of "evidence", all one has to do is print
>> out a whole list of so-called "experts" and their "works" which is then
>> somehow magically supposed to prove the claim. I don't know how, I
>> suppose because some of those people even have degrees and know how to
>> use a typewriter.
>
> What are you, a "Thomas" who don believe cuz he aint seen it hisself?
> WTF do you want?
Apparently he doesn't understand "scholarship"
>
>
>
>> On the same level of relevance as all your 20th century authors you
>> mentioned above. Iow, not contemporary, therefore not evidence. At that
>> time, Christianity was a well established religion and some people wrote
>> about it and about its alleged messiah. Centuries later.
>
> So?
> WTF do you want?
He wants photographs of Jesus from the time maybe?
In fact it seems he wants writings from when Jesus was alive! He wants
evidence that does not exist for most people in ancient history!
>
>
>
>
>> no contemporary Roman sources about the existence (life, prosecution,
>> trial, execution, aftermath) of this crucial figure in history exist.
>> That, even though there are plenty of Roman authors whose writings from
>> the time have survived and even though Roman records from the time are
>> fairly complete. That, even though biblical claims detail enough
>> post-crucifixion miracles to choke a camel.
>
> Contemporary Roman Sources?
> What a whiner.
He reifies the definition of "sources" probably because he picked it up in
a pub conversation or similar and then when even this is shown to be
incorrect he refuses to abandon his belief .
What a fundamentalist believer!
Mavisbeacon
> Patrick wrote:
>> "Alan Ford" <zzz...@qqq.net> wrote
>>> What does that have to do with anything? I asked for evidence for the
>>> existence of Jesus. Therefore:
>>>
>>> 1. Since the Bible is the sole source of his existence, in order to
>>> confirm this, other contemporary sources must be provided. Not only do
>>> they not exist, but even the New Testament is known to have been written
>>> considerably after Jesus' alleged existence.
>>
>> We have had several instances where the Mother of Jesus has "appeared"
>> to them. Our Lady of Fatima..... Lady of Lourdes.... etc.
>> Do you wish to acknowledge these sources?
>> They exist.
>
> LOLZ!!!111!11!!!
>
> You forgot Our Lady of the Cheese Sandwich, Virgin Mary in the Office
> Building Window, Lady of the Tree Stump, Madre de Dios in a Spicy Tortilla
> and many others.
No! Thay would not be subject ot a church hearing like Lourds Fatima or
Knock.
>
> >> 2. Since the original biblical claim is that he was of a divine
> origin,
>>
>> Please provide some sort of reference with your claim.
>> Sounds like BS to me.
>> I don't recall the bible stating: "divine origin."
>> Did you make that up?
>
> Huh? Speekie English? Looky "divine" up in a pictionary.
eh YOU made the assertion it is for YOU to provide the definition!
>
>>> even more detailed evidence of his alleged existence *and* divinity is
>>> to be provided. None exist.
>>
>> That is like stating that Virgil never existed. Merely for the reason
>> that
>> only paper copies claim he wrote them.
>
> This doesn't parse. Restate.
It does actually. It says a writing by someone is not evidence they existed
or wrote it.
this wiull get you into dee water when it comes to socrates who wrote
nothing himself!
>
>>> 3. His existence and his divinity cannot be separated, i.e. by claiming
>>> that some person named Jesus existed some time in the 1st century Judea,
>>> that he dabbled in carpentry and preaching, but that he was just a man,
>>> is a banal claim - it would be like claiming that some guy named Joe who
>>> was a plumber and talked some shit about politics existed in the 21st
>>> century USA. It is a banal claim and does nothing.
>>
>> You don't believe in Joe, the plumber?
>> Would you like further proof of his existence?
>
> Yawn. Like I said, it is a banal claim without much point. Same for
> non-divine Jesus. That's not what the Bible says, though. Hence, a need
> for evidence.
No no! allyou are saying is yu are betraying you bias against Christians and
the reason you want to argue is because you want to attack Christ.
Yo dont care whether a jesus existed if it does not relate to yu attacking
christ.
But whether you care or not is NOT the issue. the historicity of Jesus is
the issue!
>
>>> Like I said, by your standard of "evidence", all one has to do is print
>>> out a whole list of so-called "experts" and their "works" which is then
>>> somehow magically supposed to prove the claim. I don't know how, I
>>> suppose because some of those people even have degrees and know how to
>>> use a typewriter.
>>
>> What are you, a "Thomas" who don believe cuz he aint seen it hisself?
>> WTF do you want?
>
> No, I'm an "Alan" who don believe cuz he aint seen it hisself. I want a
> cookie.
Swo you dont believe in Socrates or Alexander the Great?
Clearly you do and your doing so betrays you anti Christian bigotry.
>>> On the same level of relevance as all your 20th century authors you
>>> mentioned above. Iow, not contemporary, therefore not evidence. At that
>>> time, Christianity was a well established religion and some people wrote
>>> about it and about its alleged messiah. Centuries later.
>>
>> So?
>> WTF do you want?
>
> You to fuck off.
clearly you dont like people prsenting rasoned arguments which show upo your
bigoted position.
> >
>>> no contemporary Roman sources about the existence (life, prosecution,
>>> trial, execution, aftermath) of this crucial figure in history exist.
>>> That, even though there are plenty of Roman authors whose writings from
>>> the time have survived and even though Roman records from the time are
>>> fairly complete. That, even though biblical claims detail enough
>>> post-crucifixion miracles to choke a camel.
>>
>> Contemporary Roman Sources?
>> What a whiner.
>
> Still here, I see...
Unlike the EVIDENCE for socrates which you never produced
Your bias is still her too we see...
>>>> then there are Jewish records
>>> Where? About Jesus?
>>
>> Yeah, didn't you check out the census where Joseph and Mary
>> went to Bethlehem for the census, and Jesus was born there?
>
> Oh, yeah, I forgot, the census of which there is no record in Roman
> archives whatsoever and the one for which Mary, pregnant to the teeth, had
> to travel on a donkey some 100 miles, and the one for which Romans, having
> a perverse and twisted sense of humor, required people to take anywhere
> else but where they actually lived. Yeah, that makes sense.
WRONG!
Johephus the ROMAN HISTORIAN does record that census.
If you read the references I gave you might note that Dominic Crossan has a
stated positionon this.
Some scholars believe the Gospel writers may have based their accounts on an
earlier Christian tradition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Census_of_Quirinius
Mavisbeacon
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:39:15 -0000, "Mavisbeacon"
> <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Puck Greenman" <dubh_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:qdehf51lnhhtktmo3...@4ax.com...
>>> On Mon, 9 Nov 2009 18:17:15 -0000, "Mavisbeacon"
>>> <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>
>>Choise of what you pay for and banning of something are DIFFERENT
>>subjects.
>>
>>You might not want to pay for child porn or Holocaust denial books.
>>
>>>
>>> The fact that a need is felt to censor a thing, indicates that people DO
>>> want it.
>>
>>WaNTS AND NEEDS ARE DIFFERENT THINGS! You might want to take Heroine but
>>do
>>you really need to?
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Is it therefore just?
>>>>Obviously when it comes to the group doing the banning or the group
>>>>being
>>>>banned I know which group you want to be in!
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Which makes you a hypocrite.
>>>>>
>>>>> ...Is that what your god is?
>>>>
>>>>How am I being hypocritical?
>>>>
>>>
>>> You tell us how much you care,
>>
>>Where?
>>
>
> If your arguments are to be taken seriously, and not as mere cynicism, it
> is the only
> conclusion one can draw.
And your proof of this is?
Which arguments?
>
> ...That you care greatly.
>
> Of course, if you don't...
I dont think my personal belief or position comes into whether objective
reasoning can measure and ascertain a solution.
Why i argue in the forst place - my moitivastion- is a SEPaRATE issue form
the argument itself.
>
>>>yet when the situation arises whereby you have the ability,
>>> and the opportunity, to put your caring into action, you pass by on the
>>> other side of the
>>> road.
>>
>>You are assuming intervention is always the best course for the caring
>>person.
>>You have not proved that.
>>
>
> Neither have I asserted it.
You have! Yu have asserted I care greatly and then counterposed that with
"passing by" and inaction as if "passing by" contradicts "caring".
This is in fact the Central Issue of the discussion!
>
> But perhaps you would like to suggest a couple of reasons why it would not
> be.
I already have posted why not caring and not acting are not the same.
Not necessarily ANY being with the power to stop something happening.
It could be God.
It could be a god or a demi god
It could be a fabulous hero.
It could be a President witrh an army but without [ersonal physical power.
[snip]
>>
Alan Ford
[1022 lines of shit]
There ain't no way I'm replying to over a thousand lines of garbage
consisting of quoting 20th century books as evidence for Jesus, while
insisting that his divinity somehow most be separated from his existence
(although the Bible being the only source clearly states the contrary)
and while pretending not to know what divinity means, not to mention the
gullibility of thinking that Virgin Mary apparitions are actual
miracles, i.e. violations of natural laws.
And btw, I have no need to "attack Christ". I don't fucking care about
the imaginary characters, therefore I have no problem with him, much
like I don't with Peter Pan, Robin Hood or Moby Dick.
It's the pushy, hypocritical, in-your-face Christ followers that I can't
stand.
Puck Greenman
An assertion, for which there is no supporting, objective evidence.
>2. He has equipped humans with the ability to do something for themselves
>and wont intervene to remove that ability.
>
Let us take one of your favourite diversions.
What could the Jews, in germany, and all the other groups, the gays, Roma, Mentally ill,
physically deformed, etc, that the SS killed, have done to protect them selves?
>
>And the statement is loaded since you assume "innocent" and "needless" death
So we are down to special pleading; is that it?
God didn't do anything to help, because the victims deserved it?
Were six million Jews, children included, all deserving of torture and death?
>
>Are ALL the people whio die in a disaster innocent? Is there no one in the
>whole of history you think needed to die?
>
I can think of no one who needed to die badly enough, that hundreds or thousands of
children should die, in order to kill him or her.
Mavisbeacon
> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
> news:57880$4afa8432$bc8d1d47$13...@news.upc.ie:
>
>>
>> "Mitchell Holman" <noe...@comcast.net> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9CBFB637C5664...@216.196.97.130...
>>> "Mavisbeacon" <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote in
>>> news:dbacb$4af85cbd$bc8d1d47$28...@news.upc.ie:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Puck Greenman" <dubh_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:q0fgf55ca66vmm3an...@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 23:24:22 -0000, "Mavisbeacon"
>>>>> <Mavis...@nospam.forme> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> How does this god, which has the knowledge and the power to prevent
>>>>> natural disasters, and
>>>>> injustices, NOT intervene, and still be all those good things which
>>>>> christians claim for
>>>>> it?
>>>>
>>>> I think I already answered that. Intervention may remove free will.
>>>
>>>
>>> How is "free will" removed by God not causing
>>> a tsunami to strike a populated shoreline?
>>
>>
>> In the general case freedom may be removed by intervention.
>
>
> What does "freedom" have to do with natural disasters?
I WOULD HAVE THOUGHT THAT OBVIOUS.
You reified the argument but maintained the principle.
In this case "natural disasters" = something a being like God can prevent
Now given man can prevent golbal warming nuclear Holocaust asteroids hetting
the Eartc etc. you have reified it to something only God can prevent.
But the principle is the same - there is an outcome (such as pain and
suffering) and a being who can intervene to prevent it.
Similarly yuo might be able to intervene to prevent an outcome (such as a
child crying) by stopping someone slapping the child.
You might not intervene because intervening prevents the slapper from
exercise of their free will.
Similarly a being with the power to do so might not intervene to prevent a
Nuclear War.
Finally as regards God intervening to prevent the destruction of the world
how do you know God has not done so already?
If God intervened then he migh do it in such a way so you don't know about
it inorder to preserve your free will by not letting you know.
>
>
>> As to the specific case - there are countless science fiction stories
>> and movies which enable someone to go back and change the past only to
>> find out that "fixing things" caused unexpected consequences.
>
>
> You are using bad sci-fi plot devices to justify
> your religion?
Noting to do with MY religion. Just with reason and logic and philosophy.
~Intervention in spacetime may have other consequences which cause worse
damage then not intervening.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Also it isnt the not intervening impliues not caring position you
>>>> paint.
>>>
>>>
>>> If God cares about innocent life why does he
>>> do nothing as thousands of innocents die needlessly?
>>
>> Well this is much the same question.
>>
>> And the standard answers are:
>>
>> 1. He does not always do nothing.
>
>
> Either he wants disasters to happen or
> he is powerless to stop them. Which is it?
That is an "excludede middle"! it isnt the not intervening impliues not
caring position you
paint as opposed to incapable of intervening. Assuming god can intervene
that does not imply that not intervening means not caring!
>
>> 2. He has equipped humans with the ability to do something for
>> themselves and wont intervene to remove that ability.
>
>
> What are humans supposed to "do" about natural disasters?
Chiose not to press the button marked "total neuclar war"?
Chose not to burn fossil fuels?
Choose not to use aerosols.
If you are going to define "natural" as "pre determined with an outcome
alredy defined by God" then you argument becomes meaningless tautology.
If there is only be definition one possible outcome then the idea that God
or anyone else can chose to change that becomes meaningless.
If the outcome can only be determined by God then you are reified the
argument to a level which does not apply to humans.
If you are going to use standards which appy to humans you have to accept
that humans too hae similar choices and compare the principle in that way.
>
>>
>>
>> And the statement is loaded since you assume "innocent" and "needless"
>> death
>
>
> You are the one who brought up "free will".
Clearly if a different outcome can be brought about that requires a decision
to act!
If the outcome can not be changed then what is the point of saying
"needless" since it is the only possible outcome?
>
> What does "free will" have to do with natural disasters?
Dealt with above.
>
>
>
>> Are ALL the people whio die in a disaster innocent?
>
>
> Everyone is innocent until proven guilty.
WRONG! Everyone is ASSUMED to be innocent!
And that is a different use of the word! "innocent" there means not
committing a crime defined by the law.
But to a religious person in that sense sin existed before any laws were
written.
What then is an innocent person to them?
>
>What are the victims of natural disasters guilty of?
doing wroing? Sinning?
You see you are conflating "ASSUMED innocent under the criminal law of a
country" with "never doing any wrong"
>
>> Is there no one in
>> the whole of history you think needed to die?
>
>
> Which victims of natural disasters "need" to die?
If anyone dies at any time they are subject to the natural laws of the
universe the laws of physics or whateever. In that sense it is natural and
indeed in accordance with those laws they they die when they do.
All people who die therefore need to die if that is what is necessary to
conform to the laws of nature.
Patrick
> Patrick wrote:
>> "Alan Ford" <zzz...@qqq.net> wrote
>>> What does that have to do with anything? I asked for evidence for the
>>> existence of Jesus. Therefore:
>>>
>>> 1. Since the Bible is the sole source of his existence, in order to
>>> confirm this, other contemporary sources must be provided. Not only do
>>> they not exist, but even the New Testament is known to have been written
>>> considerably after Jesus' alleged existence.
>>
>> We have had several instances where the Mother of Jesus has "appeared"
>> to them. Our Lady of Fatima..... Lady of Lourdes.... etc.
>> Do you wish to acknowledge these sources?
>> They exist.
> You forgot Our Lady of the Cheese Sandwich, Virgin Mary in the Office
> Building Window, Lady of the Tree Stump, Madre de Dios in a Spicy Tortilla
> and many others.
Good answer!
You are the one who wanted contempory sources of information.
Now what do you need?
> >> 2. Since the original biblical claim is that he was of a divine
> origin,
>>
>> Please provide some sort of reference with your claim.
>> Sounds like BS to me.
>> I don't recall the bible stating: "divine origin."
>> Did you make that up?
>
> Huh? Speekie English? Looky "divine" up in a pictionary.
I speakie ze english.
You show me in the bible where it CLAIMS: "divine origin."
It doesn't.
So stop making up yer shit.
>>> even more detailed evidence of his alleged existence *and* divinity is
>>> to be provided. None exist.
>>
>> That is like stating that Virgil never existed. Merely for the reason
>> that
>> only paper copies claim he wrote them.
>
> This doesn't parse. Restate.
You don't believe the bible because you don't see contemporary
sources or proof that it is true......
Therefore, you shouldn't believe Aristotle existed... or Virgil or Nero.
>>> 3. His existence and his divinity cannot be separated, i.e. by claiming
>>> that some person named Jesus existed some time in the 1st century Judea,
>>> that he dabbled in carpentry and preaching, but that he was just a man,
>>> is a banal claim - it would be like claiming that some guy named Joe who
>>> was a plumber and talked some shit about politics existed in the 21st
>>> century USA. It is a banal claim and does nothing.
>>
>> You don't believe in Joe, the plumber?
>> Would you like further proof of his existence?
>
> Yawn. Like I said, it is a banal claim without much point. Same for
> non-divine Jesus. That's not what the Bible says, though. Hence, a need
> for evidence.
Why do you say: "Hence?"
If you can't believe one thing, what makes you believe in another?
What makes you think Joe exists?
What kind of proof do you have?
Will this same type of proof give you what you NEED to believe in
the bible? If not, why not?
>>> Like I said, by your standard of "evidence", all one has to do is print
>>> out a whole list of so-called "experts" and their "works" which is then
>>> somehow magically supposed to prove the claim. I don't know how, I
>>> suppose because some of those people even have degrees and know how to
>>> use a typewriter.
>>
>> What are you, a "Thomas" who don believe cuz he aint seen it hisself?
>> WTF do you want?
>
> No, I'm an "Alan" who don believe cuz he aint seen it hisself. I want a
> cookie.
You aint gonna get it.
Now, pipe down and go to yer room.
>>> On the same level of relevance as all your 20th century authors you
>>> mentioned above. Iow, not contemporary, therefore not evidence. At that
>>> time, Christianity was a well established religion and some people wrote
>>> about it and about its alleged messiah. Centuries later.
>>
>> So?
>> WTF do you want?
>
> You to fuck off.
Why?
Do my questions irritate you?
What makes you think your questions have ANY relevence?
Guess what: I believe that George Washington existed. I believe that
Guttenberg existed. I believe that Caesar Augustus, Herod, and Jesus
existed. I also believe that Moses existed.... Noah or someone like him
existed, and there was a first human being ( we call him Adam)
that existed. I also believe in God.
It appears you don't.
Why are you here?
Do you think you can impress anyone with your faulty logic?
>>> no contemporary Roman sources about the existence (life, prosecution,
>>> trial, execution, aftermath) of this crucial figure in history exist.
>>> That, even though there are plenty of Roman authors whose writings from
>>> the time have survived and even though Roman records from the time are
>>> fairly complete. That, even though biblical claims detail enough
>>> post-crucifixion miracles to choke a camel.
>>
>> Contemporary Roman Sources?
>> What a whiner.
>
> Still here, I see...
You didn't explain what you need in some sort of Roman contemporary
sources.... Why didn't you? Can't you explain what you need?
>>>> then there are Jewish records
>>> Where? About Jesus?
>>
>> Yeah, didn't you check out the census where Joseph and Mary
>> went to Bethlehem for the census, and Jesus was born there?
>
> Oh, yeah, I forgot, the census of which there is no record in Roman
> archives whatsoever and the one for which Mary, pregnant to the teeth, had
> to travel on a donkey some 100 miles, and the one for which Romans, having
> a perverse and twisted sense of humor, required people to take anywhere
> else but where they actually lived. Yeah, that makes sense.
You claimed there were plenty of Roman sources.
Didn't you just state:
>>> That, even though there are plenty of Roman authors whose writings from
>>> the time have survived and even though Roman records from the time are
>>> fairly complete.
??
Mitchell Holman
news:26321$4afbfd9f$bc8d1d47$18...@news.upc.ie:
Either he cannot prevent it or does not want to prevent it.
Which is it?
> Now given man can prevent golbal warming nuclear Holocaust asteroids
> hetting the Eartc etc. you have reified it to something only God can
> prevent.
>
We are not talking about man.
> But the principle is the same - there is an outcome (such as pain and
> suffering) and a being who can intervene to prevent it.
>
> Similarly yuo might be able to intervene to prevent an outcome (such
> as a child crying) by stopping someone slapping the child.
>
> You might not intervene because intervening prevents the slapper from
> exercise of their free will.
>
We are not talking about nuclear war or slappers.
Why do you keep changing the subject?
> Similarly a being with the power to do so might not intervene to
> prevent a Nuclear War.
>
> Finally as regards God intervening to prevent the destruction of the
> world how do you know God has not done so already?
We are not talking about "the destruction of the world",
just natural disasters.
Why do you keep changing the subject?
> If God intervened then he migh do it in such a way so you don't know
> about it inorder to preserve your free will by not letting you know.
> >
>>
>>> As to the specific case - there are countless science fiction
>>> stories and movies which enable someone to go back and change the
>>> past only to find out that "fixing things" caused unexpected
>>> consequences.
>>
>>
>> You are using bad sci-fi plot devices to justify
>> your religion?
>
> Noting to do with MY religion. Just with reason and logic and
> philosophy. ~Intervention in spacetime may have other consequences
> which cause worse damage then not intervening.
>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Also it isnt the not intervening impliues not caring position you
>>>>> paint.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If God cares about innocent life why does he
>>>> do nothing as thousands of innocents die needlessly?
>>>
>>> Well this is much the same question.
>>>
>>> And the standard answers are:
>>>
>>> 1. He does not always do nothing.
>>
>>
>> Either he wants disasters to happen or
>> he is powerless to stop them. Which is it?
>
> That is an "excludede middle"! it isnt the not intervening impliues
> not caring position you
> paint as opposed to incapable of intervening. Assuming god can
> intervene that does not imply that not intervening means not caring!
>
So he cares about humanity but kills millions
in natural disasters?
>
>>
>>> 2. He has equipped humans with the ability to do something for
>>> themselves and wont intervene to remove that ability.
>>
>>
>> What are humans supposed to "do" about natural disasters?
>
> Chiose not to press the button marked "total neuclar war"?
> Chose not to burn fossil fuels?
> Choose not to use aerosols.
>
None of those are natural disasters.
Why do you keep changing the subject?
> If you are going to define "natural" as "pre determined with an
> outcome alredy defined by God" then you argument becomes meaningless
> tautology.
>
We do not need a definition of natural
disasters so there is no tautology.
> If there is only be definition one possible outcome then the idea that
> God or anyone else can chose to change that becomes meaningless.
> If the outcome can only be determined by God then you are reified the
> argument to a level which does not apply to humans.
>
> If you are going to use standards which appy to humans you have to
> accept that humans too hae similar choices and compare the principle
> in that way.
>
We are not talking about human standards.
Why do you keep changing the subject?
>
>>
>>> Is there no one in
>>> the whole of history you think needed to die?
>>
>>
>> Which victims of natural disasters "need" to die?
>
> If anyone dies at any time they are subject to the natural laws of the
> universe the laws of physics or whateever.
Are you saying God cannot control "the natural
laws of the universe"?
> In that sense it is natural
> and indeed in accordance with those laws they they die when they do.
> All people who die therefore need to die if that is what is necessary
> to conform to the laws of nature.
And who wrote "the laws of nature" if not God?