| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" |
| Date: |
21 Jan 2007 07:13:20 AM |
| Object: |
Proof of LORD Almighty GOD: HIS creation of the universe. |
brother Melchizedek wrote:
"Father Haskell" wrote:
WhewAustralopithicus wrote:
"Father Haskell" wrote:
brother Melchizedek wrote:
"St. Jackanapes" wrote:
<snip>
Whack-A-Fundy
Squash a Liver!
50 Yard Bible Toss!
Oh goodie, a picnic. I'll bring the potato salad.
Melchy says he'll bring the goat.
FA talking to him/her self, huh ... :-)
Divine Design
"Only a rookie who knows nothing about science would say science takes away from faith. If you really study science, it will bring
you closer to God."
-James Tour, Nanoscientist
The astronomical evidence for God must be strong when atheistic physicists admit that "the universe exploded out of nothingness,"
and agnostic astronomers claim that "supernatural forces" were so at work in the beginning that scientists are led back to "a band
of theologians who have been sitting there for centuries" (see chapter 3). But the scientific evidence for God does not end with the
Cosmological Argument. For many, the precision with which the universe exploded into being provides even more persuasive evidence
for the existence of God.
This evidence, technically known as the Teleological Argument, derives its name from the Greek word telos, which means "design." The
Teleological Argument goes like this:
1. Every design had a designer.
2. The universe has highly complex design.
3. Therefore, the universe had a Designer.
Isaac Newton (1642-1727) implicitly confirmed the validity of the Teleological Argument when he marveled at the design of our solar
system. He wrote, "This most beautiful system of the sun, planets and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an
intelligent and powerful Being."?1? Yet it was William Paley (1743-1805) who made the argument famous by his commonsense assertion
that every watch requires a watchmaker. Imagine you're walking along in the woods and you find a diamond-studded Rolex on the
ground. What do you conclude is the cause of that watch: The wind and the rain? Erosion? Some combination of natural forces? Of
course not! There's absolutely no question in your mind that some intelligent being made that watch, and that some unfortunate
individual must have accidentally dropped it there.
Scientists are now finding that the universe in which we live is like that diamond-studded Rolex, except the universe is even more
precisely designed than the watch. In fact, the universe is specifically tweaked to enable life on earth-a planet with scores of
improbable and interdependent life-supporting conditions that make it a tiny oasis in a vast and hostile universe.
These highly precise and interdependent environmental conditions (which are called "anthropic constants") make up what is known as
the "Anthropic Principle." "Anthropic" comes from a Greek word that means "human" or "man." The Anthropic Principle is just a fancy
title for the mounting evidence that has many scientists believing that the universe is extremely fine-tuned (designed) to support
human life here on earth.
In this vast and hostile universe, we earthlings are much like astronauts who can survive only in the small confines of their
spaceship. Like a spaceship, our earth supports life as it hurls through lifeless space. But also like a spaceship, a slight change
or malfunction in any one of a number of factors-in either the universe or the earth itself-could fatally alter the narrowly defined
environmental conditions we need to survive.
Apollo 13, one of the most challenging and famed missions in the history of NASA, will help drive this point home. We're going spend
the next few pages aboard Apollo 13. And as we do, we'll point out some of the anthropic constants that make our lives possible.
1 Isaac Newton, "General Scholium," in Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy (1687) in Great Books of the Western World,
Robert M. Hutchins, ed. (Chicago: Encyclopedia Britannica, n.d.), 369.
Geisler, N. L., & Turek, F. (2004). I don't have enough faith to be an atheist (95). Wheaton, Ill.: Crossway Books.
Many thanks, much praise, and all the glory to GOD for HIS compelling
you to post this.
Laus Deo ! ! !
Let us continue to prayer for our dear friends and neighbors who have
been convicted by the Holy Spirit:
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Convicts
For they are in danger of unwisely choosing to blaspheme the Holy
Spirit thereby becoming demons:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/6f0944c007976167?
May GOD continue to heal our hearts with HIS living water so that we
can love our neighbors a little more and LORD Jesus Christ a whole lot
more, dear brother Melchizedek whom I love unconditionally.
Prayerfully in Christ's amazing love,
Andrew <><
--
Andrew B. Chung
Cardiologist, Atlanta, Georgia, USA
http://HeartMDPhD.com/HolySpirit
As for knowing who are the very elect, these you will know by the
unconditional love they have for everyone including their enemies
(Matthew 5:44-45, 1 Corinthians 13:3, James 2:14-17).
http://HeartMDPhD.com/Love
.
|
|
| User: "Smiler" |
|
| Title: Re: God rests on a logical fallacy. |
17 Mar 2007 10:23:35 PM |
|
|
"Mike" <mjake@sirus.removethis.andthis.com> wrote in message
news:45fc8617$0$30099$6d2eeca5@news.sirus.com...
"Hatter" <Hatter23@gmail.com> wrote
All the proof I need that there is some Almighty Power forcing all the
facts
to comply with His Will is that all the facts in reality are consistent
with
each other. If God is not the One doing that, then what is? Or are you
asserting that there is something totally illogical that definately
exists?
If this is Logic, show that it is NOT Circular. Its called begging the
question, gumbah.
Your entire argment rests on the assumption that the desired result is
true. Before making pronouncements about logic, read a logic book
No, a careful observation of the facts to date proves that there is
something making sure that they are all consistent and none denies
another. The fact that logical deduction is useful in confirming facts not
yet observed proves that nature is controlled by Logic. I choose to define
this logical something as God for the simple reason that it exists
everywhere, at all times, and controls all facts. How more simple can it
be? Now I suggest that you repent of your atheism and start asking
yourself what the existent of this God/Logic means to your life.
BTDT
Answer = Bugger all.
Smiler,
The godless one
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hatter" |
|
| Title: Re: God rests on a logical fallacy. |
19 Mar 2007 07:15:03 AM |
|
|
On Mar 17, 11:23 pm, "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote:
"Mike" <m...@sirus.removethis.andthis.com> wrote in message
news:45fc8617$0$30099$6d2eeca5@news.sirus.com...
"Hatter" <Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote
All the proof I need that there is some Almighty Power forcing all the
facts
to comply with His Will is that all the facts in reality are consistent
with
each other. If God is not the One doing that, then what is? Or are you
asserting that there is something totally illogical that definately
exists?
If this is Logic, show that it is NOT Circular. Its called begging the
question, gumbah.
Your entire argment rests on the assumption that the desired result is
true. Before making pronouncements about logic, read a logic book
No, a careful observation of the facts to date proves that there is
something making sure that they are all consistent and none denies
another. The fact that logical deduction is useful in confirming facts not
yet observed proves that nature is controlled by Logic. I choose to define
this logical something as God for the simple reason that it exists
everywhere, at all times, and controls all facts. How more simple can it
be? Now I suggest that you repent of your atheism and start asking
yourself what the existent of this God/Logic means to your life.
BTDT
Answer = Bugger all.
Smiler,
The godless one- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I'm not sure does this one qualify as an Eviocation(attempt to
redefine) Circular argument, or just plain red herring?
Hatter
.
|
|
|
| User: "Smiler" |
|
| Title: Re: God rests on a logical fallacy. |
19 Mar 2007 09:36:32 PM |
|
|
"Hatter" <Hatter23@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174306503.705911.103380@y66g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 17, 11:23 pm, "Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote:
"Mike" <m...@sirus.removethis.andthis.com> wrote in message
news:45fc8617$0$30099$6d2eeca5@news.sirus.com...
"Hatter" <Hatte...@gmail.com> wrote
All the proof I need that there is some Almighty Power forcing all
the
facts
to comply with His Will is that all the facts in reality are
consistent
with
each other. If God is not the One doing that, then what is? Or are
you
asserting that there is something totally illogical that definately
exists?
If this is Logic, show that it is NOT Circular. Its called begging the
question, gumbah.
Your entire argment rests on the assumption that the desired result is
true. Before making pronouncements about logic, read a logic book
No, a careful observation of the facts to date proves that there is
something making sure that they are all consistent and none denies
another. The fact that logical deduction is useful in confirming facts
not
yet observed proves that nature is controlled by Logic. I choose to
define
this logical something as God for the simple reason that it exists
everywhere, at all times, and controls all facts. How more simple can
it
be? Now I suggest that you repent of your atheism and start asking
yourself what the existent of this God/Logic means to your life.
BTDT
Answer = Bugger all.
Smiler,
The godless one- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I'm not sure does this one qualify as an Eviocation(attempt to
redefine) Circular argument, or just plain red herring?
None of the above.
Just plain lunacy.
Smiler,
The godless one
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike" |
|
| Title: Re: God rests on a logical fallacy. |
21 Mar 2007 08:28:50 PM |
|
|
"Smiler" <Smiler@Joe.King.com> wrote
If this is Logic, show that it is NOT Circular. Its called begging
the
question, gumbah.
Your entire argment rests on the assumption that the desired result
is
true. Before making pronouncements about logic, read a logic book
No, a careful observation of the facts to date proves that there is
something making sure that they are all consistent and none denies
another. The fact that logical deduction is useful in confirming facts
not
yet observed proves that nature is controlled by Logic. I choose to
define
this logical something as God for the simple reason that it exists
everywhere, at all times, and controls all facts. How more simple can
it
be? Now I suggest that you repent of your atheism and start asking
yourself what the existent of this God/Logic means to your life.
I'm not sure does this one qualify as an Eviocation(attempt to
redefine) Circular argument, or just plain red herring?
None of the above.
Just plain lunacy.
How does my definition differ from that of Einstein's who said, "God does
not play dice with the world"? Surely he was referring to that Power or
Entity that maintains the logical consistency between all fact. I'm not
saying anything more than that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "St. Jackanapes" |
|
| Title: Re: God rests on a logical fallacy. |
25 Mar 2007 02:06:12 AM |
|
|
In alt.flame.jesus.christ, Mike said...
"Smiler" <Smiler@Joe.King.com> wrote
If this is Logic, show that it is NOT Circular. Its called begging
the
question, gumbah.
Your entire argment rests on the assumption that the desired result
is
true. Before making pronouncements about logic, read a logic book
No, a careful observation of the facts to date proves that there is
something making sure that they are all consistent and none denies
another. The fact that logical deduction is useful in confirming facts
not
yet observed proves that nature is controlled by Logic. I choose to
define
this logical something as God for the simple reason that it exists
everywhere, at all times, and controls all facts. How more simple can
it
be? Now I suggest that you repent of your atheism and start asking
yourself what the existent of this God/Logic means to your life.
I'm not sure does this one qualify as an Eviocation(attempt to
redefine) Circular argument, or just plain red herring?
None of the above.
Just plain lunacy.
How does my definition differ from that of Einstein's who said, "God does
not play dice with the world"? Surely he was referring to that Power or
Entity that maintains the logical consistency between all fact. I'm not
saying anything more than that.
That's not what he was referring to at all. He was referring to the
strange actions being seen in quantum mechanics at the subatomic levels
that went against general relativity. He believed that objects at the
subatomic level should act the same as objects on a planetary scale.
Experiments in quantum mechanics were showing strange things like
objects being in two places at once. Einstein believed that there should
be one theory to explain both large and quantum objects, but quantum
objects weren't playing along. This caused Einstein to say that "God
does not play dice with the Universe" - He was not referring to a
creator or to "God" - it was just a convenient device to use to describe
the workings of the Universe.
--
St. Jackanapes of Usenet ~ Bearer of The One True Liver ~
An Ordained Minister & Holy Saint of The Universal Life Church
---------------------------------------------------------------
MY SHITTY WEBSITE: http://www.jackanapes.ws
MOCK JESUS FORUM: http://www.voy.com/20630/
"Well, how would you like to have someone come along and pick
something off of you?" - Apple Tree - The Wizard of Oz
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "thomas p." |
|
| Title: Re: God rests on a logical fallacy. |
26 Mar 2007 01:37:46 AM |
|
|
On 22 Mar., 03:28, "Mike" <m...@sirus.removethis.andthis.com> wrote:
"Smiler" <Smi...@Joe.King.com> wrote
snip
How does my definition differ from that of Einstein's who said, "God does
not play dice with the world"? Surely he was referring to that Power or
Entity that maintains the logical consistency between all fact.
Surely he was not.
I'm not
saying anything more than that.-
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Smiler" |
|
| Title: Re: God rests on a logical fallacy. |
23 Mar 2007 07:11:47 PM |
|
|
"Mike" <mjake@sirus.removethis.andthis.com> wrote in message
news:45fb2527$0$30076$6d2eeca5@news.sirus.com...
"Hatter" <Hatter23@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174067638.036535.220170@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 16, 1:11 pm, "Mike" <m...@sirus.removethis.andthis.com> wrote:
"Pastor Kutchie" <use...@heathens.org.uk> wrote in message
news:1169391280.832283.205980@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
Melchizedek wrote:
No defense is given concerning the existence of God.
No defence is possible, since there is no evidence of your god or any
other gods, and neither is it even possible to offer evidence, since,
by definition there can be no valid evidence. That means that your
entire belief system rests on a logical fallacy of argument from
special pleading.
<clunk> <gurgle>
You've got it wrong. God is Logic itself.
So he was invented by some Greek Philosphers?
No, they discovered that some overall principle (God/Logic) seems to
control the world so that all facts remain consistent with each other.
He is complete and absolute righteousness.
So it is rigteous to create a world with disease that kill children.
Got it.
Death is not the end. There's a heaven for those who believe.
He exists always, everywhere, and He knows all things.
I don't see him. If he knows all thing then he would know what it
would take for me to beleive you.
God is Logic. And the only results that can come from Logic is either true
or false. So God will create a distinction between right and wrong. And
there will come a heaven and hell to make His judgment clear. Some are
destined for hell. Be thankful I'm not God.
Oh, but I wish you were god.
Then you wouldn't exist.
You wouldn't be able to come into alt.atheism to spew your moronic theist
beliefs here.
Smiler,
The godless one
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Velvet Elvis" |
|
| Title: Re: God rests on a logical fallacy. |
16 Mar 2007 08:23:58 PM |
|
|
On Fri, 16 Mar 2007 19:15:46 -0500, "Mike"
<mjake@sirus.removethis.andthis.com> wrote:
"Hatter" <Hatter23@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1174067638.036535.220170@d57g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
On Mar 16, 1:11 pm, "Mike" <m...@sirus.removethis.andthis.com> wrote:
"Pastor Kutchie" <use...@heathens.org.uk> wrote in message
news:1169391280.832283.205980@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
Melchizedek wrote:
No defense is given concerning the existence of God.
No defence is possible, since there is no evidence of your god or any
other gods, and neither is it even possible to offer evidence, since,
by definition there can be no valid evidence. That means that your
entire belief system rests on a logical fallacy of argument from
special pleading.
<clunk> <gurgle>
You've got it wrong. God is Logic itself.
So he was invented by some Greek Philosphers?
No, they discovered that some overall principle (God/Logic) seems to control
the world so that all facts remain consistent with each other.
He is complete and absolute righteousness.
So it is rigteous to create a world with disease that kill children.
Got it.
Death is not the end. There's a heaven for those who believe.
He exists always, everywhere, and He knows all things.
I don't see him. If he knows all thing then he would know what it
would take for me to beleive you.
God is Logic. And the only results that can come from Logic is either true
or false. So God will create a distinction between right and wrong. And
there will come a heaven and hell to make His judgment clear. Some are
destined for hell. Be thankful I'm not God.
Everything He does is always reasonable and just.
Tsunamis that kill hundreds of thousands are reasonable and just. Got
it.
I suppose that would be just and right as creating them in the first place.
And everything that happens is under His control.
Auchwitz was under his control. Got it.
The only example I know of an innocent person who suffered a tragic end was
Christ, and He rose from the dead.
To come up with that astonishing bit of denial, you're either a grade A troll,
or one sick *****.
--
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
Give a man a fish, and you'll feed him for a day;
Give him a religion, and he'll starve to death
while praying for a fish.
*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*-*
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Melchizedek" |
|
| Title: Re: God rests on a logical fallacy. |
21 Jan 2007 11:07:12 AM |
|
|
"Pastor Kutchie" <user13@heathens.org.uk> wrote in message news:1169391280.832283.205980@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
Melchizedek wrote:
No defense is given concerning the existence of God.
No defence is possible, since there is no evidence of your god or any
other gods, and neither is it even possible to offer evidence, since,
by definition there can be no valid evidence. That means that your
entire belief system rests on a logical fallacy of argument from
special pleading.
<clunk> <gurgle>
NOPE! -;D>
Explanation is from Romans: ...
Unbelief and Its Consequences
(Romans 1:18-32 NASB)
Unbelief and Its Consequences
18 For ?a?the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who ?b?suppress the truth
?1?in unrighteousness,
19 because ?a?that which is known about God is evident ?1?within
them; for God made it evident to them.
20 For ?a?since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His
eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, ?b?being
understood through what has been made, so that they are without
excuse.
21 For even though they knew God, they did not ?1?honor Him as
God or give thanks, but they became ?a?futile in their speculations, and
their foolish heart was darkened.
22 ?a?Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 and ?a?exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image
in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and
?1?crawling creatures.
24 Therefore ?a?God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to
impurity, so that their bodies would be ?b?dishonored among them.
25 For they exchanged the truth of God for ?1?a ?a?lie, and
worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, ?b?who is
blessed ?2?forever. Amen.
26 For this reason ?a?God gave them over to ?b?degrading
passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which
is ?1?unnatural,
27 and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function
of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, ?a?men
with men committing ?1?indecent acts and receiving in ?2?their own
persons the due penalty of their error.
28 And just as they did not see fit ?1?to acknowledge God any
longer, ?a?God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things
which are not proper,
29 being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full
of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are ?a?gossips,
30 slanderers, ?1??a?haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful,
inventors of evil, ?b?disobedient to parents,
31 without understanding, untrustworthy, ?a?unloving, unmerciful;
32 and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who
practice such things are worthy of ?a?death, they not only do the same,
but also ?b?give hearty approval to those who practice them.
[1]
1:20
1:20 invisible attributes. This refers specifically to the two mentioned in this
verse. by the things that are made. The creation delivers a clear,
unmistakable message about God's person (cf. Pss. 19:1-8; 94:9; Acts
14:15-17; 17:23-28). His eternal power. The Creator, who made all that
we see around us and constantly sustains it, must be a being of awesome
power. Godhead. That is, His divine nature, particularly His faithfulness
(Gen. 8:21, 22), kindness, and graciousness (Acts 14:17). they are without
excuse. God holds all men responsible for their refusal to acknowledge
what He has shown them of Himself in His creation. Even those who have
never had an opportunity to hear the gospel have received a clear witness
about the existence and character of God-and have suppressed it. If a
person will respond to the revelation he has, even if it is solely natural
revelation, God will provide some means for that person to hear the gospel
(cf. Acts 8:26-39; 10:1-48; 17:27).[2]
1:21-1:23
Every man knows there's a God, but men choose to suppress the truth and
deny God exists because they don't want to give glory to Him as God.
You see, if there is a God, then I am required to submit to Him. But my
flesh doesn't want to do that, so I'll suppress the truth I see all around me.
I'll say God doesn't exist-even though the heavens and stars scream at
me, "Yes He does!"
We can fall into this same error as believers. Knowing God, we can fail to
glorify Him as God. How? By insisting on our own way, by saying, "God, I
believe in You, and now I'm telling You what I want You to do. You
better solve this situation, take care of this problem, grant this request, or
heal this sickness. I'm naming it. I'm claiming it."
He's God. We're not. He knows things we can't know and sees things we
can't see. Therefore, for me to rub the lamp of faith and expect God to
become my genie is, in a sense, blasphemous. Father knows best.
Therefore, my part is to talk things over with Him, cast my cares upon
Him, and have faith that He will do what's right-even though I might not
initially agree or understand.[3]
There is no such thing as man moving upward. These verses contradict the
hypothesis of evolution. Man is not improving physically, morally,
intellectually, or spiritually. The pull is downward. Of course this
contradicts all the anthologies of religion that start with man in a very
primitive condition as a caveman with very little intellectual qualities and
move him up intellectually and begin moving him toward God. This is
absolute error. Man is moving away from God, and right now the world is
probably farther from God than at any time in its history. The fact of the
matter is that every primitive tribe has a tradition that way back in the
beginning their ancestors knew God. Dr. Vincent in Word Studies in the
New Testament says, "I think it may be proved from facts that any given
people, down to the lowest savages, has at any period of its life known far
more than it has done: known quite enough to have enabled it to have got
on comfortably, thriven and developed, if it had only done what no man
does, all that it knew it ought to do and could do." No people have ever
lived up to the light that they have had. Although they had a knowledge of
God, they moved away from Him.
"They glorified him not as God." They did not give Him His rightful place,
and man became self-sufficient. In our day man has made the
announcement that God is dead. In the beginning the human family did not
suggest that God was dead, they simply turned their backs upon Him and
made man their god.
"Neither were thankful." Ingratitude is one of the worst sins there is. You
recall that the Lord Jesus healed ten lepers, but only one returned to thank
Him. Only ten percent were thankful, and I believe it is less than that today.
"Became vain in their imaginations"-they even concocted a theory of
evolution.
"Their foolish heart was darkened." They moved into the darkness of
paganism. You see living proof of this as you walk down the streets of
Cairo in Egypt or of Istanbul in Turkey. In fact, all you have to do is walk
down the streets of Los Angeles to know that man's foolish heart is
darkened.
"Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools." The wisdom of
man is foolishness with God. Man searches for truth through logical
reasoning but arrives at a philosophy that is foolish in God's sight.[4]
1:19-1:27
The ungodliness of mankind 1:19-27
1:19-20 These verses begin a discussion of "natural revelation." Natural
revelation describes what everyone knows about God because of what
God has revealed concerning Himself in nature. What He has revealed
about Himself in Scripture is "special revelation." The creation bears
testimony to its Maker, and every human being "hears" this witness (cf. Ps.
19).43
"Napoleon, on a warship in the Mediterranean on a star-lit night, passed a
group of his officers who were mocking at the idea of a God. He stopped,
and sweeping his hand toward the stars, said, 'Gentlemen, you must get rid
of those first!'"44
Four things characterize this revelation. First, it is a clear testimony;
everyone is aware of it ("it is evident [plain]"). Second, everyone can
understand it. We can draw conclusions about the Creator from His
creation.45 Third, it has gone out since the creation of the world in every
generation. Fourth, it is a limited revelation in that it does not reveal
everything about God (e.g., His love and grace) but only some things (i.e.,
His power and deity). Natural revelation makes man responsible to
respond to his Creator in worship and submission. However it does not
give sufficient information for him to experience salvation. That is why
everyone needs to hear the gospel.
"Utter uncompromising, abandonment of hope in man is the first
preliminary to understanding or preaching the gospel."46
1:20 Ever since the creation of the world, two invisible characteristics of
God have been on display for all to see: His eternal power and His divinity
or Godhead. The word Paul uses here means divinity or godhood. It
suggests the character of God rather than His essential being, His glorious
attributes rather than His inherent deity. His deity is assumed.
The argument here is clear: Creation demands a Creator. Design demands
a Designer. By looking up at the sun, moon, and stars, anyone can know
there is a God.
The answer to the question "What about the heathen?" is this: they are
without excuse. God has revealed Himself to them in creation, but they
have not responded to this revelation. So people are not condemned for
rejecting a Savior they have never heard of, but for being unfaithful to what
they could know about God. [5]
1:21-23 Honoring God as God and giving Him thanks (v. 21) are our
primary duties to God in view of who He is. Mythology and idolatry
have resulted from man's need to identify some power greater than
himself and his refusal to acknowledge God as that power. Men and
women have elevated themselves to God's position (cf. Dan. 2:38; 3:1;
5:23). In our day, humanism has replaced the worship of individual
human leaders in most western countries. Man has descended to the
worship of animals as well (cf. Ps. 106:20). This is perhaps more
characteristic of third world countries.
"This tragic process of human 'god-making' continues apace in our own
day, and Paul's words have as much relevance for people who have made
money or sex or fame their gods as for those who carved idols out of
wood and stone."47
Note the allusions to the creation story in the threefold division of the
animal kingdom in verse 23.
1:24-25 The false religions that man has devised and to which Paul just
referred constitute some of God's judgment on mankind for turning from
Him. False religion is not in any sense good for mankind. It is a judgment
from God, and it tends to keep people so distracted that they rarely deal
with the true God.
"God's wrath mentioned in Romans 1 is not an active outpouring of divine
displeasure but the removal of restraint that allows sinners to reap the just
fruits of their rebellion."48
It is active in another sense, however. God gave man over (v. 24; cf. vv.
26, 28) by turning him over to the punishment his crime earned, as a judge
does a prisoner. The third characteristic of man in rebellion against God
that Paul identified after ignorance (v. 21) and idolatry (v. 23) is impurity
(v. 24). Here Paul evidently had natural forms of moral uncleanness in view
such as adultery and harlotry. He went on in verses 26-27 to describe
even worse immorality, namely unnatural acts such as homosexuality.49
Mankind exchanged the truth of God (v. 25; cf. v. 18) for "the lie"
(literally). The lie in view is the contention that we should venerate someone
or something in place of the true God (cf. Gen. 3:1-5; Matt. 4:3-10).
Paul's concluding doxology underlined this folly.
1:26-27 Because mankind "exchanged" the truth for the lie God allowed
him to degrade himself through his passions. The result was that he
"exchanged" natural human functions for what is unnatural. In the Greek
text the words translated "women" (thelus; v. 26) and "men" (arsen, v. 27)
mean "females" and "males." Ironically the homosexuality described in
these verses does not characterize females and males of other animal
species, only human beings. Homosexuality is a perversion because it uses
sex for a purpose contrary to those for which God created and intended it
(Gen. 1:28).
"This need not demand the conclusion that every homosexual follows the
practice in deliberate rebellion against God's prescribed order. What is
true historically and theologically is in measure true, however,
experientially."50
AIDS, for example, is probably the consequence of man's rebellion against
God rather than a special judgment from God. The "due penalty" is what
man experiences as a result of God giving him over and letting him indulge
his sinful desires (cf. 6:23).51
"Sin comes from the mind, which perverts the judgment. The effect of
retribution is to abandon the mind to that depravity."52
"A contextual and exegetical examination of Romans 1:26-27 reveals that
attempts by some contemporary writers to do away with Paul's
prohibitions against present-day same-sex relations are false Paul did not
impose Jewish customs and rules on his readers; instead he addressed
same-sex relations from the trans-cultural perspective of God's created
order. God's punishment for sin is rooted in a sinful reversal of the created
order. Nor was homosexuality simply a sin practiced by idolaters in Paul's
day; it was a distorting consequence of the fall of the human race in the
Garden of Eden. Neither did Paul describe homosexual acts by
heterosexuals. Instead he wrote that homosexual activity was an exchange
of the created order (heterosexuality) for a talionic perversion
(homosexuality), which is never presented in Scripture as an acceptable
norm for sexuality. Also Hellenistic pederasty does not fully account for the
terms and logic of Romans 1:26-27 which refers to adult-adult mutuality.
Therefore it is clear that in Romans 1:26-27 Paul condemned
homosexuality as a perversion of God's design for human sexual
relations."53 [6]
The God of the Bible, in contrast to some pagan religions, is in sovereign
control of everything, including evil, which he uses to accomplish his good
purposes (cf. Job 1-3).
Third, the Bible sometimes speaks of God "hardening" people's hearts
(see Rom. 9:17-18) or even sending them strong delusions (2 Thess.
2:11). However, on closer examination, we discover that God did this to
those who had hardened their own hearts (Exod. 8:15) and who "did not
believe the truth" (2 Thess. 2:12). God uses even their depravity to
accomplish his purposes. God permits lying as a judgment on evil.
God, for his own purposes of justice, allowed Ahab to be deceived by evil
spirits to accomplish his sovereign and good will.
John 7:3-10. Bible critics have sometimes appealed to this text to show
that Jesus lied. This is a serious charge, since it would not only be a divinely
approved lie, but one told by God himself in the person of his Son. Jesus'
unbelieving brothers challenged him to go up to Jerusalem and show
himself openly to be the Messiah (7:3-4). Jesus refused, saying, "I am not
yet going up to this feast, because for me the right time has not yet come"
(vs. 8). But later Jesus did go (vs. 10). Jesus did not go openly, as the
brothers had suggested, nor at the immediate time they suggested. Further,
John 7:8 relates that Jesus said he was not yet going. "He remained in
Galilee" before he went up. [7]
Man has a revelation from God, but he flagrantly flaunts it by defying the
judgment of God against such sins. He continues to practice them and
applauds and approves those who do the same. [8]
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
a Rom 5:9; Eph 5:6; Col 3:6
b 2 Thess 2:6f
1 Or by
a Acts 14:17; 17:24ff
1 Or among
a Mark 10:6
b Job 12:7-9; Ps 19:1-6; Jer 5:21f
1 Lit glorify
a 2 Kin 17:15; Jer 2:5; Eph 4:17f
a Jer 10:14; 1 Cor 1:20
a Deut 4:16-18; Ps 106:20; Jer 2:11; Acts 17:29
1 Or reptiles
a Rom 1:26, 28; Eph 4:19
b Eph 2:3
1 Lit the lie
a Is 44:20; Jer 10:14; 13:25; 16:19
b Rom 9:5; 2 Cor 11:31
2 Lit unto the ages
a Rom 1:24
b 1 Thess 4:5
1 Lit against nature
a Lev 18:22; 20:13; 1 Cor 6:9
1 Lit the shameless deed
2 Lit themselves
1 Lit to have God in knowledge
a Rom 1:24
a 2 Cor 12:20
1 Or hateful to God
a Ps 5:5
b 2 Tim 3:2
a 2 Tim 3:3
a Rom 6:21
b Luke 11:48; Acts 8:1; 22:20
[1]New American Standard Bible : 1995 update. 1995 (Ro 1:18).
LaHabra, CA: The Lockman Foundation.
[2]MacArthur, J. J. (1997, c1997). The MacArthur Study Bible
(electronic ed.) (Ro 1:20). Nashville: Word Pub.
[3]Courson, J. (2003). Jon Courson's Application Commentary (870).
Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson.
[4]McGee, J. V. (1997, c1981). Thru the Bible commentary. Based on
the Thru the Bible radio program. (electronic ed.) (4:653). Nashville:
Thomas Nelson.
43 43. See Bruce A. Baker, "Romans 1:18-21 and Presuppositional
Apologetics," Bibliotheca Sacra 155:619 (July-September 1998):280-98.
44 44. Newell, p. 29.
45 45. "His invisible attributes . . . have been clearly seen" is an oxymoron.
46 46. Newell, p. 27.
[5]MacDonald, W., & Farstad, A. (1997, c1995). Believer's Bible
Commentary : Old and New Testaments (Ro 1:20). Nashville: Thomas
Nelson.
47 47. Moo, p. 110. For a relevant exposition of verses 21-22, see
Francis A. Schaeffer, Death in the City, pp. 79-123.
48 48. Mounce, p. 80.
49 49. Natural here means in keeping with how God has designed people,
and unnatural refers to behavior that is contrary to how God has made us.
50 50. Harrison, p. 25.
51 51. See P. Michael Ukleja, "Homosexuality in the New Testament,"
Bibliotheca Sacra 140:560 (October-December 1983):350-58.
52 52. Henri Maurier, The Other Covenant, p. 185.
53 53. David E. Malick, "The Condemnation of Homosexuality in Romans
1:26-27, " Bibliotheca Sacra 150:599 (July-September 1993):340.
Pederasty is a form of sodomy between males, especially as practiced by a
man with a boy. See also Sherwood A. Cole, "Biology, Homosexuality,
and Moral Culpability," Bibliotheca Sacra 154:615 (July-September
1997):355-66.
[6]Tom Constable. (2003; 2003). Tom Constable's Expository Notes on
the Bible (Ro 1:18). Galaxie Software.
[7]Geisler, N. L. (1999). Baker encyclopedia of Christian apologetics.
Baker reference library (434). Grand Rapids, Mich.: Baker Books.
[8]McGee, J. V. (1997, c1981). Thru the Bible commentary. Based on
the Thru the Bible radio program. (electronic ed.) (4:655). Nashville:
Thomas Nelson.
--
My Christian Bible Study Collection ><> http://Bibleweb.Info/
.
|
|
|
| User: "WhewAustralopithicus" |
|
| Title: Re: God rests on a logical fallacy. |
21 Jan 2007 11:26:46 AM |
|
|
"Melchizedek" <Melchizedek@trust-but-verify.com> wrote in message
news:h5Nsh.13658$8U4.9299@newsfe20.lga...
"Pastor Kutchie" <user13@heathens.org.uk> wrote in message
news:1169391280.832283.205980@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
Melchizedek wrote:
No defense is given concerning the existence of God.
<snip, snap, voila! gone)
If you keep this up I might need a donation.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bill M" |
|
| Title: Re: God rests on a logical fallacy. |
21 Jan 2007 01:15:34 PM |
|
|
"Melchizedek" <Melchizedek@trust-but-verify.com> wrote in message
news:h5Nsh.13658$8U4.9299@newsfe20.lga...
"Pastor Kutchie" <user13@heathens.org.uk> wrote in message
news:1169391280.832283.205980@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
Melchizedek wrote:
No defense is given concerning the existence of God.
No defence is possible, since there is no evidence of your god or any
other gods, and neither is it even possible to offer evidence, since,
by definition there can be no valid evidence. That means that your
entire belief system rests on a logical fallacy of argument from
special pleading.
<clunk> <gurgle>
NOPE! -;D>
Explanation is from Romans: ...
Unbelief and Its Consequences
The Bibles are not evidence of anything other than the follwing.
The Bibles are nothing more than books of myths, fables, contradictions,
human and animal sacrifices, genocide, slaveholding, misogyny, destruction,
barbarisms, and impossible tales. They are not accurate history and
certainly are not the words of any god unless he is an insane and totally
untrustworthy monster. They are not even good fiction.
The Bibles are a foundation of quicksand. There are NO ORIGINALS in
existence. Why would not any 'real' God protect the originals??? What are
available are altered copies of copies by unknown men of questionable
veracity. The books of the Bibles were written over 1,000 years before the
invention of the printing press. Even the so called originals were
supposedly written by 56 or more different authors of unknown veracity. They
are biased by, and dependent on the writings and opinions of the clergy. And
the status and survival of the clergy is totally dependent on their follower's
belief in their Bible stories. There are 18 different English versions
alone.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "William T. Goat" |
|
| Title: Re: God rests on a logical fallacy. |
22 Mar 2007 10:35:08 AM |
|
|
Melchizedek wrote:
"Pastor Kutchie" <user13@heathens.org.uk> wrote in message news:1169391280.832283.205980@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
Melchizedek wrote:
No defense is given concerning the existence of God.
No defence is possible, since there is no evidence of your god or any
other gods, and neither is it even possible to offer evidence, since,
by definition there can be no valid evidence. That means that your
entire belief system rests on a logical fallacy of argument from
special pleading.
<clunk> <gurgle>
NOPE! -;D>
Explanation is from Romans: ...
Unbelief and Its Consequences
(Romans 1:18-32 NASB)
Unbelief and Its Consequences
18 For ?a?the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who ?b?suppress the truth
?1?in unrighteousness,
19 because ?a?that which is known about God is evident ?1?within
them; for God made it evident to them.
Notice, right here, that this scripture is about those "who suppress
the truth in unrighteousness", not unbelievers. It has nothing to do
with "unbelief and its consequences".
20 For ?a?since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His
eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, ?b?being
understood through what has been made, so that they are without
excuse.
21 For even though they knew God, they did not ?1?honor Him as
God or give thanks, but they became ?a?futile in their speculations, and
their foolish heart was darkened.
22 ?a?Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 and ?a?exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image
in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and
?1?crawling creatures.
Are you accusing atheists of worshiping birds and animals? You're a
bit confused.
--Billy
.
|
|
|
| User: "St. Jackanapes" |
|
| Title: Re: God rests on a logical fallacy. |
24 Mar 2007 11:59:31 PM |
|
|
In alt.flame.jesus.christ, William T. Goat said...
Melchizedek wrote:
"Pastor Kutchie" <user13@heathens.org.uk> wrote in message news:1169391280.832283.205980@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
Melchizedek wrote:
No defense is given concerning the existence of God.
No defence is possible, since there is no evidence of your god or any
other gods, and neither is it even possible to offer evidence, since,
by definition there can be no valid evidence. That means that your
entire belief system rests on a logical fallacy of argument from
special pleading.
<clunk> <gurgle>
NOPE! -;D>
Explanation is from Romans: ...
Unbelief and Its Consequences
(Romans 1:18-32 NASB)
Unbelief and Its Consequences
18 For ?a?the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who ?b?suppress the truth
?1?in unrighteousness,
19 because ?a?that which is known about God is evident ?1?within
them; for God made it evident to them.
Notice, right here, that this scripture is about those "who suppress
the truth in unrighteousness", not unbelievers. It has nothing to do
with "unbelief and its consequences".
20 For ?a?since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His
eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, ?b?being
understood through what has been made, so that they are without
excuse.
21 For even though they knew God, they did not ?1?honor Him as
God or give thanks, but they became ?a?futile in their speculations, and
their foolish heart was darkened.
22 ?a?Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 and ?a?exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image
in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and
?1?crawling creatures.
Are you accusing atheists of worshiping birds and animals? You're a
bit confused.
He never debates the ***** he posts in here, because he's stolen it off
someone's website. He's a fucking copy & paste spammer.
--
St. Jackanapes of Usenet ~ Bearer of The One True Liver ~
An Ordained Minister & Holy Saint of The Universal Life Church
---------------------------------------------------------------
MY SHITTY WEBSITE: http://www.jackanapes.ws
MOCK JESUS FORUM: http://www.voy.com/20630/
"Well, how would you like to have someone come along and pick
something off of you?" - Apple Tree - The Wizard of Oz
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Father Haskell" |
|
| Title: Re: God rests on a logical fallacy. |
22 Mar 2007 01:52:32 PM |
|
|
On Mar 22, 11:35 am, "William T. Goat" <ericv...@my-deja.com> wrote:
Melchizedek wrote:
"Pastor Kutchie" <use...@heathens.org.uk> wrote in messagenews:1169391280.832283.205980@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
Melchizedek wrote:
No defense is given concerning the existence of God.
No defence is possible, since there is no evidence of your god or any
other gods, and neither is it even possible to offer evidence, since,
by definition there can be no valid evidence. That means that your
entire belief system rests on a logical fallacy of argument from
special pleading.
<clunk> <gurgle>
NOPE! -;D>
Explanation is from Romans: ...
Unbelief and Its Consequences
(Romans 1:18-32 NASB)
Unbelief and Its Consequences
18 For ?a?the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all
ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who ?b?suppress the truth
?1?in unrighteousness,
19 because ?a?that which is known about God is evident ?1?within
them; for God made it evident to them.
Notice, right here, that this scripture is about those "who suppress
the truth in unrighteousness", not unbelievers. It has nothing to do
with "unbelief and its consequences".
20 For ?a?since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His
eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, ?b?being
understood through what has been made, so that they are without
excuse.
21 For even though they knew God, they did not ?1?honor Him as
God or give thanks, but they became ?a?futile in their speculations, and
their foolish heart was darkened.
22 ?a?Professing to be wise, they became fools,
23 and ?a?exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image
in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and
?1?crawling creatures.
Are you accusing atheists of worshiping birds and animals? You're a
bit confused.
Melty's brain is so god-soaked that he thinks everyone else's brain
is
god-soaked. He can't conceive otherwise.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "yowie" |
|
| Title: Re: God rests on a logical fallacy. |
23 Mar 2007 03:04:45 AM |
|
|
William T. Goat wrote:
[...]
Are you accusing atheists of worshiping birds and animals? You're a
bit confused.
He was on his second bottle of 'God' when he posted that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "St. Jackanapes" |
|
| Title: Re: God rests on a logical fallacy. |
25 Mar 2007 12:00:31 AM |
|
|
In alt.flame.jesus.christ, yowie said...
William T. Goat wrote:
[...]
Are you accusing atheists of worshiping birds and animals? You're a
bit confused.
He was on his second bottle of 'God' when he posted that.
I wish he'd over-imbibe so much that he's never wake up.
--
St. Jackanapes of Usenet ~ Bearer of The One True Liver ~
An Ordained Minister & Holy Saint of The Universal Life Church
---------------------------------------------------------------
MY SHITTY WEBSITE: http://www.jackanapes.ws
MOCK JESUS FORUM: http://www.voy.com/20630/
"Well, how would you like to have someone come along and pick
something off of you?" - Apple Tree - The Wizard of Oz
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist minister" |
|
| Title: Re: God rests on a logical fallacy. |
21 Jan 2007 11:21:20 AM |
|
|
Melchizedek wrote:
"Pastor Kutchie" <user13@heathens.org.uk> wrote in message news:1169391280.832283.205980@11g2000cwr.googlegroups.com...
Melchizedek wrote:
No defense is given concerning the existence of God.
No defence is possible, since there is no evidence of your god or any
other gods, and neither is it even possible to offer evidence, since,
by definition there can be no valid evidence. That means that your
entire belief system rests on a logical fallacy of argument from
special pleading.
<clunk> <gurgle>
NOPE! -;D>
Explanation is from Romans: ...
Unbelief and Its Consequences
Bible quotes are not evidence of anything at all. Try again.
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: God rests on a logical fallacy. |
21 Jan 2007 02:44:36 PM |
|
|
On 21 Jan 2007 09:21:20 -0800, "Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist minister"
<user13@heathens.org.uk> wrote:
Bible quotes are not evidence of anything at all. Try again.
But it's more than you have for your own beliefs.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: God rests on a logical fallacy. |
21 Jan 2007 04:19:31 PM |
|
|
One fine day in alt.atheism, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> bloodied us up
with this:
On 21 Jan 2007 09:21:20 -0800, "Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist
minister" <user13@heathens.org.uk> wrote:
Bible quotes are not evidence of anything at all. Try again.
But it's more than you have for your own beliefs.
Without the bible quotes, we are left with the default.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Proud member of Earthquack's "Ghost fulla holes" convict page.
Don’t be afraid. The lack of a deity is not an opening for chaos. It is a
call for responsibility. -Lauren Becker
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: God rests on a logical fallacy. |
21 Jan 2007 04:59:00 PM |
|
|
On 21 Jan 2007 22:19:31 GMT, Uncle Vic <address@withheld.com> wrote:
One fine day in alt.atheism, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> bloodied us up
with this:
On 21 Jan 2007 09:21:20 -0800, "Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist
minister" <user13@heathens.org.uk> wrote:
Bible quotes are not evidence of anything at all. Try again.
But it's more than you have for your own beliefs.
Without the bible quotes, we are left with the default.
And you are left with the big bang for starters, creation at it's finest. Let's
call the creator "God". It's a great name. Even you atheists can say it.
And if you don't, use "satan" as your hero. It's for eternity too.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: God rests on a logical fallacy. |
21 Jan 2007 07:38:33 PM |
|
|
One fine day in alt.atheism, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> bloodied us up
with this:
One fine day in alt.atheism, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> bloodied us up
with this:
On 21 Jan 2007 09:21:20 -0800, "Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist
minister" <user13@heathens.org.uk> wrote:
Bible quotes are not evidence of anything at all. Try again.
But it's more than you have for your own beliefs.
Without the bible quotes, we are left with the default.
And you are left with the big bang for starters, creation at it's
finest. Let's call the creator "God". It's a great name. Even you
atheists can say it.
The Anthropic Principle is not on your side, as you may think. It is an
*alternative* to the design principle. Sure, the BB offers you a huge gap
in which to stuff your hypothetic creatorgod, but the principle is design-
free. It could have happened all by itself, and using Occam's Razor, we
can determine that it did.
The only reason you are trying to stuff your god into a scientific theory
is that the god becomes more probable to you, therefore your afterlife
becomes more probable to you. Poor duke.
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-dads to add feet to Jesus fish department.
Proud member of Earthquack's "Ghost fulla holes" convict page.
Don’t be afraid. The lack of a deity is not an opening for chaos. It is a
call for responsibility. -Lauren Becker
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist minister" |
|
| Title: Re: God rests on a logical fallacy. |
21 Jan 2007 03:08:13 PM |
|
|
duke wrote:
On 21 Jan 2007 09:21:20 -0800, "Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist minister"
<user13@heathens.org.uk> wrote:
Bible quotes are not evidence of anything at all. Try again.
But it's more than you have for your own beliefs.
I don't need belief, I have knowledge, comprehension and the whole of
reality to back it up. there's an awful lot of it, and just because you
don't understand a scintilla of it, that doesn't make any of reality
untrue.
Palaeontology says the Bible untrue
Biology says the Bible is untrue
The Human Genome says the Bible is untrue
Astronomy says the Bible is untrue
Geography says the Bible is untrue
History says the Bible is untrue
Physics - all of it - says the Bible is untrue.
The physical chemistry of water says the Bible is untrue
Common human experience says the Bible is untrue
Neurology says the Bible is untrue
Cognitive psychology says the Bible is untrue
English comprehension says the Bible is untrue
Even morality says the Bible is untrue
Most Christians admit the Bible is untrue
The Vatican says the Bible is untrue
The Church of England says the Bible is untrue
Last, but not least: The Bible says the Bible is untrue.
Can you say "Redundancy"? "Mandelbrot"? "Cognitive dissonance"?
"Implausibility"?
Can you explain why a wise, just and merciful god would need people to
believe in it, let alone punish them for not doing so? What kind of
morality fosters self-righteousness in preference to good conduct? What
kind of morality is exemplified by the Thirty Years War, the most
murderous conflict in the whole of history?
.
|
|
|
| User: "duke" |
|
| Title: Re: God rests on a logical fallacy. |
21 Jan 2007 04:55:40 PM |
|
|
On 21 Jan 2007 13:08:13 -0800, "Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist minister"
<user13@heathens.org.uk> wrote:
Bible quotes are not evidence of anything at all. Try again.
But it's more than you have for your own beliefs.
I don't need belief, I have knowledge, comprehension and the whole of
reality to back it up.
Now that's a joke. You do't have any reality. The reality is my guy died on
the cross and 36 hours later walked out. You have NOTHING, but misdirect joking
going for you. As far as comprehension and knowledge, I have at least as much
as you.
Palaeontology says the Bible untrue
Biology says the Bible is untrue
The Human Genome says the Bible is untrue
Astronomy says the Bible is untrue
Geography says the Bible is untrue
History says the Bible is untrue
Physics - all of it - says the Bible is untrue.
The physical chemistry of water says the Bible is untrue
Common human experience says the Bible is untrue
Neurology says the Bible is untrue
Cognitive psychology says the Bible is untrue
English comprehension says the Bible is untrue
Even morality says the Bible is untrue
Most Christians admit the Bible is untrue
The Vatican says the Bible is untrue
The Church of England says the Bible is untrue
Last, but not least: The Bible says the Bible is untrue.
Haahaahaahaahaa. You are a joke.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****
.
|
|
|
| User: "Bill M" |
|
| Title: Re: God rests on a logical fallacy. |
21 Jan 2007 06:15:41 PM |
|
|
"duke" <duckgumbo32@cox.net> wrote in message
news:knr7r2lh76nev9qhul3q6kbr5bn5a2u41s@4ax.com...
On 21 Jan 2007 13:08:13 -0800, "Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist minister"
<user13@heathens.org.uk> wrote:
Bible quotes are not evidence of anything at all. Try again.
But it's more than you have for your own beliefs.
I don't need belief, I have knowledge, comprehension and the whole of
reality to back it up.
Now that's a joke. You do't have any reality. The reality is my guy died
on
the cross and 36 hours later walked out. You have NOTHING, but misdirect
joking
going for you. As far as comprehension and knowledge, I have at least as
much
as you.
The Jesus story is totally implausible. It is not supported by any solid
objective verifiable evidence. Should we believe in a god for whom there is
NO solid objective evidence? The evidence available is quite the contrary.
It is totally implausible! This Jesus belief is based purely on faith in
totally implausible stories, not factual objective verifiable evidence of
any kind.
The Bibles were written recopied and modified by hundreds of men of unknown
veracity and honesty over a time span of several thousands years. There are
NO ORIGINALS IN EXISTENCE. What ever the originals were have rotted and
disappeared thousands of years ago. We don't know what the originals said.
The Bibles are nothing more than a mixture of myths, fables, contradictions
and impossible tales. There are 18 different versions alone of the English
Bible interpretations.
According to the Bibles, God supposedly created the heavens, the earth and
everything in it in six days. Adam, the original man was created during this
time from 'DUST'. His mate, Eve was created from one of Adam's RIBS.
According to the Bibles this all powerful omnipotent God supposedly created
this huge complex Universe in six days!
This God supposedly came to earth over 2,000 years ago as a man named Jesus
to save mankind from the sins that God himself created and to preach his
wishes and commands. Archeological evidence indicates 'modern' man has
existed approximately 100,000 years. Why did god wait all those years to
come to earth to preach his word and pay for man's sins (which he himself
created!)?
This all powerful creator of this huge Universe supposedly came to Earth as
a baby in a cold manger, in the middle of winter and was born of a virgin
called Mary. Why would he choose to be born in such an ingenuous way?
Arrogant humans had to make up a myth
about a god arriving from the womb of another human.
If Jesus was supposedly born of a Virgin Mary and she was the wife of
Joseph, why was she still a virgin? Why did the women need to be married to
a mortal in order to give birth to a god? And why couldn't this all powerful
god creator just come to earth in what ever form he chose to create? He
supposedly created the Universe and everything in it!
If he could create Adam instantly from dust and Eve from a rib, why did he
use this slow tortuous means to create himself as a god man on earth???
He supposedly grew up as a normal child and worked as a carpenter as an
adult. There are no details in the Bibles about his younger years. After
about THIRTY YEARS, he supposedly announced to the local inhabitants that
he was Jesus the God savior from heaven to tell them God's wishes and
commands.
There are no significant records of Jesus', (the Christ) actual existence in
the non religious documents of the era. Depending upon which Bible story you
choose, it is claimed he preached his doctrines for less than one, two or
three years. In any case, why put himself on earth for some thirty
inconsequential years and only use a few of these years to preach his
doctrines? And then not use his omnipotent power to preach to the WHOLE
world instead of just a miniscule part of the world around Jerusalem?
Jesus was baptized. In Christianity, baptism is the sacrament of
regeneration and initiation into the Christian church. According to a theme
of St. Paul the Apostle, baptism is death to a former life and the emergence
of a new person, signified by the conferring of a new name; it is the total
annulment of the sins of one's past, from which one emerges a totally
innocent person. Then why would a 'God Jesus' need to be baptized?
His sermons and teachings only reached a miniscule part of the world
population at that time because he did not speak via the equivalent of
International Radio or TV. IF he was an ALL powerful creator of the world,
he certainly would have the ability to speak to ALL of mankind by means at
least as effective as man. Why did this all powerful god creator wait
100,000 years to come and preach to only a very small segment of the world,
for a very short period of time, (depending on which Bible you choose) and
then leave us without ANY solid objective verifiable evidence of his
existence, his wishes and commands? Why did he not preserve his teachings in
some permanent form for all of mankind in the future? The Bibles were
supposedly written by 56 or more authors of unknown veracity over a period
of thousands of years. There are NO - NADA originals of any of the Bibles in
existence. The originals have all rotted and disappeared thousands of years
ago. They are all hand copies of copies etc. of unknown actual origin and
veracity.
Why would any omnipotent God, creator of this huge complex Universe, provide
his message in such a sloppy, inaccurate, unreliable, questionable and
confusing manor???
Why did he not use his great omnipotent powers to preach to the WHOLE world
from his Heaven, instead of just preaching to an insignificant portion of
the world?? Why did he leave most of mankind totally in the dark?
He supposedly distributed his word via hand copied documents called the
Bibles. Yet NONE of the Bibles were written during his 'claimed' time on
earth. The original Bibles were written and hand recopied more than 1500
years before the invention of the printing press. There is no evidence that
Jesus ever wrote a word. NO ORIGINAL copies of ANY of the Bibles exist. Why
did he not preserve them? The Bibles now in existence are hand copies of
copies etc. of unknown and doubtful veracity. They are largely myths,
fables, hearsay and contradictory and implausible tales. The four books of
the New Testament were written and copied somewhere between 60 and 200 years
AFTER Jesus' supposed existence. None of the authors could have known him
directly. They are all third person fictional narratives of unknown
veracity. Why would a real god, creator of this huge Universe, not arrange
for the creation of clear, authentic, contemporary and permanent copies of
his word?
During his brief adulthood, preaching his word, he is 'claimed' to have
restored site to a few of the blind, restored mobility to a few of the
crippled and restored health to a few of the sick. Why was he so niggardly
about helping the poor, the disabled and the sick? Is this the likely
conduct of an all loving God creator?
After the brief period of time he preached, it only reached a very small
part of the world's population. He did not avail himself of any
communication means as effective as Radio, TV, Telephone or the Internet. He
then allowed himself to be painfully and brutally crucified on a cross
between two criminals to pay for man's sins (which he created). If he died
on the cross to save mankind, why was mankind no better off after this
supposed crucifixion than before? Was all this blood and gore for nothing?!
The Roman courts were models of order and fairness. A man was not condemned
without a trial; he was not handed to the executioner before being found
guilty. And yet we are asked to believe that an innocent man was brought
before a Roman court, where Pontius Pilate was Judge; that no charge of
wrongdoing having been brought against him, the Judge declared that he found
him innocent; but the mob shouted, "Crucify him; crucify him!" and to please
the rabble, Pilate commanded that the man whom he had found innocent, should
be delivered to the executioners to be crucified! Also, real criminals were
crucified by being 'tied' to the cross - not nailed! What was the purpose of
all this blood and gore? Why should any REAL god need to suffer for man's
sins??? (which god created)
Why was his life and crucifixion not in any of the numerous historical
documents of the time??? Why is this only in church documents?
If Jesus performed the wonderful miracles the New Testament describes, why
did the people want him crucified? Is it not amazing that a civilized people
would demand that a kind and loving man who went about doing good works, who
preached forgiveness, cleansed the leprous, and raised the dead - that they
could not be appeased until they had brutally crucified the noblest
benefactor of mankind? This makes NO sense at all!
If he could create the Universe and every thing in it, (including sin) why
did he not just forgive man's sins, directly from his heaven, without all
this blood and gore? Three days after he died he supposedly rose from the
dead and returned to his heaven. Why did he wait uncomfortably in a crypt
for three days after his death and internment to return to his magnificent
heaven? Why did he wait 30 years!? How can an immortal god die? Jesus did
not die for our sins. People are still praying to him in his supposed
heaven!
What was the logic and purpose of this gruesome and painful killing? Only a
miniscule part of the world's population at the time would be aware of this
claimed sacrifice.
Billions of people today are still not knowledgeable believers of this
highly implausible story. Why did he not preserve a video tape, DVD or other
permanent record of this historic episode? If man is capable of these
devices certainly a god creator should be equally or more proficient.
Why did he not leave any 'authenticated' documents accurately substantiating
his appearance? Why has he failed to communicate further for over 2,000
years?
He supposedly went through this torture and humiliating death to pay for
mans sins which he himself created! Why did he not just wave his wand and
forgive mans sins and skip all the ridiculous blood and gore??? Why did he
create sin in the first place? This should be no problem for a god that
created Adam from dust and Eve from Adam's rib, and this immense Universe.
Why do people supposedly still have the same sins that he died for?
Why does he encourage or permit Christians to drink his blood and eat his
flesh? Isn't this a pagan ritual?
Why does he continue to allow thousands of greedy self serving men to
deliver his word to his flock in such a vague, inconsistent, contradictory,
and ineffectual manner? There are hundreds of different Christian sects and
beliefs. There are thousands of different religious and god beliefs and
practices. Why does he allow this gross confusion? Why does he not
communicate clearly and DIRECTLY to his entire flock that he is the real god
and all the others are fakes? It would be more responsible and more
effective to eliminate this gross confusion?
If he is the real god, why does he even permit the belief and propagation of
thousands of false gods and false religions?
The Christ tale is obviously not factual but pure myth and legend.
The objective evidence is that God did not create man but quite the
contrary; that man created Gods!
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "L.Roberts" |
|
| Title: Re: God rests on a logical fallacy. |
17 Mar 2007 08:45:36 PM |
|
|
On Jan 21, 5:55 pm, duke <duckgumb...@cox.net> wrote:
On 21 Jan 2007 13:08:13 -0800, "Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist minister"
<use...@heathens.org.uk> wrote:
Bible quotes are not evidence of anything at all. Try again.
But it's more than you have for your own beliefs.
I don't need belief, I have knowledge, comprehension and the whole of
reality to back it up.
Now that's a joke. You do't have any reality. The reality is my guy died on
the cross and 36 hours later walked out. You have NOTHING, but misdirect joking
going for you. As far as comprehension and knowledge, I have at least as much
as you.
Palaeontology says the Bible untrue
Biology says the Bible is untrue
The Human Genome says the Bible is untrue
Astronomy says the Bible is untrue
Geography says the Bible is untrue
History says the Bible is untrue
Physics - all of it - says the Bible is untrue.
The physical chemistry of water says the Bible is untrue
Common human experience says the Bible is untrue
Neurology says the Bible is untrue
Cognitive psychology says the Bible is untrue
English comprehension says the Bible is untrue
Even morality says the Bible is untrue
Most Christians admit the Bible is untrue
The Vatican says the Bible is untrue
The Church of England says the Bible is untrue
Last, but not least: The Bible says the Bible is untrue.
Haahaahaahaahaa. You are a joke.
duke, American-American
*****
"The Mass is the most perfect form of Prayer."
Pope Paul VI
*****- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Hey Puke
Throughout the bible there are many many mentions of begetting; all
except one are of a man begetting a son. In the case of the late J.C.,
his delineated lineage gets to Joseph and oops, Joseph didn't beget
the little fellow, he was merely the husband of his Mom. What's up
with that Puke?
The purpose of the inclusion of that lineage in Matt's book was to
show that the prophecies concerning the messiah had been fulfilled,
but totally fails to do so. The first chapter of Matt's is one piece
of stupidity that would have been best left out if one wanted to gain
credulity.
One could argue that the late J.C.'s lineage to David is traced thru
Mary, so why list what is so obviously a false lineage instead of
hers?
I think your guy was just a dope crazed ***** who had a break from
reality but none the less caught some peoples imaginations with his
delusions of grandeur.
L.Roberts
a.a. # 2258
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: God rests on a logical fallacy. |
22 Jan 2007 07:10:42 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 21 Jan 2007 16:55:40 -0600, duke wrote:
On 21 Jan 2007 13:08:13 -0800, "Pastor Kutchie, ordained atheist minister"
<user13@heathens.org.uk> wrote:
Bible quotes are not evidence of anything at all. Try again.
But it's more than you have for your own beliefs.
I don't need belief, I have knowledge, comprehension and the whole of
reality to back it up.
Now that's a joke. You do't have any reality. The reality is my guy died on
the cross and 36 hours later walked out.
Didn't happen.
--
Mark K. Bilbo a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
------------------------------------------------------------
"Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able?
Then he is not omnipotent.
"Is he able, but not willing?
Then he is malevolent.
"Is he both able and willing?
Then whence cometh evil?
"Is he neither able nor willing?
Then why call him God?"
- Epicurus
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Vic" |
|
| Title: Re: God rests on a logical fallacy. |
21 Jan 2007 07:42:45 PM |
|
|
One fine day in alt.atheism, duke <duckgumbo32@cox.net> bloodied us up
with this:
Now that's a joke. You do't have any reality. The reality is my guy
died on the cross and 36 hours later walked out.
He walked out of a cross?
--
Uncle Vic
aa Atheist #2011
Supervisor, EAC Department of little adhesive-backed "L" shaped
chrome-plastic doo-d | | | | | | |
