| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Smith Computer" |
| Date: |
10 Jan 2005 09:03:59 AM |
| Object: |
Questions from Enkidu |
Enkidu asks that I:
Answer the question posed below, if you have any "wisdom" to offer.
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?
You have attempted an answer to your question but in error. The Creator is
willing and able, yet allows evil to preside upon the earth to show the
entire universe that "the resister" whose name is satan, lied when he
accused the Creator of holding something good from mankind, namely the tree
of knowledge of good and evil. This allowance is short lived however, when
you consider that in a very short while, the entire universe will recognize
that truth and evil will be done away with, leaving a clean populous to
reside on a cleansed earth forever.
Then where does evil come from?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Evil came into the world by the committing of sin, which means to miss the
mark. The first sin, was committed by the original pair and allows evil to
preside upon the earth to show the entire universe that "the resister" whose
name is satan, lied when he accused the Creator of holding something good
from mankind, namely the tree of knowledge of good and evil. This allowance
is short lived however, when you consider that in a very short while, the
entire universe will recognize that truth and evil will be done away with,
leaving a clean populous to reside on a cleansed earth forever.
Then why call him God?
Epicurus 341-270 B.C.E.
We call him the Creator for he created all good things. We call him God ,
for that is a title which describes him. We, in English, use the name
Jehovah, for that is the accepted translation of the letters YHWH, which are
the earliest indication of his name.
The Bible speaks of Epicurus with his idea of "let us eat and drink, for
tomorrow we are to die," denied the resurrection hope taught by Christians
in their ministry.-1Co 15:32. "Do not be misled. Bad associations spoil
useful habits. 34 Wake up to soberness in a righteous way and do not
practice sin, for some are without knowledge of God. I am speaking to move
YOU to shame."
For not the way man sees [is the way God sees], because mere man sees what
appears to the eyes
The Smitty
.
|
|
| User: "Smith Computer" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
15 Jan 2005 09:38:02 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein"
Evil does not always mean wrongdoing in the Bible.
But 'evil', in Hebrew, always means evil or bad things.
Your desperate attempt to distance yourself from the truth of your
religion is noted, however.
You fail to understand the context
Says someone who can't even read the context without depending on
someone else to translate it for him.
Al, shame on you. Now to stoop to false accusation and you know it.
Desperate? Right......so desperate, in fact, that I feel regret you will
not comprehend the truth and cling to ways which will prove your
destruction.
The obligatory Christian threat? You fail to understand that it's
meaningless to non-Christians, and doubly so to one who has already
been dead.
No, it was merely the concern I feel for you and all people, no matter how
rude or ignorant they have been and continue to be.
You believe there is one God, do you? You are doing quite well. And yet the
demons believe and shudder
The Smitty
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
16 Jan 2005 05:19:52 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 10:38:02 -0500, "Smith Computer"
<smithcomputer@charter.com> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein"
Evil does not always mean wrongdoing in the Bible.
But 'evil', in Hebrew, always means evil or bad things.
Your desperate attempt to distance yourself from the truth of your
religion is noted, however.
You fail to understand the context
Says someone who can't even read the context without depending on
someone else to translate it for him.
Al, shame on you. Now to stoop to false accusation and you know it.
"It has been translated" means by others, not by yourself.
The obligatory Christian threat? You fail to understand that it's
meaningless to non-Christians, and doubly so to one who has already
been dead.
No, it was merely the concern I feel for you and all people, no matter how
rude or ignorant they have been and continue to be.
Fear of what? That we'll end up in a hell that we already know - not
think, know - doesn't exist?
Merely more rudeness on your part, as is the religious ***** you end
every post with. Stop shitting in our newsgroup. Leave that for the
***** eaters on YOUR newsgroups.
--
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as when they do it from religious
conviction."
- Blaise Pascal (1623-1662)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Smith Computer" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
16 Jan 2005 09:14:54 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein"
Evil does not always mean wrongdoing in the Bible.
But 'evil', in Hebrew, always means evil or bad things.
Your desperate attempt to distance yourself from the truth of your
religion is noted, however.
You fail to understand the context
Says someone who can't even read the context without depending on
someone else to translate it for him.
Al, shame on you. Now to stoop to false accusation and you know it.
"It has been translated" means by others, not by yourself.
If you had a point, you have lost it.
The obligatory Christian threat? You fail to understand that it's
meaningless to non-Christians, and doubly so to one who has already
been dead.
No, it was merely the concern I feel for you and all people, no matter
how
rude or ignorant they have been and continue to be.
Fear of what? That we'll end up in a hell that we already know - not
think, know - doesn't exist?
Merely more rudeness on your part, as is the religious ***** you end
every post with. Stop shitting in our newsgroup. Leave that for the
***** eaters on YOUR newsgroups.
Now it appears, you wish to "be reduced to flaming sigs".
By iron, iron itself is sharpened. So one man sharpens the face of another.
The Smitty
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
12 Jan 2005 06:53:21 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:04:13 -0500, "Smith Computer" <smithcomputer@charter.com>
wrote:
Evil does not always mean wrongdoing in the Bible.
I can only tolerate so much *****, and so much self deception on the part of
bull ***** spreaders.
Yo have exceeded my tolerance level.
Plonk.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
12 Jan 2005 04:23:35 AM |
|
|
Smith Computer wrote:
<chris_h_fleming@yahoo.com>
Is 45:7 says god creates evil.
The Shitty won't answer on that one. Nothing much
he could say.
Isa45:6 ..in order that people may know from the rising of the sun
and from its setting that there is none besides me. I am Jehovah, and
there is
no one else. 7 Forming light and creating darkness, making peace and
creating calamity, I, Jehovah, am doing all these things.
8 "O YOU heavens, cause a dripping from above; and let the cloudy
skies themselves trickle with righteousness. Let the earth open up, and
let
it be fruitful with salvation, and let it cause righteousness itself to
spring up at the same time. I myself, Jehovah, have created it."
Tell us please, are you reading from the Atheist Revised Standard?
Bible versions that attribute "evil" to god
King James Version
Webster's Bible
Young' s Literal Translation
Darby Translation
American Standard Version
Hebrew Names Version
Bible versions that attribute "calamity" to god
New King James Version
New American Standard Bible
Bible versions that attribute "bad times" to god
New Living Translation
Bible versions that attribute "woe" to god
Revised Standard Version
Other Languages
Latin Vulgate attributes "malum" to god (malum = evil, misfortune,
misdeed, crime, injury, damage)
Yeshaiya (Hebrew) says evil/bad as well
I'd check the Koran, but I doubt it differs from the Torah
Hebrew, latin, and all older english versions of the bible say evil.
You must have a newer "translation" that softens god up to be more
likable.
Evil does not always mean wrongdoing in the Bible.
*****...there goes another irony meter !!
Rightly, Jehovah brought
evil or calamity upon Adam for his disobedience.
Rightly ? For eating a fruit off a tree ?
What a petty and petulant god you have !
Hence, in the Scriptures,
Jehovah is referred to as the Creator of evil or calamity. (Isa 45:7;
compare KJ.) His enforcing of the penalty for sin, namely, death, has proved
to be an evil, or a calamity, for mankind. Examples of evils or calamities
created by Jehovah are the Flood of Noah's day and the Ten Plagues visited
upon Egypt. But these evils were not wrongs. Rather, the rightful
administration of justice against wrongdoers was involved in both cases.
Uh-huh ! You didn't do what I said...so I'm gonna slaughter the lot of ya !
Not a very pleasant guy this God creature now is he ?
However, at times Jehovah, in his mercy, has refrained from bringing the
intended calamity or evil in execution of his righteous judgment because of
the repentance on the part of those concerned. (Jon 3:10) Additionally, in
having a warning given, Jehovah has undeservedly provided opportunities for
the practicers of bad to change their course and thus to keep living.-Eze
33:11.
It is truely amazing that most Christians seem to have no idea that
religion (being a product of culture) is dynamic. They all seem to
think that Christianity today is how it always was and always will be.
Oh what I would give for more diversity in Christianity - where are the
Marcionites and Jeffersonians? The Catholics and Lutherans are about as
different as limons and limes. One takes his final authority from a man
and the other from a book.
Dynamic, yes. For thousands of years mankind has had a spiritual need and
yearning.
Says who ? Only those that would control us by fear
Man has lived with his trials and burdens, his doubts and
questions, including the enigma of death. Religious feelings have been
expressed in many different ways as people have turned to God or their gods,
seeking blessings and solace. Religion also tries to address the great
questions: Why are we here? How should we live? What does the future hold
for mankind?
Nope, religion only wants control.
--
Jez
'Realism is seductive because once you have accepted the reasonable
notion that you should base your actions on reality, you are too often
led to accept, without much questioning, someone else's version of what
that reality is. It is a crucial act of independent thinking to be
skeptical of someone else's description of reality.'-
Howard Zinn
NFS Underground2, Americas Army And MOH-PA
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
11 Jan 2005 07:12:30 AM |
|
|
In our last episode
<1105436669.842749.198940@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, chris_h_fleming
lept out of the bushes shouting:
Hebrew, latin, and all older english versions of the bible say evil. You
must have a newer "translation" that softens god up to be more likable.
The word of the lard never changes! *Especially when it changes!
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
Alt-atheism website at: http://www.alt-atheism.org
-----------------------------------------------------------
"Religion is regarded by the common people as true,
by the wise as false, and by the rulers as useful."
-- Seneca the Younger
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
10 Jan 2005 08:38:25 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 00:03:06 GMT, "Chuckles" <nospammy4@nonono.com>
said in alt.atheism:
"Don Kresch" <ROT13.qxerfpu@jv.ee.pbz.com> wrote in message
Is 45:7 says god creates evil.
The Shitty won't answer on that one. Nothing much
he could say.
Sure he could. He can explain how the Hebrew word doesn't really mean
"evil".
--
Zymurgist # 2
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Gordon" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
28 Jan 2005 12:03:56 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 10:03:59 -0500, "Smith Computer"
<smithcomputer@charter.com> wrote:
Enkidu asks that I:
Answer the question posed below, if you have any "wisdom" to offer.
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?
[snip]
Please read the first two chapters of the book of Job for some
insights into this set of questions.
In summary, yes, God is able to prevent evil, but if he were to
do so, how would we learn about the effects of sin and rebellion?
This mortal phase of our existence is for the specific purpose of
letting us explore and learn.
Had Lucifer been entirely knowledgable in these matters, it is
unlikely he would have rebelled in the first place. But, now that
he has rebelled, God seems to have chosen to let Lucifer "run the
show" until he has had ample opportunity to educate himself and
us mortals. Hang in there. This is a school of hard knocks, so to
speak.
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
29 Jan 2005 03:42:02 AM |
|
|
Gordon wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 10:03:59 -0500, "Smith Computer"
<smithcomputer@charter.com> wrote:
Enkidu asks that I:
Answer the question posed below, if you have any "wisdom" to offer.
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?
[snip]
Please read the first two chapters of the book of Job for some
insights into this set of questions.
In summary, yes, God is able to prevent evil, but if he were to
do so, how would we learn about the effects of sin and rebellion?
This mortal phase of our existence is for the specific purpose of
letting us explore and learn.
Pure *****. Again. But in the end, that is all it is.
busllshit.
Job is tortured in a bar bet between God and Satan.
not the act of a loving and merciful an djust god.
But being a dumbass xians, like al dumbass xians, you utterly ignore teh
creaming unfairness of this mythical god, and his lack of justice and
mercy, playing with Job like thgis.
I don't know which is stupider, this ugly tall tale
that paints god in a not very flattering light, or xians who are
too dishonest to admit it is a repulsive tall tale with no sublimity
in it, no lessons, nothing but stone age superstition from inferior myth
tellers.
Nobody rebelled against god blah, blah, blah. You stupid xians can't even
get your won stupid myths straight, god created Adam as stoop labor
strictly.
Genesis 2:17. The gardener. Nothing more.
To be kept strictly stupid and mortal.
Adam could not rebel, as rebellion takes a specific act with specific
designs. being without any sort of knowledge of evil and good, he cannot
have known its bad to not obey god. God's own fault for creating him that
way. A creature created specificaly without knowldeg of good and evil
cannot rebel. you spewed "rebel" obviously without a second's thought
about any of this, revealing only your deep ignorance and inability to
reason.
You people are so stupid, it is so obvious here, burt even when we run your
faces in the above facts, you sit there stupidly unable to contemplte, that
is not what thetale says what happened.
God then thows him out of the garden. Why? Rebellion, punishment?
No, Genesis 3:22 because god is afraid Adam will eat of the tree of life and
become a rival god.
You cannot even read these stupid, stupid oh so deeply stupid myths and get
it right, even though they are simple and stupid myths.
What is wrong with all you morons?
WHAT IS IT A ABOUT RELIGION THAT UTTERLY DESTROYS EVEN PRIMITIVE ABILITIES
TO THINK AND REASON THE LEVEL OF A GOAT!?
Do you really think there was an actual Adam and Eve?
Back to Job, Jobs family is killed. So where is that merciful god?
Tell us again how he is omnibenevolent.
Now this is god, and all you stupoid religouis gumps tel us god is omnscient
and omnipotent and omnibenevolent.
If god is omnibenevolent, all good, he is not going to allow harm
to come to Job and his family just to prove a point to Satan.
In real life it would be like this.
God: "Ok, you know I am omniscient, right, *****?"
Satan "Well naturally, I mean that goes without saying."
God: "Ok, I know if you did your worse he would not succumb.
Me being omniscienct and all."
Satan: "Well, you have got me there."
God: "Good, now buzz off and don't do anything to anybody.
I am omnibenevolent and as such cannot allow you do
bring harm to anybody."
And if god is omniscient, why would he allow an evil being to run around
doing evil things?
Of courtse being a stupid xian, you will never admit that an omnipoetnt god
wouyld not do that.
If we have know evil assholes running around in these parts, the County
Sheriff goes and arrests them.
Are you telling us god is not as just and merciful as a local Texas County
Sheriff?
Wy would a stupid god allow an evil being like Satan to run around and do
evil, much less make nasty bar bets with him?
Really, you AREN'T thinking about this, won't think, can't think.
the hallmark and main characteristic of all religion.
Do Not Reason.
*****, I am getting tired of being knee deep in fools and fanatics who WILL
NOT REASON!
Had Lucifer been entirely knowledgable in these matters, it is
unlikely he would have rebelled in the first place. But, now that
he has rebelled, God seems to have chosen to let Lucifer "run the
show" until he has had ample opportunity to educate himself and
us mortals. Hang in there. This is a school of hard knocks, so to
speak.
--
Cheerful Charlie
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Cary Kittrell" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
28 Jan 2005 12:25:37 PM |
|
|
In article <f2vkv0lqf45i4fal63r1ohucd8v3583pa7@4ax.com> Gordon <gordonlr@DELETEswbell.net> writes:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 10:03:59 -0500, "Smith Computer"
<smithcomputer@charter.com> wrote:
Enkidu asks that I:
Answer the question posed below, if you have any "wisdom" to offer.
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?
[snip]
Please read the first two chapters of the book of Job for some
insights into this set of questions.
In summary, yes, God is able to prevent evil, but if he were to
do so, how would we learn about the effects of sin and rebellion?
Sin and rebellion are not sufficiently evil on their own that it
is necessary to introduce smallpox and tornadoes to somehow point
up the lesson? Or to put it another way, if sin and rebellion do
not produce obviously bad consequences, then a) why worry
about them, and b) how does burning the house down illustrate
just why rebellion is a bad thing?
This mortal phase of our existence is for the specific purpose of
letting us explore and learn.
Had Lucifer been entirely knowledgable in these matters, it is
unlikely he would have rebelled in the first place. But, now that
he has rebelled, God seems to have chosen to let Lucifer "run the
show" until he has had ample opportunity to educate himself and
us mortals. Hang in there. This is a school of hard knocks, so to
speak.
So, the experiences of the victims of concentration camp, genocide,
and tsunami are designed merely to help Lucifer through some kind
of Remedial Ethics course? I find that cold comfort; I suspect
the victims themselves would find it unspeakable.
-- cary
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Dubh Ghall" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
10 Jan 2005 09:56:24 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 10:03:59 -0500, "Smith Computer" <smithcomputer@charter.com>
wrote:
Enkidu asks that I:
Answer the question posed below, if you have any "wisdom" to offer.
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?
You have attempted an answer to your question but in error. The Creator is
willing and able, yet allows evil to preside upon the earth to show the
entire universe that "the resister" whose name is satan, lied when he
accused the Creator of holding something good from mankind, namely the tree
of knowledge of good and evil. This allowance is short lived however, when
you consider that in a very short while, the entire universe will recognize
that truth and evil will be done away with, leaving a clean populous to
reside on a cleansed earth forever.
So it is malevolent.
Then where does evil come from?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Evil came into the world by the committing of sin,
Not according to the bible. The bible says that god creates evil.
Then why call him God?
Epicurus 341-270 B.C.E.
We call him the Creator for he created all good things. We call him God ,
for that is a title which describes him. We, in English, use the name
Jehovah, for that is the accepted translation of the letters YHWH, which are
the earliest indication of his name.
The Bible speaks of Epicurus with his idea of "let us eat and drink, for
tomorrow we are to die," denied the resurrection hope taught by Christians
in their ministry.-
Three hundred years before xtians, Epicurus, denied their teaching.
Amazing.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Smith Computer" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
10 Jan 2005 04:58:42 PM |
|
|
"Dubh Ghall"
Enkidu asks that I:
Answer the question posed below, if you have any "wisdom" to offer.
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?
You have attempted an answer to your question but in error. The Creator
is
willing and able, yet allows evil to preside upon the earth to show the
entire universe that "the resister" whose name is satan, lied when he
accused the Creator of holding something good from mankind, namely the
tree
of knowledge of good and evil. This allowance is short lived however,
when
you consider that in a very short while, the entire universe will
recognize
that truth and evil will be done away with, leaving a clean populous to
reside on a cleansed earth forever.
So it is malevolent.
Yes, satan's system certainly is.
Then where does evil come from?
Is he neither able nor willing?
Evil came into the world by the committing of sin,
Not according to the bible. The bible says that god creates evil.
The Bible says no such thing.
Then why call him God?
Epicurus 341-270 B.C.E.
We call him the Creator for he created all good things. We call him God
,
for that is a title which describes him. We, in English, use the name
Jehovah, for that is the accepted translation of the letters YHWH, which
are
the earliest indication of his name.
The Bible speaks of Epicurus with his idea of "let us eat and drink, for
tomorrow we are to die," denied the resurrection hope taught by
Christians
in their ministry.-1Co 15:32. "Do not be misled. Bad associations spoil
useful habits. 34 Wake up to soberness in a righteous way and do not
practice sin, for some are without knowledge of God. I am speaking to
move
YOU to shame."
Three hundred years before xtians, Epicurus, denied their teaching.
Amazing.
Not really, atheists deny the Christ's teachings, and he lived over 2000
years ago.
2000 years before Christ, the Babylonians denied many of those same
teachings.
For not the way man sees [is the way God sees], because mere man sees what
appears to the eyes
The Smitty
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
10 Jan 2005 08:37:15 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 17:58:42 -0500, "Smith Computer"
<smithcomputer@charter.com> said in alt.atheism:
"Dubh Ghall"
Not according to the bible. The bible says that god creates evil.
The Bible says no such thing.
You don't use the Christian bible?
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and
create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
And PLEASE don't mistranslate it in a transparent attempt to make the
OT look more in line with Christianity. The OT is what it is - a book
written by people who WEREN'T Christian. If Christianity wants to
portray its god as having been Jewish, but it wants to not accept his
bible, that's Christianity's problem. But don't try to tell us what
the Jewish bible means from a Christian viewpoint. It wasn't written
from a Christian viewpoint.
The Bible speaks of Epicurus with his idea of "let us eat and drink, for
tomorrow we are to die," denied the resurrection hope taught by Christians
in their ministry
Three hundred years before xtians, Epicurus, denied their teaching.
Amazing.
Not really, atheists deny the Christ's teachings, and he lived over 2000
years ago.
2000 years before Christ, the Babylonians denied many of those same
teachings.
No, what's amazing is how you turn history on its head and claim that
what came later caused what came earlier.
--
"A truly unselfish act would be a Christian volunteering to have his soul take your
soul's place in hell, so yours could go to Heaven. Don't hold your breath."
- John Popelish
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Smith Computer" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
11 Jan 2005 06:17:52 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein"
Not according to the bible. The bible says that god creates evil.
The Bible says no such thing.
You don't use the Christian bible?
The New World Translation.
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and
create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
And PLEASE don't mistranslate it in a transparent attempt to make the
OT look more in line with Christianity. The OT is what it is - a book
written by people who WEREN'T Christian. If Christianity wants to
portray its god as having been Jewish, but it wants to not accept his
bible, that's Christianity's problem. But don't try to tell us what
the Jewish bible means from a Christian viewpoint. It wasn't written
from a Christian viewpoint.
This is the manner in which it reads:
7 Forming light and creating darkness, making peace and creating calamity,
I, Jehovah, am doing all these things.
The Bible speaks of Epicurus with his idea of "let us eat and drink,
for
tomorrow we are to die," denied the resurrection hope taught by
Christians
in their ministry
Three hundred years before xtians, Epicurus, denied their teaching.
Amazing.
Not really, atheists deny the Christ's teachings, and he lived over 2000
years ago.
2000 years before Christ, the Babylonians denied many of those same
teachings.
No, what's amazing is how you turn history on its head and claim that
what came later caused what came earlier.
History serves us as we examine it's mistakes. How do you use history?
He answered them: "I told YOU already, and yet YOU did not listen. Why do
YOU want to hear it again? YOU do not want to become his disciples also, do
YOU?
The Smitty
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
11 Jan 2005 03:28:10 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 07:17:52 -0500, "Smith Computer"
<smithcomputer@charter.com> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein"
Not according to the bible. The bible says that god creates evil.
The Bible says no such thing.
You don't use the Christian bible?
The New World Translation.
Try the Hebrew non-translation.
Isaiah 45:7
This is the manner in which it reads:
7 Forming light and creating darkness, making peace and creating calamity,
I, Jehovah, am doing all these things.
About as close as apples and ducks. Now try translating it yourself.
Then explain away the word 'evil'.
As I've said before, apologism (which is what you've done here) isn't
an answer, it's an attempt to evade the issue.
Three hundred years before xtians, Epicurus, denied their teaching.
Amazing.
Not really, atheists deny the Christ's teachings, and he lived over 2000
years ago.
2000 years before Christ, the Babylonians denied many of those same
teachings.
No, what's amazing is how you turn history on its head and claim that
what came later caused what came earlier.
History serves us as we examine it's mistakes. How do you use history?
Non-responsive. Care to address the actual argument?
He answered them: "I told YOU already, and yet YOU did not listen. Why do
YOU want to hear it again? YOU do not want to become his disciples also, do
YOU?
Oh, and unsolicited bible-quoting is both against the rules in
alt.atheism, and considered extremely rude. Not that you'd care,
would you?
--
"Does it ever amaze anyone else how little faith some heterosexuals have
in heterosexuality? It's supposed to be this god-given human instinct
that only the warped and perverted ever stray from; but, it seems, if we
once tell our straight children a message even as mild as "some people
are gay, and that's all right," that'll be enough to send lil' Suzy into
the arms of women forever. It's a wonder the race has survived this
long, really..."
- Charles M Seaton (21 Dec 1994)
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Smith Computer" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
12 Jan 2005 05:13:16 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein"
Not according to the bible. The bible says that god creates evil.
The Bible says no such thing.
You don't use the Christian bible?
The New World Translation.
Try the Hebrew non-translation.
It does not seem to work well (appearance in the original language is
questionable) in this newsgroup, thus it is unacceptable.
Isaiah 45:7
This is the manner in which it reads:
7 Forming light and creating darkness, making peace and creating
calamity,
I, Jehovah, am doing all these things.
About as close as apples and ducks. Now try translating it yourself.
Then explain away the word 'evil'.
The word used here for evil, translates to a wide range of happenstance.
Calamity is certainly an acceptable translation. Rightly, Jehovah brought
evil or calamity upon Adam for his disobedience. Hence, in the Scriptures,
Jehovah is referred to as the Creator of evil or calamity. (Isa 45:7;
compare KJ.) His enforcing of the penalty for sin, namely, death, has proved
to be an evil, or a calamity, for mankind. So, then, evil is not always
synonymous with wrongdoing. Examples of evils or calamities created by
Jehovah are the Flood of Noah's day and the Ten Plagues visited upon Egypt.
But these evils were not wrongs. Rather, the rightful administration of
justice against wrongdoers was involved in both cases. However, at times
Jehovah, in his mercy, has refrained from bringing the intended calamity or
evil in execution of his righteous judgment because of the repentance on the
part of those concerned. (Jon 3:10) Additionally, in having a warning given,
Jehovah has undeservedly provided opportunities for the practicers of bad to
change their course and thus to keep living.-Eze 33:11.
As I've said before, apologism (which is what you've done here) isn't
an answer, it's an attempt to evade the issue.
Three hundred years before xtians, Epicurus, denied their teaching.
Amazing.
Not really, atheists deny the Christ's teachings, and he lived over
2000
years ago.
2000 years before Christ, the Babylonians denied many of those same
teachings.
No, what's amazing is how you turn history on its head and claim that
what came later caused what came earlier.
History serves us as we examine it's mistakes. How do you use history?
Non-responsive. Care to address the actual argument?
If you posed one, it seems untenable at this point.
He answered them: "I told YOU already, and yet YOU did not listen. Why do
YOU want to hear it again? YOU do not want to become his disciples also,
do YOU?
Oh, and unsolicited bible-quoting is both against the rules in
alt.atheism, and considered extremely rude. Not that you'd care,
would you?
Das tut mir leid.
and so the [true] God felt regret over the calamity that he had spoken of
causing to them; and he did not cause [it].
The Smitty
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
13 Jan 2005 02:23:35 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 18:13:16 -0500, "Smith Computer"
<smithcomputer@charter.com> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein"
Not according to the bible. The bible says that god creates evil.
The Bible says no such thing.
You don't use the Christian bible?
The New World Translation.
Try the Hebrew non-translation.
It does not seem to work well (appearance in the original language is
questionable) in this newsgroup
I'll type more slowly, in the hope that you can understand that way:
*READ* (not "post") in the original Hebrew.
Calamity is certainly an acceptable translation. Rightly, Jehovah brought
evil or calamity upon Adam
Thereby creating it. Thanks.
Next?
Oh, and unsolicited bible-quoting is both against the rules in
alt.atheism, and considered extremely rude. Not that you'd care,
would you?
Das tut mir leid.
An admission that you don't care how rude you are? Okay.
--
"Atheism is the world of reality, it is reason, it is freedom. Atheism is
human concern, and intellectual honesty to a degree that the religious mind
cannot begin to understand. And yet it is more than this. Atheism is not an
old religion, it is not a new and coming religion, in fact it is not, and
never has been, a religion at all. The definition of Atheism is magnificent in
its simplicity: Atheism is merely the bed-rock of sanity in a world of
madness."
[Atheism: An Affirmative View, by Emmett F. Fields]
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Smith Computer" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
15 Jan 2005 09:34:11 AM |
|
|
"Al Klein"
Not according to the bible. The bible says that god creates
evil.
The Bible says no such thing.
You don't use the Christian bible?
The New World Translation.
Try the Hebrew non-translation.
It does not seem to work well (appearance in the original language is
questionable) in this newsgroup
I'll type more slowly, in the hope that you can understand that way:
*READ* (not "post") in the original Hebrew.
Your slower typing helped, as well as your expanded intent. You might gain
insight from the fact that the very comprehensive Hebrew word ra` is
variously translated as "bad," "gloomy," "ugly," "evil," "calamitous,"
"malignant," "ungenerous," and "envious," depending upon the context. (Ge
2:9; 40:7; 41:3; Ex 33:4; De 6:22; 28:35; Pr 23:6; 28:22) The Greek word
ka·kos´ may be defined as that which is (1) morally evil and (2)
destructive; among the ways it has been translated are: "bad," "evil,"
"hurtful," "injurious," "wrong." (Ro 7:19; 12:17; Col 3:5; Tit 1:12; Heb
5:14) The Hebrew verb qa·lal´ means "call down evil upon.
Rightly, Jehovah brought evil or calamity upon Adam for his disobedience.
Hence, in the Scriptures, Jehovah is referred to as the Creator of evil or
calamity. (Isa 45:7; compare KJ.) His enforcing of the penalty for sin,
namely, death, has proved to be an evil, or a calamity, for mankind. So,
then, evil is not always synonymous with wrongdoing. Examples of evils or
calamities created by Jehovah are the Flood of Noah's day and the Ten
Plagues visited upon Egypt. But these evils were not wrongs. Rather, the
rightful administration of justice against wrongdoers was involved in both
cases. However, at times Jehovah, in his mercy, has refrained from bringing
the intended calamity or evil in execution of his righteous judgment because
of the repentance on the part of those concerned. (Jon 3:10) Additionally,
in having a warning given, Jehovah has undeservedly provided opportunities
for the practicers of bad to change their course and thus to keep
living.-Eze 33:11.
Calamity is certainly an acceptable translation. Rightly, Jehovah
brought
evil or calamity upon Adam
Thereby creating it. Thanks.
No, actually, the first "evil" as used in the Scriptures (the Hebrew word
ra` ) is the very antithesis of good. Adam was commanded not to eat of the
tree of the knowledge of good and bad (ra`) and was also warned of the
consequences for disobedience. Hence, it is evident that God sets the
standard as to what is good and what is bad; it is not within man's
prerogative to do so apart from God. Although Adam transgressed God's
express law, this transgression is not chargeable to Jehovah, "for with evil
things [form of ka·kos´] God cannot be tried nor does he himself try anyone.
But each one is tried by being drawn out and enticed by his own desire."-Jas
1:13, 14; Ge 2:16, 17; 3:17-19. So we can reason that it was Adam who
introduced evil into the world.
Next?
You have additional false thoughts you need exorcised?
Oh, and unsolicited bible-quoting is both against the rules in
alt.atheism, and considered extremely rude. Not that you'd care,
would you?
Das tut mir leid.
An admission that you don't care how rude you are? Okay.
No, actually it is no admission at all. Merely a statement to let you know
how distressed I am that you feel you did not solicit the truth, and that
when it is yourself who is posting scripture, which you have done, it seems
acceptable to you. Can you say double standard?
You believe there is one God, do you? You are doing quite well. And yet the
demons believe and shudder
The Smitty
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
16 Jan 2005 05:17:40 PM |
|
|
On Sat, 15 Jan 2005 10:34:11 -0500, "Smith Computer"
<smithcomputer@charter.com> said in alt.atheism:
"Al Klein"
Not according to the bible. The bible says that god creates
evil.
The Bible says no such thing.
You don't use the Christian bible?
The New World Translation.
Try the Hebrew non-translation.
It does not seem to work well (appearance in the original language is
questionable) in this newsgroup
I'll type more slowly, in the hope that you can understand that way:
*READ* (not "post") in the original Hebrew.
Your slower typing helped, as well as your expanded intent. You might gain
insight from the fact that the very comprehensive Hebrew word ra` is
variously translated
You can't translate is to have only one meaning?
Or are you admitting that you don't understand Hebrew, and are
depending on the translation of others, which is what I asked you NOT
to do.
--
"To assert that the earth revolves around the sun is as erroneous as to claim that Jesus
was not born of a virgin."
Cardinal Bellarmine,[1615, during the trial of Galileo]
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Smith Computer" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
16 Jan 2005 09:08:31 PM |
|
|
"Al Klein"
Not according to the bible. The bible says that god creates
evil.
The Bible says no such thing.
You don't use the Christian bible?
The New World Translation.
Try the Hebrew non-translation.
It does not seem to work well (appearance in the original language is
questionable) in this newsgroup
I'll type more slowly, in the hope that you can understand that way:
*READ* (not "post") in the original Hebrew.
Your slower typing helped, as well as your expanded intent. You might
gain
insight from the fact that the very comprehensive Hebrew word ra` is
variously translated as "bad," "gloomy," "ugly," "evil," "calamitous,"
"malignant," "ungenerous," and "envious," depending upon the context. (Ge
2:9; 40:7; 41:3; Ex 33:4; De 6:22; 28:35; Pr 23:6; 28:22) The Greek word
ka·kos´ may be defined as that which is (1) morally evil and (2)
destructive; among the ways it has been translated are: "bad," "evil,"
"hurtful," "injurious," "wrong." (Ro 7:19; 12:17; Col 3:5; Tit 1:12; Heb
5:14) The Hebrew verb qa·lal´ means "call down evil upon.
Rightly, Jehovah brought evil or calamity upon Adam for his disobedience.
Hence, in the Scriptures, Jehovah is referred to as the Creator of evil
or
calamity. (Isa 45:7; compare KJ.) His enforcing of the penalty for sin,
namely, death, has proved to be an evil, or a calamity, for mankind. So,
then, evil is not always synonymous with wrongdoing. Examples of evils or
calamities created by Jehovah are the Flood of Noah's day and the Ten
Plagues visited upon Egypt. But these evils were not wrongs. Rather, the
rightful administration of justice against wrongdoers was involved in
both
cases. However, at times Jehovah, in his mercy, has refrained from
bringing
the intended calamity or evil in execution of his righteous judgment
because
of the repentance on the part of those concerned. (Jon 3:10) Additionally
,
in having a warning given, Jehovah has undeservedly provided
opportunities
for the practicers of bad to change their course and thus to keep
living.-Eze 33:11.
You can't translate is to have only one meaning?
Your sentence is unclear. Does it have more than one meaning?
Or are you admitting that you don't understand Hebrew, and are
depending on the translation of others, which is what I asked you NOT
to do.
If I do or do not makes no difference as you could not discern it.
Calamity is certainly an acceptable translation. Rightly, Jehovah
brought evil or calamity upon Adam
Thereby creating it. Thanks.
No, actually, the first "evil" as used in the Scriptures (the Hebrew word
ra` ) is the very antithesis of good. Adam was commanded not to eat of the
tree of the knowledge of good and bad (ra`) and was also warned of the
consequences for disobedience. Hence, it is evident that God sets the
standard as to what is good and what is bad; it is not within man's
prerogative to do so apart from God. Although Adam transgressed God's
express law, this transgression is not chargeable to Jehovah, "for with evil
things [form of ka·kos´] God cannot be tried nor does he himself try anyone.
But each one is tried by being drawn out and enticed by his own desire."-Jas
1:13, 14; Ge 2:16, 17; 3:17-19. So we can reason that it was Adam who
introduced evil into the world.
Next?
You have additional false thoughts you need exorcised?
Oh, and unsolicited bible-quoting is both against the rules in
alt.atheism, and considered extremely rude. Not that you'd care,
would you?
Das tut mir leid.
An admission that you don't care how rude you are? Okay.
No, actually it is no admission at all. Merely a statement to let you know
how distressed I am that you feel you did not solicit the truth, and that
when it is yourself who is posting scripture, which you have done, it seems
acceptable to you. Can you say double standard?
You believe there is one God, do you? You are doing quite well. And yet the
demons believe and shudder
The Smitty
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "pensul" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
18 Jan 2005 03:37:48 PM |
|
|
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.atheism.]
No, actually, the first "evil" as used in the Scriptures (the Hebrew word
ra` ) is the very antithesis of good. Adam was commanded not to eat of the
tree of the knowledge of good and bad (ra`) and was also warned of the
consequences for disobedience. Hence, it is evident that God sets the
standard as to what is good and what is bad; it is not within man's
prerogative to do so apart from God. Although Adam transgressed God's
express law, this transgression is not chargeable to Jehovah, "for with evil
things [form of ka·kos´] God cannot be tried nor does he himself try anyone.
But each one is tried by being drawn out and enticed by his own desire."-Jas
1:13, 14; Ge 2:16, 17; 3:17-19. So we can reason that it was Adam who
introduced evil into the world.
We can reason that he introduced evil into His world, but given that all He
knew of His world was that which God created, it is inconceivable that He
knowingly introduced evil into His world. It is, moreover, the Word of God
which recounts the evils that Adam is to suffer, and Adam does not know what
these are or what they are for. That everyone else is suffering the
consequences of Adams sin is therefore contrary to reason and to the Word, and
is not supported by any evidence.
--
"The world of existence is an emanation of the merciful attribute of God."
Abdul-Baha
http://www.costarricense.cr/pagina/ernobe
.
|
|
|
| User: "Smith Computer" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
20 Jan 2005 10:05:47 AM |
|
|
"pensul"
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.atheism.]
No, actually, the first "evil" as used in the Scriptures (the Hebrew
word
ra` ) is the very antithesis of good. Adam was commanded not to eat of
the
tree of the knowledge of good and bad (ra`) and was also warned of the
consequences for disobedience. Hence, it is evident that God sets the
standard as to what is good and what is bad; it is not within man's
prerogative to do so apart from God. Although Adam transgressed God's
express law, this transgression is not chargeable to Jehovah, "for with
evil
things [form of ka·kos´] God cannot be tried nor does he himself try
anyone.
But each one is tried by being drawn out and enticed by his own
desire."-Jas
1:13, 14; Ge 2:16, 17; 3:17-19. So we can reason that it was Adam who
introduced evil into the world.
We can reason that he introduced evil into His world, but given that all
He
knew of His world was that which God created, it is inconceivable that He
knowingly introduced evil into His world. It is, moreover, the Word of
God
which recounts the evils that Adam is to suffer, and Adam does not know
what
these are or what they are for. That everyone else is suffering the
consequences of Adams sin is therefore contrary to reason and to the Word,
and is not supported by any evidence.
The fact is, that evil was introduced by means of his failure to obey the
single command his was given.
Having great love for his creatures, God provides ample opportunity for them
to know him and his purposes.
The Smitty
.
|
|
|
| User: "wcb" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
19 Jan 2005 07:07:06 PM |
|
|
Smith Computer wrote:
which recounts the evils that Adam is to suffer, and Adam does not know
what
these are or what they are for. That everyone else is suffering the
consequences of Adams sin is therefore contrary to reason and to the
Word,
and is not supported by any evidence.
The fact is, that evil was introduced by means of his failure to obey the
single command his was given.
This is false on so many levels. There was no Adam, no Eve,
its a bloody stupid myth. A REALLY STUPID one at that.
And AGAIN, let us point out that youir idiotic myth tells us
he created man without knowledge of good and evil and meant for
man to be kept ignorant. Disobeying god would have not been
evil to these mythical creatures because they did not have that knowledge
base.
So for god to magically saddled them with blame for an act that cannot
have known was wrong is evil and stupid and wrongheaded.
And your stinking myth also tells us god threw then out of the garden,
not because they were bad, or sinful, or evil, or anything like that.
Your deeply infantile and moronic verse told us god threw them out of the
garden to prevent them from eatinmg of teh tree of life and becoming rivals
gods to him. You can't even get that right.
Again, you cannot even read your own deeply stupid myth and get it right.
Why is it there is not a single xian with a working brain when it comes to
reading this truely stupid myth? How does this deeply stupid
myth caise so much utter incurable brain damage?
I cannot beliove in this day and age when we are unravelling our very DNA,
puuting space craft on distant planets and many amazing things besides,
that deeply stupid American xian morons are still babbling about this
stupid myth as if it could possibly be real!
How did so many people get so damned, grunting animal stupid?
I get more and more disgusted at religion every time I run across
some low IQ cretin that can possibly take this as real.
Have you know pride? Have you no sense of reality? Aren't
you even a little embarressed to be presenting this disgusting
stupid myth as real?
Can you really be sinking this low intellectually speaking,
prattling like a senile old woman?
Willfully stupid! Willfully childish and infantile!
The worst of all intellectual crimes, willful stupidity in
the name of debased and degraded ancient myths without a single
bit of truth in any of it.
All rationality, all reason, all ability to think gone utterly
from you totally.
I am so sick of being surrounded by zombies that thinks *****
like this.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
19 Jan 2005 02:59:42 AM |
|
|
pensul wrote:
["Followup-To:" header set to alt.atheism.]
No, actually, the first "evil" as used in the Scriptures (the
Hebrew word
ra` ) is the very antithesis of good. Adam was commanded not to eat
of the
tree of the knowledge of good and bad (ra`) and was also warned of
the
consequences for disobedience.
So his real crime was failing to respond to the threat
since he obviously didn't know disobedience was
wrong in a moral sense--before he ate the fruit.
Hence, it is evident that God sets the
standard as to what is good and what is bad;
So are things good because God says they are, or
does God say they are because they are good? It
sounds like you mean the former which was the
alternative that bothered C. S. Lewis who wrote, in
the year of his death: "The conclusion I dread is not
'so there's no God after all,' but 'So this is what God
is really like. Deceive yourself no longer.'"
The trouble is, when you say, "God defines
goodness" then you no longer have the defense
of saying that God wouldn't order this or that
because it would be bad. If God orders it, then
it becomes right. In fact, *no* act... raping
little girls, shoving Jews into concentration camp
furnaces, or burning children alive as witches,
or genocide, or anything else conceivable, has
any moral component whatsoever. There would
be, in effect, no such thing as an immoral act.
There would only be following orders, and good
or evil would reside only in obedience or
disobedience to the command and not in the act.
So that when God orders the Israelites to kill the
women and boy infants and keep the girl children
alive, of whatever tribe they'd recently conquered,
then sticking swords into the bodies of screaming
little babies boys w as, by your lights "good." No
doubt, if you'd been there, being faithful as always to
God's "goodness" you'd have been joyfully sticking
the swords into the little boys along with everybody else.
And if you say you wouldn't have done it, then it
raises the question of why, since God ordered it. And if
you say you would have done it but not liked it,
that also raises the question of why, since
murdering small children isn't intrinsically "wrong"
except insofar as God tells us not to do it. When
he changes the rules, murder becomes right and, in
fact, "refusing to murder" becomes wrong.
Indeed God claims to be the creator of evil "That
they may know from the rising of the sun, and from
the west, that there is none beside me. I am the LORD,
and there is none else.
I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace,
and create evil [ra`]: I the LORD do all these things.
Isaiah 45:6-7
it is not within man's
prerogative to do so apart from God. Although Adam transgressed
God's
express law, this transgression is not chargeable to Jehovah, "for
with evil
things [form of ka=B7kos=B4] God cannot be tried nor does he himself
try anyone.
But each one is tried by being drawn out and enticed by his own
desire."-Jas
1:13, 14; Ge 2:16, 17; 3:17-19. So we can reason that it was Adam
who
introduced evil into the world.
We can reason that he introduced evil into His world, but given that
all He
knew of His world was that which God created, it is inconceivable
that He
knowingly introduced evil into His world.
The same can't be said of God who knew, ahead of
time what would happen when he placed the forbidden
tree in the midst (middle) of the garden and when he
placed the serpent (who was more cunning than any
beast of the field which the Lord God had made") in
the garden. And he was play-acting when he came
to the garden and called to Adam "Where are you"?
and asked him "who told you that you were naked?"
Why would God play dumb like that?
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
11 Jan 2005 07:42:49 AM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 17:58:42 -0500, "Smith Computer"
<smithcomputer@charter.com> said in alt.atheism:
"Dubh Ghall"
Not according to the bible. The bible says that god creates evil.
The Bible says no such thing.
You don't use the Christian bible?
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and
create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
These are not God's words but the words of a fallible man.
If you want God's word on the subject you need to go to
the Five Books of Moses (Genesis - Deuteronomy).
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
11 Jan 2005 03:30:04 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:42:49 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and
create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
These are not God's words but the words of a fallible man.
What's that you say? The bible is only the words of a fallible man?
So we can entirely discount it until your god comes down here and
tells us which parts are accurate?
Okay.
If you want God's word on the subject you need to go to
the Five Books of Moses (Genesis - Deuteronomy).
Oh? Where (chapter and verse) does it say that those books, and only
those books, are 100% accurate and all others are "but the words of a
fallible man"?
Nowhere? I thought so.
--
"A stupid man's report of what a clever man says is never accurate because he
unconsciously translates what he hears into something he can understand."
-- Bertrand Russell.
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
11 Jan 2005 05:44:30 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:42:49 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and
create evil: I the LORD do all these things.
These are not God's words but the words of a fallible man.
What's that you say? The bible is only the words of a fallible man?
All words before and after the Five Books of Moses
(Genesis - Deuteronomy) are the words of fallible man.
So we can entirely discount it until your god comes down here and
tells us which parts are accurate?
Moses' God has already done that in the Five Books
of Moses (Genesis - Deuteronomy).
Okay.
If you want God's word on the subject you need to go to
the Five Books of Moses (Genesis - Deuteronomy).
Oh? Where (chapter and verse) does it say that those books, and only
those books, are 100% accurate and all others are "but the words of a
fallible man"?
De 30:15 See, I have set before thee this day life and good,
and death and evil,
Is there something more 'accurate' that man can add or subtract
from that?... hardly.
After Moses, God spoke to no man.
Nowhere? I thought so.
You thought wrong.
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
11 Jan 2005 08:05:56 PM |
|
|
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 23:44:30 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:42:49 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> said in alt.atheism:
These are not God's words but the words of a fallible man.
What's that you say? The bible is only the words of a fallible man?
All words before and after the Five Books of Moses
(Genesis - Deuteronomy) are the words of fallible man.
And it says exactly that where? (Not in the bible either - a book
isn't proof that what's in the book is true.)
So we can entirely discount it until your god comes down here and
tells us which parts are accurate?
Moses' God has already done that in the Five Books
of Moses (Genesis - Deuteronomy).
See above. Until you provide proof that what's in those 5 books is
the word of your god you can't use that premise as an argument.
If you want God's word on the subject you need to go to
the Five Books of Moses (Genesis - Deuteronomy).
Oh? Where (chapter and verse) does it say that those books, and only
those books, are 100% accurate and all others are "but the words of a
fallible man"?
De 30:15 See, I have set before thee this day life and good,
and death and evil,
Not in the bible, dolt! A book can't be used as proof that what the
book says is true. If you think it can, I want Superman to personally
deliver your message to me. It says in a book that he really exists,
so it must be true.
What a moron you are.
--
"I cannot conceive of a God who rewards and punishes his creatures, or has a will of the
type of which we are conscious in ourselves. An individual who should survive his
physical death is also beyond my comprehension,...; such notions are for the fears or
absurd egoism of feeble souls."
- Albert Einstein
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
| User: "Roy Jose Lorr" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
11 Jan 2005 09:47:30 PM |
|
|
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 23:44:30 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:42:49 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> said in alt.atheism:
These are not God's words but the words of a fallible man.
What's that you say? The bible is only the words of a fallible man?
All words before and after the Five Books of Moses
(Genesis - Deuteronomy) are the words of fallible man.
And it says exactly that where? (Not in the bible either - a book
isn't proof that what's in the book is true.)
Your saying it isn't true is not proof that it isn't.
So we can entirely discount it until your god comes down here and
tells us which parts are accurate?
Moses' God has already done that in the Five Books
of Moses (Genesis - Deuteronomy).
See above. Until you provide proof that what's in those 5 books is
the word of your god you can't use that premise as an argument.
The Book proves itself, it needs no help from me.
If you want God's word on the subject you need to go to
the Five Books of Moses (Genesis - Deuteronomy).
Oh? Where (chapter and verse) does it say that those books, and only
those books, are 100% accurate and all others are "but the words of a
fallible man"?
De 30:15 See, I have set before thee this day life and good,
and death and evil,
Not in the bible, dolt! A book can't be used as proof that what the
book says is true. If you think it can, I want Superman to personally
deliver your message to me. It says in a book that he really exists,
so it must be true.
Every book proves itself right or wrong. Whoever indoctrinated
you otherwise is an idiot. So, what does that make you?
--
The last stage of
utopian sentimentalism
is homicidal mania.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Al Klein" |
|
| Title: Re: Questions from Enkidu |
12 Jan 2005 04:30:04 PM |
|
|
On Wed, 12 Jan 2005 03:47:30 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 23:44:30 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> said in alt.atheism:
Al Klein wrote:
On Tue, 11 Jan 2005 13:42:49 GMT, Roy Jose Lorr
<mosestorah@worldnet.att.net> said in alt.atheism:
These are not God's words but the words of a fallible man.
What's that you say? The bible is only the words of a fallible man?
All words before and after the Five Books of Moses
(Genesis - Deuteronomy) are the words of fallible man.
And it says exactly that where? (Not in the bible either - a book
isn't proof that what's in the book is true.)
Your saying it isn't true is not proof that it isn't.
If it's true you should have no problem posting chapter and verse.
Until you do, the default position is that it's not true.
So we can entirely discount it until your god comes down here and
tells us which parts are accurate?
Moses' God has already done that in the Five Books
of Moses (Genesis - Deuteronomy).
See above. Until you provide proof that what's in those 5 books is
the word of your god you can't use that premise as an argument.
The Book proves itself, it needs no help from me.
Then we'll see Superman when? The book proves itself, remember. Of
course you aren't guilty of special pleading, are you?
Every book proves itself right or wrong. Whoever indoctrinated
you otherwise is an idiot. So, what does that make you?
Someone almost infinitely more intelligent, and certainly better
educated, than you are. I don't make glaring logical errors, the way
you constantly do.
*NO* book, by merely existing, proves that what's in that book is
true. If that were so, Superman would be real - the book proves
itself true.
--
"I received your letter of June 10th. I have never talked to a Jesuit
priest in my life and I am astonished by the audacity to tell such lies
about me. From the viewpoint of a Jesuit priest I am, of course, and
have always been an atheist."
- Albert Einstein to Guy H. Raner Jr, July 2, 1945,
responding to a rumor that a Jesuit priest had caused Einstein
to convert from atheism. Article by Michael R. Gilmore in Skeptic
magazine, Vol. 5, No. 2, 1997
(random sig, produced by SigChanger)
rukbat at verizon dot net
.
|
|
|
< | | | | | | | | |
