*quality

Boosting this quality contribution up in the Hot Listing - declared quality by jan.

Perfectly succinct. Sadly, those who understand it, need not listen, those who don't will not.

Tsk tsk, let's not be so pessimitic, 'kay? Sure, the thoroughly convinced will make excuses, but the "on-the-fence" people just might have their moral compasses jarred into working properly.

>> ^A10anis:

Perfectly succinct. Sadly, those who understand it, need not listen, those who don't will not.

If I'm not mistaken, Book of Job is part of the Old Testament. If so, Christians will argue that Old Testament was denied by Jesus, therefore world got a new book, improved and brushed of all evils aka New Testament.

>> ^cracanata:

If I'm not mistaken, Book of Job is part of the Old Testament. If so, Christians will argue that Old Testament was denied by Jesus, therefore world got a new book, improved and brushed of all evils aka New Testament.


Jesus didn't deny the old testament; "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or tittle shall nowise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven." - Matthew 5:18-19

The human mind is morally compromised. My proof? The entirety of human history.

amen

Morals are what we make of them.

He's so on the money. If you believe in the supernatural or the rantings of the superstitious then you do an awful lot of damage in the world.

The bible is not fictional. God did not kill his family , servants or his animals.

This man in the video does not know jack about the Bible.


GOD did not make Satan do it as incorrectly stated in the video. Satan indicated to GOD that If I destroy all that he (Job) has including servants and family that Job would surely curse your name. GOD allowed Satan to anything except kill JOB. Job never backed away from GOD and never curse his name. In the end GOD restored everything Job has lost.

Tags for this video have been changed from 'dan barker, dinesh dsouza, experiment, bible, double standards' to 'dan barker, dinesh dsouza, experiment, bible, double standards, book of job' - edited by xxovercastxx

Dan is the moral monster for trying to turn people against their Creator. Let's see what Job says about the incident:

Job 1:21

And he said, “Naked I came from my mother’s womb, and naked shall I return. The LORD gave, and the LORD has taken away; blessed be the name of the LORD.”

Job knew that all he had was from the Lord, and belonged to the Lord. When thrown into tribulation, Job praised His name.

Job had outstanding moral character. Was Job sinless?:

Job 9:20 If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me: if I say, I am perfect, it shall also prove me perverse.

Job 13:26 For thou writest bitter things against me, and makest me to possess the iniquities of my youth.

No, he wasn't, by his own words. The only one to ever live on this planet without sin is Jesus Christ.

Now let us examine Job 2:3

And the LORD said unto Satan, Have you considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a blameless and an upright man, one that fears God, and turns away from evil? and still he holds fast his integrity, although you moved me against him, to destroy him without cause.

Dan said this is a confession, which is patently false. God did not commit a crime here, he was acting as a Judge. Satan is the accuser. He brings up charges against people to God like a prosecuting attorney.

Revelation 12:10

And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, “Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God.

So when God is saying, "you moved me against him to destroy him without cause", He is saying that Satan brought a false accusation against Job. That Job was tried and tested of the accusation and found to be innocent. They are speaking of a legal matter, not some capricious action that God undertook.

Job 42:12-16

The Lord blessed the latter part of Job’s life more than the first. He had fourteen thousand sheep, six thousand camels, a thousand yoke of oxen and a thousand donkeys. And he also had seven sons and three daughters. 14The first daughter he named Jemimah, the second Keziah and the third Keren-Happuch. Nowhere in all the land were there found women as beautiful as Job’s daughters, and their father granted them an inheritance along with their brothers.

After this, Job lived a hundred and forty years; he saw his children and their children to the fourth generation. And so he died, old and full of years.

God restored Job to even more abundance than he had before. The fact of the matter is this: That Job was falsely accused by Satan, put on trial, found to be innocent, and restored when he was cleared of the charge. Neither was he sinless, and he himself praised God even through his trials, and repented in sackcloth and ashes.

It's the stated goal of rabid, militant antitheists like Dan to destroy peoples faith in God. That is what is morally repugnant. A person following the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ, truly following them, is going to be one of the most moral, upright, compassionate people you'll ever meet. If everyone followed what Jesus taught, there would be no war, poverty, violence, greed or hatred. The world would be a near-utopia.

Dans mind is what is compromised, and so is anyone else thinking that Christianity is immoral. You'll notice that these kinds of attacks, that always subtlety twist scripture to lead people astray, don't ever focus on Jesus. That's because Jesus is so obviously righteous that to attack Him would only make them look like fools. Instead, they focus on trying to malign Gods character by framing judgements He made in the OT in a bad light. That is their entire argument against Christianity, and anyone with discernment should see how hollow it really is.

Further, the United States was founded on judeo-christian values, so for any American to criticize them, while enjoying the freedoms they founded, is foolish and ignorant. Dan doesn't know where he comes from, or where he is going. The new atheists blame evil on religion, but it is not a system that creates evil; it is what dwells in the hearts of men. America is not perfect, but it certainly was founded on biblical principles, and you are seeing the results today of when we stop giving God the glory for how He has greatly blessed this nation.

americans combine the notions of christianity and liberty so intimately in their minds that it is impossible for them to conceive of one without the other.

alexus de tocqueville 1835

>> ^bobknight33:

The bible is not fictional. God did not kill his family , servants or his animals.
This man in the video does not know jack about the Bible.

GOD did not make Satan do it as incorrectly stated in the video. Satan indicated to GOD that If I destroy all that he (Job) has including servants and family that Job would surely curse your name. GOD allowed Satan to anything except kill JOB. Job never backed away from GOD and never curse his name. In the end GOD restored everything Job has lost.


But this is Old Testament which means this is ha-Satan we're talking about, not the Devil. This is one of God's angels who serve God and do his bidding. What was done, if it was not by God, was done with His approval.

Furthermore, God does not restore Job's family. Rather, Job goes on to have a new family: 7 sons and 3 daughters. The suffering that Job endures is not undone and God even orders him to pray for his friends to be forgiven because they had the nerve to say it was fucked up that Job should be punished like this.

Regardless of whether or not this was God's direct action, the point from the video stands. Does your indoctrination prevent you from acknowledging that the treatment of Job was morally reprehensible?

There's only one Satan. He is a liar and the father of it. He lied to Eve in the garden, he tempted Jesus in the desert, and he is deceiving the world about the gospel.

As far as Jobs children:

Job 8:4

When your children sinned against him, he gave them over to the penalty of their sin.

You have also completely misinterpreted what his "friends" were telling him, to the point of getting it entirely backwards. The three men indeed thought Job deserved his punishment, and when Job argued back that he hadn't sinned (at least not recently), they didn't believe him. Job prayed for them because they had given such terrible advice and misrepresented God to Job.


>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^bobknight33:
The bible is not fictional. God did not kill his family , servants or his animals.
This man in the video does not know jack about the Bible.

GOD did not make Satan do it as incorrectly stated in the video. Satan indicated to GOD that If I destroy all that he (Job) has including servants and family that Job would surely curse your name. GOD allowed Satan to anything except kill JOB. Job never backed away from GOD and never curse his name. In the end GOD restored everything Job has lost.

But this is Old Testament which means this is ha-Satan we're talking about, not the Devil. This is one of God's angels who serve God and do his bidding. What was done, if it was not by God, was done with His approval.
Furthermore, God does not restore Job's family. Rather, Job goes on to have a new family: 7 sons and 3 daughters. The suffering that Job endures is not undone and God even orders him to pray for his friends to be forgiven because they had the nerve to say it was fucked up that Job should be punished like this.
Regardless of whether or not this was God's direct action, the point from the video stands. Does your indoctrination prevent you from acknowledging that the treatment of Job was morally reprehensible?

I loved how he quickly dealt with the guy that yelled out "it's fictional" - that quieted down what I sensed was an air of religious zealotry in the room.

Agreed, stuff like this can help the on the fence people, and as we can see from the religiously brainwashed masses chiming in already, it does nothing for them.

<Preaching to the choir time>

They seem to miss the point that it doesn't matter if god blessed Job more in his latter life, what matters is that a kind and loving god felt the need to prove something to the devil by letting the devil destroy that man's life. Who cares if god was right, it is a jerk thing to do, and not the actions of a god who loves his children. If that was a human dad who let some people in to destroy his children's lives they would condemn him, it is their dual standards. They let god get away with stuff they would find reprehensible in humans simply because some blokes thousands of years ago picked Jehovah out of a local pantheon and promoted him to the top spot.

If they are young Earth creationists, they somehow ignore the part that says the Earth doesn't move and that the heavens move around it. Despite cultures being over 6,000 years old, trees being over 6,000 years old, not to mention stars billions of years away, somehow all that was put in place by God to full the wise and make the believers rely on faith... again a jerk move. It is like the dirty cop who plants evidence against an innocent man, but here it is god so it is okay.

They ignore the documented evidence of copy errors made in the Bible while it was a written piece, let alone the errors that would have cropped up while it was a verbal tradition. Who cares if the story of the woman at the well doesn't appear in any copies of John, or the commentaries on it, for hundreds of years after the earliest copies of the book, it is there now, which means god wanted it there. And the hundreds of other biblical texts that were existed when the books of the bible were picked were not discarded for the social/political reasons they appear to have been ignored, but because the books that are there now are the only ones god wanted, and those guys were divinely led to pick just those ones... of course the Catholics or the Protestants have it wrong since their versions don't match. Still, it many cases, save for the King James only crowd, it is okay to use newly found, more reliable texts in modern translations, but still ignore other texts found at the same time.

I look at shame during my blind faith period. I would point out all the typical talking points, and get angry at those who challenged what I perceived as the truth. I was never a young earth creationist, but would still point out the stupid things even old earth creationists like pointing out, not caring that those points have been disproved over and over again. I went from Republican to Libertarian and would get mad at the lazy out of work people on welfare and the poor for believing the lies of the liberals and the Democrats, thinking if only they would educate themselves on the truth, they would see the Republicans and Libertarians were their best hope. Then I did something, I opened my mind. I started watching the sources of information. They said in church and on right wing media that the Constitution doesn't say "separation of church and state" and that comes from a letter by Thomas Jefferson, true enough, but then they said that if you actually read that letter, you'll see that he was talking about keeping the government out of church affairs not the other way around. And I repeated that for years. Then, during my awakening, I actually read the letter in full context, I read the original drafts, and I realized they lied. He clearly was talking about keeping the church out of government. I also read the bible critically for the first time, not just accepting the traditional meaning. I saw Jesus as a man who hung out with the sinners, and cared about the poor and sick, and keeping what belonged to god just to god and what belonged to the government with the government. All things 100% opposite of what the church, the Republicans and Libertarians seemed to be promoting. I noticed how the bible in Genesis call god...well, god, and then in Psalms, the exact same word is suddenly translated as Angels, because it talks about how god lifted us up to be level with him, and that won't do, we are below god and with the angels... and more and more I noticed that while we are not Jesus, we are equal heirs, and equal children, which doesn't take away any of the majesty, but again pointed to deception on the part of the church leadership. I then noticed other biblical contradictions, and started studying the origins of Christianity and how similar it was to much older religions. How the Israelites, while in captivity in Babylon, would have known about the Babylonian god of the harvest who sacrificed himself and resurrected... and boy this seems to be a reoccurring theme among ancient pre-Christian religions, a god, sometimes mono-theistic, sacrificing himself for mankind... I went to a pagan service with an open mind and had the same deep, spiritual, emotional connection that I had at the most charismatic of Christian churches... and things started clicking, this whole thing... is fake. I read more, became more educated, and realized the deep and purposeful misleading of the faithful, and my switch became complete. Now I get angry at the Republicans and Libertarians and the religious leaders who keep their flocks in ignorance, while making them think they are free thinking people by controlling the information and encouraging a wrong view of the information that is there...

Even if by some miracle I came to have faith in god again, I could never go back to church again. The lies and nonacceptance of potent truth is just too much. They don't even believe what Jesus himself taught, which was love and compassion, the modern day church is the Pharisees that he campaigned against.

</preaching to the choir time>


>> ^hpqp:

Tsk tsk, let's not be so pessimitic, 'kay? Sure, the thoroughly convinced will make excuses, but the "on-the-fence" people just might have their moral compasses jarred into working properly.
>> ^A10anis:
Perfectly succinct. Sadly, those who understand it, need not listen, those who don't will not.

>> ^shinyblurry:

There's only one Satan. He is a liar and the father of it. He lied to Eve in the garden, he tempted Jesus in the desert, and he is deceiving the world about the gospel.

That there is no Devil in Judaism is widely and readily known. Claims placing him in the Old Testament are contradicting that text, the supposedly infallible word of God. This is Christian retconning in order to close up plot holes and create a more subversive religion that can better be used to control the masses through fear and intimidation.

>> ^rebuilder:

The human mind is morally compromised. My proof? The entirety of human history.

This seems like a lazy copout to me. There is plenty of good in the history of humanity, for one, but most of all, the human mind is the basis of humanity's morality. To say someone is morally compromised you need to compare it to moral standards, that are derived and developed by the human mind over time.
>> ^ghark:

I loved how he quickly dealt with the guy that yelled out "it's fictional" - that quieted down what I sensed was an air of religious zealotry in the room.

I really like that too, in fact he makes it clear from the beginning that both scenarios are fictional, in order to refute in advance the "it's okay cuz it's just a story/metaphor" excuse. This always reminds me of Luke 19:27, the end of an absolutely terrible parable Jesus is telling, and I quote: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me."
Whenever I use this example to argue that Jeebs isn't all love and peace either, I am told "well it's a parable". Yes, but what are the moral principles it is trying to convey? That God is a like a tyrant who will destroy anyone who does not obey or refuse his rule.

As for you apologists, no matter which way you twist it, God clearly gives his assent for Job to be tortured and tormented for no reason. Omnibenevolent and omnipotent? Then evil. QED.

One of the fundamental tenants of Christianity is that all human beings are "morally compromised". All have sinned and fallen short of perfection. A true Christian person makes no attempt to deny the fact that they are morally compromised, flawed, or imperfect. Religious people humbly acknowledge their faults, and bring them to God. They rely on Christ's atonement for forgiveness. Then they try as much as they can to abandon the faults, and fix whatever damage they may have caused. And after they have done all this - they admit readily that they are STILL morally compromised beings and that they have to keep doing this process over and over and over and over and over seventy-times-seven.

So this guy's argument really is somewhat laughable on its face. He thinks he is somehow scoring a point, when in fact he is only reinforcing the Bible's underlying message. Those who beleive in God are not insulted, or put off, or otherwise effected. We see his position merely as a rather quaint, and amusingly miscast reminder of the real message taught by the Book of Job. And what is that message (to inform our non-believer friends?) "No matter how good you may be or how much you may have, you must always be humble and remember that you need of God in your life." I think this guy needs that message as much as anyone. Some of you guys too.

Unfortunately you cannot use reason to affect the opinion of someone who arrived at their opinion by ignoring reason.

They seem to miss the point that it doesn't matter if god blessed Job more in his latter life, what matters is that a kind and loving god felt the need to prove something to the devil by letting the devil destroy that man's life. Who cares if god was right, it is a jerk thing to do, and not the actions of a god who loves his children.

God wasn't proving anything to Satan, He was acting as a Judge. Satan is like a prosecuting attorney in the court of God. Satan brought Job to trial by laying a false accusation against him, and Job was tested and tried and found innocent.

If that was a human dad who let some people in to destroy his children's lives they would condemn him, it is their dual standards. They let god get away with stuff they would find reprehensible in humans simply because some blokes thousands of years ago picked Jehovah out of a local pantheon and promoted him to the top spot. If they are young Earth creationists, they somehow ignore the part that says the Earth doesn't move and that the heavens move around it.

The problem with this analogy is that you're comparing God to a human being. God isn't like a human dad, he is God. He deals in matters of life and death, matters which extend to every human life. He is the sovereign King and Judge over this world. It is His job to bring judgement, and to decide the course of life. He is the only one who could.

I also see that you're misinterpreting I Chronicles 16:30. It's fairly clear it is saying that nothing is going to move the Earth off its course, not that it doesn't move.

Despite cultures being over 6,000 years old, trees being over 6,000 years old, not to mention stars billions of years away, somehow all that was put in place by God to full the wise and make the believers rely on faith... again a jerk move. It is like the dirty cop who plants evidence against an innocent man, but here it is god so it is okay.

This idea that God plants evidence is a myth, and the people who perpetrate it are the same kind of people who think that Satan rules in hell. No one has a handle on distant starlight; it is a problem with big bang cosmology, check out the "horizon problem". Tree ring dating, much like radiocarbon dating, is predicated on unprovable assumptions, such as a constant rate of growth. The specific trees you are talking about have been proven to grow multiple rings per year in drought conditions and in other circumstances. You say that there are cultures that go beyond 6000 years but its funny that written history only begins around 4000 years ago.

It is also funny that written history begins with advanced civilizations that suddenly spring into existence out of nowhere. You would think if we had been around for 100k years after evolving, there would be 100k years of history, cities, civilizations, etc..but it isn't there. It is much like the cambrian explosion where every major animal body type suddenly sprang into existence into the fossil record. All the major families, orders, classes, and phyla can all be found there, which turns darwinian theory on its head. Which is why they came up with "punctuated equilibrium", which is theory that explains that the reason there is no evidence for transitional forms in the fossil record is because reptiles laid eggs that would sometimes hatch birds. This is also known as the hopeful monster theory.

They ignore the documented evidence of copy errors made in the Bible while it was a written piece, let alone the errors that would have cropped up while it was a verbal tradition. Who cares if the story of the woman at the well doesn't appear in any copies of John, or the commentaries on it, for hundreds of years after the earliest copies of the book, it is there now, which means god wanted it there.

There is greater manuscript witness for the New Testament than any other historical document. The accuracy and integrity of the copies is proven, with over 24000 manuscripts for the NT alone. We can see from the earliest to the latest there is very little discrepency. The same is proven for the OT, when the dead sea scrolls were found. There was virtually no difference in copies with over thousand years between them. In regards to the woman at the well, I have failed to find any controversy about it.

And the hundreds of other biblical texts that were existed when the books of the bible were picked were not discarded for the social/political reasons they appear to have been ignored, but because the books that are there now are the only ones god wanted, and those guys were divinely led to pick just those ones... of course the Catholics or the Protestants have it wrong since their versions don't match. Still, it many cases, save for the King James only crowd, it is okay to use newly found, more reliable texts in modern translations, but still ignore other texts found at the same time.

There isn't any conspiracy. The texts you are referring to were either written by pagans, the gnostics, or were always known to be heretical. Feel free to bring up any examples and I will show you works that have been thoroughly discredited from the outset.

I look at shame during my blind faith period. I would point out all the typical talking points, and get angry at those who challenged what I perceived as the truth. I was never a young earth creationist, but would still point out the stupid things even old earth creationists like pointing out, not caring that those points have been disproved over and over again. I went from Republican to Libertarian and would get mad at the lazy out of work people on welfare and the poor for believing the lies of the liberals and the Democrats, thinking if only they would educate themselves on the truth, they would see the Republicans and Libertarians were their best hope.

It sounds like you were raised in the faith and only believed because of what other people told you. Then, when your faith was challenged by the unbelieving secular world, you fell away because you had no foundation.

Then I did something, I opened my mind. I started watching the sources of information. They said in church and on right wing media that the Constitution doesn't say "separation of church and state" and that comes from a letter by Thomas Jefferson, true enough, but then they said that if you actually read that letter, you'll see that he was talking about keeping the government out of church affairs not the other way around. And I repeated that for years. Then, during my awakening, I actually read the letter in full context, I read the original drafts, and I realized they lied. He clearly was talking about keeping the church out of government. I also read the bible critically for the first time, not just accepting the traditional meaning. I saw Jesus as a man who hung out with the sinners, and cared about the poor and sick, and keeping what belonged to god just to god and what belonged to the government with the government.

Even the most unkind and biased analysis of the founders intentions will be forced to conclude that they intended to found this nation on biblical principles. Do you think our freedoms being based on unalienable rights granted by our Creator are just mere words? Or are they the foundation?

this nation was founded not by religionists, but by christians, not on religion, but on the gospel of Jesus Christ

Patrick Henry

You are correct about one thing. The church is completely apostate, and has strayed far from the teachings of our Lord. You cannot frame Jesus as a mere man, however. He claimed to be God, the judge of the living and the dead, and the Savior of this world.

All things 100% opposite of what the church, the Republicans and Libertarians seemed to be promoting. I noticed how the bible in Genesis call god...well, god, and then in Psalms, the exact same word is suddenly translated as Angels, because it talks about how god lifted us up to be level with him, and that won't do, we are below god and with the angels... and more and more I noticed that while we are not Jesus, we are equal heirs, and equal children, which doesn't take away any of the majesty, but again pointed to deception on the part of the church leadership. I then noticed other biblical contradictions, and started studying the origins of Christianity and how similar it was to much older religions.

Perhaps you missed these passages?:

Romans 8:17

And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Galatians 4:7 So you are no longer a slave, but a son; and since you are a son, God has made you also an heir.

No, we are not Jesus, but we are co-heirs and sons. Again, there isn't any conspiracy. As far as the translation of Elohim, this has led to many errors. Check out http://www.gci.org/God/Elohim2

How the Israelites, while in captivity in Babylon, would have known about the Babylonian god of the harvest who sacrificed himself and resurrected... and boy this seems to be a reoccurring theme among ancient pre-Christian religions, a god, sometimes mono-theistic, sacrificing himself for mankind...

Sounds like you've seen Zeitgeist, which is filled with actual bald faced, blatant lies. For example, it makes a connection between Jesus and the various sun gods by drawing a parallel between the word "son" and "sun". The problem with this connection is that they are only similiar words in the English langauge, and not in the langauges of the time. The connection between Jesus and the so-called dying and rising gods in paganism has been thoroughly debunked. Watch:



I went to a pagan service with an open mind and had the same deep, spiritual, emotional connection that I had at the most charismatic of Christian churches... and things started clicking, this whole thing... is fake.

It's no wonder that you had the same spiritual experience in charismatic churches as you did at pagan rituals. That's because they're fueled by the same spirit, which is *not* from God:



I read more, became more educated, and realized the deep and purposeful misleading of the faithful, and my switch became complete. Now I get angry at the Republicans and Libertarians and the religious leaders who keep their flocks in ignorance, while making them think they are free thinking people by controlling the information and encouraging a wrong view of the information that is there..

Even if by some miracle I came to have faith in god again, I could never go back to church again. The lies and nonacceptance of potent truth is just too much. They don't even believe what Jesus himself taught, which was love and compassion, the modern day church is the Pharisees that he campaigned against

Friend, what you never realized is how true this verse is:

Revelation 12:9

And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him.

Just as 2+2 has an innumerable number of wrong answers, there are uncountable lies and deceptions, half-truths and myths about Jesus Christ. They are in the church and they are outside the church. All you've done is just go to the other extreme but you still have no idea who Jesus really is.

What you've missed is that to know Jesus is God is to know Him personally. It isn't merely believe what the bible says, it is to invite Him into your heart, to mold you, to change you, and to accept His Lordship over your entire life.

You're right about one thing. To be restored to faith in God would be a miracle, because faith is a gift from God. If you want to know the truth, then ask Him. Pray to Jesus, invite Him into your life, and ask Him to show what the truth really is. Once you know He is everything that He claimed to be, the rest will sort itself out.

>> ^RFlagg:believe what Jesus himself taught, which was love and compassion, the modern day church is the Pharisees that he campaigned against.
</preaching to the choir time

If you would kindly provide some evidence of that I would happily debunk it for you, because as it stands your conspiracy claims are fairly ridiculous. The gospels were written by people with sincere beliefs, as evidenced by their martyrdom..or perhaps you think it is reasonable to believe that the disciples would be willingly tortured and killed in excruciating ways for something they knew to be a lie, when all they had to do was recant? They were also written in the memory of living witnesses. Are you one of those people who deny that Jesus even existed? Even dawkins is intellectually honest enough to admit it:



>> ^xxovercastxx:

>> ^shinyblurry:
There's only one Satan. He is a liar and the father of it. He lied to Eve in the garden, he tempted Jesus in the desert, and he is deceiving the world about the gospel.
That there is no Devil in Judaism is widely and readily known. Claims placing him in the Old Testament are contradicting that text, the supposedly infallible word of God. This is Christian retconning in order to close up plot holes and create a more subversive religion that can better be used to control the masses through fear and intimidation.

The area in which believers and non believers differ in so many ways is in regard to how far in the future one can perceive the concept of “no pain no gain”.
When I first heard this analogy, and when I read Job for the first time, I too was tempted to see Dan’s point of view and get angry with God for the terrible evil He allowed to happen to Job. (Make no mistake God is responsible for Job’s misery and the death of Job’s family). But what I see now and Dan does not is the difference between the killer and God: purpose. The killer did it for no reason and God did this for a great reason. God permitted this incident for the purpose of instruction, demonstration, and perception. The pain Job and his family sowed produced some of the greatest fruit mankind has ever known.

Allow me to explain:
Let’s say my eight year old recently started taking things that are not his. I am concerned for the welfare of my son for his whole life and not his welfare for the moment so I punish him; say I give him a time out. My son does not perceive the long term benefits I may be doing for him by teaching him stealing is wrong so he now calls me mean or evil. I am doing something mean and evil to him to a degree for the immediate moment, but I am doing this in hopes that there will be a long term benefit that will outweigh the immediate pain.

Assume for a moment that God is indeed omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent: all knowing, all seeing, all powerful, all loving. He knows every possible future for mankind. He may do things beyond our comprehension that for us for the “moment, lifetime, century, etc.” might seem mean or evil but He sees the long term benefits.

This is in essence what a believer believes. God has a purpose for everything. We may not see it or comprehend it but He is working for a greater good. Our faith and trust is in this. The story of Job is a very rare occurrence where God directly and drastically interferes with our lives. I’m certain that if Dan as well as Job were given the choice of sacrificing themselves for the good of their children, let alone mankind, they probably would. God choose Job because he knew he wouldn’t be cross with Him. I choose the word cross on purpose because for those who want to know Job is a type to Jesus who sacrificed himself for us.

Basing your understanding of the Bible on the English translation FAIL.

Why do you all still argue with Shiny? I've said it before and am saying it again. You are wasting your time. Shiny has no capacity to change his mind based on reason, logic or rational evidence. You may as well spend your time trying to convince a dog to change the color of its hair.

You will cite reason, logic and rationality... he will cite dogma. Rinse, repeat.

He is most certainly one of those who is genetically predisposed to be religious (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/weekinreview/12wade.html) and cannot help thinking the way he does. I would pity him if he and those that think like him did not pose such a threat to the civilized world.

He is a lost cause, but there are others who can be "saved" and brought to see reason. I suggest you find those and spend your time helping them instead.

You are better off ignoring him. Let his dogma go unnoticed and starve him of attention. Let his dogma die of starvation and fade into the past.

>> ^hpqp:

>> ^rebuilder:
The human mind is morally compromised. My proof? The entirety of human history.

This seems like a lazy copout to me. There is plenty of good in the history of humanity, for one, but most of all, the human mind is the basis of humanity's morality. To say someone is morally compromised you need to compare it to moral standards, that are derived and developed by the human mind over time.

That is pretty much what I mean. Humans are very good at adapting morality to whatever realities they face. I'd say religious doctrines and how they are applied and changed over time offer ample proof of that. Maybe using the word "compromised" is a red herring, since there is no pure morality to be found anyway.

Well, as pointed out up thread, God never attacked Job, his family or his animals. Satan asked God to stop protecting Job from Satan and God lifted his protection.

If the Bible is such a terribly easy target, why is it so hard to attack it without taking things out of context?

But the whole point here is that the religious mindset causes an otherwise moral person (they all agreed the first scenario was wrong) to condone an immoral action if it was for religious reasons. Case in point: suicide and murder in Islam, both major "sins", are seen as okay if part of Jihad.

>> ^rebuilder:

>> ^hpqp:
>> ^rebuilder:
The human mind is morally compromised. My proof? The entirety of human history.

This seems like a lazy copout to me. There is plenty of good in the history of humanity, for one, but most of all, the human mind is the basis of humanity's morality. To say someone is morally compromised you need to compare it to moral standards, that are derived and developed by the human mind over time.
That is pretty much what I mean. Humans are very good at adapting morality to whatever realities they face. I'd say religious doctrines and how they are applied and changed over time offer ample proof of that. Maybe using the word "compromised" is a red herring, since there is no pure morality to be found anyway.

So let me paraphrase:

Derp: "Hey herp, stop protecting your kid, I want to torture it, kill its friends and make it hate you for abandoning it."

Herp: "Sure, torture away!"

Million dollar question: is Herp a moral person/being?

Bonus question: if Herp is all-powerful, what is he protecting his kid from in the first place?

>> ^bcglorf:

Well, as pointed out up thread, God never attacked Job, his family or his animals. Satan asked God to stop protecting Job from Satan and God lifted his protection.
If the Bible is such a terribly easy target, why is it so hard to attack it without taking things out of context?

>> ^SpaceGirlSpiff:

You will cite reason, logic and rationality... he will cite dogma. Rinse, repeat.
He needs to be banned for spamming. If you don't think he's trying to sell something, I refer you to every comment he's ever made here. He's like an idiotic and arrogant robo-Viagra ad.

>> ^shinyblurry:

If you would kindly provide some evidence of that I would happily debunk it for you, because as it stands your conspiracy claims are fairly ridiculous. The gospels were written by people with sincere beliefs, as evidenced by their martyrdom..or perhaps you think it is reasonable to believe that the disciples would be willingly tortured and killed in excruciating ways for something they knew to be a lie, when all they had to do was recant? They were also written in the memory of living witnesses. Are you one of those people who deny that Jesus even existed? Even dawkins is intellectually honest enough to admit it:

I assume the "that" which you request evidence for is the part where I say this is retconning, subversion, plot holes, etc. This is my own opinion; my own conclusion; after everything I have seen and read over the course of my life. I cannot simply provide a citation for this.

The gospels were written by people unknown and are, with few exceptions, held not to have been written by the people whose names adorn them and are not generally thought to have been written by singular authors, for that matter. Given this, we can't say anything about their beliefs. My expectations would be that some authors had an honest belief in what they wrote and that others had ulterior motives. I have a hard time seeing how an author could intentionally write something that contradicts the Old Testament if (s)he truly believed it were holy.

I do not deny that Jesus of Nazareth was a real man, no. It's not a fantastic claim to say that a man lived in the desert 2000 years ago, so I see no reason to even worry about it. Do I believe he was the son of a god who rose from the dead? No. That sort of thing is going to need some solid evidence.

But Jesus and Dawkins are both straying from the topic. Let's focus here.

You've mentioned in this thread that ha-Satan was the prosecutor in God's court. I like this analogy; I've used it once or twice before. But the question is, why does Job need to be tortured to determine if he is guilty? God is supposed to be all-knowing so He should already know the outcome. It sounds like God runs a kangaroo court.

>> ^SpaceGirlSpiff:

Why do you all still argue with Shiny?

He has probably put more time and thought into the Bible than the rest of us put together and that alone makes his opinions interesting to me. While we draw very different conclusions on nearly everything, his Biblical interpretations and comments about such have often given me new things to ponder. I enjoy when someone can give me insight not only into the way they think, but the reasons why they think that way.

I appreciate your comment because it shows thoughtful people on the sift what you, and people who think like you, are all about. It shows the facism inherent in your idealogy. It sounds like you'd fit right into the communist regimes of the 20th century.

As far as your claim on genetics goes, I find it ironic because your faith in materialism and evolution demands that your thoughts and beliefs are the result of unconscious processes and chemical reactions in your brain. In this view, your militant antitheism was decided by the arrangement of atoms at the beginning of the Universe. You inherited your reason from unreasoning animals, and your so called rationality is determined by irrational forces, IE, it is untrustworthy and should be discarded.

>> ^SpaceGirlSpiff:
Why do you all still argue with Shiny? I've said it before and am saying it again. You are wasting your time. Shiny has no capacity to change his mind based on reason, logic or rational evidence. You may as well spend your time trying to convince a dog to change the color of its hair.
You will cite reason, logic and rationality... he will cite dogma. Rinse, repeat.
He is most certainly one of those who is genetically predisposed to be religious (http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/15/weekinreview/12wade.html) and cannot help thinking the way he does. I would pity him if he and those that think like him did not pose such a threat to the civilized world.
He is a lost cause, but there are others who can be "saved" and brought to see reason. I suggest you find those and spend your time helping them instead.
You are better off ignoring him. Let his dogma go unnoticed and starve him of attention. Let his dogma die of starvation and fade into the past.

assume the "that" which you request evidence for is the part where I say this is retconning, subversion, plot holes, etc. This is my own opinion; my own conclusion; after everything I have seen and read over the course of my life. I cannot simply provide a citation for this.

The gospels were written by people unknown and are, with few exceptions, held not to have been written by the people whose names adorn them and are not generally thought to have been written by singular authors, for that matter. Given this, we can't say anything about their beliefs. My expectations would be that some authors had an honest belief in what they wrote and that others had ulterior motives. I have a hard time seeing how an author could intentionally write something that contradicts the Old Testament if (s)he truly believed it were holy.

Yes, that is what I wanted evidence for, because you seemed to have stated it as if it were conclusively proven. I would ask you how you can justify it without a single citation? We have very early manuscript so we know what the early church was working with. When and how exactly do you think this retconning took place?

I will ask for evidence that the NT account of Satan contradicts the OT.

Now, to say the gospels are written by unknowns is simply not plausible. First, for this to be possible, you would have to argue that the church universally agreed on their authorship without any dissension. This strains credulity..entire denominations have been formed over far less important points. For there not to be even be a whiff of controversy in the early church over their authorship proves this theory to be bunk. You also have the fact that they were written in the memory of living witnesses, including the disciples. This would be a check on their authenticity.

I do not deny that Jesus of Nazareth was a real man, no. It's not a fantastic claim to say that a man lived in the desert 2000 years ago, so I see no reason to even worry about it. Do I believe he was the son of a god who rose from the dead? No. That sort of thing is going to need some solid evidence.

Well, if Jesus was a real person it really puts a damper on your theory. The details of His life were widely known about, and there were obviously quite a few witnesses as to who He really was. Do you really think its plausible that so many devout jews in the 1st century would completely estrange themselves from their culture and heritage and willingly martyr themselves over a clever fable? It seems like they also would need some solid evidence to do something like that, and a story about Jesus that many people knew to be false wouldn't hardly qualify.

And there is solid evidence. Have you considered any of the evidence mentioned here?:


But Jesus and Dawkins are both straying from the topic. Let's focus here.

You've mentioned in this thread that ha-Satan was the prosecutor in God's court. I like this analogy; I've used it once or twice before. But the question is, why does Job need to be tortured to determine if he is guilty? God is supposed to be all-knowing so He should already know the outcome. It sounds like God runs a kangaroo court.

You're talking about a very narrow definition of omniscience which is logically contradictory. For instance, under this strict definition of omniscience God would have to know every thought He would ever have and be locked into that thought process for eternity. This would make God no better than a robot. But the nature of God by definition is transcendent of this. If God knew every thought He would ever have, there is no reason He couldn't throw them all away and think something else. Does He necessarily have to anticipate everything He would ever think to still be omniscient? No, because it is to know everything that can be known, and I don't think even God can anticipate all of His thoughts, although we can always count on them being consistant with His nature.

Therefore, although God can surely anticipate the actions of limited beings, His own dynamic reactions to His creation can give His creatures a measure of freedom from this predeterminatism and can themselves have dynamic choices. There is no sense in the bible that God is just "going through the motions". He reacts dynamically according to what His creatures do. He gives choices..for instance, He made the prediction that the 4th generation of Israelites would enter into the land He had prepared for them, but it actually turned out to be the 5th generation due to disobedience. So for these reasons I don't necessarily think God is running a kangaroo court. I think He tests our hearts, and gives us genuine choices with genuine consequences.

>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^shinyblurry:
If you would kindly provide some evidence of that I would happily debunk it for you, because as it stands your conspiracy claims are fairly ridiculous. The gospels were written by people with sincere beliefs, as evidenced by their martyrdom..or perhaps you think it is reasonable to believe that the disciples would be willingly tortured and killed in excruciating ways for something they knew to be a lie, when all they had to do was recant? They were also written in the memory of living witnesses. Are you one of those people who deny that Jesus even existed? Even dawkins is intellectually honest enough to admit it:
I assume the "that" which you request evidence for is the part where I say this is retconning, subversion, plot holes, etc. This is my own opinion; my own conclusion; after everything I have seen and read over the course of my life. I cannot simply provide a citation for this.
The gospels were written by people unknown and are, with few exceptions, held not to have been written by the people whose names adorn them and are not generally thought to have been written by singular authors, for that matter. Given this, we can't say anything about their beliefs. My expectations would be that some authors had an honest belief in what they wrote and that others had ulterior motives. I have a hard time seeing how an author could intentionally write something that contradicts the Old Testament if (s)he truly believed it were holy.
I do not deny that Jesus of Nazareth was a real man, no. It's not a fantastic claim to say that a man lived in the desert 2000 years ago, so I see no reason to even worry about it. Do I believe he was the son of a god who rose from the dead? No. That sort of thing is going to need some solid evidence.
But Jesus and Dawkins are both straying from the topic. Let's focus here.
You've mentioned in this thread that ha-Satan was the prosecutor in God's court. I like this analogy; I've used it once or twice before. But the question is, why does Job need to be tortured to determine if he is guilty? God is supposed to be all-knowing so He should already know the outcome. It sounds like God runs a kangaroo court.

>> ^hpqp:

So let me paraphrase:
Derp: "Hey herp, stop protecting your kid, I want to torture it, kill its friends and make it hate you for abandoning it."
Herp: "Sure, torture away!"
Million dollar question: is Herp a moral person/being?
Bonus question: if Herp is all-powerful, what is he protecting his kid from in the first place?


I agree 100% with what you wrote here. The Book of Job presents a major contradiction to the idea of a benevolent, omniscient God. Which is why I think Dan Barker majorly dropped the ball here on what should have been a slam dunk.

>> ^hpqp:

But the whole point here is that the religious mindset causes an otherwise moral person (they all agreed the first scenario was wrong) to condone an immoral action if it was for religious reasons. Case in point: suicide and murder in Islam, both major "sins", are seen as okay if part of Jihad.


See, if this was Dan Barker's point, I think he screwed it up royally. He's comparing apples and oranges. I can do the same thing he did and get the same results with a completely non-religious issue:

Let's say someone breaks in a family's home in the middle of the night and terrorizes them--holds them at gunpoint, ties them up, and tortures them (similar to the original example). After having his way with them for some time, the criminal starts to kill each family member in front of the others, starting with the kids. After killing the wife, the criminal is about to kill the husband when the husband is able to break free of his bindings. A struggle ensues and the husband overcomes the criminal and ties the criminal up.

Now, remember, the criminal is secure. The husband makes sure the binds are tight and the criminal can't go anywhere. Instead of calling the police, though, the husband picks up the criminal's gun and shoots the criminal right in the head, instantly killing him. Is the husband a murderer?

I think you would find a majority of people who say yes.

The criminal was subdued and no longer a threat. In the American legal system, the husband would most likely be found guilty of second degree murder or manslaughter. It was clearly a revenge killing and the only thing in question really is the mental state of the husband at the time it takes place: was he upset enough that it was manslaughter or did he do it in cold blood?

Now, let's change the scenario slightly. The husband never breaks free. The criminal gleefully and cruelly kills him. After fleeing from the scene of the crime, the criminal later is captured by police and put on trial for his crimes. He's found guilty on all counts due to overwhelming evidence and is sentenced to death. After a lengthy appeals process that takes over a decade, the death sentence is carried out by the state.

Question: Is the state guilty of murder?

You will find that far fewer people are willing to say that the state is guilty of murder. But why don't they? Isn't it the same situation? The criminal is just as guilty of the crimes in either case--the trial just made the guilt official. The criminal has been apprehended and is secure in prison. Surrounded by thick walls, steel bars, and armed guards, he no longer represents a threat to the public. At his execution he is tied down and given a lethal injection (which is dissimilar from being tied up and shot in the head really only in the amount mess that needs to be cleaned up afterwards).

So what's different? What's "clouding the moral judgment" of the people who declare the husband guilty of murder but won't declare the state guilty of murder? Aren't they contradicting themselves?

No, not really. The answer is simply that people attribute different rights to people than they do to government. Almost any basic definition of government requires that government be authorized to use force to obtain compliance from the governed (see Weber's theory)--up too and including lethal force. People who don't believe the state to be guilty of murder believe the state has the right to deprive those who commit serious enough crimes of their life (for a variety of stated reasons such as discouraging other criminals, providing justice for the victims, etc.). An individual, on the other hand, does not have such a right. In other words, it's immoral for the individual to redress the wrong themselves, but it isn't immoral for the state to do so, according to death penalty proponents, on the basis of individual and governmental rights.

(For the record, I am strongly opposed to the death penalty. If you're interested in my reasons, please ask me on my profile rather than derail this thread).

And that is why Dan got the audience response he did. People agree that a human butchering another human is immoral, but ascribe a different set of rights to the Biblical God. In particular, in the more conservative Christian traditions, humans are seen as "belonging" to the Biblical God and to be done with as He pleases.

So I wasn't surprised at all at the response that Dan Barker got. He compared apples and oranges and then seemed surprise when people weren't willing to claim an apple was an orange. Given how ripe the Book of Job is for criticizing many of the basic tenets of Christian belief, I kind of face-palmed when I heard his argument. He had a great chance here to make some keen points (the ones @hpqp raised above) and he completely missed it, I think. What he certainly didn't show was that the audience condoned immoral actions by humans in the name of religion. He simply showed that Christians ascribe different rights to their god than they do to humans. He seems outraged by that, but--as I just showed above--many of us do the same sort of thing with non-religious institutions like government so I'm not sure why he seems so shocked.

So in summary--I didn't upvote because I found the argument to be weak-sauce.

@SDGundamX

I upvoted your comment because you make a well-argumented point (and also because it's nice to see a "wall-of-text" comment that makes a point instead of being the mindless ramblings of a godbot), but I disagree that Dan's point falls flat. One major difference between your analogy and Dan's is that Job is entirely guiltless, something which Dan takes pains to stress. The contradiction between god's omnipotence/omnibenevolence and the story of Job (as well as the very existence of evil in the world in general) is only one of Dan's points though. The other is that the religious mind will make excuses for immoral actions if religiously supported.

The problem with your analogy is twofold; first, a revenge-murder and an execution are not morally equivalent, because they are not done for the same purposes (as you point out) and because the revenge-murderer does not have the legal authority to kill, vested by the people - ideally at least - for the sake of protecting them (fyi I too am a strong opponent of the death penalty which I find totally unethical). And remember, Job is entirely innocent. Second, making special allowances for immoral gvt actions (e.g. torture) is no less morally compromised, imo, than doing so for one's imaginary sky-daddy.

Finally, (and this is what I always say when people say that god can do it cuz he's god): what good is a god who is morally inferior to your average human being?

The only way you can make the argument work is by distorting all the facts. First, job wasn't entirely innocent, by his own words, which I pointed out earlier. Second, there is no logical contradiction between a loving God and the existence of evil, as evidenced in this video:

http://videosift.com/video/Since-Evil-Suffering-Exist-A-Loving-God-Cannot

Which you so disingenuously downvoted, while providing a completely weak appeal to emotion in the comments. It turns out you don't have anything to back up all of your posturing and derision when it comes down to it, and you actively suppress anything which disagrees with your narrow views.

Third, Dans argument does fall falt for exactly the point that SDgundammX made. If the government has the right to enforce rule of law, how much more so does God? It isn't a moral compromise to defer to His authority. I defer to the authority of my government to enforce the law in much the same way. I don't necessarily agree with everything they do but I don't dispute their inherent right to do it, based on rule of law. If you want to make a case for anarchy, feel free, but that is exactly what you'll have to do. Even then it will be a weak argument against Gods authority. Again, note that while Job had outstanding moral character, he was a sinner by his own words, which means that God was legally justified.

Job 9:20 If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me: if I say, I am perfect, it shall also prove me perverse.

Job 13:26 For thou writest bitter things against me, and makest me to possess the iniquities of my youth.



>> ^hpqp:
@SDGundamX
I upvoted your comment because you make a well-argumented point (and also because it's nice to see a "wall-of-text" comment that makes a point instead of being the mindless ramblings of a godbot), but I disagree that Dan's point falls flat. One major difference between your analogy and Dan's is that Job is entirely guiltless, something which Dan takes pains to stress. The contradiction between god's omnipotence/omnibenevolence and the story of Job (as well as the very existence of evil in the world in general) is only one of Dan's points though. The other is that the religious mind will make excuses for immoral actions if religiously supported.
The problem with your analogy is twofold; first, a revenge-murder and an execution are not morally equivalent, because they are not done for the same purposes (as you point out) and because the revenge-murderer does not have the legal authority to kill, vested by the people - ideally at least - for the sake of protecting them (fyi I too am a strong opponent of the death penalty which I find totally unethical). And remember, Job is entirely innocent. Second, making special allowances for immoral gvt actions (e.g. torture) is no less morally compromised, imo, than doing so for one's imaginary sky-daddy.
Finally, (and this is what I always say when people say that god can do it cuz he's god): what good is a god who is morally inferior to your average human being?

You are still just a follower of your local mythoogy... maybe one day you will realise that the universe wasn't made with you in mind, and your god doesn't have a special plan just for you. After that realization, be free to enjoy reality :-)

and you will not live forever. just like the egyptian pharaoes' religion didn't make them immortal and just like the vikings are not in valhalla fighting and drinking and feasting forever.

I think all religious texts were written by people with sincere beliefs... so whats the difference? the number of different authors of the bible makes it more valid than other religion's texts? and whose christianity is the right versions of the textsts and interpretations? After 2000 years of pondering the texts does christianity stand together as a united whole?

>> ^shinyblurry:

If you would kindly provide some evidence of that I would happily debunk it for you, because as it stands your conspiracy claims are fairly ridiculous. The gospels were written by people with sincere beliefs, as evidenced by their martyrdom..or perhaps you think it is reasonable to believe that the disciples would be willingly tortured and killed in excruciating ways for something they knew to be a lie, when all they had to do was recant? They were also written in the memory of living witnesses. Are you one of those people who deny that Jesus even existed? Even dawkins is intellectually honest enough to admit it:

>> ^xxovercastxx:
>> ^shinyblurry:
There's only one Satan. He is a liar and the father of it. He lied to Eve in the garden, he tempted Jesus in the desert, and he is deceiving the world about the gospel.
That there is no Devil in Judaism is widely and readily known. Claims placing him in the Old Testament are contradicting that text, the supposedly infallible word of God. This is Christian retconning in order to close up plot holes and create a more subversive religion that can better be used to control the masses through fear and intimidation.

@ shinyblury: So, Job's grandchildren by Keziah had an Aunt Jemimah... ?

You are still just a follower of your local mythoogy... maybe one day you will realise that the universe wasn't made with you in mind, and your god doesn't have a special plan just for you. After that realization, be free to enjoy reality :-)

Those were my previous thoughts; experience convinced me otherwise. The material world is the very thinnest of veils, and sin is slavery. The only freedom is in knowing your Creator, in Jesus Christ, who laid down His life to take away the sins of the world and set us free.

and you will not live forever. just like the egyptian pharaoes' religion didn't make them immortal and just like the vikings are not in valhalla fighting and drinking and feasting forever.

We're all immortal, it just depends on where you will spend your time. The myths that people have invented since the beginning do not invalidate the truth.

I think all religious texts were written by people with sincere beliefs... so whats the difference? the number of different authors of the bible makes it more valid than other religion's texts? and whose christianity is the right versions of the textsts and interpretations? After 2000 years of pondering the texts does christianity stand together as a united whole?

The difference is, outcast suggested it was a conspiracy. The early church is the model for Christianity..it is no real suprise that whatever man does, he spreads conflict and dissent..but again, the truth of the gospel remains the same.

>> ^lavoll:
You are still just a follower of your local mythoogy... maybe one day you will realise that the universe wasn't made with you in mind, and your god doesn't have a special plan just for you. After that realization, be free to enjoy reality :-)

see, i still get the impression that if you were born another place, you'd be defending the finer points of lord krishna or loki's behaviour instead of god's "might makes right" episode with job. all this to me just reads like "because i know it in my heart to be true". this i suppose is true for any follower of any religion, people around them believe in the same things so that must make it true..?
my final fall/departure from the religion was reading the bible really thoroughly, two different english translations and one norwegian in parallell. that took away everything divine about the religion for me. there still might be a god or gods, but the religion and the book to me is just so shallow and human.


>> ^shinyblurry:

You are still just a follower of your local mythoogy... maybe one day you will realise that the universe wasn't made with you in mind, and your god doesn't have a special plan just for you. After that realization, be free to enjoy reality :-)
Those were my previous thoughts; experience convinced me otherwise. The material world is the very thinnest of veils, and sin is slavery. The only freedom is in knowing your Creator, in Jesus Christ, who laid down His life to take away the sins of the world and set us free.
and you will not live forever. just like the egyptian pharaoes' religion didn't make them immortal and just like the vikings are not in valhalla fighting and drinking and feasting forever.
We're all immortal, it just depends on where you will spend your time. The myths that people have invented since the beginning do not invalidate the truth.
I think all religious texts were written by people with sincere beliefs... so whats the difference? the number of different authors of the bible makes it more valid than other religion's texts? and whose christianity is the right versions of the textsts and interpretations? After 2000 years of pondering the texts does christianity stand together as a united whole?
The difference is, outcast suggested it was a conspiracy. The early church is the model for Christianity..it is no real suprise that whatever man does, he spreads conflict and dissent..but again, the truth of the gospel remains the same.
>> ^lavoll:
You are still just a follower of your local mythoogy... maybe one day you will realise that the universe wasn't made with you in mind, and your god doesn't have a special plan just for you. After that realization, be free to enjoy reality :-)

@shinyblurry

I would rather ignore you, but I will not stand by your false accusations of me having "nothing to back up my [so-called] posturing and derision", or of "suppressing" what doesn't agree with my alleged "narrow views".

I'm glad you reference your video, which is a perfect example of trying to make illogical moral exceptions for your deity. You accuse my comment of being but "a weak appeal to emotions", but it is actually a succinct argument refuting the video's thesis. But since you clearly cannot understand anything with a hint of subtlety, I will spell it out for you:

The video argues that evil must exist in order for there to be freedom of the will. Fine enough, but that only accounts for the kinds of evils done by humans. The things my comment link to are all examples of evils that are not caused by human actions, but by nature (i.e. "acts of God"), and affect perfectly innocent beings. A child who is born with a genetic disorder that will cause it (and it's parents) to suffer for it's whole life is not a matter of "freedom of the will". Answer me this, with a simple "yes/no" answer please: did the 13-day old baby killed by the family dog deserve it?

I know what you'll say: all of humankind, nay, of creation, is tainted because of "original sin". Remember how we've already discussed this ad nauseum? The concept of original sin relies on the story of Creation and the Fall. I know you literally believe that all of humankind is the offspring of an incestuous clusterfuck that started with Adam and Eve, and was renewed when God killed everyone except one family (incest ftw eh?). Let's put aside how utterly disgusting and impossible that is, and concentrate on how it is also a totally immoral belief. You are saying that God, omni-potent/benevolent, lets every single being be "tainted" with "sin" no matter how they live, and thus deserve anything nature's twisted ways will throw at them? All because ONE person did not blindly follow his orders (although without knowing it was wrong to do so)? Do you even realise what a sick, twisted tyrant of a deity you are defending? Thankfully for you (and everyone else) he is but a figment of your imagination.

Back to Job; since you like Bible quotes so much, here's one:

1There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.(Job 1:1) The very first verse says Job was perfect. "But that's the narrator speaking!" you might interject. Fine:

And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? (Job 2:3) This is God speaking, and he follows by saying that "[Satan] movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause", i.e. "Satan made me do it". It is not Dan who is twisting the story, but you. Unless, of course, the Bible is not inerrant, but there's no way you'll accept that, now is there.

The real issue is about would you treat your own children in the same way.

Is it permissible to test a person by taking such extreme measures. Would such an experience be psychologically safe and beneficial for a child? Is it suitable to test adults in the same manner.

What led up to his actions and what followed his actions are all digressions and diversions from the actual action taken - this takes away from the action and the conclusions that must be drawn from them based on the knowledge we current have in regards child rearing. Today this activity would at the mildest be called bullying and intimidation and more precisely as a threat of murder. Today we know that type of practice is damaging to the human psyche, it distorts a persons reality and their ability to function affectingly within the community. Today we know that this type of activity breeds and embeds dysfunctionality deeply into the psyche of society.

To carry out the same or similar acts towards children or other people is clearly seen as dangerous and harmful. The danger and harm is perpetuated through its having become a part of the biblical and therefore the core of Christian teaching.

The basis of the Christian belief system that the beliefs in part or in whole must come before all else is the greatest impediment we face in regards an obvious to provide sound and effective safety and protection mechanism in place to safeguard children from exposure to such violent thinking - more so when it is supported by an entire religious and belief system.

We know today that if we want to develop our full potential that we should provide a safe and protective environment. Religion can never provide that whilst ever it preaches these types of dysfunctional practices as a core part of their religion for to do so is to once again put the rights of their belief before the rights and needs of their children.

Parents can never become genuine advocates for children and their rights while ever they hold the right of their religion first and foremost as this act places the rights of their children on a lower level. This is more harmful to the child when the issue revolves around an act of abuse or the threat of such an act. Most religions stack such a bevy of fear and phobias onto their beliefs and subsequently onto their children to such an extent that what is in actual fact an abuse of the child's right to be free from the fears and phobias of other; that includes their own parents and whatever rights they perceive to belong to them.

Children's rights, their safety and protection can never be first and foremost in a religion; their rights will always be secondary to the religion and the perceived right of the parent.

I'm glad you reference your video, which is a perfect example of trying to make illogical moral exceptions for your deity. You accuse my comment of being but "a weak appeal to emotions", but it is actually a succinct argument refuting the video's thesis. But since you clearly cannot understand anything with a hint of subtlety, I will spell it out for you:

The video argues that evil must exist in order for there to be freedom of the will. Fine enough, but that only accounts for the kinds of evils done by humans. The things my comment link to are all examples of evils that are not caused by human actions, but by nature (i.e. "acts of God"), and affect perfectly innocent beings. A child who is born with a genetic disorder that will cause it (and it's parents) to suffer for it's whole life is not a matter of "freedom of the will". Answer me this, with a simple "yes/no" answer please: did the 13-day old baby killed by the family dog deserve it?

I know what you'll say: all of humankind, nay, of creation, is tainted because of "original sin". Remember how we've already discussed this ad nauseum? The concept of original sin relies on the story of Creation and the Fall. I know you literally believe that all of humankind is the offspring of an incestuous clusterfuck that started with Adam and Eve, and was renewed when God killed everyone except one family (incest ftw eh?). Let's put aside how utterly disgusting and impossible that is, and concentrate on how it is also a totally immoral belief. You are saying that God, omni-potent/benevolent, lets every single being be "tainted" with "sin" no matter how they live, and thus deserve anything nature's twisted ways will throw at them? All because ONE person did not blindly follow his orders (although without knowing it was wrong to do so)? Do you even realise what a sick, twisted tyrant of a deity you are defending?

It's clear you didn't understand the argument the video was making, or even your own argument:

The video is outlining Plantigas free will defense which states:

God's creation of persons with morally significant free will is something of tremendous value. God could not eliminate evil and suffering without thereby eliminating the greater good of having created persons with free will who can make moral choices. Freedom (and, often it is said, the loving relationships which would not be possible without freedom) here is intended to provide a morally sufficient reason for God's allowing evil

The FWD neatly solves the logical problem of evil. Now, you make a point from natural evil, but this also addressed by the FWD. The corruption that came into the world was from originl sin. You say it isn't fair that other people have to suffer for the choices of the prior generation, ignoring that every child is impacted by the choices of their parents, and every other generation before them. God would either have had to start over or prevent all evil, and either choice would eliminate free will. What you miss is that people still have the same opportunities to accept or reject Gods offer of salvation, regardless of original sin. Children who have no capacity to make that choice do receive salvation.

What you're really referring to is the Evidential problem of evil which goes like this:

A) It is improbable that an omnipotent, omniscient and omni-benevolent God, would allow gratuitous suffering.
B) Gratuitous suffering does exist.
C) Therefore it is improbable that an omnipotent, omniscient and omni-benevolent exists.

There are a few ways to address this argument. In chaos theory, something small and insignificant, like the flapping of a butterlfys wings, can lead to something large and powerful, like the creation of a hurricane. Likewise, the actions we undertake have a ripple effect that go beyond our finite understandings. In the movie sliding doors, there are two timelines to the story, where the heroine is trying to get on a subway, and either makes it at the last minute, or gets there a few seconds late and misses it. In the timeline where she makes it, she goes on to have a happy and successful life, but is suddenly killed in a car accident. In the other, she endures a lot of suffering but ends up living to a ripe old age.

Only an omniscient God could see how all of this is going to play out. Just because something may seem pointless to us at the time doesn't mean it couldn't turn out to be beneficial later. If God is working towards a greater good, suffering may be part of how that ultimate good is achieved. It's easy to think of examples. Let's say you were going to take a trip to Tibet to climb Mt Everest, but you ended up breaking your leg and cancelling the trip. Later you find out that the plane you were going to take crashed into the ocean. What seemed pointless at the time actually saved your life.

The invasion of Normandy resulted in untold casualities, but served the greater good of serving to end the war. So, it isn't something we can really quantify, whether some suffering is pointless or not. It is also an incomplete sample. You can say yes, when you only consider the suffering in the world, God doesn't seem as likely, but that is part of the picture. When you consider all of the good things, the probability starts to balance out.

1There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job; and that man was perfect and upright, and one that feared God, and eschewed evil.(Job 1:1) The very first verse says Job was perfect. "But that's the narrator speaking!" you might interject. Fine:

And the LORD said unto Satan, Hast thou considered my servant Job, that there is none like him in the earth, a perfect and an upright man, one that feareth God, and escheweth evil? (Job 2:3) This is God speaking, and he follows by saying that "[Satan] movedst me against him, to destroy him without cause", i.e. "Satan made me do it". It is not Dan who is twisting the story, but you. Unless, of course, the Bible is not inerrant, but there's no way you'll accept that, now is there.

I've already addressed all of this. Although some translations render the word as "perfect", it is referring to an outstanding moral character and piety towards God, not sinlessness. This is proven by Jobs own words:

Job 9:20 If I justify myself, mine own mouth shall condemn me: if I say, I am perfect, it shall also prove me perverse.

Job 13:26 For thou writest bitter things against me, and makest me to possess the iniquities of my youth.

As far as "the devil made me do it", you fail to understand what is going on. Satan is like a prosecuting attorney in Gods courtroom.

Revelation 12:10

And I heard a loud voice in heaven, saying, “Now the salvation and the power and the kingdom of our God and the authority of his Christ have come, for the accuser of our brothers has been thrown down, who accuses them day and night before our God.

Satan laid a false accusation against Job, brought him to trial, and Job was tried and tested and found innocent.

Thankfully for you (and everyone else) he is but a figment of your imagination.

You protest too much, hpqp. Your fervent denial shows you have more than a clue. You accuse me of delusion but you're the one fooling yourself.

>> ^hpqp

The real issue is about would you treat your own children in the same way.

Is it permissible to test a person by taking such extreme measures. Would such an experience be psychologically safe and beneficial for a child? Is it suitable to test adults in the same manner.

It's just not a valid comparison, JohnBrown. You can't draw an inference as to what you might do in comparison as to what God might do. God is a much different sort of parent, who has a much different role in a persons life than that of a custodial guardian. He handles issues of life *and* death. Humans obviously want to go through life with the least amount of suffering possible. That isn't always good for them, and as anyone knows, sometimes you have to learn the hard way. Obviously God knows what we can and cannot handle, and what is or isn't beneficial for us.


What led up to his actions and what followed his actions are all digressions and diversions from the actual action taken - this takes away from the action and the conclusions that must be drawn from them based on the knowledge we current have in regards child rearing. Today this activity would at the mildest be called bullying and intimidation and more precisely as a threat of murder. Today we know that type of practice is damaging to the human psyche, it distorts a persons reality and their ability to function affectingly within the community. Today we know that this type of activity breeds and embeds dysfunctionality deeply into the psyche of society.

I'm not sure how you feel you can apply principles of child rearing to God, who handles all of the myriad complexities of the world, and of our individual lives. Do these principles include how to prepare ones spirit for eternal life?

To carry out the same or similar acts towards children or other people is clearly seen as dangerous and harmful. The danger and harm is perpetuated through its having become a part of the biblical and therefore the core of Christian teaching.

Now you segue into this very different subject which is specifically predicated on your unbelief. First you're talking about God hypothetically committing immoral actions, and then when you feel you've established it, you turn the argument into a problem with Christianity itself. The problem is that you haven't established it, and your presupposition about God being compared to a human parent is false.

The basis of the Christian belief system that the beliefs in part or in whole must come before all else is the greatest impediment we face in regards an obvious to provide sound and effective safety and protection mechanism in place to safeguard children from exposure to such violent thinking - more so when it is supported by an entire religious and belief system.

If God exists, obviously God comes first. Just like you put your family first before other people. Yet, this isn't a selfish thing. If you put God first in your life you are more likely to love other people. These are the two greatest commandments:

1. Love the Lord thy God with all of your heart, all of your soul, and all of your understanding.

2. Love your neighbor as yourself.

Jesus said that everything in the bible hinged on those two commandments. As you can see, God felt it was very important that we should love other human beings. This is hardly "violent thinking". Your problem, and the problem of every other atheist, is that in your desperate attempt to dismantle Christianity, you try to find something in the Old Testament to make your case, because it's quite obvious that Jesus taught us to be selfless, compassionate, and loving. You have no argument against verses like this:

Matthew 5:39-48

But I tell you, do not resist an evil person. If anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to them the other cheek also. And if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, hand over your coat as well. If anyone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. Give to the one who asks you, and do not turn away from the one who wants to borrow from you.

“You have heard that it was said, ‘Love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ But I tell you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, that you may be children of your Father in heaven. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous. If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that? Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

So you try to find difficult verses in the OT and completely ignore all of the obvious good in the NT. It really shows the weakness of your arguments.

We know today that if we want to develop our full potential that we should provide a safe and protective environment. Religion can never provide that whilst ever it preaches these types of dysfunctional practices as a core part of their religion for to do so is to once again put the rights of their belief before the rights and needs of their children.

Full potential? Christians live longer, and are happier and healthier than non-believers:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/8480505/Faith-good-for-your-health.html

We're also far more likely to give to charity, and when we do, we give four times as much:

http://therooftopblog.wordpress.com/2006/12/01/christians-and-conservatives-give-more-to-charity-abc-says/

Parents can never become genuine advocates for children and their rights while ever they hold the right of their religion first and foremost as this act places the rights of their children on a lower level. This is more harmful to the child when the issue revolves around an act of abuse or the threat of such an act. Most religions stack such a bevy of fear and phobias onto their beliefs and subsequently onto their children to such an extent that what is in actual fact an abuse of the child's right to be free from the fears and phobias of other; that includes their own parents and whatever rights they perceive to belong to them.

Children's rights, their safety and protection can never be first and foremost in a religion; their rights will always be secondary to the religion and the perceived right of the parent.

Ridiculous, and unfounded. Putting God first means to obey His commands to love one another, and to see all people, children and adult, in the image of God. There is no connection between putting God first and abusing your kids. Some people may used a warped understanding of Christianity to mistreat their children, but that is possible for any belief system.

>> ^JohnBrown

so all this wit and intelligence.. applied to trying to logically defend that you are a believer in your local mythology.

Are you still here, shiny? Can I ask a little more about your beliefs? Like for example angels. How do they fit into your religious activities? Are they important to a ' modern' christian? I ask sincerely :-)

Sure. Angels are messangers of God. They still do appear to people from time to time. Scripture seems to indicate that at least some people and all children have guardian angels. Other than that, Christians are not supposed to regard angels. We have a respect for them, as holy servants of the most High, but we don't reverence them, nor are their affairs any of our concern.

>> ^lavoll:
Are you still here, shiny? Can I ask a little more about your beliefs? Like for example angels. How do they fit into your religious activities? Are they important to a ' modern' christian? I ask sincerely :-)