You seem to exalt it to a level where it's become an idol is my point. You're like the Russian baseball players in the movie Comrades of Summer who always referred to Manual says dispite observed reality.

Perhaps you need to ask before you make such an unwarranted assumption. You have a survey on the number of atheists that make this claim?

There were none in my post because I figured someone as knowledgeable as you should be would know.

Short list -

Simon of Perea aka Simon bar Joseph

Athronges

Theudas

Jesus aka Yahshua bar Joseph

Judas the Galilean

The Samaritan - perhaps just a leader of a rebellion or just stupid

Egyptian Jew mentioned by Josephus - again perhaps just a rebel

Jesus son of Ananias - deemed insane by the Romans though he made the claim

Menaham

Of course Simon bar Kosiba - early 2nd century, but memorable.

You are dodging.

Jesus does not fit the Jewish prophecies at all, did you not read the scripture references I gave you? Are you incapable of detached observation?

How is Jewish prophecy contradicting Jesus to be the Messiah a strawman?

You simply have no idea what Jews believe and why they don't accept Jesus to be their promised messiah, just admit it. You need to take a course called Judaism 101 or something. You make assertions that your interpreted view of a book is real versus the interpretations of those that made the book in the first place. It was their religion to worship the god Yahweh, aka a god of thunder in Canaanite myths.

The entire Jesus is the Messiah concept  is based on misconstrued reality and legends. Jesus at best was a rebel who was executed for inciting rebellion and attacking the financial center of Judea, aka the Temple, or that composite person was.

No, I don't know for sure Jesus was real or was a composite or if he was a fictionalization.

Revelation is a book written by a very disgruntled man with the Roman Empire, perhaps taking hallucinogens of some type or psychotic.

You are the one that brought Revelation into the picture at every chance you get, thinking the promised demise and gore are going to be influential.

Revelation in fact contradicts what Jews believe occurs with the Messiah. The world does not end when he comes, rather all people recognize the God of the Jews as the true god and war, murder and sin are no more.

Revelation adds fuel to the morphing of Judaism into a mystic religion which became Christianity. You realize it was nearly not voted into the canon don't you?

Of course the the Creator is "Your" god.... not the god of the other guy... that one is a false god or satan or whatever ridiculous crap you tell yourself.  It's not arrogance or ego.. it's confidence in the .....wait for it...."Truth".   yeah !

Once again..YOUR god !  Which I'm sure the hijackers would have all agreed is as phony as a three dollar bill.  A belief not so unlike yours...   

See, we found something to agree on, despite the many different concepts of the word.   Of course to followers of their god.. they are heroes.  Killing in the name of (your god here)... is harldy an uncommon occurrence in human history.. This includes YOUR god as well.

Wow !!  You didn't just speak for me.. you spoke for everyone...  No EGO whatsoever is there ?  Well, in this case.. you should have just spoken for yourself and we actually could have agreed twice in one post.

Here's where you ramble on about the ridiculous ideology or YOUR god..  let's just skip that !

Now we're back to the passive-aggressive tact.  This time it takes some form of phony self effacing.  christians aren't perfect just forgiven, right ?   This "sounds" so much nicer than "heathen".. but that's what someone is who doesn't believe in YOUR god.  Here's where we could expound on what the bible says should and will happen to "heathens"..  Sure, we're no "better" than you...but when the most horrible calamity befalls the "unsaved", even if at the hand of the non-heathen..you got what was coming to you.  I'd have so much more respect for you if you cut the phony humility and approached this honestly.  Not betting on that of course.

You remember what I said about the religious guy always reveals themselves as possessing the lowest  moral character in the room...Guaranteed ?  Boy, I hate being right.  That you would equate me.. the people in this room, the kid down the street, the firefighters and police officers who died on 9/11 trying to save human lives at incredible risk to their own, the American (as well as Canadian/British/Australian, etc. soldiers who have died serving their country as no better than the hijackers who murdered innocent victims in the name of their god...   You really take the cake !  No more apologizing for those murderous/phony christians who came "before" you that gave christians a bad name.  I can't imagine anyone representing "them" better than YOU.  I am better than those hijackers, Assbag!  And what's more, I express kindness and selflessness to my fellow humans regardless of any threat of punishment or promise of reward.  That's a morality you will NEVER be capable of.  

Nice attempt at a NO True Scotsman.  That's really what you're going for, right ?  If a christian commits evil.... they weren't "real" christians, right ? That would be awfully convenient for you, but that's also why it's called a fallacy.  Because that lack of logic is a load of crap !   I would submit that nearly every christian who committed an atrocity did so w/ the firm justification that that was exactly what the bible teaches.  Exactly what the hijackers did, just with a somewhat different "sacred scripture" providing the motivation.  The bible is rife with exhortations to commit violence.. usually against the non-believer.  Did you forget which website you were proselytizing in ?

There are a number of examples of non-believers committing atrocities.  Humans are capable of much evil.  Show me a few examples of non-believers who murdered in the name of........nothing.

THAT would be the significant thing to note.    

@pauljohn

"You seem to exalt it to a level where it's become an idol is my point. "

The Bible is a book that carries a message, the message is what is important, not the ink on a page.

"Perhaps you need to ask before you make such an unwarranted assumption. You have a survey on the number of atheists that make this claim?"

Forgive me, as I said it was in jest, and admittedly based on my own experience.

"There were none in my post because I figured someone as knowledgeable as you should be would know."

I am aware of some... I counted seven, not over a dozen. If you try hard enough you might be able to find enough names, but I'm sure as the list progressed the historical would lessen to the point that your appeal to them would seem more faith-filled then my appeal to Scripture.

"You are dodging.

Jesus does not fit the Jewish prophecies at all, did you not read the scripture references I gave you? Are you incapable of detached observation?"

I did. Those prophecies are fulfilled in the Second Advent.

Now, a question for you: could the prophecies have been fulfilled if the Jews didn't reject the Messiah? The answer is no, forgive the rhetoric.

"You are the one that brought Revelation into the picture at every chance you get"

I brought it up once to answer your objection and then you took it in the opposite direction seemingly to pontificate your incredible knowledge of Judaism or something.
 

@AmericanIdle

"I am better than those hijackers, Assbag!"

Not according to the Bible. If every person were left to their own desires and God chose not to restrain them I would liken planet earth to the updated rendition of the dawn of the dead...

 "Did you forget which website you were proselytizing in ?"

I do my best to defend and confirm the faith the same way regardless of where I am...

"Show me a few examples of non-believers who murdered in the name of........nothing."

- Joeseph Stalin

- Pol Pott

- Mussolini

Want more?

If God and faith were exhaustable by men there would be little majesty in it I think.

My allegiance is to Jesus Christ, reality is indeed subject to His approval.

Sometimes I wish I truly believed in the Force so that I could step down a level to show a theist just how obtuse they are being. I can envision it though.

"The Bible is true because the Bible said so, and no authority is greater than God".

"You are in error my friend. The Force is true because the Force says so. No authority is greater than the Unified Force".

Commence futile but amusing back and forth mirroring of claims.

- Joeseph Stalin: Statist. Replaced god with state. He was still religious, he just made up his own religion.
- Pol Pott: Political rebel: Whether atheist or not, his murders were done in the name of a cause, and that cause was not atheism.
-Mussolini: Father of fascism: but like the others, his goals and motivations had nothing to do with god worship, and everything to do with politics.

All three may have voiced their dislike of gods, but all three did so for their own power. The greatest threat to a dictator is the masses. If one thing in all of history can mobilise the masses so

Indeed.

Atheism has it's fundies too.

The argument will never be whether atheists or Christians have had 'adherents' that have done bad things...

The death toll at the hands of professing atheists is staggeringly larger than that of Christianity.

Here is the main point:

When a professing Christian takes a life they act in direct violation of the Bible.

When an atheist takes a life they are NOT acting against any standards at all because their worldview does not afford them an objective standard of morality.

I think we already saw what his argument would be against a Jew. They didn't recognize Jesus was the true Messiah and fulfilled their prophecies (or will later on).

Because you must be rich to afford it, the masses can never join them. In the end, it will collapse upon itself. So the fact that they're the only one to espouse that something happened to everyone at the same time is irrelevant.
It all comes down to the requirement of believing in god. But none of the religions have anything but books and a few artifacts to suggest that they're telling the truth. Books and artifacts given to them, and them alone. Never are artifacts found in other civilisations across the planet, at the same time or otherwise. Your bible says nothing of North and South Americans living before, after, and at the time of jesus. Artifacts, tales, and books of god are not found among their culture. So for thousands of years these people were committed to hell simply because they hadn't even heard jesus' name? How disgusting is that? I could NEVER do such a horrible thing as create beings only to torture them for their ignorance of my existence when I don't even let them know I'm there.

Living subjectively forces you to accept that you have ONE life. It is yours to do with as you please, but if you live it doing harm, then you will be cursed through the ages along the likes of Napoleon, Hitler, Manson, Atilla, and others. If you are good, then you are remembered for your goodness. Your deeds and beliefs are emulated by others, and still more emulate them. A greater power I have never seen, than one's own choice.

@Vastet

“I imagine they must actually mean it too, or god would see through them, but it still leaves open a staggering discrepancy of equal treatment.”

Correct, unless it’s genuine it wouldn’t matter. As for fair treatment… God loves everyone, but He certainly loves those He chooses to save more than the ones that are in Hell.

“No theist of any type has ever tried to claim that their god appeared in some form to ALL the people's of the Earth.”

His existence is made known to all as well as His moral law. What needs to be spread is the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

“So for thousands of years these people were committed to hell simply because they hadn't even heard jesus' name?”

Nope. They went to Hell because they sinned against a Holy God and was without atonement for their sin.

The problem with atheists seems to be that they picture the best version of reality as a world with total perfection. For God to reveal himself to anyone fully, the people getting this revelation would have to live in a world of sin and evil because otherwise the attributes of God such as justice, mercy, patience, and grace could not exist, and thus God would not be able to let those people experience Him as fully as they might otherwise…

“Instead they are wrong, and they will spend an eternity in hell for denying the god you were fortunately raised up knowing about, instead of being unfortunately born to heathens who never taught you his name.”

I’m a former atheist.
 

"Correct, unless it’s genuine it wouldn’t matter. As for fair treatment… God loves everyone, but He certainly loves those He chooses to save more than the ones that are in Hell."

If he hasn't chosen me, on what basis should I choose him? I treat others the way I like to be treated, but I also treat them as they treat me. If someone isn't willing to like me, I'm not going to like them either.

"His existence is made known to all as well as His moral law. What needs to be spread is the Gospel of Jesus Christ."

His existence and morality is foreign to me in every way. I don't, and never have known him. My experience is shared by more people than yours through the ages, at every point in history, regardless of your denial of it.

"Nope. They went to Hell because they sinned against a Holy God and was without atonement for their sin."

Because they had no way of knowing they were sinful, and had no way to atone.

suffice, if claiming the book as evidence.

"I’m a former atheist."

By your own admission you were not. You claim you've always known god. If you were an atheist, that would not have been true. You might have been anti-theist, or maybe anti-christian, but you were never an atheist.

This is the central problem I have with fundamentalist/literalist religion.  If you assume that capital T "Truth" comes from a book, or holy man, or any particular infallible source...all of reality is open to the whim of the person interpreting that source.  eXnihilO believes what he believes, and as he picks and chooses how to believe in his God he can justify any imagine able prejudice.  Does he want to help a neighbor?  There is a verse for that.  Does he want to cheat on his taxes?  There is a verse for that.  Does he want to blow up a family planning clinic?  There is a verse for that.  Does he want to make blacks equal?  There is a verse for that.  Does he want to make them slaves?  There is a verse for that.

The point is, when rational discourse is placed after an infallible, nebulous authority you can do anything you want.  A KKK member, a Red Cross volunteer, a terrorist, a honest born again preacher, and a woo master all have the same reasons for believing what they believe.  They all justify their actions using the same thought process, the same sources, the same logic, the same faith.  All are equally hostile to real solutions and answers that conflict with their own internalized dogma.

The only differentiation is the actual belief, but they think they are special, they all think that they have the inside track on reality.  To be objective and sift truth from fiction you must have a system of thought that allows you do organize claims reliably and come to real, solid, uncapitalized "truth"...and we do.  Rational thought, logic, the scientific method...reason in the face of superstition and unthinking conviction.

Ex- If we had a Jew, a Muslim, a Mormon, a Scientologist, a Druid, a born again Christian, an ancient Greek priest and a New Ager all locked in a room a neutral observer could not discover who was telling the truth and who was telling a lie because they all make truth claims and they all refuse objective analysis of what they believe.  They all think they are precious and unique snowflakes who are 100% right and everyone else is 100% wrong and they all use the same talking points to 'prove' it or defend their belief.

@American: I noticed the passive aggressive stuff in these posts as well.  It is like they say, "in love, God bless you" and the tone is, "Fuck you, die in a fire".  (Although I am sure some of that is me projecting, lol)

I'll start here, as my post in the other thread just covered everything up until here:

"I see. I’ll cite this statement the next time you make a moral argument against your Creator."

Before you try to use my logic against my emotion (or vice versa), I'll cut you off by informing you that emotion is not inherently logical. I don't believe that my emotional view of morality is absolute, as I have encountered many beings that do not share them. But if morality were absolute, then my own basic knowledge of it tells me to stay away from accepting what I consider immoral concepts. Among those is christianity, in all of its flavours.

"Indeed, I was no more an atheist than you are, but I sure thought I was, as I suspect you do... It’s only by the grace of God, but upon an open-minded inspection of your world view you might see more clearly.Take care bud."

Ah, but I'm a REAL atheist, not one with a grudge against a creator. My grudge is with people who try to dumb down the schools of our children, so that one day a comet will smack into Earth and bring about a self-fullfilling prophecy, because we were all praying to an invisible god who never did anything instead of advancing towards an unexplored universe of wonder. The Earth is a speck of sand on a beach that stretches a good 500 trillion times further than you can see. And you want to ignore it for a book that I could have done a better job writing.

You too, by the way.

You really should consider a little investigation before you post a stupid comment like this one.

Galaxies collide or to be more accurate combine. This is extremely common. They do so without stars smacking into one another. You perhaps read or watch too much Sci-Fi.

See: http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=351

Merge, collide, or grow cosmic hands and do an uber-cool high-five, everyone dies when it happens I think.

In all honesty you seem far more committed to making a point against a Christian than getting answers...

If you just had an honest, unloaded question I think you would have already found the answer, because this is not a deep or problematic issue for Christians... at all.

That point was not to say that a prophet of God must be morally perfect. If that were the case. God couldn’t have used any of the men he used to pen the Bible. David managed to break all Ten Commandments if I’m not mistaken during his incident with Bathsheeba… the difference is that the Bible clearly identifies murder and sexual immorality as wrong when people of God fall into those sins. Abraham and Jacob didn’t write any of the Bible by the way. The Qur’an never condemns Muhammad for sleeping with a 9yr old as far as I know.

Another thing to mention is that not everything that is recorded in the Bible is automatically something God approved of... I'm not sure why people bring things up that were wrong as if God approved of them. I recognize that you are saying that He blessed what you are calling sexual immorality but I'm not convinced that Jacob did anything wrong. It was commonplace for men to marry multiple women in that era and there is no Biblical mandate against have more than one wife unless you want to be a church leader. The reason for this last part is that you won't find a man in the Bible who had more than one wife and didn't have 200% more to deal with as a result... just think of all the mother in-laws he had! Just kidding.

This is how I understand you objections... I would first point out that you are going to Leviticus which didn't come until much later than any of the people in Genesis.

Paul mentions some things about this in Romans chapter four, when he is specifically talking about Abraham. His statement is interesting: 'where there is no law there is no transgression.' The 'law' in question here started with Moses which was much later than the patriarchs. When these men did all of these things you mentioned, they did so before the book of Leviticus was written so they would never have read those words.

That doesn't mean that those things weren't bad or sinful, it just means that the men were not accountable for keeping the law of Moses as strictly the people who received it because they lived before it was given. Sin existed before the law, but a trangression is harsher because that means you knew the law of God but chose to disobey anyway... Just wanted to offer that up.

 

There isn't any wiggle room. But there is more guilt for one than the other. For instance, I believe that the men who sinned before Moses may be punished less than after it was made so obvious... Jesus talks about differing degrees of punishement on judgment day. We didn't get all the details on that one though.

And just FYI - the whole 'law written on the heart' deal is a new covenant promise, it didn't start until after Jesus. That is why I can say with certainty that you are without excuse before God on judgment day.

All the best,

  No, I understand completely.  I anticipated the point being made regarding Mosaic Law. The "before" and "after"  defense. This is a technicality much as a clever defense attorney would make.  The defense is based upon the use of situational ethics ( behavior X was the cultural norm during that time period.. ) , moral relativity, etc.  It's okay though.  I accept your explanation, not in the sense that I find it satisfactory but in the sense that it represents your belief system.  No harm done.  I am content to make my observation and then consider your response.

  Just a minor quibble, homosexuality between males in the form of pederasty would certainly qualify as a cultural norm in the ancient Middle East yet God strangely ignored that traditional behavior and instead commanded that homosexuals be destroyed where ever they were found.  God apparently refused to bow to custom when it concerned this particular sexual behavior. It seems that God really does hate fags.

   peace.

I imagine that you also anticipated my dislike of the phrase 'situational ethics' and 'moral relativism.' I did want to point out that sin is sin, and there is an objective standard of morality with God. When I mentioned the multiple wives thing, I believe that there is still nothing with having multiple wives today. The Bible never condemns this unless you want to be a New Testament church leader. That being said, if you live in a place where the law defines marriage as between one man and one woman, you would be sinning for taking a second wife not because God says that it is wrong, but because He does tell us to obey civil government.

Take care,

   Yes eX but Bilah and Zilpah were not wives but simply domestic servants.  They did not share the marital status of Rachel and Leah. Does that mean the Bible also allows husbands to screw their wife's cleaning lady ?

 Actually I'm surprised by your general support for polygamous marriage. Except for a few remaining Mormon sects my perception is that across the world the vast majority of modern, orthodox Christians would never accept polygamy under any circumstances. Are you aware of any major shifts within Christendom towards upholding polygamy ?     I personally see nothing wrong with this type of arrangement, though.

  Also, please humor me here  ....I'm curious as to your opinion concerning polyandry.  I have heard some theologians insist that unlike Islam, Christianity does not relegate women to inferior status simply based upon their gender.  In view of that principle, would you consider it an abomination for a woman to have multiple husbands ?   

  It's not meant as a trick question or a "gotcha" scheme.  I'm just interested in your interpretation of a hypothetical.  Speaking for myself I see no reason why any disparity should exist in that regard.

  Cheers

@Atheistextremeist

“your standards, eXni? What if accepted a woman's right to chose in relation to abortion and gay people's right to marry?

Would you consider defying the civil government?”

We live in a place that makes horrible things legal… As a Christian I can leave, deal with it, or lobby against it. I choose to peacefully lobby against what I disagree with, which is the essence of American liberty. Now, if I were forced to marry a gay couple, that is the point at which my standing before God is compromised and that is the point at which I go to jail or leave rather than sin against God. Up until the point we are forced to sin, we are commanded to ‘put up’ with these things in love.

@Prozac

“Yes eX but Bilah and Zilpah were not wives but simply domestic servants.  They did not share the marital status of Rachel and Leah. Does that mean the Bible also allows husbands to screw their wife's cleaning lady ?”

Marriage was generally recognized more than one way in those days. You can either do a long drawn out and expensive festival or for others, consummation was sufficient. It was the understanding then that if you have sex with a woman, she is your wife. When two become one flesh, as it were. The practice has continued in the American south, its referred to as a ‘shotgun wedding.’ Just kidding on that last part. Seriously though, back then unlike today, purity was important.

 “Actually I'm surprised by your general support for polygamous marriage. Except for a few remaining Mormon sects my perception is that across the world the vast majority of modern, orthodox Christians would never accept polygamy under any circumstances. Are you aware of any major shifts within Christendom towards upholding polygamy ?     I personally see nothing wrong with this type of arrangement, though.”

Yea… most Christians would fight me on it, but they couldn’t show me in the Bible any explicit commands… just like alcohol… it’s a tradition, not a command that they follow.

“Also, please humor me here  ....I'm curious as to your opinion concerning polyandry.  I have heard some theologians insist that unlike Islam, Christianity does not relegate women to inferior status simply based upon their gender.  In view of that principle, would you consider it an abomination for a woman to have multiple husbands ?”

This is a fairly big deal right now I think… women are given a very specific roles in the Bible, but the fact of the matter is that men and women are equal in dignity. Just because my wife is commanded to be submissive does not make her any less of a human being. God is the head of Christ, just as man is the head of his wife… The Bible teaches that God the Father and Jesus Christ are both the same God, yet they take different roles. They are equal in dignity but separate in roles… this does not take anything away from women or make them inferior at all.

All the best,

Equal, just not equal to the man.

Exodus 20:17Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that [is] thy neighbour's.

The 'wife' is equal to servants, ox, and donkey(ass). Well, not specifically equal to those things. She's mentioned in the same context as a possession with upkeep costs though.