Hi there. I Believe in God.

[Irreligious]

Egor wrote

But you want to hold God in your hand. You want to analyze God down to nothing ala Spinoza. But how could a creation ever fully comprehend its creator? It can't. Your atheism is based on an absurdity.

You know what's absurd? Your claim to not comprehend what you're peddling here.

You promised to leave. Why are you still here wasting our time with your nonsense?

[Philboid Studge]

Egor wrote

Having said that, let me repeat something from Sunday School: For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

Hey, what a class act is this God fellow ! Let us review:

He creates a race of fallible monkeys; gifts them with free will and then immediately punishes them with suffering and death when they use it; has non-consensual sex with a virgin monkey so that He can father Himself; poses as His own "son" and "saves" the monkeys from the curse He put upon them; promises them everlasting life (doesn't deliver); "dies" on a cross but doesn't have the yarbles to stay dead; retreats to the clouds and demands fealty from the monkeys upon pain of eternal suffering. And He does all this for ... what was it again? ah yes: because he so loved the world.

[Broga]

Egor. So Matthew, Mark, Luke and John are the inerrant word of God? I'll pass on how you know and raise the following, from a great many problems with that.

Matthew and Luke cannot concur on the Virgin birth or the geneology of Jesus. They flatly contradict each other on the Flight into Egypt. Matthew says Joseph was warned in a dream to make an immediate escape. Luke says all three stayed in Bethlehem until Mary's purification according to the laws of Moses, which makes it 40 days, and then went back to Nazareth via Jerusalem.

Luke says Jesus birth occurred in the year when Cesar Augustus ordered a census for taxation and that happened when Herod reigned in Judea and Quirinius was governor of Syria. But Herod died four years BC and during his rule the governor of Syria was not Quirinius. Josephus mentions a census but that took place six years after the supposed birth of Jesus.

I could write lots more but what's the point. Your mind is closed. These gospels are a mess of more or less discordant documents and they show unmistakable signs of being tampered with. However, I will give you a chance to be intellectually honest and admit that they are such a mess that they cannot be the inerrant word of a divine God.

I'm looking forward to hearing from you.

[West491]

Egor,

If god can't be comprehended, how did he inspire the bible? It was, after all, mere humans who actually wrote the stuff.

If god can't be comprehended, who's voice did Noah hear when he scribbled the Ten Commandments on the stone slab?

Also, can we agree that you're going against your own "inerrant" holy book when you say that god can't be comprehended?

[West491]

Egor wrote

There are signs and implications. The universe god requires a first cause that is intelligent and capable of acting because the universe god displays intelligent order.

Egor, you see how that works? So what caused god? If god is uncaused you can save a step and say that the universe is uncaused.

[Broga]

Egor: Please explain which of these, if either, is true. And as at least one cannot be true then Mathew, Mark, Luke, John cannot be the inerrant word of God as you state.

"Jacob begat Joseph." Matthew 1.16

"Joseph, which was the son of Heli." Luke 3.23

I cannot demonstrate any clearer than this that you are wrong. These two statements provide irrefutable evidence that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John cannot be the inerrant word of God. You are on show here Egor. Clearly in the frame. Either you run away or admit you are wrong and retain at least a scrap of dignity. Your honesty is on the line.

I await your reply with interest. Your failure to reply will be even more interesting.

[Kate]

[Broga]

@Kate: It is a sad and irritating fact of life that corresponding with christians means encountering deceit and persistent casuistry as they will do anything except admit when they are wrong. They make outrageous statements about inerrant truths of their fairy tales but when confronted with the evidence they shame themselves in their persistent dishonesty.

[Kate]

@Broga: That's Salma Hayek covering herself with gravy.

[ghoulslime]

Philboid Studge wrote

Hey, what a class act is this God fellow ! Let us review:

He creates a race of fallible monkeys; gifts them with free will and then immediately punishes them with suffering and death when they use it; has non-consensual sex with a virgin monkey so that He can father Himself; poses as His own "son" and "saves" the monkeys from the curse He put upon them; promises them everlasting life (doesn't deliver); "dies" on a cross but doesn't have the yarbles to stay dead; retreats to the clouds and demands fealty from the monkeys upon pain of eternal suffering. And He does all this for ... what was it again? ah yes: because he so loved the world.

He also wants us to swallow his body fluids, you know?

[ghoulslime]

Broga wrote

Egor: Please explain which of these, if either, is true. And as at least one cannot be true then Mathew, Mark, Luke, John cannot be the inerrant word of God as you state.

"Jacob begat Joseph." Matthew 1.16

"Joseph, which was the son of Heli." Luke 3.23

I cannot demonstrate any clearer than this that you are wrong. These two statements provide irrefutable evidence that Matthew, Mark, Luke, John cannot be the inerrant word of God. You are on show here Egor. Clearly in the frame. Either you run away or admit you are wrong and retain at least a scrap of dignity. Your honesty is on the line.

I await your reply with interest. Your failure to reply will be even more interesting.

Clearly these two books are not the inerrant word of anybody, since these two statements are contradicting. Egor's claim is clearly in error.

Now let's see whether he will lie in an attempt to deceive us further, or if he will just ignore your victory.

[Broga]

ghoulslime wrote

Clearly these two books are not the inerrant word of anybody, since these two statements are contradicting. Egor's claim is clearly in error.

Now let's see whether he will lie in an attempt to deceive us further, or if he will just ignore your victory.

There are, of course, a great many contradictions in the books of the bible Egor selected. There is also evidence outside the bible, which I touched on in an earlier post, but which he would find easier to shuffle round. However, these two statements lay it on the line. Let us see what Egor replies. Until he responds I think he should be referred back to them and asked to do so every time he attempts further preaching here. He has been treated with more forebearance here, and given more leeway, than any of us would get on a christian site.

[ghoulslime]

Egor wrote

Then how come you're writing like a dog that's peeing on himself out of fear?

I'm putting my avatar back up. I can appreciate not being allowed a link in my sig since it's not generally allowed. Besides, by now, you all know where to find me.

And I'd be glad to answer any ten reasonable questions presented to me without ducking at all. Bring it on.

But if the mods change my avatar. Don't blame me for not answering your sad little questions.

Congratulations on getting your avatar back, Egor! Are we to assume that the "V" no longer stands for "Vagina"? Did you know that the cross is a phallic symbol? I think that a vagina would be a nice complement to the penis on your avatar.

I don't see the need for you threatening to ignore my sincere questions. It seems rather combative. Also, suggesting that my questions are diminutive and inconsequential, before you have even heard the questions, does not indicate an intention on your part to be forthright in answering them. But alrighty then! With my hands trembling with great trepidation, I will venture the initial questions.

Lets start with three questions:

1. Do you believe the story of Noah's Ark to be true?

2. Do you accept the factual findings of the world scientific community in regard to the evolution of humans from apes?

3. Do you believe that Mithra was born to a virgin mother, fathered by God, was God incarnate, and died for our sins so that we can live forever?

[Kate]

[ghoulslime]

Broga wrote

There are, of course, a great many contradictions in the books of the bible Egor selected. There is also evidence outside the bible, which I touched on in an earlier post, but which he would find easier to shuffle round. However, these two statements lay it on the line. Let us see what Egor replies. Until he responds I think he should be referred back to them and asked to do so every time he attempts further preaching here. He has been treated with more forebearance here, and given more leeway, than any of us would get on a christian site.

This seems to be a reasonable position. Egor has very clearly made an inaccurate claim about these books of the New Testament. If these books were the inerrant word of an omniscient god, they would not contain such a glaring contradiction, like this example which you have pointed out. It seems imperative on Egor's part to address this issue if he is to gain even a small measure of our trust in his other claims that build upon this foundational predication.

Egor, question number 4, if you would be so kind!

4. If the books of the New Testament are the inerrant word of god, why do they contain contradicting statements?

"Jacob begat Joseph." Matthew 1.16

"Joseph, which was the son of Heli." Luke 3.23