Why would a loving God depend your salvation on bad evidence?

[Red Pill Sports]

Not only bad evidence for his own existence but equally bad evidence for the resurrection of Christ, which is supposed to be the most important event in human history since your salvation is completely determined on believing in those things? Then he has the gall to damn you to hell for justifiably not believing due to such weak evidence. If God exists, he is not a loving God or a deity worthy of your worship


No Christian I've ever talked to has been able to provide an answer that makes any sense.

[warriorfan]

why do you feel a need to debate them?

[theman93]

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools

Romans 1:18-22

[Patrick Chewing]

Another RRR3 alt in the house.

[SATAN]

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools

Romans 1:18-22

:facepalm

[Gohan]

God is a woman and im not saying that because of that song. Im 100% sure of it. I love God and know shes the finest woman in the universe literally

[KNOW1EDGE]

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools

Romans 1:18-22

Welp, this is irrefutable evidence of gods existence.

Science can be proven but I prefer the foo-foo words from a centuries old book passed down and translated hundreds of times

[theman93]

Welp, this is irrefutable evidence of gods existence.

Science can be proven but I prefer the foo-foo words from a centuries old book passed down and translated hundreds of times

The irrefutable evidence is that you have no justification for science, logic, origin, reason, or morality without God. So with that being said, I'll give you something to shoot at: Given your agnosticism, justify the preconditions necessary for science.

Also, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how we have the Bible today. You're confusing translation and transmission.

[Patrick Chewing]

Welp, this is irrefutable evidence of gods existence.

Science can be proven but I prefer the foo-foo words from a centuries old book passed down and translated hundreds of times

Science is always changing and is not the definitive answer. Anyone should know this. A lot of Science is based on theories and not direct, concrete evidence. It's so simple to refute God by asking someone to "show me proof", but how do you show proof of your creator? Cause I can turn around and ask you to show me proof of how we were created if we weren't created by God.

[Overdrive]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy

I think this is interesting no matter if you believe in god or not. A lot of philosophers and scholars tackled this issue throughout centuries.

[KNOW1EDGE]

The irrefutable evidence is that you have no justification for science, logic, origin, reason, or morality without God. So with that being said, I'll give you something to shoot at: Given your agnosticism, justify the preconditions necessary for science.

Also, you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how we have the Bible today. You're confusing translation and transmission.

I can scientifically prove I’m a male by looking at my chromosomes and *****.
I crack up when people say you can’t have morals without God.

I was a devout Christian for 20 years and studied the Bible vigorously.

I don’t mind if people believe in God. I don’t know- and I won’t know until I die. And either I will die and go to heaven/hell and my eyes will be opened to the glory of God. Or I will die and lose consciousness and and won’t be able to say either way, because I will be dead and in the ground.

I would love irrefutable evidence to prove gods existence. I welcome it. I’d rather know one way or the other rather than not know. Still waiting for evidence. Old books and scripture quotes aren’t evidence. Trees and nature are not evidence. The tale of Jesus is not evidence.

[AlternativeAcc.]

Science is always changing and is not the definitive answer. Anyone should know this. A lot of Science is based on theories and not direct, concrete evidence. It's so simple to refute God by asking someone to "show me proof", but how do you show proof of your creator? Cause I can turn around and ask you to show me proof of how we were created if we weren't created by God.
In my eyes it's easier to say ' I don't know ' than proclaim I definitively know there's an all knowing creature that created us based on almost zero evidence.

Believing In God is an ego thing. We are not important in the universe. Thinking we are the center of it is beyond insanity. In my opinion

[theman93]

I can scientifically prove I’m a male by looking at my chromosomes and *****.
You're not tracking. I'm not asking you to scientifically prove something. I'm asking you to justify the preconditions necessary for science itself. Science observes repeated patterns that take place over and over so we can learn about the world around us. In order to conduct science you must have uniformity in nature. The atheist can't account for it because according to their world view everything is the result of random evolutionary processes and at the foundation of the universe is time and chance acting on matter. I'm asking you to account for it given your agnostic world view.


I crack up when people say you can’t have morals without God.
Well it's a good thing that's not what I said! I asked you to justify your morals without God. By what standard do you call anything wrong? To again give you something to shoot at - by what standard is the rapist wrong? If your standard is the law, then does rape become good if the law allows it?


I was a devout Christian for 20 years and studied the Bible vigorously.

I don’t mind if people believe in God. I don’t know- and I won’t know until I die. And either I will die and go to heaven/hell and my eyes will be opened to the glory of God. Or I will die and lose consciousness and and won’t be able to say either way, because I will be dead and in the ground.

I would love irrefutable evidence to prove gods existence. I welcome it. I’d rather know one way or the other rather than not know. Still waiting for evidence. Old books and scripture quotes aren’t evidence. Trees and nature are not evidence. The tale of Jesus is not evidence.
Your problem isn't evidence. You just don't want God. Let me ask you, given your agnosticism, why do you even care? What happens, just happens. So what? Going back to the moral argument, if something "bad" happens, so what?

[Overdrive]

You're not tracking. I'm not asking you to scientifically prove something. I'm asking you to justify the preconditions necessary for science itself. Science observes repeated patterns that take place over and over so we can learn about the world around us. In order to conduct science you must have uniformity in nature. The atheist can't account for it because according to their world view everything is the result of random evolutionary processes and at the foundation of the universe is time and chance acting on matter. I'm asking you to account for it given your agnostic world view.


The bigger the system the more chaotic. Scientific experiments to be repeatable feature a few prerequisites.
You're saying science can't exist without god, because men can't recreate large chaotic systems basically. Science never claimed it could, science also doesn't need order in macrosystems. This is no proof that science needs a god, neither can science proof there isn't a god.

I find discussions around belief tiring. Nobody will ever convince the other side. Why discuss it?

[Patrick Chewing]

In my eyes it's easier to say ' I don't know ' than proclaim I definitively know there's an all knowing creature that created us based on almost zero evidence.

Believing In God is an ego thing. We are not important in the universe. Thinking we are the center of it is beyond insanity. In my opinion

The people that don't believe in God are usually the ones broadcasting it to the world, not the other way around. Kind of like vegans. They're always making it a point to tell people they're vegan. I just don't know of any Christians forcing their beliefs or their truth onto others.

[Overdrive]

The people that don't believe in God are usually the ones broadcasting it to the world, not the other way around. Kind of like vegans. They're always making it a point to tell people they're vegan. I just don't know of any Christians forcing their beliefs or their truth onto others.

Selective perception. There are people like that on both sides, but you cannot say how many atheists and theists don't preach, you can never know. I generally shy away from people who want to push their belief on someone. May it be theism or atheism.

[SATAN]

The people that don't believe in God are usually the ones broadcasting it to the world, not the other way around. Kind of like vegans. They're always making it a point to tell people they're vegan. I just don't know of any Christians forcing their beliefs or their truth onto others.

Because people became sick to death of religious cults trying to brainwash them and pushed back. More religious people realize that's wrong now. It is what it is.

[theman93]

The bigger the system the more chaotic. Scientific experiments to be repeatable feature a few prerequisites.
That's right. Now justify those prerequisites without God.


You're saying science can't exist without god, because men can't recreate large chaotic systems basically. Science never claimed it could, science also doesn't need order in macrosystems. This is no proof that science needs a god, neither can science proof there isn't a god.
No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying without God, you cannot account for the uniformity in nature which is absolutely necessary for science. Without the uniformity in nature you would never end up with a consistent conclusion because all there is is randomness. It has nothing to do with men creating anything, all we can do is observe.


I find discussions around belief tiring. Nobody will ever convince the other side. Why discuss it?
Interesting, so what brings you here?

[HighFlyer23]

Christianity is literally the stupidest ****ing donkey shit religion to have ever existed

The cult of Yahweh transformed into something even more idiotic with a dying and ressurecting man-godwho dies for sins

Actually I may be a bit wrong ...Baal's narrative in the Ugaritic texts is not too far off from the story of Jesus of Nazareth as portrayed by Christianity ... Certain elements are clearly more than a coincidental parallel

The cult of Yahweh already completely adopted the Baal cycle and replaced Baal with Yahweh in their version ...it would make sense that it's bastard child would carry on with the Baal cycle being the source material for it's motifs and tropes

Jews and Christians worship the same storm god of the ancient Cannanites and ancient Mesopotamians repacked with a different name

[Overdrive]

That's right. Now justify those prerequisites without God.


No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying without God, you cannot account for the uniformity in nature which is absolutely necessary for science. Without the uniformity in nature you would never end up with a consistent conclusion because all there is is randomness. It has nothing to do with men creating anything, all we can do is observe.


Interesting, so what brings you here?

Nothing much. That's I also won't argue further. No point in it. Really.

[theman93]

Nothing much. That's I also won't argue further. No point in it. Really.

Sure there is. I would argue that you can't justify that anything matters, which is why you need God.

[SATAN]

What an idiot. :yaohappy:

[Overdrive]

Sure there is. I would argue that you can't justify that anything matters, which is why you need God.

I can't justify it for you, because you firmly believe in creationism. That's why arguing is futile.

[Patrick Chewing]

Christianity is literally the stupidest ****ing donkey shit religion to have ever existed

The cult of Yahweh transformed into something even more idiotic with a dying and ressurecting man-godwho dies for sins

Actually I may be a bit wrong ...Baal's narrative in the Ugaritic texts is not too far off from the story of Jesus of Nazareth as portrayed by Christianity ... Certain elements are clearly more than a coincidental parallel

The cult of Yahweh already completely adopted the Baal cycle and replaced Baal with Yahweh in their version ...it would make sense that it's bastard child would carry on with the Baal cycle being the source material for it's motifs and tropes

Jews and Christians worship the same storm god of the ancient Cannanites and ancient Mesopotamians repacked with a different name

No one asked for your opinion. Go back into your hole with your July 2009 join date. I run this shit.

[SATAN]

Christianity is literally the stupidest ****ing donkey shit religion to have ever existed

The cult of Yahweh transformed into something even more idiotic with a dying and ressurecting man-godwho dies for sins

Actually I may be a bit wrong ...Baal's narrative in the Ugaritic texts is not too far off from the story of Jesus of Nazareth as portrayed by Christianity ... Certain elements are clearly more than a coincidental parallel

The cult of Yahweh already completely adopted the Baal cycle and replaced Baal with Yahweh in their version ...it would make sense that it's bastard child would carry on with the Baal cycle being the source material for it's motifs and tropes

Jews and Christians worship the same storm god of the ancient Cannanites and ancient Mesopotamians repacked with a different name

Good post. Seems to have struck a nerve with the sinners.

[theman93]

I can't justify it for you, because you firmly believe in creationism. That's why arguing is futile.

No I'd argue that your world view can't just justify that anything even matters. We can put mine to the side.

[HighFlyer23]

No one asked for your opinion. Go back into your hole with your July 2009 join date. I run this shit.

Bring your entire Christendom and Judaism to debate me ******

Bring your foreskin worshipping pope or your baby dick sucking ****** rabbis and watch me embarrass them to death and insanity

[Patrick Chewing]

Bring your entire Christendom and Judaism to debate me ******

Bring your foreskin worshipping pope or your baby dick sucking ****** rabbis and watch me embarrass them to death and insanity

Atheists are psycho bitter little bitches. I love it. :lol

[HighFlyer23]

Atheists are psycho bitter little bitches. I love it. :lol

Debate me **********

[SATAN]

No I'd argue that your world view can't just justify that anything even matters. We can put mine to the side.

You're honestly embarrassing yourself.

[SATAN]

Debate me **********

Yeah, Chewing! Debate him! :rockon:

[Lebron23]

Christianity is literally the stupidest ****ing donkey shit religion to have ever existed

The cult of Yahweh transformed into something even more idiotic with a dying and ressurecting man-godwho dies for sins

Actually I may be a bit wrong ...Baal's narrative in the Ugaritic texts is not too far off from the story of Jesus of Nazareth as portrayed by Christianity ... Certain elements are clearly more than a coincidental parallel

The cult of Yahweh already completely adopted the Baal cycle and replaced Baal with Yahweh in their version ...it would make sense that it's bastard child would carry on with the Baal cycle being the source material for it's motifs and tropes

Jews and Christians worship the same storm god of the ancient Cannanites and ancient Mesopotamians repacked with a different name

Someone is having a mental breakdown. You don't know anything about basketball. You don't anything about religion. Just die already you pathetic piece of dog crap.

[HighFlyer23]

Someone is having a mental breakdown. You don't know anything about basketball. You don't anything about religion. Just die already you pathetic piece of dog crap.
You sad ugly incel shit

Watch me rape your mother and sister and end yourself whore

You have nothing outside this forum. You will have no peace.

[theman93]

Christianity is literally the stupidest ****ing donkey shit religion to have ever existed

The cult of Yahweh transformed into something even more idiotic with a dying and ressurecting man-godwho dies for sins

Actually I may be a bit wrong ...Baal's narrative in the Ugaritic texts is not too far off from the story of Jesus of Nazareth as portrayed by Christianity ... Certain elements are clearly more than a coincidental parallel

The cult of Yahweh already completely adopted the Baal cycle and replaced Baal with Yahweh in their version ...it would make sense that it's bastard child would carry on with the Baal cycle being the source material for it's motifs and tropes

Jews and Christians worship the same storm god of the ancient Cannanites and ancient Mesopotamians repacked with a different name

This isn't true at all. Ba'al, or the "storm god" you're referencing, is recognized as a false gad in the Christian faith in 1 Kings 18.

[Lebron23]

You sad ugly incel shit

Watch me rape your mother and sister and end yourself whore

You have nothing outside this forum. You will have no peace.

You are giving me Simon Vibes.

[HighFlyer23]

This isn't true at all. Ba'al, or the "storm god" you're referencing, is recognized as a false gad in the Christian faith in 1 Kings 18.

You stupid **** your Yahweh rides on the clouds like Baal Haddad

Your Yahweh is the god of the mountains like El

Your primitive lower god Yahweh shoots blasts out of his nostrils to separate waters

Hell your Yahweh got his ass kicked and embarrassed in his own ****ing scripture in 2 Kings 3. Chemosh defeated Yahweh and had his servant Mesha erect a Stele that still stands today where he describes how Chemosh helped him defeat Israel and take the vessels of Yahweh and present them to Chemosh.

[Chick Stern]

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who by their unrighteousness suppress the truth. For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. For his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse. For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools

Romans 1:18-22

This is the world we live in and these are the hands we're given
Use them and let's start trying to make it a place worth living in.

Genesis 19:86

[theman93]

You stupid **** your Yahweh rides on the clouds like Baal Haddad

Your Yahweh is the god of the mountains like El

Your primitive lower god Yahweh shoots blasts out of his nostrils to separate waters

Hell your Yahweh got his ass kicked and embarrassed in his own ****ing scripture in 2 Kings 3. Chemosh defeated Yahweh and had his servant Mesha erect a Stele that still stands today where he describes how Chemosh helped him defeat Israel and take the vessels of Yahweh and present them to Chemosh.

Mmmm no. The cult of Chemosh was also destroyed in 2 Kings 23 proving he was a false god.

[HighFlyer23]

Mmmm no. The cult of Chemosh was also destroyed in 2 Kings 23 proving he was a false god.

The wrath of Chemosh defeated the Israelites and Yahweh in 2 kings 3

It’s so embarrassing that no Christian or Jew scholar has ever been able to explain this

Your Yahweh and his people have been getting their ass kicked throughout their existence

The Egyptians raped you
The Assyrians raped you
The Babylonians raped you
The Romans raped you
Even the local cananite raped you

It’s so bad you had to invent a conquest story because you never conquered shit and Yahweh was nothing

All we have is Yahweh bitching about it all :lol

Your own scripture admits a pagan god Chemosh has power :lol

And so much power that Yahwehs will was overturned by it :lol :lol :lol

[SATAN]

This is the world we live in and these are the hands we're given
Use them and let's start trying to make it a place worth living in.

Genesis 19:86

But if that slave says to himself, ‘My master is delayed in coming,’ and if he begins to beat the other slaves, men and women, and to eat and drink and get drunk, the master of that slave will come on a day when he does not expect him and at an hour that he does not know, and will cut him in pieces, and put him with the unfaithful. That slave who knew what his master wanted, but did not prepare himself or do what was wanted, will receive a severe beating.

Luke 12:45-47

[theman93]

The wrath of Chemosh defeated the Israelites and Yahweh in 2 kings 3

It’s so embarrassing that no Christian or Jew scholar has ever been able to explain this

Your Yahweh and his people have been getting their ass kicked throughout their existence

The Egyptians raped you
The Assyrians raped you
The Babylonians raped you
The Romans raped you
Even the local cananite raped you

It’s so bad you had to invent a conquest story because you never conquered shit and Yahweh was nothing

All we have is Yahweh bitching about it all :lol

Your own scripture admits a pagan god Chemosh has power :lol

And so much power that Yahwehs will was overturned by it :lol :lol :lol

Wrong, again. I'm beginning to think you've never even read 2 Kings 3. The armies of Israel, Judah, and Edom defeated the Moabites and defeated them so badly that king of Moab offered his firstborn as a sacrifice lol (2 Kings 3:21-27).

[HighFlyer23]

Wrong, again. I'm beginning to think you've never even read 2 Kings 3. The armies of Israel, Judah, and Edom defeated the Moabites and defeated them so badly that king of Moab offered his firstborn as a sacrifice lol (2 Kings 3:21-27).

Yeah and then the DIVINE WRATH descended upon the Israelites and they retreated :lol

Proving that the sacrifice of Mesha to Chemosh WORKED :lol

It was so bad that the Yahwist author of this ADMITTED that the Moabites defeated them and closed the chapter with a one liner saying that Yahwehs forces ran away :lol

[theman93]

Yeah and then the DIVINE WRATH descended upon the Israelites and they retreated :lol

Proving that the sacrifice of Mesha to Chemosh WORKED :lol

It was so bad that the Yahwist author of this ADMITTED that the Moabites defeated them and closed the chapter with a one liner saying that Yahwehs forces ran away :lol

No, if it worked then Chemosh would have been proven to be the true God, but with the scripture taken in to it's full context instead of proof reading we see Chemosh was proven to be a false god in 2 Kings 23.

[HighFlyer23]

No, if it worked then Chemosh would have been proven to be the true God, but with the scripture taken in to it's full context instead of proof reading we see Chemosh was proven to be a false god in 2 Kings 23.

You stupid Fuvk the text acknowledges Chemosh as a god. There was no concept of “the true God” then. It was your god and my god. Every scholar on the earth will tell you that they acknowledged the existence of other gods as gods and they simply selected Yahweh as their god, just like other people had their own god.

Judges 10 proves this. It also acknowledges that Chemosh was a legit god of a people

2 kings 23 NEVER says Chemosh is a false god you stupid ****ing ****. On the contrary it acknowledges Chemosh as a god. This idea of an all powerful god didn’t exist at that point. Marduk was the first god who attained this kind of status and when the Assyrians ass raped the Israelites they saw that and noticed that Yahweh was lacking compared to Marduk. Yahweh was a primitive storm god who blasted air blasts via his nostrils. Does that sound like an all powerful deity to you?

Mesha did what was in 2 kings 23 to Yahweh. Except that it has historical basis unlike 2 kings 23 which states that there was a god named “Molech”. There has never been a god identified as “Molech” that accepted human sacrifice.

[theman93]

You stupid Fuvk the text acknowledges Chemosh as a god. There was no concept of “the true God” then. It was your god and my god. Every scholar on the earth will tell you that they acknowledged the existence of other gods as gods and they simply selected Yahweh as their god, just like other people had their own god.

Judges 10 proves this. It also acknowledges that Chemosh was a legit god of a people

2 kings 23 NEVER says Chemosh is a false god you stupid ****ing ****. On the contrary it acknowledges Chemosh as a god. This idea of an all powerful god didn’t exist at that point. Marduk was the first god who attained this kind of status and when the Assyrians ass raped the Israelites they saw that and noticed that Yahweh was lacking compared to Marduk. Yahweh was a primitive storm god who blasted air blasts via his nostrils. Does that sound like an all powerful deity to you?

Mesha did what was in 2 kings 23 to Yahweh. Except that it has historical basis unlike 2 kings 23 which states that there was a god named “Molech”. There has never been a god identified as “Molech” that accepted human sacrifice.

Absolutely Chemosh was a false god, just like all of the other false gods. Yahweh said it himself.

Isaiah 44:6 - ‘I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God.

Isaiah was written before 2 Kings, so your assertion that there was no concept of the true God is false.

[HighFlyer23]

Let me end this for you Yahwist retards

Deutronomy 32:8-9 is the end of your beliefs. The oldest version of this text, the Dead Sea Scrolls, proves the pagan origins of this nonsense. And what’s more telling is the attempted cover up by later canons of the Tanakh.

Deutronomy 32:8-9 reads as follows from the Dead Sea Scrolls

Deuteronomy 32 from Scroll 4Q37 Deuteronomyj
7 Remember the days of old.
Consider the years of many generations.
Ask your father, and he will show you;
your elders, and they will tell you.
8 When the Most High (El Elyon) gave to the nations their inheritance,
when he separated the children of men,
he set the bounds of the peoples
according to the number of the children of God (bani El)
Deuteronomy 32 from Scroll 4Q44 Deuteronomyq
9 For Yahweh’s portion is his people.
Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.

Here El is giving Yahweh his inheritance. This text is actually based upon an earlier belief that El had 70 sons and this was the number of the nations upon the earth. He gave each of his sons a nation of people as an inheritance . Yahweh was given Israel as his inheritance. Yahweh is just another god among the 70 sons of El, the father god.

Your false religion is based on an earlier pagan religion of the Canaanites. The Ugaritic texts completely exposed and laid your religion out naked. El was the creator god of the Canaanites who fathered 70 sons according to the Ugaritic texts. Yahweh was from Sinai and imported to the land of Canaan. Here we see the fact that Yahweh was a lesser deity and was given inheritance by El.

You have El Elyon who is “God, the most high” giving inheritance to Yahweh. How do you reconcile this with your belief that Yahweh is the only god? Why is Yahweh subordinate to El? Why are there two gods being mentioned who are both legitimate? Moreover, why does this text refer to an earlier belief that El had sons who were also gods?

[theman93]

Let me end this for you Yahwist retards

Deutronomy 32:8-9 is the end of your beliefs. The oldest version of this text, the Dead Sea Scrolls, proves the pagan origins of this nonsense. And what’s more telling is the attempted cover up by later canons of the Tanakh.

Deutronomy 32:8-9 reads as follows from the Dead Sea Scrolls

Deuteronomy 32 from Scroll 4Q37 Deuteronomyj
7 Remember the days of old.
Consider the years of many generations.
Ask your father, and he will show you;
your elders, and they will tell you.
8 When the Most High (El Elyon) gave to the nations their inheritance,
when he separated the children of men,
he set the bounds of the peoples
according to the number of the children of God (bani El)
Deuteronomy 32 from Scroll 4Q44 Deuteronomyq
9 For Yahweh’s portion is his people.
Jacob is the lot of his inheritance.

Here El is giving Yahweh his inheritance. This text is actually based upon an earlier belief that El had 70 sons and this was the number of the nations upon the earth. He gave each of his sons a nation of people as an inheritance . Yahweh was given Israel as his inheritance. Yahweh is just another god among the 70 sons of El, the father god.

Your false religion is based on an earlier pagan religion of the Canaanites. The Ugaritic texts completely exposed and laid your religion out naked. El was the creator god of the Canaanites who fathered 70 sons according to the Ugaritic texts. Yahweh was from Sinai and imported to the land of Canaan. Here we see the fact that Yahweh was a lesser deity and was given inheritance by El.

You have El Elyon who is “God, the most high” giving inheritance to Yahweh. How do you reconcile this with your belief that Yahweh is the only god? Why is Yahweh subordinate to El? Why are there two gods being mentioned who are both legitimate? Moreover, why does this text refer to an earlier belief that El had sons who were also gods?

Deuteronomy 32:7-9 is Moses recounting God's faithfulness to Israel, and refers to only one God. Not multiple, like you are trying to insert in to the text.

[HighFlyer23]

Absolutely Chemosh was a false god, just like all of the other false gods. Yahweh said it himself.

Isaiah 44:6 - ‘I am the First and I am the Last; Besides Me there is no God.

Isaiah was written before 2 Kings, so your assertion that there was no concept of the true God is false.

Second Isaiah which you are quoting was written during or after the Babylonian exile.

2 Kings 19 and Isaiah 37 are identical proving that they may have had the same author or authors or from the same tradition or theology.

Either way 2 Kings 3 is retelling an event that occurred far before the Babylonian exile. The events of 2 Kings 3 occur during the 9 century BCE and the Babylonian exile occurred in the 6th century BCE. Most scholars believe that 2 Kings So your false claim is unfounded and laid bare like the rest of your false religion.

The Babylonian exile and the Persian period are when the belief that Yahweh is the only God became grounded. They were exposed to Zoroastrianism which was an actual monotheistic religion and took from it.

[HighFlyer23]

Deuteronomy 32:7-9 is Moses recounting God's faithfulness to Israel, and refers to only one God. Not multiple, like you are trying to insert in to the text.

The text says that El set the number of nations equivalent the the number of his sons.
The text says that Yahweh was given Israel as his inheritance from El.

You cannot inherit something from yourself you stupid Fuvk. El and Yahweh are different entities according to this “scripture” .This proves that there are two gods plus the other sons of El.

It’s well known and inferred from Genesis 10 that the number of nations on the earth was 70. The Ugarit texts also state that El had 70 sons. So we have El plus 70 of his sons and Yahweh who is among his sons.

This is clearly over your head.

You don’t know a single word of Hebrew nor do you understand the nature of this text. The text itself is stating to refer back to the generations of old.

[theman93]

Second Isaiah which you are quoting was written during the Babylonian exile.

2 Kings 19 and Isaiah 37 are identical proving that they may have had the same author or authors.

Either way 2 Kings 3 is retelling an event that occurred far before the Babylonian exile. The events of 2 Kings 3 occur during the 9 century BCE and the Babylonian exile occurred in the 6th century BCE. So your false claim is unfounded and laid bare like the rest of your false religion.

To you it was shown that you might know that the Lord, He is God; there is no other besides Him. - Deuteronomy 4:35

[theman93]

The text says that El set the number of nations equivalent the the number of his sons.
The text says that Yahweh was given Israel as his inheritance from El.

You cannot inherit something from yourself you stupid Fuvk. El and Yahweh are different entities according to this “scripture” .This proves that there are two gods plus the other sons of El.

It’s well known and inferred from Genesis 10 that the number of nations on the earth was 70. The Ugarit texts also state that El had 70 sons. So we have El plus 70 of his sons and Yahweh who is among his sons.

This is clearly over your head.

You don’t know a single word of Hebrew nor do you understand the nature of this text.

God said he did so himself.

Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD, the people he chose for his inheritance. - Psalm 33:12

One God and one God only.

[HighFlyer23]

To you it was shown that you might know that the Lord, He is God; there is no other besides Him. - Deuteronomy 4:35

King Mesha of 2 Kings 3 lived during the 9th century BCE

Isaiah 44 was written during the 6th century BCE

Isaiah 44 contains the first verse of monotheism in the Bible but it occurred after the events told in 9th century BCE when they accepted that other gods existed and were real and had power.

You don’t know shit and are embarrassing yourself.

[HighFlyer23]

God said he did so himself.

Blessed is the nation whose God is the LORD, the people he chose for his inheritance. - Psalm 33:12

One God and one God only.

Deut. 32:8-9 has El, a distinct entity from Yahweh, giving inheritance to Yahweh

The source of Yahweh inheritance is El, chief god of the Canaanites

If you select your inheritance it doesn’t mean you give yourself inheritance. It means you select it. To select means you pick something out from an array of choices. To inherit is to receive. The inheritance was given by El, regardless if Yahweh selected it or not.

Let’s say your father has a will where he will lay out inheritance to his children. The children can select what they want to inherit but it doesn’t mean they are giving themselves inheritance. The inheritance is passed down by the father still. It says Yahweh chose Israel as his inheritance it doesn’t say he gave Israel to himself as his inheritance.

But you are a lying and deceiving Yahwist ******. The fact that Yahweh I is inheriting anything means that there is someone else involved.

[theman93]

King Mesha of 2 Kings 3 lived during the 9th century BCE

Isaiah 44 was written during the 6th century BCE

Isaiah 44 contains the first verse of monotheism in the Bible but it occurred after the events told in 9th century BCE when they accepted that other gods existed and were real and had power.

You don’t know shit and are embarrassing yourself.

Your assertion was that "There was no concept of “the true God” then" in 2 Kings. That's demonstrably false in Deuteronomy 4:35 as well as 2 Kings 5.

[theman93]

Deut. 32:8-9 has El, a distinct entity from Yahweh, giving inheritance to Yahweh

The source of Yahweh inheritance is El, chief god of the Canaanites

If you select your inheritance it doesn’t mean you give yourself inheritance. It means you select it. To select means you pick something out from an array of choices. To inherit is to receive. The inheritance was given by El, regardless if Yahweh selected it or not.

Let’s say your father has a will where he will lay out inheritance to his children. The children can select what they want to inherit but it doesn’t mean they are giving themselves inheritance. The inheritance is passed down by the father still. It says Yahweh chose Israel as his inheritance it doesn’t say he gave Israel to himself as his inheritance.

But you are a lying and deceiving Yahwist ******. The fact that Yahweh I is inheriting anything means that there is someone else involved.

That doesn't explain the verse presented to you - Psalm 33:12. We clearly see that God gives himself as an inheritance to the people he chose. This is exactly what took place in Deuteronomy 32. "Most High" (El Elyon) and "LORD" (Yahweh) are two names attributed to the same God.

[HighFlyer23]

Your assertion was that "There was no concept of “the true God” then" in 2 Kings. That's demonstrably false in Deuteronomy 4:35 as well as 2 Kings 5.

2 Kings 3 is referring to an actual event the 9th century BCE with archeological backing.

There was no concept of that during that time

Deut. 4 is Exodus mythology buddy. The Exodus as told in the Bible is myth. It was written around the 7th century BCE under the direction of king Josiah who started to impose Yahweh only worship.

[theman93]

2 Kings 3 is referring to an actual event the 9th century BCE with archeological backing.

There was no concept of that during that time

Deut. 4 is Exodus mythology buddy. The Exodus as told in the Bible is myth. It was written around the 7th century BCE under the direction of king Josiah who started to impose Yahweh only worship.

No, you're cherry picking what you want and don't want to believe. If Deuteronomy 4 is a myth, then explain how the end of 2 Kings is not a myth in which you claim that the sacrifice of Mesha to Chemosh worked (this has no archaeological backing).

[HighFlyer23]

That doesn't explain the verse presented to you - Psalm 33:12. We clearly see that God gives himself as an inheritance to the people he chose. This is exactly what took place in Deuteronomy 32. "Most High" (El Elyon) and "LORD" (Yahweh) are two names attributed to the same God.

It says he selected Israel as his inheritance it doesn’t say he gives himself inheritance.

Do you know how ****ing stupid you sound? You are saying someone can give himself inheritance? Do you ****ing know what inheritance means?

El Elyon and Yahweh are not the same.

Yahweh became conflated with El hence the merger attempt in Exodus 6.

They are absolutely not the same god in origin and were part of a long, complex merger.

Yahweh came from Sinai as pointed out by the Bible itself in Deut 33

El we know from archaeological evidence already was the chief gods of the Canaanites

Yahweh was a foreign import from Sinai. Likely from moving tribes of the Shasu and the Kenites. The cult of Yahweh arose to prominence in Canaan and he became a rival to Baal Haddad who already replaced El as the chief god according to the Baal Cycle. Eventually the cult of Yahweh selected Yahweh and not Baal Haddad to replace and amalgamate with El. Yahwist challenged and replaced the status quote and embezzled the Canaanite religion and misappropriated the attributes of Baal Haddad to Yahweh.

[HighFlyer23]

No, you're cherry picking what you want and don't want to believe. If Deuteronomy 4 is a myth, then explain how the end of 2 Kings is not a myth in which you claim that the sacrifice of Mesha to Chemosh worked (this has no archaeological backing).

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesha_Stele

I’m not the one saying that Chemosh divine wrath fell upon the Israelite army and routed them, that’s what the Yahwist author of this text is asserting . I’m merely pointing it out.

Yahweh army lost to Chemosh and he was embarrassed in his own scripture and his prophet Elijah delivered a false prophecy due to his god Yahwehs failure. It doesn’t end there for Yahweh, he is embarrassed on a global, historical scale after that when the king of the Moabites, Mesha, erects a Stele describing his triumphs over Yahweh. This stele still exists today and has been decoded . Yahwehs vessels were even taken and presented to Chemosh by Mesha.

[theman93]

It says he selected Israel as his inheritance it doesn’t say he gives himself inheritance.

Do you know how ****ing stupid you sound? You are saying someone can give himself inheritance? Do you ****ing know what inheritance means?

El Elyon and Yahweh are not the same.

Yahweh became conflated with El hence the merger attempt in Exodus 6.

They are absolutely not the same god in origin and were part of a long, complex merger.

You made the claim, "You cannot inherit something from yourself". You are demonstrably incorrect according to Psalm 33:12 - Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord, The people whom He has chosen for His own inheritance.

God can absolutely give Himself as an inheritance because....He's God and He can do whatever He wants. And He said He did.

And yes the exact same. Different names for the same God. Psalm 97:9 - For you, LORD (Yahweh), are the Most High (El Elyon) over all the earth; you are exalted far above all gods.

[HighFlyer23]

You made the claim, "You cannot inherit something from yourself". You are demonstrably incorrect according to Psalm 33:12 - Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord, The people whom He has chosen for His own inheritance.

God can absolutely give Himself as an inheritance because....He's God and He can do whatever He wants. And He said He did.

And yes the exact same. Different names for the same God. Psalm 97:9 - For you, LORD (Yahweh), are the Most High (El Elyon) over all the earth; you are exalted far above all gods.

You keep going on and on about this ****ing idiocy


inherited; inheriting; inherits
transitive verb
1
a
: to receive from an ancestor as a right or title descendible by law at the ancestor's death
b
: to receive as a devise or legacy
2
: to receive from a parent or ancestor by genetic transmission
inherit a defective enzyme
3
: to have in turn or receive as if from an ancestor
inherited the problem from his predecessor
4
: to come into possession of or receive especially as a right or divine portion


Inherit means to RECEIVE you **********

Yahweh can CHOOSE HIS INHERITANCE

It doesn’t mean he is GIVING HIMSELF HIS INHERITANCE

There’s absolutely nothing to reply to here

I’ve explained this enough

You are ****ing lying you **********

It says Yahweh is Elyon in Pslam 97

It doesn’t say he is El Elyon

Elyon is an epithet that means Most High.

And once again this is acknowledging that other gods exist!

You keep shooting your self in the foot and embarrassing yourself

Yahwehs ***** ass couldn’t even defeat iron chariots he can’t do shit

Maybe your Yahweh put a lying spirit into your mouth, ******

[theman93]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesha_Stele

I’m not the one saying that Chemosh divine wrath fell upon the Israelite army and routed them, that’s what the Yahwist author of this text is asserting . I’m merely pointing it out.

Yahweh army lost to Chemosh and he was embarrassed in his own scripture and his prophet Elijah delivered a false prophecy due to his god Yahwehs failure. It doesn’t end there for Yahweh, he is embarrassed on a global, historical scale after that when the king of the Moabites, Mesha, erects a Stele describing his triumphs over Yahweh. This stele still exists today and has been decoded . Yahwehs vessels were even taken and presented to Chemosh by Mesha.

Incorrect. Elisha’s prophecy was given in 2 Kings 3:16-20 and was fulfilled in 2 Kings 3:22-25. When Moab’s cities were overthrown and it’s land destroyed (as prophesied), and the king’s 700 soldiers failed to break through, he had to sacrifice his first born in order for Israel to withdraw. Having your cities overthrown, your land destroyed, and your first born killed is not a win.

As for the Stele, the king can make all the claims he wants, but it doesn’t make it reality.

[theman93]

You keep going on and on about this ****ing idiocy


inherited; inheriting; inherits
transitive verb
1
a
: to receive from an ancestor as a right or title descendible by law at the ancestor's death
b
: to receive as a devise or legacy
2
: to receive from a parent or ancestor by genetic transmission
inherit a defective enzyme
3
: to have in turn or receive as if from an ancestor
inherited the problem from his predecessor
4
: to come into possession of or receive especially as a right or divine portion


Inherit means to RECEIVE you **********

Yahweh can CHOOSE HIS INHERITANCE

It doesn’t mean he is GIVING HIMSELF HIS INHERITANCE

There’s absolutely nothing to reply to here

I’ve explained this enough

You are ****ing lying you **********

It says Yahweh is Elyon in Pslam 97

It doesn’t say he is El Elyon

Elyon is an epithet that means Most High.

And once again this is acknowledging that other gods exist!

You keep shooting your self in the foot and embarrassing yourself

Yahwehs ***** ass couldn’t even defeat iron chariots he can’t do shit

Maybe your Yahweh put a lying spirit into your mouth, ******

It absolutely does. God chose what He gave, and that was Himself as an inheritance to His people. Very simple.

The author of Psalms clearly states that there is only one God in Psalms 18:31. So he is not saying there are two separate God’s in Psalm 97:9. He is describing the same God using two different names.

And yes he clearly states other gods exist, but the lower case g means that they are false gods which means they are not God at all. They are not the one, true God (see Yahweh aka El Elyon).

[HighFlyer23]

Incorrect. Elisha’s prophecy was given in 2 Kings 3:16-20 and was fulfilled in 2 Kings 3:22-25. When Moab’s cities were overthrown and it’s land destroyed (as prophesied), and the king’s 700 soldiers failed to break through, he had to sacrifice his first born in order for Israel to withdraw. Having your cities overthrown, your land destroyed, and your first born killed is not a win.

As for the Stele, the king can make all the claims he wants, but it doesn’t make it reality.
No it wasn’t

They failed to conquer the Moabites

Elijah’s prophecy failed and Mesha sacrificed his first born and the wrath of Chemosh descended a upon them.

Yahweh said that they will be victorious over the Moabites. How is that possible when they withdrew after DIVINE WRATH fell upon them?


The authors of 2 Kings 3 were forced to admit failure and put up a one liner at the end that the Israelite army retreated. They were routed by the Moabites their client state and suffered a humiliating defeat.

Either way where is the evidence that anything that took place in 2 Kings 3 is authentic ? Why should we believe that over the Mesha Stele? 2 Kings 3 can claim what it wants and at the end it admits that the Israelites and Yahweh retreated and failed. The only conclusion that can be made is that Yahweh and his troops failed and retreated at the end of the day. Mesha sacrifice to Chemosh worked. Chemosh is real according to this incident.

[HighFlyer23]

It absolutely does. God chose what He gave, and that was Himself as an inheritance to His people. Very simple.

The author of Psalms clearly states that there is only one God in Psalms 18:31. So he is not saying there are two separate God’s in Psalm 97:9. He is describing the same God using two different names.

And yes he clearly states other gods exist, but the lower case g means that they are false gods which means they are not gods at all. They are not the one, true God.
Are you ****ing on drugs? Yahweh gave himself as an inheritance his people??? It says that Israel was given as inheritance to him

Elyon is a title we already established this. Yahweh was conflated with El hence he took on his epithets and attributes. You are confusing and embarrassing yourself.

The author of Psalms 82 also admits that other gods exist. it's even more problematic for you Yahweh cultists .

Elohim stands in the council of ’El
In the midst of the gods he holds judgment.

“How long will you judge unjustly,
and show partiality to the wicked? Selah
Render justice to the weak and the fatherless;
vindicate the afflicted and the destitute.
Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”

They have neither knowledge nor understanding;
they walk around in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are shaken.

I said, “You are gods,
sons of Elyon, all of you;
nevertheless, you shall die like mortals,
and fall like any prince.”

Rise up, O ’E-him, judge the earth;
for you shall inherit the nations!


Once again we see the divine council of gods whose head is El. This time the rest of the gods die like mortals, meaning the authors of the Israelite religion DID believe in the existence of other gods. Later on this was denied and passages like this were authored to explain what happened to the other gods.

I would avoid bringing up Psalms … the Ugaritic texts inform us of Baal Haddad battle with various sea monsters and the chaotic waters, exactly what Yahweh imitate in many psalms. Yahwehs exploits in Psalms are clearly taken from the Baal cycle

Deut 32:8-9 also states that the number of nations are equivalent to the number of the sons of El, that is 70. Later on this was changed to say sons of Angels and then sons of Israel in later cannons because it was clear polytheism and the scribes saw that.

You are relying on English translations . You don’t know the difference between El, Elohim, Elyon, Yahweh. You don’t know shit.


So according to you it should read


8 When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance,
when he divided mankind,
he fixed the borders[a] of the peoples
according to the number of the sons of God.[b]
9 But the Lord's portion is his people,
Jacob his allotted heritage.


When Yahweh gave the nations their inheritance. He divided humanity according to the number of his sons and Yahwehs portion is his people Jacob is Yahweh inheritance.

Yahweh is passing out inheritance to himself. Only in the retarded Yahwist mind does it make sense that someone is giving something to himself. That’s like saying I distributed something to myself. Only in your retarded Christian mind does that make any sense. Every other time the Hebrew word that’s used for inheritance

נַחֲלָה nachălâh

Is used as something passed from one person to another .

Psalm 33 merely states that Yahweh choose his inheritance.
It doesn’t say he gave himself his inheritance.

בָּחַר Bahar means to choose not to give

Also does Yahweh lose the rest of the inheritance to himself?? :lol

[theman93]

No it wasn’t

They failed to conquer the Moabites

Elijah’s prophecy failed and he sacrificed his first born and the wrath of Chemosh descended a upon them.

Yahweh said that they will be victorious over the Moabites. How is that possible when they withdrew after DIVINE WRATH fell upon them?


The authors of 2 Kings 3 were forced to admit failure and put up a one liner at the end that the Israelite army retreated. They were routed by the Moabites their client state and suffered a humiliating defeat.

Either way where is the evidence that anything that took place in 2 Kings 3 is authentic ? Why should we believe that over the Mesha Stele? 2 Kings 3 can claim what it wants and at the end it admits that the Israelites and Yahweh retreated and failed.

They did conquer the Moabites (destroyed all their cities, all their land, and thwarted their final attack) just as prophesied. Wrath wasn’t subjected until after they conquered, which came after a child sacrifice. Everything else you are attempting to imply is inserting your opinion in to the text to fit an agenda.

We can logically conclude the Stele is referencing events related to 2 Kings 3. What we cannot logically conclude is that the king who wrote it was honest about the outcome. This Bible is true over the Stele because it is God’s revelation to man and without it you have no justification for anything. The Mesha Stele isn’t even a complete text and no authoritative full edition of the Moabite inscription remains.

[SATAN]

:facepalm

[theman93]

Are you ****ing on drugs? Yahweh gave himself as an inheritor his people??? It says that Israel was given as inheritance to him

Elyon is a title we already established this. Yahweh was conflated with El hence he took on his epithets and attributes. You are confusing and embarrassing yourself.

The author of Psalms 82 also admits that other gods exist. it's even more problematic for you Yahweh cultists .

Elohim stands in the council of ’El
In the midst of the gods he holds judgment.

“How long will you judge unjustly,
and show partiality to the wicked? Selah
Render justice to the weak and the fatherless;
vindicate the afflicted and the destitute.
Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”

They have neither knowledge nor understanding;
they walk around in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are shaken.

I said, “You are gods,
sons of Elyon, all of you;
nevertheless, you shall die like mortals,
and fall like any prince.”

Rise up, O ’E-him, judge the earth;
for you shall inherit the nations!


Once again we see the divine council of gods whose head is El. This time the rest of the gods die like mortals, meaning the authors of the Israelite religion DID believe in the existence of other gods. Later on this was denied and passages like this were authored to explain what happened to the other gods.

I would avoid bringing up Psalms … the Ugaritic texts inform us of Baal Haddad battle with various sea monsters and the chaotic waters, exactly what Yahweh imitate in many psalms. Yahwehs exploits in Psalms are clearly taken from the Baal cycle

Deut 32:8-9 also states that the number of nations are equivalent to the number of the sons of El, that is 70.

You are relying on English translations . You don’t know the difference between El, Elohim, Elyon, Yahweh. You don’t know shit.

I’m merely quoting the text. It clearly states that his inheritance is Israel (His chosen people) in Psalms 33:12 and that comes from Himself because He is the one who redeems and saves Israel (Isaiah 43). So when you claim, “You cannot inherit something from yourself” you are in disagreement with the text.


And no, what you have in Psalms 82 is Asaph giving us the picture of God in the midst of the mighty (little g - false gods), standing in authority.

God summons the judges.
1. (1-2) God questions the unjust judges.
God stands in the congregation of the mighty;
He judges among the gods.
How long will you judge unjustly,
And show partiality to the wicked? Selah

a. God stands in the congregation of the mighty: Asaph gives us the picture of God in the midst of the mighty, standing in authority.

i. “Standeth, as a judge, diligently to observe all that is said or done there; and to give sentence accordingly. The judge sits when he heareth causes, but standeth up when he giveth sentence.” (Poole)

b. He judges among the gods: God’s standing in the midst of these mighty ones is to bring judgment among them. The word gods here is Elohim, the plural for the generic word for god in Hebrew. The idea of God judging gods has led to several suggestions regarding the identity of these elohim, these gods.

· Elohim is often used to describe the true God, Yahweh. It is in the plural to describe both the majesty of His person, and to be a hint of the triune nature of God, being One God in Three Persons.

· Elohim is sometimes used as the plural of pagan deities, the false gods of the nations.

· Elohim is sometimes used in reference to angelic beings.

· Elohim is here best taken as a reference to human judges, who stand in the place of God in their ability to determine the fate of others.

i. “Gathered around Him is an assembly of judges who are called elohim, because they are His delegates; they administer His will; they are His executive agents.” (Morgan)

ii. “The judges and magistrates are compared in this psalm to God, because they exercise something of His power in the right ordering of human society.” (Meyer)

iii. Martin Luther “pointed out that Psalm 82:1, 6 both establishes and limits the authority of princes. It establishes it, because it is God who appoints the authorities; it is he who calls them ‘gods.’ It limits their authority because they are accountable to him, as the psalm shows.” (Boice)

iv. “Earthly judicatories are the appointment of God. All magistrates act in his name, and by virtue of his commission. He is invisibly present at their assemblies, and superintends their proceedings. He receives appeals from their wrongful decisions; he will one day re-hear all causes at his own tribunal, and reverse every iniquitous sentence, before the great congregation of men and angels.” (Horne)

v. “Our Lord’s reference to Psalm 82:6 in John 10:34-38 is, by the present writer, accepted as authoritatively settling both the meaning and the ground of the remarkable name of ‘gods’ for human judges.” (Maclaren)

[Red Pill Sports]

I'm seeing a lot of quoting of scripture but not a single answer to the question posed.

[Patrick Chewing]

God is real. Atheists are dumbasses.

[HighFlyer23]

I’m merely quoting the text. It clearly states that his inheritance is Israel (His chosen people) in Psalms 33:12 and that comes from Himself because He is the one who redeems and saves Israel (Isaiah 43). So when you claim, “You cannot inherit something from yourself” you are in disagreement with the text.


And no, what you have in Psalms 82 is Asaph giving us the picture of God in the midst of the mighty (little g - false gods), standing in authority.

Ultimately you are putting things into the text that are not there. It never says Yahweh gives himself inheritance. You don’t know a single letter of Hebrew and you don’t understand what you are saying. Show me where in the Hebrew it says that Yahweh gives himself inheritance.

Deutronomy 32:8-9 is one of the most interesting and telling parts of the Bible. It shows a reference to the ancient Canaanite belief that El was head of a council of gods that was composed of his sons who were also divine. Verses 6 and 7 are stating for the people of that time period to refer back to their father and grandfather to ask them about this belief.

Elohim are human judges here? LOL. Which cocksucking Christian liar wrote this? Elohim means god or gods ! Show me where in any part of the Bible it states that Elohim means human judges.

Every idiot with a 5 minute education of Judaism or Hebrew knows this. Elohim is mentioned in the very first verse of the Tanakh as the creator of the world:

Genesis 1:1

בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָֽרֶץ׃

In the beginning God (Elohim) created the heaven and the earth

This is the council of El, the same council of El mentioned in the Ugaritic texts. You want to keep playing around with Psalms you are going to get burned.


Psalm 89:6

כִּי מִי בַשַּׁחַק יַעֲרֹךְ לַיהוָה יִדְמֶה לַיהוָה בִּבְנֵי אֵלִים׃

For who in the heaven can be compared unto the LORD? who among the sons of the mighty (Bene El) can be likened unto the LORD (Yahweh)?

Bene El has been translated as “sons of the the mighty” but it actually means sons of El. Yahweh is believed to be one of the many sons of El. The older parts of the Bible still verify this.

[Chick Stern]

God is real. Atheists are dumbasses.

Typing “Hodor” would have been so much faster

[HighFlyer23]

Here we have John Day, scholar of the Old Testament, describing how we find Yahweh taking on Baal Haddad attributes and the authors of the Old Testament replacing Baal with Yahweh

Psalm 29 is a reference to an ancient Canaanite hymn regarding Baal

Day writes

I have pointed out a further striking parallel with Baal mythology that was previously unnoted. This is the sevenfold manifestation of the deity in the thunder, the qol yahweh (vv. 3a, 4a, 4b, 5, 7, 8, 9). In KTU2 1.101.3b-4 (Ugaritica, V, 3.3b-4), it is said of Baal:
3bSb't. brqm. [[.?]] Seven lightnings...
4tmnt. 'isr r't. 's. brq. y[ ] Eight storehouses of thunder. The shaft of lightning...
Now, the numerical sequence 7/8 is capable of meaning simply seven in Ugaritic, the second number having the nature of what has been called 'automatic parallelism'13 (cf. KTU2 1.6.V.8-9 and KTU2 1.19.1.42-44). It therefore seems that this is a reference to Baal's seven thunders as well as lightnings....


...the parallel to Psalm 29 [is] even closer when it is noted that in KTU2 1.101.1-3a, immediately before the reference to Baal's seven thunders and lightnings, we read of Baal's enthronement like the flood: b'l. ytb. ktbt. gr. hd. r[] kmdb. btk. grh. '// spn. b[tk] gr. tViyt, 'Baal sits enthroned, like the sitting of a mountain, Hadad [ ] like the flood, in the midst of his mountain, the god of Zaphon in the [midst of] the mountain of victory', just as Ps. 29.10 states, 'The Lord sits enthroned over the flood, the Lord sits enthroned as king for ever'. The fact that the seven thunders of Psalm 29 go back to Baal mythology means that they are an integral part of the original psalm....

[Chick Stern]

There is no doubt that “El” was the progenitor god of the Canaanites, and gave rise to the other gods, including “baal” and “yahwe”.
There were similar schemes in other nearby cultures, including the Egyptians, Assyrians, Greeks and Etruscans.
There is no doubt as well that El had a wife (or several).
Additionally, there is no doubt that the tenets of jesus were lifted from zororaster.

[HighFlyer23]

There is no doubt that “El” was the progenitor god of the Canaanites, and gave rise to the other gods, including “baal” and “yahwe”.
There were similar schemes in other nearby cultures, including the Egyptians, Assyrians, Greeks and Etruscans.
There is no doubt as well that El had a wife (or several).
Additionally, there is no doubt that the tenets of jesus were lifted from zororaster.

Jesus and Baal Haddad have many parallels

Both are dying and resurrecting deities

What most likely happened is that he people who brought Yahweh into Canaan wanted to become dominant in that region. So they were well aware of the Canaanite religion. In the Canaanite religion, El, the father god is replaced by Baal Haddad and he does so by battling the sea god Yam and monsters such as Levathian. Yahweh splits the Red Sea for his people showing his dominance over the sea. He is constantly described as defeating sea monsters. Yahweh was their version of Baal Haddad. It is so unmistakable that we have Psalm 29 as a direct copy of the Baal cycle. Habukkuk 3 is also straight from ancient Canaanite religion.

The religion of the “Bible” went through many different progressions. Authors of these texts were heavily influenced by their neighbors and their own ancestors. The Egyptians, Mesopotamians, Iranians, and in particular the Canaanites all had their share of influence upon the cult of Yahweh that transformed into what he have today. We had a primitive god blasting through his nostrils to separate waters to becoming the “god” that we have today. Evidence that Yahweh went through a transformation is undeniable. Evidence that Yahweh likely merged and assimilated other deities is very strong. The discover of the texts at Ugarit really changed everything.

Yet we have dumbass Christian’s here who don’t know any Hebrew claiming that Yahweh gave himself inheritance. How can you give yourself something you already have? Have can you inherit from yourself?

Yahweh was never one of the 70 sons of El. He is not originally a Canaanite deity. He came from the south as the Bible shouts again and again.

Here’s your omnipotent Yahweh failing to drive out iron chariots

Judges 1:19


וַיְהִי יְהוָה אֶתּ־יְהוּדָה וַיֹּרֶשׁ אֶת־הָהָר כִּי לֹא לְהוֹרִישׁ אֶת־יֹשְׁבֵי הָעֵמֶק כִּי־רֶכֶב בַּרְזֶל לָהֶֽם׃

King James Version
19 And the Lord was with Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountain; but could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron.

Bronze Age Yahweh can’t cope with Iron Age iron chariots

[Patrick Chewing]

Typing “Hodor” would have been so much faster

If I wanted to call your name, I would have.

[HighFlyer23]

They did conquer the Moabites (destroyed all their cities, all their land, and thwarted their final attack) just as prophesied. Wrath wasn’t subjected until after they conquered, which came after a child sacrifice. Everything else you are attempting to imply is inserting your opinion in to the text to fit an agenda.

We can logically conclude the Stele is referencing events related to 2 Kings 3. What we cannot logically conclude is that the king who wrote it was honest about the outcome. This Bible is true over the Stele because it is God’s revelation to man and without it you have no justification for anything. The Mesha Stele isn’t even a complete text and no authoritative full edition of the Moabite inscription remains.

Wrath came FROM the sacrifice to Chemosh. Chemosh accepted the sacrifice and routed Yahwehs forces. It was so embarrassing they were forced to admit defeat and closed the chapter after that.

The Bible is true because the very first chapter says that night and day are distinct without Earth being made. The very first act of creation , by Elohim by the way, is a ****jng farce because there is no night and day in the cosmos. Yahwehs revelation doesn’t understand the dynamic of night and day.

You honestly cannot be this dumb.

And how do you explain the fact that in the Ugaritic Baal epic Leviathan is called a dragon (tnn, KTlf1 1.3.III.40). Isaiah 27 also calls Leviathan as tanin הַתַּנִּין .Yahweh is essentially swagger jacking Baal without much originality

[Patrick Chewing]

Highflyer is an educated Zionist. A bit too zealous for my taste.

Christ is King.

[KNOW1EDGE]

6 pages in- still no proof of gods existence. Just religious semantics and paragraphs on paragraphs of scripture.

Why can’t we all just acknowledge there is no proof? It doesn’t make you wrong if you believe in God, it just means there isn’t proof. That’s why it’s called having “faith”

Again, I welcome the proof. I’ve been looking for it for 33 years. Studied the Bible for 20. Met with religious leaders from various religions. They all use the same rhetoric and euphemisms and then get defensive/mad when I ask for proof. It’s tiring.

[HighFlyer23]

Highflyer is an educated Zionist. A bit too zealous for my taste.

Christ is King.

I would appreciate you don’t disrespect me by calling me a Zionist

I recommend the works of Mark S Smith and John Day if you want to learn more

My point is that the concept of a universal all powerful all knowing God was developed. Originally Yahweh was not that. He became like that through a very long and complex process. It involved competing with rival gods, absorbing other gods, merging with other gods, having ideas taken from other religions, taking attributes of other gods.

The Bible is ultimately a hodgepodge of different beliefs, traditions, ideas, religions all combined and written through the lens of a certain group of people who had their own view on how things were and how they should be. These people were a small rather insignificant group that existed between the great and mighty empires of Egypt and Mesopotamia. Your nation is only as mighty as your god is.

The Bible itself has gone through extensive redaction and editing. Different versions of a single story are put together. Different authors wrote different traditions. You have complete works of fiction in it like the Book of Esther yet some how they are in the canon of the Bible that Jews and Christian’s claim is divine in origin. The story of Joseph is literally developed from 2 Samuel which is supposed to have occurred much later. Noah’s story is actually two versions stitched together as one reading and that is famously taken from the food narratives found in ancient Mesopotamian texts such as the Epic of Gilgamesh. Moses birth narrative is taken from Sargon of Akkad birth narrative. Enki the god of the Sumerians creates humans so they can labor for the gods and Yahweh of the Bible creates man so he can labor. There are many more examples.

What you have is little originality from these people and mostly just taking from others and putting your own spin on things .

If Constantine never converted to Christianity which was an offshoot of Judaism then we would likely never be having this discussion.

[theman93]

Ultimately you are putting things into the text that are not there. It never says Yahweh gives himself inheritance. You don’t know a single letter of Hebrew and you don’t understand what you are saying. Show me where in the Hebrew it says that Yahweh gives himself inheritance.

Deutronomy 32:8-9 is one of the most interesting and telling parts of the Bible. It shows a reference to the ancient Canaanite belief that El was head of a council of gods that was composed of his sons who were also divine. Verses 6 and 7 are stating for the people of that time period to refer back to their father and grandfather to ask them about this belief.

Elohim are human judges here? LOL. Which cocksucking Christian liar wrote this? Elohim means god or gods ! Show me where in any part of the Bible it states that Elohim means human judges.

Every idiot with a 5 minute education of Judaism or Hebrew knows this. Elohim is mentioned in the very first verse of the Tanakh as the creator of the world:

Genesis 1:1

בְּרֵאשִׁית בָּרָא אֱלֹהִים אֵת הַשָּׁמַיִם וְאֵת הָאָֽרֶץ׃

In the beginning God (Elohim) created the heaven and the earth

This is the council of El, the same council of El mentioned in the Ugaritic texts. You want to keep playing around with Psalms you are going to get burned.


Psalm 89:6

כִּי מִי בַשַּׁחַק יַעֲרֹךְ לַיהוָה יִדְמֶה לַיהוָה בִּבְנֵי אֵלִים׃

For who in the heaven can be compared unto the LORD? who among the sons of the mighty (Bene El) can be likened unto the LORD (Yahweh)?

Bene El has been translated as “sons of the the mighty” but it actually means sons of El. Yahweh is believed to be one of the many sons of El. The older parts of the Bible still verify this.

You're proof reading the text and intentionally omitting the rest of the context of the book. The author of Deuteronomy already establishes that there is only one God in chapter 4. "To you it was shown that you might know that the Lord, He is God; there is no other besides Him". - Deuteronomy 4:35. With that being established, Deuteronomy 32:8-9 can't be talking about two separate beings.

In fact in Deuteronomy 32:6 the author establishes that the Lord (Yahweh) is the Creator. "Do you thus repay the Lord, you foolish and senseless people? Is not he your father, who created you, who made you and established you?" - Deuteronomy 32:6. So Yahweh is the God of Genesis 1.

Continuing down to verse 17 he also establishes that the other gods that Israel turned to and gave sacrifices to are not the one and only God. They are false gods - they were demons. "They sacrificed to demons that were no gods, to gods they had never known, to new gods that had come recently, whom your fathers had never dreaded." - Deuteronomy 32:17.



Regarding Psalm 89, there is nothing that definitively states that the "sons of the mighty" are gods. Many scholars conclude these are angels or saints. Once again, you are reading your beliefs in to the text.

[theman93]

Wrath came FROM the sacrifice to Chemosh. Chemosh accepted the sacrifice and routed Yahwehs forces. It was so embarrassing they were forced to admit defeat and closed the chapter after that.
No, that's not what it says. It says the king offered his son as a sacrifice. I could just as easily argue that the Israelites allowed the sacrifice to take place instead of stopping it after they crushed the Moab's and their land, but because they didn't stop it God's wrath was revealed against them because human sacrifice was forbidden. This would have nothing to do with Chemosh, and everything to do with Yahweh and Yahweh only. But it doesn't state that, nor does it state what you are claiming so we should take it as written without assumption like you are trying to do.


The Bible is true because the very first chapter says that night and day are distinct without Earth being made. The very first act of creation , by Elohim by the way, is a ****jng farce because there is no night and day in the cosmos. Yahwehs revelation doesn’t understand the dynamic of night and day.

You honestly cannot be this dumb.

And how do you explain the fact that in the Ugaritic Baal epic Leviathan is called a dragon (tnn, KTlf1 1.3.III.40). Isaiah 27 also calls Leviathan as tanin הַתַּנִּין .Yahweh is essentially swagger jacking Baal without much originality

Not sure where you're getting night and day are distinct before the earth was made. In Genesis 1:1 the earth is created. In verse 2 there is only darkness over the waters. In verse 3 God created light. In verse 4 he separates the light from the darkness.

[theman93]

I would appreciate you don’t disrespect me by calling me a Zionist

I recommend the works of Mark S Smith and John Day if you want to learn more

My point is that the concept of a universal all powerful all knowing God was developed. Originally Yahweh was not that. He became like that through a very long and complex process. It involved competing with rival gods, absorbing other gods, merging with other gods, having ideas taken from other religions, taking attributes of other gods.

The Bible is ultimately a hodgepodge of different beliefs, traditions, ideas, religions all combined and written through the lens of a certain group of people who had their own view on how things were and how they should be. These people were a small rather insignificant group that existed between the great and mighty empires of Egypt and Mesopotamia. Your nation is only as mighty as your god is.

The Bible itself has gone through extensive redaction and editing. Different versions of a single story are put together. Different authors wrote different traditions. You have complete works of fiction in it like the Book of Esther yet some how they are in the canon of the Bible that Jews and Christian’s claim is divine in origin. The story of Joseph is literally developed from 2 Samuel which is supposed to have occurred much later. Noah’s story is actually two versions stitched together as one reading and that is famously taken from the food narratives found in ancient Mesopotamian texts such as the Epic of Gilgamesh. Moses birth narrative is taken from Sargon of Akkad birth narrative. Enki the god of the Sumerians creates humans so they can labor for the gods and Yahweh of the Bible creates man so he can labor. There are many more examples.

What you have is little originality from these people and mostly just taking from others and putting your own spin on things .

If Constantine never converted to Christianity which was an offshoot of Judaism then we would likely never be having this discussion.

Christianity borrowing from other religions is an unfounded claim. Simply making an assertion doesn’t prove it is true. You're essentially arguing that because an older religion than Christianity has similarities to Christianity, then Christianity stole their ideas. Which you have absolutely zero proof. Similarities don’t mean that Christianity was copied from other religions any more than similarities in two different paintings mean that one was copied from another.

You are also confusing translation and transmisson.

[theman93]

6 pages in- still no proof of gods existence. Just religious semantics and paragraphs on paragraphs of scripture.

Why can’t we all just acknowledge there is no proof? It doesn’t make you wrong if you believe in God, it just means there isn’t proof. That’s why it’s called having “faith”

Again, I welcome the proof. I’ve been looking for it for 33 years. Studied the Bible for 20. Met with religious leaders from various religions. They all use the same rhetoric and euphemisms and then get defensive/mad when I ask for proof. It’s tiring.

As an agnostic you're asking for proof. Do you not see the self refutation of your own world view here?

[Patrick Chewing]

Knowledge thinks there's a cave somewhere on Earth where we can show him physical proof of God. :lol

[RRR3]

Theman93 and fatrick are shockingly stupid.

[Axe]

God is real.
I don't think he doesn't like someone who's pro-abortion and divorced as well.

[Red Pill Sports]

Knowledge thinks there's a cave somewhere on Earth where we can show him physical proof of God. :lol

So please tell me what exactly is the "correct" method of proving he exists. Because unless you can, all I have to go by is your baseless claims. I need more than that

[SATAN]

Simply making an assertion doesn’t prove it is true.

Interesting.

[Patrick Chewing]

So please tell me what exactly is the "correct" method of proving he exists. Because unless you can, all I have to go by is your baseless claims. I need more than that

Another alt?? They're multiplying!!

Umm, let's see, it's not my job to prove to you that God exists. In fact, I could care less if you believe in him or not. It's your loss if you think God is merely a fabrication.

[theman93]

So please tell me what exactly is the "correct" method of proving he exists. Because unless you can, all I have to go by is your baseless claims. I need more than that

Your issue is that you're presupposing truth, knowledge, and logic when you ask for proof. Given your world view, how do you account for these realities you've presupposed? How do you justify what's true? How do you know what you know? And how do you know if your logic is universal and unchanging?

As a Christian, I can give an account for these realities because I start with God as the necessary precondition. Asking for evidences and proof to reason your way to God is backwards and illogical because without God as the starting point you can't even reason.

[SATAN]

This ****in' guy. Wow.

[Patrick Chewing]

This ****in' guy. Wow.

You can always log off the board and wallow in your loneliness, anger, and depression.

[SATAN]

You can always log off the board and wallow in your loneliness, anger, and depression.

God doesn't want me to.

[iamgine]

Not only bad evidence for his own existence but equally bad evidence for the resurrection of Christ, which is supposed to be the most important event in human history since your salvation is completely determined on believing in those things? Then he has the gall to damn you to hell for justifiably not believing due to such weak evidence. If God exists, he is not a loving God or a deity worthy of your worship


No Christian I've ever talked to has been able to provide an answer that makes any sense.

For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways,” declares the LORD. “As the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways."

I shall translate this since it's often misunderstood.

What this means is "Your brain is too small and your senses too few to understand even 0.00001% of what is out there."

We like to think what God means "love" is what we mean "love". But why should it be? Maybe God's love is a whole different emotion we don't even know about.

[Red Pill Sports]

Your issue is that you're presupposing truth, knowledge, and logic when you ask for proof. Given your world view, how do you account for these realities you've presupposed? How do you justify what's true? How do you know what you know? And how do you know if your logic is universal and unchanging?

As a Christian, I can give an account for these realities because I start with God as the necessary precondition. Asking for evidences and proof to reason your way to God is backwards and illogical because without God as the starting point you can't even reason.

1. All of your questions can just as easily be applied to you except even moreso since you're making claims that you can't back up whereas I am demanding proof.

2. People in every other religion claim to have had experiences - "accounts for these realities" as you put them - so why shouldn't I trust that their religion and their deity are the true ones?

Or to put it another way, why should I give your specific religion special treatment?

[theman93]

1. All of your questions can just as easily be applied to you except even moreso since you're making claims that you can't back up whereas I am demanding proof.
Sure I can. Without God as the precondition you can't justify how you make sense of anything. Truth, knowledge, and logic reflects the very nature and thinking of God. So I'll ask you again, according to your world view, how do you justify what's true, how do you know what you know, and how do you know if logic is universal and unchanging? You've presupposed truth, knowledge, and logic when you asked for proof, so I'd like to hear you provide a foundation for those things given your world view.


2. People in every other religion claim to have had experiences - "accounts for these realities" as you put them - so why shouldn't I trust that their religion and their deity are the true ones?

Or to put it another way, why should I give your specific religion special treatment?

We're discussing the Christian world view and your world view. Have you abandoned your world view and now believe in one of these deities? We could also sit here and argue whether or not the moon is made of green cheese, but since neither of us believe that it would be a waste of time.

[Patrick Chewing]

God doesn't want me to.

So you believe in God?

[SATAN]

So you believe in God?

A creator is possible. No way to know for sure really. Religion is a whole other thing.

[Gohan]

Lmao at these idiots thinking they know more than God. You can get the smartest person in the world and he doesnt know 1 sextillionth of what God knows

[HighFlyer23]

You're proof reading the text and intentionally omitting the rest of the context of the book. The author of Deuteronomy already establishes that there is only one God in chapter 4. "To you it was shown that you might know that the Lord, He is God; there is no other besides Him". - Deuteronomy 4:35. With that being established, Deuteronomy 32:8-9 can't be talking about two separate beings.

In fact in Deuteronomy 32:6 the author establishes that the Lord (Yahweh) is the Creator. "Do you thus repay the Lord, you foolish and senseless people? Is not he your father, who created you, who made you and established you?" - Deuteronomy 32:6. So Yahweh is the God of Genesis 1.

Continuing down to verse 17 he also establishes that the other gods that Israel turned to and gave sacrifices to are not the one and only God. They are false gods - they were demons. "They sacrificed to demons that were no gods, to gods they had never known, to new gods that had come recently, whom your fathers had never dreaded." - Deuteronomy 32:17.



Regarding Psalm 89, there is nothing that definitively states that the "sons of the mighty" are gods. Many scholars conclude these are angels or saints. Once again, you are reading your beliefs in to the text.

Listen to me.

Deuteronomy 32:7-9 refers to an older belief held by the Israelites. Verse 7 states to ask your father and your elders. This is referring to the ancient Canaanite religion that long predated the Bible and the Israelite religion.

El is giving the nations their inheritance. He sets the boundaries of the nations to the number of the sons of El, meaning the sons of God. Yahweh's inheritance is Israel. Yahweh is among the sons of El. Each son of El gets a nation.

I will post the text as presented by each of the 3 sources of the Hebrew Bible that we have today. The first is the oldest, the Dead Sea Scrolls. They read as follows:

Deuteronomy 32.7-9: 7 Remember the days of old; consider the years of all generations. Ask your father, and he will inform you; your elders, and they will tell you. 8 When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of man, He set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God [: בני אלוהים = "sons of God,] 9 For Yahweh's portion is His people; Jacob is the allotment of His inheritance.

Next is the septuagint

Deuteronomy 32.7-9: 7 Remember the days of old; consider the years of all generations. Ask your father, and he will inform you; your elders, and they will tell you. 8 When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of man, He set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the angels of God [ ἀγγέλων θεοῦ = "angels of God"]. 9 For Yahweh's portion is His people; Jacob is the allotment of His inheritance.

Last is the Masoretic Text

Deuteronomy 32.7-9: 7 Remember the days of old; consider the years of all generations. Ask your father, and he will inform you; your elders, and they will tell you. 8 When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of man, He set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel[ בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל = "sons of Israel]. 9 For Yahweh's portion is His people; Jacob is the allotment of His inheritance.


Why did this text change from being first the sons of God to then being the angels of God and finally to the sons of Israel? Because it had clear polytheism in it and the later authors of the other canons wanted to conceal that fact that Yahweh was among the sons of El who recieved a nation as inheritence.

The ancient Canaanite belief is that El had a divine council of gods that consisted of his 70 sons.

Deutronomy was composed under the direction of King Josiah who lived in the 7th cnetury BCE. He is credited with starting the "Yahweh only" movement where he laid the foundations of a primitive form of monotheism where only the worship of Yahweh was recognized. Of course we will find monotheistic passages in Deutronomy. The authors of Deutronomy are also credited with the greater Deuteronomistic History that encompasses of Deuteronomy , Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings.

[Red Pill Sports]

Sure I can. Without God as the precondition you can't justify how you make sense of anything. Truth, knowledge, and logic reflects the very nature and thinking of God. So I'll ask you again, according to your world view, how do you justify what's true, how do you know what you know, and how do you know if logic is universal and unchanging? You've presupposed truth, knowledge, and logic when you asked for proof, so I'd like to hear you provide a foundation for those things given your world view.

Which god? Yours? Allah? Vishnu? Odin? The flying spaghetti monster?

Because people of every other religion are going to give me different answers. Name one reason why I should consider yours over all the others outside of "because the Bible says so."



We're discussing the Christian world view and your world view. Have you abandoned your world view and now believe in one of these deities? We could also sit here and argue whether or not the moon is made of green cheese, but since neither of us believe that it would be a waste of time.

Uhhhhh...no. I didn't say or even imply that. Try not to put words in my mouth, jag off.

My point is you can't give me a good enough reason to trust in your sky daddy specifically any more than people in other religions can. Because they are all equally baseless, equally deluded. All religious people swear up and down to the existence of their deity and yet despite having ample opportunity over a period of millennia, not one of you has ever been able to provide even a shred of evidence.

[HighFlyer23]

Psalm 89 LITERALLY states WHO AMONG THE SONS OF EL CAN BE COMPARED TO YOU YAHWEH. Why would Yahweh, a divine being, be compared to angels or humans? Of course he would be compared to his peers, other GODS. This belief that you are claiming is held by "scholars" exists because of the blatant polythiesm that exists in the text. I've just shown above how the wording of the actual text of Deut 32:8-9 was changed by later authors of the Hebrew canon because of the explcit polytheism found in it. The septuagint changed the texts "sons of God" to "Angels of God". And the MT changed it even further to "sons of Israel"

It makes absolutely no sense to compare Yahweh to mortals or lesser beings such as angels.

The oldest parts of the Bible still carry this belief. In fact lets go to the oldest part of the Bible, Exodus 15, the Song of Moses and Miriam:

The Song of Moses and Miriam
15 Then Moses and the Israelites sang this song to the Lord:

“I will sing to the Lord,
for he is highly exalted.
Both horse and driver
he has hurled into the sea.

2 “The Lord is my strength and my defense
he has become my salvation.
He is my God, and I will praise him,
my father’s God, and I will exalt him.
3 The Lord is a warrior;
the Lord is his name.
4 Pharaoh’s chariots and his army
he has hurled into the sea.
The best of Pharaoh’s officers
are drowned in the Red Sea.
5 The deep waters have covered them;
they sank to the depths like a stone.
6 Your right hand, Lord,
was majestic in power.
Your right hand, Lord,
shattered the enemy.

7 “In the greatness of your majesty
you threw down those who opposed you.
You unleashed your burning anger;
it consumed them like stubble.
8 By the blast of your nostrils
the waters piled up.
The surging waters stood up like a wall;
the deep waters congealed in the heart of the sea.
9 The enemy boasted,
‘I will pursue, I will overtake them.
I will divide the spoils;
I will gorge myself on them.
I will draw my sword
and my hand will destroy them.’
10 But you blew with your breath,
and the sea covered them.
They sank like lead
in the mighty waters.
11 Who among the gods
is like you, Lord?
Who is like you—
majestic in holiness,
awesome in glory,
working wonders?

12 “You stretch out your right hand,
and the earth swallows your enemies.
13 In your unfailing love you will lead
the people you have redeemed.
In your strength you will guide them
to your holy dwelling.
14 The nations will hear and tremble;
anguish will grip the people of Philistia.
15 The chiefs of Edom will be terrified,
the leaders of Moab will be seized with trembling,
the people[c] of Canaan will melt away;
16 terror and dread will fall on them.
By the power of your arm
they will be as still as a stone—
until your people pass by, Lord,
until the people you bought[d] pass by.
17 You will bring them in and plant them
on the mountain of your inheritance—
the place, Lord, you made for your dwelling,
the sanctuary, Lord, your hands established.

18 “The Lord reigns
for ever and ever.”

19 When Pharaoh’s horses, chariots and horsemen[e] went into the sea, the Lord brought the waters of the sea back over them, but the Israelites walked through the sea on dry ground. 20 Then Miriam the prophet, Aaron’s sister, took a timbrel in her hand, and all the women followed her, with timbrels and dancing. 21 Miriam sang to them:

“Sing to the Lord,
for he is highly exalted.
Both horse and driver
he has hurled into the sea.”


Here we see that they proclaim WHO AMONGST THE GODS IS LIKE YOU YAHWEH. Meaning that they believed in and acknlwedged the existence of other gods. It would be absolutely pointless to compare Yahweh to something that doesn't exist. And again we see Yahweh described as a strom god. He seperated waters with a blast of his nostrils, PRIMITIVE storm god description. He blew his breath and covered the enemy with waters, again, the description of a storm deity. And again we see that Yahwehs earliest description is being a MAN OF WAR. this is the description of a primtive deity who battles physically. His conflict is not with just the Egyptian army, but with the sea itself. This motif is constantly and consistently found among other ancient gods, in particular by Baal Haddad who is also a storm god who battles the seas. We also learns he resides in the mountains or on a mountain. This is the most common theme among the gods of the Near East. They made the mountains their sanctuaries and places of dwelling in both in Mesopotamia and in Canaan. Baal and El both resided in mountains.

Also lets go back to the title Elyon. This title was originally a title of El that was given to Baal Haddad. Its not surprising Yahweh who was not originally a Canaanite deity, would try and wrestle this title form Baal whom he is trying to replace, as his followers tell us. Yahweh was brought into Canaan when Baal had already succeeded and replaced El as the chief deity, we know this from the Ugaratic texts that far predate the Bible. Followers of Yahweh wanted ascendecy in the region so the best way to achieve that was to have their god Yahweh, amalgamate and replace El, and not Baal.

[HighFlyer23]

Christianity borrowing from other religions is an unfounded claim. Simply making an assertion doesn’t prove it is true. You're essentially arguing that because an older religion than Christianity has similarities to Christianity, then Christianity stole their ideas. Which you have absolutely zero proof. Similarities don’t mean that Christianity was copied from other religions any more than similarities in two different paintings mean that one was copied from another.

You are also confusing translation and transmisson.

You have not responded to a single thing I stated.

Concession accepted.

[HighFlyer23]

No, that's not what it says. It says the king offered his son as a sacrifice. I could just as easily argue that the Israelites allowed the sacrifice to take place instead of stopping it after they crushed the Moab's and their land, but because they didn't stop it God's wrath was revealed against them because human sacrifice was forbidden. This would have nothing to do with Chemosh, and everything to do with Yahweh and Yahweh only. But it doesn't state that, nor does it state what you are claiming so we should take it as written without assumption like you are trying to do.



Not sure where you're getting night and day are distinct before the earth was made. In Genesis 1:1 the earth is created. In verse 2 there is only darkness over the waters. In verse 3 God created light. In verse 4 he separates the light from the darkness.

You are rewritting the text. The text states that he sacrificed his son and THEN the DIVINE WRATH descended upon the Israelites and they retreated. If he doesn't sacrifice his son, there is no divine wrath. The divine wrath happened BECAUSE of the sacrifice. The divine wrath of Yahweh upon the Israelites makes no sense unless he accepted the sacrifice and wanted to route his own people. The divine wrath of Chemosh is the only plausibile answer. Chemosh accepted the sacrifice and helped the Moabites defeat the Israelites.

It doesn't explicitly say that because we likely have a later version of the original text that has been edited to keep polytheistic elements out of it.

And Yahweh DID accept human sacrifice. You are digging yourself into a greater and greater hole here.

The earth doesn't exist until verse 9. But prior to that we have days and nights without a physical earth. Day and night don't exist in a universal, cosmologic setting. Day and night exist due to the rotation of the earth.

[HighFlyer23]

Which god? Yours? Allah? Vishnu? Odin? The flying spaghetti monster?

Because people of every other religion are going to give me different answers. Name one reason why I should consider yours over all the others outside of "because the Bible says so."




Uhhhhh...no. I didn't say or even imply that. Try not to put words in my mouth, jag off.

My point is you can't give me a good enough reason to trust in your sky daddy specifically any more than people in other religions can. Because they are all equally baseless, equally deluded. All religious people swear up and down to the existence of their deity and yet despite having ample opportunity over a period of millennia, not one of you has ever been able to provide even a shred of evidence.

The Bible itself plagarizes other beliefs and religions so whats even the point of saying "because the Bible says so" when the Bible itself wouldn't exist without the existence of these previous religions that we all know are false and mythology. There is ZERO originality from the Bible.

Ultimately theman93 has nothing to say except circular nonsense. His performance so far has shown to be an embarassment to his pagan cult.

His Yahweh would never be what he is today if his cult didn't come into contact with the Canaanites and Mesopotamians. Without El, there is no Yahweh of today. Without Baal Haddad, there is no Yahweh of today. Without Marduk, there is no Yahweh of today.

I'm not anti religion, if anything religion has much much good that comes from it. But I am not a fan of a certain people claiming superiority over the rest of humanity because of their lesser pagan deity that has a vile, disturbing, and repugnant character and nature.

[HighFlyer23]

Sure I can. Without God as the precondition you can't justify how you make sense of anything. Truth, knowledge, and logic reflects the very nature and thinking of God. So I'll ask you again, according to your world view, how do you justify what's true, how do you know what you know, and how do you know if logic is universal and unchanging? You've presupposed truth, knowledge, and logic when you asked for proof, so I'd like to hear you provide a foundation for those things given your world view.



We're discussing the Christian world view and your world view. Have you abandoned your world view and now believe in one of these deities? We could also sit here and argue whether or not the moon is made of green cheese, but since neither of us believe that it would be a waste of time.

If truth is the nature of your Yahweh then why does he put lying spirits inside his prophets mouth?

1 Kings 22:23
New International Version
23 “So now the Lord has put a deceiving spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours. The Lord has decreed disaster for you.”

[theman93]

Listen to me.

Deuteronomy 32:7-9 refers to an older belief held by the Israelites. Verse 7 states to ask your father and your elders. This is referring to the ancient Canaanite religion that long predated the Bible and the Israelite religion.

Incorrect. Again, you are reading your beliefs in to the text. You're asserting that Moses asked the Israelites to remember father's and elder's of the Canaanite religion when literally the entire book of Exodus is about God, not the gods of the Canaanite religion, delivering the Israelites from Egypt and providing for them in the wilderness. The Israelites were warned NOT to partake in the Canaanite religion in Deuteronomy 18:9-11, so asking them to remember the elders of their religion is asinine on it's face. Their practices are described as detestable in Deuteronomy 18 as well as Deuteronomy 29.


El is giving the nations their inheritance. He sets the boundaries of the nations to the number of the sons of El, meaning the sons of God. Yahweh's inheritance is Israel. Yahweh is among the sons of El. Each son of El gets a nation.

I will post the text as presented by each of the 3 sources of the Hebrew Bible that we have today. The first is the oldest, the Dead Sea Scrolls. They read as follows:

Deuteronomy 32.7-9: 7 Remember the days of old; consider the years of all generations. Ask your father, and he will inform you; your elders, and they will tell you. 8 When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of man, He set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of God [: בני אלוהים = "sons of God,] 9 For Yahweh's portion is His people; Jacob is the allotment of His inheritance.

Next is the septuagint

Deuteronomy 32.7-9: 7 Remember the days of old; consider the years of all generations. Ask your father, and he will inform you; your elders, and they will tell you. 8 When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of man, He set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the angels of God [ ἀγγέλων θεοῦ = "angels of God"]. 9 For Yahweh's portion is His people; Jacob is the allotment of His inheritance.

Last is the Masoretic Text

Deuteronomy 32.7-9: 7 Remember the days of old; consider the years of all generations. Ask your father, and he will inform you; your elders, and they will tell you. 8 When the Most High gave the nations their inheritance, when He separated the sons of man, He set the boundaries of the peoples according to the number of the sons of Israel[ בְּנֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵֽל = "sons of Israel]. 9 For Yahweh's portion is His people; Jacob is the allotment of His inheritance.


Why did this text change from being first the sons of God to then being the angels of God and finally to the sons of Israel? Because it had clear polytheism in it and the later authors of the other canons wanted to conceal that fact that Yahweh was among the sons of El who recieved a nation as inheritence.

As already stated, the author has already established before we get to chapter 32 that there is only one God in Deuteronomy 4:35. Deutoronomy 32:7-9 has nothing to do with polytheism as you continuously try to assert. If it did, then Deuteronomy 4:35 would have been changed to state that there is more than one God.



The ancient Canaanite belief is that El had a divine council of gods that consisted of his 70 sons.

Deutronomy was composed under the direction of King Josiah who lived in the 7th cnetury BCE. He is credited with starting the "Yahweh only" movement where he laid the foundations of a primitive form of monotheism where only the worship of Yahweh was recognized. Of course we will find monotheistic passages in Deutronomy. The authors of Deutronomy are also credited with the greater Deuteronomistic History that encompasses of Deuteronomy , Joshua, Judges, Samuel, and Kings.

I'm very aware what the ancient Canaanite's believed. What they believed is in contradiction to what God says. That He is the only true God and that Israelite's were not to worship the false gods of the Canaanite's.

[theman93]

Which god? Yours? Allah? Vishnu? Odin? The flying spaghetti monster?

Because people of every other religion are going to give me different answers. Name one reason why I should consider yours over all the others outside of "because the Bible says so."
The God of the Bible.

I noticed this is the second time you've dodged the challenge presented to you. If my world view is false, then let's put yours on center stage: According to your world view, how do you justify what's true, how do you know what you know, and how do you know if logic is universal and unchanging? You've presupposed truth, knowledge, and logic when you asked for proof, so provide a foundation for those things given your world view.




Uhhhhh...no. I didn't say or even imply that. Try not to put words in my mouth, jag off.

My point is you can't give me a good enough reason to trust in your sky daddy specifically any more than people in other religions can. Because they are all equally baseless, equally deluded. All religious people swear up and down to the existence of their deity and yet despite having ample opportunity over a period of millennia, not one of you has ever been able to provide even a shred of evidence.
I didn't put words in your mouth. All I did was ask a question. Again, we aren't debating other religious world views. We're debating yours and mine. The rest is irrelevant because neither of us believe in them.

[theman93]

Psalm 89 LITERALLY states WHO AMONG THE SONS OF EL CAN BE COMPARED TO YOU YAHWEH. Why would Yahweh, a divine being, be compared to angels or humans? Of course he would be compared to his peers, other GODS. This belief that you are claiming is held by "scholars" exists because of the blatant polythiesm that exists in the text. I've just shown above how the wording of the actual text of Deut 32:8-9 was changed by later authors of the Hebrew canon because of the explcit polytheism found in it. The septuagint changed the texts "sons of God" to "Angels of God". And the MT changed it even further to "sons of Israel"

It makes absolutely no sense to compare Yahweh to mortals or lesser beings such as angels.

The oldest parts of the Bible still carry this belief. In fact lets go to the oldest part of the Bible, Exodus 15, the Song of Moses and Miriam:

The Song of Moses and Miriam
15 Then Moses and the Israelites sang this song to the Lord:

“I will sing to the Lord,
for he is highly exalted.
Both horse and driver
he has hurled into the sea.

2 “The Lord is my strength and my defense
he has become my salvation.
He is my God, and I will praise him,
my father’s God, and I will exalt him.
3 The Lord is a warrior;
the Lord is his name.
4 Pharaoh’s chariots and his army
he has hurled into the sea.
The best of Pharaoh’s officers
are drowned in the Red Sea.
5 The deep waters have covered them;
they sank to the depths like a stone.
6 Your right hand, Lord,
was majestic in power.
Your right hand, Lord,
shattered the enemy.

7 “In the greatness of your majesty
you threw down those who opposed you.
You unleashed your burning anger;
it consumed them like stubble.
8 By the blast of your nostrils
the waters piled up.
The surging waters stood up like a wall;
the deep waters congealed in the heart of the sea.
9 The enemy boasted,
‘I will pursue, I will overtake them.
I will divide the spoils;
I will gorge myself on them.
I will draw my sword
and my hand will destroy them.’
10 But you blew with your breath,
and the sea covered them.
They sank like lead
in the mighty waters.
11 Who among the gods
is like you, Lord?
Who is like you—
majestic in holiness,
awesome in glory,
working wonders?

12 “You stretch out your right hand,
and the earth swallows your enemies.
13 In your unfailing love you will lead
the people you have redeemed.
In your strength you will guide them
to your holy dwelling.
14 The nations will hear and tremble;
anguish will grip the people of Philistia.
15 The chiefs of Edom will be terrified,
the leaders of Moab will be seized with trembling,
the people[c] of Canaan will melt away;
16 terror and dread will fall on them.
By the power of your arm
they will be as still as a stone—
until your people pass by, Lord,
until the people you bought[d] pass by.
17 You will bring them in and plant them
on the mountain of your inheritance—
the place, Lord, you made for your dwelling,
the sanctuary, Lord, your hands established.

18 “The Lord reigns
for ever and ever.”

19 When Pharaoh’s horses, chariots and horsemen[e] went into the sea, the Lord brought the waters of the sea back over them, but the Israelites walked through the sea on dry ground. 20 Then Miriam the prophet, Aaron’s sister, took a timbrel in her hand, and all the women followed her, with timbrels and dancing. 21 Miriam sang to them:

“Sing to the Lord,
for he is highly exalted.
Both horse and driver
he has hurled into the sea.”


Here we see that they proclaim WHO AMONGST THE GODS IS LIKE YOU YAHWEH. Meaning that they believed in and acknlwedged the existence of other gods. It would be absolutely pointless to compare Yahweh to something that doesn't exist. And again we see Yahweh described as a strom god. He seperated waters with a blast of his nostrils, PRIMITIVE storm god description. He blew his breath and covered the enemy with waters, again, the description of a storm deity. And again we see that Yahwehs earliest description is being a MAN OF WAR. this is the description of a primtive deity who battles physically. His conflict is not with just the Egyptian army, but with the sea itself. This motif is constantly and consistently found among other ancient gods, in particular by Baal Haddad who is also a storm god who battles the seas. We also learns he resides in the mountains or on a mountain. This is the most common theme among the gods of the Near East. They made the mountains their sanctuaries and places of dwelling in both in Mesopotamia and in Canaan. Baal and El both resided in mountains.

Also lets go back to the title Elyon. This title was originally a title of El that was given to Baal Haddad. Its not surprising Yahweh who was not originally a Canaanite deity, would try and wrestle this title form Baal whom he is trying to replace, as his followers tell us. Yahweh was brought into Canaan when Baal had already succeeded and replaced El as the chief deity, we know this from the Ugaratic texts that far predate the Bible. Followers of Yahweh wanted ascendecy in the region so the best way to achieve that was to have their god Yahweh, amalgamate and replace El, and not Baal.

Psalm 89 is not a comparison. It's a question. "For who in the skies is comparable to the Lord?" - Psalm 89:6. And the answer is no one. He (Yahweh as referenced multiple times in the chapter) is the creator and all of it belongs to Him. "The heavens are yours; the earth also is yours; the world and all that is in it, you have founded them." - Psalm 89:11

[theman93]

You are rewritting the text. The text states that he sacrificed his son and THEN the DIVINE WRATH descended upon the Israelites and they retreated. If he doesn't sacrifice his son, there is no divine wrath. The divine wrath happened BECAUSE of the sacrifice. The divine wrath of Yahweh upon the Israelites makes no sense unless he accepted the sacrifice and wanted to route his own people. The divine wrath of Chemosh is the only plausibile answer. Chemosh accepted the sacrifice and helped the Moabites defeat the Israelites.

It doesn't explicitly say that because we likely have a later version of the original text that has been edited to keep polytheistic elements out of it.
Exactly. So you are making assumptions and inserting it in to the text, as I've stated.


And Yahweh DID accept human sacrifice. You are digging yourself into a greater and greater hole here.
This is a false claim. He made a direct commandment against it in Deuteronomy 18:10.


The earth doesn't exist until verse 9. But prior to that we have days and nights without a physical earth. Day and night don't exist in a universal, cosmologic setting. Day and night exist due to the rotation of the earth.

No earth is created in the very first verse. "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Verse 9 refers to dry land.

[theman93]

If truth is the nature of your Yahweh then why does he put lying spirits inside his prophets mouth?

1 Kings 22:23
New International Version
23 “So now the Lord has put a deceiving spirit in the mouths of all these prophets of yours. The Lord has decreed disaster for you.”

He didn't put any lying spirit in his prophets mouth. God's prophet in 1 Kings 22 is Micaiah (1 Kings 22:7-8). God puts the lying spirit in the prophets of King Ahab.

You should really read the text to understand, instead of proof reading to fit your agenda.

[theman93]

You have not responded to a single thing I stated.

Concession accepted.

I did. The burden of proof rests on the individual making the claim. You're claim was that Christianity stole from other religions because....it was similar to other religions. And as I've stated, similarities don’t mean that Christianity was copied from other religions any more than similarities in two different paintings mean that one was copied from another. You didn't prove anything, you just made assertions.

[Red Pill Sports]

I did. The burden of proof rests on the individual making the claim. You're claim was that Christianity stole from other religions because....it was similar to other religions. And as I've stated, similarities don’t mean that Christianity was copied from other religions any more than similarities in two different paintings mean that one was copied from another. You didn't prove anything, you just made assertions.

You're the one making a claim about the existence of a magic sky wizard without providing the smallest hint of evidence for it. Burden of proof is on you

[Red Pill Sports]

The God of the Bible.

I noticed this is the second time you've dodged the challenge presented to you. If my world view is false, then let's put yours on center stage: According to your world view, how do you justify what's true, how do you know what you know, and how do you know if logic is universal and unchanging? You've presupposed truth, knowledge, and logic when you asked for proof, so provide a foundation for those things given your world view.




I didn't put words in your mouth. All I did was ask a question. Again, we aren't debating other religious world views. We're debating yours and mine. The rest is irrelevant because neither of us believe in them.

Okay and why should I especially consider your particular sky daddy over all others? You still haven't provided a reason. Nor has any member of any other religion. Every religious person on Earth is convinced that theirs is just oh so special.

I bring up other religions because when it comes down to it, yours is in no better of a position than anyone else's.

[theman93]

You're the one making a claim about the existence of a magic sky wizard without providing the smallest hint of evidence for it. Burden of proof is on you

The absolute proof of God is the impossible to the contrary. You have no justification for logic, knowledge, truth, science, or morality without God. Notice when I ask you to give a foundation for these realities using your world view you cannot.

[theman93]

Okay and why should I especially consider your particular sky daddy over all others? You still haven't provided a reason. Nor has any member of any other religion. Every religious person on Earth is convinced that theirs is just oh so special.

I bring up other religions because when it comes down to it, yours is in no better of a position than anyone else's.

The evidence for Christianity absolutely dwarfs every other religion. Christianity is based on the public revelation of Christ so we can verify his claims, all other religions are based on private revelation so we cannot verify their claims. If what Jesus says is true, then that makes every other religion false.

But again, debating other religions is a waste of time when you don’t hold the position of them being true and neither do I. It’s like debating if the moon is made of cheese.

[Patrick Chewing]

Christianity>>>>>>>>>>>


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/9/93/Buddy_christ.jpg

[HighFlyer23]

For those interested, there may be another clue on the identity of yahweh.

We find in 1 chronicles 15:17 the name קוּשָׁיָהוּ koo-shaw-yaw'-hoo

This theophoric name may give us some more clues on to the origins of yahweh and his status among the various deities worshipped during the Near East and Western Asia.

It's possible that this name may mean "bow of Yahweh" or "rainbow of Yahweh" or it may mean "Qos is Yahweh"

Why is this significant?

Because "Qos" was a god that was worshipped from the same area as Yahweh. Qos was a weather god who was also a divine warrior as his name means "bow".

Qōs is described as a "King", is associated with light, and defined as "mighty". His works are described as ones where he "adorns, avenges, blesses, chooses(?) gives." According to Morton Smith

yahweh is described as using bows in battle

You brandished your naked bow,
sated were the arrows at your command. (Hab. 3:9)

Yahweh also thundered in the heavens,
and the Most High uttered his voice.
And he sent out his arrows, and scattered them;
he flashed forth lightnings, and routed them. (Ps. 18:13-14)

Qos was worshipped by the Edomites and there is no polemic against Qos and the Edomites from yahweh. Likely they are representations of the same deity with yahweh moving north to Canaan and encountering Baal haddad and being remembered as Qos in Edom.

There is also evidence that Qos may have been mentioned several hundred years before Yahweh .

Qos was known to be the god of the Edomites during the time that the earliest parts of the bible were composed. We see no polemic against Qos because he was the same deity as yahweh, whatever the connection may have been, the worship of Qos was the same as the worship of yahweh.

[RRR3]

Neither theman93 or fatrick remotely follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.

[HighFlyer23]

Also it's interesting to note that although yahweh is said to be the god of Genesis 2 responsible for the creation of Adam we have a verse in the Bible stating that it was during the time of enos that yahweh began to be worshipped


Genesis 4:26
New International Version
26 Seth also had a son, and he named him Enosh.

At that time people began to call on[a] the name of the Lord.

Enosh was a blacksmith. Yahweh seems to have affinities to blacksmiths throughout the bible. ezekiel 22:20 even describes him as a blacksmith.

He is found of smithing as we see in this verse in Isaiah

Isaiah 54:16
New English Translation
16 Look, I create the craftsman,
who fans the coals into a fire
and forges a weapon.[a]
I create the destroyer so he might devastate.

Further proof that he has his origins as a god of metallurgy. Likely his base form was that of a god of metallurgy who progressed into a warrior with storm god attributes.

He was not recognized as the creator god and "The God" until later as we see here ... He was invoked first during the time of Enosh, the blacksmith, as he was a god of metallurgy. He was not known as the original god from time immemorial. We can even conclude that he was not known until the time of Enosh meaning he didn't exist until that time.

[HighFlyer23]

Neither theman93 or fatrick remotely follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.

Nobody knows what his actual teachings were and it doesn't matter because he is relevant to us today

If he was what they claim he was then his original teachings would have survived today

At most we can say he was a reformist for his time period. A Jew who lived 2 millennia ago doesn't matter today. Today's world and problems would be unrecognizable to him. His myth and legend are what people worship and believe in.

[KNOW1EDGE]

As an agnostic you're asking for proof. Do you not see the self refutation of your own world view here?

No, I do not.

I’ve said it a million times- I would love to know that God is real. Honestly, who wouldn’t want god to be real? How great would it be to reunite with family and friends you’ve lost and be able to embrace them once again. I know I definitely want that.

I don’t know if he’s real or not. The sensible side of me says obviously not. The deeper, spiritual side of me says it could be true.

I haven’t seen any evidence proving gods existence, so I continue saying idk. I welcome any evidence of God with open arms. I would love to know god is real. I’ve prayed and studied the Bible endlessly. I don’t know what happens after we die, no one does. I hope we all go to heaven.

[theman93]

No, I do not.

I’ve said it a million times- I would love to know that God is real. Honestly, who wouldn’t want god to be real? How great would it be to reunite with family and friends you’ve lost and be able to embrace them once again. I know I definitely want that.

I don’t know if he’s real or not. The sensible side of me says obviously not. The deeper, spiritual side of me says it could be true.

I haven’t seen any evidence proving gods existence, so I continue saying idk. I welcome any evidence of God with open arms. I would love to know god is real. I’ve prayed and studied the Bible endlessly. I don’t know what happens after we die, no one does. I hope we all go to heaven.

The self refutation of your agnostic world view is that you're asking for proof, but proof presupposes truth and logic. Given your agnostic world view you can't give a foundation for these realities. Is truth absolute and how do you know if it is or isn't, and how do you account for the laws of logic according to your agnosticism?

We don't have to stop there though. You said you would love to reunite with your family and friends that you lost and embrace them again as if something went wrong there. As an agnostic, by what standard do you call anything wrong? It might not feel good to you, but your world view doesn't allow you to objectively say anything is wrong. But that's not how you'll live because you can't escape God.

[RRR3]

The self refutation of your agnostic world view is that you're asking for proof, but proof presupposes truth and logic. Given your agnostic world view you can't give a foundation for these realities. Is truth absolute and how do you know if it is or isn't, and how do you account for the laws of logic according to your agnosticism?

We don't have to stop there though. You said you would love to reunite with your family and friends that you lost and embrace them again as if something went wrong there. As an agnostic, by what standard do you call anything wrong? It might not feel good to you, but your world view doesn't allow you to objectively say anything is wrong. But that's not how you'll live because you can't escape God.
^The delusional ramblings of a madman.

[HighFlyer23]

Psalm 89 is not a comparison. It's a question. "For who in the skies is comparable to the Lord?" - Psalm 89:6. And the answer is no one. He (Yahweh as referenced multiple times in the chapter) is the creator and all of it belongs to Him. "The heavens are yours; the earth also is yours; the world and all that is in it, you have founded them." - Psalm 89:11

It's better for you to not reply at all. The question in of itsself is a question of comparison.

It even states the word comparison

Psa 89:6 - For who in the heaven can be compared unto the LORD? who among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto the LORD?

Who among the sons of El can be likened to Yahweh?

Why is he being compared to the sons of El?

You need to honestly stop replying and save yourself the embarrassment. It literally says COMPARE and you are saying it doesn't. Only in the retarded christian mind can a word means what it doesn't mean.



You have literally quoted a translation that says comparison and you are denying that it is a comparison



Your pagan cult is hopeless and indefensible

Your scripture says that your yahweh came from Sinai while El was already established in Canaan

Josiah is responsible for much of the shaping of your present cult. Prior to him sole worship and deification of Yahweh as the only god was not part of the religion of the Israelites or Judeans. The final form of Judaic monotheism didn't occur until the Persian period after the Iranians taught the Jews actual monotheism since they were practicing it before the Jews .



Yahweh became El via politics and other influences

[HighFlyer23]

^The delusional ramblings of a madman.

This dumb **** literally said that a verse in his false scripture that says the word comparable isn't about a comparison

[Patrick Chewing]

No, I do not.

I’ve said it a million times- I would love to know that God is real. Honestly, who wouldn’t want god to be real? How great would it be to reunite with family and friends you’ve lost and be able to embrace them once again. I know I definitely want that.

I don’t know if he’s real or not. The sensible side of me says obviously not. The deeper, spiritual side of me says it could be true.

I haven’t seen any evidence proving gods existence, so I continue saying idk. I welcome any evidence of God with open arms. I would love to know god is real. I’ve prayed and studied the Bible endlessly. I don’t know what happens after we die, no one does. I hope we all go to heaven.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QdUGoFTfP7w


I too was a skeptic. I used to be Atheist myself. Hell, I hated God. But then I started researching religion and faith. I started looking at the historical aspect of religion and faith first. I started to feel a slight connection to God at the time. I used simple logic also in my research. I first asked myself, why would this belief of God and more importantly a belief of God's son, our savior, Jesus Christ spread so rapidly like wildfire? Why? Even if you look at historical data well before Jesus Christ, the belief in a higher power has always been evident. But how can this be if you are truly dealing with primitive societies and a primitive way of thinking? How can societies create God from thin air? And how has there been proof of a higher power recorded all across the globe and roughly around the same time that predates any type of exploration of new continents or intermingling of new cultures? How can Hunter-Gatherer cultures that eventually migrated to North America worship similar deities to what cultures were worshipping in early Mesopotamia and beyond?? It doesn't make sense. So you have to look at that conundrum first, of understanding the primitive nature of man at the time, but then also wonder how they can so easily create a "myth" of epic proportions if you are indeed a skeptic. And it would have to be a conspiracy of epic proportions as well for cultures all across the globe to create the same story of a deity or deities as well. So these primitive cultures would have had to have had a severe advancement in storytelling, and there is no evidence to show that they were that creative at the time.

To make a long story short, if you truly do want to believe in something, God, or whatever you want to call it, I first think you need to look at it from a historical perspective before you delve into the supernatural realm of miracles or in the writings and teachings of more modern religions. I was raised Catholic. I then became a teenager and a young adult and thought long and hard about my "free-will" and questioned the very nature of what is right and wrong and who would be there to judge me. But as is the case with most atheists who turn away from God and then eventually return, I was always depressed and found that my anger and hatred I had at time was completely unhealthy. I took a different approach and began to buy books on Christian history, and that then turned me onto books on ancient civilizations. And the one constant I found with all these ancient civilizations was the belief in a higher power. And it's at that very point that I put my ego aside and came to the realization that I don't know it all, and I certainly don't know more than people that lived thousands of years ago just because I am a modern man of today.

And for the record, I am a Christian who does not care what you do with the information I just provided. I am a Christian who is not here to push my religion onto you or to judge you. Most people that devout are full of shit. Your relationship with God is what defines you.

[theman93]

It's better for you to not reply at all. The question in of itsself is a question of comparison.

It even mentions the word comparison

Psa 89:6 - For who in the heaven can be compared unto the LORD? who among the sons of the mighty can be likened unto the LORD?

Who among the sons of El can be likened to Yahweh?

Why is he being compared to the sons of El if they are not gods?

You need to honestly stop replying and save yourself the embarrassment. It literally says COMPARE and you are saying it doesn't.

You have literally quoted a translation that says comparison and you are denying that it is a comparison



Your pagan cult is hopeless and indefensible

First of all, just because something is compared to something else, it doesn't make it that thing or even similar to that thing. We can compare a rock to a monkey, but that doesn't make a rock a monkey or a monkey a rock.

Secondly, yes it's a question of comparison, but it does not compare. A comparison observes similarities or dissimilarities between two subjects to which Psalm 89 never does because there are no observations to be made about anything but Yahweh. It asks questions: Who can be compared to the Lord (verse 5), who is like the Lord (verses 6 and 7), and who is as mighty as the Lord (verse 8).

[HighFlyer23]

Psalm 97:9 כִּֽי־אַתָּה יְהוָה עֶלְיוֹן עַל־כָּל־הָאָרֶץ מְאֹד נַעֲלֵיתָ עַל־כָּל־אֱלֹהִֽים׃

For thou, Yahweh, art high above all the earth: thou art exalted far above all Elohim/gods.


Psalm 95:3 כִּי אֵל גָּדוֹל יְהוָה וּמֶלֶךְ גָּדוֹל עַל־כָּל־אֱלֹהִֽים׃

For the Yahweh is a great El/God, and a great King above all Elohim/gods.

Psalm 135:5 כִּי אֲנִי יָדַעְתִּי כִּי־גָדוֹל יְהוָה וַאֲדֹנֵינוּ מִכָּל־אֱלֹ

For I know that Yahweh is great, and that our lord (word is Adonai for lord referring to yahweh) is above all Elohim/gods.

There is more evidence proclaiming yahweh above the other gods WHO EXISTED still but this should suffice

We can conclude that other gods existed and were real and the yahwehist wanted their yahweh to be above the rest. Eventually this progressed to denying the existence of other gods altogether during or after the Persian period . Yahweh was never the sole god of humanity, he was developed into that after centuries of religious progression

[RRR3]

This dumb **** literally said that a verse in his false scripture that says the word comparable isn't about a comparison
He thinks the Bible is factual. Incredible stuff.

[RRR3]

You morons would have a much better argument if you claimed some vague higher power or powers exist(ed). Because all cultures have had a belief in a higher power. That STILL isn’t proof one exists but it would make way more sense than claiming for certain your particular god exists and no others do

[Patrick Chewing]

RRR3 believes his ancestors were monkeys.


But then again....


https://i.ibb.co/52Y1LN1/77-B16-AB3-50-E6-4634-9430-4-D9561808-C0-A.jpg

[HighFlyer23]

First of all, just because something is compared to something else, it doesn't make it that thing or even similar to that thing. We can compare a rock to a monkey, but that doesn't make a rock a monkey or a monkey a rock.

Secondly, yes it's a question of comparison, but it does not compare. A comparison observes similarities or dissimilarities between two subjects to which Psalm 89 never does because there are no observations to be made about anything but Yahweh. It asks questions: Who can be compared to the Lord (verse 5), who is like the Lord (verses 6 and 7), and who is as mighty as the Lord (verse 8).
You stupid ********** mother ****er it says who among the gods can be compared to yahweh

Only a follower of yahweh can be this ****ing stupid

[HighFlyer23]

He thinks the Bible is factual. Incredible stuff.

I’m posting scholarly evidence and this ********** and he is just tripping over himself

The first 10 verses of the Bible are untruth and contradict reality

[RRR3]

RRR3 believes his ancestors were monkeys.


But then again....


https://i.ibb.co/52Y1LN1/77-B16-AB3-50-E6-4634-9430-4-D9561808-C0-A.jpg
Dude you can’t talk shit about how anyone looks

https://i.ibb.co/frWbBs9/02-A169-E1-888-B-4-FE8-AB69-49091-A3-ABCE3.png


You look like a ****ing obese gnome

[Patrick Chewing]

LOL ask Louie to find more pics of whoever that guy is. Post more pics of him. I don't care cause it ain't me. But we sure do know what you look like.....:roll:

[RRR3]

LOL ask Louie to find more pics of whoever that guy is. Post more pics of him. I don't care cause it ain't me. But we sure do know what you look like.....:roll:
You’re a proven liar. That’s 100% you. You didn’t even deny it at first just made vague posts. Just own up to it ugly :oldlol:

[HighFlyer23]

You morons would have a much better argument if you claimed some vague higher power or powers exist(ed). Because all cultures have had a belief in a higher power. That STILL isn’t proof one exists but it would make way more sense than claiming for certain your particular god exists and no others do

They seem to think that yahweh is THE GOD

They are better off worshipping Marduk than yahweh who loses to Chemosh and is defeated by iron chariots in his own scripture

Hell even Christian’s are distancing themselves from yahweh and claiming that The Father is actually El or some other divine being and not yahweh

Out of all gods, yahweh is least worthy of being called a god

[Patrick Chewing]

You’re a proven liar. That’s 100% you. You didn’t even deny it at first just made vague posts. Just own up to it ugly :oldlol:

Why would I have to deny it? I could care less if you think that's me. You'll look like the idiot for thinking you got one over on me, but you never will. NEVER. :oldlol:

[RRR3]

The Judeochristian god is boring as shit. Now the Greek, Norse and Egyptian gods and goddesses…those cats were interesting! So many great stories

[RRR3]

Why would I have to deny it? I could care less if you think that's me. You'll look like the idiot for thinking you got one over on me, but you never will. NEVER. :oldlol:
Because you don’t want us to know you’re a fat ugly old white man. If you looked decent you’d prove it. Unfortunately for you LeBron23 found you.

[Patrick Chewing]

Because you don’t want us to know you’re a fat ugly old white man. If you looked decent you’d prove it. Unfortunately for you LeBron23 found you.

Do you realize how homosexual this is of you?? If I looked decent or not, the last thing I want to do is post my picture on a board full of dudes. It's clear that you're at least bisexual, and it's clear that I am an Alpha Heterosexual male, so I hate to disappoint you, but you'll have to keep wondering what I look like for a while longer. Freak.

[RRR3]

I know what you look like, stop denying it. And I assure you I’m not interested, grampa.

[theman93]

Psalm 97:9 כִּֽי־אַתָּה יְהוָה עֶלְיוֹן עַל־כָּל־הָאָרֶץ מְאֹד נַעֲלֵיתָ עַל־כָּל־אֱלֹהִֽים׃

For thou, Yahweh, art high above all the earth: thou art exalted far above all Elohim/gods.


Psalm 95:3 כִּי אֵל גָּדוֹל יְהוָה וּמֶלֶךְ גָּדוֹל עַל־כָּל־אֱלֹהִֽים׃

For the Yahweh is a great El/God, and a great King above all Elohim/gods.

Psalm 135:5 כִּי אֲנִי יָדַעְתִּי כִּי־גָדוֹל יְהוָה וַאֲדֹנֵינוּ מִכָּל־אֱלֹ

For I know that Yahweh is great, and that our lord (word is Adonai for lord referring to yahweh) is above all Elohim/gods.

:applause::applause::applause:


There is more evidence proclaiming yahweh above the other gods WHO EXISTED still but this should suffice

We can conclude that other gods existed and were real and the yahwehist wanted their yahweh to be above the rest. Eventually this progressed to denying the existence of other gods altogether during or after the Persian period . Yahweh was never the sole god of humanity, he was developed into that after centuries of religious progression
Yes, other "gods" existed back then in the same way that money, power, and possessions are worshipped and exalted as gods. That doesn't actually make them the one and only true God. They are false, they are idols. Like the golden calf of Exodus 32.

[HighFlyer23]

:applause::applause::applause:


Yes, other "gods" existed back then in the same way that money, power, and possessions are worshipped and exalted as gods. That doesn't actually make them the one and only true God. They are false, they are idols. Like the golden calf of Exodus 32.

Too bad it is the same word used in Genesis 1 to describe God to create the world. Where was your Yahweh then, ******? Why is his creation story second to Elohim :lol

It never mentions power, money, possessions you dick eating retard. Just keep pumping in a false interpretation. It accepts that they are gods and he is above the other gods you pagan bastard .

Other gods exist and they are gods and this was the religion of yahweh.

Later on their existence was denied after Josiah started reforms.

[KNOW1EDGE]

I know right from wrong because I was taught it. I learned it. We all have our own view of right vs wrong. When you get right down to it, we don’t really KNOW all that much. We theorize and label things as we see fit.

I don’t have an agnostic world view- I have an agnostic view of God. Being agnostic per the definition means “one who believes it is impossible to know whether there is a God” -it has nothing to do with morals or someone’s world view.

And it is impossible to know whether there is a god or not. Nobody KNOWS. They have faith. They BELIEVE god to be real. Zero evidence of his existence.

[SATAN]

:applause::applause::applause:


Yes, other "gods" existed back then in the same way that money, power, and possessions are worshipped and exalted as gods.

:facepalm

[theman93]

Too bad it is the same word used in Genesis 1 to describe God to create the world. Where was your Yahweh then, ******? Why is his creation story second to Elohim :lol
Yes the same word Elohim is used, but it can be used to mean gods or the only true God depending on the context. For example in Exodus 20:1-3, "Elohim" is used in verse 1 which translates to God, and then it is used again in verse 3 which translates to gods. We see in those verses that Elohim states that He is Yahweh. Exodus 20:1-3 - "And God (Elohim) spoke all these words, saying, 'I am the LORD (Yahweh) your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery.' You shall have no other gods before me."

But how do we know the author (Moses) isn't meaning other gods exist when it's stated in verse 3, "You shall have no other gods before me."? Because Moses is also the author of Deuteronomy and it's stated in Deuteronomy 4:35 - "To you it was shown, that you might know that the LORD is God; there is no other besides him." and then again in Deuteronomy 4: 39 - "Know therefore today, and lay it to your heart, that the LORD is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other."



And where was Yahweh in the creation account? He was right there, and it's the same story. Take the book in it's full context instead of proof reading and pulling verses without it's surrounding context.

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." Elohim is Yahweh because: "These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens." - Genesis 2:4



It never mentions power, money, possessions you dick eating retard. Just keep pumping in a false interpretation. It accepts that they are gods and he is above the other gods you pagan bastard .

Other gods exist and they are gods and this was the religion of yahweh.

Later on their existence was denied after Josiah started reforms.
Yes, gods which are false. Not the only true God, Yahweh. This is a consistent message throughout scripture.

To you it was shown, that you might know that the LORD is God; there is no other besides him. - Deuteronomy 4:35

Know therefore today, and lay it to your heart, that the LORD is God in heaven above and on the earth beneath; there is no other. - Deuteronomy 4:39

That all the peoples of the earth may know that the LORD is God; there is no other. - 1 Kings 8:60

[theman93]

I know right from wrong because I was taught it. I learned it. We all have our own view of right vs wrong. When you get right down to it, we don’t really KNOW all that much. We theorize and label things as we see fit.

And here is the heart of it. You actually don't know right from wrong because you have no way to justify it with your rejection of God. The murderer, rapist, child molester, kidnapper, theif, etc. all view their actions as right and you have no argument against them.

If you're being intellectually honest, then you would admit that an all-knowing, all-powerful God can reveal things to us such that we can know them for certain. So knowledge makes sense in my world view because I can appeal to God for knowledge. But I would argue knowledge does not make sense in yours (which is why this has everything to do with your agnosticism):
Instead of appealing to an all-knowing, all-powerful God for knowledge, you're appealing to your senses and reasoning for knowledge. But what's the problem there? If you appeal to your senses, how do you know that your senses are valid? If you appeal to your reasoning, how do you know that your reasoning is valid? You must sense and reason that your senses and reasoning are valid. It's a circular position. When you make knowledge claims (which you have repeatedly) you're proving God exists.

[RRR3]

And here is the heart of it. You actually don't know right from wrong because you have no way to justify it with your rejection of God. The murderer, rapist, child molester, kidnapper, theif, etc. all view their actions as right and you have no argument against them.

If you're being intellectually honest, then you would admit that an all-knowing, all-powerful God can reveal things to us so such that we can know them for certain. So knowledge makes sense in my world view because I can appeal to God for knowledge. But I would argue knowledge does not make sense in yours (which is why this has everything to do with your agnosticism):
Instead of appealing to an all-knowing, all-powerful God for knowledge, you're appealing to your senses and reasoning for knowledge. But what's the problem there? If you appeal to your senses, how do you know that your senses are valid? If you appeal to your reasoning, how do you know that your reasoning is valid? You must sense and reason that your senses and reasoning are valid. It's a circular position. When you make knowledge claims (which you have repeatedly) you're proving God exists.
You don't know right from wrong because of some dumbass book that contradicts itself a million times :oldlol:

[theman93]

You don't know right from wrong because of some dumbass book that contradicts itself a million times :oldlol:

I absolutely do. How do you know I don't?

[RRR3]

I absolutely do. How do you know I don't?
Because you're a bigot and like Trump. Now cue the meltdown.

[theman93]

Because you're a bigot and like Trump. Now cue the meltdown.

Quit borrowing from my world view to make sense of your own.

[RRR3]

Quit borrowing from my world view to make sense of your own.
Your worldview is dogshit no one is interested it besides Christian fascists.

[Patrick Chewing]

Quit borrowing from my world view to make sense of your own.

RRR3's world view is of suffering and burning and Socialism. Oh, and going down on trannies.

[RRR3]

RRR3's world view is of suffering and burning and Socialism. Oh, and going down on trannies.
Sounds like a pretty damn good time.

[Red Pill Sports]

The absolute proof of God is the impossible to the contrary. You have no justification for logic, knowledge, truth, science, or morality without God. Notice when I ask you to give a foundation for these realities using your world view you cannot.

There is no absolute proof of God. If there were someone would have provided it by now and this wouldn't even be a debate.

No, "the Bible says so" and god of the gaps fallacies aren't evidence.

[RRR3]

There is no absolute proof of God. If there were someone would have provided it by now and this wouldn't even be a debate.

No, "the Bible says so" and god of the gaps fallacies aren't evidence.
Had this argument with him for pages. Like talking to a brick wall. He literally thinks the Bible is irrefutable proof

[Red Pill Sports]

The evidence for Christianity absolutely dwarfs every other religion. Christianity is based on the public revelation of Christ so we can verify his claims, all other religions are based on private revelation so we cannot verify their claims. If what Jesus says is true, then that makes every other religion false.

But again, debating other religions is a waste of time when you don’t hold the position of them being true and neither do I. It’s like debating if the moon is made of cheese.

Stories written anonymously decades after alleged events that are entirely dependent on memory and eyewitness testimony are not claims that can be verified. When it comes down to it your religious claims are every bit as unverifiable as those of others. Hell, the golden tablets story has more evidence than the resurrection but I'm willing to bet you don't accept that story as truth.

[Patrick Chewing]

Sounds like a pretty damn good time.

https://media2.giphy.com/media/gdKAVlnm3bmKI/giphy.gif

[Overdrive]

I absolutely do. How do you know I don't?

Most people know right from wrong due to empathy. The golden rule is way older than christianity and is basically the description of how you should use your empathy to lead a good life.

If you lack it no scripture will help. There are enough devout murderers.

[SATAN]

And here is the heart of it. You actually don't know right from wrong because you have no way to justify it with your rejection of God. The murderer, rapist, child molester, kidnapper, theif, etc. all view their actions as right and you have no argument against them.



What a ****ing stupid thing to say. How do you know they view their actions as right? What if they are Christian murderers, rapists, child molesters, kidnappers, theifs ect? I can't believe this ignorant idiot. :oldlol:

These guys are the reason people sometimes shun religion. It's completely ludicrous what it can do to people's minds. The funniest part is he's probably reading the same book again right this moment just so he can one up that guy he was arguing with, further brainwashing himself. :oldlol:

[RRR3]

Most people know right from wrong due to empathy. The golden rule is way older than christianity and is basically the description of how you should use your empathy to lead a good life.

If you lack it no scripture will help. There are enough devout murderers.
He doesn’t have empathy he spent pages arguing with me and kblaze about why slavery wasn’t bad.

[Overdrive]

He doesn’t have empathy he spent pages arguing with me and kblaze about why slavery wasn’t bad.

Of course it can't be bad. Slave owners were devout christians. If it was bad they wouldn't have done it.

[RRR3]

Of course it can't be bad. Slave owners were devout christians. If it was bad they wouldn't have done it.
:lol

[Nanners]

Most people know right from wrong due to empathy. The golden rule is way older than christianity and is basically the description of how you should use your empathy to lead a good life.

If you lack it no scripture will help. There are enough devout murderers.

Amen, the golden rule is at the foundation of virtually every society in known history.

Also, its not like everyone was murdering their neighbors before christianity was founded... modern western society is based on ideas that the greeks/romans came up with back when they were worshipping the old gods (Zeus/Apollo/Hermes/Poseidon/Aphrodite/etc). If anything, Christians have historically been far more violent, cruel, and sociopathic than their pagan predecessors.

[Nanners]

Of course it can't be bad. Slave owners were devout christians. If it was bad they wouldn't have done it.

Wrong. The majority of slaves in the US were owned by jews

[theman93]

There is no absolute proof of God. If there were someone would have provided it by now and this wouldn't even be a debate.

No, "the Bible says so" and god of the gaps fallacies aren't evidence.

1) You still have yet to give an account for logic, knowledge, truth, science, or morality given your world view. You're using your senses and reasoning to validate what's true and real using your senses and reasoning. Your world view is circular on it's face which reduces you to absurdity.

2) It absolutely is because it's a standard to appeal to that's outside of myself.

[Chick Stern]

1) You still have yet to give an account for logic, knowledge, truth, science, or morality given your world view. You're using your senses and reasoning to validate what's true and real using your senses and reasoning. Your world view is circular on it's face which reduces you to absurdity.

2) It absolutely is because it's a standard to appeal to that's outside of myself.
I think you need to give an an account for logic, knowledge, truth, science, & morality that occurred prior to the rise of christianity

[theman93]

Stories written anonymously decades after alleged events that are entirely dependent on memory and eyewitness testimony are not claims that can be verified. When it comes down to it your religious claims are every bit as unverifiable as those of others. Hell, the golden tablets story has more evidence than the resurrection but I'm willing to bet you don't accept that story as truth.

1) They are not anonymous. The early church was unanimous in their testimony as to the individual authorship of each gospel. Scrolls with written text on both sides had sittybos that insured the preservation of the author's name (similar to the function of the spine on our modern books in which an individual does not have to open the book to find out who wrote it - sittybos were attached in such a way that a person could see who authored the scroll without unrolling it). Of the thousands of manuscripts uncovered (more than any other ancient work of literature by the way) in it's original Greek language there are no variations in the titles of the gospels. Not even secular sceptics at the top of this debate make this argument.

2) Many ancient texts are dependent on eyewitness testimony and memory. You would have to dismiss texts like Histories of Herodotus if this were an actual argument, but no scholars do. Not to mention the New Testament manuscripts would stack to more than one-mile high in comparison to the average classical writer's manuscripts which would stack only 4 feet high. So it's validity is 1,320 fold.

3) Again, the difference is private vs public revelation. The revelation of Christianity is public - Jesus, who is God, revealed himself to mankind and is testified through the testimonies of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and James, and we can compare what they say to see if what they say about him contradict. Every other claim from other religions are private revelations (for example the golden tablets story of Joseph Smith you brought up) in which the individual makes a claim about a god nobody can verify. But if an individual makes a claim and brings an eyewitness to the stand who tells the same story, then we have reason to believe what they claim is true. If an individual makes a claim and a second eyewitness is brought to the stand and they also tell the same story then we have even greater reason to believe what they claim is true. So on and so forth 6 fold in the Christian faith.

Now, you could make an argument as to why their eyewitness claims would be false through bias, but you would have to prove they had something to gain in the Roman empire in which Christians who claimed Christ as superior to Caesar were persecuted through beatings, torture, imprisonment, and/or execution.

[theman93]

Most people know right from wrong due to empathy. The golden rule is way older than christianity and is basically the description of how you should use your empathy to lead a good life.

If you lack it no scripture will help. There are enough devout murderers.

Taking my world view out of it and inserting yours, by what standard is empathy a moral ought? Why does the murderer, rapist, child molester, kidnapper or thief care about that? So what? Aren't we all just highly evolved species of bacteria bumping around in the cosmos?

In my world view the golden rule makes sense, because God declares moral oughts.

[theman93]

What a ****ing stupid thing to say. How do you know they view their actions as right? What if they are Christian murderers, rapists, child molesters, kidnappers, theifs ect? I can't believe this ignorant idiot. :oldlol:

These guys are the reason people sometimes shun religion. It's completely ludicrous what it can do to people's minds. The funniest part is he's probably reading the same book again right this moment just so he can one up that guy he was arguing with, further brainwashing himself. :oldlol:
We know they view their actions as right because in many cases they continue to do it if they are not caught and imprisoned to prevent them from doing the same action. If someone calls themselves a Christian and performs murders, molestations, kidnappings and thievery then they are no more a Christian than you are a professional basketball player. You can label yourself whatever you want, but that doesn't necessarily make it so.

[theman93]

I think you need to give an an account for logic, knowledge, truth, science, & morality that occurred prior to the rise of christianity

The rise of Christianity is irrelevant because God is still God before the beginning of time. Logic, knowledge, truth, science, and morality can only be justified with God as the presupposition. If you do not start with God, you cannot reason because you rely on your own reason to reason. It is circular which reduces you to absurdity.

But I'll pose the same challenge to you anyways. Take my world view out of it and insert yours: In order to know something you must appeal to your senses and reasoning. If you appeal to your senses, how do you know that your senses are valid? If you appeal to your reasoning, how do you know that your reasoning is valid?

[KNOW1EDGE]

Theman93 I appreciate you taking the time to try and convince me of Gods existence.

Unfortunately you have failed to provide any type of proof, so I remain undecided.
You have made the same arguments and claims I’ve heard for 33 years, none of which are remotely convincing. You use rhetoric and euphemisms that go around in circles and expect that to be acceptable proof of gods existence. It is not.

I continue welcoming any sort of proof, because like I said, it would be great if God was real and I could reunite with friends and loved ones who’ve passed on. I didn’t get the chance to say goodbye to some of them, and tell them how much they meant to me.

[ShawkFactory]

Taking my world view out of it and inserting yours, by what standard is empathy a moral ought? Why does the murderer, rapist, child molester, kidnapper or thief care about that? So what? Aren't we all just highly evolved species of bacteria bumping around in the cosmos?

In my world view the golden rule makes sense, because God declares moral oughts.

You could argue that empathy and cooperation are a large reason for our evolutionary advantage among other species. Of course combined with our neurological capabilities of attaining these.

Both of those attributes have existed since the infant stages of humanity. And like anything else, our standards for both have evolved over time.

[theman93]

Theman93 I appreciate you taking the time to try and convince me of Gods existence.

Unfortunately you have failed to provide any type of proof, so I remain undecided.
You have made the same arguments and claims I’ve heard for 33 years, none of which are remotely convincing. You use rhetoric and euphemisms that go around in circles and expect that to be acceptable proof of gods existence. It is not.
I'm not trying to convince you at all. I'm showing you how you can't make sense of the realities around you - logic, knowledge, truth, science, and morality - according to your world view. You've given no justification for any of them. How do you know what you know?


I continue welcoming any sort of proof, because like I said, it would be great if God was real and I could reunite with friends and loved ones who’ve passed on. I didn’t get the chance to say goodbye to some of them, and tell them how much they meant to me.
Why does this matter? Who cares? What happens just happens, ultimately it doesn't really matter. So what?

[Gohan]

Lmao at yall muphuckas always talkin bout how each other looks all yall nikkas busted and yall hoes look like craigslist prostitution

[Gohan]

Thats to rrr3 and patricks childish a*s

[theman93]

You could argue that empathy and cooperation are a large reason for our evolutionary advantage among other species. Of course combined with our neurological capabilities of attaining these.

Both of those attributes have existed since the infant stages of humanity. And like anything else, our standards for both have evolved over time.

Well we're discussing moral oughts. Empathy and cooperation are not moral absolutes in the atheistic or agnostic world view.

If your world view is true, then all that's happening is biochemical reactions fizzing in the brains (brain gas) of highly evolved protoplasm. That's not morals, that's just brain gas. The murderer, rapist, child molester, kidnapper and thief are fizzing their brain gas and you are fizzing yours. By what basis do you call your brain gas right and their brain gas wrong?

[SATAN]

**** off

[Chick Stern]

The rise of Christianity is irrelevant because God is still God before the beginning of time. Logic, knowledge, truth, science, and morality can only be justified with God as the presupposition. If you do not start with God, you cannot reason because you rely on your own reason to reason. It is circular which reduces you to absurdity.

But I'll pose the same challenge to you anyways. Take my world view out of it and insert yours: In order to know something you must appeal to your senses and reasoning. If you appeal to your senses, how do you know that your senses are valid? If you appeal to your reasoning, how do you know that your reasoning is valid?
Your world view is circular on it's face which reduces you to absurdity.

Ex. - your presupposition that god exists and created everything. That means your god created childhood leukemia, spinal bifida, and Epidermolysis Bullosa (to name a few). A child dies from malaria every 60 seconds. Your god-given reason leads us to the truth that your god wants young children to suffer terribly. constantly. Until they die a tortured death.

[theman93]

Your world view is circular on it's face which reduces you to absurdity.

No, because I appeal to God for knowledge, not my senses and reasoning like you.

Notice how you didn't answer the challenge presented to you. Is it because you have no answer? You're not able to defend your world view being true, which is par for the course so far through this thread.

[Red Pill Sports]

No, because I appeal to God for knowledge, not my senses and reasoning like you.

Notice how you didn't answer the challenge presented to you. Is it because you have no answer? You're not able to defend your world view being true, which is par for the course so far through this thread.

Problem is you can't prove God exists, which means you are basing your entire worldview on something you cannot prove exists.

You keep failing to understand this

[Overdrive]

Your world view is circular on it's face which reduces you to absurdity.

Ex. - your presupposition that god exists and created everything. That means your god created childhood leukemia, spinal bifida, and Epidermolysis Bullosa (to name a few). A child dies from malaria every 60 seconds. Your god-given reason leads us to the truth that your god wants young children to suffer terribly. constantly. Until they die a tortured death.

See my theodicy link first page. Century old dilemma which also led to the introduction of Satan.


Taking my world view out of it and inserting yours, by what standard is empathy a moral ought? Why does the murderer, rapist, child molester, kidnapper or thief care about that? So what? Aren't we all just highly evolved species of bacteria bumping around in the cosmos?

In my world view the golden rule makes sense, because God declares moral oughts.

The examples obviously lack empathy. God doesn't declare he does or does not. Inserting into your worldview god is infalible. But he failed these people therefore he's not infalible.

Your post is a mess for one simple reason. You say you put yourself in others worldview. You adressed several posters this way, but you can't. You can't grasp the concept that the world isn't made by some deity, because everything, even empathy boils down to you to be godgiven. Not a chance that a man on his own could form the idea how he'd feel if he got mugged and hence won't do it to others.


Wrong. The majority of slaves in the US were owned by jews

Just the same sans Jesus.

[Red Pill Sports]

1) They are not anonymous. The early church was unanimous in their testimony as to the individual authorship of each gospel. Scrolls with written text on both sides had sittybos that insured the preservation of the author's name (similar to the function of the spine on our modern books in which an individual does not have to open the book to find out who wrote it - sittybos were attached in such a way that a person could see who authored the scroll without unrolling it). Of the thousands of manuscripts uncovered (more than any other ancient work of literature by the way) in it's original Greek language there are no variations in the titles of the gospels. Not even secular sceptics at the top of this debate make this argument.

2) Many ancient texts are dependent on eyewitness testimony and memory. You would have to dismiss texts like Histories of Herodotus if this were an actual argument, but no scholars do. Not to mention the New Testament manuscripts would stack to more than one-mile high in comparison to the average classical writer's manuscripts which would stack only 4 feet high. So it's validity is 1,320 fold.

3) Again, the difference is private vs public revelation. The revelation of Christianity is public - Jesus, who is God, revealed himself to mankind and is testified through the testimonies of Matthew, Mark, Luke, John, Paul, and James, and we can compare what they say to see if what they say about him contradict. Every other claim from other religions are private revelations (for example the golden tablets story of Joseph Smith you brought up) in which the individual makes a claim about a god nobody can verify. But if an individual makes a claim and brings an eyewitness to the stand who tells the same story, then we have reason to believe what they claim is true. If an individual makes a claim and a second eyewitness is brought to the stand and they also tell the same story then we have even greater reason to believe what they claim is true. So on and so forth 6 fold in the Christian faith.

Now, you could make an argument as to why their eyewitness claims would be false through bias, but you would have to prove they had something to gain in the Roman empire in which Christians who claimed Christ as superior to Caesar were persecuted through beatings, torture, imprisonment, and/or execution.

1. Yes they were written anonymously and later attributed to authors who most likely didn't write them.

2. The difference between the Bible and other ancient texts is that the Bible is making extraordinary claims that require extraordinary evidence and expecting me to believe without question.

3. Joseph Smith and his associates also backed up each others claims despite living under threat of persecution and losing everything. But unlike Bible writers, they actually put their names to their claims.

It doesn't take much to brainwash a group of people into believing falsehoods and sticking to it even under persecution. Because when you threaten people with a fate worse than death -such as burning in hell- it's difficult to break that kind of mental conditioning in the rank and file even if they have nothing to gain. The church leaders most certainly have something to gain; an army of braindead, unthinking lemmings who obey their every command without question.

[theman93]

Problem is you can't prove God exists, which means you are basing your entire worldview on something you cannot prove exists.

You keep failing to understand this

1) Can you be wrong about everything you claim to know?

2) The absolute proof of God is the impossible to the contrary. You can't know anything for certain without God. Your appeal to knowledge are your senses and reasoning which you cannot know is valid unless you use your senses and reasoning - which is circular logic. So without God you are reduced to absurdity.

[Red Pill Sports]

1) Can you be wrong about everything you claim to know?

2) The absolute proof of God is the impossible to the contrary. You can't know anything for certain without God. Your appeal to knowledge are your senses and reasoning which you cannot know is valid unless you use your senses and reasoning - which is circular logic. So without God you are reduced to absurdity.

Now you're just repeating yourself and I'm wasting my time with you

Good-bye.

[theman93]

The examples obviously lack empathy. God doesn't declare he does or does not. Inserting into your worldview god is infalible. But he failed these people therefore he's not infalible.

Your post is a mess for one simple reason. You say you put yourself in others worldview. You adressed several posters this way, but you can't. You can't grasp the concept that the world isn't made by some deity, because everything, even empathy boils down to you to be godgiven. Not a chance that a man on his own could form the idea how he'd feel if he got mugged and hence won't do it to others.

This doesn't answer the question. None of this explains why empathy is a moral ought. By what standard ought the murderer, rapist, child molester, kidnapper, and thief be empathetic? By what authority ought they follow the golden rule, and why not the golden rule of the child molesting masochist?

[theman93]

Now you're just repeating yourself and I'm wasting my time with you

Good-bye.

I'm repeating myself because you've dodged the question repeatedly. You have failed to give an account for how you justify the very basics of life - knowledge, logic, truth, science and morality. You have no justification for them and you haven't even tried because something tells me you can't. When I ask you to put your world view on center stage - you vanish. If my world view is false, lets put yours to the test.

You may not like my answer, that the absolute proof of God is the impossible to the contrary, but you have not given a rebuttal to it. When you say I can't prove God exists, when my proof that God exists is the impossible to the contrary and I point out why that is and you give no answer for it, you're proving what I'm saying is true.

[Overdrive]

This doesn't answer the question. None of this explains why empathy is a moral ought. By what standard ought the murderer, rapist, child molester, kidnapper, and thief be empathetic? By what authority ought they follow the golden rule, and why not the golden rule of the child molesting masochist?

You only accept one answer. I made this clear twice in this thread. You clearly neither know what empathy nor the golden rule is.

[ShawkFactory]

Well we're discussing moral oughts. Empathy and cooperation are not moral absolutes in the atheistic or agnostic world view.

If your world view is true, then all that's happening is biochemical reactions fizzing in the brains (brain gas) of highly evolved protoplasm. That's not morals, that's just brain gas. The murderer, rapist, child molester, kidnapper and thief are fizzing their brain gas and you are fizzing yours. By what basis do you call your brain gas right and their brain gas wrong?

Because, as a species, it's evolutionarily disadvantageous to partake in those behaviors.

As mentioned, empathy and cooperation play a part in our evolution, and thus play a part in our competitive advantage vs so many other species. So it makes sense that these ideals would be sewn into our beings, and those behaviors that directly contradict them would be viewed as "wrong".

[theman93]

Because, as a species, it's evolutionarily disadvantageous to partake in those behaviors.

As mentioned, empathy and cooperation play a part in our evolution, and thus play a part in our competitive advantage vs so many other species. So it makes sense that these ideals would be sewn into our beings, and those behaviors that directly contradict them would be viewed as "wrong".
So the standard of morality has now shifted to what’s disadvantageous. But I would have an advantage if I stole all your stuff to make myself richer, kill you so you don’t retaliate, and rape your wife and impregnate her to continue my bloodline. Why ought I care about empathy now that I’ve given myself an advantage?

Murdering, raping, and stealing would actually make our species stronger through natural selection by weeding out the weak. It would give us an even greater competitive advantage vs other species.

[theman93]

You only accept one answer. I made this clear twice in this thread. You clearly neither know what empathy nor the golden rule is.

No I’m asking you for justification given your world view, which you haven’t given. You said we ought to be empathetic. Other people might say we ought not be empathetic. By what standard are you objectively right and they objectively wrong?

[ShawkFactory]

So the standard of morality has now shifted to what’s disadvantageous. But I would have an advantage if I stole all your stuff to make myself richer, kill you so you don’t retaliate, and rape your wife and impregnate her to continue my bloodline. Why ought I care about empathy now that I’ve given myself an advantage?

Murdering, raping, and stealing would actually make our species stronger through natural selection by weeding out the weak. It would give us an even greater competitive advantage vs other species.

Well these actions frequently occurred during the inception of humanity before the continued discovery of resources that could sustain larger populations.

The semblance of order has been created over time has also been a part of the evolution, and has greatly assisted our proliferation. And there is no way that the mass cooperation that has occurred would be continue to operative on the same level without rules being established.

[theman93]

Well these actions frequently occurred during the inception of humanity before the continued discovery of resources that could sustain larger populations.

The semblance of order has been created over time has also been a part of the evolution, and has greatly assisted our proliferation. And there is no way that the mass cooperation that has occurred would be continue to operative on the same level without rules being established.

Well no, these actions still frequently occur every day, all over the world of 8 billion people who live under different laws and are part of different cultures. The laws in communist China are different than the Sharia laws of Afghanistan which are different than the laws of India which are different than the laws of North Korea. We’ve seen wars fought just during the past century for conquest. In fact we’re watching one right now with Russia and Ukraine. There isn’t mass cooperation anywhere. We spent the last 2 decades trying to show Afghanistan why our morals are the right morals and they had a different idea. By what standard are any of these laws and cultures right or wrong?

[Overdrive]

No I’m asking you for justification given your world view, which you haven’t given. You said we ought to be empathetic. Other people might say we ought not be empathetic. By what standard are you objectively right and they objectively wrong?

By no standard, there is no standard, harmful, evil people exist. If you are empathetic you won't do others harm - atleast willingly. If you are not you might. I didn't say we should be empathetic I said it gives a moral compass to alot of people without the need of some deity tellingnthem not to steal, murder or whatever. You asked how people could have morals without a god.

That's the answer empathy - the golden rule is basically what empathy is about.

Counterquestion. Why do so many firm believers behave so immoral? What's their standard. Why do they behave like that?

[RRR3]

Did Klanners seriously say the majority of slaves were owned by Jews? Time to ban this nazi Jeff.

[Patrick Chewing]

Did Klanners seriously say the majority of slaves were owned by Jews? Time to ban this nazi Jeff.

Well it definitely wasn't White people if that's what you want it to be so badly cause you hate White people.

[RRR3]

Well it definitely wasn't White people if that's what you want it to be so badly cause you hate White people.
Yes it was fats stop trying to rewrite American history.

[Patrick Chewing]

Yes it was fats stop trying to rewrite American history.

So slavery only happened in America? It started in America? Is that what you're saying? :facepalm


https://media0.giphy.com/media/3o85xnoIXebk3xYx4Q/giphy.gif

[ShawkFactory]

Well no, these actions still frequently occur every day, all over the world of 8 billion people who live under different laws and are part of different cultures. The laws in communist China are different than the Sharia laws of Afghanistan which are different than the laws of India which are different than the laws of North Korea. We’ve seen wars fought just during the past century for conquest. In fact we’re watching one right now with Russia and Ukraine. There isn’t mass cooperation anywhere. We spent the last 2 decades trying to show Afghanistan why our morals are the right morals and they had a different idea. By what standard are any of these laws and cultures right or wrong?

What??? Of course there is. You are going into specifics and I'm thinking big picture. Do you think that every country produces their own goods, grows their own crops, develops their own medicine, and performs their own research? Does every country's economy operate independently of every other? Cultural and legal differences are a mere drop in the bucket.

Yes, the ills that you speak of DO happen today. But child molestation, theft, rape, and murder are ALWAYS met with heavy to extreme legal sanctions regardless of where you are (aside from perhaps primitive tribes, in which case the sanctions are violently imposed; part of the reason why these societies are less proliferative). Declarations of war are almost always met with heavy and hostile opposition. This is because destructive wars, as we've seen, are detrimental to widespread order and thus human proliferation.


We spent the last 2 decades trying to show Afghanistan why our morals are the right morals

Not really...

[KNOW1EDGE]

Yes it was fats stop trying to rewrite American history.

Well to be fair, blacks enslaved blacks and sold them to white people.

White people have also been slaves.

Slavery is bad, that’s why it’s been illegal for many, many years in our great country.

If gods real he’s either not all powerful or not all good. If he were both of those things he wouldn’t have created terrible diseases that people suffer and die from. Either he’s not all powerful and cant stop disease. Or he’s not all good and he created disease for men to suffer and die miserable deaths. If gods real he’s kinda a dick

[RRR3]

So slavery only happened in America? It started in America? Is that what you're saying? :facepalm


https://media0.giphy.com/media/3o85xnoIXebk3xYx4Q/giphy.gif
No of course not but we were talking about America. Try to keep up.

[RRR3]

Well to be fair, blacks enslaved blacks and sold them to white people.

White people have also been slaves.

Slavery is bad, that’s why it’s been illegal for many, many years in our great country.

If gods real he’s either not all powerful or not all good. If he were both of those things he wouldn’t have created terrible diseases that people suffer and die from. Either he’s not all powerful and cant stop disease. Or he’s not all good and he created disease for men to suffer and die miserable deaths. If gods real he’s kinda a dick
I’m not denying any of this happened but the conversation was slavery in America. Chewy seems to be under the impression I hate white people (which would be bizarre considering I’m 3/4 white) just because I don’t agree with his racist views. It’s not like I think white people are inherently different than black people…we’re all just people, attributing inherent differences to people because their skin color is different due to historical proximity to the equator is what morons do.

[theman93]

By no standard, there is no standard, harmful, evil people exist. If you are empathetic you won't do others harm - atleast willingly. If you are not you might. I didn't say we should be empathetic I said it gives a moral compass to alot of people without the need of some deity tellingnthem not to steal, murder or whatever. You asked how people could have morals without a god.

That's the answer empathy - the golden rule is basically what empathy is about.

Counterquestion. Why do so many firm believers behave so immoral? What's their standard. Why do they behave like that?

But there lies the problem Overdrive. If there is no standard then you cannot claim evil even exists because at the end of the day it's all arbitrary. You have no argument against the murderer, rapist, child molester or thief because you have no objective standard (as you've admitted) to appeal to to call them objectively evil.

And that's a great question. First of all I would point out that objectively calling something immoral as you just did only makes sense in my world view because there is an objective standard to appeal to. So when you claim moral atrocities, you are stealing capital from my world view to make sense of your own. To answer your question though, believers often behave immorally because they are sinners. It's just as the Bible states that all sin and fall short of the glory of God.

[theman93]

Well to be fair, blacks enslaved blacks and sold them to white people.

White people have also been slaves.

Slavery is bad, that’s why it’s been illegal for many, many years in our great country.

If gods real he’s either not all powerful or not all good. If he were both of those things he wouldn’t have created terrible diseases that people suffer and die from. Either he’s not all powerful and cant stop disease. Or he’s not all good and he created disease for men to suffer and die miserable deaths. If gods real he’s kinda a dick

By what standard do you call anything God does wrong?

[theman93]

What??? Of course there is. You are going into specifics and I'm thinking big picture. Do you think that every country produces their own goods, grows their own crops, develops their own medicine, and performs their own research? Does every country's economy operate independently of every other? Cultural and legal differences are a mere drop in the bucket.
No there's not or else we all would have the same laws forbidding or permitting the same thing. You are the one who brought rules in to the equation being necessary for mass cooperation, so it's up to you to justify who's rules are leading us in the "right" direction. Who has it right? Or has your position changed to trade?


Yes, the ills that you speak of DO happen today. But child molestation, theft, rape, and murder are ALWAYS met with heavy to extreme legal sanctions regardless of where you are (aside from perhaps primitive tribes, in which case the sanctions are violently imposed; part of the reason why these societies are less proliferative). Declarations of war are almost always met with heavy and hostile opposition. This is because destructive wars, as we've seen, are detrimental to widespread order and thus human proliferation.



Not really...
No they're not. Murder and torture is permitted in countries ruled by Sharia law. Theft is permitted by the government itself in communist countries. Slavery is permitted in others. I could go on and on, but you get the point. Basically you're arguing that if the law makes it illegal, then it's wrong. But what happens if the law changes and makes these things legal? Are they now good?

[ShawkFactory]

No there's not or else we all would have the same laws forbidding or permitting the same thing. You are the one who brought rules in to the equation being necessary for mass cooperation, so it's up to you to justify who's rules are leading us in the "right" direction. Who has it right? Or has your position changed to trade?

My position was never absolutely one or the other. I cited an example and then gave another as the conversation progressed.


No they're not. Murder and torture is permitted in countries ruled by Sharia law. Theft is permitted by the government itself in communist countries. Slavery is permitted in others. I could go on and on, but you get the point. Basically you're arguing that if the law makes it illegal, then it's wrong. But what happens if the law changes and makes these things legal? Are they now good?

That is not at all what I am arguing. I am arguing that things that are detrimental to human proliferation tend ("tend" being a key word) to be deemed illegal, or at very least frowned upon. There is a reason why countries under Sharia Law are, generally speaking, less successful (and generally looked down upon by almost all others). You could argue that certain external factors have prevented them from being borderline primitive societies. This entire time I haven't been arguing right from wrong as we typically describe, but those terms under the lens of success vs failure.

Nuclear weapons are a great example. Have they not been used due to it being "morally wrong", or because their use would cause widespread destruction unlike anything we've seen, and thus harmful for us as a species. I'd argue the latter. Or at very least that they are one in the same.

Of course what determines success vs failure in the human race has evolved, as does anything. Or at least what is understood has changed.

[theman93]

My position was never absolutely one or the other. I cited an example and then gave another as the conversation progressed.

So when I asked what makes brain gas right or wrong and you answered evolutionarily disadvantageous, this wasn't your absolute position?


That is not at all what I am arguing. I am arguing that things that are detrimental to human proliferation tend ("tend" being a key word) to be deemed illegal, or at very least frowned upon. There is a reason why countries under Sharia Law are, generally speaking, less successful (and generally looked down upon by almost all others). You could argue that certain external factors have prevented them from being borderline primitive societies. This entire time I haven't been arguing right from wrong as we typically describe, but those terms under the lens of success vs failure.

Nuclear weapons are a great example. Have they not been used due to it being "morally wrong", or because their use would cause widespread destruction unlike anything we've seen, and thus harmful for us as a species. I'd argue the latter. Or at very least that they are one in the same.

Of course what determines success vs failure in the human race has evolved, as does anything. Or at least what is understood has changed.

Fair enough, I don't want to misrepresent your position. But you're still making assumptions here. You're assuming success is mostly defined as human proliferation across countries and cultures. Countries under Sharia law view success in their own way, as do countries under communism or dictatorships. By what standard ought they accept human proliferation as good under their own lens of success? When you say, "There is a reason why countries under Sharia Law are generally, speaking, less successful" you're making a truth claim. The only problem with that is that they don't view success like you do. So how do you know you're right?

[ShawkFactory]

So when I asked what makes brain gas right or wrong and you answered evolutionarily disadvantageous, this wasn't your absolute position?

You're conflating two separate sub-points I've made. Yes I argued that murder, rape, mistreating children, etc. was evolutionarily disadvantageous. That's only a portion of the "mass cooperation" that I mentioned though. Trade is also encompassed in that.

All of it benefits our species.


Fair enough, I don't want to misrepresent your position. But you're still making assumptions here. You're assuming success is mostly defined as human proliferation across countries and cultures. Countries under Sharia law view success in their own way, as do countries under communism or dictatorships. By what standard ought they accept human proliferation as good under their own lens of success? When you say, "There is a reason why countries under Sharia Law are generally, speaking, less successful" you're making a truth claim. The only problem with that is that they don't view success like you do. So how do you know you're right?

Well I think that the idea of success has evolved in it's own way too. Of course it used to be solely based on survival of ones self and lineage. Somewhere along the line that changed to survival of ones civilization, presumably because a strong civilization increases the probably of survival of self and lineage.

At this stage I view the most "successful" societies as those that give the best formula for their own proliferation (I keep using this word but it fits and I'm too lazy to think of another good one) and with it, the highest probability for survival of it's individuals and their lineage.

Most of the areas with these "evils" described have the highest infant mortality rates, pregnancy mortality rates, and shortest lifespans in the world. Which to me makes them less successful than others.

[KNOW1EDGE]

By what standard do you call anything God does wrong?

My own standard. The golden rule. My moral compass. Compassion etc etc

I don’t need to believe in God to have an opinion on what is right vs wrong, moral vs immoral etc. -that’s a fallacy created by people trying to manipulate others into believing in God.

Again, I do appreciate you trying to spread the word of God. I don’t think it’s because you want to be right, but rather because you want to help people, and you believe that believing in God can help people. Like I’ve said countless times- I would love for God to be real- I am yet to be convinced due to a lack of evidence.

[SATAN]

Hey, OP...Who made the creator then?

https://ranjitjhala.github.io/CAV19-tutorial/img/dog-chasing-tail.gif

[theman93]

You're conflating two separate sub-points I've made. Yes I argued that murder, rape, mistreating children, etc. was evolutionarily disadvantageous. That's only a portion of the "mass cooperation" that I mentioned though. Trade is also encompassed in that.

All of it benefits our species.
So would you say we absolutely ought to do what benefits our species? Or is your position still not absolute one way or the other?




Well I think that the idea of success has evolved in it's own way too. Of course it used to be solely based on survival of ones self and lineage. Somewhere along the line that changed to survival of ones civilization, presumably because a strong civilization increases the probably of survival of self and lineage.

At this stage I view the most "successful" societies as those that give the best formula for their own proliferation (I keep using this word but it fits and I'm too lazy to think of another good one) and with it, the highest probability for survival of it's individuals and their lineage.

Most of the areas with these "evils" described have the highest infant mortality rates, pregnancy mortality rates, and shortest lifespans in the world. Which to me makes them less successful than others.
Yes I get this is your world view, but it seems you hold morality as up to everyone's opinion rather than there being an absolute standard of morality. Is that correct?

[Gohan]

Its gonna be funny next year when yall find out there is a God and she is indeed a woman and the finest one ever at that. Avy bet anyone?

[theman93]

My own standard. The golden rule. My moral compass. Compassion etc etc

I don’t need to believe in God to have an opinion on what is right vs wrong, moral vs immoral etc. -that’s a fallacy created by people trying to manipulate others into believing in God.

Again, I do appreciate you trying to spread the word of God. I don’t think it’s because you want to be right, but rather because you want to help people, and you believe that believing in God can help people. Like I’ve said countless times- I would love for God to be real- I am yet to be convinced due to a lack of evidence.
Yes of course you can have an opinion on this and everything else, that's not what I'm getting at. I'm asking you how you can justify murder, rape, theft, etc. being absolutely wrong? For example a man who lives by his own standard and moral compass kidnaps, molests and then dismembers a little girl. Is it not your opinion that it's wrong, but is it a moral absolute that he is wrong? Your opinion isn't a standard.

[Chick Stern]

Yes of course you can have an opinion on this and everything else, that's not what I'm getting at. I'm asking you how you can justify murder, rape, theft, etc. being absolutely wrong? For example a man who lives by his own standard and moral compass kidnaps, molests and then dismembers a little girl. Is it not your opinion that it's wrong, but is it a moral absolute that he is wrong? Your opinion isn't a standard.
god murdered, raped, endorsed the slaughter of innocents, etc. - so it must be OK!

[theman93]

god murdered, raped, endorsed the slaughter of innocents, etc. - so it must be OK!

You have no standard to call anything God does objectively wrong. (No He didn't btw)

[SATAN]

Never seen anyone so brainwashed before. Wow. :facepalm

[RRR3]

You have no standard to call anything God does objectively wrong. (No He didn't btw)
You claim god is all powerful yet he lets genocide happen. Must be a pretty shitty god

[SATAN]

You claim god is all powerful yet he lets genocide happen. Must be a pretty shitty god

It's fine. They can just New Testament the New Testament and pretend that wasn't real. Unless it fits their agenda.

[theman93]

You claim god is all powerful yet he lets genocide happen. Must be a pretty shitty god

You have no standard to call genocide objectively wrong. Nothing is objectively shitty in your world view.

Btw, if God stopped every evil person then none of us would be alive because the Bible is clear that we are all evil.

[RRR3]

You have no standard to call genocide objectively wrong. Nothing is objectively shitty in your world view.

Btw, if God stopped every evil person then none of us would be alive because the Bible is clear that we are all evil.
Yep. Completely stumped so you revert to bot like repetition. Sad.

[theman93]

Yep. Completely stumped so you revert to bot like repetition. Sad.

Nope, you simply just haven't provided an objective standard to call anything absolutely good or evil.

[ShawkFactory]

So would you say we absolutely ought to do what benefits our species? Or is your position still not absolute one way or the other?

I don't believe anything is absolute. That's kind of the point of agnosticism. I'm just thinking about evolutionary context that would lead to certain overarching tendencies with humanity as we've, dare I say...proliferated.


Yes I get this is your world view, but it seems you hold morality as up to everyone's opinion rather than there being an absolute standard of morality. Is that correct?

I think morality is an ever-changing concept based on circumstances. In 2022, I operate in a way so as to not hurt others as much as I can help it. That is the thing to do given the resources that have been provided for us by those prior.

That standard of morality was very different even 200 years ago. Much less 2000.

[theman93]

I don't believe anything is absolute. That's kind of the point of agnosticism. I'm just thinking about evolutionary context that would lead to certain overarching tendencies with humanity as we've, dare I say...proliferated.
Just so I don't misrepresent your position, would you also say you don't believe truth is absolute?


I think morality is an ever-changing concept based on circumstances. In 2022, I operate in a way so as to not hurt others as much as I can help it. That is the thing to do given the resources that have been provided for us by those prior.

That standard of morality was very different even 200 years ago. Much less 2000.
Right, this is what I'm trying to get at. If the standard of morality is ever changing then it's not an absolute standard. In the agnostic world view (and atheistic) there really is no absolute standard of morality.

Ultimately the foundation of our conversation is epistemology as in how do you know what you know. So my challenge to you would be this: Could you be wrong about everything you claim to know?

[Overdrive]

You have no standard to call genocide objectively wrong. Nothing is objectively shitty in your world view.

That's what you can't seem to grasp. Just because we don't have some codex pushed on us doesn't mean we can't understand wrong doings. Humans understand that things are wrong, because they know what it means if that was done to them. It's a psychological thing.


But there lies the problem Overdrive. If there is no standard then you cannot claim evil even exists because at the end of the day it's all arbitrary. You have no argument against the murderer, rapist, child molester or thief because you have no objective standard (as you've admitted) to appeal to to call them objectively evil.

And that's a great question. First of all I would point out that objectively calling something immoral as you just did only makes sense in my world view because there is an objective standard to appeal to. So when you claim moral atrocities, you are stealing capital from my world view to make sense of your own. To answer your question though, believers often behave immorally because they are sinners. It's just as the Bible states that all sin and fall short of the glory of God.

Of course it's arbitrary. That's my whole point. But of course I can call things I see evil. First from my personal perspective things I would deem evil, because I have my own moral compass.
Second society sets a consensus what's accepted and what's not. I'm not even talking about law. What I meant by no standard is: Unlike you who believes rules supposedly set by a deity 4000 years and then again 2000* years ago are some non changeable standard, I see that these standards change and they do within decades while the religious rules stay the same. So society obviously sets arbitrary moral codes based on what's good for the majority and in al lot of societies even what's beneficial to minorities while not hurting the majority.

Of course I can claim immorality without taking from your world view. I can pit the deeds of a person versus the societal consed at the time, but that's besides the point.

I of course was asking how people can behave against the very own standards they believe in. Your answer is only half the truth. The reality is that the roman catholic church gave anyone the chance to repent and thus behave like pigs all life.

*In reality the religious standards most people within the anglo-american sphere have are the interpretations of an 17th cdntury english king.

[Overdrive]

Nope, you simply just haven't provided an objective standard to call anything absolutely good or evil.

Neither have you. You believe your moral standards are set in stone. In reality the book you base them off was changed throught the centuries to give a tiny fraction of people advantages.

[theman93]

That's what you can't seem to grasp. Just because we don't have some codex pushed on us doesn't mean we can't understand wrong doings. Humans understand that things are wrong, because they know what it means if that was done to them. It's a psychological thing.

But you've just given up that good and evil are arbitrary. So nothing is objectively evil, it might not feel good, but morally it's not objectively wrong.


Of course it's arbitrary. That's my whole point. But of course I can call things I see evil. First from my personal perspective things I would deem evil, because I have my own moral compass.
You might call it evil, but evil to you might mean good to someone else. Nobody is objectively right in your world view. So when I ask you if it is objectively wrong for a man with his own moral compass to kidnap, molest and dismember a little girl your answer would have to be no. Because you've admitted it's arbitrary.


Second society sets a consensus what's accepted and what's not. I'm not even talking about law. What I meant by no standard is: Unlike you who believes rules supposedly set by a deity 4000 years and then again 2000* years ago are some non changeable standard, I see that these standards change and they do within decades while the religious rules stay the same. So society obviously sets arbitrary moral codes based on what's good for the majority and in al lot of societies even what's beneficial to minorities while not hurting the majority.
So if the majority sets a moral code that owning and murdering slaves is good for the majority, you would agree that it's good and moral to own and murder slaves?


Of course I can claim immorality without taking from your world view. I can pit the deeds of a person versus the societal consed at the time, but that's besides the point.
Well earlier you claimed there is evil which appeals to an absolute standard. So when you appeal to this absolute standard when you've admitted it's arbitrary you are absolutely borrowing capital from my world view.


I of course was asking how people can behave against the very own standards they believe in. Your answer is only half the truth. The reality is that the roman catholic church gave anyone the chance to repent and thus behave like pigs all life.

*In reality the religious standards most people within the anglo-american sphere have are the interpretations of an 17th cdntury english king.
Everybody behaves against standards they believe in. People say it's wrong to lie all the time and do it anyways. People say it's wrong to steal all the time and do it anyways. People say it's wrong to cheat all the time and do it anyways. This isn't unique to believers. Believers are sinners just like anyone else. But I would say is this, if someone claims they are a Christian but they live a life that is in constant contradiction to what they claim to believe, then they are no more a Christian than you are a professional basketball player. People can claim whatever they want, but that doesn't necessarily make it true.

[theman93]

Neither have you. You believe your moral standards are set in stone. In reality the book you base them off was changed throught the centuries to give a tiny fraction of people advantages.

What's your proof for this claim?

[SATAN]

What's your proof for this claim?

:facepalm

[RRR3]

Nope, you simply just haven't provided an objective standard to call anything absolutely good or evil.
The Bible is not objective you booger eating moron.

[Patrick Chewing]

I remember when hating God was cool.......like 30 years ago.

[SATAN]

I remember when hating God was cool.......like 30 years ago.

There aren't any comments in this thread that indicate anyone hates God, real or not.

:facepalm

[theman93]

The Bible is not objective you booger eating moron.

Yes it is. Are you also arguing the Bible has been changed through the centuries?

[RogueBorg]

Are you ****ing on drugs? Yahweh gave himself as an inheritance his people??? It says that Israel was given as inheritance to him

Elyon is a title we already established this. Yahweh was conflated with El hence he took on his epithets and attributes. You are confusing and embarrassing yourself.

The author of Psalms 82 also admits that other gods exist. it's even more problematic for you Yahweh cultists .

Elohim stands in the council of ’El
In the midst of the gods he holds judgment.

“How long will you judge unjustly,
and show partiality to the wicked? Selah
Render justice to the weak and the fatherless;
vindicate the afflicted and the destitute.
Rescue the weak and the needy;
deliver them from the hand of the wicked.”

They have neither knowledge nor understanding;
they walk around in darkness;
all the foundations of the earth are shaken.

I said, “You are gods,
sons of Elyon, all of you;
nevertheless, you shall die like mortals,
and fall like any prince.”

Rise up, O ’E-him, judge the earth;
for you shall inherit the nations!


Once again we see the divine council of gods whose head is El. This time the rest of the gods die like mortals, meaning the authors of the Israelite religion DID believe in the existence of other gods. Later on this was denied and passages like this were authored to explain what happened to the other gods.

I would avoid bringing up Psalms … the Ugaritic texts inform us of Baal Haddad battle with various sea monsters and the chaotic waters, exactly what Yahweh imitate in many psalms. Yahwehs exploits in Psalms are clearly taken from the Baal cycle

Deut 32:8-9 also states that the number of nations are equivalent to the number of the sons of El, that is 70. Later on this was changed to say sons of Angels and then sons of Israel in later cannons because it was clear polytheism and the scribes saw that.

You are relying on English translations . You don’t know the difference between El, Elohim, Elyon, Yahweh. You don’t know shit.


So according to you it should read


8 When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance,
when he divided mankind,
he fixed the borders[a] of the peoples
according to the number of the sons of God.[b]
9 But the Lord's portion is his people,
Jacob his allotted heritage.


When Yahweh gave the nations their inheritance. He divided humanity according to the number of his sons and Yahwehs portion is his people Jacob is Yahweh inheritance.

Yahweh is passing out inheritance to himself. Only in the retarded Yahwist mind does it make sense that someone is giving something to himself. That’s like saying I distributed something to myself. Only in your retarded Christian mind does that make any sense. Every other time the Hebrew word that’s used for inheritance

נַחֲלָה nachălâh

Is used as something passed from one person to another .

Psalm 33 merely states that Yahweh choose his inheritance.
It doesn’t say he gave himself his inheritance.

בָּחַר Bahar means to choose not to give

Also does Yahweh lose the rest of the inheritance to himself?? :lol

Everytime you throw an ad-hominem you are losing the debate.

[Patrick Chewing]

There aren't any comments in this thread that indicate anyone hates God, real or not.

:facepalm

Your very username is an affront to God! Damn you to hell!

[RogueBorg]

Unfortunately you have failed to provide any type of proof, so I remain undecided.
You have made the same arguments and claims I’ve heard for 33 years, none of which are remotely convincing. You use rhetoric and euphemisms that go around in circles and expect that to be acceptable proof of gods existence. It is not.


I think when it's all said and done it comes down to faith. Why do I believe and you don't? I can't answer that. I can't offer any direct evidence but I think there is indirect evidence, a few actually.

The first is love. I can feel it when I look in the eyes of my child, and I can feel it when my wife hugs me good night. It's real. Love will make me do things that I normally might think are illogical even going against self preservation. If my house was on fire, logic and self preservation would tell me to stay out. But if my family was in there, I would risk life and limb to save them. The only sense I can make of that is love, and God is love.

God is love, and all who live in love live in God, and God lives in them. God is love, and he who abides in love abides in God, and God in him. 1 John 4:16

The second is the existence of evil (sin). Call it what you want but there is no doubt evil exists in this world. All you have to do is go to the front page/website of any newspaper and there are countless stories of shootings, murder, rape etc. The Bible calls it sin and explains how it came to be.

Third is finding order in a universe of chaos. How do you explain the Periodic Table of Elements? The organized array of all the chemical elements in order of increasing atomic number—i.e., the total number of protons in the atomic nucleus. When the chemical elements are thus arranged, there is a recurring pattern called the “periodic law” in their properties, in which elements in the same column (group) have similar properties. Order

Why are there only 4 types of galaxies (and not a countless number in a system of chaos) that fall under a specific classification, elliptical, spiral, barred spiral, and irregular? Are we to believe that all the galaxies got together at the Big Bang and came to an agreement that there will only be four types?

DNA. DNA is described as being an instruction manual to how cells operate. The DNA code is really the 'language of life.' It contains the instructions for making a living thing. The DNA code is made up of a simple alphabet consisting of only four 'letters' and 64 three-letter 'words' called codons. To believe that the DNA code, given enough time under the right circumstances came to together (by itself) in such a way that it formed the building blocks of life is like believing all the words in the Encyclopedia Britannica came together on their own. No one believes an encyclopedia can write itself yet those same people believe DNA arranged itself. Also, the fact there are letters, words, and an alphabet (order) proves this is a language. Who's language is it? And if it's not, what is it?

Direct proof? No. But proof enough for me to know these things didn't happen given enough time under the right circumstances.

[SATAN]

"Can't explain so therefor God!"

:facepalm

[KNOW1EDGE]

Nope, you simply just haven't provided an objective standard to call anything absolutely good or evil.

I don’t think anybody is speaking in absolutes. We are speaking of our own morals and logic.
It’s bad to murder because it makes other people sad. -I don’t need god to feel that way.
It’s bad to steal because it hurts other people. -don’t need god.

Being nice to people is good because it makes others feel good. -don’t need god.

Murderers may think murder is good- that doesn’t prove god is real. -it doesn’t prove what good vs bad means. It’s just one persons beliefs/morals/opinion. We all have our own.

[RogueBorg]

I don’t think anybody is speaking in absolutes. We are speaking of our own morals and logic.
It’s bad to murder because it makes other people sad. -I don’t need god to feel that way.
It’s bad to steal because it hurts other people. -don’t need god.

Being nice to people is good because it makes others feel good. -don’t need god.

Murderers may think murder is good- that doesn’t prove god is real. -it doesn’t prove what good vs bad means. It’s just one persons beliefs/morals/opinion. We all have our own.

What is "bad?"

Where did it come from and why does it even exist? There's different degrees to it and everyone has a different idea of what it is but there's absolutely no doubt "it" exists. The Bible calls it sin.

There's only one species on this planet that schemes to kill another member of it's own species for greed (sin).

There's only one species on this planet that covers its nakedness (ashamed (sin)).

There's no doubt good and evil (sin) exists within the human race. There's no such thing in the animal kingdom.

[RogueBorg]

"Can't explain so therefor God!"

:facepalm

Fine, let's remove God from the equation. Can you explain why there is order in a chaotic system? Meaning, if everything just happened by chance there should be no evidence or order anywhere. Yet we see the opposite, there is order everywhere. What's the big deal? Intelligence begets order.

The Periodic Table of Elements (order) and how it arranged itself?

The DNA strand pattern is an arrangement of millions of molecules that differs with each living organism. This pattern of arrangement ultimately determines each organisms unique characteristics. Do you really believe this "pattern" arranged itself?

1st Law of Thermodynamics- Mass or Energy can neither be created nor destroyed but it can be changed from one form to another. Now you can argue about the meaning of this law but I'm here to ask...why are there any laws in a chaotic system?

[Overdrive]

Fine, let's remove God from the equation. Can you explain why there is order in a chaotic system? Meaning, if everything just happened by chance there should be no evidence or order anywhere. Yet we see the opposite, there is order everywhere. What's the big deal? Intelligence begets order.

The Periodic Table of Elements (order) and how it arranged itself?

It didn't order itself. That was done by Mendeleev based on their attributes. Not the other way round.


The DNA strand pattern is an arrangement of millions of molecules that differs with each living organism. This pattern of arrangement ultimately determines each organisms unique characteristics. Do you really believe this "pattern" arranged itself?

It didn't arrange itself it's trial and error within a huge amount of time. Experiments with quickly reproducing species are evidence for that. Drosophila melanogaster genetically adapt within weeks.


1st Law of Thermodynamics- Mass or Energy can neither be created nor destroyed but it can be changed from one form to another. Now you can argue about the meaning of this law but I'm here to ask...why are there any laws in a chaotic system?

I tried to tell this to theman93 already. It depends on the scale of the system. A large choatic system is only vaguely predictable. Weather for example. We climate is about the same any year. Winter is cold, summer is warm, but we can't predict if it will rain in 5 days.

Now you change the complexity. Smaller scale less time and you can pretty much predict the weather of tomorrow in your town.

Basiccaly small scale systems are more predicticable than smaller ones. Systems that produce the same results given the same input are not chaotic. Let's say there's a small hole in the ground infront of your house. You can't predict when and how much it will rain(chaotic system), but you can predict that the hole will fill up when it rains(non chaotic system).

[RogueBorg]

It didn't order itself. That was done by Mendeleev based on their attributes. Not the other way round.



It didn't arrange itself it's trial and error within a huge amount of time. Experiments with quickly reproducing species are evidence for that. Drosophila melanogaster genetically adapt within weeks.



I tried to tell this to theman93 already. It depends on the scale of the system. A large choatic system is only vaguely predictable. Weather for example. We climate is about the same any year. Winter is cold, summer is warm, but we can't predict if it will rain in 5 days.

Now you change the complexity. Smaller scale less time and you can pretty much predict the weather of tomorrow in your town.

Basiccaly small scale systems are more predicticable than smaller ones. Systems that produce the same results given the same input are not chaotic. Let's say there's a small hole in the ground infront of your house. You can't predict when and how much it will rain(chaotic system), but you can predict that the hole will fill up when it rains(non chaotic system).

Medeleev discovered the table and began to chart it 140 or so years ago but the elements to it and their arrangement existed long before Medeleev was born. Someone needed to discover the arrangement. In simpler terms it's like fire, the ability to make fire existed long before man discovered how to do yet it was always there.

DNA is a complex code, much more complex than a computer program. To believe DNA "arranged" itself by trial and error given enough time under the right circumstances is the equivalent to believing a computer program such as Windows, which is only the arrangement of 1's and 0's, can arrange themselves after a long enough time to give you the Windows OS. That is impossible.

The point of my mentioning the 1st Law of Thermodynamics was to ask why are there any natural laws (order) in a chaotic system? We should see nothing but chaos, but that's not the case, we see the opposite. Take Entropy which is the natural decline into disorder. It's an undisputed natural law. In believing given enough time through trial and error that DNA would arrange into the building blocks of life flies in the face of the Law of Entropy. Entropy is the gradual breaking down. Your belief is the gradual coming together. It doesn't work.

[ShawkFactory]

Medeleev discovered the table and began to chart it 140 or so years ago but the elements to it and their arrangement existed long before Medeleev was born. Someone needed to discover the arrangement. In simpler terms it's like fire, the ability to make fire existed long before man discovered how to do yet it was always there.

DNA is a complex code, much more complex than a computer program. To believe DNA "arranged" itself by trial and error given enough time under the right circumstances is the equivalent to believing a computer program such as Windows, which is only the arrangement on 1's and 0's, can arrange themselves after a long enough time to give you the Windows OS. That is impossible.

The point of my mentioning the 1st Law of Thermodynamics was to ask why are there any natural laws (order) in a chaotic system? We should see nothing but chaos, but that's not the case, we see the opposite. Take Entropy which is the natural decline into disorder. It's an undisputed natural law. In believing given enough time through trial and error that DNA would arrange into the building blocks of life flies in the face of the Law of Entropy. Entropy is the gradual breaking down. Your belief is the gradual coming together. It doesn't work.

No it isn't :lol

[ShawkFactory]

Also, there was no Periodic Table "arrangement" before the table was developed.

While of course more complex, the idea of the periodic table is no different than going and finding 5 different plants and ordering them 1-5 based on their size. There was no "order" to them before; we created the order.

[RogueBorg]

No it isn't :lol

Do you know what Machine Language is? When you create a program, you write it using some kind of computer language. Your language statements are the source program. You then compile the source program with a special program called a language compiler, and the result is called an object program. There are several synonyms for object program, including object module and compiled program. The object program contains the string of 0s and 1s called machine language that the logic processor works with. The machine language of the computer is constructed by the language compiler with an understanding of the computer's logic architecture, including the set of possible computer instructions and the length, or number of bits, in an instruction. In simple terms its the instructions for how that program will operate.

DNA is also a set of instructions. The information in DNA is stored as a code made up of four chemical bases: adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T). Human DNA consists of about 3 billion bases, and more than 99 percent of those bases are the same in all people. The order, or sequence, of these bases determines the information available for building and maintaining an organism, similar to the way in which letters of the alphabet appear in a certain order to form words and sentences.

So while a computer program and DNA are not exactly the same they function similar to one another, they both use codes as a set of instructions. A cell's DNA is far more complex than any computer program such as Windows.

Just like the idea a computer program (1-0) can write itself is absurd, I don't believe for one second that an arrangement of four chemical bases (A-G-C-T) could naturally arrange themselves into a complex life form.

DNA is a code, and codes come from intelligence.

[Overdrive]

Medeleev discovered the table and began to chart it 140 or so years ago but the elements to it and their arrangement existed long before Medeleev was born. Someone needed to discover the arrangement. In simpler terms it's like fire, the ability to make fire existed long before man discovered how to do yet it was always there.

DNA is a complex code, much more complex than a computer program. To believe DNA "arranged" itself by trial and error given enough time under the right circumstances is the equivalent to believing a computer program such as Windows, which is only the arrangement of 1's and 0's, can arrange themselves after a long enough time to give you the Windows OS. That is impossible.

The point of my mentioning the 1st Law of Thermodynamics was to ask why are there any natural laws (order) in a chaotic system? We should see nothing but chaos, but that's not the case, we see the opposite. Take Entropy which is the natural decline into disorder. It's an undisputed natural law. In believing given enough time through trial and error that DNA would arrange into the building blocks of life flies in the face of the Law of Entropy. Entropy is the gradual breaking down. Your belief is the gradual coming together. It doesn't work.

1st: He didn't discover it. He invented it to put an order to the elements.

2nd: As said drosophila melanogaster. Do you know what a mutation is?

3rd: You can fight entropy by putting energy into a system. You mistake randomness and chaos. I already gave you and example about having laws within a chaotic system, but you're setting way to lose points to discuss this.

[ShawkFactory]

Do you know what Machine Language is? When you create a program, you write it using some kind of computer language. Your language statements are the source program. You then compile the source program with a special program called a language compiler, and the result is called an object program. There are several synonyms for object program, including object module and compiled program. The object program contains the string of 0s and 1s called machine language that the logic processor works with. The machine language of the computer is constructed by the language compiler with an understanding of the computer's logic architecture, including the set of possible computer instructions and the length, or number of bits, in an instruction. In simple terms its the instructions for how that program will operate.

DNA is also a set of instructions. The information in DNA is stored as a code made up of four chemical bases: adenine (A), guanine (G), cytosine (C), and thymine (T). Human DNA consists of about 3 billion bases, and more than 99 percent of those bases are the same in all people. The order, or sequence, of these bases determines the information available for building and maintaining an organism, similar to the way in which letters of the alphabet appear in a certain order to form words and sentences.

So while a computer program and DNA are not exactly the same they function similar to one another, they both use codes as a set of instructions. A cell's DNA is far more complex than any computer program such as Windows.

Just like the idea a computer program (1-0) can write itself is absurd, I don't believe for one second that an arrangement of four chemical bases (A-G-C-T) could naturally arrange themselves into a complex life form.

DNA is a code, and codes come from intelligence.

Yea...I understand. The idea of a computer operating based off of a code is not what is in question here.

Computers don't interact with the environment on their own and, most importantly, don't reproduce.

[RogueBorg]

Also, there was no Periodic Table "arrangement" before the table was developed.



It hadn't been discovered yet by man but they were always there. There's elements out there right now that have yet to be discovered that have a place on that table. The problem with your assertion is that at the time Mendeleev began to chart the elements less than half the current elements were known. Does that mean they didn't exist? Of course not, they've always been there. In fact, from time to time new elements are discovered and added to the table. It's man's discovery of these elements are where they fit within the Periodic Table. But make no mistake, there is a natural order to it and order speaks intelligence.