Discussion:
Evil Bible Quote of the Day for June 1 (How Many Gods?)
(too old to reply)
Editor of EvilBible.com
2004-06-01 15:53:57 UTC
Permalink
Evil Bible Quote of the Day for June 1, 2004 from www.EvilBible.com:

How Many Gods? (Deuteronomy 32:8 RSV)

"When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he
separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to
the number of the sons of God." (Deuteronomy 32:8 RSV)

(Also see Psalms 86:8 RSV) "There is none like thee among the gods, O Lord,
nor are there any works like thine."


What kind of person would get their moral guidance from an ancient book of
myths and magic that says it is OK to murder, rape, pillage, and plunder?

Read more about the evils of the Bible at www.EvilBible.com
h***@yessiree.ca
2004-06-01 20:16:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
"When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he
separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to
the number of the sons of God." (Deuteronomy 32:8 RSV)
Are you trying to suggest that 'sons of God' means other deities? Lame.
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Also see Psalms 86:8 RSV) "There is none like thee among the gods, O Lord,
nor are there any works like thine."
The Jews lived amongst many polytheistic cultures. Obviously their God,
being the only one, was incomparable to the other fictional ones.

H.
Editor of EvilBible.com
2004-06-01 22:11:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@yessiree.ca
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
"When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he
separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to
the number of the sons of God." (Deuteronomy 32:8 RSV)
Are you trying to suggest that 'sons of God' means other deities? Lame.
I know of one "son of God" that Christians believe is a deity. He also
believed that he was the only son of God.
Post by h***@yessiree.ca
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Also see Psalms 86:8 RSV) "There is none like thee among the gods, O Lord,
nor are there any works like thine."
The Jews lived amongst many polytheistic cultures. Obviously their God,
being the only one, was incomparable to the other fictional ones.
Christianity is a polytheistic religion. The only problem is that most
Christians think that 1+1+1 =1.

The early books of the Bible clearly show that the Jews thought that there
were several Gods, that's why they had different names for them. Later on
the Christians and Jews had to change that and claim that they were all
different names for the same God.

Also see Genesis 6 for more about the sons of God.
Earl Camembert
2004-06-01 23:37:53 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 18:11:55 -0400, "Editor of EvilBible.com"
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by h***@yessiree.ca
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
"When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he
separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according
to
Post by h***@yessiree.ca
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
the number of the sons of God." (Deuteronomy 32:8 RSV)
Are you trying to suggest that 'sons of God' means other deities? Lame.
I know of one "son of God" that Christians believe is a deity. He also
believed that he was the only son of God.
Post by h***@yessiree.ca
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Also see Psalms 86:8 RSV) "There is none like thee among the gods, O
Lord,
Post by h***@yessiree.ca
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
nor are there any works like thine."
The Jews lived amongst many polytheistic cultures. Obviously their God,
being the only one, was incomparable to the other fictional ones.
Christianity is a polytheistic religion. The only problem is that most
Christians think that 1+1+1 =1.
The early books of the Bible clearly show that the Jews thought that there
were several Gods, that's why they had different names for them. Later on
the Christians and Jews had to change that and claim that they were all
different names for the same God.
Also see Genesis 6 for more about the sons of God.
The sons of god are the angels. When angels do it with human women
they produce giants or the Zamzummims. There fossil remains have yet
to be discovered.
David V.
2004-06-01 23:47:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by Earl Camembert
The sons of god are the angels. When angels do it with
human women they produce giants or the Zamzummims. There
fossil remains have yet to be discovered.
Do you actually believe such silliness?
--
David V.

UDP for WebTV
h***@yessiree.ca
2004-06-02 00:13:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Earl Camembert
The sons of god are the angels. When angels do it with
Post by Earl Camembert
human women they produce giants or the Zamzummims. There
fossil remains have yet to be discovered.
Do you actually believe such silliness?
Angels are spirit, they have no bodies to do 'it' with. As for Zamzummims...
I dunno.
I lived next door to the Zammins for a while... Noah and Gertie, nice folks.

H.
Earl Camembert
2004-06-02 00:57:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@yessiree.ca
Post by Earl Camembert
The sons of god are the angels. When angels do it with
Post by Earl Camembert
human women they produce giants or the Zamzummims. There
fossil remains have yet to be discovered.
Do you actually believe such silliness?
Angels are spirit, they have no bodies to do 'it' with. As for Zamzummims...
I dunno.
Then who are the "sons of god" that did the daughters of men? It is in
your bible read it.
Earl Camembert
2004-06-02 00:55:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by David V.
Post by Earl Camembert
The sons of god are the angels. When angels do it with
human women they produce giants or the Zamzummims. There
fossil remains have yet to be discovered.
Do you actually believe such silliness?
It is in your Bible read it. They haven't found the giants bones as of
yet.
David V.
2004-06-02 01:04:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by Earl Camembert
Post by David V.
Post by Earl Camembert
The sons of god are the angels. When angels do it
with human women they produce giants or the
Zamzummims. There fossil remains have yet to be
discovered.
Do you actually believe such silliness?
It is in your Bible read it. They haven't found the
giants bones as of yet.
Just because it's in the bible doesn't mean it's true. That
book is full of lies. It starts with a lie and goes down
hill from there.
--
David V.

UDP for WebTV
Earl Camembert
2004-06-02 01:49:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by David V.
Post by Earl Camembert
Post by David V.
Post by Earl Camembert
The sons of god are the angels. When angels do it
with human women they produce giants or the
Zamzummims. There fossil remains have yet to be
discovered.
Do you actually believe such silliness?
It is in your Bible read it. They haven't found the
giants bones as of yet.
Just because it's in the bible doesn't mean it's true. That
book is full of lies. It starts with a lie and goes down
hill from there.
Every thing I have said is true.
Post by David V.
Post by Earl Camembert
Post by David V.
Post by Earl Camembert
The sons of god are the angels. When angels do it
with human women they produce giants or the
Zamzummims
I said this is in the Bible that is true.
Post by David V.
Post by Earl Camembert
Post by David V.
Post by Earl Camembert
There fossil remains have yet to be
discovered.
That is also true.
David V.
2004-06-02 03:12:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Earl Camembert
Post by David V.
Post by Earl Camembert
Post by David V.
Post by Earl Camembert
The sons of god are the angels. When angels do it
with human women they produce giants or the
Zamzummims. There fossil remains have yet to be
discovered.
Do you actually believe such silliness?
It is in your Bible read it. They haven't found the
giants bones as of yet.
Just because it's in the bible doesn't mean it's true.
That book is full of lies. It starts with a lie and
goes down hill from there.
Every thing I have said is true.
It is a fantasy built upon a mythology, not true, not reality.
Post by Earl Camembert
Post by David V.
Post by Earl Camembert
Post by David V.
Post by Earl Camembert
The sons of god are the angels. When angels do it
with human women they produce giants or the
Zamzummims
I said this is in the Bible that is true.
It's in the bible, but not true.
Post by Earl Camembert
Post by David V.
Post by Earl Camembert
Post by David V.
Post by Earl Camembert
There fossil remains have yet to be discovered.
That is also true.
"spirits" leave no fossils.
--
David V.

UDP for WebTV
Earl Camembert
2004-06-02 05:47:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by David V.
Post by Earl Camembert
Post by David V.
Post by Earl Camembert
Post by David V.
Post by Earl Camembert
The sons of god are the angels. When angels do it
with human women they produce giants or the
Zamzummims. There fossil remains have yet to be
discovered.
Do you actually believe such silliness?
It is in your Bible read it. They haven't found the
giants bones as of yet.
Just because it's in the bible doesn't mean it's true.
That book is full of lies. It starts with a lie and
goes down hill from there.
Every thing I have said is true.
It is a fantasy built upon a mythology, not true, not reality.
Post by Earl Camembert
Post by David V.
Post by Earl Camembert
Post by David V.
Post by Earl Camembert
The sons of god are the angels. When angels do it
with human women they produce giants or the
Zamzummims
I said this is in the Bible that is true.
It's in the bible, but not true.
Post by Earl Camembert
Post by David V.
Post by Earl Camembert
Post by David V.
Post by Earl Camembert
There fossil remains have yet to be discovered.
That is also true.
"spirits" leave no fossils.
No, the daughters of men give birth to flesh and blood giants.
Therion Ware
2004-06-02 05:51:50 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 05:47:06 GMT in alt.atheism, Earl Camembert (Earl
Camembert <***@forme.org>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
Post by Earl Camembert
Post by David V.
Post by Earl Camembert
Post by David V.
Post by Earl Camembert
Post by David V.
Post by Earl Camembert
The sons of god are the angels. When angels do it
with human women they produce giants or the
Zamzummims. There fossil remains have yet to be
discovered.
Do you actually believe such silliness?
It is in your Bible read it. They haven't found the
giants bones as of yet.
Just because it's in the bible doesn't mean it's true.
That book is full of lies. It starts with a lie and
goes down hill from there.
Every thing I have said is true.
It is a fantasy built upon a mythology, not true, not reality.
Post by Earl Camembert
Post by David V.
Post by Earl Camembert
Post by David V.
Post by Earl Camembert
The sons of god are the angels. When angels do it
with human women they produce giants or the
Zamzummims
I said this is in the Bible that is true.
It's in the bible, but not true.
Post by Earl Camembert
Post by David V.
Post by Earl Camembert
Post by David V.
Post by Earl Camembert
There fossil remains have yet to be discovered.
That is also true.
"spirits" leave no fossils.
No, the daughters of men give birth to flesh and blood giants.
and thus the Bible explains the origin of pelvic floor exercises.
Robibnikoff
2004-06-02 13:00:45 UTC
Permalink
Post by Therion Ware
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 05:47:06 GMT in alt.atheism, Earl Camembert (Earl
alt.atheism
Post by Earl Camembert
Post by David V.
Post by Earl Camembert
Post by David V.
Post by Earl Camembert
Post by David V.
Post by Earl Camembert
The sons of god are the angels. When angels do it
with human women they produce giants or the
Zamzummims. There fossil remains have yet to be
discovered.
Do you actually believe such silliness?
It is in your Bible read it. They haven't found the
giants bones as of yet.
Just because it's in the bible doesn't mean it's true.
That book is full of lies. It starts with a lie and
goes down hill from there.
Every thing I have said is true.
It is a fantasy built upon a mythology, not true, not reality.
Post by Earl Camembert
Post by David V.
Post by Earl Camembert
Post by David V.
Post by Earl Camembert
The sons of god are the angels. When angels do it
with human women they produce giants or the
Zamzummims
I said this is in the Bible that is true.
It's in the bible, but not true.
Post by Earl Camembert
Post by David V.
Post by Earl Camembert
Post by David V.
Post by Earl Camembert
There fossil remains have yet to be discovered.
That is also true.
"spirits" leave no fossils.
No, the daughters of men give birth to flesh and blood giants.
and thus the Bible explains the origin of pelvic floor exercises.
Wwwwoooooooooooot!! Put my coffee down JUST in time! ;)

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
Therion Ware
2004-06-02 13:30:16 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 13:00:45 GMT in alt.atheism, Robibnikoff
(Robibnikoff <***@newsranger.com>) said, directing the reply to
alt.atheism
Post by Robibnikoff
Post by Therion Ware
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 05:47:06 GMT in alt.atheism, Earl Camembert (Earl
alt.atheism
Post by Earl Camembert
Post by David V.
Post by Earl Camembert
Post by David V.
Post by Earl Camembert
Post by David V.
Post by Earl Camembert
The sons of god are the angels. When angels do it
with human women they produce giants or the
Zamzummims. There fossil remains have yet to be
discovered.
Do you actually believe such silliness?
It is in your Bible read it. They haven't found the
giants bones as of yet.
Just because it's in the bible doesn't mean it's true.
That book is full of lies. It starts with a lie and
goes down hill from there.
Every thing I have said is true.
It is a fantasy built upon a mythology, not true, not reality.
Post by Earl Camembert
Post by David V.
Post by Earl Camembert
Post by David V.
Post by Earl Camembert
The sons of god are the angels. When angels do it
with human women they produce giants or the
Zamzummims
I said this is in the Bible that is true.
It's in the bible, but not true.
Post by Earl Camembert
Post by David V.
Post by Earl Camembert
Post by David V.
Post by Earl Camembert
There fossil remains have yet to be discovered.
That is also true.
"spirits" leave no fossils.
No, the daughters of men give birth to flesh and blood giants.
and thus the Bible explains the origin of pelvic floor exercises.
Wwwwoooooooooooot!! Put my coffee down JUST in time! ;)
Damn. Another sinister plot fails.... But I'll get you yet, my pretty,
and your little dog too....


--
"Do Unto Others As You Would Have Them Do Unto You."
- Attrib: Pauline Reage.
Inexpensive VHS & other video to CD/DVD conversion?
See: <http://www.Video2CD.com>. 35.00 gets your video on DVD.
all posts to this email address are automatically deleted without being read.
** atheist poster child #1 ** #442.
Robibnikoff
2004-06-02 16:31:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Therion Ware
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 13:00:45 GMT in alt.atheism, Robibnikoff
alt.atheism
Post by Robibnikoff
Post by Therion Ware
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 05:47:06 GMT in alt.atheism, Earl Camembert (Earl
alt.atheism
Post by Earl Camembert
Post by David V.
Post by Earl Camembert
Post by David V.
Post by Earl Camembert
Post by David V.
Post by Earl Camembert
The sons of god are the angels. When angels do it
with human women they produce giants or the
Zamzummims. There fossil remains have yet to be
discovered.
Do you actually believe such silliness?
It is in your Bible read it. They haven't found the
giants bones as of yet.
Just because it's in the bible doesn't mean it's true.
That book is full of lies. It starts with a lie and
goes down hill from there.
Every thing I have said is true.
It is a fantasy built upon a mythology, not true, not reality.
Post by Earl Camembert
Post by David V.
Post by Earl Camembert
Post by David V.
Post by Earl Camembert
The sons of god are the angels. When angels do it
with human women they produce giants or the
Zamzummims
I said this is in the Bible that is true.
It's in the bible, but not true.
Post by Earl Camembert
Post by David V.
Post by Earl Camembert
Post by David V.
Post by Earl Camembert
There fossil remains have yet to be discovered.
That is also true.
"spirits" leave no fossils.
No, the daughters of men give birth to flesh and blood giants.
and thus the Bible explains the origin of pelvic floor exercises.
Wwwwoooooooooooot!! Put my coffee down JUST in time! ;)
Damn. Another sinister plot fails.... But I'll get you yet, my pretty,
and your little dog too....
I have a dog?!?!?!?!?! Learn something new everyday ;)

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
Jez
2004-06-02 13:08:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by David V.
"spirits" leave no fossils.
No, just a thumping headache !
--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing
Pangur Ban
2004-06-02 02:24:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Earl Camembert
Post by David V.
Post by Earl Camembert
The sons of god are the angels. When angels do it with
human women they produce giants or the Zamzummims. There
fossil remains have yet to be discovered.
Do you actually believe such silliness?
It is in your Bible read it. They haven't found the giants bones as of
yet.
Where should archaeologist look for these bones?
I assume in the Middle East as that is where the
"Garden of Eden" was supposed to be located - but
could you give some more specific area?

How deep do the archaeologists need to plan on
digging? Some digs need to dig a hundred feet or
more to reach the correct level. This requires
more tools than a dig some feet in depth. Just
an estimate would be informative.

Pangur
Earl Camembert
2004-06-02 03:03:00 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 02:24:43 GMT, Pangur Ban
Post by Pangur Ban
Post by Earl Camembert
Post by David V.
Post by Earl Camembert
The sons of god are the angels. When angels do it with
human women they produce giants or the Zamzummims. There
fossil remains have yet to be discovered.
Do you actually believe such silliness?
It is in your Bible read it. They haven't found the giants bones as of
yet.
Where should archaeologist look for these bones?
I assume in the Middle East as that is where the
"Garden of Eden" was supposed to be located - but
could you give some more specific area?
How deep do the archaeologists need to plan on
digging? Some digs need to dig a hundred feet or
more to reach the correct level. This requires
more tools than a dig some feet in depth. Just
an estimate would be informative.
It would be of no use if I were to guess. The Bible is silent on this
subject.
Pangur Ban
2004-06-02 03:40:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Earl Camembert
On Wed, 02 Jun 2004 02:24:43 GMT, Pangur Ban
Post by Pangur Ban
Post by Earl Camembert
Post by David V.
Post by Earl Camembert
The sons of god are the angels. When angels do it with
human women they produce giants or the Zamzummims. There
fossil remains have yet to be discovered.
Do you actually believe such silliness?
It is in your Bible read it. They haven't found the giants bones as of
yet.
Where should archaeologist look for these bones?
I assume in the Middle East as that is where the
"Garden of Eden" was supposed to be located - but
could you give some more specific area?
How deep do the archaeologists need to plan on
digging? Some digs need to dig a hundred feet or
more to reach the correct level. This requires
more tools than a dig some feet in depth. Just
an estimate would be informative.
It would be of no use if I were to guess. The Bible is silent on this
subject.
Oh, I see. Well, thank you for the reply.

Pangur
Robibnikoff
2004-06-02 15:18:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Earl Camembert
Post by David V.
Post by Earl Camembert
The sons of god are the angels. When angels do it with
human women they produce giants or the Zamzummims. There
fossil remains have yet to be discovered.
Do you actually believe such silliness?
It is in your Bible read it. They haven't found the giants bones as of
yet.
Do you take everything in the bible literally?

If so, let me know when you find hares that chew their cud, four-legged insects,
bats that are birds and talking donkeys.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
Editor of EvilBible.com
2004-06-02 16:05:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Robibnikoff
Post by Earl Camembert
Post by David V.
Post by Earl Camembert
The sons of god are the angels. When angels do it with
human women they produce giants or the Zamzummims. There
fossil remains have yet to be discovered.
Do you actually believe such silliness?
It is in your Bible read it. They haven't found the giants bones as of
yet.
Do you take everything in the bible literally?
If so, let me know when you find hares that chew their cud, four-legged insects,
bats that are birds and talking donkeys.
I think they found the talking donkey. His name is Shrek. Or is that the
name of his giant friend?

I think the talking ass (a donkey is an ass) should be made the official
mascot of the Bible. It seems to express the essence of the true believer.
Robibnikoff
2004-06-02 16:42:39 UTC
Permalink
In article <DemdndxVK61CZyDdRVn-***@adelphia.com>, Editor of EvilBible.com
says...
Post by Robibnikoff
says...
Post by Robibnikoff
Post by Earl Camembert
Post by David V.
Post by Earl Camembert
The sons of god are the angels. When angels do it with
human women they produce giants or the Zamzummims. There
fossil remains have yet to be discovered.
Do you actually believe such silliness?
It is in your Bible read it. They haven't found the giants bones as of
yet.
Do you take everything in the bible literally?
If so, let me know when you find hares that chew their cud, four-legged
insects,
Post by Robibnikoff
bats that are birds and talking donkeys.
I think they found the talking donkey. His name is Shrek. Or is that the
name of his giant friend?
Shrek is the name of the ogre.
Post by Robibnikoff
I think the talking ass (a donkey is an ass)
No offense, but duh, I know that ;)

should be made the official
Post by Robibnikoff
mascot of the Bible. It seems to express the essence of the true believer.
Agreed.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th
2004-06-02 00:37:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Earl Camembert
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 18:11:55 -0400, "Editor of EvilBible.com"
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by h***@yessiree.ca
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
"When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he
separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according
to
Post by h***@yessiree.ca
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
the number of the sons of God." (Deuteronomy 32:8 RSV)
Are you trying to suggest that 'sons of God' means other deities? Lame.
I know of one "son of God" that Christians believe is a deity. He
also believed that he was the only son of God.
Post by h***@yessiree.ca
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Also see Psalms 86:8 RSV) "There is none like thee among the gods, O
Lord,
Post by h***@yessiree.ca
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
nor are there any works like thine."
The Jews lived amongst many polytheistic cultures. Obviously their
God, being the only one, was incomparable to the other fictional
ones.
Christianity is a polytheistic religion. The only problem is that
most Christians think that 1+1+1 =1.
The early books of the Bible clearly show that the Jews thought that
there were several Gods, that's why they had different names for them.
Later on the Christians and Jews had to change that and claim that
they were all different names for the same God.
Also see Genesis 6 for more about the sons of God.
The sons of god are the angels. When angels do it with human women
they produce giants or the Zamzummims. There fossil remains have yet
to be discovered.
Angels are mostly minor gods in the Christian pantheon. I hadn't heard
speculation that they breed with humans before. What sect believes that?


Klazmon
Earl Camembert
2004-06-02 01:43:19 UTC
Permalink
On 2 Jun 2004 12:37:50 +1200, Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th
Post by Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th
Post by Earl Camembert
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 18:11:55 -0400, "Editor of EvilBible.com"
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by h***@yessiree.ca
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
"When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he
separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according
to
Post by h***@yessiree.ca
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
the number of the sons of God." (Deuteronomy 32:8 RSV)
Are you trying to suggest that 'sons of God' means other deities? Lame.
I know of one "son of God" that Christians believe is a deity. He
also believed that he was the only son of God.
Post by h***@yessiree.ca
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Also see Psalms 86:8 RSV) "There is none like thee among the gods, O
Lord,
Post by h***@yessiree.ca
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
nor are there any works like thine."
The Jews lived amongst many polytheistic cultures. Obviously their
God, being the only one, was incomparable to the other fictional
ones.
Christianity is a polytheistic religion. The only problem is that
most Christians think that 1+1+1 =1.
The early books of the Bible clearly show that the Jews thought that
there were several Gods, that's why they had different names for them.
Later on the Christians and Jews had to change that and claim that
they were all different names for the same God.
Also see Genesis 6 for more about the sons of God.
The sons of god are the angels. When angels do it with human women
they produce giants or the Zamzummims. There fossil remains have yet
to be discovered.
Angels are mostly minor gods in the Christian pantheon. I hadn't heard
speculation that they breed with humans before. What sect believes that?
Christians, Jews and Muslims.
Robibnikoff
2004-06-02 12:39:11 UTC
Permalink
In article <***@203.97.37.6>, Llanzlan Klazmon
The 15th says...
Post by Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th
Post by Earl Camembert
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 18:11:55 -0400, "Editor of EvilBible.com"
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by h***@yessiree.ca
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
"When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he
separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according
to
Post by h***@yessiree.ca
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
the number of the sons of God." (Deuteronomy 32:8 RSV)
Are you trying to suggest that 'sons of God' means other deities? Lame.
I know of one "son of God" that Christians believe is a deity. He
also believed that he was the only son of God.
Post by h***@yessiree.ca
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Also see Psalms 86:8 RSV) "There is none like thee among the gods, O
Lord,
Post by h***@yessiree.ca
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
nor are there any works like thine."
The Jews lived amongst many polytheistic cultures. Obviously their
God, being the only one, was incomparable to the other fictional
ones.
Christianity is a polytheistic religion. The only problem is that
most Christians think that 1+1+1 =1.
The early books of the Bible clearly show that the Jews thought that
there were several Gods, that's why they had different names for them.
Later on the Christians and Jews had to change that and claim that
they were all different names for the same God.
Also see Genesis 6 for more about the sons of God.
The sons of god are the angels. When angels do it with human women
they produce giants or the Zamzummims. There fossil remains have yet
to be discovered.
Angels are mostly minor gods in the Christian pantheon. I hadn't heard
speculation that they breed with humans before. What sect believes that?
If I'm not mistaken, our georgann, "Miss Queen of the Diagram" believes that the
angels came down, bred with mortal women and the result thereof built the
pyramids.

Robyn
Resident Witchypoo & EAC Spellcaster
#1557
h***@yessiree.ca
2004-06-02 00:08:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@yessiree.ca
Are you trying to suggest that 'sons of God' means other deities? Lame.
I know of one "son of God" that Christians believe is a deity. He also
believed that he was the only son of God.
The Jews lived amongst many polytheistic cultures. Obviously their God,
Post by h***@yessiree.ca
being the only one, was incomparable to the other fictional ones.
Christianity is a polytheistic religion. The only problem is that most
Christians think that 1+1+1 =1.
Trinity. 1is1is1=1. 3 aspects of the same being.
Post by h***@yessiree.ca
The early books of the Bible clearly show that the Jews thought that there
were several Gods, that's why they had different names for them. Later on
the Christians and Jews had to change that and claim that they were all
different names for the same God.
Also see Genesis 6 for more about the sons of God.
Uhhhh.... you got me... several gods? what? Stop using the old Bible pages
for rolling papers.
Genesis 6? Noah and the ark? What?

Hugely Baffled
Earl Camembert
2004-06-02 00:54:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@yessiree.ca
Post by h***@yessiree.ca
Are you trying to suggest that 'sons of God' means other deities? Lame.
I know of one "son of God" that Christians believe is a deity. He also
believed that he was the only son of God.
The Jews lived amongst many polytheistic cultures. Obviously their God,
Post by h***@yessiree.ca
being the only one, was incomparable to the other fictional ones.
Christianity is a polytheistic religion. The only problem is that most
Christians think that 1+1+1 =1.
Trinity. 1is1is1=1. 3 aspects of the same being.
Post by h***@yessiree.ca
The early books of the Bible clearly show that the Jews thought that there
were several Gods, that's why they had different names for them. Later on
the Christians and Jews had to change that and claim that they were all
different names for the same God.
Also see Genesis 6 for more about the sons of God.
Uhhhh.... you got me... several gods? what? Stop using the old Bible pages
for rolling papers.
Genesis 6? Noah and the ark? What?
No angels doing it to human women, read your Bible.
OverKlocker
2004-06-02 05:04:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Earl Camembert
No angels doing it to human women, read your Bible.
i wonder what 'pick-up' lines they used??? "hey, baby, you know what
they say about the size of an angels wings...?" "do you have a little
angel in you? want some?" "wanna join the mile high club?"
Earl Camembert
2004-06-02 05:53:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by OverKlocker
Post by Earl Camembert
No angels doing it to human women, read your Bible.
i wonder what 'pick-up' lines they used??? "hey, baby, you know what
they say about the size of an angels wings...?" "do you have a little
angel in you? want some?" "wanna join the mile high club?"
They just did it like most of the Bible characters; they lay with them
by force.

Genesis 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they
were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also
after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men,
and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were
of old, men of renown.
OverKlocker
2004-06-02 06:47:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by Earl Camembert
They just did it like most of the Bible characters; they lay with them
by force.
Genesis 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they
were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also
after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men,
and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were
of old, men of renown.
i can still picture leisure suite lucifer picking up on chicks with a
14Kt halo, a couple of gold chains, and really cheap cologne. (reminds
me of most TV evangelists)
Robert Schneider
2004-06-02 07:18:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Earl Camembert
Post by OverKlocker
Post by Earl Camembert
No angels doing it to human women, read your Bible.
i wonder what 'pick-up' lines they used??? "hey, baby, you know what
they say about the size of an angels wings...?" "do you have a little
angel in you? want some?" "wanna join the mile high club?"
They just did it like most of the Bible characters; they lay with them
by force.
Why look for fossils? Why aren't there angels/demons copulating with women
today? Or, are people like Shaq the result of such copulations?
Post by Earl Camembert
Genesis 6:2 That the sons of God saw the daughters of men that they
were fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose.
Genesis 6:4 There were giants in the earth in those days; and also
after that, when the sons of God came in unto the daughters of men,
and they bare children to them, the same became mighty men which were
of old, men of renown.
Editor of EvilBible.com
2004-06-02 06:46:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@yessiree.ca
Post by h***@yessiree.ca
Are you trying to suggest that 'sons of God' means other deities? Lame.
I know of one "son of God" that Christians believe is a deity. He also
believed that he was the only son of God.
The Jews lived amongst many polytheistic cultures. Obviously their God,
Post by h***@yessiree.ca
being the only one, was incomparable to the other fictional ones.
Christianity is a polytheistic religion. The only problem is that most
Christians think that 1+1+1 =1.
Trinity. 1is1is1=1. 3 aspects of the same being.
We all know the illogical excuse about the trinity. Some of us just laugh
at the stupidity of it all.
Post by h***@yessiree.ca
Post by h***@yessiree.ca
The early books of the Bible clearly show that the Jews thought that there
were several Gods, that's why they had different names for them. Later on
the Christians and Jews had to change that and claim that they were all
different names for the same God.
Also see Genesis 6 for more about the sons of God.
Uhhhh.... you got me... several gods? what? Stop using the old Bible pages
for rolling papers.
Genesis 6? Noah and the ark? What?
Genesis 6:1-2
Post by h***@yessiree.ca
Hugely Baffled
"Hugely retarded" is a more accurate description.
Nico Demusopelous
2004-06-04 00:38:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by h***@yessiree.ca
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by h***@yessiree.ca
The Jews lived amongst many polytheistic cultures. Obviously
their God, being the only one, was incomparable to the other
fictional ones.
Christianity is a polytheistic religion. The only problem is that most
Christians think that 1+1+1 =1.
Trinity. 1is1is1=1. 3 aspects of the same being.
We all know the illogical excuse about the trinity. Some of us just laugh
at the stupidity of it all.
There is nothing illogical about the Trinity as far as I can see. To
be more clear, there are versions of the doctrine of the Trinity that
are logically consistent (you might wish to consider the chapter on
the Trinity in the book co-authored by William Lane Craig and James
Porter Moreland, "Philosophical Foundations for a Christian
Worldview"). For example, here is a logically consistent version of
Trinity Monotheism:

(1) There is one God.
(2) This one God is multipersonal, and comprised of three
persons: the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
(3) Jesus is God in a sense of predication.
(4) The Father is God in a sense of predication.
(5) The Holy Spirit is God in a sense of predication.
(6) None of the persons are identical to either of the other two.
(7) The Godhead is not identical to any of the persons.

Keep in mind I am not asserting that this description is true (i.e.
that it reflects reality). I am simply arguing that this is not
logically incoherent.

The only propositions that one might have trouble grapsing are (3) (4)
and (5), especially if one is not familiar with the philosophical
distinction between predication and identity. So, to help explain the
notion of being God in a sense of predication, I will quote from
Craig's debate with Shabir Ally on the subject of the Islamic
conception of God vs the Christian conception. In the debate, Craig
originally made the Trinity analogous to a triangle - one shape, with
three angles each being a part of the whole. Ally complained that each
angle is not itself a triangle, and Craig responded as follows:

"I don't want to distract the debate to be a debate tonight about
the deity of Christ. I want to simply say let's assume the
Christian doctrine of the Trinity is what it is, and the question
is: is that rational to hold to? And all Shabir actually could
say here was that in a triangle each angle was not a triangle,
but according to the doctrine of the Trinity, each person is God.
This is simply based on a misunderstanding Shabir. The 'is' in
the statement 'Jesus is God' is not an 'is' of identity. It's
not like saying 'Cicero is Tully,' where those are simply two
different names of the same person - an 'is' of identity. Rather,
this is an 'is' of predication. It's like saying 'the couch is
red'. You don't mean that the couch is a color; you mean that
the couch has the property of being red. Similarly, when you say
'Jesus is God, the Father is God, the [Holy Ghost] is God,' that
is to say that they are all divine - they all share attributes
of deity. This is not an 'is' of identity, and unless you
understand that, you're bound to be confused. So, it is simply
not the case that according to the classic doctrine of the
Trinity that the Godhead as a whole is identical to any one of
the three persons. It is very much like a triangle, where you
have one entity comprised of three angles, or one entity
comprised of three persons. And if that is the doctrine, then
I ask you what is rationally objectionable about that? That is
the doctrine I believe, and I see nothing irrational about it."
[William Lane Craig, in his debate with Shabir Ally, "The Concept
of God in Islam and Christianity," McMaster University, March
6, 2002]

So, Craig specifically states that when his version of the doctrine
puts forth the assertion "Jesus is God," it puts forth a copula of
predication, not a copula of identity. The reality is that Craig's
position is perfectly in line with the gospel of John. Commenting on
John 1:1, Raymond Brown writes:

"Since Chrysostom's time, commentators have recognized that each
of the three uses of "was" in vs. 1 has a different connotation:
existence, relationship, and predication respectively."
[Raymond E. Brown (ed.), "The Gospel According to John,"
(Doubleday, 1996), Vol. 1, p. 4]

So, Craig's doctrine would hold to the following propositions:

(1) Jesus is the Logos.
(2) The Logos is God.
(3) Jesus is God.

The first proposition is an identity statement, so whatever is true of
the Logos is true of Jesus. The second proposition is straight out of
John 1:1, and employs a copula of predication (and the grammar of the
Greek supports this). The third proposition also employs a copula of
predication, and is simply inferred from (1) and (2). We could think
of these propositions being rendered into formal logic as follows:

(1) j = l
(2) Gl
(3) Gj

I hope that is sufficient enough for explaining the third, fourth and
fifth propositions of the seven point statement laid out above. In
those seven propositions, we have a doctrine of the Trinity which is
neither logically incoherent nor Biblically inconsistent, therefore I
see nothing rationally objectionable about a Christian holding to such
a position.
Editor of EvilBible.com
2004-06-04 02:18:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nico Demusopelous
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by h***@yessiree.ca
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by h***@yessiree.ca
The Jews lived amongst many polytheistic cultures. Obviously
their God, being the only one, was incomparable to the other
fictional ones.
Christianity is a polytheistic religion. The only problem is that most
Christians think that 1+1+1 =1.
Trinity. 1is1is1=1. 3 aspects of the same being.
We all know the illogical excuse about the trinity. Some of us just laugh
at the stupidity of it all.
There is nothing illogical about the Trinity as far as I can see. To
be more clear, there are versions of the doctrine of the Trinity that
are logically consistent (you might wish to consider the chapter on
the Trinity in the book co-authored by William Lane Craig and James
Porter Moreland, "Philosophical Foundations for a Christian
Worldview"). For example, here is a logically consistent version of
(1) There is one God.
(2) This one God is multipersonal, and comprised of three
persons: the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
(3) Jesus is God in a sense of predication.
(4) The Father is God in a sense of predication.
(5) The Holy Spirit is God in a sense of predication.
(6) None of the persons are identical to either of the other two.
(7) The Godhead is not identical to any of the persons.
Keep in mind I am not asserting that this description is true (i.e.
that it reflects reality). I am simply arguing that this is not
logically incoherent.
The only propositions that one might have trouble grapsing are (3) (4)
and (5), especially if one is not familiar with the philosophical
distinction between predication and identity. So, to help explain the
notion of being God in a sense of predication, I will quote from
Craig's debate with Shabir Ally on the subject of the Islamic
conception of God vs the Christian conception. In the debate, Craig
originally made the Trinity analogous to a triangle - one shape, with
three angles each being a part of the whole. Ally complained that each
"I don't want to distract the debate to be a debate tonight about
the deity of Christ. I want to simply say let's assume the
Christian doctrine of the Trinity is what it is, and the question
is: is that rational to hold to? And all Shabir actually could
say here was that in a triangle each angle was not a triangle,
but according to the doctrine of the Trinity, each person is God.
This is simply based on a misunderstanding Shabir. The 'is' in
the statement 'Jesus is God' is not an 'is' of identity. It's
not like saying 'Cicero is Tully,' where those are simply two
different names of the same person - an 'is' of identity. Rather,
this is an 'is' of predication. It's like saying 'the couch is
red'. You don't mean that the couch is a color; you mean that
the couch has the property of being red. Similarly, when you say
'Jesus is God, the Father is God, the [Holy Ghost] is God,' that
is to say that they are all divine - they all share attributes
of deity. This is not an 'is' of identity, and unless you
understand that, you're bound to be confused. So, it is simply
not the case that according to the classic doctrine of the
Trinity that the Godhead as a whole is identical to any one of
the three persons. It is very much like a triangle, where you
have one entity comprised of three angles, or one entity
comprised of three persons. And if that is the doctrine, then
I ask you what is rationally objectionable about that? That is
the doctrine I believe, and I see nothing irrational about it."
[William Lane Craig, in his debate with Shabir Ally, "The Concept
of God in Islam and Christianity," McMaster University, March
6, 2002]
So, Craig specifically states that when his version of the doctrine
puts forth the assertion "Jesus is God," it puts forth a copula of
predication, not a copula of identity. The reality is that Craig's
position is perfectly in line with the gospel of John. Commenting on
"Since Chrysostom's time, commentators have recognized that each
existence, relationship, and predication respectively."
[Raymond E. Brown (ed.), "The Gospel According to John,"
(Doubleday, 1996), Vol. 1, p. 4]
(1) Jesus is the Logos.
(2) The Logos is God.
(3) Jesus is God.
The first proposition is an identity statement, so whatever is true of
the Logos is true of Jesus. The second proposition is straight out of
John 1:1, and employs a copula of predication (and the grammar of the
Greek supports this). The third proposition also employs a copula of
predication, and is simply inferred from (1) and (2). We could think
(1) j = l
(2) Gl
(3) Gj
I hope that is sufficient enough for explaining the third, fourth and
fifth propositions of the seven point statement laid out above. In
those seven propositions, we have a doctrine of the Trinity which is
neither logically incoherent nor Biblically inconsistent, therefore I
see nothing rationally objectionable about a Christian holding to such
a position.
So your position is that God is an organization of three different entities
and not an independent being?
Don Kresch
2004-06-04 11:33:36 UTC
Permalink
In alt.atheism on 3 Jun 2004 17:38:26 -0700,
Post by Nico Demusopelous
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by h***@yessiree.ca
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by h***@yessiree.ca
The Jews lived amongst many polytheistic cultures. Obviously
their God, being the only one, was incomparable to the other
fictional ones.
Christianity is a polytheistic religion. The only problem is that most
Christians think that 1+1+1 =1.
Trinity. 1is1is1=1. 3 aspects of the same being.
We all know the illogical excuse about the trinity. Some of us just laugh
at the stupidity of it all.
There is nothing illogical about the Trinity as far as I can see.
There's nothing logical about it, as far as I can see. It's just
a rip-off of the Greek Fates, where it was 3 aspects of the same
thing.

And we all know that the Greek Fates was just a myth.


Don
---
aa #51, Knight of BAAWA, DNRC o-, Member of the [H]orde
Atheist Minister for St. Dogbert.

"No being is so important that he can usurp the rights of another"
Picard to Data/Graves "The Schizoid Man"
walksalone
2004-06-04 11:47:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nico Demusopelous
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by h***@yessiree.ca
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by h***@yessiree.ca
The Jews lived amongst many polytheistic cultures. Obviously
their God, being the only one, was incomparable to the other
fictional ones.
Christianity is a polytheistic religion. The only problem is that most
Christians think that 1+1+1 =1.
Trinity. 1is1is1=1. 3 aspects of the same being.
We all know the illogical excuse about the trinity. Some of us just laugh
at the stupidity of it all.
There is nothing illogical about the Trinity as far as I can see. To
be more clear, there are versions of the doctrine of the Trinity that
are logically consistent (you might wish to consider the chapter on
the Trinity in the book co-authored by William Lane Craig and James
Porter Moreland, "Philosophical Foundations for a Christian
Worldview"). For example, here is a logically consistent version of
Why, I would rather spend money on books that deal with reality, not
apologetics that leave one's wallet & mind emptier than when they started.
Post by Nico Demusopelous
(1) There is one God.
There are thousands of gods, the author;s first error.
Post by Nico Demusopelous
(2) This one God is multipersonal, and comprised of three
persons: the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
IOW, it is a MPD persona, or else there are three aspects, though not
sperate.
Post by Nico Demusopelous
(3) Jesus is God in a sense of predication.
That makes no sense & is not biblically supported, the messiah [problem
just won't go away.
Post by Nico Demusopelous
(4) The Father is God in a sense of predication.
Again, this makes no sense.
Post by Nico Demusopelous
(5) The Holy Spirit is God in a sense of predication.
Spooky is a xian invention, there is no holy spirit ion the OT.
Post by Nico Demusopelous
(6) None of the persons are identical to either of the other two.
Because they are not the other two.
Post by Nico Demusopelous
(7) The Godhead is not identical to any of the persons.
Fictional characters share that trait.
Post by Nico Demusopelous
Keep in mind I am not asserting that this description is true (i.e.
that it reflects reality). I am simply arguing that this is not
logically incoherent.
That is good, for that reality is not found in the world. But then,
philosophy has been known to miss the mark.
You see, none of your gods are predictive gods. They are, in the case of
El, borrowed, revealed according to the parent myth of the xian myth, from
the Canaanite society.

snip
Post by Nico Demusopelous
"I don't want to distract the debate to be a debate tonight about
the deity of Christ. I want to simply say let's assume the
Christian doctrine of the Trinity is what it is, and the question
Assumption is free, & you can't even plunk it down in exchange for a cup of
coffee.

snip tail chasing & presumption that the evidence for the xian gods is of a
lesser quality than for any other gods.
Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th
2004-06-02 00:35:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by h***@yessiree.ca
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
"When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he
separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples
according
to
Post by h***@yessiree.ca
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
the number of the sons of God." (Deuteronomy 32:8 RSV)
Are you trying to suggest that 'sons of God' means other deities? Lame.
I know of one "son of God" that Christians believe is a deity. He
also believed that he was the only son of God.
Post by h***@yessiree.ca
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Also see Psalms 86:8 RSV) "There is none like thee among the gods,
O
Lord,
Post by h***@yessiree.ca
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
nor are there any works like thine."
The Jews lived amongst many polytheistic cultures. Obviously their
God, being the only one, was incomparable to the other fictional
ones.
Christianity is a polytheistic religion. The only problem is that
most Christians think that 1+1+1 =1.
The early books of the Bible clearly show that the Jews thought that
there were several Gods, that's why they had different names for them.
Later on the Christians and Jews had to change that and claim that
they were all different names for the same God.
Also see Genesis 6 for more about the sons of God.
Don't forget Devil and angels. For some sects you should also add Mary.

Klazmon.
Earl Camembert
2004-06-02 01:46:55 UTC
Permalink
On 2 Jun 2004 12:35:08 +1200, Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th
Post by Llanzlan Klazmon The 15th
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by h***@yessiree.ca
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
"When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he
separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples
according
to
Post by h***@yessiree.ca
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
the number of the sons of God." (Deuteronomy 32:8 RSV)
Are you trying to suggest that 'sons of God' means other deities? Lame.
I know of one "son of God" that Christians believe is a deity. He
also believed that he was the only son of God.
Post by h***@yessiree.ca
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Also see Psalms 86:8 RSV) "There is none like thee among the gods,
O
Lord,
Post by h***@yessiree.ca
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
nor are there any works like thine."
The Jews lived amongst many polytheistic cultures. Obviously their
God, being the only one, was incomparable to the other fictional
ones.
Christianity is a polytheistic religion. The only problem is that
most Christians think that 1+1+1 =1.
The early books of the Bible clearly show that the Jews thought that
there were several Gods, that's why they had different names for them.
Later on the Christians and Jews had to change that and claim that
they were all different names for the same God.
Also see Genesis 6 for more about the sons of God.
Don't forget Devil and angels. For some sects you should also add Mary.
Devils and Angels are the same. Devils are fallen Angels. Mary is not
a goddess she is the mother of God. Catholics to not pray to Mary they
ask Mary to pray for them, "Pray for us sinners now and at the hour of
our death".
Nico Demusopelous
2004-06-04 00:13:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by h***@yessiree.ca
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Also see Psalms 86:8 RSV) "There is none like thee among the gods,
O Lord, nor are there any works like thine."
The Jews lived amongst many polytheistic cultures. Obviously their God,
being the only one, was incomparable to the other fictional ones.
Christianity is a polytheistic religion. The only problem is that most
Christians think that 1+1+1 =1.
That's a real gem. I guess you don't understand the Trinity too well
do you? The affirmation of believers in the Trinity is that God is
one. Admittedly, God is conceived of as being tri-personal, i.e.
comprised of three persons, but it is nonetheless agreed that these
three persons are not three different gods. There are very sensible
and logically coherent models of Trinity Monotheism. I could recommend
a book or two, or simply discuss it here with you.
unknown
2004-06-04 00:22:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nico Demusopelous
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by h***@yessiree.ca
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Also see Psalms 86:8 RSV) "There is none like thee among the gods,
O Lord, nor are there any works like thine."
The Jews lived amongst many polytheistic cultures. Obviously their God,
being the only one, was incomparable to the other fictional ones.
Christianity is a polytheistic religion. The only problem is that most
Christians think that 1+1+1 =1.
That's a real gem. I guess you don't understand the Trinity too well
do you? The affirmation of believers in the Trinity is that God is
one. Admittedly, God is conceived of as being tri-personal, i.e.
comprised of three persons, but it is nonetheless agreed that these
three persons are not three different gods. There are very sensible
and logically coherent models of Trinity Monotheism. I could recommend
a book or two, or simply discuss it here with you.
That's just a way for you to rebuke pantheons.
Earl Camembert
2004-06-04 00:58:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nico Demusopelous
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by h***@yessiree.ca
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Also see Psalms 86:8 RSV) "There is none like thee among the gods,
O Lord, nor are there any works like thine."
The Jews lived amongst many polytheistic cultures. Obviously their God,
being the only one, was incomparable to the other fictional ones.
Christianity is a polytheistic religion. The only problem is that most
Christians think that 1+1+1 =1.
That's a real gem. I guess you don't understand the Trinity too well
do you? The affirmation of believers in the Trinity is that God is
one. Admittedly, God is conceived of as being tri-personal, i.e.
comprised of three persons, but it is nonetheless agreed that these
three persons are not three different gods. There are very sensible
and logically coherent models of Trinity Monotheism. I could recommend
a book or two, or simply discuss it here with you.
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
Jez
2004-06-06 11:45:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Earl Camembert
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?
4.

5, if they don't wear boots.
--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing
Editor of EvilBible.com
2004-06-04 02:25:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nico Demusopelous
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by h***@yessiree.ca
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Also see Psalms 86:8 RSV) "There is none like thee among the gods,
O Lord, nor are there any works like thine."
The Jews lived amongst many polytheistic cultures. Obviously their God,
being the only one, was incomparable to the other fictional ones.
Christianity is a polytheistic religion. The only problem is that most
Christians think that 1+1+1 =1.
That's a real gem. I guess you don't understand the Trinity too well
do you? The affirmation of believers in the Trinity is that God is
one. Admittedly, God is conceived of as being tri-personal, i.e.
comprised of three persons, but it is nonetheless agreed that these
three persons are not three different gods. There are very sensible
and logically coherent models of Trinity Monotheism. I could recommend
a book or two, or simply discuss it here with you.
This doesn't make any sense at all, like most of your insane arguments.
Simply claiming that something is logical doesn't mean it is. Try to make
some sense!
Nico Demusopelous
2004-06-04 16:21:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Nico Demusopelous
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Christianity is a polytheistic religion. The only problem is that most
Christians think that 1+1+1 =1.
That's a real gem. I guess you don't understand the Trinity too well
do you? The affirmation of believers in the Trinity is that God is
one. Admittedly, God is conceived of as being tri-personal, i.e.
comprised of three persons, but it is nonetheless agreed that these
three persons are not three different gods. There are very sensible
and logically coherent models of Trinity Monotheism. I could recommend
a book or two, or simply discuss it here with you.
This doesn't make any sense at all, like most of your insane arguments.
Simply claiming that something is logical doesn't mean it is. Try to make
some sense!
First of all, you were the one who asserted that the Trinity is
"illogical". I gave a logically consistent model of the Trinity here:

http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2c68d44e.0406031638.15ad54f0%40posting.google.com

I'm not just asserting that it is logically consistent. I used the
proper definition of "logically consistent" taught in logic classes:
it is logically consistent if it is not logically inconsistent, and it
is logically inconsistent if it is impossible for all the propositions
found therein to be true. Because it is possible for all the
propositions to be true (i.e. no two propositions contradict one
another), then it is logically consistent.
Editor of EvilBible.com
2004-06-04 17:09:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nico Demusopelous
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Nico Demusopelous
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Christianity is a polytheistic religion. The only problem is that most
Christians think that 1+1+1 =1.
That's a real gem. I guess you don't understand the Trinity too well
do you? The affirmation of believers in the Trinity is that God is
one. Admittedly, God is conceived of as being tri-personal, i.e.
comprised of three persons, but it is nonetheless agreed that these
three persons are not three different gods. There are very sensible
and logically coherent models of Trinity Monotheism. I could recommend
a book or two, or simply discuss it here with you.
This doesn't make any sense at all, like most of your insane arguments.
Simply claiming that something is logical doesn't mean it is. Try to make
some sense!
First of all, you were the one who asserted that the Trinity is
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2c68d44e.0406031638.15ad54f0%40posting.google.com
Post by Nico Demusopelous
I'm not just asserting that it is logically consistent. I used the
it is logically consistent if it is not logically inconsistent, and it
is logically inconsistent if it is impossible for all the propositions
found therein to be true. Because it is possible for all the
propositions to be true (i.e. no two propositions contradict one
another), then it is logically consistent.
You said:
(1) There is one God.
(2) This one God is multipersonal, and comprised of three
persons: the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
(3) Jesus is God in a sense of predication.
(4) The Father is God in a sense of predication.
(5) The Holy Spirit is God in a sense of predication.
(6) None of the persons are identical to either of the other two.
(7) The Godhead is not identical to any of the persons.

Then you went on to explain that numbers 3, 4, and 5 actually mean something
like:
(3) Jesus is a part of God
(4) The Father is a part of God.
(5) The Holy Spirit is a part of God.

I asked you before and I'll ask you again, is it your position is that God
is an organization of three different entities and not an independent being?
walksalone
2004-06-05 00:54:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nico Demusopelous
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Nico Demusopelous
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Christianity is a polytheistic religion. The only problem is that most
Christians think that 1+1+1 =1.
That's a real gem. I guess you don't understand the Trinity too well
do you? The affirmation of believers in the Trinity is that God is
one. Admittedly, God is conceived of as being tri-personal, i.e.
comprised of three persons, but it is nonetheless agreed that these
three persons are not three different gods. There are very sensible
and logically coherent models of Trinity Monotheism. I could recommend
a book or two, or simply discuss it here with you.
This doesn't make any sense at all, like most of your insane arguments.
Simply claiming that something is logical doesn't mean it is. Try to make
some sense!
First of all, you were the one who asserted that the Trinity is
Logical argumentation need not be true, just logical. Listen to any
political speech, or evangelist.
Post by Nico Demusopelous
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2c68d44e.0406031638.15ad54f0%40posting.google.com
I'm not just asserting that it is logically consistent. I used the
Can't say about logic classes, being unlettered ,myself, but I can smell
bullshit without having to step in it. I guess that could be an advantage
to atheists as well as country folk.
Post by Nico Demusopelous
it is logically consistent if it is not logically inconsistent, and it
is logically inconsistent if it is impossible for all the propositions
found therein to be true. Because it is possible for all the
propositions to be true (i.e. no two propositions contradict one
another), then it is logically consistent.
Using that logic, you can claim to be right, but 1+1+1<>3. Had the early
bleater brigade been as smart as some think they were, they would have made
it three aspects & been done with it. But they were losing ground, no end
of the world you see. ca. +193 was supposed to be the first end of the
world [Gibbon's D&FOTRE, plus they had to outdo the other senior gods of
the various pagan myths as well. Some bought the fairy tale, others, like
myself, did not & do not.

HTH

walksalone who is not surprised apologetics is a booming business, sad, but
not surprised.
bardi
2004-06-05 01:12:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by walksalone
Post by Nico Demusopelous
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Nico Demusopelous
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Christianity is a polytheistic religion. The only problem is that most
Christians think that 1+1+1 =1.
That's a real gem. I guess you don't understand the Trinity too well
do you? The affirmation of believers in the Trinity is that God is
one. Admittedly, God is conceived of as being tri-personal, i.e.
comprised of three persons, but it is nonetheless agreed that these
three persons are not three different gods. There are very sensible
and logically coherent models of Trinity Monotheism. I could recommend
a book or two, or simply discuss it here with you.
This doesn't make any sense at all, like most of your insane arguments.
Simply claiming that something is logical doesn't mean it is. Try to make
some sense!
First of all, you were the one who asserted that the Trinity is
Logical argumentation need not be true, just logical. Listen to any
political speech, or evangelist.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2c68d44e.0406031638.15ad54f0%40posting.google.com
Post by walksalone
Post by Nico Demusopelous
I'm not just asserting that it is logically consistent. I used the
Can't say about logic classes, being unlettered ,myself, but I can smell
bullshit without having to step in it. I guess that could be an advantage
to atheists as well as country folk.
Post by Nico Demusopelous
it is logically consistent if it is not logically inconsistent, and it
is logically inconsistent if it is impossible for all the propositions
found therein to be true. Because it is possible for all the
propositions to be true (i.e. no two propositions contradict one
another), then it is logically consistent.
Using that logic, you can claim to be right, but 1+1+1<>3. Had the early
bleater brigade been as smart as some think they were, they would have made
it three aspects & been done with it. But they were losing ground, no end
of the world you see. ca. +193 was supposed to be the first end of the
world [Gibbon's D&FOTRE, plus they had to outdo the other senior gods of
the various pagan myths as well. Some bought the fairy tale, others, like
myself, did not & do not.
HTH
logic is,of course, valid,not right. Does this mean 1+1+1<>3? Actually in
some cases it can be. As for the end of the world you are quite
right..although you forget the Judaic aspect of it. But I would be hesitant
of using Gibbon as a source..not exacty the most unbiased source for the
early Church.
Post by walksalone
walksalone who is not surprised apologetics is a booming business, sad, but
not surprised.
Such has it always been, such will it always be.

dnp
bardi
walksalone
2004-06-05 10:34:24 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 4 Jun 2004 21:12:10 -0400, bardi wrote:

Follow ups set to AA & AAR-C
snip
Post by bardi
Post by walksalone
Post by Nico Demusopelous
another), then it is logically consistent.
Using that logic, you can claim to be right, but 1+1+1<>3. Had the early
bleater brigade been as smart as some think they were, they would have
made
Post by walksalone
it three aspects & been done with it. But they were losing ground, no end
of the world you see. ca. +193 was supposed to be the first end of the
world [Gibbon's D&FOTRE, plus they had to outdo the other senior gods of
the various pagan myths as well. Some bought the fairy tale, others, like
myself, did not & do not.
HTH
logic is,of course, valid,not right. Does this mean 1+1+1<>3? Actually in
some cases it can be. As for the end of the world you are quite
Would depend on your mathematical model, don't know myself, & not
interested I might add. In mythology, there are trinity's & at least one
quadrinity [goddess no less]. However, they were in place from the
beginning & not the new addition xianity uses. An addition based on a
desire I understand not, when it is based on the Jewish mythology to start
with. That mythology is based on the Canaanite mythology. Took time to
track the sucker down, as well as freedom from the death penalty for doing
so, but tracked down it was.
Post by bardi
right..although you forget the Judaic aspect of it. But I would be hesitant
I was concerned with the xian portion, the Judaic portion does not, & can
not include a trinity as claimed by the xian mythos.
Post by bardi
of using Gibbon as a source..not exacty the most unbiased source for the
early Church.
How so, was he less biased as a historian, say the Methodist preachers
attack & apologetic of 1845. What he did was very rare, he simply recorded
the information that was still available, he pointed no fingers, he decried
no dogma. He pointed out the known portion & part played by xianity during
the decline & fall of the Roman Empire. He espoused no dogma, nor pointed
any fingers. IOW, he did what was necessary & left the hand wringing to
others.
Since the publication was first published, new information & sources have
dome to light, some old sources he quoted are now lost. Does that make him
any less a historian? Serious question BTW.

As a side note, I use him for Roman history, & xian activity's were/are
part of that history.
Now, if you can show where he was less than honest in his publication, I
would like to be made aware of that. If you can show where he deliberately
discarded information that was germane to his work, I would also like to
know.
Other than that, he is a handy starting point were one seriously interested
in the subject he devoted considerable effort, time, & money to.
Post by bardi
Post by walksalone
walksalone who is not surprised apologetics is a booming business, sad,
but
Post by walksalone
not surprised.
Such has it always been, such will it always be.
& yet, the truth needs no defense. Go figure, I can't.

walksalone who is beginning to enjoy this, for a change.
David V.
2004-06-05 03:22:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nico Demusopelous
I'm not just asserting that it is logically consistent. I
used the proper definition of "logically consistent"
taught in logic classes....
No logic class would teach that any logically consistent
argument can be build on an a priori assumption, only a
circular argument could be built under those conditions.
--
David V.

UDP for WebTV
Nico Demusopelous
2004-06-06 03:12:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by David V.
Post by Nico Demusopelous
I'm not just asserting that it is logically consistent. I
used the proper definition of "logically consistent"
taught in logic classes....
No logic class would teach that any logically consistent
argument can be build on an a priori assumption, only a
circular argument could be built under those conditions.
Huh? I think you either misunderstood me, or don't understand the
concept of logically consistent. The claim was that the doctrine of
the Trinity is "illogical". What I did was give a basic version of the
doctrine that was logically consistent. Then I gave the proper
definition of logical consistency. Recall that I wrote: "it is
logically consistent if it is not logically inconsistent, and it is
logically inconsistent if it is impossible for all the propositions
found therein to be true. Because it is possible for all the
propositions to be true (i.e. no two propositions contradict one
another), then it is logically consistent."

If you're doubting this proper definition of logical consistency,
which is tauch in undergraduate intro to logic classes, let me quote
from a standard logic text book:

"A set of sentences is logically consistent if and only if it is
possible for all the members of that set to be true. A set of
sentences is logically inconsistent if and only if it is not logically
consistent."
[Merrie Bergmann, James Moor & Jack Nelson, "The Logic Book,"
(McGraw-Hill, 1998), p. 17]

Another text book explains it nicely within the context of a truth
table (which, I feel, captures all the realms of logical space
relevant to the subject):

"Truth tables may also be used to determine how two propositions are
related to each other. [...] Two (or more) propositions are consistent
if there is at least one line on which both (or all) of them turn out
to be true, and they are inconsistent if there is no line on which
both (or all) of them turn out to be true."
[Patrick J. Hurley, "A Concise Introduction to Logic," (Wadsworth,
2000), p. 329]

And to respond directly to what you wrote above, it is certainly
possible to construct a logically consistent set of propositions, a
priori, that is not circular.

Okay folks, I gotta run, but will be back monday...
David V.
2004-06-06 03:16:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nico Demusopelous
Post by David V.
Post by Nico Demusopelous
I'm not just asserting that it is logically
consistent. I used the proper definition of
"logically consistent" taught in logic classes....
No logic class would teach that any logically
consistent argument can be build on an a priori
assumption, only a circular argument could be built
under those conditions.
Huh? I think you either misunderstood me, or don't
understand the concept of logically consistent.
I misunderstood nothing. You cannot build a logically
consistent argument based on a priori assumptions and
conjecture. No matter how you redefine things, no matter who
you quote, it cannot be done.
--
David V.

UDP for WebTV
Pangur Ban
2004-06-02 02:19:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by h***@yessiree.ca
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
"When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he
separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to
the number of the sons of God." (Deuteronomy 32:8 RSV)
Are you trying to suggest that 'sons of God' means other deities? Lame.
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Also see Psalms 86:8 RSV) "There is none like thee among the gods, O Lord,
nor are there any works like thine."
The Jews lived amongst many polytheistic cultures. Obviously their God,
being the only one, was incomparable to the other fictional ones.
H.
Those Gods and Goddesses which you call
"fictional" pre-date the god of the OT by
centuries. They were worshiped by their followers
just as fervently and as passionately as, I
assume, you follow yours.

The poetry, hymns, artwork, etc. which they
created for their Gods and Goddesses rival and
sometimes surpass the writing of the bible. Their
works are still existent.....and are as
awe-inspiring as they were when created.

The christian god is just one among the many.

Pangur
Mark Richardson
2004-06-02 04:29:12 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 1 Jun 2004 11:53:57 -0400, "Editor of EvilBible.com"
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
How Many Gods? (Deuteronomy 32:8 RSV)
"When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he
separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to
the number of the sons of God." (Deuteronomy 32:8 RSV)
(Also see Psalms 86:8 RSV) "There is none like thee among the gods, O Lord,
nor are there any works like thine."
What kind of person would get their moral guidance from an ancient book of
myths and magic that says it is OK to murder, rape, pillage, and plunder?
Read more about the evils of the Bible at www.EvilBible.com
Is polytheism necessarily evil?
Is it more or less evil than monotheism?


Mark.

--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau

Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)

-----------------------------------------------------
Nico Demusopelous
2004-06-04 00:09:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
How Many Gods? (Deuteronomy 32:8 RSV)
"When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he
separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to
the number of the sons of God." (Deuteronomy 32:8 RSV)
(Also see Psalms 86:8 RSV) "There is none like thee among the gods, O Lord,
nor are there any works like thine."
Ummmm, why are either of these quotes "evil"? I mean, they don't even
seem to fit your own definition of "evil" (as asserting that God has
sons, or that there might be other gods, does not really cause harm to
others). I think almost every Christian and religiously Jewish person
alive today would agree that the answer to the question "how many
gods" is "one." Regardless of whether this is consistent with the
original intention of the author of the Psalm cited above, I don't see
how this is an exhibition of "evil".
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
What kind of person would get their moral guidance from an ancient book of
myths and magic that says it is OK to murder, rape, pillage, and plunder?
Probably the kind of person that believes the book is the word of God.
Does the Bible, however, simply say it is okay to "murder, rape,
pillage, and plunder"? Or are all instances of Biblically sanctioned
"murder, rape, pillage, and plunder" under very specific conditions?
In fact, there are verses that at least condemn murder, so your claim
that the Bible "says it is OK to murder, rape, pillage, and plunder"
is simply false.

Finally, demonstrating that the Bible is in contrast to your own
subjective sense of morality does not demonstrate that it is not the
word of God (keep in mind that I am not asserting that it *is* the
word of God). I wonder, if there was a God, and he decided to create
humans and then ordered one cohort from among them to slaughter
another, would that be "evil"? If we understand God to be in
possession of infinite power, where is the wrong in creating and then
destroying human beings? Couldn't God create an infinite number of
human beings? Isn't the value of a human being, from the perspective
of such a being, worth less than the effort expended in snapping one's
"fingers"? It would seem to me to be not more "evil" than a child
drawing a picture and then ripping it up. What are your thoughts?
Editor of EvilBible.com
2004-06-04 03:00:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nico Demusopelous
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
How Many Gods? (Deuteronomy 32:8 RSV)
"When the Most High gave to the nations their inheritance, when he
separated the sons of men, he fixed the bounds of the peoples according to
the number of the sons of God." (Deuteronomy 32:8 RSV)
(Also see Psalms 86:8 RSV) "There is none like thee among the gods, O Lord,
nor are there any works like thine."
Ummmm, why are either of these quotes "evil"? I mean, they don't even
seem to fit your own definition of "evil" (as asserting that God has
sons, or that there might be other gods, does not really cause harm to
others). I think almost every Christian and religiously Jewish person
alive today would agree that the answer to the question "how many
gods" is "one." Regardless of whether this is consistent with the
original intention of the author of the Psalm cited above, I don't see
how this is an exhibition of "evil".
No evil here. Just putting Bible passages up to logical examination.
Post by Nico Demusopelous
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
What kind of person would get their moral guidance from an ancient book of
myths and magic that says it is OK to murder, rape, pillage, and plunder?
Probably the kind of person that believes the book is the word of God.
Like most Christians.
Post by Nico Demusopelous
Does the Bible, however, simply say it is okay to "murder, rape,
pillage, and plunder"? Or are all instances of Biblically sanctioned
"murder, rape, pillage, and plunder" under very specific conditions?
Yes the Bible is very specific in saying who should be murdered. Let me
list a few of these specifics:

1) Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests (Deuteronomy 17:12)

2) Kill Witches (Exodus 22:17)

3) Kill Homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13)

4) Kill Fortunetellers (Leviticus 20:27)

5) Death for Hitting Dad (Exodus 21:15)

6) Death for Cursing Parents (Proverbs 20:20 & Leviticus 20:9)

7) Death for Adultery (Leviticus 20:10)

8) Death for Fornication (Leviticus 21:9)

There are many more on my web page http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm
Post by Nico Demusopelous
In fact, there are verses that at least condemn murder, so your claim
that the Bible "says it is OK to murder, rape, pillage, and plunder"
is simply false.
The fact that the Bible is riddled with contradictions does not mean that
the Bible doesn't say it is OK to murder, rape, pillage, and plunder. All
that means is that the Bible is full of contradictions.
Post by Nico Demusopelous
Finally, demonstrating that the Bible is in contrast to your own
subjective sense of morality does not demonstrate that it is not the
word of God (keep in mind that I am not asserting that it *is* the
word of God). I wonder, if there was a God, and he decided to create
humans and then ordered one cohort from among them to slaughter
another, would that be "evil"? If we understand God to be in
possession of infinite power, where is the wrong in creating and then
destroying human beings? Couldn't God create an infinite number of
human beings? Isn't the value of a human being, from the perspective
of such a being, worth less than the effort expended in snapping one's
"fingers"? It would seem to me to be not more "evil" than a child
drawing a picture and then ripping it up. What are your thoughts?
I think this is an excellent example of the evils of religion. If you think
that the murder of innocent children is moral just because you think your
"god" tells you to kill children....then,...then,.....Oh shit, I don't know
how to respond to such stupidity. I guess I'll let my gun do the talking if
I see you coming around my family.
Nico Demusopelous
2004-06-04 03:31:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Nico Demusopelous
Ummmm, why are either of these quotes "evil"? I mean, they don't even
seem to fit your own definition of "evil" (as asserting that God has
sons, or that there might be other gods, does not really cause harm to
others). I think almost every Christian and religiously Jewish person
alive today would agree that the answer to the question "how many
gods" is "one." Regardless of whether this is consistent with the
original intention of the author of the Psalm cited above, I don't see
how this is an exhibition of "evil".
No evil here. Just putting Bible passages up to logical examination.
Right, by your own admission: no evil here. So then, how do the verses
you called to witness serve as the "Evil Bible Quote of the Day for
June 1"? Seems we need to put your post headers up to logical
examination as well, eh? Furthermore, where is the logical problem
with those verses?
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Nico Demusopelous
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
What kind of person would get their moral guidance from an ancient
book of myths and magic that says it is OK to murder, rape, pillage,
and plunder?
Probably the kind of person that believes the book is the word of God.
Like most Christians.
Bingo.
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Nico Demusopelous
Does the Bible, however, simply say it is okay to "murder, rape,
pillage, and plunder"? Or are all instances of Biblically sanctioned
"murder, rape, pillage, and plunder" under very specific conditions?
Yes the Bible is very specific in saying who should be murdered. Let me
1) Kill People Who Don't Listen to Priests (Deuteronomy 17:12)
2) Kill Witches (Exodus 22:17)
3) Kill Homosexuals (Leviticus 20:13)
4) Kill Fortunetellers (Leviticus 20:27)
5) Death for Hitting Dad (Exodus 21:15)
6) Death for Cursing Parents (Proverbs 20:20 & Leviticus 20:9)
7) Death for Adultery (Leviticus 20:10)
8) Death for Fornication (Leviticus 21:9)
There are many more on my web page http://www.evilbible.com/Murder.htm
However much you may disagree with those laws, those seem to be
executions rather than murders. I agree that you can murder a person
"execution style," and some executions are treated as murders if they
were not sanctioned by the state in which they happened, but the above
seems to be mostly laws for a given society, and they give the
"crimes" for which death is the penalty.
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Nico Demusopelous
In fact, there are verses that at least condemn murder, so your claim
that the Bible "says it is OK to murder, rape, pillage, and plunder"
is simply false.
The fact that the Bible is riddled with contradictions does not mean that
the Bible doesn't say it is OK to murder, rape, pillage, and plunder.
All that means is that the Bible is full of contradictions.
Well, there is a verse that very clearly says "lo tirzach," do not
murder. I know of no verse that turns around and gives the
contradiction "okay, you can murder." There are only instances of
state/societal/divine sanctioned execution or warfare. So the Bible
says it is not okay to murder, which contradicts you claim that the
Bible says it is okay to "to murder, rape, pillage, and plunder".
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
Post by Nico Demusopelous
Finally, demonstrating that the Bible is in contrast to your own
subjective sense of morality does not demonstrate that it is not the
word of God (keep in mind that I am not asserting that it *is* the
word of God). I wonder, if there was a God, and he decided to create
humans and then ordered one cohort from among them to slaughter
another, would that be "evil"? If we understand God to be in
possession of infinite power, where is the wrong in creating and then
destroying human beings? Couldn't God create an infinite number of
human beings? Isn't the value of a human being, from the perspective
of such a being, worth less than the effort expended in snapping one's
"fingers"? It would seem to me to be not more "evil" than a child
drawing a picture and then ripping it up. What are your thoughts?
I think this is an excellent example of the evils of religion. If you
think that the murder of innocent children is moral just because you
think your "god" tells you to kill children....then,...then,.....Oh
shit, I don't know how to respond to such stupidity. I guess I'll
let my gun do the talking if I see you coming around my family.
Well, I guess we're not much for thought experiments, are we Mr.
Trigger-Happy? Also, I like how you managed to poison the well, erect
a straw man, and make an appeal to emotional all in a single sentence.
I never claimed that "the murder of innocent children is moral". The
paragraph above consisted of questions regarding whether it is evil
for a deity to destroy his own creations. This is a question that
remains unanswered.

Oh, and in case you're wondering, I'm anti-death penalty. ;)
Nico Demusopelous
2004-06-04 17:55:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
I asked you before and I'll ask you again, is it your position is
that God is an organization of three different entities and not an
independent being?
I answered this question already here:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2c68d44e.0406031903.680e50df%40posting.google.com

Let's try to stay focused.
Editor of EvilBible.com
2004-06-04 23:09:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Nico Demusopelous
Post by Editor of EvilBible.com
I asked you before and I'll ask you again, is it your position is
that God is an organization of three different entities and not an
independent being?
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=2c68d44e.0406031903.680e50df%40posting.google.com
Post by Nico Demusopelous
Let's try to stay focused.
I'm sorry. My ISP seems to have lost your reply. That seems to happen a
lot on my new ISP (Adelphia). Unfortunately, my only other choice is giving
up my high speed cable modem and going back to dial-up.

I'll repost your reply from Google:
-------------- Start Repost ---------------
That would be akin to positively asserting that the model reflects
reality, wouldn't it? What I said was "I am not asserting that this
description is true (i.e. that it reflects reality)." What I am
asserting is that the following seven points are neither logically
incoherent nor Biblically inconsistent:

(1) There is one God.
(2) This one God is multipersonal, and comprised of three
persons: the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit.
(3) Jesus is God in a sense of predication.
(4) The Father is God in a sense of predication.
(5) The Holy Spirit is God in a sense of predication.
(6) None of the persons are identical to either of the other two.
(7) The Godhead is not identical to any of the persons.

As for whether such a model makes God "an organization of three
different entities," I would say that it certainly does. As for
whether or not a multipersonal being is independent, I don't see why
its multipersonal ontology has to necessarily conflict with its
independence. Richard Swinburne, in his book "The Christian God," has
some wonderful stuff on models in which the will of each person is in
harmony with the wills of the other two, which would allow them to
work as a unit.

But this moves away from the original point. You claimed the Trinity
is "illogical". Do you believe the model above (and the explanation
given in this thread) is logically inconsistent?
------------- End repost ---------

What you have written above is logically consistent. It is no different
than saying that the Smith family is composed of a father, a mother, and 1
child. (However, some Christians insist that God is a single entity and the
Father, son and Holy Ghost are simply 3 different faces of the same single
entity.) The logical inconsistencies of the trinity have to do with the
properties of each of the individual entity and the properties of the
trinity.

I'll explain more, but first you need to tell me if you think that each unit
of the trinity (the Father, Jesus, and Holy Spirit) are omnipotent and
omniscient and whether the Godhead is omnipotent and omniscient.
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...