I - an atheist - am morally better than the Christian God

[Whateverman]

No.

What you are not understanding is finite perfect is not the same as infinite perfect. Finite perfect can fail.

Then it's not perfect.

Sorry.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

I agree about the paraphrased translations, but they are clearly pointed out to be such in the introduction section. They are not meant for serious bible study, but more for readability. But the fact that we have several thousand versions and fragments of the NT and most all agree with each other does mean that the copiers of the manuscript took great care to transcribe the books accurately. And it does allow us to reconstruct what the autographs would have said. The NT has more manuscript evidence than any other documents of that time period. We can be sure that the bibles we have today are very accurate and very close to the original. And sure, punctuation can make a difference, but even the example you gave is not something that is a core doctrine. Whether the Thief ended up in paradise with Christ that day, or later makes no difference to Christianities core beliefs.

The placing of the comma in that example opens up the doctrinal issues surrounding the concept of Purgatory.

The fact remains that all these MSS are copies of copies of copies. That so many copies of the various Christian texts exist is because once Christianity gained toleration it could openly commence producing its texts and as the church gained ever more temporal power more New Testaments were produced.

For most of the hundreds of thousand textual variants that are found in extant MSS most of them are completely insignificant and of little importance. However, it would be incorrect to deny that subtle changes between the various gospel texts have not reflected, or indeed changed, theological conclusions that may be drawn from them. Was Jesus an angry man? Was he sanguine in the face of death? Furthermore, in some instances, the assumed meaning of the text is dependent upon the resolution of textual issues, often resulting with the academics examining these texts coming to opposite conclusions.

For believers the fact remains that even if they believe God inspired the words, the original texts containing his words no longer exist which renders the doctrine of inspiration somewhat irrelevant.

[Starlight]

For most of the hundreds of thousand textual variants that are found in extant MSS most of them are completely insignificant and of little importance. However, it would be incorrect to deny that subtle changes between the various gospel texts have not reflected, or indeed changed, theological conclusions that may be drawn from them. Was Jesus an angry man? Was he sanguine in the face of death? Furthermore, in some instances, the assumed meaning of the text is dependent upon the resolution of textual issues, often resulting with the academics examining these texts coming to opposite conclusions.

While that is true, it seems to be to be an order of magnitude smaller in effect than interpretation changes due to either of translation issues, or social-context-interpretation issues.

e.g. to pick a famous parable, the Parable of the Talents. In the common allegorical/non-literal interpretation of it, where the master isn't a master and is in fact God, and the servants aren't servants and are in fact humanity, and the money isn't money and is in fact God-given human abilities, the master is thus good and the servant who buried the money and spoke out against him is bad and punished in hell. But if you read it in the social context of the time, and take it literally, where the master is a master and the servants are servants and the money is money, then it reads as a totally comprehensible moralistic tale of a nasty and exploitative rich absentee landowner who punishes the one servant who buries the money as he ought to (the standard way at the time of preserving wealth) and who had the guts to speak truth his immoral master, and who rewards those servants who exploited wealth out of others to make the rich man even richer and so were as bad as their master.

The same text, but read more literally and with more knowledge of the social context and values of the time, can thus yield a totally different interpretation. In one, it is a timeless and abstract exhortation to use our God-given gifts in His service, in the other it is a scathing indictment of the increasing wealth inequality in the time of Jesus that was resulting from exploitative absentee landowners. So, while textual variations can sometimes make some small differences, interpretative differences can make some very large ones.

[shunyadragon]

It is the difference between infinite perfect and a finite perfect. The knowleedge of good and evil was the infinite perfect God's knowledge, Genesis 3:22. Infinite good cannot be corrupted by any amount (finite) evil. Only finite good can be negated. And evil cannot be without finite good that can be negated.

OK! Interms of God's knowledge, assuming God exists, is infinitely perfect, finite(?) perfect, and good and evil are infinite perfect in God's knowledge. There is a problem in the scripture of ALL religions, and in the fallible human nature, things are not either infinitely nor finitely perfect In fact on the world scale regardless of religion or culture over the millennia of human history things are very imperfect, diverse and conflicting,

God's perfection is believed by many different reliigons and cultures, but no objectively understood from the human persective.
in diverse culrues.

Morals and ethics are evolved human cultural constructs. and actually not stated in the scripture of religions. IT was God's Law in the scriptures, and it was highly interpretive from the human perspective and culture.

[Hypatia_Alexandria]

While that is true, it seems to be to be an order of magnitude smaller in effect than interpretation changes due to either of translation issues, or social-context-interpretation issues.

e.g. to pick a famous parable, the Parable of the Talents. In the common allegorical/non-literal interpretation of it, where the master isn't a master and is in fact God, and the servants aren't servants and are in fact humanity, and the money isn't money and is in fact God-given human abilities, the master is thus good and the servant who buried the money and spoke out against him is bad and punished in hell. But if you read it in the social context of the time, and take it literally, where the master is a master and the servants are servants and the money is money, then it reads as a totally comprehensible moralistic tale of a nasty and exploitative rich absentee landowner who punishes the one servant who buries the money as he ought to (the standard way at the time of preserving wealth) and who had the guts to speak truth his immoral master, and who rewards those servants who exploited wealth out of others to make the rich man even richer and so were as bad as their master.

The same text, but read more literally and with more knowledge of the social context and values of the time, can thus yield a totally different interpretation. In one, it is a timeless and abstract exhortation to use our God-given gifts in His service, in the other it is a scathing indictment of the increasing wealth inequality in the time of Jesus that was resulting from exploitative absentee landowners. So, while textual variations can sometimes make some small differences, interpretative differences can make some very large ones.

You appear to be of the same thinking as William R Herzog II - I have only read one of his books but he makes some very interesting points. The "Socialist" Jesus perhaps! Or more plausibly the Jesus with Zealot sympathies.

[Sparko]

The placing of the comma in that example opens up the doctrinal issues surrounding the concept of Purgatory.

uh, no.

The fact remains that all these MSS are copies of copies of copies. That so many copies of the various Christian texts exist is because once Christianity gained toleration it could openly commence producing its texts and as the church gained ever more temporal power more New Testaments were produced.

and yet they are all remarkably very close to each other. So much so, that it is easily determined where the variations were introduced and what the autographs must have said.

For most of the hundreds of thousand textual variants that are found in extant MSS most of them are completely insignificant and of little importance. However, it would be incorrect to deny that subtle changes between the various gospel texts have not reflected, or indeed changed, theological conclusions that may be drawn from them. Was Jesus an angry man? Was he sanguine in the face of death? Furthermore, in some instances, the assumed meaning of the text is dependent upon the resolution of textual issues, often resulting with the academics examining these texts coming to opposite conclusions.

For believers the fact remains that even if they believe God inspired the words, the original texts containing his words no longer exist which renders the doctrine of inspiration somewhat irrelevant.

The fact remains that if you won't even bother to read the bible then you have no business debating it.

[37818]

So the term perfect doesn't really mean perfect.

Not your concept. You seem incapable of understanding some kinds differences. finite and infinite. Temporal and eternal. Caused and uncaused. Space and things in space not being the space. And so on.

[37818]

Unless of course, you are the one who is lost.

How would you know the difference? For sure the professing believers in Matthew 7:21-23 where lost. What was God's will they failed to do that made that difference?

[37818]

The difference is largely subjective and unclear. The vast majority of "professing Christiaities (sic)" all accept the divinity of Jesus Christ and his resurrection, the existence of sin, and the need for salvation. Everything else is just theological white noise.


That's arrant nonsense.. There's no requirement - anywhere - that in order to fully understand Christianity, I need to agree with your personal opinions about which people are Christians and which aren't.

And really, since I've already demonstrated that I know of the supposed divinity of Jesus Christ and his resurrection, the supposed existence of sin, and our supposed need for salvation - any claim that I know nothing about the Christian religion is a hateful lie. It's a lie aimed at diverting the conversation away from the thread subject.

It's a lie crafted to hide the fact that Christians largely cannot refute the argument in the OP.

Here's why: I know how to rid the universe of evil without impacting the free will of its inhabitants. Even better, I will do this the instant I'm granted the ability to do so.

The Christian God already has this ability, and refuses to use it.

This makes me morally superior to him.

---

The problem of evil can be solved instantly in this way: prevent the birth of anyone who will freely choose to do evil.

This avoids forcing people to make choices they wouldn't make themselves. Free will conundrum resolved, and all evil stopped; the universe becomes as sinless as heaven, and the need for Hell is gone.

---

How do I apply for the promotion to godhood?

I have to agree, one cannot refute an irrational person by refuting that person's arguments. Athiests by default are irrational and while being an athiest cannot know one's self to be irrational.

[Whateverman]

The difference is largely subjective and unclear. The vast majority of "professing Christiaities (sic)" all accept the divinity of Jesus Christ and his resurrection, the existence of sin, and the need for salvation. Everything else is just theological white noise.


That's arrant nonsense.. There's no requirement - anywhere - that in order to fully understand Christianity, I need to agree with your personal opinions about which people are Christians and which aren't.

And really, since I've already demonstrated that I know of the supposed divinity of Jesus Christ and his resurrection, the supposed existence of sin, and our supposed need for salvation - any claim that I know nothing about the Christian religion is a hateful lie. It's a lie aimed at diverting the conversation away from the thread subject.

It's a lie crafted to hide the fact that Christians largely cannot refute the argument in the OP.

Here's why: I know how to rid the universe of evil without impacting the free will of its inhabitants. Even better, I will do this the instant I'm granted the ability to do so.

The Christian God already has this ability, and refuses to use it.

This makes me morally superior to him.

---

The problem of evil can be solved instantly in this way: prevent the birth of anyone who will freely choose to do evil.

This avoids forcing people to make choices they wouldn't make themselves. Free will conundrum resolved, and all evil stopped; the universe becomes as sinless as heaven, and the need for Hell is gone.

---

How do I apply for the promotion to godhood?

I have to agree, one cannot refute an irrational person by refuting that person's arguments. Athiests by default are irrational and while being an athiest cannot know one's self to be irrational.

If you could have refuted the argument in the OP, you would have by now.

Unable to address a single thing I wrote, you insult me and run away.

Coward.

[37818]

If you could have refuted the argument in the OP, you would have by now.

Unable to address a single thing I wrote, you insult me and run away.

Coward.

I did address evil (in another post). For starters evil cannot exist without good that can be hurt.

[JimL]

I did address evil (in another post). For starters evil cannot exist without good that can be hurt.

Define "good" and "evil" if you can?

[Starlight]

You appear to be of the same thinking as William R Herzog II

Yes, he's one of the many recent writers who have made efforts to understand the gospel accounts in their original social-context setting.

The "Socialist" Jesus perhaps!

I think it's accurate to call Jesus 'socialist', yes. It's a little anachronistic. But, on the other hand, he thinks the rich are going to hell, is deeply concerned about wealth inequality and the exploitation of the poor by the rich, speaks in idealised terms about everyone being made equal, requires his followers to give away all their possessions, and the first thing his followers do on his death is form a commune where all possessions are shared. Looks pretty identical to what we know as socialism.

Or more plausibly the Jesus with Zealot sympathies.

I'd say the opposite. If anything he seems to have pacifist leanings, and his level of interest in the Romans is minimal. The subjects of his criticism are nearly always the rich who aren't helping the poor, and the Pharisees whose ritual purity laws are excluding the poor from social acceptability. Obviously it's possible that the 'kingdom of God' language is a direct reference to overthrowing the Romans by force, but there's virtually nothing else in the text that suggests that's how it ought to be understood. And in his own interaction with the Roman centurion, he gives the man some of the highest praise we see Jesus give in the gospels.

But again, this is a case where interpretative differences result in far larger differences than textual ones do.

[Whateverman]

I did address evil (in another post). For starters evil cannot exist without good that can be hurt.

Thanks for your opinion, but it's not persuasive against a logical argument.

You may believe that evil can't exist without good, but that doesn't change the fact that God could get rid of evil if he wanted to, without impacting our free will.

He's decided not to, so therefore, he doesn't want to.

I do, though!

[Tassman]

I did address evil (in another post). For starters evil cannot exist without good that can be hurt.

Why allow 'evil' that can hurt 'good' in the first place?