God as the Divine Blackmailer

[potwalloper.]

It has been said that the threat of eternal damnation is no different to blackmail - ie coercing people to do things by the use of a threat.

...and as blackmail is a sin then if he is guilty God would be a sinner.

What do you think?

Is god guilty of blackmail and therefore a sinner?

- if yes why do you believe this to be so

- if no then why not?

[RevJP]

So I am restricted to repeating back to you exactly what you said with no opportunity for interpretation...I see so the normal principles of communication don't apply with you?

When your interpretation blatantly misrepresents what was actually written then you have stepped out of the bounds of the principles of normal communication.

Sorry but I'm afraid that setting yourself up as some sort of self-rightous soul who is flexible and does not close down possibilities would be laughable if it was not such a damning indictment of the blindness of your faith.
You have closed down every possibility and left only one path open - your belief in God.

Simply that I am arguing on the side of the existence in God is reason enough for me not to expound on your end of the debate. I could easily say that you have closed down every possibility and left only one path - your belief in the non-existence of God.

I'm afraid you would have to provide support for your idea that I am self-righteous however.

Well I am saying that the two cannot be differentiated. You cannot argue for the existence of Jesus without also explaining the so-called miracles.

Why not? The two issues are mutually exclusive. One can exists without having done something. Jesus could exist and the reports of His miracles be a farce - I have not, nor am I denying that. I am debating the existence of Jesus, you seem to want to lump that in with the proof of miracles, logically that is a fallacious approach.

Faith is fantasy - when I want fantasy I read a work of fiction. I don't build my view of the world on fantasy.

Hogwash. Everytime you flip a light switch you do so on faith - faith that the light will come on. Everytime you wake up in the morning and expect to see the sun, you do so on faith - faith that the sun has or will rise. Faith is an element of our daily lives even though we do not, or will not recognize it.

Sorry - I have no personal bias - prove God's existence in empirical terms and I will believe in her. Unlike you - nothing I or anyone else could say would persuade you to abandon your belief and become an atheist. You are the rigid one not me.

You make unsupported assumptions about me, You know not my faith, nor how I came to it, you show your bias and ignorance in your very insults, but that is neither here nor there.

You cannot see that your adamant refusal to believe in the posssibilty of anything you cannot verify with your 5 senses is a bias? You ignore logic and truth.

JP:
Unexplained events are not miracles.


However, miracles by definition are unexplainable events, which is what I had said.


And this means what exactly? Oh yes "God did it!! Praise be to the inexplicable!"

It means what it says in plain english: Miracles are by definition, unexplainable events. Should I write it slower so you will be able to better follow along?

In other words - you can't.

I provided you a begining source for what you claim you desire to see. If you chose ignore it that is your business, merely a further indication of your bias and closed-mind.

bernee51 what can I say? You obviously wish to dismiss anything presented to you, so it seems that nothing anyone says will cause you to honestly consider it. I have no help for that.

I wrote regarding Josephus, which you blatantly ignored. I wrote regarding current scholarship and sciences supporting the existence of Jesus and you apparently choose to fly in the face of academia and ignore those as well. I have no help for that either.

You have failed, more miserably than most apologists, to provide any evidence.

I am not an apologist, I am simply pointing out the fallacies and logical inconsistencies of your arguments.

Sadly it appears you do not really wish to discuss and perchance learn, but you would rather spew the repeatedly debunked arguments against the historical veracity of Jesus' existence.

[potwalloper.]

RevJP wrote

So I am restricted to repeating back to you exactly what you said with no opportunity for interpretation...I see so the normal principles of communication don't apply with you?

When your interpretation blatantly misrepresents what was actually written then you have stepped out of the bounds of the principles of normal communication.

Or it may simply be that whenever I point out the nonsensical nature of what you say you dodge the issue...or perhaps you simply have faith that you are always correct

I could easily say that you have closed down every possibility and left only one path - your belief in the non-existence of God.

Belief in a non-existence eh? Mmmm...I'd have to think about that one.

I'm afraid you would have to provide support for your idea that I am self-righteous however.

That, my friend, is self-evident from your attitude.

Well I am saying that the two cannot be differentiated. You cannot argue for the existence of Jesus without also explaining the so-called miracles.

Why not? The two issues are mutually exclusive. One can exists without having done something. Jesus could exist and the reports of His miracles be a farce - I have not, nor am I denying that. I am debating the existence of Jesus, you seem to want to lump that in with the proof of miracles

Wanting to lump it in with the proof of the miracles undermines any argument you can put forward for the existence of Jesus as described in the bible and you know that. You try to divert the debate by breaking the link between the existence of Jesus and his miraculous nature when in your heart as a Christian you believe that the miracles occured...the only reason you could have for doing this is that the miracles per se undermine any evidence you can put forward for the existence of Jesus unless you can also provide an explanation for the miracles.

logically that is a fallacious approach.[/

Bearing in mind that the conception of Jesus is supposed to have been miraculous in nature I cannot see anything fallacious about this approach I'm afraid. It would be like me saying I can prove the existence of superman but not his super powers.

Twaddle and you know it.

Faith is fantasy - when I want fantasy I read a work of fiction. I don't build my view of the world on fantasy.

Hogwash. Everytime you flip a light switch you do so on faith - faith that the light will come on. Everytime you wake up in the morning and expect to see the sun, you do so on faith - faith that the sun has or will rise. Faith is an element of our daily lives even though we do not, or will not recognize it.

When I switch on a light switch I know that if there is an electrical current in the circuit with the appropriate PD and the bulb element is intact the light will illuminate. When I wake up in the morning I know that as long as the earth has continued to rotate as measured and the sun is still emitting electromagnetic radiation in the visible spectrum the sun will shine.

These are not elements of faith they are simple facts based on our physical understanding of the universe.

If a bulb does not light up I investigate and remedy the cause. Presumably you pray to some deity in the vain hope that it will magically light up the room.

Just because you live your life based on faith does not mean that everyone does. We do not all live by your standards

Sorry - I have no personal bias - prove God's existence in empirical terms and I will believe in her. Unlike you - nothing I or anyone else could say would persuade you to abandon your belief and become an atheist. You are the rigid one not me.

You make unsupported assumptions about me, You know not my faith, nor how I came to it, you show your bias and ignorance in your very insults, but that is neither here nor there.

I know that you accept things without evidence. What more do I need?

You cannot see that your adamant refusal to believe in the posssibilty of anything you cannot verify with your 5 senses is a bias? You ignore logic and truth.

So show me the truth about the existence of God. I have already said that I will believe in her if you do. So give me a logical argument that supports the existence of God...oh, sorry you can't can you, any more than I can give a logical argument for the existence of Santa or the Invisible Pink Unicorn.

I am not refusing to believe in anything I cannot verify with my senses - in many cases scientific investigation utilises methodologies that extend well beyond the senses. What I am saying is don't sell me junk and expect me to believe it on the basis of faith.

And this means what exactly? Oh yes "God did it!! Praise be to the inexplicable!"

It means what it says in plain english: Miracles are by definition, unexplainable events. Should I write it slower so you will be able to better follow along?

So you are not saying that all unexplainable events are miracles but are saying that miracles are unexplainable events...I see, so who makes the decision as to which unexplainable events are miracles and which are not? Is there some sort of divine arbiter who makes the decision then? Or do you make a judgement based on your faith?

As I said "Praise be to the inexplicable"

In other words - you can't.

I provided you a begining source for what you claim you desire to see. If you chose ignore it that is your business, merely a further indication of your bias and closed-mind.

You provided me with nothing I had not seen before, subjected to critical analysis and rejected on the grounds of objectivity.

You have no objective evidence - why not just admit it? You have already admitted that you are willing to accept things without any objective evidence is this not a simple extension of same?

[potwalloper.]

I am happy to continue to debate the issue of the existence of Jesus. However we do appear to have lost the thread here.

A reminder:

It has been said that the threat of eternal damnation is no different to blackmail - ie coercing people to do things by the use of a threat.

...and as blackmail is a sin then if he is guilty God would be a sinner.

What do you think?

Is god guilty of blackmail and therefore a sinner?

- if yes why do you believe this to be so

- if no then why not?

[bernee51]

I wrote regarding Josephus, which you blatantly ignored.

That is not quite true Rev... I acknowledged the existence of Josephus' one paragraph mentioning Jesus...and the fact that opinion is divided regarding the authenticity of even that.

I wrote regarding current scholarship and sciences supporting the existence of Jesus and you apparently choose to fly in the face of academia and ignore those as well.

I must have missed something...other than referring me to Stobel's book, which I noted and responded to, you have, from memory, mentioned nothing else other than making a generic references.

I am not an apologist, ...

Yes you are...

a·pol·o·gist

(n) A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.

Sadly it appears you do not really wish to discuss and perchance learn,

Same back at you Rev...

but you would rather spew the repeatedly debunked arguments against the historical veracity of Jesus' existence.

I have not made any arguments against the evidence of Jesus' existence...there is none to argue against.

Actually Rev, I will quite readily agree that there is the possibility that a charismatic rabbi may have existed in Palestine around the time the man you call "Jesus" is said to have lived. All I am saying is that there is no direct evidence of same - other than the dubious reference made by Josephus.

If you know of others I would be grateful if you would provide them.

[RevJP]

Let's start with Josephus

... I acknowledged the existence of Josephus' one paragraph mentioning Jesus...and the fact that opinion is divided regarding the authenticity of even that.

...other than the dubious reference made by Josephus.

Dubious, opinions divided. Once again you repeat that which is previously debunked.

Dubious is not a quality which is truthfully applied to the writings of Jesus. I gave you the matter of Josephus, yet you have absolutely ignored what I have said.

One pseudo-academic source (the Jesus Seminar - a group of 5 men whose charter was to find and invent anything they could to debunk the Christ as He was presented in scripture) has questioned one paragraph written by Josephus.

They acknowledge the bulk of Josephus' writings are accurate and accepted acadmically as reliable, yet they pull out one paragraph - because it refers to Jesus, and claim that one paragraph has to be false.

That claim is dubious, not the paragraph.

So, contemporary scholarship did another study of the writings of Josephus, they did literary and linguistic studies and had determined that the entire parapraph, with the exception of the phrase referring to Jesus as the Son of God, appears to be completely acceptable to the rest of the writings, as being authentic from Josephus.

So, the reference to Jesus by Josephus is accepted by science as authentic, so how can you honestly keep referring to it as 'dubious'?

I must have missed something...other than referring me to Stobel's book, which I noted and responded to, you have, from memory, mentioned nothing else other than making a generic references

You have a point. Scientist have written volumes upon volumes regarding the evidences to the existence of Jesus, and yes I chose not to take the hours upon hours to post the references to all of the studies which verify His existence, I offered a quick place for you to access many of those studies which are contained in the Appendix of Stroebel's book.

I cannot force you to look at the evidence which is readily available, but I do not have the time nor the inclination to sit here for hours typing out something that one could find easily enough if they were truly interested in learning.

RevJP wrote:

I am not an apologist, ...


Yes you are...

a·pol·o·gist

(n) A person who argues in defense or justification of something, such as a doctrine, policy, or institution.

Actually, what I said was: I am not an apologist, I am simply pointing out the fallacies and logical inconsistencies of your arguments.
I'm not defending faith, I am countering the fallacies and untruths being offered.

Actually Rev, I will quite readily agree that there is the possibility that a charismatic rabbi may have existed in Palestine around the time the man you call "Jesus" is said to have lived. All I am saying is that there is no direct evidence of same - other than the dubious reference made by Josephus.

So we have gone from evidence to direct evidence? Now academically accepted evidence is no longer good enough to prove the existence of a person, but in fact we must have direct evidence? So by your newly adopted standard of acceptable evidence, not only did Jesus not exist, but no one in antiquity existed. I would suggest that you rethink your evidentiary demands and perhaps align them with those demands of acadamia. Just a suggestion mind you.

Ultimately it comes down to this: You state emphatically that there is no evidence for the existence of Jesus, while in truth, you should be stating that there is no evidence that will convince YOU of the existence of Jesus regardless of what the scientific or scholarly world considers acceptable.

Your bias is plainly evident.

Or it may simply be that whenever I point out the nonsensical nature of what you say you dodge the issue...or perhaps you simply have faith that you are always correct

Absolutely false, once again. You do not point out the nature of what anyone says, you add qualifiers, remove specific elements, and present a parody of what was actually said. A quick review of our past posts will clearly demonstrate your penchant for twisting the truth.

That, my friend, is self-evident from your attitude.

I challenge you to demonstrate how my attitude is 'self-righteous'. I think perchance you do not understand fully the meaning of 'self-righteous'.

Wanting to lump it in with the proof of the miracles undermines any argument you can put forward for the existence of Jesus as described in the bible and you know that. You try to divert the debate by breaking the link between the existence of Jesus and his miraculous nature when in your heart as a Christian you believe that the miracles occured

More hogwash! There is no logic to your assertions. No common sense and no agreement between you and others who would debate the existence of Jesus.

Jesus' existence and my belief, or desire to believe, that He performed miracles are mutually exclusive. You want to assert that the truth of His existence is based on my belief that He did something unprovable? Stupidity.

George Washington existed, and I may want to believe he chopped down a cherry tree. The fact is though, that his existence is not dependent upon whether or not he actually chopped down the tree.

Your whole assertion of the connection between existence and actions believed is absolutely ridiculous.

[potwalloper.]

RevJP wrote

I challenge you to demonstrate how my attitude is 'self-righteous'. I think perchance you do not understand fully the meaning of 'self-righteous'.

Haw haw haw haw haw.

Pious belief in one's own righteousness about covers it for you - read your responses on this and other forums. It is laughable that you could even consider yourself to be anything other than self-righteous.

I know exactly what the term means - I have dealt with enough self-righteous idiots to be certain when I make the judgement.

Jesus' existence and my belief, or desire to believe, that He performed miracles are mutually exclusive. You want to assert that the truth of His existence is based on my belief that He did something unprovable? Stupidity.

So a person who supposedly came into being via a miracle can be separated from his miraculous nature when debating his existence?

I see...logical really - in the same way that a belief in religion is logical. However presumably anything is logical to one who exists in a world of fantasy...

George Washington existed, and I may want to believe he chopped down a cherry tree. The fact is though, that his existence is not dependent upon whether or not he actually chopped down the tree.

George Washington was not, to my knowledge, created by a miracle - ergo false comparison.

Try again Rev - I'm afraid I'm getting bored with your apologist antics.

Your whole assertion of the connection between existence and actions believed is absolutely ridiculous.

Your whole attempt to separate miracles from the miraculous would be funny if it wasn't so sad

Oh what twisted webs you weave your natural logic to deceive...

[RevJP]

Pious belief in one's own righteousness about covers it for you

Show me. I challenge you to show me anywhere in any post where I have demonstrated a 'pious belief in MY OWN righteousness". You make false claims my friend, now it is upon you to support those... lies.

So a person who supposedly came into being via a miracle can be separated from his miraculous nature when debating his existence?

Why not? A person can be proven to be existent regardless of the reports of his origin or his actions. Explain how this is not correct.

I exists, can be proven to exist (scientifically, not philisophically) regardless if my birth and the circumstances surrounding my birth can be verified, regardless if there are claims I perform miracles, or crimes, or whatever else - those elements have no bearing on the nature of my existence. Logic really.

George Washington was not, to my knowledge, created by a miracle - ergo false comparison.

He was reported to have never told a lie, he was reported to have thrown a silver dollar across the Delaware river, these dubious reports have no bearing on the acceptance of his existence.

Try again Rev - I'm afraid I'm getting bored with your apologist antics

I suggest YOU try again my friend. I am sure I am not the only one who is getting bored with your fallacious arguments and pseudo-intellectual faux pas

Your whole attempt to separate miracles from the miraculous would be funny if it wasn't so sad

Your whole attempt to bind two mutually exclusive elements together in contradiction to accepted logic and common sense is truly sad.

[potwalloper.]

RevJP wrote

Pious belief in one's own righteousness about covers it for you

Show me. I challenge you to show me anywhere in any post where I have demonstrated a 'pious belief in MY OWN righteousness". You make false claims my friend, now it is upon you to support those... lies.

Oh dear the truth hurts does it? As I said read your own posts...

So a person who supposedly came into being via a miracle can be separated from his miraculous nature when debating his existence?

Why not? A person can be proven to be existent regardless of the reports of his origin or his actions. Explain how this is not correct.

Farcical.

The fundamental element of one's existence is how one came into being. Jesus was supposed to have been created by a miraculous conception - any verification of his existence on those terms must by definition explain this miracle. Try to divert attention away from the issue all you like - it doesn't make it any less true.

I exists, can be proven to exist (scientifically, not philisophically) regardless if my birth and the circumstances surrounding my birth can be verified, regardless if there are claims I perform miracles, or crimes, or whatever else - those elements have no bearing on the nature of my existence. Logic really.

Twaddle - you were not created by a miracle so once again an invalid comparison.

George Washington was not, to my knowledge, created by a miracle - ergo false comparison.

He was reported to have never told a lie, he was reported to have thrown a silver dollar across the Delaware river, these dubious reports have no bearing on the acceptance of his existence.

He was not conceived in a miraculous fashion...do I need to find words of one syllable to explain this?

Try again Rev - I'm afraid I'm getting bored with your apologist antics

I suggest YOU try again my friend. I am sure I am not the only one who is getting bored with your fallacious arguments and pseudo-intellectual faux pas

Yawn....

Your whole attempt to separate miracles from the miraculous would be funny if it wasn't so sad

Your whole attempt to bind two mutually exclusive elements together in contradiction to accepted logic and common sense is truly sad

Of course it is - that is why I am laughing and you are scrabbling around to find something to support your rather pitiful apologist standpoint.

[RevJP]

Sorry, you have failed miserably in your attempts to label me as self-righteous and in your attempts to bind together that which is mutually exclusive.

I notice that you made no attempt to counter the arguments or provide support, just more petty assertions that what you say is true.

You fly in the face of logic, academia, and common knowlege and still cling to your frail assertions.

Oh dear the truth hurts does it? As I said read your own posts...

I Have re-read them. I fail to find anything that would demonstrate me as being self-righteous. Again, you made the claim, support it.

The fundamental element of one's existence is how one came into being. Jesus was supposed to have been created by a miraculous conception - any verification of his existence on those terms must by definition explain this miracle.

Let me help you to understand the elemental fallacy of your argument.

That someone came into existence and how is truthfully a fundamental element of their existence. The problem is that you are saying that THE REPORTS of how someone came into existence is fundamental. That is simply incorrect. One cannot deny that men are born, nothing in scripture denies the birth of Jesus, you are binding a report of the miracle of His conception to the fact that He was concieved and born. Complete twaddle to use your words.

Any definition of His conception need only explain that He was concieved, not by whom, or how long it took, or whether it was night or day, or anything else.

Your argument is bogus, that you cannot see that, or accept your error blindly would be amusing if it wasn't so hipocritical.

Twaddle - you were not created by a miracle so once again an invalid comparison.

Twaddle - you have no idea of the events of my creation, so your dismissal of the comparison is bogus.

You cannot honestly deny that I exist can you? Given that I do exist and that by extrapolation I had to have been concieved and born, the reports of how that came about are irrelevant to the fact of my existence.

I just wish you could be honest enough to admit your error. But then your whole approach is dishonest. You assert that which you cannot prove and assert it as fact rather than personal belief. I at least can say that I assert what I believe as my personal belief, and I offer evidence I accept as support for my belief. You can't even do that.

In essence, you claim: God does not exist. Although you have no proof of this claim you still assert it as fact.

The more honest claim would be for you to say: I do not believe God exists, and unless someone can show me evidence which would convince me otherwise, I will continue to disbelieve the existence of God.

At least that would be honest.

[potwalloper.]

RevJP wrote

Sorry, you have failed miserably in your attempts to label me as self-righteous and in your attempts to bind together that which is mutually exclusive.

I Have re-read them. I fail to find anything that would demonstrate me as being self-righteous. Again, you made the claim, support it.

Of course I have Rev...just because you are unable to see how you are perceived by others is not my problem - it is yours.

That someone came into existence and how is truthfully a fundamental element of their existence. The problem is that you are saying that THE REPORTS of how someone came into existence is fundamental. That is simply incorrect. One cannot deny that men are born, nothing in scripture denies the birth of Jesus, you are binding a report of the miracle of His conception to the fact that He was concieved and born. Complete twaddle to use your words.

No - I am saying that the Jesus being in a Christian sense cannot be separated from the miracle of his conception. To verify the existence of Jesus as a man but not as a Christian son of God would be pointless in this context. You believe that Jesus was the son of God therefore you cannot separate the two without suspending that belief and deceiving yourself. You can't have your cake and eat it - either Jesus was the son of god (when the miracle of his conception must be considered when verifying his existence) or he was not (in which case why try to verify his existence in a debate on religion?)

Any definition of His conception need only explain that He was concieved, not by whom, or how long it took, or whether it was night or day, or anything else.

I would agree if we were not considering a miraculous being - however Jesus' conception was miraculous...

Your argument is bogus, that you cannot see that, or accept your error blindly would be amusing if it wasn't so hipocritical.

I think you need a "y" there Rev unless you are saying that I am acting like a large African mammal.

Twaddle - you were not created by a miracle so once again an invalid comparison.

Twaddle - you have no idea of the events of my creation, so your dismissal of the comparison is bogus.

Ah, we have it at last - you do believe yourself to be God...

You cannot honestly deny that I exist can you? Given that I do exist and that by extrapolation I had to have been concieved and born, the reports of how that came about are irrelevant to the fact of my existence.

No miracle = no validity. Illogical in this context.

In essence, you claim: God does not exist. Although you have no proof of this claim you still assert it as fact.

I do not claim that it is a fact that God does not exist. However my default in such circumstances remains non-existence in the absence of evidence to support the claim that god exists. I will change my mind on the existence of god if objective evidence comes to light that supports his/her/its existence.

The more honest claim would be for you to say: I do not believe God exists, and unless someone can show me evidence which would convince me otherwise, I will continue to disbelieve the existence of God.

At last we agree on something