Monday, September 23, 2013

Are there pages missing?

Actually, some recent manuscripts have been discovered which show that God first created Adam and Steve. But that didn't work out so well with regard to populating the earth, so God then created Eve to correct the situation. 


23 comments:

Crude said...

Actually, some recent manuscripts have been discovered which show that God first created Adam and Steve. But that didn't work out so well with regard to populating the earth, so God then created Eve to correct the situation.

I can see the article now.

"The Lost "Gospel of Steve" has been discovered, shattering many Christian orthodoxies. While the dating of 2013 AD is a bit more recent than other gospels, some biblical historians suggest this was no doubt due to censorship - and perhaps violence - on the part of orthodox Christians throughout the ages. "The sheer lack of any mention of this gospel in any historical document just goes to show how thoroughly Christians strove to suppress it," one anonymous historian said.

Conservative Christian scholars have been resisting the newly discovered evidence. "You've got to be ****ing kidding me," said Paul Copan. "The originals are written with *toner*. The font is Comic Sans!" But other Christians were more willing to greet the new evidence with an open mind. "I think this just goes to show that there's still room for Christians to learn new things about their faith," Karen Armstrong thoughtfully remarked when interviewed."

And so on, and so on.

B. Prokop said...

There is more evidence for the existence of the "Gospel according to Steve" than there is for the all-too-commonly accepted "Q".

Steven Carr said...

Why wasn't the Christian god able to populate the Earth with Adam and Steve?

Surely with 'the power of omnipotence' that should be easy.

Perhaps this god didn't use the sight of sightedness to see how he could use the power of omnipotence to produce a miraculous birth.

Ilíon said...

a fool, proud of his self-chosen cage: "Why wasn't the Christian god able to populate the Earth with Adam and Steve?"

What is it about the God-haters that seems to compel them to demonstrate their foolitude? Is there, like, some sort of minimum daily requirement, such that they just might make a limit on any given day to just how much foolishness they’ll exhibit?

B. Prokop said...

"What is it about the God-haters that seems to compel them to demonstrate their foolitude?"

In this specific case, it's because they fail to understand the implications of the Doctrine of the Trinity. It means (among many, many other things) that in His most fundamental nature, God is a Community, a sharing relationship between distinct Persons. Made as we are in the Image of God, as human beings we reflect this fundamental community in everything that makes us Man (Mankind, for the politically correct). This includes our sexual relationships.

We are not, and were never meant to be, autonomous individuals. As I pointed out to Skep on another thread, our very thoughts are not our own, but only possible to us as members of a community.

Steven Carr said...

I think Illion (it is hard to follow his thought processes) is saying it is a 'foolitude' (sic) to think that his hypothetical god can work a miracle.

He knows men don't give birth.

That would be a miracle.

And we all know his god doesn't do miracles.

What with being as non-existent as all the other gods mankind has invented.

All Illion can do, is claim that people hate his god, like they hate Mercury and Poseidon and Baal and all the other gods that mankind has dreamed up.

Steven Carr said...

I think Illion (it is hard to follow his thought processes) is saying it is a 'foolitude' (sic) to think that his hypothetical god can work a miracle.

He knows men don't give birth.

That would be a miracle.

And we all know his god doesn't do miracles.

What with being as non-existent as all the other gods mankind has invented.

All Illion can do, is claim that people hate his god, like they hate Mercury and Poseidon and Baal and all the other gods that mankind has dreamed up.

Crude said...

All Illion can do, is claim that people hate his god, like they hate Mercury and Poseidon and Baal and all the other gods that mankind has dreamed up.

So, Steve. Let's say the God of the Bible met you face to face.

What would you say to Him?

BeingItself said...

"Let's say the God of the Bible met you face to face."

Ice cream: Well done! Mucormycosis: Fail.

Crude said...

We can take BI's response as serious, I suppose. "I'd use internet meme language! Derp!"

But c'mon Steve, let's hear a sincere answer from you. The God of the Old and New Testament is before you. What do you say?

Papalinton said...

"The God of the Old and New Testament is before you. What do you say?"

Woody Allen: "Not only is God dead, but just try to find a plumber on weekends."

jdhuey said...

The God of the Old and New Testament is before you. What do you say?

Well, first of all, which of the thousands of concepts of the "Old and New Testament" God are we talking about? I was raised in the Southern Baptist church, and frankly, if I encountered that character in real life, I would try and get him psychiatric help.

Now, if we are talking about your conceptions of a God where He is a less insane god, then the first thing I would do is offer Him a beer, and say "Sit down, make yourself comfortable, you have a lot of splaining to do. First question: Just what the hell are you?"

im-skeptical said...

"What do you expect from me, and why do I owe it?"

Crude said...

Funny how a simple question scares most people into flippant sarcasm.

Well, first of all, which of the thousands of concepts of the "Old and New Testament" God are we talking about?

What 'thousands of concepts'? And how are whatever variations that exist meaningful to the topic?

But that's an interesting response, jdhuey. So according to you, you'd wait to have God explain Himself. There's no instant judgment that God was evil, or wicked, or horrible, or a monster. (You suggest God was 'insane', but you don't explain why or how, and you allow that He's not.) Instead, you allow that it's possible, even likely, God has a good reason for whatever acts you find objectionable.

Any other atheists care to endorse this response?

im-skeptical said...

"Any other atheists care to endorse this response?"

It's perfectly reasonable to get the scoop directly from the horse's mouth. Why should we believe anything we've heard so far? After all, the bible is impossible to believe, most likely written (and re-written) by people, it comes in different versions, each of which is just one of many stories about god, and there are practically as many definitions or views of god as there are believers.

So if we had an opportunity to communicate directly with this god, I suspect the story would look very different from what the church or anyone else says.

Crude said...

So, when asked what he would say when confronted with the God of the Old and New Testament, Skep asserts that the God whose existence he doesn't believe in is probably totally different from God as portrayed in the Old and New Testaments so instead he'd ask what REALLY happened.

There's misunderstanding the question, and then there's Skep-logic. I won't belabor that point for now except to ask: would anyone else care to weigh in on jdhuey's response?

Remember what's implicit and key here: automatic condemnation of God isn't warranted. Instead, a request for an explanation is the most obvious route.

im-skeptical said...

And then there's crude logic: ignore what I say and make up your own version of it. I should have known not to respond to your idiocy.

For the record, I think any atheist would agree with me that although we don't believe in your god, if we were confronted by any such being, we might just change out mind. And yes, condemnation of the god as described in the OT is w3arranted, but automatic condemnation of any REAL god is not warranted - he should be able to tell his own story, not the ones you and your fellow theists tell (which are quite absurd).

B. Prokop said...

Crude,

I realize your question "What would you say to Him?" was directed to atheists, but I'll weigh in anyway. When I meet God face-to-face, I don't imagine I'll have much to say other than "Have mercy on me!". Other than that, I'd expect Him to be doing most of the talking.

Crude said...

Skep,

For the record, I think any atheist would agree with me that although we don't believe in your god, if we were confronted by any such being, we might just change out mind.

So, if you met God, you might concede God exists. Maybe. And if you met the God of the Old and New Testament, the first thing you'd do is reject the Old and New Testament as accurate because... well, because you don't understand what hypothetical questions are, apparently.

As fun as it is to have a Stupid Skep Tricks thread, I think our last sufficed. So you're going into the pile I reserve for Linton for now, where I ignore everything you say unless it's so much more absurd than normal that I can't resist having fun with it.

Still looking forward to any other replies.

Bob,

Oh, answer away. The atheists largely don't seem to want to engage the question. It's as if the prospect short-circuits them.

Interesting answer, by the way. I'll hold off on weighing in personally - maybe someone else will grapple with this.

Papalinton said...

"Funny how a simple question scares most people into flippant sarcasm."

A predictable response from one who continues to allow the unchecked delusion of the presence of agency to override rational thinking, reason and logic. The childlike and childish obsession with and undisciplined attraction to gratuitous teleology is not only proven to be unwarranted but groundless. Our genetic and evolutionary predilection for generating false positives, imagining agency where there is none, forms the basis on which the human species' survival mechanism is founded. For those sufficiently interested in learning and understanding the real basis underpinning the human condition, one could do no better than to read up on recent research at the cutting edge of evolutionary biology, sociology, ethology, anthropology, psychology, to appreciate the outstanding advances in knowledge that simply dwarf the theological narrative in terms of explanatory power. These and allied disciplines are recording a converging and consistent account of the nature of the human species in which the competing and alternative theological narrative is playing an ever decreasing contributive role. And that is to be expected as we transit from earlier anecdotal explanatory scholarship to a much more powerful and globally recognised explanatory methodology.

The essence of the problem is the failure of millions of people to distinguish meaningful metaphor from measurable reality. I use the phrase 'meaning metaphor' advisedly here, because what is meaningful in a Muslim reality has no resonance with the Christian metaphor nor with the Hindi metaphor. That is why they have different traditions, different Gods, different Sacred books. Extrapolate this variability to the hundreds and thousands of different religious conceptions of 'meaningful metaphor' and you'll get the drift of the highly problematic nature of the claim that Christianity is the only one, true belief. It simply defies logic and flies in the face of reason.

Are there pages missing? You betcha. And as history unfolds, religion today is no longer the premier explanatory tool.

Papalinton said...

" When I meet God face-to-face, I don't imagine I'll have much to say other than "Have mercy on me!"."

Well there you go. It's all about me, me, me,.

jdhuey said...

When I meet God face-to-face, I don't imagine I'll have much to say other than "Have mercy on me!".

You do realize that God really hates it when you grovel. See "Monty Python and The Holy Grail".



Ilíon said...

In honor of the post above by the intellectually dishonest fool (that's a redundancy, in case you haven't been following), Steven Carr, I give you Stupid 'Atheist' Tricks IV