I provided a biblical answer to your question and it is a fundamental Christian belief and you set out to attack it and discredit it.
You haven't provided any answer, much less a biblical one.
Your answer on point #1 is the dates that the cities of Jerusalem and Rome date from, which doesn't address my point
I'm still waiting for your answer on point #2
Neither of those has anything to do with the bible, fundamental christian beliefs, or even addressing my point.
Thus you are trying to discredit Christianity. In other parts of this forum, you have made attempts to "discredit" the existance of Jesus, the authenticity of the bible, and the existence of God as "bad ideas". This conversation is no different. You do not ask questions to get answers. You ask questions to debate and argue. I provided an answer to your question and you called it "my argument". You are not here to learn anything about Christianity but rather debate and argue that Christianity is a "bad idea" worthy to be discredited.
This is a debate and discussion forum, and I'm posting in the area that is open to believers and non-believers alike. I'm not doing anything against the rules. I don't post in the Christians only section.
Do you really expect the atheists on here to just go along with christian beliefs? What's the point of that?
Lastly, if you are in a debate setting, the case you put forward is "your argument", likewise any case I put forward is "my argument". It's not a negative phrase, that's just what it's called.
I am sorry if I am not breaking things down for you in a more simple way. That way I can put the pieces together so that you won't have to.
Simplicity is not the problem, You've provided a very simple, albeit completely irrelevant answer to point #1, and you haven't addressed point #2 at all.
Yes, they do. Ironically, you misquoted me and put words into my mouth because I gave you an answer you did not want to hear.
Where did I misquote you? Post number and quotation please.
I can show you exactly where you misquoted me. In post #355, you put in quotes "discrediting Christianity", referring to my post, which was #352. Quotation marks are used to relay what someone said word for word.
The relevant section of #352 was the last section, where I said I'm only here to discredit bad ideas. Nowhere did I say I was here to "discredit Christianity". You however quoted me as saying that, and that's just flat out misleading.
Projecting are we? You know, making up facts out of nowhere in order to further a argument is intellectually dishonest. Ever find any references that say Roman law predates Hebrew Law? I am no trying to "get out of an arguement I know I cannot win". I am merely trying to evaluate if you are worth "arguing with". Given the fact that you are on a Christian forum only to discredit christianity as a "bad idea", you have shown me to be nothing more than an atheist activist troll with an agenda to lead people away from their faith.
/facepalm
Ok, fine, since we're getting into quotes and all that, let me show exactly why your rebuttal does not work. Below is the word for word post #323 to which you responded with the city founding dates, and somehow thought it was relevant:
Post #323:
"The Romans entered the area that comprises modern day Israel and Palestine hundreds and hundreds of years after the Roman Republic/Empire's founding. By the time they encountered (much less conquered) the ancient Jews, Roman law and culture was well established.
Note: I should clarify I mean in the context of the Roman world. The two cultures can trace their systems back to roughly 500BC-ish, however given the distance and lack of direct contact, it's not possible that the Isrealite system could have played a role in, much less served as the basis for Roman Law.
By the time the Romans were in direct and close contact with the Jews 400ish years later, their system was already well established. That's what I meant by pre-existing."
So can you please try to show how the dates of the founding of Jerusalem and Rome have anything to do with this post? Jerusalem might be 4,000,000 years old, and it doesn't matter in the least. Why do you think your response is anywhere in the same ballpark as relevance?
And before you reply with Jewish laws going back 3,000 years, no, they didn't. What we know as Jewish Law dates from the writing of the torah, which most scholars agree dates to the period of the Babylonian Exile, started between 600 and was finished by 400BC.
Keeping in mind that the ancient Israelites were polytheistic, they followed the gods of the Caananite Pantheon. The previous polytheistic religion certainly left its marks on Judaism, El was the supreme god, and phrases like Elohim (meaning children of El) derive from that deity. Ba'al, Asherah and even Yahweh appeared in that pantheon. Yahweh at the time was a subordinate god to El, however was considered the god of Israel. There is some evidence to show that Asherah was Yahweh's wife, or consort, however that has some dispute amongst scholars. Eventually, the sect that became Judaism essentially merged the deities of El and Yahweh, and stopped worshipping the other gods. "I am the lord thy god, thou shalt have no other gods before me". That saying only makes sense if there are other gods in the minds of the authors.
There are places even in the modern bible that reflect back upon the earlier days of polytheism. Ba'al and his followers is mentioned a number of times in the Old Testament, and Exodus 34:13-14 says:
Exodus 34:13-14 - Break down their altars, smash their sacred stones and cut down their Asherah poles. Do not worship any other god, for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God
Passages like these date to the time that worship of other gods, such as Asherah was being actively oppressed by the early Jews, and people like the Caananites and other Semitic people were being driven out.
There are a number of other examples, however, the point stands that it doesn't matter how long ago Jerusalem was built as a city. Even if it was founded in 3,000BC, it's irrelevant. Even orthodox Jewish Rabbi's believe that Moses existed somewhere between 1,000 and 1,200 BC. So even if I grant you that number (which is not backed by scholars), your point about the cities is still totally irrelevant.
Jewish Law as we know it dates from the time of the Babylonian Exile, which is somewhere between 600 and 400 BC.
And regardless, if you had bothered to read my post, you'll notice the clarification section I made at the end of that post pointing out what I meant by "pre-existing". The Romans already had their entire legal system set up and active for centuries before ever coming into close contact with the Jews. Therefore it's not possible that Jewish law could have served as a basis for Roman law.
Roman Law pre-existed contact with the Jews by centuries.
Now please, drop the completely irrelevant "but this city was built before this city" nonsense, and construct some kind of meaningful rebuttal.
NOTE: Because of the large amount of material in this section, and your repeated use of long posts which bring up new topics in order to change the topic away from the ones you are having trouble answering, I will be happy to address any rebuttals you have with this section AFTER you address the two points that are still on the table which you dispute.
OK, let me break this down for you. Can someone be "Roman" if Rome does not exist? No. According to the historians at Britannica.com, Rome was not established until 8th century B.C. which means no Romans existed prior to 8th century B.C. which means NO ROMAN LEGAL STRUCTURE PRIOR TO 8TH CENTURY B.C.. Even if I was to set aside Jerusalem, it is a fact that the Hebrews have been around thousands of years before the Romans. During that time, they had developed their own legal system. Even under Roman occupation, the Hebrews were able to keep their own legal system.
And if you'd bother to have read my post, this has no relevance to my argument.
Who cares when Rome was built? It has nothing at all to do with when Legal Systems were later developed.
If God uses the hearts of evil men to carry out His purpose, that does not mean the man is no longer evil. You do understand this simple concept right? Would you like me to break it down further?
Again, irrelevant. If everything happens according to god's plan, that means nothing is evil, ever.
The very concepts of an evil man, or him no longer being evil make no sense. They would have been going along with god's plan and purpose at all times. That makes them good according to your argument.
As a bit of an ironic twist... if you want to know why we are here debating against you, I suppose my answer would have to be it's all part of god's plan. Who are you to question god?
See above. God's plan is good. The evil people he uses to fulfill his plan is still evil.
But you said things are judged good if they fulfill their purpose. If god created evil people to do evil things to fulfill his plan, that means they fulfilled their purpose, and are therefore good. That means evil=good as long as it's what god wants.
Expanding that point, if everything happens according to god's plan, that means everything has fulfilled its god given purpose. That means everything that has ever happened, and everything that will happen is therefore good. Everything from helping a little old lady across the street to the holocaust is good, because it must have been in line with god's plan.
That makes the very concept of morality meaningless and irrelevant.
So, you may want to come up with a better explanation of what makes something moral. It clearly can not be simply fulfilling its purpose.
So, what makes something moral?
Answering you questions is meaningless because you don't want answers even when the facts are given. Which means, your questions are meaningless, which means you existance on this forum is meaningless. Unless tolling Christians for you amusement is your purpose. I will allow you to make one more response before I put you on my ignore list before you get banned?
I've written a long and detailed response to you on a number of occasions, I welcome answers, however I believe I have quite clearly shown why your answers are wrong.
If you wish to ignore me, that's your prerogative. You seem to be threatening me with that as if I cared. It doesn't bother me at all if you want to not listen to well reasoned rebuttals to your posts. As I said, I doubt I'll be able to convince you, but I might be able to convince other people that read these forums.
As for getting banned, why on earth would I be at risk of that? I've been on here for years, and I have yet to receive a ban. I've written far worse than our exchange on this thread, and fallen completely within the rules of this forum.
