Profile of Michael Sorentino
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Michael Sorentino
rsmartin wrote: Michael, your responses to Composer--the diversionary nit-picking and personal attacks--are the exact type of response Christians always give when they have no answer. Christians can't handle the bold statements of the one who does not accept their specific God, who proves Christian statements to be wrong or cowardly.
- Check out commensenseatheism.com for some other good discussions. Luke will post his resources as well, so you can get the info first hand, rather than having to hope for honesty.
- Check out prosblogion.ektopos.com/, it is some academics who discuss similar issues.
- Read Craig's articles, and if you are a student, check out JSTOR for other articles that you can read through. This is where you will become knowledgeable on these topics.
- When you do post, and are shown to be wrong or wish to retract a statement, do so publicly. It is necessary for making any ground towards any amount of agreement.
- Finally, READ READ READ. There is VAST literature for both sides. Here is Luke's list of books to read, though there are many, many more.(I'm working on a list of my own)
But isn't saving one better than saving none? I'm not going to try to explain why He did what He did, I don't know the mind of God.
As for confusion, the Bible never guaranteed perfect understanding. And like you said, humans can't always be trusted. I know what I believe, I was just laying out the options to choose from based on the evidence outside of the Bible. It's stupid to try to legitimize the bible with itself, so you use outside corroborating sources.
And coine was how my iPod corrected it for some reason.
And my bible is the zondervan one from mounce and mounce.
I agree that the virgin birth can't really be discussed historically. The only evidence for it would be if the resurrection really happened and that the Christian God existed. And obviously those are up for debate.
Composer wrote:Quote from: soremiBTW: You failed also to apologise for misreading the text that the innocent children were NOT few and exclusively in Bethlehem but included many others also in the surrounding coastal regions. (Matt. 2:16) KJV story bookWell. I guess the original language that the book was first written in wasn't good enough for you, so you resorted to the KJV (although the is a revised KJV now that is at least a little more correct). I even gave you the Greek so you could have a website translate if you wanted. Districts is much different than coasts. Not to mention Bethlehem was only about 10 miles form the dead sea, with the city of Bethany between an Jerusalem about 8 miles north. So "to the coasts" would probably include the city of Bethany, and given that Jerusalem is closer to Bethlehem than the Dead Sea, it would only make sense that the surrounding area would include Jerusalem.I don't speak Greek, nor Hebrew nor Aramaic. Do you speak and understand all three?Other than your arrogance, what are your language & other qualifications to demean others that can not?Are you insinuating that your God only wants those who speak several languages to gain accurate insight for salvation. i.e. Only the rich and/or educated can apply and the poor and illiterate must heed what their rich &/OR educated masters tell them to believe? (Really?)That must explain why your story book Jesus picked mostly dumb fishermen who are easily duped!As you suggested, let us now examine the Greek to English ' Word for Word ' translation by the trinitarian Dr. J.J. Griesbach -Matthew 2:16 Then Herod seeing that he was mocked by the wise-men, was enraged much; and sending forth he slew all the boys the in Bethleem and in all the borders of her, from two years and under, according to the time which he exactly learnt from the wise-men.NB: ALL the borders indicating a substantial expanse around Bethlehem.
Matthew 2:17 Then was fulfilled the word spoken by Jeremiah the prophet, saying:
Matthew 2:18 A voice in Rama was heard, lamentation and weeping and mourning great; . . . . (Mat. 2:16-18) EMPHATIC DIAGLOTT (Left Hand side/LHS) Greek to English ' Word for Word ' Interlinear.NB: Mourning great!Get that!Not a little bit of mourning for a few apparently insignificant handful of innocent babes, except of course its own self in this alleged trinitarian form of a ' person ' disguised as a babe Jesus that it had all the time in the world to protect at the expense of others?Even if 1 other innocent child were destroyed then your God's hypocrisy and selfish act to protect its own is disgusting and shameful.soremi wrote: And surely this would have been mentioned in the account, if not by Josephus as well.More of your empty speculation.soremi wrote: So that would seem to make the translation you give incorrect on account of geography, not to mention translation, as the Greek word for "coast" would be "akth," which is never mentioned at all in the texts, so please don't tell me to read it correctly. And I offer for you to read a more accurate version, like the NASB or NIV, or even the actual Greek itself.So you put translations into the ' inspired category do you? 'That ALL translators are as divinely inspired to translate as those allegedly divinely inspired to write the Originals? (Really?)WHY all the confusion between translations then by ' scholars & experts ' that simply can't unanimously agree?soremi wrote: And either there was no "massacre" of said babies or it was not substantial,Oh dear!, alleged 2000 years of so called divine teachings and you still don't know and are confused as to whether this account is true? (How many others are you also unsure about?)1 Cor. 14:33 KJV story book is obviously a lie also!soremi wrote: otherwise Josephus most likely would have mentioned it when speaking of Herod and the census that was called for. So to say that there was a widespread massacre of babies is unhistorical. The only explanation, due to the lack of any mention outside of the Gospel, is that there was none. Which is much more tenable than the position that you hold.Meaning you simply remain still confused whether this event even transpired after allegedly 2000 years of your trinitarian God's alleged ' non-confusing teachings? ' (LOL!)
Thanks for your comments all be they arrogant, presumptuous and your arguments faulty!
Herod's death in 1 B.C. is a great minority position as far as I can find. Josephus puts the census at between 6-7 A.D. So either it doesn't fix anything, or just demonstrates how little we can really now about the past.
Snakeystew wrote:The only thing I could say is that Cain's heart wasn't in it and Abel's was, not necessarily that vegetation didn't make a good offering
With all due respect but that doesn't make any difference to a genuinely loving individual. I love my kids equally. One put a lot of effort in, the other just gave me some magazine freebie. As a matter of morality, we just say thank you. We can certainly then sit there wondering if we did something wrong or whether there are just more important things in our loved ones minds. In either case it is entirely inconsequential.
Thing is of course, Cain made an offering, (first), of his own free will - which instantly shows effort. What did he get for it? Insult.My point was that Cain still killed Him out of jealousy and God didn't make him kill him.
Certainly - do not think that my statements in any way whatsoever condone Cain's actions.You have to admit Cain could have let out his frustration in a much better way than murdering his brother.
Well that's a personal thing. I'm quite good at controlling my emotions. I know people - in fact I spend a lot of my time with people - that simply cannot. If you know them well enough, you should know exactly how to handle each individual in a manner that avoids such outcomes.So God didn't sell the dynamite really, more came up with it at most, and we don't usually blame the creator of dynamite (who intended for it to be used for reasons other than killing people) guilty of the deaths of people it was used improperly to kill
Well perhaps not, perhaps - should we sell some dynamite to a terrorist, we can't be held liable for his actions. But then that is dependant upon our knowledge of what the dynamite would be used for. I submit that if you knew that the dynamite was going to be used to slaughter countless other people, then you are just as guilty for the crime as the terrorist himself.
I will allow human ignorance - that we sell knives to an individual that stabs people with them, or sell aerosols to kids that sniff them and die. I will not allow it with regards to omniscient beings. He specifically knew that his response would cause evil, would cause slaughter. It was fully avoidable had he have, just like loving humans, just said thanks and got over it. It's not like he needed either anymore than the other. Banana / dead cow.. it's inconsequential.
---Seriously? I'm going to start blaming misspelled words on my pencil
Oh, if only it was relevant.
To be a citizen of Rome was a prized possession and people wanted some kind of
credentials to vouch for the title (cf. Acts 22:25-28). These were recorded in the archives of their native cities (A.N. Sherwin-White, Roman Society and Roman Law in the New Testament, 1963, 147). The registrations were checked and adjusted as to present circumstances every five years. And we have clear evidence that Augustus had official censuses in 28 and 8 B.C. (Res Gestae II.. The next five year period brings us to 3 B.C. And these registrations required provincials to be "registered at his native city" (Sherwin-White, 148). 3 B.C. was not only a regular census year, but also coincided with the
As is typical of crackpot creationists, Plaisted isn't even an expert in the field he is expounding on. He is a computer science professor.
In fact, recent evidence points to as many as 100 new mutations per fertilized egg in the human population!