The Instigator
backwardseden
Pro (for)
Tied
0 Points
The Contender
mosc
Con (against)
Tied
0 Points

Where did God come from? A dream, a lie, and an explanation

Do you like this debate?NoYes+2
Add this debate to Google Add this debate to Delicious Add this debate to FaceBook Add this debate to Digg  
Post Voting Period
The voting period for this debate has ended.
after 0 votes the winner is...
It's a Tie!
Voting Style: Open Point System: 7 Point
Started: 5/2/2018 Category: Religion
Updated: 2 weeks ago Status: Post Voting Period
Viewed: 2,098 times Debate No: 113427
Debate Rounds (4)
Comments (152)
Votes (0)

 

backwardseden

Pro

Taken from "The Atheist Republic"
Where did god come from? To Atheist Republic contributor Dean Van Drasek, the answer is simple: a dream, a lie, and an explanation.

You may have come across this topic in books and articles about religion, psychology, anthropology, philosophy, comparative mythology/religion, archeology, and even popular science books. Sadly, there is no answer, as it's buried in the depths of time before humans developed writing, and probably even before there was cave painting. I am not an expert in any of these fields, but I do have some ideas that I find more persuasive than others. Nothing here is original, and it's been picked from a wide variety of sources.

Intelligence in apes seems to be linked to brain size, at least when cross-referenced with technological accomplishments. Hominid's brains in the genus homo developed slowly until about 200,000 years ago. This marked the arrival of our species of hominid, homo sapiens. I suspect that the belief in the supernatural may have been as early as this.

Every human society ever discovered has had some belief in the supernatural. So where does this come from? The answer I find most persuasive is because we, like other animals, dream, but we had the intelligence to question what was the source for this experience.

The origin of gods lies in the belief in spirits, which is the belief that the experience of the mind in dreams was an externally originated experience. Many early cultures (which we know about through their written records) did not know that human thoughts were derived internally from the brain. By the time writing evolved, it was a well-established concept that dreams were frequently thought of as messages from the gods or another outside sources.

All other human sensory perceptions, such as sight, sound, taste and touch, come from external stimulants. When we are awake and thinking, we do not experience purely mental sensory events. Waking memory and dreams use different parts of the brain, which is why dreams can seem so real compared to mere memory. Dreams often use the same parts of the brain which are responsible for the processing of normal sensory signals, such as sight. This, the neurological experience is nearly the same.

In our dreams, which can be fearsomely realistic, we often see our dead family and friends. This presented our ancestors with a logical conundrum, as they "knew" their loved ones are dead, but they could see and hear and may even touch them in their dreams. So without other references, if we see what is real, and in our sleep we "see" those who are dead, then there must be something present that we can't see during the daytime. So an assumption that nocturnal senses would also be stimulated by external forces would be logical.

What happened next was pure human ingenuity. People were seeing these images in dreams, and could not always understand them. At some point in human history, some human decided to lie and claim that they could understand those nocturnal communications. They could interpret the cryptic messages from the dead friends or relatives, or they might even be able to communicate with them or channel them. The first conman was born, who no longer had to hunt or be productive for a living, but who could use their imagination and get the tribe (who more honestly did not claim to be able to understand or speak to these dream-people) to accord them a high status. Thus, the first shamans evolved within the tribes. It is an intrinsic part of almost every human culture, even our modern popular one (just look at all the movies and TV shows where people talk to ghosts and spirits). When we see someone today supposedly channeling the spirit of the dead, we are seeing a relic of humanity going back perhaps as far as 150,000 years or more.

But how to get from spirits of the dead to gods? I like the idea that is based on a basic human weakness that exists still today. People in authority don't like to admit ignorance, because they are afraid this will weaken the regard that others have for them. It would be natural for the tribe to ask the shaman questions such as: Where does the lightning come from? Why does the wind blow? How can I save my sick child? The shaman had no way to answer these questions, but they didn't want to admit this, so they made up an answer based on what people already believed and they knew worked for them within the community: namely, that these other occurrences were also the result of the actions or omissions of spirits, same as in the dreams, but stronger ones. As the lies multiplied and were retold over time, these spirits often became gods. Early recorded religions had thousands of such spirit gods, in the tress, rocks, waters, clouds, animals, etc.

As the explanations got more complex, and writing allowed the stories of the shamans and their ritualistic prescriptions to be recorded, the gods became more complex, rituals more refined, and the priesthood more powerful and organized. Out of this probably arose the institution of monarchy, where a secular ruler was in part entitled to the obedience of the people due to the favor of the imaginary gods. At some point, leadership became hereditary, which is not something we see in most other ape species, where any male can contend for the top spot. But at some point in human history, we decided that a person was entitled to rule over others not because of their own capabilities and merit, but because of their lineage - probably one of the worst ideas in all of human history. At that point, the shaman and the ruling class recognized that they had the same interest in promoting the religion of the gods which kept both in power and affluence.

So why do we have gods? Because we dream, and some people are very imaginative liars, and as we all know, any lie told often enough and loud enough tends to be accepted by many people as the truth.

Why do you think god was invented?

dsjpk5 will not be allowed to vote in the voting process.
mosc

Con

The question - absolutely absurd. A worm or ant has absolutely no ability what so ever to comprehend human civilizations as we (human beings) know them; so too man can not comprehend higher beings than ourselves ie the Gods. That foundation laid, let me now turn to the opening question. Where did God come from? Which God? Islam declares that only one God lives - Allah. This theological none sense violates the second commandment of Sinai. If Mohammed qualifies as a prophet in the line of T'NaCH prophets (its rather strange that the Koran never once makes any attempt to understand how the Torah defines its own terms. Prophet its a term deriving from the T'NaCH literature which the much later Koran usurped.

Discussing the Gods fundamentally requires searching the Primary sources by which Men introduce Gods - A or B or C etc. Therefore the issue that requires addressing: do these primary sources which introduce a particular God, do these primary sources (I shall limit my address to the Koran, New Testament, and the Hebrew T'NaCH. The Hindu and Chinese Gods lay outside of the purview of my knowledge.) have logical holes/errors?

The latest God on the block: Allah. Mohammed claims that he recieved the revelation of the Koran from the Archangel Gabriel. The naming of Angels dates back to the influence of the Babylonians. Prior to the Babylonian exile of the kingdom of Yechuda [Tribe Yechuda, Yechudim being Jews, the NaCH (Prophets and Holy Writings of the larger T'NaCH which includes the 5 Books of Moshe which the Xtians attempted to translate], Angels had no names.

The first word of the Torah בראשית this word contains ברית אש, ראש בית, ב' ראשית/brit fire, head of house, 2 beginnings. The latter term Rabbi Yechuda HaNasi {the head of the great sanhedrin} learned the incorrect spelling of D'varim 6:5 - you shall love the lord your God with all your לבבך/heart. Heart its correct spelling: לב; he learned from the 2 Creation stories in the opening Parsha {The Torah its divided into 54 Parshaot, a Parsha its read on every Shabbot and at the New Year called Rosh HaShana [Judgement Day upon the Brit], the Jewish people approach completion of the annual reading of the 5 Books of the Torah - called the Chumash. He learned that within the heart of all bnai brit folk contends 2 "Yatzirot"/Inclinations: the Good Inclination and the Evil Incination. Hence the repetition of the Creation story in the opening Parsha of בראשית, he learned the mussar (ethical rebukes) of the Yatzir Tov and the Yatzir Ha'Ra}.

All Xtian translations of their "Bible" translate בראשית only as "In the Beginning". I do not claim to qualify as a scholar of the Koran liturature, have studied only an English translation of this religious Book of poetry. Still as an Israeli citizen, have worked with Arabs and Bedouin, [Arabs have a caste system similar to the Hindu culture in this respect. Bedouin compare to Hindu Untouchables. Beduin Arabs, their language: slightly differs from classic Arabic], and have asked at least one Shiek [perhaps the equivalent of a rabbi in their culture], 1. Why the Koran does not bring the Name of the God of Israel? 2. How does the Koran define the term "Prophet"? 3. Why does the Koran never employ the key Torah term "Brit", as in ברית אש found in the opening 6 letters of the Torah. I personnally did not ask this Shiek these questions. My co-worker who was a 17 year old Beduin, asked these questions over a span of 6 months. He reported that the Shiek did not know, got very angry, and complained to his father, asking him: who taught your son to ask these unknown questions?!

In my work as a Machgiach Kashrut [My job, policing restaurants to assure that the food served to the public obyed the halachic kosher guidelines.], I worked closely with Arabs and Beduin; attended their weddings and enjoyed their coffee! Halal meat does not come even close to kosher meat; Arabs have not the slightest idea what defects make a slaughtered animal trief. The Koran has only a superficial knowledge of the T'NaCH liturature. Camel preceeds pigs in the order of tuma/forbidden animals?!

Mohammed claims himself a prophet from the line of T'NaCH prophets. The T'NaCH liturature defines this key term as a person who "commands mussar". Prophets to not for tell the future. Hence the New Testament none sense of "fulfilling the words of the prophets" - utterly absurd; neither the new testament God nor the Koran Archangel know how the T'NaCH defined the key term "prophet". This fundamental error destroys the premise upon which both the Koran and New Testament theology base themselves.

The Koran calls Jesus [son of Zeus], a prophet. Only problem with this declaration, that imaginary mythical man did not teach the brit faith. Brit means alliance/Republic. Mussar instruction - it applies equally to all generations of the brit people, based upon the oath sworn brit Avram cut at the "brit between the pieces". This brit, its located in the third Parsha of the Book of בראשית/Genesis - לך לך. The alien Bible division of the Torah into chapters and verses does not exist in the Hebrew literature. The translators of the Hebrew T'NaCH did not understand the concept of Parshaot and Sugiot; so they made their own arbitrary order to their Bible. The Protestant Old Testament, which contains 39 books, comes from the "Palestinian" (Arabs can not pronounce the letter P). The word Palestine comes from the Greek and Roman conquerors of the Middle East. The Ottoman Muslim empire never referred to any province within their rule across the Middle East by the European name of Palestine - anymore did they referred to Istanbul by the Byzantine name: Canstantinople! In the 20th century Britain and France carved up the Ottoman empire - following WW1 - these powers of imperialism divided between themselves Greater Syria, into 'Spheres of Influence'.

I do not want to make a large distraction, but in 1914, prior to the existence of the League of Nations - at the beginning of WW1 - Britain siezed Egypt from the Ottoman empire claiming a Mandate over Egypt and later the League declared Palestine. The Catholic Old Testament, however, derives its books from the Alexandrian Canon " the Greek listing of Old Testament books, which was supposedly drawn up in Alexandria, Egypt. Along with the 39 books of the Palestinian Canon, the Alexandrian Canon contains 14 or 15 additional books that are collectively known as the "apocrypha," which simply means "hidden."

Scholarship into ancient texts fundamentally requires knowledge of Hebrew. Being Jewish, the New Testament and Bible do not interest me. I do not know Greek or Latin. But it requires no knowledge of these languages to know that the earliest manuscripts of the New Testament exclusively rely upon Greek - not Hebrew or Aramaic: the primary language spoken by the Jewish people during that time period! Hence, the target audiances of the New Testament aimed at non Jewish readership. Furthermore, the writings of the Gospels came later than the letters of Paul; according to virtually all opinions the Gospels were written no less than 100 years after the events which they claim to have personally witnessed. It seems an intellectual fraud to preceed the Gospels to the letters of Paul, when his correspondences historically preceeded the writing of the Gospels included in the Bible Cannon. [Alot of other books of Gospels did the Church Fathers exclude from their Cannon. The Hebrew T'NaCH excludes all the Aprocripha Books in the Xtian Bible].

How a scholar "edits" texts, has a profound impact how lay readers understand the "accepted" Cannon of faith. By contrast, the Hebrew Cannon of sealed texts includes, the T'NaCH, Talmud, Midrashim, and Siddur. Why did Jewish sages "seal" this Cannon of literature? The Torah primarily exists as the written Constitution of the bnai brit Republic. How do all later generations interpret the original intent of the Framer of the Constitution? [A nation does not begin and end in one generation]. All generations require a logic system which equally permits each and every generation to logically interpret the intent of the Torah Constitution.

[In the Middle Ages, Torah scholars focused upon Judaism the religion, because Jews at that time lived as stateless refugee populations scattered across Asia and Europe. Jews could not openly discuss the Torah as a Constitutional document and the Talmud as the model of Common Law Courts of Law whose purpose served as a model that when the Jewish people reconquered our Home lands that we could use the Talmud as the basis to reimpose the Order of Courts of Law. This Oral Torah logic system stands completely separate and distinct from the Greek and German logic systems personified in Aristotle and Hegel. The Church rejection of the Talmud as the Oral Torah stands upon their flawed perception that the Common Law Case/Rule system requires a strict logic system which compares or contrast Case law with similar but different Case law to learn a depth precedent. Its this style of Case/precedent which defines all Common Law legal systems.

Does the Torah permit reliance upon other logic formats to interpret the Written Torah? This qualifies as a subject of debate. The Rambam clearly relied upon the logic system of Aristotle to interpret and order his legal rulings as found in his work called the Mishna Torah. This subject gets complex quickly, needless to say, that over a thousand years prior to Rambam Jews fought a civil war over this debate. After Rambam the king of France and the Pope burned all the Talmud manuscripts in France because of this same debate! I can not speak for the intent of the Xtian editors of their Cannon, Jews sealed our texts to permit all generations the identical tradition
Debate Round No. 1
backwardseden

Pro

The question, in you being a teeny bopper and trying to change the subject, naturally, because you do not have the answers, as you completely avoided the subject matter at hand and went into your own whoo-ha whatever, like a Jerry Falwell gang bang at his inauguration to be chief medical officer for the televangelists on know-nothings.

No absolutely not can you comprehend gods because it is man that invents god to explain the unexplained, just as all religions have done in the past. And with nearly all religions, it first starts off with power, then fear and then control. Wow does your super egotistical non proven superior egotistical god prove that one as you dig it into the dirt trying to find worth from a penny serenade.

Now if you are going to be debating with me, then you WILL use a spell check and no more of your ridiculous miss-steaks unless you are making up your own language as I often do, in which you are clearly not. You get to college, and one mistake, that"s an instant F. Teachers will not deal with it and neither will I. And there"s no reason for it.

"Where did God come from? Which God?" See, that"s what I truly hate about those so endowed with their own self righteous religious beliefs, without a shred of evidence, naturally, is they CAN"T READ. You paid 0 attention to the article. Because if you had, your small toxic meow mix music muddled brain would have understood that it simply doesn"t matter.

Now I have been doing this for 42+ years and have talked with roughly 22,000. And I have never heard of anything resembling a "T'NaCH" or whatever you are referring to. It is not listed in wikipedia, nor is it listed in the dictionary. Nothing resembles that so-called word. So what should I do here? I can either shut this debate down completely until you come up with better EXCUSES for something that is believable, or I can go completely around that and totally ignore it. Let"s see what happens when I ignore it.

OK I cannot continue. You bring up stuff that I in no possible way can confirm. The word "Yechuda" is listed so so so many times under different pretences in wikipedia, and I"m not going to search through all of them to dig up what you are searching for and or trying to say. Nor is that word in the dictionary. In other words, I"m not going to take your fricken word at ---anything---. If you cannot back up what you say, with solid concrete evidence, so that I or anyone can look it up, or don"t bother saying it.

Btw, your friend "judaism", he"s not an orthodox jew, not by any means. He doesn"t pay any attention to actual jewish laws and scripture, in which he most certainly doesn"t follow and I 100% guarantee that you don"t either. So for him to even doubt that you are not an orthodox jew, well that paints him as a true contradictory hypocrite if there ever was one. Oh and oh yeah speaking of scripture, no god of his or yours would be stupid enough to communicate in text form, the worst form of communication possible. So that"s a megadose of truth.

So if you wish to continue with this debate, then provide where I can look things up to support what you state.
mosc

Con

Ad hominem argument: "The question, in you being a teeny bopper and trying to change the subject, naturally, because you do not have the answers, as you completely avoided the subject matter at hand and went into your own whoo-ha whatever, like a Jerry Falwell gang bang at his inauguration to be chief medical officer for the televangelists on know-nothings." If your opening thesis statement has no real logic ... that sinks your entire argument. In computer terms: "trash in ... trash out". Proof you say? " Wow does your super egotistical non proven superior egotistical god prove that one as you dig it into the dirt trying to find worth from a penny serenade." Another Ad hominem argument.

"Now if you are going to be debating with me, then you WILL use a spell check and no more of your ridiculous miss-steaks unless you are making up your own language as I often do, in which you are clearly not. You get to college, and one mistake, that"s an instant F. Teachers will not deal with it and neither will I. And there"s no reason for it."

Not from the Universities where i learned. Being an Israeli and communicating in English, you want to start writing in Hebrew and see how many mistakes you make? But seeing that you do not give any examples of my errors, oops another empationed ad hominen false logic.

""Where did God come from? Which God?" See, that"s what I truly hate about those so endowed with their own self righteous religious beliefs, without a shred of evidence, naturally, is they CAN"T READ."

Since when does asking a question constitute as a personal belief system? Which God? You do not see the question mark? "You paid 0 attention to the article. Because if you had, your small toxic meow mix music muddled brain would have understood that it simply doesn"t matter." Another ad hominem illogic.

"Now I have been doing this for 42+ years and have talked with roughly 22,000. And I have never heard of anything resembling a "T'NaCH" or whatever you are referring to." Google "T'NaCH" and learn. Another transliteration of the Hebrew abreviation: Tanakh. Ow that's the siren for Shabbot.
Debate Round No. 2
backwardseden

Pro

If all you *yawn boring boredom bores a boring bore* are going to do is repeat what I state and then put in your remarks, well I may as well go to sleep during the next nuclear war water horse from which this horse can drink of my well funded spit.

Now here"s how I run things" if there is the slightest hint of you inventing excuses from something in which you clearly know nothing about, especially when its the subject in which you claim to professing you have knowledge upon, namely this one, and you really don"t, and yet you pretend that you do by coming up with invented excuses and or flat out lying, I will insult you with my brand of insults that are original, funny, stupid, deranged and walls to the ball insane, unless those excuses are so far fetched that they are clearly pulled off from your groin to be a groin pull from the gold-i-lox area to keep scientists looking for other planets, then all bets are truly off and I may end the debate right then and there because I DO KNOW my stuff, whereas most don"t.

Still no proof? My patience is wearing thin as cheese whiz to blow a tin can across the cow chirps of the squatted universe eve searching for big black blank holes. Strange isn"t it that according to Stephen Hawking, perhaps the smartest person who has ever lived, there are roughly 125 billion galaxies in this known universe. It is also known that there are supermassive black holes inside each one of them. Yet there hasn"t even even been that many people here on planet earth. Black holes are nothingness. So your god, in which you cannot even prove exists, favors soulless big black holes over humans. Kinda tells us/ man where your god"s truth lies. Utterly pathetic.

"Not from the Universities where i learned." Well then they are too soft. Well I was born jewish and was taught Hebrew. But I don"t remember anything about it except that its read left to right.
Now I don"t need to give you examples of your spelling woes. If your computwhore doesn"t do that, then you have a piece of cow dung larvae and you should dump it in favwhore of something bettwhore.

"Since when does asking a question constitute as a personal belief system?" It has nothing to do with the article. "Which God?" Nothing.

OK I googled "T'NaCH". But there's a serious problem. That is that there are far too many websites to view and I have no idea which one is among the best among "about 366,000 results".

Well you brought in nothing, absolutely nothing to support any argument that you may have to answer "Why do you think god was invented?" from RD1 so your RD was was essentially wasted. Not a good idea. .
mosc

Con

Another weak opening statement made by Pro. 'If all you *yawn boring boredom bores a boring bore* are going to do is repeat what I state and then put in your remarks, well I may as well go to sleep during the next nuclear war water horse from which this horse can drink of my well funded spit.'

Mr. Xtian or ex-Xtian provincial "person", this site goes by the name Debate.org; a debate person A makes an argument and person B makes a counter argument. In the last round you repeatedly made these irrational, illogical ad hominem arguments. I quoted your none sense bringing specific evidence to prove my charge that your arguments - from beginning to end - "trash in trash out [remember?] - stood upon the absurd none argument of ad hominem silliness.

Next refutation in this debate. "Now here"s how I run things" if there is the slightest hint of you inventing excuses from something in which you clearly know nothing about, especially when its the subject in which you claim to professing you have knowledge upon, namely this one, and you really don"t, and yet you pretend that you do by coming up with invented excuses and or flat out lying, I will insult you with my brand of insults that are original, funny, stupid, deranged and walls to the ball insane, unless those excuses are so far fetched that they are clearly pulled off from your groin to be a groin pull from the gold-i-lox area to keep scientists looking for other planets, then all bets are truly off and I may end the debate right then and there because I DO KNOW my stuff, whereas most don"t."

Debates hav rules. You do not set the rules but rather obey the rules of the game. If you play chess and move your king as if he existed as a knight, no body would play with you. It appears to me, based upon the above quotation of what you expressed as an argument? [The above has nothing to do with the subject of the debate: Where did God come from? A dream, a lie, and an explanation. Consequently, it appears to me that the expression of your egotism "I" "I" "I", can not qualify that you have a stuttering problem. My knowledge about you, limited strictly and only to this "debate" LOL. But it appears, based upon your third response, that you assume the role of God: Judge, Jury, and Prosecution. This "debate" LOL, occurs on a public forum.

"Still no proof? My patience is wearing thin as cheese whiz to blow a tin can across the cow chirps of the squatted universe eve searching for big black blank holes."

May the readers on this "debate" bear witness, that Mr. Pro does not appear to approach this forum with respect. He demands proof for the existence of the Gods. My refutation: Only belief systems require proof for the existence of God A, B, C or D etc. The Torah brit faith - not subject to personal belief, based upon the premise that all belief systems begin with the egotism of "I". Torah faith stands in contrasts with the idolatry of Xtianity and Islam; the latter two belief systems contrast the Torah oath brit concept of faith. Specifically where does the God of Israel live vs. where do the Gods of Xtianity and Islam live. The latter live in the Heavens together with the Cestellations of the other Greek and Roman Gods. The former, based upon fidelity of Jews keeping the oath brit alliance, the Spirit of HaShem's Name lives within the dedicated place within our hearts and souls.

Hearts, plural, learned from how the Torah misspells the word heart. Recall that Mr. Pro declared that misspelled words invalidate an argument. The Torah teaches otherwise. This refutation of Mr. Pro's pompous declaration stands clear vindicated - not by my own self important declarations, but rather by the language of the Torah itself.

It seems clear to me now that Mr. Pro does not wish or choose to follow debate procedures. So I shall hence forth ignore the rest of his 3rd round self righteous and self centered nonesense, and return addressing the logical holes in the New Testament and the Koran, as found in the first round of my opening refutation of Mr. Pro's spacious opening argument. Understanding, by the way i learn the Torah, means "separating like from like". The language of the Talmud: "learning a matter from another matter".

In my freshman year in college, literaure 101 my professor taught that a thesis statement requires 2 or 3 particulars. Being Jewish, [I find it really funny that Mr. Pro did not even know the word T'NaCH! Its all a matter of perspective and experience, but his total ignorance of the Jewish faith so reminded me of the saying about Americans. Speak 3 languages -- trilingual. Speak 2 languages -- bilingual. Speak 1 language -- American.], my rabbis taught me Torah in Hebrew, not English. Being Israeli, my limitations for writing in English, please accept my apologies if i misspell a word here or there. I really have no excuse, I learned History at Texas A&M, with an English minor.

Still, the American experience, I made aliya to Israel in 1991 and except for my wife's daughter's marriage and the birth of my daughter have never returned back to the US. Having made this digression of an introduction of myself, let me return to the logical holes in the Xtian Bible and the Arab/Muslim Koran. My Con premise stands on the foundation that the Gods worshipped by Xtians and Arabs/Muslims live has separate and distinct Gods from the God whom the Jewish people worship. By the oath brit faith, if we maintain and honor the oath swore by Avraham, Yitzak and Yaacov, the fathers of the Jewish people, the nation of Cohonim, then the Spirit of HaShem lives within our hearts and souls.

בראשית\ב' ראשית, The Xtian translation of the first word of the Torah as "In the Beginning" contrasts with the reading of 2 Beginnings. The Creation stories, the Torah brings 2 Creation stories, the Jewish people understand as the mussar of HaShem [That's a transliteration of the unpronouncable Name. Why does the Torah forbid pronouncing the Name of God according to its 4 letters? The sin of the Golden Calf. There, some of my people translated the Name of HaShem into a word. The Name of HaShem lives as a spirit NOT a word. Pronouncing the Name, according to the grammer of the 4 letters, profanes the Name which lives as Spirit into a word]. That both the new testament and koran make the exact same error of the Golden Calf, proves that the worship of these Gods violates the 2nd Commandment of the revelation of the Torah at Sinai ... do not worship other Gods.

Mr. Pro demands proof of the existence of the Gods. I bring the planets named after Greek and Roman Gods, as proof that Greeks and Romans worshipped these planets as Gods. A people worships a God, if for only the people who worship that God, obviously they believe that that God exists and lives. Does that God really exist and live? For the people who believe in this or that God, this question stands as utterly absurd. Of course this or that God really exists and lives!!! The Church murdered millions of other Xtian believers because they did not believe the way that the Popes dogmatism proclaimed that they should believe.

"It is computed, that eleven thousand persons have, at several times, suffered death,
rather than submit to break their eggs at the smaller end."
Jonathan Swift (1667-1745), Dean of St Patrick's, Dublin, Gulliver's Travels

The distinction between schism and heresy, heresy is the denial of a Christian dogmatism; schism:the withdrawal from the authority of the Church. Jews reject altogether the belief in Jesus son of Zeus. The Xtian belief in messiah has no T'NaCH basis in fact. The stugy of all literature learns by way of making comparisons and contrasts. Talmudic Common Law makes a "measured" comparison and contrast of different Case Law rulings. This disciplined manner of learning Case Law stands upon the basis of "learn the Torah by way of proofs".

The comparison of proof of Gods with proof of Case Laws ... if A brings a precedent learned from an earlier Case Law, A does not prove the validity of that particular case law. Bringing a precedent to a Case Law assumes that the Case Law has validity. Parlieamentary Constitutional Law differs from laws passed by Congress. The English Common Law courts do not have the power to declare a law passed by Parlieament as not Constitutional. The Supreme Court, by contrast has the Constitutional power to declare a law passed by both Houses of Congreass as being unConstitutional.

Mishnaic Law and English Law, both Courts systems operate on a Common Law system which requires bring precedents. Its interesting that the Church, throughout history, has denounced the Talmud; and yet the English court system models the Talmudic Common Law legal system! I shall now compare two separate cases. The revolt made by Korach against Moshe; the revolt made by Yero'vam made against king Shlomo. The common denominator by which both cases stand, both rejected the House of Aaron and the anointed "Moshiach" ראש בית\בראשית - Head of House.

The Torah defines HOLY - that which a person dedicates to HaShem can not later be replaced by something other. King David was anointed as king. Did this replace the House of Aaron as the Head of the House Moshiach? No. King David commanded his son Shlomo to build the Temple. The holy brit faith, the Spirit of HaShem's Name lives within the hearts and souls of the brit people. HaShem has no oath brit to live in a building made of wood and stone. The Hebrew calls this logic משל\נמשל...parable/interpretation of the parable. Therefore the building of the Temple by king Shlomo served to proclaim the house of Aaron as Moshiach.
Debate Round No. 3
backwardseden

Pro

I’m not going to pay any attention to what you have to say for RD3 beyond the first 4 paragraphs. The problem is you, not me. You brought in 0 for RD 2 which is NOT my problem, that’s YOURS entirely. All you did was echo what I said. And you did it again with your openings for RT 3 for at least 4 paragraphs, count em, FOUR, yes that’s right 4 big bright FOUR mighty big paragraphs. I’m not going to waddle through any more of YOUR nonsense. 4 was MORE than enough. You had your chance to prove yourself and wow did you blow it. If you were a lawyer for either the prosecution or the defense, you’d be thrown out in a heartbeat, and or the judge would tell you to “Move it along” because he would NEVER have the patience for that crap. Well I most certainly don’t.
If this was a serious debate, and it would be you VS the opposing side, there’d be absolutely no possible way that you could ---ever--- win in which is what you want. Not me. I want what is right VS what is wrong and what is just VS what is unjust. And if you cannot handle that, then leave. I---don’t---care. I’m not here to please you. I’m also not here to make friends with you. I’ve got friends that would die for me whereas its rather obvious that you don’t just like so so so many here on debate.org don’t.
Repeating: Its also very obvious that in no possible way, just like your friend “judaism” is not an orthodox jew either because you do not in any way follow your scriptures, not by any means.
Yeah so what are you going to do now? Echo what I’ve said yet again? Sheesh. Wow has this debate been so fruitful whereas you’ve proved NOTHING. Typical.
mosc

Con

Pro: " All you did was echo what I said. " Proof of the philosophic theory: if a tree falls in the forest ... does it make a sound. LOL no. Pro has added nothing to this debate since his opening declarations. This sums up my concluding argument.
Debate Round No. 4
152 comments have been posted on this debate. Showing 1 through 10 records.
Posted by backwardseden 1 hour ago
backwardseden
Your God gave power to no one to change any of his laws. That includes your precious frail fragile Jesus Christ he was a nobody and was not the Savior or your Messiah. So there is no law that exists to give you Christians salvation from the Old Testament to change what cannot be changed of God's laws from the Old Testament.
Well I hope you're doing well and in the very best of spirits. Me obviously not so well I'm in super intense pain and of course you know with my computer blowing up with my monitor blowing up with my TV blowing up with my radar range blowing up all of the same time no I'm not doing well. Who knows when I will post one of these again? But like I said I should be getting a monitor this Memorial Day weekend I hope all right take care and I say this to everybody do everything I wouldn't do. That's a slogan of Mine by the way so don't take any offense to it.
Posted by backwardseden 1 hour ago
backwardseden
Your God is also a contradictory hypocrite. He draws up a commandment of "Thou shalt not kill." And yet your God kills. He's committed countless genocides. Some of them involved babies and children and pregnant mothers. Those are true atrocities in which are truly inexcusable. Actually any killing by God is inexcusable because of God is God he could have started out with peace, kindness, caring, Harmony, love, etc etc etc and kept it!!!!! But no he chose evil anger, wrath, vengeance, rage, Fury, jealousy. All in which he has freely admitted to. And this is becoming of a supreme deity? Is that be coming of anybody who has armpits that sweats from their nose hairs to their feet? And jealousy is nothing but anger as disguised fear no God no Supreme deity would ever have use for jealousy. You have another problem. Since your God has killed pregnant women that means that he has committed abortions. And yet you Christians are against abortions???? So you go against your God!!!! Yeah your God is a contradictory hypocrite all right. Perfectly okay for God to kill but not men to kill. And yet strangely your God has sent man to kill for him and countless of his genocides. By the way worshipping other idols and other gods is NOT a reason to kill. And do not talk to me about this crap about murder. Your God committing genocide killing babies, killing children, killing pregnant mothers is murder. It is an atrocity no matter how you look at it you Christians cannot justify it and yet you try to justify it. So it's quite simple you follow your God you come on down here and you kill me as per Deuteronomy 13 10/9 and Deuteronomy 17 to 5 as per your God orders you to do because I do not worship your God and I hate your pGod because he hates children. What's the matter you are not going to do it? Why not? Then that means that you do not follow your God. And again as previously stated your Christian law does not take place. Your God in the New Testament did not change any laws.
Posted by backwardseden 1 hour ago
backwardseden
@32doni32nido32 yeah my monitor blew up my computer blew up I have a new one now my TV blew up and my radar range blew up all at once. Lucky me! And I collect Social Security so replacing them is well I think you can figure that one out. But I should be able to get a monitor this Memorial Day weekend. Even so I am in absolute agony and so much pain. I have not felt this much pain in at least 10 years my hands are in so much pain..But I have painkillers from the past that someone help. And yesterday I got to see a hand specialist so hopefully things are looking forward as far as that is concerned but typing will be here very very very difficult even when I get a new monitor.
Okay the Ten Commandments and I didn't mean to leave you dangling and I apologize about that but I've got you cold. Look up George Carlin's version of The Ten Commandments on YouTube or even Google it and read them. Also look up Christopher Hitchens versions of the Ten Commandments. They are both correct. Also to do more damage to the Ten Commandments four of the Ten Commandments are geared towards your gods frail fragile precious ego just as your entire Bible is now how truly pathetic is that? There's adultery and if you break that it's death. If you break the Sabbath is death. If you curse at your parents it's death. If you blasphemy it's death. Please do not tell me about your scapegoat as far as your Christian law which does not exist. Nowhere in the New Testament did your God ever state that these laws were abolished. Not anywhere so these laws stand firm. What is truly disgusting and sickening and it shows that your God truly hates children is not one of them is geared towards children. When at least one of them most certainly should be saying something to the effect of"Thou shalt always honor and protect children and never do any harm unto them." But no your God is more concerned about his frail fragile precious freaking ego. Your God is truly sick and diseased.
Posted by backwardseden 2 hours ago
backwardseden
@32doni32nido32 hi there sorry it's been a while my computer is still down. So I am using my phone out of dictation. So there's going to be a lot of errors as far as English is concerned so please do deal with that. I have also found out that I have severe nerve damage in my hands so even when I get my computer back I probably won't be able to type all that well. Okay let's get to business. Of course God created sin. If not then God is not God, he is not in control of everything, he does not know everything, he is not all-knowing nor all-powerful, is not omnipotent, and is not perfect, and that's according to you your God also created Satan so your God must have known what evil and sin was before Satan was created. So according to you your God isn't evil twisted sick diseased s.o.b. and your God freely admitted that he was evil in about 15 verses or so but you have a serious problem in taking your God at his word just as so many Christians do. You do what you want what suits you and you do not follow your Bible. But then again your God would not use text as a form of communication the worst form of communication possible. Now this Satan character is just as fictitious as your God and you cannot prove either of them existing ever. Oh and oh yeah according to you Satan would have power to commit sin and God wouldn't something is very off and is a screwball comedy in your thinking and it's no wonder why you have no genuine friends or loved ones. Once again if there is bad English it's due to dictation from this phone which there's nothing I can do about so I apologize about that. My computer blew up as well as my monitor so I need to get a new monitor. I have a new computer.
Posted by 32doni32nido32 6 days ago
32doni32nido32
@Im_Intelligent
God didn't create sin. Yes, he created Lucifer knowing that he would turn to evil, however Satan is the one who created sin.
There are many people who can explain it better than I could who are much smarter than me. Find one of them and ask them. Sorry I can't provide all the answers. :(

@mosc
Grow up.
@Im_Intelligent seems to be FAR more mature than you. He can decline your debate if he wants to. For instance, maybe he saw your performance and either wanted to spare you or didn't want to be annoyed. That's what I'm doing with @backwardseden. I'm not scared of debating him again, I just don't want to have to go through all the previous stuff. It was a miserable experience that made even ME end up insulting him. If you look at my first round response, that's how I almost always am online and in real life. If you look at my fifth round response, it's like a completely different person. I don't want to have to become like that again. It definitely wasn't fun or enjoyable.
Posted by mosc 1 week ago
mosc
Yo Im_Intelligent I challenged you to a debate. What's that i hear, why its the sound of a chicken ba bak bak bak baaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaa. LOL
Posted by Im_Intelligent 1 week ago
Im_Intelligent
@32doni32nido32

God created evil when he created everything, and he knew it would happen, also if try to argue otherwise despite the bible stating clearly that he did, what you end up with is something God either didn't know about, didn't and couldn't create or both, in any case, God not creating evil leaves him either not all powerful, not all knowing, or both.

The biblical God isn't this innocent God of love people think.
Posted by SHARINGISCARINGg 1 week ago
SHARINGISCARINGg
I would LOVE to debate @backwardseden, but he is to incompetent to debate me. Also, if he does decide to debate me, I will be leaving the town/state/country next week, and I will not have internet for a while.

And @backwardseden, you said "Your God did not approve Jesus." That makes sense. That must be why the Holy Spirit came down on Jesus immediately after He got baptized and God said "This is my son with whom I am well pleased." Makes sense. So Jesus DID have the power to change God's laws. Because Jesus IS God. I know I have already explained this to you a million times. Just look at it, and never use the same excuse twice.

You obviously do not know what it means to be a Christian. In the way you describe it, we are supposed to follow every single one of God's laws or else we are not a Christian. No. What being a Christian is, is that we "believe and are baptized," and therefore we shall be saved. The laws are there to remind us that there is no way that we are going to follow all of them, and to remind us that we are sinners, and God is perfect. It is another way of showing that God gets ALL the glory. However, we as Christians should strive every day to at least not sin. Of course we will fail, because we are human. And believe me, when judgement day comes, there will be NO CHRISTIANS going for their possessions. We will all give up our possessions. And I love my enemies. Christians should love their enemies. (cough cough @32doni32nido32) Some don't though, and that is ok. They have their whole life to work on that.
Posted by 32doni32nido32 1 week ago
32doni32nido32
So no, I will not be debating you again.
Posted by 32doni32nido32 1 week ago
32doni32nido32
I do not desire to start a whole entire debate with you. The first experience was absolutely miserable and I do NOT want to do it again.

Yes, Jesus Christ WAS approved as our savior. Matthew 1:21 is an example. It never says that he spoke to Jesus directly that he was the savior, however did say it to Mary. There's also John 1: 1-3.

You, being an atheist, DEFINITELY to not get to determine MY faith. Your opinion is irrelevant.
"Nobody except you and your mom cares about your opinion." - C. McGrath
Not even a Christian has a right to tell me how I am religiously.

So then almost no one is Christian because they didn't get rid of their families and posessions? Oh please.

God is evil so I shouldn't have to obey his laws, correct? But now I need to love my enemy even though he's evil. Make up your mind. Though I don't love my enemies, I don't hate them either. If they hate me or simply don't agree with me I don't really care. It will likely not affect me.

All of the ten commandments have been broken at some point, however that doesn't mean that a few of them aren't laws (do not murder, do not steal, etc.).
No votes have been placed for this debate.