How Jesus became god'... from not being one. Bart Ehrman.

An atheist who is an authority on Christianity.

That's like a vegetarian opining on a great cut of prime rib.

It's all a load of crap, isn't it.

Early life
Ehrman grew up in Lawrence, Kansas, and attended Lawrence High School, where he was on the state champion debate team in 1973. He began studying the Bible, Biblical theology and Biblical languages at Moody Bible Institute,[1] where he earned the school's three-year diploma in 1976.[2]
He is a 1978 graduate of Wheaton College in Illinois, where he received his bachelor's degree.
He received his Ph.D. (in 1985) and M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary, where he studied textual criticism of the Bible, development of the New Testament canon and New Testament apocrypha under Bruce Metzger.
Both baccalaureate and doctorate were conferred magna cum laude.[3]


Career
In Misquoting Jesus Ehrman tells how he was a born-again, fundamentalist Christian as a teenager.[1][4] He recounts being certain in his youthful enthusiasm that God had inspired the wording of the Bible and protected its texts from all error.[1][4] His desire to understand the original words of the Bible led him to the study of ancient languages, particularly Koine Greek, and to textual criticism. During his graduate studies, however, he became convinced that there are contradictions and discrepancies in the biblical manuscripts that could not be harmonized or reconciled:[1]

I did my very best to hold on to my faith that the Bible was the inspired word of God with no mistakes and that lasted for about two years … I realized that at the time we had over 5,000 manuscripts of the New Testament, and no two of them are exactly alike. The scribes were changing them, sometimes in big ways, but lots of times in little ways. And it finally occurred to me that if I really thought that God had inspired this text … If he went to the trouble of inspiring the text, why didn’t he go to the trouble of preserving the text? Why did he allow scribes to change it?[1]
He remained a liberal Christian for 15 years, but later became an agnostic atheist after struggling with the philosophical problems of evil and suffering.[1][2][5]

Ehrman has taught at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill since 1988, after four years of teaching at Rutgers University. At UNC he has served as both the Director of Graduate Studies and the Chair of the Department of Religious Studies. He was the recipient of the 2009 J. W. Pope "Spirit of Inquiry" Teaching Award, the 1993 UNC Undergraduate Student Teaching Award, the 1994 Phillip and Ruth Hettleman Prize for Artistic and Scholarly Achievement, and the Bowman and Gordon Gray Award for excellence in teaching.

Ehrman currently serves as co-editor of the series New Testament Tools, Studies, and Documents (E. J. Brill), co-editor-in-chief for the journal Vigiliae Christianae, and on several other editorial boards for journals and monographs.
Ehrman formerly served as President of the Southeast Region of the Society of Biblical Literature, chair of the New Testament textual criticism section of the Society, book review editor of the Journal of Biblical Literature, and editor of the monograph series The New Testament in the Greek Fathers (Scholars Press).


Ehrman speaks extensively throughout the United States and has participated in many public debates, including debates with William Lane Craig,[6] Dinesh D'Souza,[7] Mike Licona,[8] Craig A. Evans,[9] Daniel B. Wallace,[10] Richard Swinburne,[11] Peter J. Williams,[12] James White,[13] Darrell Bock,[14] Michael L. Brown,[15] and Robert M. Price.[16]

In 2006 he appeared on The Colbert Report[17] and The Daily Show,[18] to promote his book Misquoting Jesus, and in 2009 reappeared on The Colbert Report[19] with the release of Jesus, Interrupted. Ehrman has appeared on the History Channel, the National Geographic Channel, Discovery Channel, A&E, Dateline NBC, CNN, and NPR's Fresh Air and his writings have been featured in Time, Newsweek, The New York Times, The New Yorker, and The Washington Post.

Works
Ehrman has written widely on issues of the New Testament and early Christianity at both an academic and popular level, much of it based on textual criticism of the New Testament. His thirty books include three college textbooks and six New York Times bestsellers: Misquoting Jesus,[20] Jesus, Interrupted,[21] God's Problem,[22] Forged,[23][24] How Jesus Became God,[25] and The Triumph of Christianity.[26] More than two million copies of his books have been sold, and his books have been translated into 27 languages.[27]

In The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Ehrman argues that there was a close relationship between the social history of early Christianity and the textual tradition of the emerging New Testament. He examines how early struggles between Christian "heresy" and "orthodoxy" affected the transmission of the documents. Ehrman is often considered a pioneer in connecting the history of the early church to textual variants within biblical manuscripts and in coining such terms as "proto-orthodox Christianity".[28]

In Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, Ehrman agrees with Albert Schweitzer's thesis that Jesus was a Jewish apocalyptic preacher and that his main message was that the end times was near, that God would shortly intervene to overthrow evil and establish his rule on Earth, and that Jesus and his disciples all believed these end time events would occur in their lifetimes.[29]

In Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code, Ehrman expands on his list of ten historical and factual inaccuracies in Dan Brown's novel, previously incorporated in Dan Burstein's Secrets of the Code.[30]

In Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman introduces New Testament textual criticism. He outlines the development of New Testament manuscripts and the process and cause of manuscript errors in the New Testament.[31][32]

In Jesus, Interrupted, he describes the progress scholars have made in understanding the Bible over the past two hundred years and the results of their study, results which are often unknown among the population at large. In doing so, he highlights the diversity of views found in the New Testament, the existence of forged books in the New Testament which were written in the names of the apostles by Christian writers who lived decades later, and his belief that Christian doctrines such as the suffering Messiah, the divinity of Jesus, and the Trinity were later inventions.[33][34] Though, he has changed his mind on several issues, most notably, the divinity of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels.[35][36]

In Forged, Ehrman posits some New Testament books are literary forgeries and shows how widely forgery was practiced by early Christian writers—and how it was condemned in the ancient world as fraudulent and illicit.[37] His scholarly book, Forgery and Counterforgery, is an advanced look at the practice of forgery in the NT and early Christian literature. It makes a case for considering falsely attributed or pseudepigraphic books in the New Testament and early Christian literature "forgery", looks at why certain New Testament and early Christian works are considered forged, and describes the broader phenomenon of pseudepigraphy in the Greco-Roman world.[38]

In 2012, Ehrman published Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, defending the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth in contrast to the mythicist theory that Jesus is an entirely fictitious being.[39]

The 2014 release of How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee examines the historical Jesus, who according to Ehrman neither thought of himself as God nor claimed to be God, and proffers how he came to be thought of as the incarnation of God himself.[40]

In Jesus Before the Gospels, he examines the early Christian oral tradition and its role in shaping the stories about Jesus that we encounter in the New Testament.[41]

In The Triumph of Christianity: How a Forbidden Religion Swept the World, he notes that from the diversity of Christianity "throughout the first four Christian centuries", eventually only one form of Christianity, Nicene Christianity, became dominant under the rule of the Roman Emperor Constantine and his successors.[42]

In Heaven and Hell: A History of the Afterlife, he examines the historical development of the concepts of the afterlife throughout Greek, Jewish, and early Christian cultures, and how they eventually converged into the modern concepts of Heaven and Hell that modern Christians believe in.

Reception
Ehrman has been the recipient of the 2009 J. W. Pope "Spirit of Inquiry" Teaching Award, the 1993 UNC Undergraduate Student Teaching Award, the 1994 Phillip and Ruth Hettleman Prize for Artistic and Scholarly Achievement, and the Bowman and Gordon Gray Award for excellence in teaching.[3]

Daniel Wallace has praised Ehrman as "one of North America's leading textual critics" and describes him as "one of the most brilliant and creative textual critics I have ever known".
Wallace argues, however, that in Misquoting Jesus Ehrman sometimes "overstates his case by assuming that his view is certainly correct." For example, Wallace asserts that Ehrman himself acknowledges the vast majority of textual variants are minor, but his popular writing and speaking sometimes makes the sheer number of them appear to be a major problem for getting to the original New Testament text.[43]

Ehrman's The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings is widely used at American colleges and universities.[44][45]
The textbook holds to a traditional interpretation of the Gospel of Thomas in the context of second-century Christian Gnosticism, a view that has been criticized by Elaine Pagels.[46]


.......
I see you WORSHIP A MAN NAMED BART.

How many eyewitnesses are there who died for Bart
 
Last edited:
Am I criticizing anyone? Am I saying I was better? Am I suggesting it should have been done differently? No.
Your judgement is to accept genocide, pain, and suffering. That is your right.

In my judgement, those things are wrong. Is there a good reason that is the only way things can be designed to be? None that I can see. Now do you understand?
Holy shit, there you go again with your dishonest arguments.

No, I don't understand. You start with an argument you don't believe to arrive at what you do believe. Totally illogical. Doesn't make any sense at all. It's a self fulfilling prophecy that ass fucks logic and reason.

P.S. and you are still judging God. So just to be clear, you believe you know better than the creator of existence, right?
Assuming God exists (do I always have to start off with that?) and He is perfect, I certainly see lots of imperfection in this world. I'd judge He's not living up to his potential. Would creation fall apart if there were no viruses?
Your judgments don't seem to assume God is perfect. Your judgments seem to assume God is imperfect.

So is your assumption that if God is perfect (whatever that means) that what He created should be perfect too? There are a couple of ways I can approach this.

What God created is perfect for its purpose and objective which is the Catholic thought.
That with infinite wisdom and goodness God freely willed to create a world "in a state of journeying" towards its ultimate perfection. In God's plan this process of becoming involves the appearance of certain beings and the disappearance of others, the existence of the more perfect alongside the less perfect, both constructive and destructive forces of nature. With physical good there exists also physical evil as long as creation has not reached perfection. For almighty God. . ., because he is supremely good, would never allow any evil whatsoever to exist in his works if he were not so all-powerful and good as to cause good to emerge from evil itself.

Or Jewish thought that whatever imperfections which exist are imperfections of matter and consequence of free will. That whatever is formed of any matter receives the most perfect form possible in that species of matter: in each individual case the defects are in accordance with the defects of that individual matter and that these are very few and rare. Such that is cannot be said that God directly creates evil, or He has the direct intention to produce evil. That God only produces existence, and all existence is good. That the great evils which men cause to each other because of certain intentions, desires, opinions, or religious principles, originate in ignorance, which is absence of wisdom. The numerous evils to which individual persons are exposed are due to the defects existing in the persons themselves. We suffer from the evils which we, by our own free will, inflict on ourselves and ascribe them to God, who is far from being connected with them. Man himself is the author of this class of evils. The error of the ignorant goes so far as to say that God's power is insufficient, because He has given to this Universe the properties which they imagine cause these great evils.

But what struck me most about your post was your description that God is supposed to be perfect. Perfect what and what exactly does that mean to you? Because I think it is your misguided and biased perception of God which has you confused.
All my life I've been told God is real, he is loving, he is perfect, and he is watching over us. So far as I can see, none of that is true. Maybe God's not evil but he created a world filled with it. You're always saying there is a reason, what is the reason for COVID 19?
Seems to me that you blame God for the bad acts of man and imperfections of matter. Every living thing dies. It's a requirement for genesis to occur.

Tell me how it would work in your world if you were God.

The reason for Covid 19 is that it mutated. Viruses exist in nature and play a role in nature. They serve a purpose.

Funny how you want to blame God for the bad but aren't willing to give God credit for the good... which BTW dwarfs the bad. Unless of course you believe existence is bad.
I would not judge men when they die. No heaven and no hell. I would not intervene in human affairs.

I have an aquarium but I have no idea which goldfish are good and which are bad, I let them work it out for themselves. I do intervene if they get ill and ensure they have enough to eat because I like them.
Is that it? Nothing else? Get it all out in the open.
If I had any rules for behavior I'd make sure EVERYONE knew what they were. No multiple religions saying various contradictory things.

And no viruses.
Anything else? How about diseases and death? Or hunger or poverty?
 
Last edited:
Am I criticizing anyone? Am I saying I was better? Am I suggesting it should have been done differently? No.
Your judgement is to accept genocide, pain, and suffering. That is your right.

In my judgement, those things are wrong. Is there a good reason that is the only way things can be designed to be? None that I can see. Now do you understand?
Holy shit, there you go again with your dishonest arguments.

No, I don't understand. You start with an argument you don't believe to arrive at what you do believe. Totally illogical. Doesn't make any sense at all. It's a self fulfilling prophecy that ass fucks logic and reason.

P.S. and you are still judging God. So just to be clear, you believe you know better than the creator of existence, right?
Assuming God exists (do I always have to start off with that?) and He is perfect, I certainly see lots of imperfection in this world. I'd judge He's not living up to his potential. Would creation fall apart if there were no viruses?
Your judgments don't seem to assume God is perfect. Your judgments seem to assume God is imperfect.

So is your assumption that if God is perfect (whatever that means) that what He created should be perfect too? There are a couple of ways I can approach this.

What God created is perfect for its purpose and objective which is the Catholic thought.
That with infinite wisdom and goodness God freely willed to create a world "in a state of journeying" towards its ultimate perfection. In God's plan this process of becoming involves the appearance of certain beings and the disappearance of others, the existence of the more perfect alongside the less perfect, both constructive and destructive forces of nature. With physical good there exists also physical evil as long as creation has not reached perfection. For almighty God. . ., because he is supremely good, would never allow any evil whatsoever to exist in his works if he were not so all-powerful and good as to cause good to emerge from evil itself.

Or Jewish thought that whatever imperfections which exist are imperfections of matter and consequence of free will. That whatever is formed of any matter receives the most perfect form possible in that species of matter: in each individual case the defects are in accordance with the defects of that individual matter and that these are very few and rare. Such that is cannot be said that God directly creates evil, or He has the direct intention to produce evil. That God only produces existence, and all existence is good. That the great evils which men cause to each other because of certain intentions, desires, opinions, or religious principles, originate in ignorance, which is absence of wisdom. The numerous evils to which individual persons are exposed are due to the defects existing in the persons themselves. We suffer from the evils which we, by our own free will, inflict on ourselves and ascribe them to God, who is far from being connected with them. Man himself is the author of this class of evils. The error of the ignorant goes so far as to say that God's power is insufficient, because He has given to this Universe the properties which they imagine cause these great evils.

But what struck me most about your post was your description that God is supposed to be perfect. Perfect what and what exactly does that mean to you? Because I think it is your misguided and biased perception of God which has you confused.
All my life I've been told God is real, he is loving, he is perfect, and he is watching over us. So far as I can see, none of that is true. Maybe God's not evil but he created a world filled with it. You're always saying there is a reason, what is the reason for COVID 19?
Seems to me that you blame God for the bad acts of man and imperfections of matter. Every living thing dies. It's a requirement for genesis to occur.

Tell me how it would work in your world if you were God.

The reason for Covid 19 is that it mutated. Viruses exist in nature and play a role in nature. They serve a purpose.

Funny how you want to blame God for the bad but aren't willing to give God credit for the good... which BTW dwarfs the bad. Unless of course you believe existence is bad.
I would not judge men when they die. No heaven and no hell. I would not intervene in human affairs.

I have an aquarium but I have no idea which goldfish are good and which are bad, I let them work it out for themselves. I do intervene if they get ill and ensure they have enough to eat because I like them.
Is that it? Nothing else? Get it all out in the open.
If I had any rules for behavior I'd make sure EVERYONE knew what they were. No multiple religions saying various contradictory things.

And no viruses.
Anything else? How about diseases and death? Or hunger or poverty?
No disease but an afterlife would be nice. Everyone goes to Heaven. I envision an afterlife as a virtual world where everyone can interact with everyone else, imagine meeting Alexander the Great or your own Great, Great Grandfather. God wouldn't need to judge, there would be millions lined up to make Hitler miserable or thank John Lennon for his art.
 
An atheist who is an authority on Christianity.

That's like a vegetarian opining on a great cut of prime rib.

It's all a load of crap, isn't it.

Early life
Ehrman grew up in Lawrence, Kansas, and attended Lawrence High School, where he was on the state champion debate team in 1973. He began studying the Bible, Biblical theology and Biblical languages at Moody Bible Institute,[1] where he earned the school's three-year diploma in 1976.[2]
He is a 1978 graduate of Wheaton College in Illinois, where he received his bachelor's degree.
He received his Ph.D. (in 1985) and M.Div. from Princeton Theological Seminary, where he studied textual criticism of the Bible, development of the New Testament canon and New Testament apocrypha under Bruce Metzger.
Both baccalaureate and doctorate were conferred magna cum laude.[3]


Career
In Misquoting Jesus Ehrman tells how he was a born-again, fundamentalist Christian as a teenager.[1][4] He recounts being certain in his youthful enthusiasm that God had inspired the wording of the Bible and protected its texts from all error.[1][4] His desire to understand the original words of the Bible led him to the study of ancient languages, particularly Koine Greek, and to textual criticism. During his graduate studies, however, he became convinced that there are contradictions and discrepancies in the biblical manuscripts that could not be harmonized or reconciled:[1]

I did my very best to hold on to my faith that the Bible was the inspired word of God with no mistakes and that lasted for about two years … I realized that at the time we had over 5,000 manuscripts of the New Testament, and no two of them are exactly alike. The scribes were changing them, sometimes in big ways, but lots of times in little ways. And it finally occurred to me that if I really thought that God had inspired this text … If he went to the trouble of inspiring the text, why didn’t he go to the trouble of preserving the text? Why did he allow scribes to change it?[1]
He remained a liberal Christian for 15 years, but later became an agnostic atheist after struggling with the philosophical problems of evil and suffering.[1][2][5]

Ehrman has taught at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill since 1988, after four years of teaching at Rutgers University. At UNC he has served as both the Director of Graduate Studies and the Chair of the Department of Religious Studies. He was the recipient of the 2009 J. W. Pope "Spirit of Inquiry" Teaching Award, the 1993 UNC Undergraduate Student Teaching Award, the 1994 Phillip and Ruth Hettleman Prize for Artistic and Scholarly Achievement, and the Bowman and Gordon Gray Award for excellence in teaching.

Ehrman currently serves as co-editor of the series New Testament Tools, Studies, and Documents (E. J. Brill), co-editor-in-chief for the journal Vigiliae Christianae, and on several other editorial boards for journals and monographs.
Ehrman formerly served as President of the Southeast Region of the Society of Biblical Literature, chair of the New Testament textual criticism section of the Society, book review editor of the Journal of Biblical Literature, and editor of the monograph series The New Testament in the Greek Fathers (Scholars Press).


Ehrman speaks extensively throughout the United States and has participated in many public debates, including debates with William Lane Craig,[6] Dinesh D'Souza,[7] Mike Licona,[8] Craig A. Evans,[9] Daniel B. Wallace,[10] Richard Swinburne,[11] Peter J. Williams,[12] James White,[13] Darrell Bock,[14] Michael L. Brown,[15] and Robert M. Price.[16]

In 2006 he appeared on The Colbert Report[17] and The Daily Show,[18] to promote his book Misquoting Jesus, and in 2009 reappeared on The Colbert Report[19] with the release of Jesus, Interrupted. Ehrman has appeared on the History Channel, the National Geographic Channel, Discovery Channel, A&E, Dateline NBC, CNN, and NPR's Fresh Air and his writings have been featured in Time, Newsweek, The New York Times, The New Yorker, and The Washington Post.

Works
Ehrman has written widely on issues of the New Testament and early Christianity at both an academic and popular level, much of it based on textual criticism of the New Testament. His thirty books include three college textbooks and six New York Times bestsellers: Misquoting Jesus,[20] Jesus, Interrupted,[21] God's Problem,[22] Forged,[23][24] How Jesus Became God,[25] and The Triumph of Christianity.[26] More than two million copies of his books have been sold, and his books have been translated into 27 languages.[27]

In The Orthodox Corruption of Scripture, Ehrman argues that there was a close relationship between the social history of early Christianity and the textual tradition of the emerging New Testament. He examines how early struggles between Christian "heresy" and "orthodoxy" affected the transmission of the documents. Ehrman is often considered a pioneer in connecting the history of the early church to textual variants within biblical manuscripts and in coining such terms as "proto-orthodox Christianity".[28]

In Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium, Ehrman agrees with Albert Schweitzer's thesis that Jesus was a Jewish apocalyptic preacher and that his main message was that the end times was near, that God would shortly intervene to overthrow evil and establish his rule on Earth, and that Jesus and his disciples all believed these end time events would occur in their lifetimes.[29]

In Truth and Fiction in The Da Vinci Code, Ehrman expands on his list of ten historical and factual inaccuracies in Dan Brown's novel, previously incorporated in Dan Burstein's Secrets of the Code.[30]

In Misquoting Jesus, Ehrman introduces New Testament textual criticism. He outlines the development of New Testament manuscripts and the process and cause of manuscript errors in the New Testament.[31][32]

In Jesus, Interrupted, he describes the progress scholars have made in understanding the Bible over the past two hundred years and the results of their study, results which are often unknown among the population at large. In doing so, he highlights the diversity of views found in the New Testament, the existence of forged books in the New Testament which were written in the names of the apostles by Christian writers who lived decades later, and his belief that Christian doctrines such as the suffering Messiah, the divinity of Jesus, and the Trinity were later inventions.[33][34] Though, he has changed his mind on several issues, most notably, the divinity of Jesus in the Synoptic Gospels.[35][36]

In Forged, Ehrman posits some New Testament books are literary forgeries and shows how widely forgery was practiced by early Christian writers—and how it was condemned in the ancient world as fraudulent and illicit.[37] His scholarly book, Forgery and Counterforgery, is an advanced look at the practice of forgery in the NT and early Christian literature. It makes a case for considering falsely attributed or pseudepigraphic books in the New Testament and early Christian literature "forgery", looks at why certain New Testament and early Christian works are considered forged, and describes the broader phenomenon of pseudepigraphy in the Greco-Roman world.[38]

In 2012, Ehrman published Did Jesus Exist? The Historical Argument for Jesus of Nazareth, defending the historical existence of Jesus of Nazareth in contrast to the mythicist theory that Jesus is an entirely fictitious being.[39]

The 2014 release of How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee examines the historical Jesus, who according to Ehrman neither thought of himself as God nor claimed to be God, and proffers how he came to be thought of as the incarnation of God himself.[40]

In Jesus Before the Gospels, he examines the early Christian oral tradition and its role in shaping the stories about Jesus that we encounter in the New Testament.[41]

In The Triumph of Christianity: How a Forbidden Religion Swept the World, he notes that from the diversity of Christianity "throughout the first four Christian centuries", eventually only one form of Christianity, Nicene Christianity, became dominant under the rule of the Roman Emperor Constantine and his successors.[42]

In Heaven and Hell: A History of the Afterlife, he examines the historical development of the concepts of the afterlife throughout Greek, Jewish, and early Christian cultures, and how they eventually converged into the modern concepts of Heaven and Hell that modern Christians believe in.

Reception
Ehrman has been the recipient of the 2009 J. W. Pope "Spirit of Inquiry" Teaching Award, the 1993 UNC Undergraduate Student Teaching Award, the 1994 Phillip and Ruth Hettleman Prize for Artistic and Scholarly Achievement, and the Bowman and Gordon Gray Award for excellence in teaching.[3]

Daniel Wallace has praised Ehrman as "one of North America's leading textual critics" and describes him as "one of the most brilliant and creative textual critics I have ever known".
Wallace argues, however, that in Misquoting Jesus Ehrman sometimes "overstates his case by assuming that his view is certainly correct." For example, Wallace asserts that Ehrman himself acknowledges the vast majority of textual variants are minor, but his popular writing and speaking sometimes makes the sheer number of them appear to be a major problem for getting to the original New Testament text.[43]

Ehrman's The New Testament: A Historical Introduction to the Early Christian Writings is widely used at American colleges and universities.[44][45]
The textbook holds to a traditional interpretation of the Gospel of Thomas in the context of second-century Christian Gnosticism, a view that has been criticized by Elaine Pagels.[46]
.......
I see you WORSHIP A MAN NAMED BART.

How many eyewitnesses are there who died for Bart
How many died for Hirohito?
 
Am I criticizing anyone? Am I saying I was better? Am I suggesting it should have been done differently? No.
Your judgement is to accept genocide, pain, and suffering. That is your right.

In my judgement, those things are wrong. Is there a good reason that is the only way things can be designed to be? None that I can see. Now do you understand?
Holy shit, there you go again with your dishonest arguments.

No, I don't understand. You start with an argument you don't believe to arrive at what you do believe. Totally illogical. Doesn't make any sense at all. It's a self fulfilling prophecy that ass fucks logic and reason.

P.S. and you are still judging God. So just to be clear, you believe you know better than the creator of existence, right?
Assuming God exists (do I always have to start off with that?) and He is perfect, I certainly see lots of imperfection in this world. I'd judge He's not living up to his potential. Would creation fall apart if there were no viruses?
Your judgments don't seem to assume God is perfect. Your judgments seem to assume God is imperfect.

So is your assumption that if God is perfect (whatever that means) that what He created should be perfect too? There are a couple of ways I can approach this.

What God created is perfect for its purpose and objective which is the Catholic thought.
That with infinite wisdom and goodness God freely willed to create a world "in a state of journeying" towards its ultimate perfection. In God's plan this process of becoming involves the appearance of certain beings and the disappearance of others, the existence of the more perfect alongside the less perfect, both constructive and destructive forces of nature. With physical good there exists also physical evil as long as creation has not reached perfection. For almighty God. . ., because he is supremely good, would never allow any evil whatsoever to exist in his works if he were not so all-powerful and good as to cause good to emerge from evil itself.

Or Jewish thought that whatever imperfections which exist are imperfections of matter and consequence of free will. That whatever is formed of any matter receives the most perfect form possible in that species of matter: in each individual case the defects are in accordance with the defects of that individual matter and that these are very few and rare. Such that is cannot be said that God directly creates evil, or He has the direct intention to produce evil. That God only produces existence, and all existence is good. That the great evils which men cause to each other because of certain intentions, desires, opinions, or religious principles, originate in ignorance, which is absence of wisdom. The numerous evils to which individual persons are exposed are due to the defects existing in the persons themselves. We suffer from the evils which we, by our own free will, inflict on ourselves and ascribe them to God, who is far from being connected with them. Man himself is the author of this class of evils. The error of the ignorant goes so far as to say that God's power is insufficient, because He has given to this Universe the properties which they imagine cause these great evils.

But what struck me most about your post was your description that God is supposed to be perfect. Perfect what and what exactly does that mean to you? Because I think it is your misguided and biased perception of God which has you confused.
All my life I've been told God is real, he is loving, he is perfect, and he is watching over us. So far as I can see, none of that is true. Maybe God's not evil but he created a world filled with it. You're always saying there is a reason, what is the reason for COVID 19?
Seems to me that you blame God for the bad acts of man and imperfections of matter. Every living thing dies. It's a requirement for genesis to occur.

Tell me how it would work in your world if you were God.

The reason for Covid 19 is that it mutated. Viruses exist in nature and play a role in nature. They serve a purpose.

Funny how you want to blame God for the bad but aren't willing to give God credit for the good... which BTW dwarfs the bad. Unless of course you believe existence is bad.
I would not judge men when they die. No heaven and no hell. I would not intervene in human affairs.

I have an aquarium but I have no idea which goldfish are good and which are bad, I let them work it out for themselves. I do intervene if they get ill and ensure they have enough to eat because I like them.
Is that it? Nothing else? Get it all out in the open.
If I had any rules for behavior I'd make sure EVERYONE knew what they were. No multiple religions saying various contradictory things.

And no viruses.
Anything else? How about diseases and death? Or hunger or poverty?
No disease but an afterlife would be nice. Everyone goes to Heaven. I envision an afterlife as a virtual world where everyone can interact with everyone else, imagine meeting Alexander the Great or your own Great, Great Grandfather. God wouldn't need to judge, there would be millions lined up to make Hitler miserable or thank John Lennon for his art.
So you wouldn't judge or punish child sex predators?
 
Am I criticizing anyone? Am I saying I was better? Am I suggesting it should have been done differently? No.
Your judgement is to accept genocide, pain, and suffering. That is your right.

In my judgement, those things are wrong. Is there a good reason that is the only way things can be designed to be? None that I can see. Now do you understand?
Holy shit, there you go again with your dishonest arguments.

No, I don't understand. You start with an argument you don't believe to arrive at what you do believe. Totally illogical. Doesn't make any sense at all. It's a self fulfilling prophecy that ass fucks logic and reason.

P.S. and you are still judging God. So just to be clear, you believe you know better than the creator of existence, right?
Assuming God exists (do I always have to start off with that?) and He is perfect, I certainly see lots of imperfection in this world. I'd judge He's not living up to his potential. Would creation fall apart if there were no viruses?
Your judgments don't seem to assume God is perfect. Your judgments seem to assume God is imperfect.

So is your assumption that if God is perfect (whatever that means) that what He created should be perfect too? There are a couple of ways I can approach this.

What God created is perfect for its purpose and objective which is the Catholic thought.
That with infinite wisdom and goodness God freely willed to create a world "in a state of journeying" towards its ultimate perfection. In God's plan this process of becoming involves the appearance of certain beings and the disappearance of others, the existence of the more perfect alongside the less perfect, both constructive and destructive forces of nature. With physical good there exists also physical evil as long as creation has not reached perfection. For almighty God. . ., because he is supremely good, would never allow any evil whatsoever to exist in his works if he were not so all-powerful and good as to cause good to emerge from evil itself.

Or Jewish thought that whatever imperfections which exist are imperfections of matter and consequence of free will. That whatever is formed of any matter receives the most perfect form possible in that species of matter: in each individual case the defects are in accordance with the defects of that individual matter and that these are very few and rare. Such that is cannot be said that God directly creates evil, or He has the direct intention to produce evil. That God only produces existence, and all existence is good. That the great evils which men cause to each other because of certain intentions, desires, opinions, or religious principles, originate in ignorance, which is absence of wisdom. The numerous evils to which individual persons are exposed are due to the defects existing in the persons themselves. We suffer from the evils which we, by our own free will, inflict on ourselves and ascribe them to God, who is far from being connected with them. Man himself is the author of this class of evils. The error of the ignorant goes so far as to say that God's power is insufficient, because He has given to this Universe the properties which they imagine cause these great evils.

But what struck me most about your post was your description that God is supposed to be perfect. Perfect what and what exactly does that mean to you? Because I think it is your misguided and biased perception of God which has you confused.
All my life I've been told God is real, he is loving, he is perfect, and he is watching over us. So far as I can see, none of that is true. Maybe God's not evil but he created a world filled with it. You're always saying there is a reason, what is the reason for COVID 19?
Seems to me that you blame God for the bad acts of man and imperfections of matter. Every living thing dies. It's a requirement for genesis to occur.

Tell me how it would work in your world if you were God.

The reason for Covid 19 is that it mutated. Viruses exist in nature and play a role in nature. They serve a purpose.

Funny how you want to blame God for the bad but aren't willing to give God credit for the good... which BTW dwarfs the bad. Unless of course you believe existence is bad.
I would not judge men when they die. No heaven and no hell. I would not intervene in human affairs.

I have an aquarium but I have no idea which goldfish are good and which are bad, I let them work it out for themselves. I do intervene if they get ill and ensure they have enough to eat because I like them.
Is that it? Nothing else? Get it all out in the open.
If I had any rules for behavior I'd make sure EVERYONE knew what they were. No multiple religions saying various contradictory things.

And no viruses.
Anything else? How about diseases and death? Or hunger or poverty?
No disease but an afterlife would be nice. Everyone goes to Heaven. I envision an afterlife as a virtual world where everyone can interact with everyone else, imagine meeting Alexander the Great or your own Great, Great Grandfather. God wouldn't need to judge, there would be millions lined up to make Hitler miserable or thank John Lennon for his art.
How about poverty, hunger and death?
 
So you wouldn't judge or punish child sex predators?
If you mean in the here and now? Yes, of course. Other countries and other times may be very different things. Nigeria has the lowest age of consent in the world, at 11, are they child sex predators or just culturally different? What is God's definition of child sex predators?
 
Assuming God exists (do I always have to start off with that?) and He is perfect, I certainly see lots of imperfection in this world. I'd judge He's not living up to his potential.
You have been judging God for a very long time, why is that you believe that if you were God you wouldn't judge others. You seem very comfortable with judging others.
 
Am I criticizing anyone? Am I saying I was better? Am I suggesting it should have been done differently? No.
Your judgement is to accept genocide, pain, and suffering. That is your right.

In my judgement, those things are wrong. Is there a good reason that is the only way things can be designed to be? None that I can see. Now do you understand?
Holy shit, there you go again with your dishonest arguments.

No, I don't understand. You start with an argument you don't believe to arrive at what you do believe. Totally illogical. Doesn't make any sense at all. It's a self fulfilling prophecy that ass fucks logic and reason.

P.S. and you are still judging God. So just to be clear, you believe you know better than the creator of existence, right?
Assuming God exists (do I always have to start off with that?) and He is perfect, I certainly see lots of imperfection in this world. I'd judge He's not living up to his potential. Would creation fall apart if there were no viruses?
Your judgments don't seem to assume God is perfect. Your judgments seem to assume God is imperfect.

So is your assumption that if God is perfect (whatever that means) that what He created should be perfect too? There are a couple of ways I can approach this.

What God created is perfect for its purpose and objective which is the Catholic thought.
That with infinite wisdom and goodness God freely willed to create a world "in a state of journeying" towards its ultimate perfection. In God's plan this process of becoming involves the appearance of certain beings and the disappearance of others, the existence of the more perfect alongside the less perfect, both constructive and destructive forces of nature. With physical good there exists also physical evil as long as creation has not reached perfection. For almighty God. . ., because he is supremely good, would never allow any evil whatsoever to exist in his works if he were not so all-powerful and good as to cause good to emerge from evil itself.

Or Jewish thought that whatever imperfections which exist are imperfections of matter and consequence of free will. That whatever is formed of any matter receives the most perfect form possible in that species of matter: in each individual case the defects are in accordance with the defects of that individual matter and that these are very few and rare. Such that is cannot be said that God directly creates evil, or He has the direct intention to produce evil. That God only produces existence, and all existence is good. That the great evils which men cause to each other because of certain intentions, desires, opinions, or religious principles, originate in ignorance, which is absence of wisdom. The numerous evils to which individual persons are exposed are due to the defects existing in the persons themselves. We suffer from the evils which we, by our own free will, inflict on ourselves and ascribe them to God, who is far from being connected with them. Man himself is the author of this class of evils. The error of the ignorant goes so far as to say that God's power is insufficient, because He has given to this Universe the properties which they imagine cause these great evils.

But what struck me most about your post was your description that God is supposed to be perfect. Perfect what and what exactly does that mean to you? Because I think it is your misguided and biased perception of God which has you confused.
All my life I've been told God is real, he is loving, he is perfect, and he is watching over us. So far as I can see, none of that is true. Maybe God's not evil but he created a world filled with it. You're always saying there is a reason, what is the reason for COVID 19?
Seems to me that you blame God for the bad acts of man and imperfections of matter. Every living thing dies. It's a requirement for genesis to occur.

Tell me how it would work in your world if you were God.

The reason for Covid 19 is that it mutated. Viruses exist in nature and play a role in nature. They serve a purpose.

Funny how you want to blame God for the bad but aren't willing to give God credit for the good... which BTW dwarfs the bad. Unless of course you believe existence is bad.
I would not judge men when they die. No heaven and no hell. I would not intervene in human affairs.

I have an aquarium but I have no idea which goldfish are good and which are bad, I let them work it out for themselves. I do intervene if they get ill and ensure they have enough to eat because I like them.
Is that it? Nothing else? Get it all out in the open.
If I had any rules for behavior I'd make sure EVERYONE knew what they were. No multiple religions saying various contradictory things.

And no viruses.
Anything else? How about diseases and death? Or hunger or poverty?
No disease but an afterlife would be nice. Everyone goes to Heaven. I envision an afterlife as a virtual world where everyone can interact with everyone else, imagine meeting Alexander the Great or your own Great, Great Grandfather. God wouldn't need to judge, there would be millions lined up to make Hitler miserable or thank John Lennon for his art.
How about poverty, hunger and death?
If there is an afterlife, death is fine. Should you suffer hunger because your parents were unlucky or stupid? I wouldn't visit the father's sins on the child for any generations.
 
Assuming God exists (do I always have to start off with that?) and He is perfect, I certainly see lots of imperfection in this world. I'd judge He's not living up to his potential.
You have been judging God for a very long time, why is that you believe that if you were God you wouldn't judge others. You seem very comfortable with judging others.
Well I like to think I wouldn't change the rules during the game.
 
So you wouldn't judge or punish child sex predators?
If you mean in the here and now? Yes, of course. Other countries and other times may be very different things. Nigeria has the lowest age of consent in the world, at 11, are they child sex predators or just culturally different? What is God's definition of child sex predators?
Are you crawfishing away from what you said. You said if you were God you would not judge anyone.

Would you or would you not judge child predators? Yes or no?
 
Am I criticizing anyone? Am I saying I was better? Am I suggesting it should have been done differently? No.
Your judgement is to accept genocide, pain, and suffering. That is your right.

In my judgement, those things are wrong. Is there a good reason that is the only way things can be designed to be? None that I can see. Now do you understand?
Holy shit, there you go again with your dishonest arguments.

No, I don't understand. You start with an argument you don't believe to arrive at what you do believe. Totally illogical. Doesn't make any sense at all. It's a self fulfilling prophecy that ass fucks logic and reason.

P.S. and you are still judging God. So just to be clear, you believe you know better than the creator of existence, right?
Assuming God exists (do I always have to start off with that?) and He is perfect, I certainly see lots of imperfection in this world. I'd judge He's not living up to his potential. Would creation fall apart if there were no viruses?
Your judgments don't seem to assume God is perfect. Your judgments seem to assume God is imperfect.

So is your assumption that if God is perfect (whatever that means) that what He created should be perfect too? There are a couple of ways I can approach this.

What God created is perfect for its purpose and objective which is the Catholic thought.
That with infinite wisdom and goodness God freely willed to create a world "in a state of journeying" towards its ultimate perfection. In God's plan this process of becoming involves the appearance of certain beings and the disappearance of others, the existence of the more perfect alongside the less perfect, both constructive and destructive forces of nature. With physical good there exists also physical evil as long as creation has not reached perfection. For almighty God. . ., because he is supremely good, would never allow any evil whatsoever to exist in his works if he were not so all-powerful and good as to cause good to emerge from evil itself.

Or Jewish thought that whatever imperfections which exist are imperfections of matter and consequence of free will. That whatever is formed of any matter receives the most perfect form possible in that species of matter: in each individual case the defects are in accordance with the defects of that individual matter and that these are very few and rare. Such that is cannot be said that God directly creates evil, or He has the direct intention to produce evil. That God only produces existence, and all existence is good. That the great evils which men cause to each other because of certain intentions, desires, opinions, or religious principles, originate in ignorance, which is absence of wisdom. The numerous evils to which individual persons are exposed are due to the defects existing in the persons themselves. We suffer from the evils which we, by our own free will, inflict on ourselves and ascribe them to God, who is far from being connected with them. Man himself is the author of this class of evils. The error of the ignorant goes so far as to say that God's power is insufficient, because He has given to this Universe the properties which they imagine cause these great evils.

But what struck me most about your post was your description that God is supposed to be perfect. Perfect what and what exactly does that mean to you? Because I think it is your misguided and biased perception of God which has you confused.
All my life I've been told God is real, he is loving, he is perfect, and he is watching over us. So far as I can see, none of that is true. Maybe God's not evil but he created a world filled with it. You're always saying there is a reason, what is the reason for COVID 19?
Seems to me that you blame God for the bad acts of man and imperfections of matter. Every living thing dies. It's a requirement for genesis to occur.

Tell me how it would work in your world if you were God.

The reason for Covid 19 is that it mutated. Viruses exist in nature and play a role in nature. They serve a purpose.

Funny how you want to blame God for the bad but aren't willing to give God credit for the good... which BTW dwarfs the bad. Unless of course you believe existence is bad.
I would not judge men when they die. No heaven and no hell. I would not intervene in human affairs.

I have an aquarium but I have no idea which goldfish are good and which are bad, I let them work it out for themselves. I do intervene if they get ill and ensure they have enough to eat because I like them.
Is that it? Nothing else? Get it all out in the open.
If I had any rules for behavior I'd make sure EVERYONE knew what they were. No multiple religions saying various contradictory things.

And no viruses.
Anything else? How about diseases and death? Or hunger or poverty?
No disease but an afterlife would be nice. Everyone goes to Heaven. I envision an afterlife as a virtual world where everyone can interact with everyone else, imagine meeting Alexander the Great or your own Great, Great Grandfather. God wouldn't need to judge, there would be millions lined up to make Hitler miserable or thank John Lennon for his art.
How about poverty, hunger and death?
If there is an afterlife, death is fine. Should you suffer hunger because your parents were unlucky or stupid? I wouldn't visit the father's sins on the child for any generations.
I can't tell from your answer if you would allow hunger, death and poverty in your world if you were God. I don't need your rationalizations for what you would do. I am only looking at what you would allow to exist. So... in your world, if you were God, would your world have hunger, poverty and death?
 
So you wouldn't judge or punish child sex predators?
If you mean in the here and now? Yes, of course. Other countries and other times may be very different things. Nigeria has the lowest age of consent in the world, at 11, are they child sex predators or just culturally different? What is God's definition of child sex predators?
Are you crawfishing away from what you said. You said if you were God you would not judge anyone.

Would you or would you not judge child predators? Yes or no?
I think "Yes, of course." is pretty clear. I would not want them to prey on others.
 
So you wouldn't judge or punish child sex predators?
If you mean in the here and now? Yes, of course. Other countries and other times may be very different things. Nigeria has the lowest age of consent in the world, at 11, are they child sex predators or just culturally different? What is God's definition of child sex predators?
Are you crawfishing away from what you said. You said if you were God you would not judge anyone.

Would you or would you not judge child predators? Yes or no?
I think "Yes, of course." is pretty clear. I would not want them to prey on others.
So you would judge them even though you criticized God for judging, right?
 
So you wouldn't judge or punish child sex predators?
If you mean in the here and now? Yes, of course. Other countries and other times may be very different things. Nigeria has the lowest age of consent in the world, at 11, are they child sex predators or just culturally different? What is God's definition of child sex predators?
Are you crawfishing away from what you said. You said if you were God you would not judge anyone.

Would you or would you not judge child predators? Yes or no?
I think "Yes, of course." is pretty clear. I would not want them to prey on others.
Would there be murders in your world? If not, how would you stop them from murdering?
 
So you wouldn't judge or punish child sex predators?
If you mean in the here and now? Yes, of course. Other countries and other times may be very different things. Nigeria has the lowest age of consent in the world, at 11, are they child sex predators or just culturally different? What is God's definition of child sex predators?
Are you crawfishing away from what you said. You said if you were God you would not judge anyone.

Would you or would you not judge child predators? Yes or no?
I think "Yes, of course." is pretty clear. I would not want them to prey on others.
Would people be able to steal or cheat in your world? If not, how would you stop them?
 

Forum List

Back
Top