Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 83 (8915 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 07-16-2019 12:43 AM
28 online now:
DrJones*, edge, Minnemooseus (Adminnemooseus), PaulK, Pressie (5 members, 23 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: 4petdinos
Upcoming Birthdays: lopezeast0211
Happy Birthday: Theodoric
Post Volume:
Total: 856,807 Year: 11,843/19,786 Month: 1,624/2,641 Week: 133/708 Day: 0/67 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Claims of God Being Omnipotent in the Bible
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 3080 days)
Posts: 178
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 228 of 381 (513078)
06-24-2009 6:23 PM
Reply to: Message 227 by h1a8
02-09-2009 1:27 AM


Re: Bible seldoms says what you would like it to
Also some interpret hell in the bible as a place where one dies for good (cease to exist in any form). This too is like an eternal punishment.

Not to many athiests, deists, and agnostics.

But mercy is mercy. Mercy isn't necessarily letting someone get off scott free.
If the courts sentence someone to 50 years instead of 50 years and 1 day then they showed mercy.

Not necessarily. Although this is one extremely broad view of mercy, people tend to view mercy as a lessening of punishment through empathy, rather than through merely lessening the severity for whatever reason(s)

God set this all up in grand scheme of things in order to transform man into the beings He want us to become. He could've have made us that way from the beginning, but that would be equivalent of having a robot worship and love you. If the angels, who were created good, can be wicked then mankind can as well. God knew this and He knew it was just a matter of time before man showed his wickedness. So he knew his grand plan even before it started.

This is a real world equivalent. Ready?
I design a self-completing robot software that I want to be able to clean my room and do all of my homework every day. Now, I know that at times the code may be corrupted, but in the end, I know for sure that I will end up with the perfect robot (in my perspective anyway). Now is there any "freedom" in that robot? Of course not! Even though it can become corrupted at one point, it will still end up in the exact way that I wanted it to. Even if God gave us free will individually, he knew that at some point we would be driven to worship him anyway. It is in this way that the ends have nothing to do with the means, and thus there is no inherent difference between God creating us to worship him and creating us to worship him later.


I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
- Stephen Roberts

I'm a polyatheist - there are many gods I don't believe in
- Dan Foutes

"In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has widely been considered as a bad move."
- Douglas Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by h1a8, posted 02-09-2009 1:27 AM h1a8 has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 229 by themasterdebator, posted 07-17-2009 12:25 PM Teapots&unicorns has acknowledged this reply

  
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 3080 days)
Posts: 178
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 262 of 381 (521947)
08-30-2009 6:15 PM
Reply to: Message 260 by JRTjr
08-30-2009 4:56 PM


Re: Good and Evil
Hi all,

The Creator of the universes is as far above mankind as mankind is above a clay pot. (Probably further above us then we are above the clay pot)

I.E. the Creator of the universes owns (Has full, undisputable, authority over) everything in the universes. It is His grace and Love, for us, that compels Him to give us Freewill to decide where we will spend the rest of eternity; Heaven with Him or Hell without Him.

I have a couple problems with this statement:

1. "Mankind is above a clay pot." What a nice statement. Might I ask exactly what your criteria for being "above" is? (For me, it's consciousness. In that respect, how is God- if he exists- any better than us?)

2. I'm afraid that your second paragraph is- no offense meant- a load of dogma and crap. First:

.E. the Creator of the universes owns (Has full, undisputable, authority over) everything in the universes.

Does this mean that God/Creator has authority over his simply because he is powerful?
(Or vice versa) http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main.AuthorityEqualsAsskicking

Second:

It is His grace and Love, for us, that compels Him to give us Freewill to decide where we will spend the rest of eternity; Heaven with Him or Hell without Him.

I'm sorry. It just seems to me that this sentence is based on the idea that the existence (or love, etc.) is self- evident. Obviously it is not... unless the billions of non-Christians in the world are just consciously rejecting God.

Take your pick: Either everyone knows about God and are just knowingly in rebellion or those that don't believe just don't have any reason to (i.e. no free will). You can't have free will unless you know why you're doing something ((non)believing).


I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
- Stephen Roberts

I'm a polyatheist - there are many gods I don't believe in
- Dan Foutes

"In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has widely been considered as a bad move."
- Douglas Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 260 by JRTjr, posted 08-30-2009 4:56 PM JRTjr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 267 by JRTjr, posted 08-30-2009 11:51 PM Teapots&unicorns has acknowledged this reply

  
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 3080 days)
Posts: 178
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 274 of 381 (522030)
08-31-2009 2:37 PM
Reply to: Message 273 by Perdition
08-31-2009 2:07 PM


Re: Good and Evil
It was sufficient to wash away your sin?! Also note here that it was sufficient enough a sacrifice to wash away the sin of all mankind.

So you say...but I've seen no evidence of that, especially in the practice of Cristians who claim that we're still living under sin. The consensus seems to be not that he washed away sin, but that he merely gave us the ability to wash it away if we subscribe to his rather contrived method of washing.

This is a good point, because although Jesus did allegedly suffer, he still knew he was going to be resurrected in three days time. Oh, and what was he probably doing in that time? Whooping it up with God.

For example: I love playing with my computer, so it is awesome. It's my favorite thing to do. But, one day I lose it in customs. I know it will eventually be shipped back to me, but in the meantime I am cut off from the world- no internet, email, etc. However, I spend my waiting time watching movies which, though not as great as my computer, are still pretty fun. Then, 3 days later I get my computer back and I moan and agonize to my friends about how hard and difficult it was to live without my laptop, even though I knew I would eventually get it back. Anyone else see the parallels?

If someone sacrificed there arm to save you, would you mock them if they got it back? Would the sacrifice be any less legitimate? God did not just sacrifice an arm, he sacrificed a third of his whole being for you.

Well, if that person went through his entire life knowing he would lose the arm for a couple days, then get it back for all eternity, and he kept harping on me saying, "Look man, I gave up my arm for you, and you can't even deign to toss me a beer?"

Yeah, I'd get sick of him bringing up the arm he temporarily misplaced.

See above.

I do not understand why you would assume that.

Because God claims to have sacrificed something. If I give someone my prized valuable, but take it back three days later, did I sacrifice anything? The only way it becomes a sacrifice is if I take something back from an unhappy recipient despite the fact that I really, really didn't want it. So, if Jesus' death and return to his father is any sort of sacrifice for the father, it must be because he didn't want Jesus to come back.

I would respond to this, but the last line about God trying to ditch Jesus is just too funny.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Perdition, posted 08-31-2009 2:07 PM Perdition has not yet responded

  
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 3080 days)
Posts: 178
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 294 of 381 (529238)
10-08-2009 5:11 PM
Reply to: Message 291 by JRTjr
10-06-2009 10:26 PM


Re: Regarding Supposed Biblical Inconsistencies
Hello JRTjr,

Dear Greyseal,
Thank you once again for your comments on my postings.

Greyseal writes:

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot we're living in a world where differing memories of a single event can all be true at the same time despite being different. My mind won't doublethink like that, and though it may seem double plus ungood to you, I'm sorry.

* There are four different stories of the same simultaneous event.
* The bible is accurate, always
* Therefore one of these two statements is untrue.

O.K., So, if I understand you correctly, youre saying that four people, seeing the same event, must say exactly the same things , must give exactly the same details about the event, or they are automatically in contradiction with each other?

Contradiction:

noun

1. The act of contradicting; gainsaying or opposition.
2. Assertion of the contrary or opposite; denial.
3. A statement or proposition that contradicts or denies another or itself and is logically incongruous.
4. Direct opposition between things compared; inconsistency.
5. A contradictory act, fact, etc.

{Dictionary.com}

Greyseal writes:

If the bible itself cannot be relied upon when talking about the accuracy of the bible, what use is it?

No use at all. Not for instruction, for reproof and conviction of sin, notfor correction of error and discipline in obedience, [and] notfor training in righteousness (in holy living, in conformity to God's will in thought, purpose, and action) {paraphrased from 2 Timothy 3:16 Amplified Bible}

In other words, if you come across something that the Bible says is a fact and it can be proven wrong then the Bible is good for nothing at all.

The problem I have is that no one has proven (or even given decent evidence) that what the Bible says is true is in fact faults. Many have said that the Bible says something and that that is faults; however, when you take a logical, systematic look at what they are saying, time after time, it turns out that either:

a. The Bible did not actually say what they said it said.
b. The two seemingly contradictory things did not actually contradict
c. What they said did not make any cense at all.

Greyseal writes:

the four differing accounts of the resurrection (for example) aren't internally consistent, historically we cannot even be sure happened

I could write whole books about this, However (thank the Lord) others have. Please read The Case for Christ by Lee Strobel.

JRTjr, it seems like you're not getting something.

ALL FOUR OF THE GOSPELS HAVE CONTRADICTIONS, ESPECIALLY CONCERNING THE RESURRECTION!!!

For example, Mathew and Mark say:

Matthew 28:5-7, Mark 16:5-7
"And the angel answered and said unto the women, Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here: for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him."
"And entering into the sepulchre, they saw a young man sitting on the right side, clothed in a long white garment; and they were affrighted. And he saith unto them, Be not affrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you."

In other words, first thing after resurrection, they all met up in Galilee. Ok.

However, John and Acts beg to differ:

Luke 24:33-36,49, Acts 1:4
"And they rose up the same hour, and returned to Jerusalem, and found the eleven gathered together, and them that were with them, Saying, The Lord is risen indeed, and hath appeared to Simon.... And as they thus spake, Jesus himself stood in the midst of them, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.... And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high."
"And, being assembled together with them, [Jesus] commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me."

Hmmm... sounds like he went to Jerusalem instead...
Any alarms going off JRTjr? I can post inconsistencies and contradictions like this all day.

You say that if one piece of the bible is inaccurate, then the whole thing is crap? Look back at my quotes. Obviously it can't be "allegorical:" either he went to Galilee or he went to Jerusalem. You can't have both.

(If you want, I can post the inconsistencies of other things, such as who saw him first: was it Mary #1, Mary #2, Luke, John, etc., etc....)

T&U


I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours.
- Stephen Roberts

I'm a polyatheist - there are many gods I don't believe in
- Dan Foutes

"In the beginning, the Universe was created. This has made a lot of people very angry and has widely been considered as a bad move."
- Douglas Adams


This message is a reply to:
 Message 291 by JRTjr, posted 10-06-2009 10:26 PM JRTjr has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 298 by JRTjr, posted 10-11-2009 4:34 PM Teapots&unicorns has not yet responded

  
Teapots&unicorns
Member (Idle past 3080 days)
Posts: 178
Joined: 06-23-2009


Message 296 of 381 (529272)
10-08-2009 6:02 PM
Reply to: Message 295 by JRTjr
10-08-2009 5:24 PM


Re: Regarding Supposed Biblical Inconsistencies
Hi JRTjr,

Greyseal writes:

the entries are not identical

We agree that the four Gospel accounts are not identical the question, however, is Do they contradict each other just because they are not identical?

Greyseal writes:

the fact there are four differing accounts puts the bible at inconsistent under points 3) and 5) regarding differing statements and differing facts.

Contradiction:
noun
3. A statement or proposition that contradicts or denies another or itself and is logically incongruous.
5. A contradictory act, fact, etc.

O.K. Give me a reason, or example of how these four accounts contradict or deny themselves or what one of the others say; show me where they are illogical.

JRTjr, this is what we're saying: If John says x happened and Mark says, no x didn't happen, y did, then how are they not contradictory. Only one can be right. (See my above post)

Greyseal writes:

If the bible is the (approved) word of god, why is it subject to the foibles of the human memory/imagination?

IF you tell me that it's just because it's a human memory thing, then you are telling me that the bible can be wrong about certain "facts" but that we don't really know which ones because, quite simply, there's not a book saying what is allegory, what is fact, what is error and what is mistake.

If that's so, just say so - I'd be amongst the first to agree with you that the book is written by man and is inconsistent

I thought you said the whole bible was true? I don't recall anywhere in particular that couldn't be construed as written by man and therefore subject to the vagaries of human thought.

Your hypothesis here would be correct under normal circumstances; however, the Bible makes it clear that the infallible Creator moved the fallible hand of man to write His infallible Word .

In other words, if they wrote it by themselves then it would be fully reasonable to say that it would be subject to the vagaries of human thought. However this simply is not the case.

The fact that reading the bible from Geneses to Revelation gives one a consistent story line of events (even if it is not a chronological story line) with one over riding them suggests that mere man could not have written it alone. Alone is the key here. If there were no God it would be hard to explain the contents on the Bible. Especially how it could get so many of the scientific facts strait that we are just now discovering. (The Big Bang and the fact that what is seen is held up by that which cannot be seen, for instance.)

Dude: is the whole Bible to the nth degree absolutely and factually true? If not, then we're making progress. If yes, then we're back to square one.

Also, don't go for the "Science proves the Bible right" angle. Yes, some claims in the Bible may seem to match up with modern day science, but there are many other issues and false claims than there are those that you can hold up.

Greyseal writes:

The witnesses to the resurrection were watching the same event at the same time - why do they not match in several very important places?

These four accounts are different enough to be separate accounts (not just copies of the same account) yet consistent enough to form a coherent picture without writing out every detail to the tenth degree.

Dude, it would have to be true to the tenth degree. Either all the Bible is a true and infallible allegory, parable, history, or whatever (or some combination thereof); or none is. That is your own argument, yes? (See below)

What you're saying is that IF I can prove the bible is wrong on something, then (that part of) the bible is useless? but the rest isn't?

No, the whole thing. If you can, say, prove that something in the book of Romans is historically or factually wrong, or that it Directly contradicts something in one of the other 65 books (we call the Canonized Scripture) then the entire book of Romans should be take out of the canonization.

(Note here that this would have to be a direct contradiction; and you would have to be using the Bible as it is written in its original languages, using the proper tools of interpretation to prove your point.)

Alright, JRTjr: Mark, Mathew, Luke, and John all contradict each other on certain details. Do all of them get taken out circulation?

Greyseal writes:

As for breaking the laws of the universe, well - if you count reversing death as "natural" then we should see a lot more of it happening.

People "come back from the dead", but not after three days.

Your right, there is no way we (mankind) can bring back someone from the dead after three days. So the question is Can the Creator of the universes? Is the Creator of the universes using His power and authority to raise someone from the dead a violation of the laws of nature? If so, Why?

I know this is a weak answer and such but... what the hell.

Why did God make natural laws when he had every intention of breaking them later?

Bye
T&U

Edited by Teapots&unicorns, : Some grammar and quote issues.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 295 by JRTjr, posted 10-08-2009 5:24 PM JRTjr has acknowledged this reply

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019