Moderator: Moderators
My point is, it's something we don't even know is true. And then, we also don't even know if everything he commands in that millenia old book is also true. Also, if we don't take reasonable care to "beware of false prophets", it becomes really troubling, with people following a prophet's commands, no matter how bizarre. That is my problem with it.Shild wrote:Actually, it does not restrict anything; it points out a restriction which already exists.The problem with this is that it restricts rational questioning of intent and character by giving up
As for "blind acceptance," you seem to accept the argument without complaint.
Logic relies on truths, and assuming it was proven to be true, I would accept it. But that doesn't mean it's potentially dangerous when people want to exploit that truth.The fact that the logic seems like "giving up" does not make it wrong, just difficult to accept.
It is obvious that definitions 1 and 2 are the only relevant ones, and each of these definitions indicates vast differences between such a being's experience and any human experience.God
1 a) A being conceived as the perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe, the principal object of faith and worship in monotheistic religions.
b) The force, effect, or a manifestation or aspect of this being.
2 A being of supernatural powers or attributes, believed in and worshiped by a people, especially a male deity thought to control some part of nature or reality.
3 An image of a supernatural being; an idol.
4 One that is worshiped, idealized, or followed: Money was their god.
5 A very handsome man.
6 A powerful ruler or despot.
)It makes perfect sense. One big reason for people to reject Christianity is their inability to relate to God. People want a good role model, and God, as described in the Bible, is so different from humanity that He can not be a realistic role model for a human.Being inscrutable, it also makes it easier for people and to misinterpret his actions, causes it to be easier to evade questions (how can you judge God, you're a gnat compared to him!), and to exploit his words.
Does that make sense?
The problem still stands for these pantheons, as well. Even though these gods with their "human faults" are not as different from humans as the Christian God, they are different enough for their actions to be misunderstood by humans.Also, being a god doesn't mean he isn't fallible or above a human's pettiness. There are several pantheons with a very human cast of gods and with very human faults, although monetheistic religions tend to have all powerful figureheads.
)I'm not entirely sure about that. The Greek pantheon had deities that were fairly well understood. Really, they were just personifications of ideals. Some were even humans promoted to Godhood. Godly meddling in afairs was usually for some petty reason or another.Shild wrote:It makes perfect sense. One big reason for people to reject Christianity is their inability to relate to God. People want a good role model, and God, as described in the Bible, is so different from humanity that He can not be a realistic role model for a human.Being inscrutable, it also makes it easier for people and to misinterpret his actions, causes it to be easier to evade questions (how can you judge God, you're a gnat compared to him!), and to exploit his words.
Does that make sense?
Also, the idea that God is that good and that perfect throws one's own failures into sharp relief. This makes people uncomfortable with the Christian God, and prompts the choice to choose a belief system which does not set the bar so high.
The problem still stands for these pantheons, as well. Even though these gods with their "human faults" are not as different from humans as the Christian God, they are different enough for their actions to be misunderstood by humans.Also, being a god doesn't mean he isn't fallible or above a human's pettiness. There are several pantheons with a very human cast of gods and with very human faults, although monetheistic religions tend to have all powerful figureheads.
These deities were normally considered immortal, or at least far longer lived than any human. The heightened experience/knowledge that results is enough to make them inscrutable to normal humans. Add to this that these characters had divine powers which would allow them to know even more, and their other extranormal abilities to consider, and now human could hope to fully understand their motivations behind many decisions (accept, say, basic decisions; to indulge in pleasurable activities, for example).
The problem is, if everyone on this planet starts thinking like you, we'll never know science as it is today. When Newton had the apple hit his head, he would've just said, "Oh well, damned apple. Why my head? Anyway, I'll just go back to sleep, it happens alot of times anyway."Actually, this assertion does not assume God is infallible; it assumes God is superior, or at least vastly different. In either case, humans have no ability to accurately judge God.
We would scoff at a barely-verbal toddler who criticizes a president's economic policy (superiority), and at a boat maker who criticizes the construction of an oil rig (vast difference).
The point is that God is outside of human understanding.
Not really. The human mind (as has been proven) can understand physics, as well as all other aspects of science.The problem is, if everyone on this planet starts thinking like you, we'll never know science as it is today. When Newton had the apple hit his head, he would've just said, "Oh well, damned apple. Why my head? Anyway, I'll just go back to sleep, it happens alot of times anyway."
There are no human prodigy's who have the same understanding as God. Even if there were, I am not one of them, and I seriously doubt anyone on this forum is, so God's intentions are still beyond us.If a toddler is able to criticize a presidential economic policy, you've just seen a child prodigy
Learning about new things is good, but to judge the oil rig without knowledge of its construction is overstepping one's logical bounds. There is a difference between scoffing at something and reasonably investigating it to find out whether it is good.If a boat builder scoffs at oil rig construction, there's nothing wrong with it. It's called exploring new worlds, knowledge.
What does Stalin have to do with anything? God did not kill all the human intellectuals...And, this is similar to what Stalin thought, kill all the intellectuals so that he could stay in power.
No one started burning witches because God told them to. They did not stop because of questioning God either.If no one questioned God, we'd probably still be burning witches on stakes
God never told anyone to have Crusades, the Crusades were not stopped because of questioning God, and their purpose was not to slaughter the unbelievers in any case.or having another round of Crusades to slaughter the unbelievers.
Shild wrote:Prove it.the Bible also states contradictory statements. That's the lie there
1.Did King Josiah die at Megiddo? 2Ki 23:29-30/
(At Jerusalem) 2Ch 35:23-24
2.Was Jehoiachin age 8 when he began to reign?/ 2Ch 36:9 (He was 18.) 2Ki 24:8
3.Did Judas hang himself? Mt 27:5 /(He fell & burst open.) Acts 1:18
4.The Biblical story of Noah's Ark must be false since it conflicts with what we know about the behavior and needs of various animals and their current distribution around the planet. It maintains that eight people cared for (what must have totaled) at least a million different animal species on a closed boat for over a year. That is impossible! It is also impossible that all the species presently distributed around the world migrated within the past 4000 years from Mount Ararat in Turkey.
5.Forbids human sacrifice. Deut 12:28-32/ Judges 11:30-39
6.A major problem connected with the Virgin Birth arises from some of the previously-mentioned verses which allege Joseph was the actual father of Jesus. According to the genealogies in the first chapter of Matthew (1-16) and the third chapter of Luke (23-31), Joseph was a descendant of David. Therefore, Jesus was a descendant of David, which is required of one claiming the Messiahship (Jer. 23:5, 2 Sam. 7:12-13, Psalms 89:3-4, 132:11). But Joseph couldn't be the father of Jesus and Jesus couldn't be of David's seed (2 Tim. 2:8, Acts 13:22-23, Rev. 22:16) "according to the flesh" (Rom. 1:3, 9:5) if he energed from a virgin birth. Christians must abandon one of two concepts, either the Virgin Birth or Messiahship of Jesus. They are incompatible. How could he be of David's descent "according to the flesh" if Joseph was not his physical father? A virgin birth would destroy the physical chain, the link between generations.
7.GE 6:4 There were Nephilim (giants) before the Flood/ Num 13:33 There were Nephilim after the Flood.
8.Prior to eating the forbidden fruit, Adam and Eve would have had no knowledge of right and wrong; they would not have known that it was a sin to disobey God or to obey the serpent. After they ate the forbidden fruit, God placed a guard around the "Tree of Eternal Life" to keep them from eating its fruit. He could have done the same for the "Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil" before Adam and Eve disobeyed. This is inconsistent with God's omniscience; God should have known full well, ahead of time, what the outcome would be. Since God created the three as well as the Tree of Knowledge, he is ultimately responsible for the Fall.
The Ressurection-why the
Discrepancies in a perfect bible
1. How many women went to Jesus's tomb?
One - John 20:1-18 Three - Mk 16:1-8
Two - Mt 28:1-8 Many - Lu 23:55-24:10
2. Was it still dark out? John 20:1, no Mt 28:1 Mk 16:2
3. Did Mary Magdalene tell any men about the tomb? Mt 28:8; Lu 24:9-10; John 20:2, no Mk 16:8
4. Did she go back to the tomb with any of them? John 20:2-11, no Mt 28:1-10,16; Mk 16:8-14; Lu 24:9-12
5. Was there just one angel at Jesus's tomb? Mt 28:2-5; Mk 16:5-6 (There were two.) Lu 24:4-5; John 20:11-13
6. Were the angels inside the tomb? Mk 16:5; John 20:11-12 (The one angel was outside.) Mt 28:2
7. Were there guards at the tomb? Mt 27:62-66, 28:2-4,11-15, no Mk 15:44-16:10; Lu 23:50-24:12; John 19:38-20:12
8. Did the angel(s) look like lightning? Mt 28:2-4 (Humanlike) Mk 16:5; Lu 24:4
9. Did the angel(s) get to the tomb first? Mk 16:5 , no Lu 24:2-4; John 20:1-12
10. Did Peter go alone? Lu 24:12 no John 20:2-6
11. Did Jesus appear first to Cephas (Peter)? 1Co 15:3-5 ,no Mt 28:9; Mk 16:9; Lu 24:9-15; John 20:14
12. Did he appear at all to Mary Magdalene? Mt 28:9; Mk 16:9 John 20:11-14,no Lu 24:1-51; 1Co 15:3-8
13. Did he appear to her at the tomb after the disciples were told? John 20:1-14 (Not at the tomb, and before they were told) Mt 28:1-9; Mk 16:1-10
14. Was she alone when Jesus appeared to her? Mk 16:9-10; John 20:10-14 (The other Mary was with her.) Mt 28:1-9
15. Did she recognize him immediately? Mt 28:9; Mk 16:9-10 ,no John 20:14
16. Did Peter go to the tomb before the others were told about it? (But he was not alone.) John 20:1-3,18 (It was after, and he went alone.) Lu 24:9-12
17. Did Jesus specially appear to two disciples? Mk 16:12; Lu 24:13-31, no Mt 28:16-18; John 20:19-29
18. Did they recognize him immediately? Mk 16:12-13,no Lu 24:13-16
19. Did he later appear as they spoke to the others? Lu 24:36 (It was after.) Mk 16:14
20. Did he scold the others for not believing them? Mk 16:14,no Lu 24:35-51
21. Did Jesus appear just once to the disciples? Mk 16:14-19; Lu 24:36-51 (It was thrice.) John 20:19-26, 21:1-2,14
22. Was the 1st appearance to them in Galilee? Mt 28:9-10,16-18,no Lu 24:33-36,49-51; John 20:18-26; Ac 1:4
23. Did they all recognize him immediately? Mk 16:14-20; John 20:19-20 Mt 28:16-17; Lu 24:36-41
24. Did he ascend to heaven immediately afterwards? Mt 28:9-10,16-20; Mk 16:14-19; Lu 24:36-51 John 20:19-26, 21:1; Ac 1:1-9; 1Co 15:3-8
25. Did he appear to them twice, eight days apart? John 20:19-26 Mt 28:9-20; Mk 16:14-19; Lu 24:36-51
26. Did he appear to the Twelve, to over 500, & then specially to James? 1Co 15:5-7 Mt 27, 28; Mk 16; Lu 24; John 20, 21
27. Did Jesus ascend to heaven from Bethany? Lu 24:50-51 (From Mt. Olivet) Ac 1:9-12; (Jerusalem) Mk 16:14-19
28. Was Jesus the only one to ascend to heaven? John 3:13 (Enoch and Elijah too) Heb 11:5; 2Ki 2:11
29. Did Paul's companions hear Jesus's voice? Ac 9:7 Ac 22:9, 26:14
I dont expect for you to go through all these examples, but they all have different accounts of one event. How do you explain that? I also want to hear the explanantion about judas' death.
Well, I don't have time for all the questions but I'll answer the one about Judas; he went and hung himself then fell from the tree and burst open.concerro wrote:I dont expect for you to go through all these examples, but they all have different accounts of one event. How do you explain that? I also want to hear the explanantion about judas' death.
I was about to say who bought the field but I guess you will say judas only threw some of the money into the temple. He used the rest to buy the field. Then after he died the temple took the rest of the money and they also bought the field. I have to go now. I will be back later. You are the first person to be able to answer that question. CongratulationsIllyricum wrote:Well, I don't have time for all the questions but I'll answer the one about Judas; he went and hung himself then fell from the tree and burst open.concerro wrote:I dont expect for you to go through all these examples, but they all have different accounts of one event. How do you explain that? I also want to hear the explanantion about judas' death.
