Bible Contradictions 2.0

Off Topic Politics and World Issues
1

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< We are the largest charitable organization in the world >>>[/quote]And that’s all you are.
[/quote]

Where is your proof that the body of Christ, the Church is only the largest charitable organization in the world.

Disemboweling…arguments. I’m not up there with a zipper knife unless you consider my tongue. Don’t worry, wouldn’t happen if you tried.

I’m praying somehow the Guild will be get started up full steam ahead in a few years.

P.S. Jakerz, yes I still train I stopped for about nine months (fully training, I still lifted weights) but have started back up because of how large I have gotten in the past year.

2

Nope definitely not a papist. Also, wasn’t trying to convert anyone but to discuss the real impact of faith on someone’s daily life. Those who accept that God is dead enjoy standing and shouting it from the rooftops. B.Graham was an individual who enjoyed a strong faith in God and would not accept their statement based on his personal experience of an empirical faith.

Thomas Aquinas was a pretty sharp theologian and I figured if I brought up Anselm SOMEONE would throw Aquinas into the mix…he didn’t much care for the ontological or cosmological argument for that matter.

I’m sorry I was vague. Apologetics very rarely results in conversion but most definitely in frustration.

3

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Where is your proof that the body of Christ, the Church is only the largest charitable organization in the world. >>>[/quote]You are. Pat is and just about every other Catholic I’ve ever encountered who almost universally put forward as fruit a carnal life, a filthy mouth, ironically enough a satanic gospel of moralistic works and a bunch of worse than worthless self righteous “charity”.

You can’t help it. Your gospel has no power except to deceive. It leaves men just as they were, even while locked away in some idiotic monastery, friary or convent. It throws a very thin coat of transparent paint on their flesh and declares them Christians because they are in communion with a rank impostor calling himself the “vicar of Christ”.

That is the proof (one of em and one of the greatest) that that abomination in Rome is neither the body of Christ nor His church. A non stop historical parade of corruption, perversion and unchanged lives. The unholy tradition/theology goes hand in hand with them an unending self perpetuating machine of anti Christian evil. The gates of hell prevailed against that thing a long LONG time ago.

Come out of her Chris, forsake her whoredoms and taste the bread of life and living water for yourself and not through some pagan magisterium. My heart aches for you my friend. You and especially Pat, will likely look at this and have no idea what I’m talkin about. More proof, but not to you. There’s no such thing. Your heart and mind belong to Rome. Only the gospel I preach can resurrect you from that death.

4

Pat, I’m not understanding why you think foreknowledge contradicts free will? If someone existed outside of time and was able to view the entire history of the world in the blink of an eye, how would that imply any role in that history? I may know the sun is rising and setting, but I play no role in that event. Knowledge doesn’t imply involvement.

5

Ryuu, you don’t come across as hubristic because of your point of view. It’s your unwarranted assumption that anyone who disagrees with your conclusions must be less intelligent.

Intelligence and education are important, but they don’t fully account for our beliefs. You also need to consider the role of psychological biases. People can be brilliant and highly educated, but they’re still human.

6

[quote]IronSmithy wrote:
Nope definitely not a papist. Also, wasn’t trying to convert anyone but to discuss the real impact of faith on someone’s daily life. Those who accept that God is dead enjoy standing and shouting it from the rooftops. B.Graham was an individual who enjoyed a strong faith in God and would not accept their statement based on his personal experience of an empirical faith.

Thomas Aquinas was a pretty sharp theologian and I figured if I brought up Anselm SOMEONE would throw Aquinas into the mix…he didn’t much care for the ontological or cosmological argument for that matter.

I’m sorry I was vague. Apologetics very rarely results in conversion but most definitely in frustration.[/quote]

Aquninas very much believed in natural order and cosmology. He was the one who introduced the argument from the point of contingency. The ontological argument simply doesn’t work. Kant’s reworking of it basically turned it into the cosmological argument starting from the point of ontology.
Ontology doesn’t work because simply being able to postulate the existence of God, doesn’t mean there is a God. Cosmology works much better.

7

[quote]forlife wrote:
Ryuu, you don’t come across as hubristic because of your point of view. It’s your unwarranted assumption that anyone who disagrees with your conclusions must be less intelligent.

Intelligence and education are important, but they don’t fully account for our beliefs. You also need to consider the role of psychological biases. People can be brilliant and highly educated, but they’re still human.[/quote]

He’s also 17, in high school and lied about reading several translations of the bible cover to cover claiming it’s an easy read.
That doesn’t mean that young people are incapable of intelligent conversation, but he is…
He just want’s to come here and call people names; he doesn’t know what the fuck he’s talking about. Like I said I am glad he’s on your side.
If you want to keep engaging him, go nuts, but your not going to get anywhere…I am surprised the 'Yo Mama…" jokes haven’t made it into the fray.

8

[quote]Ryu the kid wrote:

Wtf? You haven’t shown that a belief in god = intelligence, you’re merely asserting your position again.[/quote]

This fascination you have with who is smarter is something only a youngster would be fixated on. “I’m smarter than you…nuh uh …I’m smarter than you.” Try to stop it if you can. You’re not out with your little friends comparing Psych tests. Sheesh…that is at least part of what makes you so annoying. Not unlike some kid that was perhaps 7 or 8 years younger than you whining about needing money for the movies.

It’s because there is nothing else to say kid. Faith is not science and science is not faith.

That’s pure nonsense. I wouldn’t believe that anymore than I believed you when you said that you’ve read “many, many versions of the Bible.” That was funny remember when you said that—ahh good times. Anyway, there are some atheists on this board who have read the Bible and some who have not. I suspect that most atheists have not.

LOL --asked and answered junior!

There’s not much left to say PERIOD. I have to learn to trust my gut more. My original thought about you being a blow hard college kid was spot on. But did I ignore you? No. Why do I have get involved with 20 year old punks who claim there’s no God? Seriously, I let myself down every time I waste time on little turds like you. (shakes head). Come back in 10 years after life has beaten the shit out of you a few times. Your perspective will change and you’ll even be tolerable at that point. Until then I’m sorry for your parents (or parent whichever) they (she/he) tried though I’m sure.

9

Logically it’s not possible. I can argue freewill but not with the existence of foreknowledge. If I know you are going to go to the store and get strawberry ice cream, you simply could not do otherwise. My foreknowledge prevents you from doing that.
There are only a few ways to resolve the conflict.

  • Accept it’s a paradox and move on.
  • Take time out of the equation. Which makes sense to a point because choice is a metaphysical construct and metaphysical constructs do not exist in time, but we do. However, if you take time and stand it on it’s end, everything happens simultaneously. Perhaps God looks at it this way.
  • Or God could simply choose not to know. He decided to give us freewill, he can decide against having foreknowledge.

The third one actually solves the problem, but we simply don’t know. I not sure it’s knowable. God doesn’t give us much clue into internal workings of his mind.

The unmoved-mover was Aristotle’s concept, which is actually more interesting because he was scarcely aware of hebrews or monotheism. Kant took the ontological form and made a cosmological argument from the point of ontology (he would deny it). Hume was fabulous. He spent most of his time trying to debunk cosmology, while he failed at doing that, he did succeed in bringing a far greater and more detailed of causation than anybody before him.

P.S. Tirib, ^ this is how you make a counter arguement. Ironsmithy not only disagreed with me, but managed to make an actaul arguement and managed not to insult me at the same time…Learn from him

10

[quote]pat wrote:

He’s also 17, in high school and lied about reading several translations of the bible cover to cover claiming it’s an easy read.[/quote]

No wonder he hasn’t complained about me calling him a 20 year old punk. All the time the kid is only 17? Ha ha…okay it’s all coming together now.

Ryu you naughty little boy. Leave Mom’s computer alone and go do your homework. They’ll be plenty of time to attack God when you get older. Don’t worry he’ll still be there.

11

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Ryuu, you don’t come across as hubristic because of your point of view. It’s your unwarranted assumption that anyone who disagrees with your conclusions must be less intelligent.

Intelligence and education are important, but they don’t fully account for our beliefs. You also need to consider the role of psychological biases. People can be brilliant and highly educated, but they’re still human.[/quote]

He’s also 17, in high school and lied about reading several translations of the bible cover to cover claiming it’s an easy read.
That doesn’t mean that young people are incapable of intelligent conversation, but he is…
He just want’s to come here and call people names; he doesn’t know what the fuck he’s talking about. Like I said I am glad he’s on your side.
If you want to keep engaging him, go nuts, but your not going to get anywhere…I am surprised the 'Yo Mama…" jokes haven’t made it into the fray.[/quote]
Yo mama,… wait what?

12

Ragging on Ryuu for his age is no better than him ragging on you for your intelligence.

Keep the ad hominems out of it.

13

[quote]pat wrote:

Logically it’s not possible. I can argue freewill but not with the existence of foreknowledge. If I know you are going to go to the store and get strawberry ice cream, you simply could not do otherwise. My foreknowledge prevents you from doing that.
There are only a few ways to resolve the conflict.

  • Accept it’s a paradox and move on.
  • Take time out of the equation. Which makes sense to a point because choice is a metaphysical construct and metaphysical constructs do not exist in time, but we do. However, if you take time and stand it on it’s end, everything happens simultaneously. Perhaps God looks at it this way.
  • Or God could simply choose not to know. He decided to give us freewill, he can decide against having foreknowledge.

The third one actually solves the problem, but we simply don’t know. I not sure it’s knowable. God doesn’t give us much clue into internal workings of his mind.

The unmoved-mover was Aristotle’s concept, which is actually more interesting because he was scarcely aware of hebrews or monotheism. Kant took the ontological form and made a cosmological argument from the point of ontology (he would deny it). Hume was fabulous. He spent most of his time trying to debunk cosmology, while he failed at doing that, he did succeed in bringing a far greater and more detailed of causation than anybody before him.

P.S. Tirib, ^ this is how you make a counter arguement. Ironsmithy not only disagreed with me, but managed to make an actaul arguement and managed not to insult me at the same time…Learn from him[/quote]

Your knowledge of someone going to the store to get strawberry ice cream has nothing to do with them making the choice. They would do so regardless of whether you knew about it or not. Your knowledge is completely irrelevant.

14

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, I’m not understanding why you think foreknowledge contradicts free will? If someone existed outside of time and was able to view the entire history of the world in the blink of an eye, how would that imply any role in that history? I may know the sun is rising and setting, but I play no role in that event. Knowledge doesn’t imply involvement.[/quote]

First, you don’t know if the sun will rise, set, cease to exists or eplode and become a black hole at any instance. You infer that the sun will rise and set based on your experience. Now, let’s say I knew you were going to get in your car and get into a wreck. Could you choose not to get into your car? If I knew you were going to buy a car, could you not by the car?
In other words if I have foreknowledge of what you are going to decide, before you decide to do it, can you decide to do otherwise? The correct answer is no. I gave some scenarios to Ironsmithyâ?¦.
The Calvinistic tenet of foreknowledge and compatibility with freewill is simply not true. It’s logically impossible. Foreknowledge debunks choice, period. Look it up, don’t take my word for it…

15

[quote]IronSmithy wrote:
Nope definitely not a papist. Also, wasn’t trying to convert anyone but to discuss the real impact of faith on someone’s daily life. Those who accept that God is dead enjoy standing and shouting it from the rooftops. B.Graham was an individual who enjoyed a strong faith in God and would not accept their statement based on his personal experience of an empirical faith.
[/quote]

I’m not saying that Graham doesn’t have a strong faith in God, I am sure he does I used to listen to him every Sunday on channel 21.

I also have a very deep faith as well, through the Eucharist, mysticism, miracles, prayer, &c. However, what I was saying is that empirical faith like that doesn’t prove to most people anything (if they are being reasonable) except possibly that being a faithful has a certain affect on your life.

Even though I sit at the feet of Christ every morning and feel his love, that is not really going to help with the atheist on the corner of the street when he thinks God is dead.

T. Aquinas was pretty big on the cosmological argument he did put up the five proofs of God (cosmological argument)

[quote]
I’m sorry I was vague. Apologetics very rarely results in conversion but most definitely in frustration.[/quote]

If your apologetics isn’t resulting in conversion, you’re not being charitable (I am sarcastic and have had several people who have had a “word” with me after I got done talking I know what not being charitable is and what it will do to your messsage). I’m no Frank Sheed, but I’ve had plenty of people ask me to take them to get Chapel to be baptized.

That or you don’t have the truth. If you’re charitable with the truth (actually have the truth), you’ll convert a few people in your life.

16

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Where is your proof that the body of Christ, the Church is only the largest charitable organization in the world. >>>[/quote]You are. Pat is and just about every other Catholic I’ve ever encountered who almost universally put forward as fruit a carnal life, a filthy mouth, ironically enough a satanic gospel of moralistic works and a bunch of worse than worthless self righteous “charity”.

You can’t help it. Your gospel has no power except to deceive. It leaves men just as they were, even while locked away in some idiotic monastery, friary or convent. It throws a very thin coat of transparent paint on their flesh and declares them Christians because they are in communion with a rank impostor calling himself the “vicar of Christ”.

That is the proof (one of em and one of the greatest) that that abomination in Rome is neither the body of Christ nor His church. A non stop historical parade of corruption, perversion and unchanged lives. The unholy tradition/theology goes hand in hand with them an unending self perpetuating machine of anti Christian evil. The gates of hell prevailed against that thing a long LONG time ago.
[/quote]

That is not proof, that is rhetoric and specifically an appeal to pathos. Show me proof that my gospel has now power. How does it leave men where they are, where is your proof? And, what is your proof that monasteries are “idiotic” you think serving God and his people is idiotic?

Keep it up, Tirib, keep calling me part of the whore of Babylon, and I’m just going to ignore you. I know exactly what you’re talking about Tirib and it’s bigotry. My heart and mind belong to Christ, don’t insult me.

So you do believe that only your Calvinist Church is the Church which Christ’ built himself. You finally admit it.

17

[quote]pat wrote:

Logically it’s not possible. I can argue freewill but not with the existence of foreknowledge. If I know you are going to go to the store and get strawberry ice cream, you simply could not do otherwise. My foreknowledge prevents you from doing that.
There are only a few ways to resolve the conflict.

  • Accept it’s a paradox and move on.
  • Take time out of the equation. Which makes sense to a point because choice is a metaphysical construct and metaphysical constructs do not exist in time, but we do. However, if you take time and stand it on it’s end, everything happens simultaneously. Perhaps God looks at it this way.
  • Or God could simply choose not to know. He decided to give us freewill, he can decide against having foreknowledge.

The third one actually solves the problem, but we simply don’t know. I not sure it’s knowable. God doesn’t give us much clue into internal workings of his mind.

The unmoved-mover was Aristotle’s concept, which is actually more interesting because he was scarcely aware of hebrews or monotheism. Kant took the ontological form and made a cosmological argument from the point of ontology (he would deny it). Hume was fabulous. He spent most of his time trying to debunk cosmology, while he failed at doing that, he did succeed in bringing a far greater and more detailed of causation than anybody before him.

P.S. Tirib, ^ this is how you make a counter arguement. Ironsmithy not only disagreed with me, but managed to make an actaul arguement and managed not to insult me at the same time…Learn from him[/quote]

Yes, I like Ironsmithy, very nice way of going about it.

18

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, I’m not understanding why you think foreknowledge contradicts free will? If someone existed outside of time and was able to view the entire history of the world in the blink of an eye, how would that imply any role in that history? I may know the sun is rising and setting, but I play no role in that event. Knowledge doesn’t imply involvement.[/quote]

First, you don’t know if the sun will rise, set, cease to exists or eplode and become a black hole at any instance. You infer that the sun will rise and set based on your experience. Now, let’s say I knew you were going to get in your car and get into a wreck. Could you choose not to get into your car? If I knew you were going to buy a car, could you not by the car?
In other words if I have foreknowledge of what you are going to decide, before you decide to do it, can you decide to do otherwise? The correct answer is no. I gave some scenarios to Ironsmithyâ?¦.
The Calvinistic tenet of foreknowledge and compatibility with freewill is simply not true. It’s logically impossible. Foreknowledge debunks choice, period. Look it up, don’t take my word for it…[/quote]

Yes, but if I absolutely knew the sun would rise, my knowledge would still have nothing to do with the actual rising of the sun.

You’re confusing correlation with causation. Knowing what I’m going to decide doesn’t cause me to decide. I’m going to make the identical decision regardless of what you know. The fact I won’t decide otherwise has nothing to do with your knowledge of it. I wouldn’t decide otherwise even if you didn’t have the knowledge. Your knowledge has zero effect.

19

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< Where is your proof that the body of Christ, the Church is only the largest charitable organization in the world. >>>[/quote]You are. Pat is and just about every other Catholic I’ve ever encountered who almost universally put forward as fruit a carnal life, a filthy mouth, ironically enough a satanic gospel of moralistic works and a bunch of worse than worthless self righteous “charity”.

You can’t help it. Your gospel has no power except to deceive. It leaves men just as they were, even while locked away in some idiotic monastery, friary or convent. It throws a very thin coat of transparent paint on their flesh and declares them Christians because they are in communion with a rank impostor calling himself the “vicar of Christ”.

That is the proof (one of em and one of the greatest) that that abomination in Rome is neither the body of Christ nor His church. A non stop historical parade of corruption, perversion and unchanged lives. The unholy tradition/theology goes hand in hand with them an unending self perpetuating machine of anti Christian evil. The gates of hell prevailed against that thing a long LONG time ago.

Come out of her Chris, forsake her whoredoms and taste the bread of life and living water for yourself and not through some pagan magisterium. My heart aches for you my friend. You and especially Pat, will likely look at this and have no idea what I’m talkin about. More proof, but not to you. There’s no such thing. Your heart and mind belong to Rome. Only the gospel I preach can resurrect you from that death.
[/quote]

Filthy mouth? Bullshit.
Well, I tried to be nice. I asked for proof. I have asked many things. But all you can do is name call. Do not ask BC to join the fallacious, anti biblical false doctrines of Calvinism. Let’s get into the nitty gritty. First, who was John Calvin? He was a man, with no divine inspiration nor any claim to be. Jesus, created the church which is now known as the Roman Catholic Church, there was no other in apostolic times. Mt 16:18 clearly spells this out unequivocally. You say the ‘gates of hell have prevailed against it’, completely contrary to what Jesus himself said. So, by what you said you have just called Jesus himself, God incarnate, a liar. There is no way around this one. It’s clear, it’s written in black and white. Do you really think Jesus was speaking about an undivinly inspired John Calvin 1500 years later when he was addressing St. Peter? Uh, no.

So now let us dismantle the tenets of Calvin.
Total depravity- “Because of the fall, man is unable of himself to savingly believe the gospel. The sinner is dead, blind, and deaf to the things of God; his heart is deceitful and desperately corrupt. His will is not free, it is in bondage to his evil nature, therefore, he will not - indeed he cannot - choose good over evil in the spiritual realm. Consequently, it takes much more than the Spirit’s assistance to bring a sinner to Christ - it takes regeneration by which the Spirit makes the sinner alive and gives him a new nature. Faith is not something man contributes to salvation but is itself a part of God’s gift of salvation - it is God’s gift to the sinner, not the sinner’s gift to God.”

First this is extra-biblical. It’s even difficult to make the inference of it’s truth through scripture. It also makes the claim that God makes man inherently evil, which would be contrary to God making man in ‘his image’. You have to claim that his image is inherently ‘dead, blind, and deaf to the things of God’ which would also debunk his inherent goodness. If we are inheriently evil, we are not stained by sin, we are sin incarnate. These are extra biblical tenet’s for they are clearly and unequivocally dispelled myths by the scriptures. Scriptural proof that this man made tenet is patently and unequivocally false is as follows:

  • Romans 3:23
  • Psalms 37:17
  • John 1:9
  • Romans 12:3
  • Acts 10:1
  • Acts 11:1
  • Mark 16:16
  • Isaiah 45:22
  • Matthew 11:28
  • John 7:37

Those are just to name a few.
I asked you to stop being a jerk. But you couldn’t help yourself. I asked you to prove your points, you cannot you can only scream insults. Well, now I must not only say your wrong, but prove it with the Bible only.
The difference between us, is that I don’t believe your willful ignorance will condemn you, because ultimately you love God. I just think your wrong and are full unfettered hate and anger directed at that which you do not know.

You’ll forgive me if I take the word of God over your’s or John Calvin’s?

Next up, dismantling the man made, extra-biblical, notion of ‘divine election’.

20

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Logically it’s not possible. I can argue freewill but not with the existence of foreknowledge. If I know you are going to go to the store and get strawberry ice cream, you simply could not do otherwise. My foreknowledge prevents you from doing that.
There are only a few ways to resolve the conflict.

  • Accept it’s a paradox and move on.
  • Take time out of the equation. Which makes sense to a point because choice is a metaphysical construct and metaphysical constructs do not exist in time, but we do. However, if you take time and stand it on it’s end, everything happens simultaneously. Perhaps God looks at it this way.
  • Or God could simply choose not to know. He decided to give us freewill, he can decide against having foreknowledge.

The third one actually solves the problem, but we simply don’t know. I not sure it’s knowable. God doesn’t give us much clue into internal workings of his mind.

The unmoved-mover was Aristotle’s concept, which is actually more interesting because he was scarcely aware of hebrews or monotheism. Kant took the ontological form and made a cosmological argument from the point of ontology (he would deny it). Hume was fabulous. He spent most of his time trying to debunk cosmology, while he failed at doing that, he did succeed in bringing a far greater and more detailed of causation than anybody before him.

P.S. Tirib, ^ this is how you make a counter arguement. Ironsmithy not only disagreed with me, but managed to make an actaul arguement and managed not to insult me at the same time…Learn from him[/quote]

Your knowledge of someone going to the store to get strawberry ice cream has nothing to do with them making the choice. They would do so regardless of whether you knew about it or not. Your knowledge is completely irrelevant.
[/quote]

If I had said foreknowledge, could you choose to do otherwise? If so, explain how?