Bible Contradictions

[blacksheep]

Stated,

"I am a little confused by your post. Let me get to my bottom line. Do you think that man has choice or not? You seem to kind of say both things. That man has choice and that man does not.

Let me be clear on my stance. I believe we are presented with many circumstances where we have no choice, where we are given the life we have and that’s it. But I also believe, with all my heart, soul and being, that what we do with what we are given is where we have choice. And what we do with each circumstance is what counts ultimately.

Do you agree or disagree?"

I agree in that God calls all (“whosoever” Jn. 3:16) and that mankind must choose (“believeth” Jn. 3:16). God calls all by drawing them to His Son through the Holy Spirit. His work of “drawing” (Jn. 6:44) covers all people, as Jesus says, I … will draw all men" (Jn. 12:32). But this drawing is not irresistible, since it can be rejected, “and ye would not” (Mat. 23:37).

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

WTF? Major continuity errors relative to the life of the very man your entire religion is based on in the holiest of books said to come from God himself and therefore is (should be) infallible and contradiction free is a moot point?

I’m surprised you aren’t suffering from severe aneurysms due to the sheer vehement torsion you apply to logic. [/quote]

Through no fault of your own, you haven’t been here for many of these discussions, but it has been asked and answewred up, down, sideways and in and out.
You pretty much answered your own question in your question. The bible is not a book itself, it’s collection of books. So which part do you have an issue with? The gospels? Okay. That fine different authors from different regions got the gospel writings down. Being pinpoint accurate with the occurrence of events is of secondary importance. Like you said it’s a Holy book, not a history book, a math book, a geology book, etc. It’s a collection of books and I pretty confident it is meant to be confusing at times.

It’s as paradoxical as people are. Using myself as an example, here’s what I mean. I am against the death penalty, but if you fuck with my family, I will kill you with my bare hands and fuck your dead skull. ← Nothing I can do about it it’s just how I feel.
Similar things exist in the bible, it’s very much like a living person.[/quote]

Strange that an infallible god would have no problem with a plethora of contradiction in his book to man. =/[/quote]
What’s fallible about contradiction?[/quote]

Do you not understand? A book wrecked with contradictions is the calling card of several human authors alone. If God is involved, don’t you think he would at least guide the authors of HIS holy book to be consistent? How can God expect us to believe in him if he won’t show himself (as he said he would - exodus 34:23) AND he won’t allow his Bible, the very book we are supposed to base our ENTIRE lives around, to have continuity?

I mean, have you read the story of Noah’s ark? Does this God sound plausible to you?

Atheist Comedy - The Great Flood

[/quote]

Do you really think you can present a cartoon from “Atheist Comedy” and think it may have any effect?
You weakly address one issue which is ‘biblical literalism’ which accounts for a very small percentage of Christian and religious folk in general.

What you present is a classic problem. God doesn’t behave the way you think he should. By George, I learn in school how shit works, I learn a great deal about myself, therefore excerpts from 7000 year old texts sound absurd. So it must all be bullshit!

If you want to be atheist. If you want to not believe in God, go nuts. You have the right and the option to believe what ever the fuck you want.
Just don’t come around thinking you are presenting some brand new information nobody ever thought of before.
You make a common error that many athiests make. You whole philosophy is based around the concept that God doesn’t behave the way you think he should, therefore he does not exist.

It would be better and easier if you would try to prove what you think is right, rather than try to prove what you think others believe is wrong. Be lazy, don’t choose the hard way.

[/quote]

I remember a great apologist once commentated that he misses the times when heretics and atheist were well educated in doctrines of Christianity.

[haney1]

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

As opposed to your rebuttal void of links?
[/quote]
I guess the fact that I am using that tactic to show you how pointless your use of them as a basis for argument is has escaped you.

A few problems with the argument in your link:

He tries to solve the problem of Quirinius by saying he was a procurator in both Judea and Syria, as opposed to a governor. The problem here is that no bible makes the translation “procurator” and in fact are quite ardent that the title is governor. But even if that were true, Quirinius couldn’t have been a procurator of Syria at 5 BCE because at the time he was the governor of a province in modern central Turkey. Oops.

ESV as well as several other versions give an atlernative translation of guess what?
Before he was governor of Syria.

I guess you missed the part where he offered no evidence that he didn’t have any administration over sytia.

“Your entire argument rests on the idea that Quirinius had NO ADMINISTRATION WHATSOEVER over Syria during Herod the Greatâ??s reign. You donâ??t prove that he did NOT. You say you have contrary evidence, but you do NOT cite it”.

Also your video does not address Justin Martyrs claim that he was procurator over syria at that time. Justin’s apologies would have predated Tacitus which is the source your guy is using.

Edit: looking back, most of these issues brought up in your link are addressed and debunked in part 2 (and a bit in part 3) of the video series I linked to you. Check em out because you either haven’t bothered or you have and just haven’t comprehended it.

I watched them and found it more of the same stuff.

Not really. He makes some claims based on Tacitus but ignores Justin, as well as the fact that He could have been in charge of more than one duty for Rome at the time.

He doesn’t address things like this.

“Itâ??s also interesting that Justin didnâ??t simply copy Luke and call him â??governor of Syriaâ?? â?? he calls him â??procurator of Judea.â?? Sometimes historical accounts that donâ??t match exactly just give MORE information not necessarily contradictory information. And more importantly, whether he was right or wrong, Justin obviously used another source than Luke â?? one that puts Quirinius in the right place at the right time”.

[quote]
Why are you complaining about him mentioning the Dec. 25 birthday? In the VERY NEXT SENTENCE he goes onto explain that most scholars accept the September birth-date and only mentions Dec. 25th to exemplify that the problem persists whether you ascribe to the December date or the September date. [/quote]

It is a stupid statement to make to begin with that is why. The problem is your guy has a total bias and it shows. You have people that contradict his source but he doesn’t address them. He also fails put Luke on equal footing with Tacitus when examing the evidence. Instead he gives the upper hand to Tacitus only. Not a very good examination of the evidence.

[haney1]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Both? I don’t think so.
First why would does John use Roman time and not Jewish time?
[/quote]

I never said anything about Roman time or Jewish time. What are you talking about?

I said read Matthew 20:1-16 to understand the difference between 9:00 AM and 12:00 PM, and I pointed out tradition says the Jesus died on the Crucifix at 3:00 PM. Nothing about Roman and Jewish time. But, time is essentially a non sequitur in this argument as appropriate recording of details such as time (especially when they didn’t even clocks) did not require it to be exact.

However, the crucifix was on the same day in all three Synoptic Gospels and John’s Gospel. As well, you’re forgetting a large portion of arguing against a Catholic. We have Sacred Tradition. We have viable explanations of our Bible as we wrote it. [/quote]

Actually his post was to mine. I stated that about time, Because John uses Roman time one other time in the book. If you compare Roman time to Jewish time for that period and those two books they match up.

I guess that would be to simple of an answer though.

by the way Roman time in that era was not exact it kind of varied.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Both? I don’t think so.
First why would does John use Roman time and not Jewish time?
[/quote]

I never said anything about Roman time or Jewish time. What are you talking about?

I said read Matthew 20:1-16 to understand the difference between 9:00 AM and 12:00 PM, and I pointed out tradition says the Jesus died on the Crucifix at 3:00 PM. Nothing about Roman and Jewish time. But, time is essentially a non sequitur in this argument as appropriate recording of details such as time (especially when they didn’t even clocks) did not require it to be exact.

However, the crucifix was on the same day in all three Synoptic Gospels and John’s Gospel. As well, you’re forgetting a large portion of arguing against a Catholic. We have Sacred Tradition. We have viable explanations of our Bible as we wrote it. [/quote]

Actually his post was to mine. I stated that about time, Because John uses Roman time one other time in the book. If you compare Roman time to Jewish time for that period and those two books they match up.

I guess that would be to simple of an answer though.

by the way Roman time in that era was not exact it kind of varied.[/quote]

I still find the time argument a non sequitur because it wouldn’t have been expected for the most meticulous historian of those times to have the exact time down.

[RyuuKyuzo]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Both? I don’t think so.
First why would does John use Roman time and not Jewish time?
[/quote]

I never said anything about Roman time or Jewish time. What are you talking about?

I said read Matthew 20:1-16 to understand the difference between 9:00 AM and 12:00 PM, and I pointed out tradition says the Jesus died on the Crucifix at 3:00 PM. Nothing about Roman and Jewish time. But, time is essentially a non sequitur in this argument as appropriate recording of details such as time (especially when they didn’t even clocks) did not require it to be exact.

However, the crucifix was on the same day in all three Synoptic Gospels and John’s Gospel. As well, you’re forgetting a large portion of arguing against a Catholic. We have Sacred Tradition. We have viable explanations of our Bible as we wrote it. [/quote]

The time difference was given by someone else. Both John and Mark give different times for the crucifixion. Sure, time wasn’t 100% accurate, but they sure as hell could tell the difference between noon and mid-morning! Thay had sundials for just that purpose. It’s not as though they differ by about an hour (though, even then why would God allow such a silly mistake in his book?), this is a 3-6 hour difference and that’s assuming they were even talking about the same day (Roman time would have to be 28 hours behind Jewish time for that to be true)!
Think about it. John said Jesus was crucified on the sixth hour the day BEFORE passover. Unless the sun sets at noon in Isreal, there’s no chance it was evening. Even if the Greek version is true and the day of preperation for the passover was on Friday (meaning both the passover and the sabbath were going to happen the next day) then you have yet another problem as Mark 15:42-47 clearly states that Jesus was dead by the eve of the sabbath and in fact Pilate had already given jesus’ body over to Joseph, which would make Jesus already dead before the sacrifice of the lamb described in Mark 14:12, meaning that conversation couldn’t of happened. The only way this would make sense is if Jesus survived on the cross an entire week! But even then the argument fails because Mark 15:42-47 describes Pilate being surprised at how quickly Jesus had died (a week is not quick fyi) but more so, Mark 15:33 claims Jesus dies on the ninth hour (3pm) which means Jesus died after 7 hours (which IS fast).

No matter how you look at it, this argument fails. There are massive contradictions in your bible and this is just one of them. I ask you, why has your God allowed there to be so many flaws in the very book he wants us to base our lives on?

[RyuuKyuzo]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

WTF? Major continuity errors relative to the life of the very man your entire religion is based on in the holiest of books said to come from God himself and therefore is (should be) infallible and contradiction free is a moot point?

I’m surprised you aren’t suffering from severe aneurysms due to the sheer vehement torsion you apply to logic. [/quote]

Through no fault of your own, you haven’t been here for many of these discussions, but it has been asked and answewred up, down, sideways and in and out.
You pretty much answered your own question in your question. The bible is not a book itself, it’s collection of books. So which part do you have an issue with? The gospels? Okay. That fine different authors from different regions got the gospel writings down. Being pinpoint accurate with the occurrence of events is of secondary importance. Like you said it’s a Holy book, not a history book, a math book, a geology book, etc. It’s a collection of books and I pretty confident it is meant to be confusing at times.

It’s as paradoxical as people are. Using myself as an example, here’s what I mean. I am against the death penalty, but if you fuck with my family, I will kill you with my bare hands and fuck your dead skull. ← Nothing I can do about it it’s just how I feel.
Similar things exist in the bible, it’s very much like a living person.[/quote]

Strange that an infallible god would have no problem with a plethora of contradiction in his book to man. =/[/quote]
What’s fallible about contradiction?[/quote]

Do you not understand? A book wrecked with contradictions is the calling card of several human authors alone. If God is involved, don’t you think he would at least guide the authors of HIS holy book to be consistent? How can God expect us to believe in him if he won’t show himself (as he said he would - exodus 34:23) AND he won’t allow his Bible, the very book we are supposed to base our ENTIRE lives around, to have continuity?

I mean, have you read the story of Noah’s ark? Does this God sound plausible to you?

Atheist Comedy - The Great Flood

[/quote]

Do you really think you can present a cartoon from “Atheist Comedy” and think it may have any effect?
You weakly address one issue which is ‘biblical literalism’ which accounts for a very small percentage of Christian and religious folk in general.

What you present is a classic problem. God doesn’t behave the way you think he should. By George, I learn in school how shit works, I learn a great deal about myself, therefore excerpts from 7000 year old texts sound absurd. So it must all be bullshit!

If you want to be atheist. If you want to not believe in God, go nuts. You have the right and the option to believe what ever the fuck you want.
Just don’t come around thinking you are presenting some brand new information nobody ever thought of before.
You make a common error that many athiests make. You whole philosophy is based around the concept that God doesn’t behave the way you think he should, therefore he does not exist.

It would be better and easier if you would try to prove what you think is right, rather than try to prove what you think others believe is wrong. Be lazy, don’t choose the hard way.

[/quote]

So you’re going to totally ignore the argument presented in the video because it’s also entertaining?

So you’re going to sit there and tell me that out of all the dates given in the bible, only the ones that make sense are literal and the rest are… metaphorical. =/ “Jesus only METAPHORICALLY died on the third hour, the day after Passover, guys” ~ Mark

So you’re going to sit there and tell me that I shouldn’t judge the bible as bullshit specifically because I’m educated in matters that show the bible to be folly?

So you’re going to sit there and tell me that God can be both illogical and infallible at the same time?

So you’re going to sit there and tell me it makes more sense to show how your religion is wrong without proving your religion wrong than it does to prove your religion is wrong by showing how your religion is wrong?

Just formulating these into questions should be enough to show their absurdity. I give up, you clearly don’t value logic or continuity. Christianity is perfect for you.

[RyuuKyuzo]

[quote]haney1 wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

As opposed to your rebuttal void of links?
[/quote]
I guess the fact that I am using that tactic to show you how pointless your use of them as a basis for argument is has escaped you.

A few problems with the argument in your link:

He tries to solve the problem of Quirinius by saying he was a procurator in both Judea and Syria, as opposed to a governor. The problem here is that no bible makes the translation “procurator” and in fact are quite ardent that the title is governor. But even if that were true, Quirinius couldn’t have been a procurator of Syria at 5 BCE because at the time he was the governor of a province in modern central Turkey. Oops.

ESV as well as several other versions give an atlernative translation of guess what?
Before he was governor of Syria.

I guess you missed the part where he offered no evidence that he didn’t have any administration over sytia.

“Your entire argument rests on the idea that Quirinius had NO ADMINISTRATION WHATSOEVER over Syria during Herod the GreatÃ?¢??s reign. You donÃ?¢??t prove that he did NOT. You say you have contrary evidence, but you do NOT cite it”.

Also your video does not address Justin Martyrs claim that he was procurator over syria at that time. Justin’s apologies would have predated Tacitus which is the source your guy is using.

Edit: looking back, most of these issues brought up in your link are addressed and debunked in part 2 (and a bit in part 3) of the video series I linked to you. Check em out because you either haven’t bothered or you have and just haven’t comprehended it.

I watched them and found it more of the same stuff.

Not really. He makes some claims based on Tacitus but ignores Justin, as well as the fact that He could have been in charge of more than one duty for Rome at the time.

He doesn’t address things like this.

“ItÃ?¢??s also interesting that Justin didnÃ?¢??t simply copy Luke and call him Ã?¢??governor of SyriaÃ?¢?? Ã?¢?? he calls him Ã?¢??procurator of Judea.Ã?¢?? Sometimes historical accounts that donÃ?¢??t match exactly just give MORE information not necessarily contradictory information. And more importantly, whether he was right or wrong, Justin obviously used another source than Luke Ã?¢?? one that puts Quirinius in the right place at the right time”.

Why are you complaining about him mentioning the Dec. 25 birthday? In the VERY NEXT SENTENCE he goes onto explain that most scholars accept the September birth-date and only mentions Dec. 25th to exemplify that the problem persists whether you ascribe to the December date or the September date. [/quote]

It is a stupid statement to make to begin with that is why. The problem is your guy has a total bias and it shows. You have people that contradict his source but he doesn’t address them. He also fails put Luke on equal footing with Tacitus when examing the evidence. Instead he gives the upper hand to Tacitus only. Not a very good examination of the evidence.

Okay, I call bullshit. I walked into this debate finding no problem with using links, so for you to think that I’d suddenly find a problem with it just because you did it, you would have to be retarded. Since you’re able to operate a computer I think it’s far more likely this is ex post facto reasoning.

You’ll notice that my argument was predicated on more than this supposed translation into procurator (of which you haven’t actually given any references for, but don’t waste your time now). I also stated that at that time Quirinius was governor of another province, making him unavailable to be a procurator of Syria. You haven’t solved anything.
Besides, you just stated he was the governor of Syria and not a procurator… Typo?

How is saying Justin and Luke are using different sources reconciling anything? That’s an argument against your bibles continuity, not for it! Where was God when man was botching the hell out of his bible???

It was a stupid statement to make? Your acting as though his entire argument was predicated on this passing statement. He even admits in the series that taking the dec 25 date seriously is stupid. Something worth noting, parts 2-4 were all direct responses to Christians who in turn where responding to the original video… what are you even talking about?

I don’t think you fully comprehend the information being passed around here.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Both? I don’t think so.
First why would does John use Roman time and not Jewish time?
[/quote]

I never said anything about Roman time or Jewish time. What are you talking about?

I said read Matthew 20:1-16 to understand the difference between 9:00 AM and 12:00 PM, and I pointed out tradition says the Jesus died on the Crucifix at 3:00 PM. Nothing about Roman and Jewish time. But, time is essentially a non sequitur in this argument as appropriate recording of details such as time (especially when they didn’t even clocks) did not require it to be exact.

However, the crucifix was on the same day in all three Synoptic Gospels and John’s Gospel. As well, you’re forgetting a large portion of arguing against a Catholic. We have Sacred Tradition. We have viable explanations of our Bible as we wrote it. [/quote]

The time difference was given by someone else. Both John and Mark give different times for the crucifixion. Sure, time wasn’t 100% accurate, but they sure as hell could tell the difference between noon and mid-morning! Thay had sundials for just that purpose. It’s not as though they differ by about an hour (though, even then why would God allow such a silly mistake in his book?), this is a 3-6 hour difference and that’s assuming they were even talking about the same day (Roman time would have to be 28 hours behind Jewish time for that to be true)!
[/quote]

I am not going to argue over time, Jesus died at 1500 hours on Calvary on Friday. Now, let’s get back to what you were saying about if it was before, on, or after passover.

Think about it. John said Jesus was crucified on the sixth hour the day BEFORE passover.

I am not sure what you are reading, but St. John says Jesus died on the day of Preparation (19:31), which is Friday as the sabbath started at sundown on Friday.

[quote]
Unless the sun sets at noon in Isreal, there’s no chance it was evening.[/quote]

Maybe not, but St. Mark does tell us, “there was darkness over the whole land.”

[quote]
Even if the Greek version is true and the day of preperation for the passover was on Friday (meaning both the passover and the sabbath were going to happen the next day) then you have yet another problem as Mark 15:42-47 clearly states that Jesus was dead by the eve of the sabbath and in fact Pilate had already given jesus’ body over to Joseph, which would make Jesus already dead before the sacrifice of the lamb described in Mark 14:12, meaning that conversation couldn’t of happened.[/quote]

The day of Preparation is not for Passover, it is for the sabbath. Mark 15:42-47 is talking about the day of Preparation, which is Friday before sundown, as the sabbath is on Saturday (Saturday starts at (or after, I am not quite sure) sundown on Friday). The Passover or the Last supper (14:12) happened Thursday (Thursday is from Wednesday sundown to Thursday Sundown), the same ceremonies happen on Friday, and is also called the pasch, (Friday is from Thursday sundown to Friday sundown) as on Thursday (why Jesus is referred to the Passover lamb).

The only way this would make sense is if Jesus survived on the cross an entire week!

No, it doesn’t need to be a week, Jesus and his disciples had the Passover meal or Last Supper (as talked about in Mark 14:12) on Thursday, was crucified on Friday, and before Saturday was taken down. This is how it is in every Gospel including John.

But even then the argument fails because Mark 15:42-47 describes Pilate being surprised at how quickly Jesus had died (a week is not quick fyi) but more so, Mark 15:33 claims Jesus dies on the ninth hour (3pm) which means Jesus died after 7 hours (which IS fast).

I am guessing you do not understand the order, the day of Preparation is not the day before Passover, “it was the day of Preparation, that is, the day before the sabbath,” which is Friday. Mark 14:12, is talking about Passover, on Thursday, the day before Jesus was crucified.

[quote]
No matter how you look at it, this argument fails. There are massive contradictions in your bible and this is just one of them. I ask you, why has your God allowed there to be so many flaws in the very book he wants us to base our lives on?[/quote]

I don’t understand how it fails. St. John says Jesus died on the day of Preparation (19:31) and St. Mark says Jesus died on the day of Preparation (15:42). They both say that the day of Preparation is the day before the sabbath, which is Friday.

The day of Preparation is not the day before the Passover.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
So you’re going to sit there and tell me that I shouldn’t judge the bible as bullshit specifically because I’m educated in matters that show the bible to be folly?
[/quote]

Educated? You can’t even tell the difference between the first day of Unleavened Bread, and the day of Preparation. I’ll give you a clue, one is on the 14th of Nisan and one is the day before the sabbath.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< Nope. You had to use your logical capabilities to interpret your experience. >>>[/quote]I did indeed. I used them for the first time as they were designed to be used.[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:<<< (you can shine a flashlight in the eyes of a blind person all day and they wont see it)[/quote]Oh, my heart leaped within me for a minute here. You were so close[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:Same problem in the analogy as your example - you have come to the conclusion that God exists using the logic that something happened to you, and God was responsible for it, therefore God exists. >>>[/quote]And then this. Not so close after all. [quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:To pretend that you’ve “abandoned” your logic and reasoning capabilities when you used those exact same capabilities to come to the conclusion of God is… well, incorrect. >>>[/quote]I have never once stated or implied I’ve abandoned my logic and reasoning capabilities. Never. What I have said is that they’ve been freed in Christ to function properly. What I’ve abandoned is exalting my intellect to the place of God in my life where nothing I can’t understand can be true.

I now have intuitive knowledge of EVERYTHING because I have been given the mind of Christ (1st Corinthians 2:16). Oh I would never claim to actually comprehend everything personally, but I know that He knows and that is infinitely greater than good enough for me. You no doubt will routinely write this off as the subjective baseless ramblings of a religious fanatic. That’s fine, but you on the other have knowledge of precisely nothing of consequence. An endless parade of raw meaningless data that emerged from nothing (maybe) and proceeds nowhere. Where do I reenlist for that fabulous life.

Don’t you remember when I told you that God had certainly given you brains and my prayer was that one day He would raise you up so you could use them properly? That invoked the question from about whether I was in some particularly vulnerable state when I met the Lord. Come on you remember. You just don’t pay any attention when I speak because you view me as a self deceived, yet inexplicably intelligent jackass who’s thoughts are not worth really listening to. That’s ok. I can live with that. However, if you just TRIED to cut this poor imbecile a little slack you wouldn’t have to ask me questions about stuff I already addressed directly to you.
[/quote]

Was me who asked if you were in a vulnerable state, and you said you couldn’t be further from it. Secondly, I think you’re intelligent?

I’m sorry man, but you’re just trying to say anyone who doesnt agree with you is stupid, because my logic leads me to a different conclusion (so its “sinful, fallen man logic”) whereas you’re “using your brain correctly”.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< Was me who asked if you were in a vulnerable state, and you said you couldn’t be further from it. Secondly, I think you’re intelligent?

I’m sorry man, but you’re just trying to say anyone who doesnt agree with you is stupid, because my logic leads me to a different conclusion (so its “sinful, fallen man logic”) whereas you’re “using your brain correctly”. [/quote]Hmmmm. I’m gonna go waaay out on a limb and say that I don’t think we’re getting anywhere. None of this has anything whatever to do with intelligence.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< Was me who asked if you were in a vulnerable state, and you said you couldn’t be further from it. Secondly, I think you’re intelligent?

I’m sorry man, but you’re just trying to say anyone who doesnt agree with you is stupid, because my logic leads me to a different conclusion (so its “sinful, fallen man logic”) whereas you’re “using your brain correctly”. [/quote]Hmmmm. I’m gonna go waaay out on a limb and say that I don’t think we’re getting anywhere. None of this has anything whatever to do with intelligence.
[/quote]

Maybe stupid was the wrong word. Wrong? Misguided?

I come to my conclusions based on my experiences, what I see/hear/think. You come to your conclusions based on your experiences, what you see/hear/think. Its the exact same process.

Yet you claim that your methods are superior and I’m using “sinful, fallen man logic”, when you’re using the exact same thing.

Further, you dont take this issue up with others who come to the same conclusions you do but through different means. If somone believes in god because “thats how they were raised” or out of fear of going to hell, you don’t seem to have a problem with the “sinful, fallen logic” they’ve used, so long as their conclusion is that you’re right.

Likewise, anything that leads to a person saying you’re not right is labled bad methodology.

[BBriere]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< Was me who asked if you were in a vulnerable state, and you said you couldn’t be further from it. Secondly, I think you’re intelligent?

I’m sorry man, but you’re just trying to say anyone who doesnt agree with you is stupid, because my logic leads me to a different conclusion (so its “sinful, fallen man logic”) whereas you’re “using your brain correctly”. [/quote]Hmmmm. I’m gonna go waaay out on a limb and say that I don’t think we’re getting anywhere. None of this has anything whatever to do with intelligence.
[/quote]

Maybe stupid was the wrong word. Wrong? Misguided?

I come to my conclusions based on my experiences, what I see/hear/think. You come to your conclusions based on your experiences, what you see/hear/think. Its the exact same process.

Yet you claim that your methods are superior and I’m using “sinful, fallen man logic”, when you’re using the exact same thing.

Further, you dont take this issue up with others who come to the same conclusions you do but through different means. If somone believes in god because “thats how they were raised” or out of fear of going to hell, you don’t seem to have a problem with the “sinful, fallen logic” they’ve used, so long as their conclusion is that you’re right.

Likewise, anything that leads to a person saying you’re not right is labled bad methodology.[/quote]

No Christian can use logic and only logic to support a belief in God. Ultimately, it requires faith. No matter how much evidence can be given for the proof of Christ, the necessity of a Creator, archaeological corroboration, scientific corroboration, etc, etc, one still has to have faith in a God that cannot be seen. Not everyone will accept this, and not everyone that does accept this will do so in the same way. God calls us each on his own time. The only choice we make is whether to accept or not. God may call, and we may ignore at a time. I spent most of my 20s either ignoring or not being called. Logic will continue to fail us time and time again. We can’t just think our way to heaven. Even for the biggest apologist who has all the evidence in the world that can be argued for God, he can do nothing with it without faith and acceptance.

We also all go through struggle with faith. I questioned for years and still question time and time again. Now that doesn’t mean that I totally stop believing because I question. It leads me to search for answers. There is nothing wrong with questioning as long as you seek. Any Christian that accepts God because that is the way they were raised or because they are afraid of hell is missing the point completely. The Bible states explicitly “Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you.”- Matthew 7:7

[Tiribulus]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:<<< Maybe stupid was the wrong word. Wrong? Misguided? >>>[/quote]“Dead” is what I’ve actually been saying.[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:Further, you dont take this issue up with others who come to the same conclusions you do but through different means. If someone believes in god because “thats how they were raised” or out of fear of going to hell, you don’t seem to have a problem with the “sinful, fallen logic” they’ve used, so long as their conclusion is that you’re right.

Likewise, anything that leads to a person saying you’re not right is labeled bad methodology.[/quote]This is actually a legitimate apparent observation that deserves a response. I will need a bit of time to articulate it properly.

[pat]

[quote]blacksheep wrote:
Stated,

"I am a little confused by your post. Let me get to my bottom line. Do you think that man has choice or not? You seem to kind of say both things. That man has choice and that man does not.

Let me be clear on my stance. I believe we are presented with many circumstances where we have no choice, where we are given the life we have and that’s it. But I also believe, with all my heart, soul and being, that what we do with what we are given is where we have choice. And what we do with each circumstance is what counts ultimately.

Do you agree or disagree?"

I agree in that God calls all (“whosoever” Jn. 3:16) and that mankind must choose (“believeth” Jn. 3:16). God calls all by drawing them to His Son through the Holy Spirit. His work of “drawing” (Jn. 6:44) covers all people, as Jesus says, I … will draw all men" (Jn. 12:32). But this drawing is not irresistible, since it can be rejected, “and ye would not” (Mat. 23:37).

[/quote]

You could have collapsed the answer in to one sentence, but I think we are on the same page.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]blacksheep wrote:
Stated,

"I am a little confused by your post. Let me get to my bottom line. Do you think that man has choice or not? You seem to kind of say both things. That man has choice and that man does not.

Let me be clear on my stance. I believe we are presented with many circumstances where we have no choice, where we are given the life we have and that’s it. But I also believe, with all my heart, soul and being, that what we do with what we are given is where we have choice. And what we do with each circumstance is what counts ultimately.

Do you agree or disagree?"

I agree in that God calls all (“whosoever” Jn. 3:16) and that mankind must choose (“believeth” Jn. 3:16). God calls all by drawing them to His Son through the Holy Spirit. His work of “drawing” (Jn. 6:44) covers all people, as Jesus says, I … will draw all men" (Jn. 12:32). But this drawing is not irresistible, since it can be rejected, “and ye would not” (Mat. 23:37).

[/quote]

You could have collapsed the answer in to one sentence, but I think we are on the same page.[/quote]

Call me illiterate, but I have no clue what he said in that paragraph.

[pat]

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

WTF? Major continuity errors relative to the life of the very man your entire religion is based on in the holiest of books said to come from God himself and therefore is (should be) infallible and contradiction free is a moot point?

I’m surprised you aren’t suffering from severe aneurysms due to the sheer vehement torsion you apply to logic. [/quote]

Through no fault of your own, you haven’t been here for many of these discussions, but it has been asked and answewred up, down, sideways and in and out.
You pretty much answered your own question in your question. The bible is not a book itself, it’s collection of books. So which part do you have an issue with? The gospels? Okay. That fine different authors from different regions got the gospel writings down. Being pinpoint accurate with the occurrence of events is of secondary importance. Like you said it’s a Holy book, not a history book, a math book, a geology book, etc. It’s a collection of books and I pretty confident it is meant to be confusing at times.

It’s as paradoxical as people are. Using myself as an example, here’s what I mean. I am against the death penalty, but if you fuck with my family, I will kill you with my bare hands and fuck your dead skull. ← Nothing I can do about it it’s just how I feel.
Similar things exist in the bible, it’s very much like a living person.[/quote]

Strange that an infallible god would have no problem with a plethora of contradiction in his book to man. =/[/quote]
What’s fallible about contradiction?[/quote]

Do you not understand? A book wrecked with contradictions is the calling card of several human authors alone. If God is involved, don’t you think he would at least guide the authors of HIS holy book to be consistent? How can God expect us to believe in him if he won’t show himself (as he said he would - exodus 34:23) AND he won’t allow his Bible, the very book we are supposed to base our ENTIRE lives around, to have continuity?

I mean, have you read the story of Noah’s ark? Does this God sound plausible to you?

Atheist Comedy - The Great Flood

[/quote]

Do you really think you can present a cartoon from “Atheist Comedy” and think it may have any effect?
You weakly address one issue which is ‘biblical literalism’ which accounts for a very small percentage of Christian and religious folk in general.

What you present is a classic problem. God doesn’t behave the way you think he should. By George, I learn in school how shit works, I learn a great deal about myself, therefore excerpts from 7000 year old texts sound absurd. So it must all be bullshit!

If you want to be atheist. If you want to not believe in God, go nuts. You have the right and the option to believe what ever the fuck you want.
Just don’t come around thinking you are presenting some brand new information nobody ever thought of before.
You make a common error that many athiests make. You whole philosophy is based around the concept that God doesn’t behave the way you think he should, therefore he does not exist.

It would be better and easier if you would try to prove what you think is right, rather than try to prove what you think others believe is wrong. Be lazy, don’t choose the hard way.

[/quote]

So you’re going to totally ignore the argument presented in the video because it’s also entertaining?

So you’re going to sit there and tell me that out of all the dates given in the bible, only the ones that make sense are literal and the rest are… metaphorical. =/ “Jesus only METAPHORICALLY died on the third hour, the day after Passover, guys” ~ Mark

So you’re going to sit there and tell me that I shouldn’t judge the bible as bullshit specifically because I’m educated in matters that show the bible to be folly?

So you’re going to sit there and tell me that God can be both illogical and infallible at the same time?

So you’re going to sit there and tell me it makes more sense to show how your religion is wrong without proving your religion wrong than it does to prove your religion is wrong by showing how your religion is wrong?

Just formulating these into questions should be enough to show their absurdity. I give up, you clearly don’t value logic or continuity. Christianity is perfect for you.[/quote]

No. I didn’t sit and tell you any of that made up shit in your head. I said, nor insutuated any of that garbage you just wrote.

Quite frankly, you are to immature and stupid to have any such conversations with. The worst part, and hysterical at the same time, is that you think you have all the answers to imaginary questions nobody asked.
It’s amusing to me when people who do not know what the fuck they are talking about are suddenly experts about what they don’t know about. You’re out of your league.

If you can make a singular argument about something that actually exists, then I will respond with a respectful answer. But if you want to act like a punk, pussy teenager, you’ll get treated like one.

[pat]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

WTF? Major continuity errors relative to the life of the very man your entire religion is based on in the holiest of books said to come from God himself and therefore is (should be) infallible and contradiction free is a moot point?

I’m surprised you aren’t suffering from severe aneurysms due to the sheer vehement torsion you apply to logic. [/quote]

Through no fault of your own, you haven’t been here for many of these discussions, but it has been asked and answewred up, down, sideways and in and out.
You pretty much answered your own question in your question. The bible is not a book itself, it’s collection of books. So which part do you have an issue with? The gospels? Okay. That fine different authors from different regions got the gospel writings down. Being pinpoint accurate with the occurrence of events is of secondary importance. Like you said it’s a Holy book, not a history book, a math book, a geology book, etc. It’s a collection of books and I pretty confident it is meant to be confusing at times.

It’s as paradoxical as people are. Using myself as an example, here’s what I mean. I am against the death penalty, but if you fuck with my family, I will kill you with my bare hands and fuck your dead skull. ← Nothing I can do about it it’s just how I feel.
Similar things exist in the bible, it’s very much like a living person.[/quote]

Strange that an infallible god would have no problem with a plethora of contradiction in his book to man. =/[/quote]
What’s fallible about contradiction?[/quote]

Do you not understand? A book wrecked with contradictions is the calling card of several human authors alone. If God is involved, don’t you think he would at least guide the authors of HIS holy book to be consistent? How can God expect us to believe in him if he won’t show himself (as he said he would - exodus 34:23) AND he won’t allow his Bible, the very book we are supposed to base our ENTIRE lives around, to have continuity?

I mean, have you read the story of Noah’s ark? Does this God sound plausible to you?

Atheist Comedy - The Great Flood

[/quote]

Do you really think you can present a cartoon from “Atheist Comedy” and think it may have any effect?
You weakly address one issue which is ‘biblical literalism’ which accounts for a very small percentage of Christian and religious folk in general.

What you present is a classic problem. God doesn’t behave the way you think he should. By George, I learn in school how shit works, I learn a great deal about myself, therefore excerpts from 7000 year old texts sound absurd. So it must all be bullshit!

If you want to be atheist. If you want to not believe in God, go nuts. You have the right and the option to believe what ever the fuck you want.
Just don’t come around thinking you are presenting some brand new information nobody ever thought of before.
You make a common error that many athiests make. You whole philosophy is based around the concept that God doesn’t behave the way you think he should, therefore he does not exist.

It would be better and easier if you would try to prove what you think is right, rather than try to prove what you think others believe is wrong. Be lazy, don’t choose the hard way.

[/quote]

I remember a great apologist once commentated that he misses the times when heretics and atheist were well educated in doctrines of Christianity.[/quote]

Well, who needs a challenge when you have, well, ^ that?! LOL…

[pat]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< Was me who asked if you were in a vulnerable state, and you said you couldn’t be further from it. Secondly, I think you’re intelligent?

I’m sorry man, but you’re just trying to say anyone who doesnt agree with you is stupid, because my logic leads me to a different conclusion (so its “sinful, fallen man logic”) whereas you’re “using your brain correctly”. [/quote]Hmmmm. I’m gonna go waaay out on a limb and say that I don’t think we’re getting anywhere. None of this has anything whatever to do with intelligence.
[/quote]

Maybe stupid was the wrong word. Wrong? Misguided?

I come to my conclusions based on my experiences, what I see/hear/think. You come to your conclusions based on your experiences, what you see/hear/think. Its the exact same process.

Yet you claim that your methods are superior and I’m using “sinful, fallen man logic”, when you’re using the exact same thing.

Further, you dont take this issue up with others who come to the same conclusions you do but through different means. If somone believes in god because “thats how they were raised” or out of fear of going to hell, you don’t seem to have a problem with the “sinful, fallen logic” they’ve used, so long as their conclusion is that you’re right.

Likewise, anything that leads to a person saying you’re not right is labled bad methodology.[/quote]

Yeah he does. We’re traveling the same highway to hell apparently.