Bible Contradictions

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
741

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I’m glad I live in the time I do. I can call this stuff out and the worst Tiribulus can do is call me “sinful, fallen man” and insult my “insolence”. Back when (and this is why religion got to be so popular) he or some group of believers would have labeled me a heretic and tortured or killed me.

But I’m sure the religious folk today don’t like that part of their history, not one little bit. Lets just pretend it didn’t happen.[/quote]

Don’t worry, athiests have tortured and killed millions of Christians. You got your revenge.

742

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
I’m glad I live in the time I do. I can call this stuff out and the worst Tiribulus can do is call me “sinful, fallen man” and insult my “insolence”. Back when (and this is why religion got to be so popular) he or some group of believers would have labeled me a heretic and tortured or killed me.

But I’m sure the religious folk today don’t like that part of their history, not one little bit. Lets just pretend it didn’t happen.[/quote]
Don’t kid yourself. You are not a heretic. You are just an unbeliever. We won’t waste our good firewood on that.[/quote]

And the fact that it’s a fallacious argument, like me saying, “You’re wrong, because back in the day you shit your pants, CappedAndPlanIt doesn’t like that part of his history, not one little bit.”

Of course religious people do not like it, because we can see that it is wrong. Doesn’t change the validity of our doctrines.

743

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote: <<< I’m not sure why you’re throwing a fit, given your own admission that YOU were a a spiritually dead heretic, and despite being a spiritually dead heretic, God loved you and chose to save you over the other spiritually dead heretics that God doesn’t love. Obviously, you believe at least some spiritually dead heretics are in the mind and heart of God.
[/quote] God indeed can and does love and elect whomsoever He pleases and many truly horrific specimens have come to gloriously testify of His transforming power and grace. However, now stay with me here, He changed them in the act of saving them and they were universally well aware that it was happening. There is absolutely no such thing as Christian who does not know they are, nor is there or can there be any such thing as a heretic who is presently bound for heaven. That is another gospel which the apostle called anathema. Think with me for a second. IF that is true, how many people are in for the most eternally heartbreakingly rude awakening fathomable.

[/quote]

Yeah, because he cherry picks his saved folks the rest of us can just go to hell. So really you are on the right path because you have no choice. God already damned you, so get you a hooker and an 8-ball of cocaine and go nuts…Hell get two hookers, you weren’t one of the cool kids God picked to be on his team…
/sarcasm [/quote]

…so, his unproven all-everything being doesn’t act the way you think it should. Clearly he has it wrong, and your all-everything being is the real one.

Or, you’re both just making this shit up as you go and you don’t like the shit he made up and prefer the shit you made up.

[/quote]

Or maybe we should just not care or try and stick with shit you make up.[/quote]

What shit do I make up, exactly?[/quote]

That ‘nothing makes something’[/quote]

No, Pat, that’s a lie. Thats the resut of your false dichotomy of “Its my god or nothing.” Stop projecting the “you chose the nothing option!” on me.

I never said “nothing makes something”. I said “We dont know what made something.” Big, big, difference that I already explained.

Now you’re simply guilty of putting words in my mouth. Its unethical and childish, stop doing it.[/quote]

There are only two options, existence is contingent on something or nothing, period. There are no other choices here. [/quote]

Existence is contingent on something or nothing, period. Ok.

That is not the same as “Existence is contingent on Pats god or nothing”, which is the claim you’re making.

between, “something” and “nothing”, I choose “something”

But “Pats god” is not the only possible “something”

Therefore, I can logically say “something” and “not pats god”

Are you getting this? “god did it” is not the only possible answer other than “nothing”. Another possible answer is “something that is not pats god”.

744

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote: <<< I’m not sure why you’re throwing a fit, given your own admission that YOU were a a spiritually dead heretic, and despite being a spiritually dead heretic, God loved you and chose to save you over the other spiritually dead heretics that God doesn’t love. Obviously, you believe at least some spiritually dead heretics are in the mind and heart of God.
[/quote] God indeed can and does love and elect whomsoever He pleases and many truly horrific specimens have come to gloriously testify of His transforming power and grace. However, now stay with me here, He changed them in the act of saving them and they were universally well aware that it was happening. There is absolutely no such thing as Christian who does not know they are, nor is there or can there be any such thing as a heretic who is presently bound for heaven. That is another gospel which the apostle called anathema. Think with me for a second. IF that is true, how many people are in for the most eternally heartbreakingly rude awakening fathomable.

[/quote]

Yeah, because he cherry picks his saved folks the rest of us can just go to hell. So really you are on the right path because you have no choice. God already damned you, so get you a hooker and an 8-ball of cocaine and go nuts…Hell get two hookers, you weren’t one of the cool kids God picked to be on his team…
/sarcasm [/quote]

…so, his unproven all-everything being doesn’t act the way you think it should. Clearly he has it wrong, and your all-everything being is the real one.

Or, you’re both just making this shit up as you go and you don’t like the shit he made up and prefer the shit you made up.

[/quote]

Or maybe we should just not care or try and stick with shit you make up.[/quote]

What shit do I make up, exactly?[/quote]

That ‘nothing makes something’[/quote]

No, Pat, that’s a lie. Thats the resut of your false dichotomy of “Its my god or nothing.” Stop projecting the “you chose the nothing option!” on me.

I never said “nothing makes something”. I said “We dont know what made something.” Big, big, difference that I already explained.

Now you’re simply guilty of putting words in my mouth. Its unethical and childish, stop doing it.[/quote]

There are only two options, existence is contingent on something or nothing, period. There are no other choices here. [/quote]

Existence is contingent on something or nothing, period. Ok.

That is not the same as “Existence is contingent on Pats god or nothing”, which is the claim you’re making.

between, “something” and “nothing”, I choose “something”

But “Pats god” is not the only possible “something”

Therefore, I can logically say “something” and “not pats god”

Are you getting this? “god did it” is not the only possible answer other than “nothing”. Another possible answer is “something that is not pats god”.
[/quote]

Good make an argument that supports your contention. Existence came about from something that isn’t God, that something is __________.

745

And I’m arguing that existence is contingent on nothing, at least if you are talking about the existence of matter and energy. Why is it theoretically possible for a god to exist forever, while it’s impossible for matter and energy to exist forever? What if the universe was once in a state of timelessness?

746

[quote]forlife wrote:
And I’m arguing that existence is contingent on nothing, at least if you are talking about the existence of matter and energy. Why is it theoretically possible for a god to exist forever, while it’s impossible for matter and energy to exist forever? What if the universe was once in a state of timelessness?[/quote]

Because the universe would have to be omnipotent, or have the power to move itself.

747

[quote]forlife wrote:
And I’m arguing that existence is contingent on nothing, at least if you are talking about the existence of matter and energy. Why is it theoretically possible for a god to exist forever, while it’s impossible for matter and energy to exist forever? What if the universe was once in a state of timelessness?[/quote]

And this hypothetical Godless universe generated life upon billions and billions and billions of random events when one of these random events caused little pieces of stuff (atoms) to come together in the perfect ratio of other smaller pieces of stuff to generate a self sustainable cell which became every living being we know today? And this very unlikely event occurred an infinite number of times in various other places in the universe?

748

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
And I’m arguing that existence is contingent on nothing, at least if you are talking about the existence of matter and energy. Why is it theoretically possible for a god to exist forever, while it’s impossible for matter and energy to exist forever? What if the universe was once in a state of timelessness?[/quote]

Because the universe would have to be omnipotent, or have the power to move itself.[/quote]

Why would the universe have to be omnipotent?

As to moving itself, the universe is currently moving itself with no need for divine intervention. You’re assuming a start to the movement, but what if it has always moved?

749

[quote]forbes wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
And I’m arguing that existence is contingent on nothing, at least if you are talking about the existence of matter and energy. Why is it theoretically possible for a god to exist forever, while it’s impossible for matter and energy to exist forever? What if the universe was once in a state of timelessness?[/quote]

And this hypothetical Godless universe generated life upon billions and billions and billions of random events when one of these random events caused little pieces of stuff (atoms) to come together in the perfect ratio of other smaller pieces of stuff to generate a self sustainable cell which became every living being we know today? And this very unlikely event occurred an infinite number of times in various other places in the universe? [/quote]

In a truly infinite universe, any possibility, however remote, must eventually come to pass. Randomly selecting letters would eventually produce Hamlet, given an infinite number of draws.

750

[quote]forlife wrote:
And I’m arguing that existence is contingent on nothing, at least if you are talking about the existence of matter and energy. Why is it theoretically possible for a god to exist forever, while it’s impossible for matter and energy to exist forever? What if the universe was once in a state of timelessness?[/quote]

Thank you! I appreciate the fact that you will put something out there and try to hide behind bullshit. It’s how dialog happens. Now I would appreciate if you read the next part carefully, because it’s dense.
Let’s back up on terminology. Now, what the deductive cosmological form, argues is that since everything that exists is caused and relates to one another through the causal chain, there must be that which is uncaused the bring the caused into existence. It is necessary because an infinite regress cannot exist and problem demands a solution. The only solution is the Uncaused-cause. It also demands that there is only ONE uncaused-cause. You cannot have two.

Well pat, how the fuck do you get God out of that?.. Well, first look at what properties an uncaused-cause must have to be what it is. By the simple fact that it is an uncaused-cause it must: be eternal(in all dimensions), it must be able to cause with out being acted on (indication of will), it must sit outside the causal chain (it can not be caused). A God who is a creator must have the same properties. There cannot both be an uncaused-cause and a God who shares the same properties because only one thing can have those properties. Therefore, the uncaused-cause is God. This is an inferred conclusion, not a deductive one.
Now there are atheists who claim that this uncaused-cause is not God. We can go back and forth, but I cannot prove it like the uncaused-cause. There in lies the only true weakness to the argument.

Now I sense you have a lot of trouble with time. It’s a problematic thing because you can’t see how cool your car looks when you in the car. It’s hard to look at things with out the element of time when you are a slave to it. If you can let that go, things become much easier to comprehend. It doesn’t matter if things have existed for ever, that does not remove their contingencies, there lies the problem.

I know you are very interested in the search for truth…I am too. I would recommend you get involved in philosophy. It’s not religious, it’s pure search for truth and it is the source for all disciplines of study. That why people get Phd.s, doctor of philosophy in ____. Metaphysics is critical to it.

I gave you a Kant link, he’s interesting. I used to hate him but I have warmed up to him. My favorites were, Aristotle, Locke, Hume (I loved Hume, and he was an atheist), Leibinez (mind bender and co-creator of calculus), DesCarte, and a few others… Philosophy demands that it studies it’s own history, the reason is that you don’t rehash old ideas and think they are yours.

If you look, I espouse nothing new, I merely adapt it to the situation at hand…

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/kant-metaphysics/

751

[quote]forbes wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
And I’m arguing that existence is contingent on nothing, at least if you are talking about the existence of matter and energy. Why is it theoretically possible for a god to exist forever, while it’s impossible for matter and energy to exist forever? What if the universe was once in a state of timelessness?[/quote]

And this hypothetical Godless universe generated life upon billions and billions and billions of random events when one of these random events caused little pieces of stuff (atoms) to come together in the perfect ratio of other smaller pieces of stuff to generate a self sustainable cell which became every living being we know today? And this very unlikely event occurred an infinite number of times in various other places in the universe? [/quote]

Forbes, the universe is big enough for quadrillions of events to come together to do lots of things, so be careful where you are going with this…
However, there is no such thing as true randomness and hence no random events.

752

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
And I’m arguing that existence is contingent on nothing, at least if you are talking about the existence of matter and energy. Why is it theoretically possible for a god to exist forever, while it’s impossible for matter and energy to exist forever? What if the universe was once in a state of timelessness?[/quote]

And this hypothetical Godless universe generated life upon billions and billions and billions of random events when one of these random events caused little pieces of stuff (atoms) to come together in the perfect ratio of other smaller pieces of stuff to generate a self sustainable cell which became every living being we know today? And this very unlikely event occurred an infinite number of times in various other places in the universe? [/quote]

Forbes, the universe is big enough for quadrillions of events to come together to do lots of things, so be careful where you are going with this…
However, there is no such thing as true randomness and hence no random events. [/quote]

True, but randomness implies a lacking in any definite plan or order or purpose. In the absence of thought (or purpose) any event is random.

By the way, what do you do for a living? A field related to Physics by any chance?

753

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< Oh look kids, another tragically common fallacy! The burden of proof >>>[/quote]Oh look Lord another tragically comedic attempt by fallen man to outsmart you, the infinite creator and sustainer of all.
[/quote]So when you don’t have an argument, scream louder that you’re right. Gotcha.[/quote]I wasn’t screaming.

754

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< I had to look up erudition, but now I am back. I am not anywhere close to having “erudition” in the area of the Catholic life and doctrine. But, I digress. >>>[/quote]You are too humble sir.[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
My comment was not well prepared, but it still fits (kinda). >>>[/quote]Fair enough to this point.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
“After God’s own heart”
Jesus is God’s heart.
Jesus is Truth.
If a man is after the truth, he is after Jesus.
If Van Til was after the truth, he was after God’s own heart. >>>[/quote]Chris, my buddy who I just accused of “having significant erudition”. You’re capable of much better than this here fumbling contrivance you’ve just foisted upon my eyes. I’ve seen it. I do not intend that as an insult. Why not just say it was a poor choice of words (we all do it).

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I do not know if Van Til was, I do not know him. And, even if Van Til was after the truth, does not mean that he is Heaven. >>>[/quote]Oh my Lord. Did I just read this correctly?!?!?!? Did Chris just say that somebody could be after the truth and not be in heaven?!?!?!?

755

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
And I’m arguing that existence is contingent on nothing, at least if you are talking about the existence of matter and energy. Why is it theoretically possible for a god to exist forever, while it’s impossible for matter and energy to exist forever? What if the universe was once in a state of timelessness?[/quote]

Because the universe would have to be omnipotent, or have the power to move itself.[/quote]

Why would the universe have to be omnipotent?

As to moving itself, the universe is currently moving itself with no need for divine intervention. You’re assuming a start to the movement, but what if it has always moved?[/quote]

Well, I have never seen a rock move itself. Or, anything effect something without something that caused it. A tree doesn’t grow without water, the leaves don’t turn red without fall. Infinite cause and effect is a logical fallacy (the reason why we have people trying to show that casual relation is not true, and is instead just chance). And if you rely on the casual relationship you need a uncaused cause or no effect would have come into existence. The uncaused cause it would need to be something that has the intrinsic power to move itself and move other things.

756

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
And I’m arguing that existence is contingent on nothing, at least if you are talking about the existence of matter and energy. Why is it theoretically possible for a god to exist forever, while it’s impossible for matter and energy to exist forever? What if the universe was once in a state of timelessness?[/quote]

And this hypothetical Godless universe generated life upon billions and billions and billions of random events when one of these random events caused little pieces of stuff (atoms) to come together in the perfect ratio of other smaller pieces of stuff to generate a self sustainable cell which became every living being we know today? And this very unlikely event occurred an infinite number of times in various other places in the universe? [/quote]

In a truly infinite universe, any possibility, however remote, must eventually come to pass. Randomly selecting letters would eventually produce Hamlet, given an infinite number of draws.[/quote]

Pure chance does not produce patterns, it is mathematically impossible.

757

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:<<< I had to look up erudition, but now I am back. I am not anywhere close to having “erudition” in the area of the Catholic life and doctrine. But, I digress. >>>[/quote]You are too humble sir.[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
My comment was not well prepared, but it still fits (kinda). >>>[/quote]Fair enough to this point.

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
“After God’s own heart”
Jesus is God’s heart.
Jesus is Truth.
If a man is after the truth, he is after Jesus.
If Van Til was after the truth, he was after God’s own heart. >>>[/quote]Chris, my buddy who I just accused of “having significant erudition”. You’re capable of much better than this here fumbling contrivance you’ve just foisted upon my eyes. I’ve seen it. I do not intend that as an insult. Why not just say it was a poor choice of words (we all do it).

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
I do not know if Van Til was, I do not know him. And, even if Van Til was after the truth, does not mean that he is Heaven. >>>[/quote]Oh my Lord. Did I just read this correctly?!?!?!? Did Chris just say that somebody could be after the truth and not be in heaven?!?!?!?
[/quote]

I did say it was a mispoke. You just pushed it so, I tried to explain it as best as I could. Just because someone is after the truth, doesn’t mean they reach the truth.

758

Ok then, it sounds like you’re saying that reaching the truth is necessary for reaching heaven.

759

John Bobbit’s favorite book in the Bible - Second Peter

Loraine Bobbit’s favorite - Acts

760

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Ok then, it sounds like you’re saying that reaching the truth is necessary for reaching heaven.[/quote]

Yes, the race.