Bible Contradictions

[Tiribulus]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< Maybe you should put on your glasses, “The principle of divine election does not invite Christians to theoretical inquiry concerning the nonelected…” [/quote]Which is what I’ve been sayin all along. I have no theory concerning the nonelect. Who they are or why. God knows and that’s eternally greater than good enough for me.

I never got one syllable’s response about what you thought of our works as a church, actually a coalition of dozens of churches (the church at Detroit as the pastor would say). I mean that’s what God’s all about according to you, so do we merit so much as the crack of a divine smile or no? Do we need the vatican’s gold for it to count? Does it matter that brother Jessie, who is in his 90’s, been a believer for like 75 years and buried his wife of 57 years 2 weeks ago was serving food all night at the open super bowl party we had where instead of hiding the gospel from them because they might be Christians even though they don’t know it, we saw 4 more lost people come to know the Lord who will be baptized this week? (That will be I think 50 plus in the last 3 or 4 months) Does any of that make the cut or are us Calvinist protestants still the apathetic theorists you appear to be accusing us of being?

You see dearest Chris we adore our God and are unspeakably grateful for who He is and what He’s done for us therefore we refuse to hide our light under a basket. We hurt for this graveyard of a world we live in and long to see as many as we can have anything to do with, live the same glorious life we do because we know that brings joy to the heart of our master. We would however be appalled if it were suggested that we offer up these works as any form of saving meritorious service. We do it BECAUSE He saved us, not to keep ourselves that way which would be an unthinkable affronting assault on the finished work of the mighty and merciful eternally begotten Son of God.

[NvrTooLate]

[quote]forbes wrote:
This thread is for all those who feel that there are contradictions in the Bible. If you would like them addressed, please post them here. I will address them to the best of my abilities, and i encourage other Christians to also contribute as well.[/quote]

[NvrTooLate]

[quote]forbes wrote:
This thread is for all those who feel that there are contradictions in the Bible. If you would like them addressed, please post them here. I will address them to the best of my abilities, and i encourage other Christians to also contribute as well.[/quote]

I’m going to err on the side of eternal life.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< Maybe you should put on your glasses, “The principle of divine election does not invite Christians to theoretical inquiry concerning the nonelected…” [/quote]Which is what I’ve been sayin all along. I have no theory concerning the nonelect. Who they are or why. God knows and that’s eternally greater than good enough for me.
[/quote]

Yet, you postulate they are predestined to go to Hell.

I never got one syllable’s response about what you thought of our works as a church, actually a coalition of dozens of churches (the church at Detroit as the pastor would say). I mean that’s what God’s all about according to you, so do we merit so much as the crack of a divine smile or no? Do we need the vatican’s gold for it to count? Does it matter that brother Jessie, who is in his 90’s, been a believer for like 75 years and buried his wife of 57 years 2 weeks ago was serving food all night at the open super bowl party we had where instead of hiding the gospel from them because they might be Christians even though they don’t know it, we saw 4 more lost people come to know the Lord who will be baptized this week? (That will be I think 50 plus in the last 3 or 4 months) Does any of that make the cut or are us Calvinist protestants still the apathetic theorists you appear to be accusing us of being?

I have no clue what you’re talking about the church at Detroit. The Vatican’s gold? What gold? You do realize the Vatican runs a deficit every year?

Well disagreement in theology aside, sounds like you had just a super bowl party and had some converts.

Don’t accuse me of hiding the Gospel, I stand up on my soap box for four hours at a time, two times a month with my big beard, black clothes, and my big crucifix sitting on my gut while verbally disemboweling hecklers’ and Protestants’ arguments alike. I am comparatively unapologetic here than on my soap box and day to day life because of my general outer appearances and people’s assumption of my beliefs to their prejudice.

http://www.surprisedbytruth.com/sheed.htm

You see dearest Chris we adore our God and are unspeakably grateful for who He is and what He’s done for us therefore we refuse to hide our light under a basket. We hurt for this graveyard of a world we live in and long to see as many as we can have anything to do with, live the same glorious life we do because we know that brings joy to the heart of our master. We would however be appalled if it were suggested that we offer up these works as any form of saving meritorious service. We do it BECAUSE He saved us, not to keep ourselves that way which would be an unthinkable affronting assault on the finished work of the mighty and merciful eternally begotten Son of God.

And the Catholic Church hides her light under a basket? We are the largest charitable organization in the world, we are also the most vocal (although least understood) organization in the limits of orthodox morals and faith.

I feel sad for you that you dislike the earth and life which God gave you and deemed good.

Yes, Jesus’s sacrifice is already done. I believe that whole heartedly, but I want to see where in the Bible it says that once we are saved we can’t lose it and that we do not have to work for it.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]NvrTooLate wrote:

[quote]forbes wrote:
This thread is for all those who feel that there are contradictions in the Bible. If you would like them addressed, please post them here. I will address them to the best of my abilities, and i encourage other Christians to also contribute as well.[/quote]

I’m going to err on the side of eternal life. [/quote]

What about it?

[forlife]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, not sure what happened to my earlier post but in a nutshell I think you are making some unwarranted assumptions that might be worth reconsidering.

For example, how do you know matter doesn’t ultimately reduce to an elementary particle or set of particles? There’s no proof for this.
[/quote]
Doesn’t matter. Where’d they come from and how did they get there? Where does their behavior come from and why do they do what they do? How did they come to get the properties they have?

Also, how do you know that more complex particles, like atoms and molecules, haven’t always existed?

Finally, decide whether or not you believe the laws of the universe can change. If not, the laws of thermodynamics clearly state that matter and energy can’t be created or destroyed, end of story. If so, you can’t logically rule out randomness or insist on an entirely deterministic universe, since that may also have changed.[/quote]

I can logically rule out randomness. Randomness is an absurd concept really, because it is logically fallacious. It requires something from nothing for no reason. Since true nothingness is the absence of all existence and what does not exist cannot make something exist or act on something that exists. Hence there is no such thing as randomness. More so there is no such thing as nothingness. Nothingness, by definition does not exist.

The laws of thermo dynamics are damn handy but only apply to a limited Newtonian universe. The uncertainty principal plays havoc with the conservation principals. The truth of the matter, is that nobody knows. The smallest indivisible point is described as information. Can information be destroyed? The answer is that it’s possible, but not known. What lies beyond the event horizon in a black hole, holds the key, but nobody has been there and it is not observable. The only property we are certain of is mass, but we’re not certain what happens and why mass is lost. There are basically two possibilities. Information destruction or redistribution of information, i.e. worm holes, hawking radiation, etc. Either is possible, but nobody knows.
Can information be destroyed? The answer is that it is possible, actually.

Can information be held in a stateless, timeless ‘place’ or ‘moment’, sure.

Can laws change? No. Can they be violated? No, but they could be misunderstood where in some circumstances they appear to be violated, but are just no understood. What none of this does is disprove causation, because, confound it, there is always something and not nothing.

AND, you did not practice your regression homework.

The questions in your first paragraph presuppose an answer that hasn’t been proven. Matter and energy didn’t have to begin. Every indication is that they have always existed.

You can’t rule out randomness on one hand, while accepting the uncertainty principle, the possibility of matter being destroyed, and the idea of an uncaused cause that violates all logic on the other hand. That’s my point. If you accept that these illogical ideas may actually be true, to be consistent you must also accept that randomness might be true, at least under extreme conditions. In fact, I would argue that the idea of free will requires randomness. In a perfectly deterministic universe, free will is impossible.

Anyway, I’m not arguing for randomness. If it’s possible a divine being has always existed, it’s certainly possible matter and energy have aways existed. I’ve seen very little evidence to disprove this possibility, and a lot of evidence to support it. For that reason, I can’t logically rule out the possibility, and conclude that there MUST be a god.

[forlife]

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Lol. The bible is full of errors and contradictions, but that’s okay because it’s only THE BIBLE! The inerrant word of God doesn’t need to be inerrant, it’s not some history book, it’s just a book of (supposed) historical events… way different!!!
Clearly by pointing out these abhorrent flaws I am making the logical fallacy of… being accurate.

Boy, I sure am glad you all took the time to tell me I was wrong, you know, without actually showing the flaws in mt logic, because otherwise I’d be some heathenish SCIENTIST or something childish like that. =3[/quote]

Oh, that was logic?
You talk to much and listen to little. The bible is what it is, I make no apologies for it, but I am pretty sure I know it far better than you. If you don’t like, don’t read it, it’s blatant that you have not. It is no concern of mine. I don’t care. [/quote]

I haven’t read the bible? Why? Because I don’t agree with it? That exact same argument could be used to “justify” ANY religion.

Besides, I’ve listed several verses, all related to the topic at hand, was this just a coincidence? I just typed a name and some numbers and it just happened to fit? Hmm?[/quote]

No, because you don’t know what your talking about.[/quote]

How so? Be specific. [/quote]

All your ‘arguments’ have been made by other athiests. They got them from virtually same sources but unfortunately for you they provided the links. So you ain’t breaking any new ground, I have seen in all before. Same exact things.

So you reckon your self a biblical scholar do you? These questions should be easy for you then, we’ll do a little test.
Who wrote the bible?
When was it written?
Who removed books from the bible and why? What books were they?
Which books got put back?

Google away…[/quote]

Didn’t you JUST say you didn’t want to talk to me? Did you just change your mind real quick?

Again you proclaim such simplicity in debunking my arguments, but make no effort whatsoever to do so. I call bullshit.

WTF? You already acknowledge that all these questions could be answered by anyone capable of maneuvering Google, but proceed to ask as though these questions will prove anything either way?

You’re not an intelligent man, Pat. If you’re going to talk to me anyway you might as well bring up arguments relative to my argument, is that so damn hard?[/quote]

Come on, dude…is it really necessary insult his intelligence? Pat is a bright guy, and is more open minded than many religious folks I’ve met. For that matter, Tiribulus is intelligent as well. There’s no correlation between intelligence and religious beliefs. Some of the brightest people on the planet are believers.
[/quote]

No, Pat is not a bright guy. His argument is essentially “sure, the bible has flaws, but that’s okay I still take it has 100% indisputable fact!” – intelligent persons don’t do this to themselves.

Despite what you believe, religion DOES correlate with intelligence and as the studies show, atheists score six points higher on the aggregate (controlled for G): Religiosity and intelligence - Wikipedia

Lastly, I’ve never really talked to Tiribulus so I can’t say either way about him.[/quote]

I was talking about a perfect correlation, which obviously doesn’t exit. Are you disagreeing that some of the most intelligent people on the planet are believers? Geniuses are still human and are subject to the same confirmatory biases as anyone else. Science provides some protection from those biases, but few are honest and courageous enough to fully embrace the scientific method across the entire spectrum of their beliefs.

Including you.

I was a believer, despite having a Ph.D. in psychology, and despite specifically studying the effects of cognitive biases on the conclusions people reach. It took years before I was truly ready and wiling to step back and admit my own ignorance. Many never do, and it’s not because they’re less intelligent than you.

[pat]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Leading me to ask, “If we can’t understand god, how can you call him loving, or all powerful, or all knowing, since any of these declarations mean you understand him well enough to say so?”[/quote]

You grow to understand God through the reading of his word in the Bible. And since you reject that book there is no hope for you understanding who God is. [/quote]

Perhaps you’re unaquainted with your bible, but it’s THE main reason why most athiests are atheists. We reject the bible because it makes no sense, not the other way around. [/quote]

Yeah, I know, but that’s the irony. Cap asks how can someone get to know God. [/quote]

That’s not what I was asking. I was pointing out the inconsistency in saying “We cannot understand God”, while attaching specific attributes to God (such as omnipotence, omnipresence, etc)

If we cannot understand god, you cant say god is all knowing, because that implies that you understand him well enough to declare him all knowing. Same with all powerful, same with all loving.

The only “evidence” of God I’ve ever heard of, or “answered prayers” are examples of confirmation bias. Someone gets sick, and they pray. If they get better, they take it as proof of god. If they don’t… they take it as different proof of god. All it proves is that they believe no matter what.

But this mentality applies to people of just about every faith, including atheism. So one persons revalation or experience doesn’t really mean anything to another, and its not a basis for truth.

[/quote]

Hocus pocus. I was raised a hard skeptic by my aunts and uncles, I like logic and I like hard proof. About six months ago I have ventured into mysticism as a deductive way of reaching God (nothing so far, report back if anything exciting happens). So, I understand where you’re coming from, I still ask the hard questions of people (some ministers won’t talk to me because of this). However, I made sure I had a knowledgeable people to talk to about these things. I want answers based on truth, appealed to logos and not trying to prove someone wrong or an answer based on pathos or ethos.

I don’t mind deductive reasoning (actually I love it), but merely hearing someone say, “I prayed and I felt something is hocus pocus to me.” I feel something when I walk up the stairs doesn’t mean the stairs are god.

Most of my experiences are private and they’ll stay that way until I die, but one I do not mind sharing with people is my dealings with St. Anthony. I had lost my glasses, I looked all over my room couldn’t find them (and I keep my room very organized, and my desk clear except for a phone, a pen stray and a few pieces of paper) I prayed to St. Anthony and I locked my room and went to the bathroom, when I unlocked the door and came back in to make a call, in the center of my desk was my glasses.

I recalled and recalled the events over and over in my head and there is no explanation except providence. I mean I just looked over at my desk, I didn’t even go near it to where I could have put my glasses on there (it’s just legs and a top so no reason to look in the desk) and when I walked over to the desk there they were.[/quote]

St. Anthony I found is a comedian. He still hasn’t found my Lamborghini Murcielago LP 670 Super Veloce. I need to convince him I have one first, though.

[pat]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
<<< Maybe you should put on your glasses, “The principle of divine election does not invite Christians to theoretical inquiry concerning the nonelected…” [/quote]Which is what I’ve been sayin all along. I have no theory concerning the nonelect. Who they are or why. God knows and that’s eternally greater than good enough for me.
[/quote]

Yet, you postulate they are predestined to go to Hell.

I never got one syllable’s response about what you thought of our works as a church, actually a coalition of dozens of churches (the church at Detroit as the pastor would say). I mean that’s what God’s all about according to you, so do we merit so much as the crack of a divine smile or no? Do we need the vatican’s gold for it to count? Does it matter that brother Jessie, who is in his 90’s, been a believer for like 75 years and buried his wife of 57 years 2 weeks ago was serving food all night at the open super bowl party we had where instead of hiding the gospel from them because they might be Christians even though they don’t know it, we saw 4 more lost people come to know the Lord who will be baptized this week? (That will be I think 50 plus in the last 3 or 4 months) Does any of that make the cut or are us Calvinist protestants still the apathetic theorists you appear to be accusing us of being?

I have no clue what you’re talking about the church at Detroit. The Vatican’s gold? What gold? You do realize the Vatican runs a deficit every year?

Well disagreement in theology aside, sounds like you had just a super bowl party and had some converts.

Don’t accuse me of hiding the Gospel, I stand up on my soap box for four hours at a time, two times a month with my big beard, black clothes, and my big crucifix sitting on my gut while verbally disemboweling hecklers’ and Protestants’ arguments alike. I am comparatively unapologetic here than on my soap box and day to day life because of my general outer appearances and people’s assumption of my beliefs to their prejudice.

http://www.surprisedbytruth.com/sheed.htm

You see dearest Chris we adore our God and are unspeakably grateful for who He is and what He’s done for us therefore we refuse to hide our light under a basket. We hurt for this graveyard of a world we live in and long to see as many as we can have anything to do with, live the same glorious life we do because we know that brings joy to the heart of our master. We would however be appalled if it were suggested that we offer up these works as any form of saving meritorious service. We do it BECAUSE He saved us, not to keep ourselves that way which would be an unthinkable affronting assault on the finished work of the mighty and merciful eternally begotten Son of God.

And the Catholic Church hides her light under a basket? We are the largest charitable organization in the world, we are also the most vocal (although least understood) organization in the limits of orthodox morals and faith.

I feel sad for you that you dislike the earth and life which God gave you and deemed good.

Yes, Jesus’s sacrifice is already done. I believe that whole heartedly, but I want to see where in the Bible it says that once we are saved we can’t lose it and that we do not have to work for it. [/quote]
I want that scripture too… Or scriptures.

Further, between John chapter 3 and Romans Chapter 2 divine elections are pretty much blown out of the water.
When Paul refers to the elect in context, he’s always talking those who were fortunate enough to receive the word. Further that the purpose of getting is to give it all as well.
Grace is given to those who want it. God damns no one, people damn themselves by sin and rejection.

[pat]

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, not sure what happened to my earlier post but in a nutshell I think you are making some unwarranted assumptions that might be worth reconsidering.

For example, how do you know matter doesn’t ultimately reduce to an elementary particle or set of particles? There’s no proof for this.
[/quote]
Doesn’t matter. Where’d they come from and how did they get there? Where does their behavior come from and why do they do what they do? How did they come to get the properties they have?

Also, how do you know that more complex particles, like atoms and molecules, haven’t always existed?

Finally, decide whether or not you believe the laws of the universe can change. If not, the laws of thermodynamics clearly state that matter and energy can’t be created or destroyed, end of story. If so, you can’t logically rule out randomness or insist on an entirely deterministic universe, since that may also have changed.[/quote]

I can logically rule out randomness. Randomness is an absurd concept really, because it is logically fallacious. It requires something from nothing for no reason. Since true nothingness is the absence of all existence and what does not exist cannot make something exist or act on something that exists. Hence there is no such thing as randomness. More so there is no such thing as nothingness. Nothingness, by definition does not exist.

The laws of thermo dynamics are damn handy but only apply to a limited Newtonian universe. The uncertainty principal plays havoc with the conservation principals. The truth of the matter, is that nobody knows. The smallest indivisible point is described as information. Can information be destroyed? The answer is that it’s possible, but not known. What lies beyond the event horizon in a black hole, holds the key, but nobody has been there and it is not observable. The only property we are certain of is mass, but we’re not certain what happens and why mass is lost. There are basically two possibilities. Information destruction or redistribution of information, i.e. worm holes, hawking radiation, etc. Either is possible, but nobody knows.
Can information be destroyed? The answer is that it is possible, actually.

Can information be held in a stateless, timeless ‘place’ or ‘moment’, sure.

Can laws change? No. Can they be violated? No, but they could be misunderstood where in some circumstances they appear to be violated, but are just no understood. What none of this does is disprove causation, because, confound it, there is always something and not nothing.

AND, you did not practice your regression homework.

The questions in your first paragraph presuppose an answer that hasn’t been proven. Matter and energy didn’t have to begin. Every indication is that they have always existed.

You can’t rule out randomness on one hand, while accepting the uncertainty principle, the possibility of matter being destroyed, and the idea of an uncaused cause that violates all logic on the other hand. That’s my point. If you accept that these illogical ideas may actually be true, to be consistent you must also accept that randomness might be true, at least under extreme conditions. In fact, I would argue that the idea of free will requires randomness. In a perfectly deterministic universe, free will is impossible.

Anyway, I’m not arguing for randomness. If it’s possible a divine being has always existed, it’s certainly possible matter and energy have aways existed. I’ve seen very little evidence to disprove this possibility, and a lot of evidence to support it. For that reason, I can’t logically rule out the possibility, and conclude that there MUST be a god.[/quote]

Not really. I think I worded it badly. A better way to put it is on what does matter/ energy depend on, why does it depend on it, and why does it do what it does?

There is no indication; save for the law itself, that supposes that matter and energy have always existed. Itâ??s really a stretch of the intent of laws of conservation. Their purpose isnâ??t to make a statement of origin, or past or future states. It really only describes what is right now. And quantum models shows fluctuation in this. This doesnâ??t invalidate the law of course. It only introduces new problems that havenâ??t been fully addressed.

Actually, other than the laws of conservation, there is no definitive presupposition that matter and energy have always existed. Our best guess is that the universe which is defined by all the things that make it up is between 13 and 15 billion years old. We donâ??t know if M&E are older than that. It is possible , but thatâ??s all it is. I think if we could peer into the heart of a black hole, we can see if the laws of conservation hold up or if M&E actually get destroyed.

Randomness in the purity of itâ??s definition is not possible. It posits that something must happen for no reason, not for unknown reasons, but no reason. Actually you donâ??t want it to exist either. In as much as it would debunk causation, it would also fuck science up royally as science depends on causation. The results from science could not be reliable or trusted ever, and we could not progress on the pure chance of past correlation.

[IronSmithy]

Grace is given to those who want it. God damns no one, people damn themselves by sin and rejection.[/quote]

::ahem:: new here…I agree sort of. John 3:16-18 backs up your statement that people do “in effect” damn themselves. However, when judgement is meted out , whether at the time of death or some later unrealised moment of judgement, it will be meted out by a direct act of a thrice holy God who will judge heaven or hell not based upon our actions but on our acceptance or rejection of Jesus Christ as Saviour.

also…I don’t know that predestination is as convoluted as it is being made here and other places as well. If I go out my driveway and turn north, I’ll end up in Oklahoma. If I turn south, Gulf of Mexico. The destinations of each path are pre ordained but the choice is inexplicably mine. Now the kicker is, God is Omniscient…he knows everyone who is going to end up in Oklahoma and how many shrimp to fry at the beach on the Gulf. That’s pretty cool…but we have to remember that foreknowledge is NOT causative. We make the choice. Everyone that goes south He predestines to eat shrimp. Everyone who turns north…well …they end up in hell.

[forlife]

Pat, it’s very possible matter and energy have always existed. That seems much less a stretch than the idea that matter and energy were created from nothing. I agree that the laws describing the current state of the universe, as we understand them, may or may not be limited in scope.

The honest answer is that we simply don’t know. We’re still infants trying to understand it all.

Given that, and this is my main point, what is wrong with admitting we don’t know? Given our current state of ignorance, logic and evidence are insufficient to rule out the possibility of a godless universe. We also can’t rule out the possibility of a divine power. We simply don’t know.

Which is why I’m an agnostic. The word, by definition, means “without knowledge”.

Contrary to misconception, agnosticism doesn’t mean I don’t care about knowledge. I am passionately interested in knowing the truth, and have been my entire life, even as a young child. Because of that commitment to truth, I’m unwilling to claim something is true when I really don’t know if it is.

[jakerz96]

Grace is given to those who want it. God damns no one, people damn themselves by sin and rejection.

[quote]IronSmithy wrote:
::ahem:: new here…I agree sort of. John 3:16-18 backs up your statement that people do “in effect” damn themselves. However, when judgement is meted out , whether at the time of death or some later unrealised moment of judgement, it will be meted out by a direct act of a thrice holy God who will judge heaven or hell not based upon our actions but on our acceptance or rejection of Jesus Christ as Saviour.

also…I don’t know that predestination is as convoluted as it is being made here and other places as well. If I go out my driveway and turn north, I’ll end up in Oklahoma. If I turn south, Gulf of Mexico. The destinations of each path are pre ordained but the choice is inexplicably mine. Now the kicker is, God is Omniscient…he knows everyone who is going to end up in Oklahoma and how many shrimp to fry at the beach on the Gulf. That’s pretty cool…but we have to remember that foreknowledge is NOT causative. We make the choice. Everyone that goes south He predestines to eat shrimp. Everyone who turns north…well …they end up in hell.
[/quote]
Oklahoma is hell (I knew it!).

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Leading me to ask, “If we can’t understand god, how can you call him loving, or all powerful, or all knowing, since any of these declarations mean you understand him well enough to say so?”[/quote]

You grow to understand God through the reading of his word in the Bible. And since you reject that book there is no hope for you understanding who God is. [/quote]

Perhaps you’re unaquainted with your bible, but it’s THE main reason why most athiests are atheists. We reject the bible because it makes no sense, not the other way around. [/quote]

Yeah, I know, but that’s the irony. Cap asks how can someone get to know God. [/quote]

That’s not what I was asking. I was pointing out the inconsistency in saying “We cannot understand God”, while attaching specific attributes to God (such as omnipotence, omnipresence, etc)

If we cannot understand god, you cant say god is all knowing, because that implies that you understand him well enough to declare him all knowing. Same with all powerful, same with all loving.

The only “evidence” of God I’ve ever heard of, or “answered prayers” are examples of confirmation bias. Someone gets sick, and they pray. If they get better, they take it as proof of god. If they don’t… they take it as different proof of god. All it proves is that they believe no matter what.

But this mentality applies to people of just about every faith, including atheism. So one persons revalation or experience doesn’t really mean anything to another, and its not a basis for truth.

[/quote]

Hocus pocus. I was raised a hard skeptic by my aunts and uncles, I like logic and I like hard proof. About six months ago I have ventured into mysticism as a deductive way of reaching God (nothing so far, report back if anything exciting happens). So, I understand where you’re coming from, I still ask the hard questions of people (some ministers won’t talk to me because of this). However, I made sure I had a knowledgeable people to talk to about these things. I want answers based on truth, appealed to logos and not trying to prove someone wrong or an answer based on pathos or ethos.

I don’t mind deductive reasoning (actually I love it), but merely hearing someone say, “I prayed and I felt something is hocus pocus to me.” I feel something when I walk up the stairs doesn’t mean the stairs are god.

Most of my experiences are private and they’ll stay that way until I die, but one I do not mind sharing with people is my dealings with St. Anthony. I had lost my glasses, I looked all over my room couldn’t find them (and I keep my room very organized, and my desk clear except for a phone, a pen stray and a few pieces of paper) I prayed to St. Anthony and I locked my room and went to the bathroom, when I unlocked the door and came back in to make a call, in the center of my desk was my glasses.

I recalled and recalled the events over and over in my head and there is no explanation except providence. I mean I just looked over at my desk, I didn’t even go near it to where I could have put my glasses on there (it’s just legs and a top so no reason to look in the desk) and when I walked over to the desk there they were.[/quote]

St. Anthony I found is a comedian. He still hasn’t found my Lamborghini Murcielago LP 670 Super Veloce. I need to convince him I have one first, though.[/quote]

Lol, I’ve thought about praying that I “find” a set of keys to a new 4x4 Chevy 2500. Still hasn’t worked.

[pat]

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, it’s very possible matter and energy have always existed. That seems much less a stretch than the idea that matter and energy were created from nothing. I agree that the laws describing the current state of the universe, as we understand them, may or may not be limited in scope.

The honest answer is that we simply don’t know. We’re still infants trying to understand it all.

Given that, and this is my main point, what is wrong with admitting we don’t know? Given our current state of ignorance, logic and evidence are insufficient to rule out the possibility of a godless universe. We also can’t rule out the possibility of a divine power. We simply don’t know.

Which is why I’m an agnostic. The word, by definition, means “without knowledge”.

Contrary to misconception, agnosticism doesn’t mean I don’t care about knowledge. I am passionately interested in knowing the truth, and have been my entire life, even as a young child. Because of that commitment to truth, I’m unwilling to claim something is true when I really don’t know if it is.[/quote]

There is nothing wrong with admitting you don’t know. It’s when you stop trying to find out is when you fuck it all up. I am speaking in general, not you specifically. I know you are questing for truth too.

We don’t know how M&E came to be, but we do know it doesn’t exist unconditionally. That is where you are able to draw the deductions from. You don’t have to know everything to know whether or not something is true. It’s existence is sufficient to ask the question, is this contingent, and on what?

[pat]

[quote]IronSmithy wrote:
Grace is given to those who want it. God damns no one, people damn themselves by sin and rejection.[/quote]

::ahem:: new here…I agree sort of. John 3:16-18 backs up your statement that people do “in effect” damn themselves. However, when judgement is meted out , whether at the time of death or some later unrealised moment of judgement, it will be meted out by a direct act of a thrice holy God who will judge heaven or hell not based upon our actions but on our acceptance or rejection of Jesus Christ as Saviour.

also…I don’t know that predestination is as convoluted as it is being made here and other places as well. If I go out my driveway and turn north, I’ll end up in Oklahoma. If I turn south, Gulf of Mexico. The destinations of each path are pre ordained but the choice is inexplicably mine. Now the kicker is, God is Omniscient…he knows everyone who is going to end up in Oklahoma and how many shrimp to fry at the beach on the Gulf. That’s pretty cool…but we have to remember that foreknowledge is NOT causative. We make the choice. Everyone that goes south He predestines to eat shrimp. Everyone who turns north…well …they end up in hell.
[/quote]

Foreknowledge may not be causative, but it is constricting, for you cannot choose otherwise. That eliminates ‘choice’. Despite the paradoxical nature of freewill, its does indeed exist. I can get into it, but it’s a long drawn out process. The inference that foreknowledge can exist simultaneously with freewill is fallacious. It’s non-sequitur. For instance, broken down, it looks like this…
God is omnipotent.
Becuase he is omnipotent, he has foreknowledge of my choice.
Foreknowledge is not necessarily causative.
Therefore,
because foreknowledge is not causative, it does impede freewill.

For instance, the law of gravity is not causative, but constricting none the less. All objects with mass will have gravity. The law won’t make it happen, but it cannot, not happen either.

I also reject the salvation through a simple act of faith alone. Simply the act of choosing Christ is not enough. If a saved person, who chooses Christ, but unrepentantly blows away an orphanage, that person’s belief in Christ will not alone save him. It sounds extreme but there was that Kansas abortion doctor who was murdered outside of his church. An evangelical Lutheran Church. Presumably he was saved, presumably he believed in salvation through Christ. But he performed late term abortions for a living. Killing thousands of kids. Is his faith alone enough to save him?
Now I’ll proclaim right now that I don’t know if he was saved or not. But I know that killing people is wrong and that for me to die with blood on my hands and no repentance would damn me.

Now the gunman was also in the wrong, let me be clear so I am not misunderstood.

And welcome aboard, hope we have good conversations…

[forlife]

Pat, I completely agree on the search for truth.

How do we know matter and energy don’t exist unconditionally? I think it’s very possible they do, and the laws of thermodynamics support this.

[IronSmithy]

I disagree Pat. When our understanding of God ( the definition by which I hold ) is as defined in the Bible, is that He is infinite in knowledge, wsdom, power, etc… then to say that God knows the end from the beginning does NOT in any way constrict the choice or exercise of the individual. Actually, it magnifies to the -nth degree the glory, majesty and power of our God. I have always enjoyed Anselm of Canterbury’s moniker for God as the “unmoved mover”.

The idea that there is a God who is so great in magnitude, power and glory that He can take our individual choices exercised in freewill and still accomplish His desire to bless and redeem mankind and accomplish His perfection through our imperfection?!?! Wow. That is a mighty God.

It is this understanding of God that underlies Anselm and Descartes’ Ontological Argument. But then there are men like Hume and Kant et al. who refuted these arguments as well.

Ultimately it is a matter of faith and the only thing we will prove through apologetics is that we don’t agree.

The "God is Dead " folk approached Billy Graham and told him that God was dead. He replied that cannot be…spoke to Him just this morning.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]IronSmithy wrote:
I have always enjoyed Anselm of Canterbury’s moniker for God as the “unmoved mover”.
[/quote]

So, you’re Catholic? And, I prefer St. Thomas Aquinas five proofs as they are much more logical.

The "God is Dead " folk approached Billy Graham and told him that God was dead. He replied that cannot be…spoke to Him just this morning.

Ahh great little anecdote but pathos or feelings and emotions are not a real great way to convert someone.

[RyuuKyuzo]

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:

[quote]ZEB wrote:

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Leading me to ask, “If we can’t understand god, how can you call him loving, or all powerful, or all knowing, since any of these declarations mean you understand him well enough to say so?”[/quote]

You grow to understand God through the reading of his word in the Bible. And since you reject that book there is no hope for you understanding who God is. [/quote]

Perhaps you’re unaquainted with your bible, but it’s THE main reason why most athiests are atheists. We reject the bible because it makes no sense, not the other way around. [/quote]

Yeah, I know, but that’s the irony. Cap asks how can someone get to know God. And of course the answer is the very thing that atheists reject. But God did plan it that way. “You must come to me as a little child…” And you guys can’t do that. And Why?

One of three reasons:

1-Intellectuals, too smart to believe. Must know all the answers now. Have to put God in a quantifiable box.

2-Pseudo intellectuals trying to be smart by trying to pick holes in the Bible (and it can’t be done)

3-Punk college kids who basically want to rebel. And have soaked up way too much of the professorial hubris which is a bad mix with your natural youthful hubris.

I won’t tell you which one you are as you already know the answer to that.

[/quote]

Pat, you’re title as least intelligent has just been swiped by ZEB!

We don’t reject the Bible outright and work backwards. I was raised in a very Christian home and it wasn’t until I actually READ the book that I started deviating from it. Very, VERY few Christians hasve actually read the bible for themselves, but I don’t know even ONE atheist who hasn’t.

1. Too smart to believe? Are you fucking kidding? You know you’re arguing something stupid when your go-to argument is a criticism of logic based rejection.

2. Can’t be done? I’ve pointed out several contradictions in your bible and neither you, nor anyone else has reconciled them. Tell me, if your bible is contradictory free, then how do you account for the VERY contradictory genealogies given in the bible relative to Jesus? (Luke 3:23â??38, Matthew 1:1â??17)

3. I love how I’m constantly being labeled as hubristic just because I’m not pretending like you guys “might” be right. Tell me, how many of you debated me specifically because you DIDN’T think you were right and I was wrong?

I didn’t think so.