[quote]pookie wrote:
Ok, here are a few more to keep you busy for awhile. Riddle us this:
Gospel Contradictions:…
[/quote]
i like to plagarize too:
I miss a few day and there’s this deluge of posts.
Ah well.
I can’t keep up with you guys; and after 23 pages of messages, I believe no one has budged an inch on his convictions.
It’s not like there’s never been other threads like this one. I guess I never learn…
One thing that did surprise me though, is the fact that every one else here claims to be Christian, but the disagreements between you are just as great (well almost) as between most of you and me.
The nitpicking on whether Mary was a virgin; whether transubstantiation occurs; how many dunks for a baptism; etc. strikes me as mental masturbation. Are these issues truly important? It appears to me that some of you are digging chasm between yourselves for really insignificant piffles.
Final thoughts:
Extol: I would’ve appreciated debating you more if I felt that your reasoning was actually yours. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that a large part of any arguments you make consist of cutting-and-pasting from either the Bible or the dictionnary. Reading is good; reading and understanding is better. Reading, understanding and making up your own mind on whether you agree with none, some, or all of what your read is best. As it is, I’ve read the same arguments you posted (pasted?) on “anti-atheists” sites… with nothing new added. If this thread itself is not enough to convince you of the lack of “absolutism” in the Bible, even among Christians… well, what can I say.
Think about it.
Stellar: I have some weird kind of respect for you. While I still think you’re misguided, I have to admit that you’re really strong in your convictions. A rare thing in our world of wishy-washy faith, where a lot of people go through the motions but don’t seem to put any heart or thought into it. I think though, that your strict rigidity might put some people off. Your vast knowledge of the orthodox faith (and others) would probably be more inspiring if a little flexibility was shown, now and again.
Then again, I guess that rigidity is required to keep a faith identical for 2000 years…
I did find your description of “sin” fascinating and thought provoking. I might even re-evaluate some things that I felt where “harmless”.
I still find your fascination with weapons disturbing.
Peace by with you too, and may your kids all be atheists. 
“Shake off all the fears of servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call on her tribunal for every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason than that of blindfolded fear.”
- Thomas Jefferson
Did God just change his mind about how many animals he needed?
Genesis 6
18 But I will establish my covenant with you; and you shall come into the ark, you, your sons, your wife, and your sons’ wives with you. 19 And of every living thing of all flesh, you shall bring two of every sort into the ark, to keep them alive with you; they shall be male and female. 20 Of the birds according to their kinds, and of the animals according to their kinds, of every creeping thing of the ground according to its kind, two of every sort shall come in to you, to keep them alive
Genesis 7
1Then the LORD said to Noah, "Go into the ark, you and all your household, for I have seen that you are righteous before me in this generation. 2 Take with you seven pairs of all clean animals, the male and his mate; and a pair of the animals that are not clean, the male and his mate; 3 and seven pairs of the birds of the air also, male and female, to keep their kind alive upon the face of all the earth.
Why was Mary still a virgin even after being married?
These are not very important to me, but they do show some almost intentional semantic problems. I wonder were you found them. Was there some website where you typed in “bible contradictions?” Here is just a quick response on about 5 minutes reading.
[quote]pookie wrote:
extol7extol wrote:
Someone a while back said that the genealogies recorded in Mathew and Luke contradicted. Here is my response to that asinine assertion. If said person(s) has left the thread, no matter:
Ok, here are a few more to keep you busy for awhile. Riddle us this:
Gospel Contradictions:
- How many generations were there between Abraham to David? Matthew 1:17 lists fourteen generations. Matthew 1:2 lists thirteen generations.
[/quote]
Matthew 1:2 lists 14 counting Abraham and David, and Matthew 1:17 says 14 generations. Also, if you don’t buy that, Abraham WAS aready very old when Isaac was born and HAD lived an extra full generation at that time.
The gospels claim specifically to NOT contain all of Jesus’ words
Neither claims to be chronological and neither says “this happened before that” they just include each separate incidence iin different orders of reading.
The centurian approached Jesus from a distance but didn’t come right up to him
He approached her because in his mind she was dying. That’s why it states it was his “motivation” but in reality she had died, he just didn’t know it.
John knew, but he sent followers to find out for themselves
Both
1 animal only a colt ass! In other words an animal which was an ass and also a colt (young).
Again, not said, the two gospels just included them in different orders.
It withered immediately (“amazing!”). By the next day it was dead to the root (“amazing!”).
He was the Elias which was to come, not the Elias from the O.T. though
Who was the father of Jesus? They didn’t mind saying he was the son of God-but that’s not paternal lineage.
It was significant the Jesus be the fourteenth generation-remember him.
No, Luke just leaves it out. It would fit in just fine
It is known to this day to be a plateau! (WELL, I GUESS THEY ARE BOTH WRONG THEN)
John doesn’t say that. He again just includes them in a different sequence for reading.
Syrophonecian would mean Canaanite, That’s why it calls her a Greek and then qualifies “A syrophonecian ie of Cannan at that!”
Two different stories mack
He was in the desert a long time. I don’t get all these chronological questions.
Jesus condemned the public prayer of the Pharisees because it had become a perversion.
The pharisees “works” were specifically the actions required by the law to the letter. They wanted to publicly demonstrate that they were rich enough to fulfill every strict technicality of the law.
It doesn’t say not as part of the Sermon. It was a LONG Sermon. He also told it to the apostles.
John says when he was handed over to be crucified.
First both, then one had a change of heart.
Different apostles had different roles.
Around the time of the supper-Just before.
It doesn’t say only Mary Magdalene
It was a long walk
Two ouside, one inside
Ditto
At pentochost, they received the spirit in a lasting way.
Appear to whom?
Both are the same
This sin MEANS refusing to accept forgiveness.
Answered
The priests on behalf of Judas’ (Who buys your stocks? you or your broker.
Two different incidents
Who knows.
Duh! The romans didn’t let them exercise their law. By their law he ought to die, but by Roman law-Not.
Two different places.
Paul was inspired but not quoting Jesus.
Now my question is why? There ARE factual contradictions in the bible, but you have picked out 40 or so points which look almost as if they were intended to make you look stupid! Are you trying to look stupid? If not, that’s even worse! Or maybe you just wanted to see if someone would waste a half an hour doing all those [quote][/quote]things?
Oh! By the way: Colossus is Orthodox.
[quote]doogie wrote:
Why was Mary still a virgin even after being married? [/quote]
Well, the bible says the was betrothed to Joseph and betrothal is the first stage of marriage, and Joseph found her to be pregnant and was going to send her away so she wouldn’t be stoned to death, but that an angel told him to keep her as his legal wife.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
doogie wrote:
Why was Mary still a virgin even after being married?
Well, the bible says the was betrothed to Joseph and betrothal is the first stage of marriage, and Joseph found her to be pregnant and was going to send her away so she wouldn’t be stoned to death, but that an angel told him to keep her as his legal wife.
[/quote]
The first stage of marriage is the honeymoon/poontang poking. Can you further explain why Joseph had not popped Mary’s cherry after they had been married?
Very few of your responses to Pookie make even a bit of sense. Heaven and Heaven are two different places? WHAT?
I meant to add that the bible says “espoused”, as far as I can tell. Not betrothed.
es?pouse Audio pronunciation of “espoused” ( P ) Pronunciation Key (-spouz)
tr.v. es?poused, es?pous?ing, es?pous?es
-
- To take in marriage; marry.
- To give (a woman) in marriage.
[quote]pookie wrote:
One thing that did surprise me though, is the fact that every one else here claims to be Christian, but the disagreements between you are just as great (well almost) as between most of you and me.[/quote]
Well, for one thing, I start my thinking with the axiom of Scripture alone. Others here admit that Scripture alone is NOT sufficient. Thus we have a different starting point. Different starting point, different conclusions.
Also, I believe that salvation is conditoned on the atoning blood and imputed righteousness of Christ ALONE. The other “professers” believe in salvation conditioned on what the sinner does or is enabled to do, and thus they are NOT Christians at all. They are children of the devil,(1) just as you are. Didn’t you notice how much you and they agree on? (2)
(1) All without exception (including myself) are by nature children of the devil, and children of wrath. But in the course of time, God freely and unconditionally adopts certain sinners based on the imputed righteousness of Christ alone. In time, those sinners for whom Christ died have the righteousness of Christ unconditionally imputed to them. Because of this imputed righteousness, they are declared blameless before God and reconciled to Him. Christ’s righteousness imputed demands God’s favor and fellowship toward them.
(2) Note that mertdawg has no problem agreeing with you that the Bible contains contradictions. You and stellar are of one mind in rejecting the God of the Bible, and thus BOTH of you say in your hearts, “there is no God.” You assert control over your life, and so does he. Therefore, the disagreements between you are only verbal variations. In essence, you are of the same mind, for you both (you and the so-called “orthodox”) deny that the Bible is to be received as authoritative, to the exclusion of all other writings.
[quote]pookie wrote: Final thoughts:
Extol: I would’ve appreciated debating you more if I felt that your reasoning was actually yours. I may be wrong, but it seems to me that a large part of any arguments you make consist of cutting-and-pasting from either the Bible or the dictionnary.[/quote]
First, didn’t you just cut-and-paste 42 “apparent contradictions” from an “anti-theist” website? You did, of course. And thus not one of those 42 was reasoning that was actually yours. Also, no ones reasoning is completely original, for we all read things, and those things we read influence the way we think and reason. Do you hold to the “big-bang” theory? If yes, is your reasoning to demonstrate such a theory your own reasoning?
Second, OF COURSE a large part of my argumentation consists of posting Scripture. And I did paraphrase some of my reasoning a bit, for the simple reason that many can articulate a lot better, more briefly, more concisely than I can. I know what I believe and why I believe it. But there are people who can “flesh out” and articulate what I believe better than I can. Have you not ever read something and said, “Man, that is right on. Yet, never in a million years would I have been able to articulate it that well”?
Are you implying that I do not do this? That is, did you get the idea that I do not believe ALL of what I read in the Bible? If so, then you ought to take your own advice regarding reading and understanding, and ask questions if my fragmenting of sentences is confusing. Earlier you had made the remark of me “getting out of high school” or something along those lines. I’ve never attended college, and thus have never had to write multiple page essays, and thus my writing skills are not the greatest, and I tend to go off on tangents, so maybe you have a point in your high school remark. Yet, this person with just a high-school education was smarter than the atheist in that he knew there was more than one definition for the word “dogma.”
Also, the atheist said that the wrongness of murder and rape were just his opinion. But, opinions vary, do they not? And if they do, then one “opinion” is just a right and equally valid as another. Get out the dictionary and look up the word “contradiction.”
A note on “Reading, understanding and making up your own mind on whether you agree with none, some, or all of what you read”: Here is something I have read all, understood all, and agree with all:
"The axiom, the first principle, of Christianity is this: "The Bible alone is the Word of God.??
An axiom, by definition, is a beginning. Nothing comes before it; it is a first principle. All men and all philosophies have axioms; they all must start their thinking somewhere. It is impossible to prove everything. To demand proof for everything is an irrational demand." End Quote.
And you’ve added something new? No, indeed. Your reasoning is by no means new, and thus it is not actually yours.
Come to think of it, I have added something new. I’ve added the truth that the God of the Bible saves whom He wills, and damns whom He wills. Also, the Biblical teaching that Christ is a Savior who ACTUALLY SAVES. mertdawg, stellar, and the rest say that Christ is the “savior” of those that perish. What kind of “savior” is that?
Like I said, mertdawg and stellar reject the Bible ALONE as the final authority. And even among those professing to believe in sola Scriptura do not believe what the Scripture says. One example: Many who profess to hold to sola Scriptura pervert 1 John 2:2 to say that Christ shed His blood, and thus propitiated (turned away) the wrath of God for everyone without exception. These perverters of Scripture also say that some perish under God’s wrath, and thus they deny that the blood of Christ is efficacious in propitiating the wrath of God toward all whom Christ represented at the cross.
“My little children, I write these things to you so that you do not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And He Himself is the propitiation relating to our sins, and not relating to ours only, but also relating to all the world” (1 John 2:1-2).
[quote]extol7extol wrote:
…And even among those professing to believe in sola Scriptura do not believe what the Scripture says. One example: Many who profess to hold to sola Scriptura pervert 1 John 2:2 to say that Christ shed His blood, and thus propitiated (turned away) the wrath of God for everyone without exception. These perverters of Scripture also say that some perish under God’s wrath, and thus they deny that the blood of Christ is efficacious in propitiating the wrath of God toward all whom Christ represented at the cross.
[/quote]
A note of clarification:
At the cross, Christ represented those sinners whom God the Father unconditionally chose before the foundation of the world. Christ did not represent all sinners without exception, only some:
1Jo 2:2 And He Himself is the propitiation relating to our sins, and not relating to ours only, but also relating to all the world.
?All the world" means both Jews and Gentiles. If Christ is the propitiation for the sins of everyone without exception, then God’s wrath against everyone without exception would be appeased! To propitiate means to appease, to pacify, to assuage. If Christ propitiated, then could it ever be that those for whom He propitiated would be lost? Not if the true Christ propitiated. The false christ of universal atonement is the propitiation for everyone without exception, yet some for whom this christ propitiated end up in hell. What kind of propitiation is that? It is a false propitiation.
Another oft-perverted verse used by those deny, and even among those who affirm sola Scriptura:
Joh 12:32 And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, I will draw all to Myself.
If “all” here means “everyone without exception,” then why is everyone without exception not saved? It is because, in this scheme, the will of the sinner overrides the will of God. This raises the sinner to the place of God, which is utter blasphemy. The word for “draw” here (and in John 6:44) actually means “drag by force” (see John 21:11, Acts 16:19, Acts 21:30, James 2:6). Again, “all” means “all without distinction.”
“And think of the long-suffering of our Lord as salvation, as also our beloved brother Paul wrote to you, according to the wisdom given to him;
as also in all his epistles, speaking in them concerning these things, in which are some things hard to understand, which the unlearned and unsettled pervert, as also they do the rest of the Scriptures, to their own destruction” (2 Peter 3:15-16).
extol,
check out James White if you don’t know who he is already.
Also, everything you’re arguing is basically Calvinism (if not borderline hyper-Calvinism depending on what you mean by “‘Protestant Calvinists’,… BOTH believe(ing) the nefarious notion that Christ’s blood does not atone apart from the effort of sinful man.)”
I think you just misread Hodge.
for clarification: see sections “L” and “I” of TULIP.
sorry for the tangent.
[quote]doogie wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
doogie wrote:
Why was Mary still a virgin even after being married?
Well, the bible says the was betrothed to Joseph and betrothal is the first stage of marriage, and Joseph found her to be pregnant and was going to send her away so she wouldn’t be stoned to death, but that an angel told him to keep her as his legal wife.
The first stage of marriage is the honeymoon/poontang poking. Can you further explain why Joseph had not popped Mary’s cherry after they had been married?
Very few of your responses to Pookie make even a bit of sense. Heaven and Heaven are two different places? WHAT?
[/quote]
That’s not true. Once betrothed, two people were considered to be legally married. The betrothal was the legal part but there still had to be a marriage ceremony (wedding) and finally consumation. These were the
three parts of marriage. Joseph was older-perhaps 40 with children from a previous marriage. Mary probably had lived as a ward of the temple because here parents were in their 60s when she was born-and her father was a priest of the temple. When she was maybe 16 years old, and Joseph became a widower, he took her as his wife because a jewish woman was dead without a husband-it was probably considered an act of charity. I have no doubt he expected to have sexual relations with her.
this is the tradition and to my knowledge would be most historian’s best bet of the situation.
A close brother of mine sent the following comments regarding the Passover to me a while back. After reading it, I said to myself, “Right on, brother”:
"In our family devotions this evening we talked about the Passover, and I was
reminded again at how vivid a picture of particular redemption that is.
It’s the blood that makes the difference! The blood was not on the houses of the Egyptians. Just think of a “passover” in which the blood was on everyone’s house without exception, and a “god” who would kill the firstborn in some of the houses on which there was blood. In this “passover,” the blood itself wouldn’t make the difference between which houses were passed over and which houses were condemned. There would have to be one of two
things going on: Either this god thinks the blood has no importance and
just condemns at random, or this god finds something good in some of the
houses with blood on them as compared to other houses with blood on them,
thus not basing his passing over on the blood at all but on something in the households themselves. Then the question must be asked, “Well, why would the blood on the house be needed at all, since it doesn’t make the
difference between being passed over and being condemned?” The answer is,
“The blood wouldn’t be needed at all. The blood itself is without value.”
Praise God for THE BLOOD OF HIS DEAR SON! It is of infinite value! When
God sees the blood applied to His people, THERE IS NO CONDEMNATION!
Christ’s obedience unto death, the blood of His cross, is the ONLY thing
that makes the difference between heaven and hell!"
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Or maybe you just wanted to see if someone would waste a half an hour doing all those things?[/quote]
Bingo.
Half an hour, huh?
Actually, that post was a tongue-in-cheek reply to extol’s preivous post where he was so proud to be able to explain the diffenrence between the 2 genealogies…
I didn’t even read the contradictions before cut-n-pasting them in.
Maybe the “riddle me these” was not warning enough.
Sorry for your wasted half hour… Good thing you don’t care about these things, huh?
[quote]pookie wrote:
mertdawg wrote:
Or maybe you just wanted to see if someone would waste a half an hour doing all those things?
Bingo.
Half an hour, huh?
Actually, that post was a tongue-in-cheek reply to extol’s preivous post where he was so proud to be able to explain the diffenrence between the 2 genealogies…
I didn’t even read the contradictions before cut-n-pasting them in.
Maybe the “riddle me these” was not warning enough.
Sorry for your wasted half hour… Good thing you don’t care about these things, huh?[/quote]
Well, most of them had nothing to do with how we should live our lives today.
[quote]extol7extol wrote:
Well, for one thing, I start my thinking with the axiom of Scripture alone. Others here admit that Scripture alone is NOT sufficient. Thus we have a different starting point. Different starting point, different conclusions.[/quote]
Well if we can’t even get to agree on a starting point, there’s not much point in debating anything.
You’re the spawn of Santa Claus. The Tooth Fairy is your mother. Does that make sense to you? What you’re saying to me makes as much sense.
Damn! You found us out. Now, the secret that Orthodox Christians are actually atheists is out!
Invisible Pink Unicorn save us!
Well, yes. But you don’t get it do you? I pasted those as a joke… I’m not going to waste my time writing down serious answers to what I initially believed to be honest questions if the only response I get is loads of pasted scripture.
The way I see it, whatever answer I could’ve given would’ve been met with the same answer on your part. In other words, you weren’t really interested in how atheists derive their moral values; you simply intended to bash me over the head with your supposedly absolute values from the bible.
Another example: I asked you a very simple “How does the Bible define evil?” which was never answered. Why? Seems a simple enough question?
You right. And of course, the big-bang theory (BBT) is not mine.
BUT. I’ve read many things about the BBT and have read about the evidence there is for it. I’ve ALSO read about counter-evidence for it and some observations that DO NOT FIT with the BBT.
I therefore accept the BBT as a plausible theory, but not as the be-all end-all of all cosmology. Until some holes are filled and problems with it are solved, it remains an incomplete theory. It’s just the best one we have currently.
In that way, we are different. You will not accept to change your thinking about the bible. You’ve decided that it is absolutely right; the word of God which can bear no question. How then can we debate anything, if all your answers will basically be: “The bible says X! Hence X is right! You are wrong like your father the devil!”
The problem with your “belief” is that while you can see that others hold different “beliefs”, you can’t allow for the possibility that those “beliefs” are just as valid as yours.
Not from you.
Kidding!
I’m implying that you read and accept, but never question.
For example, if you read the 10 commandments, why is there not a commandment against slavery? Is it because God condones keeping slaves? Or simply because at the time those commandment where written, slaves where common and it was not seen as “wrong” to enslave men.
Or take the “Honor your father and mother.” What if your parent are horrible and beat you and abuse you. Does it make sense to “honor” them because God commands you to?
It’s not so much the writing skills as much as the critical thinking skills that I find lacking.
I was interested in knowing what you thought about the answers I gave. All I got, pretty much, was pasting of scripture. That what the “I’ve got the book at home” flip meant.
That you base your values on the bible is one thing; but that you can’t understand that there are other sources from which one can draw values is the problem.
And whether Hitler or a thief or whoever can claim the same belief system and come to some other conclusion is a moot point. The Bible has been used to justify countless atrocities throughout history; that does not mean that there are no good morals to be taken from it. It simple means that the bible, like any other source, can be “relativised” by someone who wishes to support his agenda.
Do you confuse knowledge with intelligence? Knowing something does not make you smart. Or maybe you think Google is smarter than just about anyone?
And while many words have more than one meaning, it is a bit disingenuous in a discussion about religion, faith and belief to assume that the meaning of “dogma” in a conversation won’t be the “religious dogma” one.
I guess you find your victories where you can.
I feel that murder and rape are wrong. Some people might feel differently. Murderers and rapists I’d bet. Or maybe they believe it’s wrong but do it anyway.
Is their opinion as valid as mine? To them, I’ll bet it’s even more valid. To me it isn’t. You seem to be trying to get me to admit that my opinions or that my values aren’t “universal”. Fine. You’re right. The values in the Bible are only slightly more universal because many people have read the bible and accept it as a moral guide, while very few have read pookie on T-Nation.
But in perspective, when either a Christian or an atheist is arrested for rape, they face the law of the land, not the Bible or a test of their values. The whole discussion does not seem that important to me; at least, not as much as me knowing why I find some things to be “wrong” and not others.
[quote]Here is something I have read all, understood all, and agree with all:
"The axiom, the first principle, of Christianity is this: "The Bible alone is the Word of God.??[/quote]
But I’m not a Christian. I do not accept your christian axioms. So for me, by definition, your axioms are invalid.
We could still debate a bunch of stuff; but if all your arguments come back to this, if there is no other substance than what I can read myself in the Bible, I see no point.
Generally, when I discuss a subject with someone, I try to see things their way, even if it means holding a view I’m not in agreement with. Sometimes, it simply reinforces my own views, but sometimes I get something from it. In that way, I feel enriched by the discussion.
For example, I found Stellar’s explanatin of the four phases of sin interesting. I didn’t exactly relate to it in the same terms he used, but I thought about sin/wrongdoing/obsessions/whatever in a slightly different way than before. So, while we still disagree on just about everything where faith is concerned, I still took something from the debate.
With you, all I get is that you need to somehow “prove” that your view is right and mine is “wrong”. I’d bet that in real life, we’re both pretty decent people, with no criminal records; are good neighbors; have good friend and so on. We’re not that different, except that you take your value from a book you believe to be from God, and I don’t.
Well, yes. Axioms are propositions that are accepted without proof. Unfortunately, I can’t accept your axioms without proof. That’s what “faith” is for and I don’t have any.
Which reasoning are you refering too?
Not new. Not true. What happened to the puppet master anyway?
Ask them. Your “savior” has a debatable historical existence as far as I’m concerned; and IF he actually existed, he MIGHT have been an exceptional man, but certainly of mortal origin. The only sure thing is that whatever story the gospels relate, that story has been embellished many times over, to the point that it is now mythology.
[quote]Like I said, mertdawg and stellar reject the Bible ALONE as the final authority. And even among those professing to believe in sola Scriptura do not believe what the Scripture says. One example: Many who profess to hold to sola Scriptura pervert 1 John 2:2 to say that Christ shed His blood, and thus propitiated (turned away) the wrath of God for everyone without exception. These perverters of Scripture also say that some perish under God’s wrath, and thus they deny that the blood of Christ is efficacious in propitiating the wrath of God toward all whom Christ represented at the cross.
“My little children, I write these things to you so that you do not sin. And if anyone sins, we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. And He Himself is the propitiation relating to our sins, and not relating to ours only, but also relating to all the world” (1 John 2:1-2).[/quote]
Yeah, well we’re back to scripture again. Can I copy-paste a few things too?
“I distrust those people who know so well what God wants them to do because I notice it always coincides with their own desires.” - Susan B. Anthony
“The first clergyman was the first rascal who met the first fool” - Voltaire
“Men who believe absurdities will commit atrocities.” - Voltaire
“I do not believe in God because I do not believe in Mother Goose.” - Clarence Darrow
“I do not believe in the immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.” - Albert Einstein
“Religion is just mind control.” - George Carlin
“Faith means not wanting to know what is true.” - Friedrich Nietzsche
“The divinity of Jesus is made a convenient cover for absurdity.” - John Adams
“The social principles of Christianity preach cowardice, self-contempt, abasement, submission, humility, in a word all the qualities of the canaille.” - Karl Marx
“Religion is excellent stuff for keeping common people quiet.” - Napoleon Bonaparte
“If Christ were here now there is one thing he would not be – a Christian.” - Mark Twain
[quote]edgecrusher wrote:
extol,
check out James White if you don’t know who he is already.
Also, everything you’re arguing is basically Calvinism (if not borderline hyper-Calvinism depending on what you mean by “‘Protestant Calvinists’,… BOTH believe(ing) the nefarious notion that Christ’s blood does not atone apart from the effort of sinful man.)”
I think you just misread Hodge.
for clarification: see sections “L” and “I” of TULIP.
sorry for the tangent.[/quote]
I know who James White is. He is one of the many lost Calvinists who believes that at least some who believe in the false gospel of universal atonement are regenerate (i.e., saved) persons.
As for C Hodge, here is the first quote I posted from him, along with a few others to show that I have not misread him.
“Admitting, however, that the Augustinian doctrine that Christ died
specially for his own people does account for the general offer of
the gospel, how can it be reconciled with those passages which, in
one form or another, teach that He died for all men? In answer to
this question, it may be remarked in the first place that
Augustinians do not deny that Christ died for all men. What they
deny is that He died equally, and with the same design, for all men” (Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, Volume 2, p. 558).
Notice that Hodge admits that verses that say “all” like 1 John 2:2, Hebrews 2:9, etc. teach that Christ died for all without exception. So, what Hodge would say is that Christ died for all (meaning all without exception), but “specially” for the elect. So, in Hodges view, what makes the ultimate difference between salvation and damnation, heaven and hell, is NOT what Christ has done, but what the sinner is supposedly enabled to do. It’s just a fancier version of Arminianism, yet just as blasphemous.
Here is more hubris from Hodge, regarding the satisfaction made by Christ and the “application of its benefits”:
“The application of its benefits is
determined by the covenant between the Father and the Son. Those for
whom it was specially rendered are not justified from eternity; they
are not born in a justified state; they are by nature, or birth, the
children of wrath even as others. To be children of wrath is to be
justly exposed to divine wrath. They remain in this state of exposure
until they believe and should they die (unless in infancy) before they
believe they would inevitably perish, notwithstanding the satisfaction made for their sins” (Vol 2, pp., 557-8).
Note that C Hodge says that some could perish NOTWITHSTANDING the satisfaction made for their sins. That is utter blasphemy against the efficacious work of Christ. Hodge puts the sinner’s so-called “faith” in the stead of the efficacious work of Christ.
Hodge believes that faith is the condition for salvation. In stark contrast, the true faith of God’s elect believes that Christ’s satisfaction is the condition for salvation.
One more C Hodge quote:
“In the third place, the question [“For whom did Christ die”?] does not concern the suitableness of the atonement. What was suitable for one was suitable for all. The righteousness of Christ, the merit of his obedience and death, is needed for justification by each individual of our race, and therefore is needed by all. It is no more appropriate to one man than to another. Christ fulfilled the conditions of the covenant under which all men were placed. He rendered the obedience required of all, and suffered the penalty which all had incurred; and therefore his work is equally suited to all” (Systematic Theology, vol, 2, p 545).
Hodge is ignorant of the righteousness of God and is seeking to establish his own righteousness (Romans 10:3). For he says that Christ obeyed in the place of each individual of our race. He says that Christ fulfilled the conditions, he says that Christ obeyed in the place of all.
Now, if Christ obeys in the place of all, as Hodge clearly says, and notwithstanding some perish, then whose righteousness is being established here as the only ground of salvation? Obviously not Christ’s.
And thus, it is very clear that Hodge is seeking to establish his own righteousness, since he believes that Christ’s righteousness was established for all men without exception including those that perish.
To reiterate, Hodge says:
“The righteousness of Christ, the merit of his obedience and death, is needed for justification by each individual of our race, and therefore is needed by all.”
To Hodge, the merit of Christ’s obdience and death is needed (and thus necessary) for all. But since some perish notwithstanding, to Hodge this merit of Christ is not sufficient in and of itself to save. It needs the work of the sinner to supplement it, in order to make it sufficient, and thus efficacious.
Faith believes that Christ’s merit is efficacious in and of itself to save.
Hodge does not believe that Christ’s merit is efficacious in and of itself to save.
Thus, Hodge does not have faith.
[quote]mertdawg wrote:
Well, most of them had nothing to do with how we should live our lives today.[/quote]
Well, the same can be said of the whole book.
I love how huge this thread has become. It’s like the biggest religion thread circle jerk we’ve had in a long time, and I’d like to thank y’all for all your contributions, because reading all of this was very entertaining.
Some food for thought, or for tossing in the trash… whatever:
The fundamental basis of religion and belief in the supernatural is the human mind’s way of escaping the finality of death. I mean, without an afterlife hanging out with Isis and Osiris, or going on to some cosmic crib with a bunch of mormons or whatever, this life we’re living now just seems so pointless. Really, what’s the point of going on with this life if you’re just going to die, go to an abyss of nothingness, and nothing in your life will have ever mattered?
I say that this is a very narrow and selfish way of looking at things. I feel that it is our responsibility to leave this world a better place than we found it. This is simple animal biology and survival of the species I’m talking about here. An atheist’s life isn’t empty of faith in the way that some of you religious folks think. I place my faith in the here and now, and my hopes for a better tomorrow, and what I can do to help realize these goals.
What I don’t do with my faith is pretend. Face it guys, you are doing quite a bit of pretending here when you are taking the bible and the resurrection of Jesus as anything more than a story. Justify it however you wish, but the simple fact of the matter is that you are BY DEFINITION “pretending” when you say that there is more to this life than what we experience in this world. You have absolutely no reason to expect to have an afterlife except that you belong to an incredibly large group of people who are also afraid to die and then have nothing to show for it.
I have seen in a couple of posts in this thread where the more “religiously endowed” of us have been quite uppity in their attitude of “I’m special because I’m going to heaven, and the rest of y’all are heretics who are going to fry”, and I guess that’s to be expected when you are made to feel unreasonably special because you had some water splashed on you or whatever. So I guess I can’t blame you guys for that, but I just want to tell y’all that it’s kinda annoying to us who have smaller than average religious feelings.
So tell me guys, are you pretending or not? And if you aren’t, how the hell can you explain yourselves? You have to be.
extol,
This reminds me of Dave Hunt arguing that Spurgeon wasn’t a Calvinist.
Once again, see sections “I” and “L” of TULIP. You are misreading/misrepresenting Hodge, if not Calvinism. However, this isn’t an argument that I’m getting into. Check out monergism.com if you’re interested.