• Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!

    You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!

Why I'm not an Atheist

Holder of the Heel

Fiat justitia, pereat mundus
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
8,850
Location
Alabama
NNID
Roarfang
3DS FC
1332-7720-7283
Switch FC
6734-2078-8990
Uh, it only takes even just a moment of investigation on the internet, the fact that you seemingly don't do such things makes me think you aren't reliable. A quick search of our topic brings up countless resources.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html
http://www.skeptically.org/bible/id6.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_consistency_of_the_Bible
http://www.skeptically.org/newtestament/id19.html
http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm

I could go on and on.

And if the contents of the Bible are false, which I believe them to be so (and like Falcon says, saying you find it hard they'd lie is not an actual reason), it isn't because they were ***holes who got kicks out of doing it, it functions really well as a tool for control, Jesus' "teachings" apparently came at the most convenient time possible according to many because of all the bloodshed going on in that era, I even remember William Lane Craig commenting on that in a debate for God's existence to show that "God cared about us" or something, although it merely draws in suspicion to anyone thinking clearly on the subject.
 

MuraRengan

Banned via Warnings
Joined
Mar 22, 2007
Messages
1,510
Location
New Orleans
So if I find another religion that has a book that mentions true historical events with stuff no one can prove to be true or false but with a different God, or just make my own, what's your answer to that.
Yeah, there's a big difference between possibility and reality. Go ahead and find another religion that recorded historical events as they happened (meaning not after that history has already happened). You can make up your own, but it'd be so riddled with falsehoods that people would disbelieve it immediately. A big reason Christianity survives is its history.

I'm not being unreasonable when a book tells me a lot of magical **** happened along with morals that completely contradict many parts of the first ****ing half and you're only argument is WELL WHY WOULD ANYONE LIE ABOUT IT.
This is horribly taken out of context. I'm talking about the gospel writers only. Don't bring anything else into the discussion.

Uh, it only takes even just a moment of investigation on the internet, the fact that you seemingly don't do such things makes me think you aren't reliable. A quick search of our topic brings up countless resources.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/paul_carlson/nt_contradictions.html
http://www.skeptically.org/bible/id6.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internal_consistency_of_the_Bible
http://www.skeptically.org/newtestament/id19.html
http://www.evilbible.com/Biblical%20Contradictions.htm

I could go on and on.

And if the contents of the Bible are false, which I believe them to be so (and like Falcon says, saying you find it hard they'd lie is not an actual reason), it isn't because they were ***holes who got kicks out of doing it, it functions really well as a tool for control, Jesus' "teachings" apparently came at the most convenient time possible according to many because of all the bloodshed going on in that era, I even remember William Lane Craig commenting on that in a debate for God's existence to show that "God cared about us" or something, although it merely draws in suspicion to anyone thinking clearly on the subject.
Perhaps I should've been more clear. I know that there are discrepancies in the New Testament. I did go and look them up, but all I found was a bunch of trivial, inconsequential problems. What I was asking you to do is show me and example of one or two that severely damage the credibility of the NT.

Even the stuff in the links you posted are incredibly trivial matters. Don't expect me to sit here and read everything in these links for a point that you yourself are trying to make. If you know specifically of some serious discrepancies in the NT, then show them to me, because all I see in these links is a bunch of stuff that's just unimportant.
 

Holder of the Heel

Fiat justitia, pereat mundus
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
8,850
Location
Alabama
NNID
Roarfang
3DS FC
1332-7720-7283
Switch FC
6734-2078-8990
None of those things, especially considering the quantity, are unimportant. Many of them delineate the historical areas you put so much stock in as well. They cover all of your ethics, all of the descriptions of God, Jesus, events... What would you consider "significant"?
 

Holder of the Heel

Fiat justitia, pereat mundus
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
8,850
Location
Alabama
NNID
Roarfang
3DS FC
1332-7720-7283
Switch FC
6734-2078-8990
Says who? You've got to realize how loaded the terms "logical" and "physical" are. You're defining something by your own personal definitions, which have no apparent rigor behind them. What does it mean to be in a state of "logical equanimity" and "physicality"? What qualifies something as "actually being there"? This is degenerating from technical qualifications, to existential qualifications and now to random definitions being haphazardly used. How much experience do you have with formal logical systems? The intuitive, colloquial version of "logic" doesn't cut it in these contexts, as is evidenced by your repeated fallacies and habitually conflicting positions.
Logical and physical aren't loaded terms, they have set definitions, considering there are sciences devoted to them both that describe their laws objectively, and I am merely using them in the context of how they are used as such in their respective studies. Physical is defined by things that follow the laws of physics, and "logical equanimity" are merely the logical prerequisites that all things must possess in order to exist, such as the Four Laws that are self evident and etc. Nothing can exist if in doing so it betrays the laws of logic, and it simply doesn't exist if it doesn't follow the rules of physics as well, so we are bound by both, that is not only conventional wisdom but professional wisdom. What physicist is going to say things are not as I speak of them? Unfortunately, mathematics does not have any logic to it, it isn't a logical system, it is a bunch of equations and measurements that contain things that are not even conceivable. No, I do not believe that one can conceive of a line, being able to simply give a definition of something isn't the equivalent of conceiving it, I can describe an assortment of fairy tale things, and no I do not mean "imagine". The word defined, like dragons, doesn't make it exist in any sense, got it isn't existent, and it either "is" or "is not", there is no middle ground. Just like with the apples you spoke of before, the name is simply a convenient designator, "apples" do not exist, nor do they exist because I choose to describe what we call apples with one world and not a list of all the properties and dimensions of apples in general or of any specific apple.



If we're thinking of something that does not physically exist, but still referring to it and being able to conceive of it, e.g. counterfactuals ("if" statements), unicorns and even the subjunctive mood in language, then from where does the thought come?
I've answered this, it is a combination of senses that we have acquired. Unicorns do not exist in any sense, they've only been imagined and drawn.


This is exceptionally fallacious contention. You're discrediting my argument on a basis that you've neither succeeded in, nor attempted to prove. It's circular reasoning; you're basing your premise on an informally invalid conclusion that if something cannot be sensed, it does not exist.
Okay then, explain to me this one time what it is that you mean by a metaphysical mind? If metaphysics either describes something beyond the physical or simply describes physical aspects, where does "metaphysical mind" come in?



This is a head-scratcher, and honestly affirms my belief that you do not understand the principle of my argument or follow what I've been saying. Were you following my positions accurately, you'd know that my position is that if it can be conceived or even mentioned, then it exists, if not physically, metaphysically. So by mentioning something, I will automatically qualify it as at least metaphysically existent. So this statement is vacuous.
So describe what kind of metaphysical thing a conceived thing is and why it is as such.



Then from where comes the idea of pure numbers? How is algebra possible? You obviously don't understand numbers if you believe it only involves natural numbers, as implied by your "sensing more than one thing" clause. What about imaginary numbers; the square root of one? We can't sense negative numbers; we can't sense imaginary or complex numbers, yet they yield physically meaningful results; how do you explain this?
I was answering as to how the concept of numbers originated, although it is self-evident that the rest were developed by messing around with such concepts in new ways, in the same way Isaac Newton came up with Calculus, he simply had an obsession with math and tried doing all sorts of things with it. That is why it is dangerous to get wrapped up in it, it has practical usages, but only insofar as they measure actual things, but this does not entail any sort of existence.

How is the concept of imaginary numbers possible if we can't visualize them? It's very evident that they are logically sound. You've ensnared yourself in yet another tall order of profound explanations. You're faced with the burden of justifying the notion that we can only conceive what we sense and what is physical, yet imaginary and negative numbers can't physically exist and cannot be attached to physical objects, much like the Banach-Tarski paradox. I want every question in this body of text answered.



An apple is one thing, right? If not, you concede that an apple as a whole is an abstract, synthetic categorization that does not naturally or physically exist, after all, how can something exist as both a singular thing and multiple things? Clearly you just referred to the universe as one thing by invoking it in a single word, but then maintain it's not one thing; how can it be defined as having two quantities? That's a physical impossibility. For the universe to not be one thing, and an apple to be one thing, you hold a principally contradictory stance. Both are just an arrangement of atoms, correct? You've tangled yourself in yet another web of conflicting stances borne of only an intuitive approach. Either way you go, you either contradict your stance that the universe being singular is absurd if you insist categories are nonexistent but still invoke an apple as a singular object, or you force yourself to reject the notion that an apple is singular, but therefore possesses a dual quality of plurality and conceptual singularity (since an apple is invoked as a singular object, but is contrasted to the notion that the universe being singular is absurd despite both just being a collection of atoms) which is physically impossible; physical objects cannot maintain plurality and singularity concomitantly.
Saying that I am a person does not entail that I am one thing, in fact, I am most certainly not, but it is a convenient designator that we use in order to prevent have to know and describe everything that we are in order to describe ourselves. The idea is singular, yes, but that is all semantics, I'm surprised you wouldn't catch that. An apple isn't a singular object, the idea simply entails the description of one thing, but that thing is a plurality of things. In fact, I didn't even say anything that you are describing up above, I am confused as to where you got all of that.


That's not even close to the point. You were making an appeal to authority by saying Parmenides' subjugating Socrates' argument disproved the theory of Forms instead of just Socrates' particular argument for it.
No, I am saying that no one has EVER proven the existence of "forms". Socrates failed, Plato failed, Parmenides couldn't do so, he just simply "believed" it because he didn't know what else to say on the matter. Conclusion: They don't exist, or they do, they haven't been proven by you.



They're only negating qualities under your self-validated premises and definitions of existence, which you've yet to proffer a valid argument for. I never said anything about existing without existence; that's how you perceive it under your premises. I speak of two different kinds of existence; not two antipodes.
I'd rather enjoy watching you try to prove something that is impossible to be possible. Although, the very sentence blatantly says it can't be done. You said forms didn't have physical value and therefore didn't exist, which seems valid and true to me and is aligned with everything I've been saying thus far, but if that is the case, they are thus impossible to provide evidence for, and therefore impossible to prove.



And <why> does thinking entail existence? Because it is acknowledgment, and is therefore existent. You do not understand the invocation of cogito ergo sum if you think it solely applies to metacognition and solipsistic contexts. The thinking of oneself isn't magically different from thinking about an apple; they both affirm existence for the same reason. The reference and mention of the thought or idea alone implies existence, otherwise you're faced with the explanation of how something nonexistent can be mentioned.
You have no understanding of cogito ergo sum, or else you'd know that proof of our existence is from our wondering about it, it isn't done because we wondered about ourselves, or else whatever we wondered ourselves to be would be what it is, our thoughts can't cause ontological changes which has been expressed before. Even after researching the topic again, and it in no way says of anything that you're talking about, I am thoroughly confused. Descartes makes specific mention of a premise such as "Whatever has the property of thinking, exists." Let us disregard all of the criticisms of the theory itself, for you don't even make it that far, it isn't a part of this discussion in any way. As a result, it is even harder to envision your basis that thinking of things creates them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cogito_ergo_sum#Criticisms
 

MuraRengan

Banned via Warnings
Joined
Mar 22, 2007
Messages
1,510
Location
New Orleans
None of those things, especially considering the quantity, are unimportant. Many of them delineate the historical areas you put so much stock in as well. They cover all of your ethics, all of the descriptions of God, Jesus, events... What would you consider "significant"?
Things which I consider significant would be things which affect the very things I consider credible to the New Testament. For example, are there any discrepancies that would lead one to believe that the descriptions of events with Jesus were made up? The mere fact of there being discrepancies doesn't mean those discrepancies hold any weight. I've just glossed over a bunch of the stuff and none of it seems to detract any from the validity of the corroborated chronicles of Christ's life. I see there's some discrepancy in Joseph's lineage. All right, so what? Joseph's lineage doesn't affect stories of Christ's life, and nor does anything else I've seen. So if you really think this stuff is relevant SHOW ME those ones that delineate those corroborated events in Christ's life.

In all honestly though, I'm getting uninterested in this entire thing. Debating legitimacy is very subjective, and I could very easily call all of history into question. I don't, because I give historians the benefit of the doubt, but in truth, none of us has the possibility to legitimately prove that any history ever happened. In order to understand the past, we have to trust what is recorded for us, and I just happen to extend that trust to a single part of the Bible that I've deemed trustworthy. If you don't that's fine, it's not somethign I really need to debate.

Why just the gospel writers? Should the authors of the other books be included?
Well, the topic we were discussing was only about the gospel writers. Falcon went off topic, that's why I said that. As for the place of the other writers in the bible, I can't really say because I don't know what the theological purpose of their books is.
 

Holder of the Heel

Fiat justitia, pereat mundus
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
8,850
Location
Alabama
NNID
Roarfang
3DS FC
1332-7720-7283
Switch FC
6734-2078-8990
Disinterested in proving your stock in what you believe in? You still have your faith; however, I'll remind you that trusting what our history books says and the contents of the Bible are hugely different, and I'd recommend thinking about that for a moment. Both imply induction, involving probabilities, but the thing is it is still logically sound to believe in Lincoln's assassination, although we can't give supreme proof, we can still show that it is far more likely that it did happen than not, whereas the same can't be transposed to the Bible, which isn't riddled with discrepancies.

These discrepancies DO center around Jesus, depicting different accounts of his birth in the first link, different accounts of what people have seen in the tomb of his resurrection and who had seen it and whom they told about it (if anyone), things like Jesus getting baptized although he was apparently sinless, who was responsible for the death of Jesus, when he was born, all things reducing probabilities. The second link has many discrepancies between what he ethically preached about life, ranging from whether or not to judge, whether or not things are meant to be secretive or known, about whom receives mercy (non-believers, only believers, only baptized believers, or mercy isn't certain), and even more:

Jesus responds that this favor is not his to give. Mt.20:23; Mk.10:40.
Jesus said that all authority is given to him. Mt.28:18; Jn.3:35.

Jesus approved of destroying enemies. Lk.19:27.
Jesus said to love your enemies. Mt.5:44.

Divorce, except for unfaithfulness, is wrong. Mt.5:32.
Divorce for any reason is wrong. Mk.10:11,12.

Non-believers obtain mercy. Rom.11:32.
Only believers obtain mercy. Jn.3:36; Rom.14:23.
Only baptized believers obtain mercy. Mk.16:16.

The righteous have eternal life. Mt.25:46.
The righteous are barely saved. 1 Pet.4:18.
There are no righteous. Rom.3:10

Jesus said he would not cast aside any that come to him. Jn.6:37.
Jesus said that many that come to him will be cast aside. Mt.7:21-23.

There are too many things to call into attention in that one and the rest.

You see, really me calling upon specific examples is quite beside the point, simply gazing upon the thousands of discrepancies upon the details of Jesus' life, who he was like, what were his powers, what he was, what he did, and where he was throughout his life, and all other things connected, these things do not exist in the history we all put stock in, and very logically despite the lack of us being able to give irrefutable proof about most of it. Your unwillingness to question the Bible and comparing it to our history books seems to show that your problems with the Big Bang aren't the only things that are creating this theist bias.
 

Vermanubis

King of Evil
BRoomer
Joined
Jun 12, 2008
Messages
3,399
Location
La Grande, Oregon
NNID
Vermanubis
3DS FC
1564-2185-4386
Jesus responds that this favor is not his to give. Mt.20:23; Mk.10:40.
Jesus said that all authority is given to him. Mt.28:18; Jn.3:35.
Jesus never said he couldn't give it; he said it wasn't his to give. This was an act of obeisance to God.


Jesus approved of destroying enemies. Lk.19:27.
Jesus said to love your enemies. Mt.5:44.
This one's especially embarrassing. The former was said during a parable where Christ was speaking in the subjunctive mood (i.e. speaking as another person). That one's pretty unforgivable to quote as a contradiction.

Divorce, except for unfaithfulness, is wrong. Mt.5:32.
Divorce for any reason is wrong. Mk.10:11,12.
And here we find prevarication. They forgot to mention the "...and marry another, committeth adultery against her" part.

Non-believers obtain mercy. Rom.11:32.
Only believers obtain mercy. Jn.3:36; Rom.14:23.
Only baptized believers obtain mercy. Mk.16:16.
Contextual error. Non-believers do not automatically obtain mercy, rather "For God has bound all men over to disobedience so that he may have mercy on them all." Modal verbs, for the win. Non-believers <can> obtain mercy.

Also, ritualistic baptism isn't what Christ, Mark or John were referring to. Baptism in the sense that it was used in that verse refers to spiritual rebirth/acceptance of Christ.


"Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again, he cannot see the kingdom of God."

Nicodemus said to Him, "How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother's womb and be born, can he?" Jesus answered, "Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. Do not be amazed that I said to you, "You must be born again.' (John 3:3-7)

Spiritual cleansing. The actual act of spiritual cleansing supersedes mere symbolic rituals.

The righteous have eternal life. Mt.25:46.
The righteous are barely saved. 1 Pet.4:18.
There are no righteous. Rom.3:10
The first two don't really contradict each other, and the latter is stating that no one is righteous before God. The righteous exist, but not in comparison to God.



Jesus said he would not cast aside any that come to him. Jn.6:37.
Jesus said that many that come to him will be cast aside. Mt.7:21-23.
The former verse refers to a person who is truly seeking salvation. The latter refers to those who sought to gain his favor only for personal gain.

You can't just Google "Bible contradictions" and be away with it. Contextual fallacies are the biggest pitfall in anti-Christian arguments. To refute the Bible beyond ideological disagreements, you actually have to <study> the Bible. Throw any contradiction at me; my body is ready.
 

Holder of the Heel

Fiat justitia, pereat mundus
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
8,850
Location
Alabama
NNID
Roarfang
3DS FC
1332-7720-7283
Switch FC
6734-2078-8990
Well played, however, if you read my last paragraph I mentioned that me referencing those little things was quite beside the point, and I wasn't particularly interested in putting them out. The fact of the matter is, it is less logical to put stock in Biblical history than the history we have in our textbooks, and that fact remains self-evident.
 

Dre89

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
6,158
Location
Australia
NNID
Dre4789
To refute the Bible beyond ideological disagreements, you actually have to <study> the Bible.
That's exactly the problem. To understand the Bible you can't just read it, you have to study it, which makes it more illogical to believe it's the word of God.

Most of the beliefs Christians hold on the Bible are from external theology and aren't evident by simply reading the Bible.

For example take how God commits genocide in the OT, and tells people to stone their siblings to death if they try to seduce them away to other Gods, or to bash babies' heads against rocks. Then look at how the NT God says killing is wrong in the Ten Commandments.

There are three possibilities here.

1. It's to be taken literally, and is therefore contradictory.
2. The OT is not to be taken literally.
3. The OT is to be taken literally, but OT NT law theory is true.

Now the Christian believes either 2 or 3, but the Bible doesn't actually suggest 2 or 3. These ideas came from external theology. When the neutral reads the Bible, they believe 1 because without education in external theology 1 is the most reasonable belief for the neutral.

Interpretations of the Bible are so unself-evident now that you basically learn more about the Bible by reading external theologies than from reading the Bible itself. That makes it much more unlikely to be the word of God.

In the end, external theology can always be bent to accommodate problems in the Bible, because theology is simply belief in the logically conceivable, without having to show why it is the most reasonable belief. By definition it isn't rational to believe.
 

Dre89

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
6,158
Location
Australia
NNID
Dre4789


So many walls of text, I just don't understand why people even bother.
I've never understood the point of these posts.

They don't contribute anything to the discussion, and it's not as if people will stop the discussion lsimply because someone doesn't think people should bother with it.

Also, discussions like this one have influenced western civilisation far more than you'll ever realise.
 

GwJ

Smash Hero
Joined
Nov 1, 2008
Messages
5,833
Location
Pennsylvania
NNID
Baghul
I believe the main point of his post was the latter portion of "I just don't understand why people even bother."

He's implying there's no point debating this stuff to this extent.
 

Holder of the Heel

Fiat justitia, pereat mundus
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
8,850
Location
Alabama
NNID
Roarfang
3DS FC
1332-7720-7283
Switch FC
6734-2078-8990
He also was attempting to be funny. This topic is actually worth discussing quite heavily.
 

Orboknown

Smash Hero
Joined
Aug 3, 2011
Messages
5,097
Location
SatShelter
That's exactly the problem. To understand the Bible you can't just read it, you have to study it, which makes it more illogical to believe it's the word of God.

Most of the beliefs Christians hold on the Bible are from external theology and aren't evident by simply reading the Bible.
true.
For example take how God commits genocide in the OT, and tells people to stone their siblings to death if they try to seduce them away to other Gods, or to bash babies' heads against rocks. Then look at how the NT God says killing is wrong in the Ten Commandments.
But the Ten Commandments are in the Old Testament. And who says God has the same moral standards as us? Man may be made "in Gods own image" but that does not mean we have the same standards as he does. And it is stated several times in the Old Testament that "He is a jealous God,"
There are three possibilities here.

1. It's to be taken literally, and is therefore contradictory.
2. The OT is not to be taken literally.
3. The OT is to be taken literally, but OT NT law theory is true.

Now the Christian believes either 2 or 3, but the Bible doesn't actually suggest 2 or 3. These ideas came from external theology. When the neutral reads the Bible, they believe 1 because without education in external theology 1 is the most reasonable belief for the neutral.
Christians believe the New Testament supercedes the old one. I dont know that that changes your line of thinking, but it seems like you gorgot/didnt remember that in your line of thinking above.
 

Dre89

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
6,158
Location
Australia
NNID
Dre4789
Gw- Uh yeah, that's what I was talking about, and it was still totally pointless.

Besides, generally the ones who say things like that aren't educated in the topic.


true.
But the Ten Commandments are in the Old Testament. And who says God has the same moral standards as us? Man may be made "in Gods own image" but that does not mean we have the same standards as he does. And it is stated several times in the Old Testament that "He is a jealous God,"

The Bible says he is a good, loving, merciful, personal and just God. These are all traits humans associate with virtue, so clearly they're trying to say he is good by human standards.

It makes no sense to say those things, knowing what humans consider to be good, and then say he can have a completely different morality, because it defeats the purpose of calling him good in the first place.


The only reason why Christians have had to say that he has a different morality is because he does things like commit genocide, which are clearly immoral by human standards. It's basically a cover up. If he didn't do those things, no Christian would be saying he has a different morality to us.

And even if he has a different morality to us, nowhere in the Bible is that conveyed. In fact, we're made to believe he has the same morality as us, because he's supposed to good, loving, personal, merciful and just.

So when a neutral reads it, they think it's contradictory, because nothing in the Bible suggests he has a different morality.


Christians believe the New Testament supercedes the old one. I dont know that that changes your line of thinking, but it seems like you gorgot/didnt remember that in your line of thinking above.
I know this argument. It's just another attempt at avoiding all the problems in the Bible. It's also not very evident in the Bible either.

Most Christian beliefs on the Bible are logically possible, but there is absolutely no reason that they are more rational than other scenarios.

For them to be rational, you would have to show that the other scenarios are irrational.

For example, how is it unreasonable to believe that the Bible says God has human-like morality, when he's said to have all those virtuous qualities I listed above, that we're made in his image, his son had perfect human morality, and that there is no mention of him having a different morality?


Yet of all these things, the last one is what Christians believe, despite completely conflicting with everything else in the Bible.
 

Diddy Kong

Smash Obsessed
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
25,987
Switch FC
SW-1597-979602774
Humans can only experience a little part of God's vision, it's a reason why we need each other to survive basically. I was born a Athiest, but am not anymore. Though I rarely mention people that I believe.

God is jealous in a sence that he doesn't want you to praise anything but him basically.

Personally, I say the Old Testament is the most reliable.
But, I should read up more. Am no Christian, but I do read the King James, or I used to...


:phone:
 

MuraRengan

Banned via Warnings
Joined
Mar 22, 2007
Messages
1,510
Location
New Orleans
Gw- Uh yeah, that's what I was talking about, and it was still totally pointless.

Besides, generally the ones who say things like that aren't educated in the topic.





The Bible says he is a good, loving, merciful, personal and just God. These are all traits humans associate with virtue, so clearly they're trying to say he is good by human standards.

It makes no sense to say those things, knowing what humans consider to be good, and then say he can have a completely different morality, because it defeats the purpose of calling him good in the first place.


The only reason why Christians have had to say that he has a different morality is because he does things like commit genocide, which are clearly immoral by human standards. It's basically a cover up. If he didn't do those things, no Christian would be saying he has a different morality to us.

And even if he has a different morality to us, nowhere in the Bible is that conveyed. In fact, we're made to believe he has the same morality as us, because he's supposed to good, loving, personal, merciful and just.

So when a neutral reads it, they think it's contradictory, because nothing in the Bible suggests he has a different morality.




I know this argument. It's just another attempt at avoiding all the problems in the Bible. It's also not very evident in the Bible either.

Most Christian beliefs on the Bible are logically possible, but there is absolutely no reason that they are more rational than other scenarios.

For them to be rational, you would have to show that the other scenarios are irrational.

For example, how is it unreasonable to believe that the Bible says God has human-like morality, when he's said to have all those virtuous qualities I listed above, that we're made in his image, his son had perfect human morality, and that there is no mention of him having a different morality?


Yet of all these things, the last one is what Christians believe, despite completely conflicting with everything else in the Bible.
I wouldn't argue against this point. Your circumstantial inferences are convincing, and effectively true. It's not enough contention for me to totally neglect the intriguing aspects of the Bible, but it is still a valid point.

I struggled with this idea for awhile, and inevitably I ended with the same conclusion as you did. However, I don't take that as reason to not believe in God, because it's certainly not proof that doesn't God exist. Rather, it is evidence that the ancient Judeo-Christian understanding of God is flawed, that the people that wrote these books either didn't fully understand what they were talking about, had poor word choice, were unsatisfactorily translated into English, or were just full of ****. Considering cultural differences, and levels of intellect thousands of years ago, simple inaccuracy seems plausible. I take it as reason to believe that I do not understand God. Though I think I've stated before that I don't necessarily attach qualities to the kind of "God" I believe in because those qualities would be hard to grasp anyway.

So then, what is your conclusion? Do you think the Bible is completely unreliable because of this? I would definitely understand if you did.

I, on the other hand, am still answering that question myself. I can't decide whether or not the the history in the New Testament is reliable enough for me to trust the mess that the Old Testament is. Though, (to answer a point that was brought up earlier) Jesus did make it pretty clear that the New Testament law supersedes the Old Testament law*, the Church still refers to the Old Testament for a lot of homilies, whether its for tradition or for moral value, I don't know.

*
Jesus verbally establishes the new covenant at the Last Supper.

This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Matthew 26:28

The New Covenant was predicted by prophets in the Old Testament.

¹Behold, days are coming when I will seal a new covenant with the House of Israel and with the House of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them," declares the Lord. "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the Lord. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the Lord. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."

Apostles vocalize that the new covenant changes the old law.

For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law.
Hebrews 7:12
 

Diddy Kong

Smash Obsessed
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
25,987
Switch FC
SW-1597-979602774
King of Kings, Lord of Lords, Conquering Lion of the Tribe of Judah.

:phone:
 

Dre89

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
6,158
Location
Australia
NNID
Dre4789
Diddy- The 'you can't see all of God's vision' is a classical logical fallacy.

Your reason for believing God's vision is beyond is because we can't see it, or it isn't noticeable to us. Yet that's the exact same reason why a neutral person has no reason to believe there actually is a God with this vision at all.

Christianss have to resort to saying that the vision is beyond us, or when evil occurs that there is a purpose that humans can't understand, or when God commits genocide that God has a morality humans can't comprehend. They have to do this because what they're claiming completely conflicts with reality.

There is nothing that suggests these beliefs are more reasonable than the other scenarios, or that the alternate beliefs are unreasonable.


I wouldn't argue against this point. Your circumstantial inferences are convincing, and effectively true. It's not enough contention for me to totally neglect the intriguing aspects of the Bible, but it is still a valid point.

I struggled with this idea for awhile, and inevitably I ended with the same conclusion as you did. However, I don't take that as reason to not believe in God, because it's certainly not proof that doesn't God exist. Rather, it is evidence that the ancient Judeo-Christian understanding of God is flawed, that the people that wrote these books either didn't fully understand what they were talking about, had poor word choice, were unsatisfactorily translated into English, or were just full of ****. Considering cultural differences, and levels of intellect thousands of years ago, simple inaccuracy seems plausible. I take it as reason to believe that I do not understand God. Though I think I've stated before that I don't necessarily attach qualities to the kind of "God" I believe in because those qualities would be hard to grasp anyway.

So then, what is your conclusion? Do you think the Bible is completely unreliable because of this? I would definitely understand if you did.

I, on the other hand, am still answering that question myself. I can't decide whether or not the the history in the New Testament is reliable enough for me to trust the mess that the Old Testament is. Though, (to answer a point that was brought up earlier) Jesus did make it pretty clear that the New Testament law supersedes the Old Testament law*, the Church still refers to the Old Testament for a lot of homilies, whether its for tradition or for moral value, I don't know.

*
Jesus verbally establishes the new covenant at the Last Supper.

This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins.
Matthew 26:28

The New Covenant was predicted by prophets in the Old Testament.

¹Behold, days are coming when I will seal a new covenant with the House of Israel and with the House of Judah. It will not be like the covenant I made with their forefathers when I took them by the hand to lead them out of Egypt, because they broke my covenant, though I was a husband to them," declares the Lord. "This is the covenant I will make with the house of Israel after that time," declares the Lord. "I will put my law in their minds and write it on their hearts. I will be their God, and they will be my people. No longer will a man teach his neighbor, or a man his brother, saying, 'Know the Lord,' because they will all know me, from the least of them to the greatest," declares the Lord. "For I will forgive their wickedness and will remember their sins no more."

Apostles vocalize that the new covenant changes the old law.

For when there is a change of the priesthood, there must also be a change of the law.
Hebrews 7:12
Believing in God and believing in religion are two different things. I'm a theist/deist but I don't believe in any religion.

I certainly don't think the Bible is reliable at what it's claiming to be, which is the word of God.

It's still certainly an interesting read, but I only value it from a historical perspective to analyse things like the culture of the time, or the evolution of religion etc.

Jesus says the NT fulfills the NT, but he doesn't mention why the Gods of the two testaments behave differently, or why the OT God did morally controversial acts. This is pretty important, because the son of God would know that these actions would be very controversial for any reader, yet he doesn't explain them at all.
 

Diddy Kong

Smash Obsessed
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
25,987
Switch FC
SW-1597-979602774
Well, my 2 cents: not everything can be explained with science, neither religion. But the two should really work together to create a better unity of all that was known with all we know now.

The Bible is in fact the word of God I think, but... corrupted over time, slightly. Sorry to say. But I disagree with Christians quite a lot to actually. The Bible is a... different book to read in general than every day to day book. It's not really meant to be a whole story all together I feel, more writtings of what happened, and how God created justice for the people. He did that on many different ways, which are mostly unexplainable, but understandable with aid of was is 'The Holy Spirit'.

Basically, it's a far more spiritual thing.
A clean heart, clear conscience and an open mind to me are more important than if you call God God or not. It's basically the Universe, God IS the Universe, and all it created. Some Athiests I think are on better terms with God than some Christians, it's kinda hard to explain... But the word God, and the Word of God themselves are just for that. Jews for example mostly say that praying comes from the heart. While Christians says it goes through Jesus Christ. I believe they mean the same thing. As all is One.
 

Dre89

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
6,158
Location
Australia
NNID
Dre4789
Diddy- You're basically a pantheist, which has its own philosophical problems.

And no offence, but there were just too many logical fallacies in what you said for me to bother addressing.

:phone:
 

Vermanubis

King of Evil
BRoomer
Joined
Jun 12, 2008
Messages
3,399
Location
La Grande, Oregon
NNID
Vermanubis
3DS FC
1564-2185-4386
The only reason why Christians have had to say that he has a different morality is because he does things like commit genocide, which are clearly immoral by human standards. It's basically a cover up. If he didn't do those things, no Christian would be saying he has a different morality to us.
I don't really know the context of most of this, so I can't comment on it, but I do wanna point out that God never committed Genocide. In the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham asked God if he would destroy the cities if he could find 50 righteous people; God said no. He kept sequentially reducing the numbers until he asked 1; God said no. Every instance of God's wrath in the OT was justified under the premise that those targeted had become so corrupted that they had ritualistically committed child sacrifices, immolation, and so forth.

Most Christian beliefs on the Bible are logically possible, but there is absolutely no reason that they are more rational than other scenarios.

For them to be rational, you would have to show that the other scenarios are irrational.
Not true. In fact, there is an astounding amount of scientific knowledge that can reduce the current status quo on cosmogenesis to irrational. A universe governed by entropy alone? If I recall, the probability of life emerging in a chaotic universe is somewhere around the 1/10^-128 chance and is increasing with entropy. And it also doesn't have to render the alternative irrational, it just has to be more probable.

Yet of all these things, the last one is what Christians believe, despite completely conflicting with everything else in the Bible.
Can't comment on this since I don't really know what's being talked about.

I struggled with this idea for awhile, and inevitably I ended with the same conclusion as you did. However, I don't take that as reason to not believe in God, because it's certainly not proof that doesn't God exist. Rather, it is evidence that the ancient Judeo-Christian understanding of God is flawed, that the people that wrote these books either didn't fully understand what they were talking about, had poor word choice, were unsatisfactorily translated into English, or were just full of ****. Considering cultural differences, and levels of intellect thousands of years ago, simple inaccuracy seems plausible.
In Peter 1:25, he says "'but the word of the Lord stands forever.' And this is the word that was preached to you."

While I can agree that some translation errors could occur to word a particular idea in a harsh way, it says throughout the Bible, OT and NT, that the Bible can't be changed in such a way that its meaning is profoundly altered.

Anywho, if I'm missing something, fill me in.
 

Dre89

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
6,158
Location
Australia
NNID
Dre4789
Verm, what you said about the OT God is false.

In Deut 13 6-16, he tells people to stone their siblings to death if they try to seduce you away to other Gods. There's also mention of things like bashing babies' heads on rocks and stuff like that.

As for the science, that's purely about the philosophical notion of God, which I personally believe in myself. It does nothing for proving theology, or even simply the theological properties Christians ascribe to God.

Also you've been admitted to the DH in case you weren't aware.

:phone:
 

Vermanubis

King of Evil
BRoomer
Joined
Jun 12, 2008
Messages
3,399
Location
La Grande, Oregon
NNID
Vermanubis
3DS FC
1564-2185-4386
Verm, what you said about the OT God is false.

In Deut 13 6-16, he tells people to stone their siblings to death if they try to seduce you away to other Gods. There's also mention of things like bashing babies' heads on rocks and stuff like that.
In each instance, the context is in that of God judging the wicked, such as the Amalekites who'd, like the Sodomites, stoop to a point of killing, ****** and sacrificing innocent children. In the instance of stoning someone who'd have you turn away from God, it's an example of not simply the sole act of turning away from God, but what it entailed in reference to the Amalekites and Sodomites.

The OT is definitely replete with some harsh realities, and I think everyone struggles with them at some point, but each passage can be explained without verbal gymnastics or vestigial argumentation. Each one has a very deep-rooted context, such as the alleged "genocide" of the Midianites, when in reality, there's about five pages of history behind the destruction of the Midianites. God never calls for the random killing of kids, women or people in general without some rational cause, such as the fate that would await someone who defected from God into a different tribe, such as the Midianites.

As for the science, that's purely about the philosophical notion of God, which I personally believe in myself. It does nothing for proving theology, or even simply the theological properties Christians ascribe to God.

Also you've been admitted to the DH in case you weren't aware.

:phone:
There's plenty of philosophical conjecture, sure, but there's also a lot of actual archaeological, historical, anthropological and general scientific evidence to support the validity of Christian Scripture, which other religious texts don't have.

http://godandscience.org/apologetics/authenticity.html - Archaeology, historicity, etc.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibletru.html - Biblical prophecy (whose portents can be confirmed in the NT, and the NT's historicity confirmed via the link above)

http://godandscience.org/evolution/index.html

http://godandscience.org/apologetics/creation.html

Don't worry, it's old-earth Creationism, so to someone who may be a Darwinist, it's far more bearable than young-earth (i.e. the earth is only 5,000 years old, Satan is just tricking us, etc.)

Oh and yeah, I saw. Thanks, man. :p
 

Holder of the Heel

Fiat justitia, pereat mundus
Joined
Dec 3, 2011
Messages
8,850
Location
Alabama
NNID
Roarfang
3DS FC
1332-7720-7283
Switch FC
6734-2078-8990
Could it be possible? Everyone here has not yet heard anything of this, that God is dead!

Thus spoke Holder of the Heel.
 

Teran

Through Fire, Justice is Served
Super Moderator
Premium
BRoomer
Joined
Oct 23, 2008
Messages
37,165
Location
Beastector HQ
3DS FC
3540-0079-4988
Wow you guys still give a **** about this?

Well I suppose as long as there's no flaming I'm happy.
 
Joined
Oct 9, 2008
Messages
8,905
Location
Vinyl Scratch's Party Bungalo
NNID
Budget_Player
In each instance, the context is in that of God judging the wicked, such as the Amalekites who'd, like the Sodomites, stoop to a point of killing, ****** and sacrificing innocent children. In the instance of stoning someone who'd have you turn away from God, it's an example of not simply the sole act of turning away from God, but what it entailed in reference to the Amalekites and Sodomites.

The OT is definitely replete with some harsh realities, and I think everyone struggles with them at some point, but each passage can be explained without verbal gymnastics or vestigial argumentation. Each one has a very deep-rooted context, such as the alleged "genocide" of the Midianites, when in reality, there's about five pages of history behind the destruction of the Midianites. God never calls for the random killing of kids, women or people in general without some rational cause, such as the fate that would await someone who defected from God into a different tribe, such as the Midianites.
Yes, because the best way that a loving god can come up with to deal with such issues is, naturally, gratuitous mass murder. But I'm not particularly interested in the philosophy of the bible. I'm more interested in the facts...

There's plenty of philosophical conjecture, sure, but there's also a lot of actual archaeological, historical, anthropological and general scientific evidence to support the validity of Christian Scripture, which other religious texts don't have.
What? You mean like archaeological evidence of a worldwide, global flood (about 4000-6000 years ago)? Or evidence that the earth is only a few Millenia old?

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibletru.html - Biblical prophecy (whose portents can be confirmed in the NT, and the NT's historicity confirmed via the link above)[/quote]

Call me crazy, but isn't "It's written in the old testament then confirmed in the new testament" kind of a weak justification for passing off the book as fact? That's less "prophetic insight" and more "the sequel ends the plot cliffhangers from the first book".

...And I'm done looking at that site, as it's apparently not worth the hard disk that it's stored on. "Evidence of design"? "Does the second law of thermodynamics prove god"? "Earth is the only planet to support life"... Ugh, it's like a laundry list of lousy apologetics.

The fact is, biblical scripture has a big, fat problem if it wants to claim legitimacy: the old testament. Essentially all of genesis (the creation account, the age of the earth calculated by generations, the biblical flood, the age of Adam, realistically the age of Abraham), large, important parts of exodus (the keeping of essentially the entire Hebrew race as slaves), and several other claims made therein range in terms of veracity from "Proven wrong" to "Incredibly unlikely, though not yet shown to be false". You have to "reinterpret" (read: "pretend it means something totally different to cover your ***") it in order to even begin to make sense of it in context of reality.
 

Diddy Kong

Smash Obsessed
Joined
Dec 8, 2004
Messages
25,987
Switch FC
SW-1597-979602774
One of my favorite quotes is: If you wanna keep on a friendly base with everyone, never discuss religion, or politics.

Just felt like sharing.

I'm no pantheist btw.

:phone:
 

Vermanubis

King of Evil
BRoomer
Joined
Jun 12, 2008
Messages
3,399
Location
La Grande, Oregon
NNID
Vermanubis
3DS FC
1564-2185-4386
Yes, because the best way that a loving god can come up with to deal with such issues is, naturally, gratuitous mass murder. But I'm not particularly interested in the philosophy of the bible. I'm more interested in the facts...
You need to read what I said. God has never once committed or asked an act that wasn't justified by extreme wickedness. Say a family's home is infested. The family are good people who don't enjoy killing anything, even insects. However, if the insects become pestilential, alternative methods are no longer viable. Same goes for, say, cancer. Once the malignancy metastasizes, the only recourse is chemical brutality (though, in this case, God never killed an innocent).

Again, the OT is replete with things that would unsettle any moral person if they selectively pick verses involving killing instead of considering the context of the scenario and the necessity of what the passage may say.

What? You mean like archaeological evidence of a worldwide, global flood (about 4000-6000 years ago)? Or evidence that the earth is only a few Millenia old?
Cadet, you can't possible be serious. This is a stereotype parallel in absurdity with Muslim martyrdom.

http://godandscience.org/apologetics/localflood.html

The Biblical flood was not at all geographically worldwide. That article hermeneutically demonstrates that the flood was entirely possible.

Call me crazy, but isn't "It's written in the old testament then confirmed in the new testament" kind of a weak justification for passing off the book as fact? That's less "prophetic insight" and more "the sequel ends the plot cliffhangers from the first book".
Read some of the prophecies. As the article itself concedes, some prophecies are vague enough to come to eventual passing, but others are far too specific. By validating the historicity and chronology of the Bible with the other provided link, it's evident that one couldn't cheat by interpolating fulfilled portents in the OT.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/bibleorg.html - Link demonstrating the validity of Biblical manuscripts.



...And I'm done looking at that site, as it's apparently not worth the hard disk that it's stored on. "Evidence of design"? "Does the second law of thermodynamics prove god"? "Earth is the only planet to support life"... Ugh, it's like a laundry list of lousy apologetics.
While the indignation is certainly welcome, I think it's subtracting from your ability to properly argue. Care to argue against what those articles have to say? If you're going to convincingly defend your position, you have to actually read these articles and rebuke them. If you just dismiss them as so absurd that examination and rebuttal is beneath you, then you're not better than you seem to think they are.

The fact is, biblical scripture has a big, fat problem if it wants to claim legitimacy: the old testament. Essentially all of genesis (the creation account, the age of the earth calculated by generations, the biblical flood, the age of Adam, realistically the age of Abraham), large, important parts of exodus (the keeping of essentially the entire Hebrew race as slaves), and several other claims made therein range in terms of veracity from "Proven wrong" to "Incredibly unlikely, though not yet shown to be false". You have to "reinterpret" (read: "pretend it means something totally different to cover your ***") it in order to even begin to make sense of it in context of reality.
http://godandscience.org/youngearth/dayagedefense.html#Genealogies

The genealogical discrepancies are easily explained. Just because a person has to closely examine Scripture to understand something doesn't mean it's a hermeneutical obstacle course. Were Scripture unabashedly plain, well, there wouldn't be much point to that whole choice thing that Christianity is predicated upon. It's not simply laid out, but it's not impossibly convoluted by any means, either.

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/thera.html

A brief explanation on how the Exodus can be backed up, and a bunch of related links below that explain the accuracy of their dating and chronology.

Again, if you're going to quash these absurd notions of mine, you have to be ready to defend from every angle, just as I do.
 

Dre89

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
6,158
Location
Australia
NNID
Dre4789
Verm- But if OT God's actions were completely justified, why doesn't NT God do the same? Why does Jesus fulfilling the OT make God act differently if what he was doing originally was justified?

Scripture being plain wouldn't remove choice from belief, because there would still be a million logical fallacies attached to belief in religion, it's just that what the religion says would be much clearer.

Besides, if you're a Protestant, choice is irrelevant because God only cares about faith, not good deeds. The whole idea originally behind God giving people free will was that it made it a good deed to choose him, because deeds are valued.

But under Prot theology, saying as deeds don't matter, and only faith does, God didn't need to give us free will. It would have been of no consequence to force everyone to believe in him, seeing as the good deed of choice to believe isn't important.

That's just one of the countless theological problems with Protestantism.

:phone:
 

Vermanubis

King of Evil
BRoomer
Joined
Jun 12, 2008
Messages
3,399
Location
La Grande, Oregon
NNID
Vermanubis
3DS FC
1564-2185-4386
Verm- But if OT God's actions were completely justified, why doesn't NT God do the same? Why does Jesus fulfilling the OT make God act differently if what he was doing originally was justified?
Because they were no longer necessary. In the context of those times, pervasive debauchery was far likelier to happen, and once it became too great, it had to be purged. By the time of Christ's arrival, such measures were no longer necessary because the Biblical "world" in which these events transpired was no longer an assortment of tribes.

Scripture being plain wouldn't remove choice from belief, because there would still be a million logical fallacies attached to belief in religion, it's just that what the religion says would be much clearer.
You're picking at a point besides the one I made. The point isn't about how many alleged fallacies are present in the Bible, rather, that if something were so plain, faith, which Christianity is predicated on, wouldn't be an issue and people would not have to seek God, so much as being swayed by a single read of the Bible.

Besides, if you're a Protestant, choice is irrelevant because God only cares about faith, not good deeds. The whole idea originally behind God giving people free will was that it made it a good deed to choose him, because deeds are valued.
Dre, you can't tell me you've studied Christianity in earnest if you believe that it says good deeds don't matter. When it comes to salvation, only faith can grant you salvation, but good works are explicitly smiled upon and taken into consideration, e.g.

"...so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." - Matthew 6:4

To accept Christ is the first step, but everything beyond that step is taken into account.

But under Prot theology, saying as deeds don't matter, and only faith does, God didn't need to give us free will. It would have been of no consequence to force everyone to believe in him, seeing as the good deed of choice to believe isn't important.
See above.

That's just one of the countless theological problems with Protestantism.
Each one so far is borne of misinformation, or general misunderstanding of the text, and when I say "misunderstanding" I don't mean a misunderstanding that can only be reconciled by verbal gymnastics and semantics. I mean very plainly misunderstood, such as good works not mattering whatsoever. Ultimately, accepting Christ isn't <just> accepting Christ; you're undermining the acceptance of Christ and belief in God. Accepting Christ means to uphold God's law. To have faith in God's law means an obedience to it. So yes, in this context, faith is all that matters, because faith is synonymous with doing good deeds in the name of God. Having faith alone doesn't get you into Paradise, but faith necessarily entails an upholding of God's law. If you do not do good deeds, but believe in God, then you're blatantly defying Him, and thus do not truly accept Him or Christ. (which is another distinction I want to make for future reference; humans aren't promised heaven; we're promised Paradise.)
 

Dre89

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
6,158
Location
Australia
NNID
Dre4789
Because they were no longer necessary. In the context of those times, pervasive debauchery was far likelier to happen, and once it became too great, it had to be purged. By the time of Christ's arrival, such measures were no longer necessary because the Biblical "world" in which these events transpired was no longer an assortment of tribes.


The amount of evil that goes on in the world today greatly exceeds that of those times, due to to advances in population numbers, and the assets of governments.

Our two governments (I'm Australian) alone have killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians in just the past couple of years.

That alone probably almost exceeds the evil going on in the time of the Bible.

You're picking at a point besides the one I made. The point isn't about how many alleged fallacies are present in the Bible, rather, that if something were so plain, faith, which Christianity is predicated on, wouldn't be an issue and people would not have to seek God, so much as being swayed by a single read of the Bible.

But we weren't talking about how evident the truth of Christianity is, we were talking specifically about the clarity of the Bible. So when you said that if it were plain there'd be no choice, you were (perhaps unintentionally) saying that if the Bible were clear there'd be no choice. I'm saying that's wrong because belief in it would still entail logical fallacies.

Dre, you can't tell me you've studied Christianity in earnest if you believe that it says good deeds don't matter. When it comes to salvation, only faith can grant you salvation, but good works are explicitly smiled upon and taken into consideration, e.g.

"...so that your giving may be in secret. Then your Father, who sees what is done in secret, will reward you." - Matthew 6:4

To accept Christ is the first step, but everything beyond that step is taken into account.



See above.

Each one so far is borne of misinformation, or general misunderstanding of the text, and when I say "misunderstanding" I don't mean a misunderstanding that can only be reconciled by verbal gymnastics and semantics. I mean very plainly misunderstood, such as good works not mattering whatsoever. Ultimately, accepting Christ isn't <just> accepting Christ; you're undermining the acceptance of Christ and belief in God. Accepting Christ means to uphold God's law. To have faith in God's law means an obedience to it. So yes, in this context, faith is all that matters, because faith is synonymous with doing good deeds in the name of God. Having faith alone doesn't get you into Paradise, but faith necessarily entails an upholding of God's law. If you do not do good deeds, but believe in God, then you're blatantly defying Him, and thus do not truly accept Him or Christ. (which is another distinction I want to make for future reference; humans are promised heaven; we're promised Paradise.)
Exactly, only faith is required for salvation. This is where Protestantism becomes twisted.



Despite what you're trying to say, deeds wouldn't be necessary, if they were there'd be no divide on this issue between Caths and Prots. In fact it's the opposite. Doing good deeds actually requires a person to have less faith, because they know God is more likely to favour those who not only have faith, but do good deeds.

If someone lives a life of sin, and still trusts that God will save him, then that is actually a greater act of faith because he is less likely to be saved.

If someone tells their girlfriend that he was unfaithful to her on several occassions, it requires a lot more faith to believe she will stay with him, than if he did good things for her like buy her a rose, or agree to not play Fifa while he is on the phone with her.
 

Vermanubis

King of Evil
BRoomer
Joined
Jun 12, 2008
Messages
3,399
Location
La Grande, Oregon
NNID
Vermanubis
3DS FC
1564-2185-4386
The amount of evil that goes on in the world today greatly exceeds that of those times, due to to advances in population numbers, and the assets of governments.

Our two governments (I'm Australian) alone have killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqi civilians in just the past couple of years.

That alone probably almost exceeds the evil going on in the time of the Bible.
It's a question of density, rather than relative quantity. That's what I mean by the eventual dissolution of tribal life being a major factor. God never unleashes wrath on the innocent, and the only reason He did in the OT was because places like Sodom and Amalek had become wholly corrupted to a point beyond reckoning.



But we weren't talking about how evident the truth of Christianity is, we were talking specifically about the clarity of the Bible. So when you said that if it were plain there'd be no choice, you were (perhaps unintentionally) saying that if the Bible were clear there'd be no choice. I'm saying that's wrong because belief in it would still entail logical fallacies.
What fallacies?



Exactly, only faith is required for salvation. This is where Protestantism becomes twisted.
You're saying "faith" in the traditional sense of the word. Faith, as the Bible outlines it, is the obedience to God and His Law; not just faith that God exists. If you do not uphold God's law, then you do not have faith. Faith and good deeds mutually entail each other in the eyes of God.



Despite what you're trying to say, deeds wouldn't be necessary, if they were there'd be no divide on this issue between Caths and Prots. In fact it's the opposite. Doing good deeds actually requires a person to have less faith, because they know God is more likely to favour those who not only have faith, but do good deeds.
That's circular reasoning to say that an Ecclesiastical schism is the premise for the truth or falsehood of a claim. The schism between Catholics and Protestants goes far, far beyond that alone, and their fundamental disagreements doesn't definitively indicate the truth of my claim. Not too sure where you're going with the last part. Regardless of whether that's true or not, it doesn't subtract from the point that deeds are necessary, as faith necessarily entails deeds. You're making an unnecessary distinction between the two.


If someone lives a life of sin, and still trusts that God will save him, then that is actually a greater act of faith because he is less likely to be saved.
That's not the kind of faith Christ or God spoke of. If a person willfully leads a life of sin in spite of knowing God's law, then his faith is vacuous and without meaning, as it's not, by definition, the faith which is spoken of in the Bible. Many confuse what is meant by faith. If you truly have a faith in Christ, then it is necessity that you uphold God's Law. If one leads a life of intentional sin, then his alleged faith void.
 

Dre89

Smash Hero
Joined
Oct 29, 2009
Messages
6,158
Location
Australia
NNID
Dre4789
The question of density rather than relative quantity is completely arbitrary and doesn't excuse the Christian God from immoral practice. The only way you can excuse him is if you the play the 'who are you to judge God?' or 'you can't know God's morality' cards. Both of which are fallacies in this context.

Also, God does kill innocent people. He kills innocent first borns in Egypt. There is also mention of bashing babies' heads on rocks.

There are more ambiguous cases of innocence too. For example the soldiers he killed at at the Red Sea could be considered innocent because they were just following orders.

The children of the sinners killed by the flood in the Noah's Arc story.

The people who he said to stone to death if they try to seduce you away to other Gods could be innocent in that they may have no ill-intention. They could be genuinely seeking truth. Ironically, the Christian justification for faith would allow then to believe in these Gods that are worthy of the death penalty.

Even if these people aren't innocent, the first borns and babies most certainly were.

The fallacies were the ones I mentioned before, like believing in something conceivable without showing why it's the most reasonable belief. Things like epistemic circularity in appealing to theology to justify theology as an authority etc.

I never said faith vs deeds was the only divide, but there is a divide there.

Also, with the intentional sinner it's different if he says 'maybe God exists/ I know God exists, but I don't care I'm going to live a life of sin anyway'. The man I'm talking about says 'God, I know you exist, and my faith is so strong in you that I trust that you will save me, no matter what deeds I do'.
 
Top Bottom