View Full Version : Biblical errors
Some time ago a huge list of biblical contradictions was posted. None of these were ever disputed. KalvinB complained of some difficulty with the size of the piece. Well this one is short. I only hope that its brevity pleases KalvinB.
"The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father..." -- Ezekiel 18:20
"I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation..." -- Exodus 20:5
So what can you offer to shed light on these two statements, both from your book and in obvious opposition? The language is similar but the concepts are diametrically opposed.
KalvinB
12-28-01, 02:44 AM
As long as the children keep doing what the fathers did, yes God will keep punishing them to n generations.
Ben
Teg,
I am not sure about these two but do you really want to discuss this topic??? I do have some info but I don't want any one to be offended by what I post here.
KalvinB
12-28-01, 05:06 PM
If you have an answer, post it. If it's offensive because it's stupid and baseless then maybe you should keep it to your self. If it's offensive because it is the truth then post it.
If someone is offended by the truth, then it's not the truth that needs to change.
And, yes, you will have to defend whatever it is you post.
Ben
Post it Markx. Really. I'd like to hear smth other thn standart aswers I have heard on this religion forum lately.
*Originally posted by Teg
So what can you offer to shed light on these two statements, both from your book and in obvious opposition? The language is similar but the concepts are diametrically opposed. *
"visit" does not mean "bear."
You have again split a minute hair. You should be careful not to split an atom someday.
"The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father..." -- Ezekiel 18:20
Meaning: Children will not be responsible for the actions of their parents.
"I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation..." -- Exodus 20:5
Meaning: I your God will place guilt for the actions of the fathers into the 3rd and 4th generation.
Visit and bear are not so different when viewed in light of the use of "unto". This definately makes a distinction between an act and a more passive gesture.
*Originally posted by Teg
You have again split a minute hair. You should be careful not to split an atom someday.*
It merely looks minute.
In fact, it is quite large.
"The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father..." -- Ezekiel 18:20
Meaning: Children will not be punished for the actions of their parents.
"I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation..." -- Exodus 20:5
Meaning: I your God will curse up to the 3rd and 4th generations for the actions of the fathers.
"visit" and "bear" really do mean very different things.
What is the point of arguing the definitions of visit and bear? The original point you made, Tony1, in your initial response to the topic actually has nothing to do with anything. And here's why:
* The sons shall not bear ....
* The Lord shall not visit ....
The point of bear and visit having different meanings is only relevant as presented if the subject of each sentence is the same.
You see, Tony1, the only point you've made is that the words mean different things. This actually has absolutely nothing to do with the topic, and I wonder why you've wasted the space of two posts intentionally missing the point? Could you please comment on the contradiction posed by these two Biblical statements? Unfortunately, the other Christian response in this topic does no better than your own; I find it interesting that he had to change the terms of the Bible before positing an answer that does not address the issue.
The question at hand is what the Lord will do vs. what the Lord will not do. I don't see what's so hard about that, since the Lord says that he does what he says he will not do.
It has nothing to do with the fact that visit and bear have different meanings; would you like to comment, Tony1, on why this aspect is significant? After all, you did bring it up.
thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
*Originally posted by tiassa
* The [i]sons[/] shall not [i]bear[/] ....
* The [i]Lord[/] shall not [i]visit[/] ....
The point of [i]bear[/] and [i]visit[/] having different meanings is only relevant as presented if the subject of each sentence is the same.*
That's great, tiassa.
You've highlighted another reason why the two verses aren't contradictory.
Thus, the Lord will do what he says he will.
Thanks.
James R
12-29-01, 11:00 PM
tony1,
You are an incredibly muddy thinker. Still, I guess you need that in order to be able to hold so many mutually contradictory ideas in your head at once and to believe them all.
Tony1,
I am going to post and I will post every thing from Bible, I will not post personal ideas. But I am on limited time here. I don't have luxury of Inernet at work. So wait for a day and we will continue. :p :p :o :o
... that the sons, who are not supposed to bear the iniquity of the fathers do not do so until the Lord visits that iniquity unto them?
That is the foundation of the contradiction, that the Lord says that the son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, yet the Lord also visits that iniquity of the fathers unto the sons.
The issue you have chosen with the definitions of visit and bear has nothing to do with the topic, and when you write Thus, the Lord will do what he says he will, you are incorrect. The Biblical evidence presented in the topic post demonstrates that you are incorrect.
Simply: the two verses describe contradictory states. How and why is this?
thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
JesusSaves
12-30-01, 08:59 PM
out of the NIV version of the bible (look it up if you wish) the verses read:
Ezekiel 18:20-the soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the quilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The rightousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him
exodus 20:5-You shall not bow down to them or worshp them (idols) for I, the Lord your God, and a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the thrid and fourth generation fof those who hate me.
Have you ever been punished for something you didn't do? Did you feel guilty for it?? That is the difference in these verses. Just because the children are being punished doesn't mean they feel guilty for the sin they didn't commit.
As for why God would punish the next generations, it doesn't say what the punishmenats are. May they are just the feeling of the effects of the fathers stupidity. For example:
The father worships an idol, God gets mad and punishes this father by destroying his property. Then the children get no inheritance and have to earn $ to buy new land. So generation after generation have to work hard just to gain back what the father lost.....not necessarily a punishment, just feeling the effects.
Just a thought:D
-JS
pragmathen
12-30-01, 09:28 PM
<b>JesusSaves</b>, hey there!
The father worships an idol, God gets mad and punishes this father by destroying his property. Then the children get no inheritance and have to earn $ to buy new land. So generation after generation have to work hard just to gain back what the father lost.....not necessarily a punishment, just feeling the effects.
According to this scripture, this is a good line of interpretation. Probably what tony1 was trying to convey before he lost track of his conscious thread. But this is an example of what happens when someone disobeys a jealous and vengeful God--the Christian God.
Here's an example of what would happen to that same father in a slightly different situation:
The father decides to absolve any ties to religion, relying on his own judgment about what to do in life. God, not being the Christian type to be jealous or vengeful, actually understands what the father is going through and respects his decision without ulterior motives to waylay him later on. Anyway, the father becomes aware of his shortcomings for believing that others are wrong based on their own respective belief system. So, he gradually becomes more open-minded, accepts others instead of denouncing them about their false beliefs, and tries to help the community instead of adding to the detriment thereof. His children eventually learn from the father's example and are free to decide which path they want to trod--the one with God or the one without.
The great thing is that God will reward both of these fathers in the end. The Christian God will reward the former father with great riches, numerous concubines, and a hankering for hate. The Other God will reward the latter father with a deeper understanding of life and its complexities, better relationships with others, and a greater openness with his own children.
Just a different take on the same subject.
Thanks!
prag
JesusSaves
12-30-01, 09:40 PM
God is not jealous and vengeful for no reason.....
He wants the people He created to worship Him alone, not idols, not wo/men, not money. If the way to get His people to listen is to make an exaple of the wrongdoers....hey, go for it God.
spunks239
12-30-01, 10:05 PM
Here's how I view it, they are not contradictions:
"The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father..." -- Ezekiel 18:20
Meaning: The children will not be punished for the sins of their parents, after all it was not the children who committed the sin, but the parents, if the children choose not to.
"I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation..." -- Exodus 20:5
Meaning: The LORD is a jealous God, he does not want anyone worshipping any artificial kind of crap, he wants HIS people to worship him, the only and true God. Many people do not believe in God...instead someone or something else (which is artificial) and he does not approve of this, because he is the one who created us....
FOR EXAMPLE: Let's say we have a married couple named Fred and Betty....Neither of them believe in God...in fact they instead worship some golden calf (which happened in the Bible),....when in fact that worthless calf has no life or feelings towards them unlike God who does care about them so much and it makes him angry that they would worship anything like that...(If you can't imagine what I'm talking about...think about how it would be like you worshipping the AIR!)...yes crazy isn't it?.....well it just so happens they have a daughter named Sue, and since Fred and Betty are worshipping the golden calf, it would be hard for Sue not to worship it to, so she does (by choice AND INFLUENCE FROM HER PARENTS)....she has also made the stupid mistake by following her parent's "religion". Sue also gets married and she has a boy...., but this boy does not choose to worship the golden calf, and instead worship God...this boy will not be punished because he has chosen God.....but on the other hand, Fred, Betty, and their daughter Sue will be punished ( to HELL), because they did not choose God, Sue did not have much of a choice because of her parents great influence who brought her to the cattle every Saturday to worship it, and she became used to it. Luckily Sue's son choose the right path....and his children probably will too from his influence on them.
to summarize it: the first 2 generations were condemned for their disloyalty, but then the third generation and so forth was saved, because they chose the right path to go.
**ALSO**If anyone has any questions about this you can ask me I will be happy to help you understand it better....: e-mail: spunky2239@aol.com
*Originally posted by James R
tony1,
You are an incredibly muddy thinker. Still, I guess you need that in order to be able to hold so many mutually contradictory ideas in your head at once and to believe them all. *
I believe God.
I believe you are intelligent.
I see your point.
*Originally posted by tiassa
Simply: the two verses describe contradictory states. How and why is this? *
Not contradictory.
Why?, too much drug ingestion on your part?
The sons don't die for the fathers' sins, but since they have no one else to learn from, they learn their fathers' sins.
Short form: Like father, like son.
"worshipping the AIR"
AIR, I love AIR, I simply can't live without it. Ammmmmm, Ammmm,Ammmmmm;)
sin is a stupid concept meant for other ages.
people are not stupid you know
---worship only me and I thou nost, thee shall burn in lake of fire.---
It even sounds stupid and somehow dated[ maybe it sounded good 5000 years ago, but not now]. I have a freedom of choice and I choose in what I beleive. And if some christian fundie thinks he can scare me with internal flames, wellllll let his think so:)
It is truly stupid to beleive tht only christians shall be rewarded after death, or anyone will. Why that top priority. They are scared of unknown and thus think of a good hidding place, behing concept of one god, tht shall reward only them after the apocalypsis.
What about Hidu, Islam, Mormon, Buddhism, all those pagan beleifs.
You think tht you are better then they are. Check istory records. Everyone has its bad sides, but no religion has killed so many people as christtianity did and does now, only spiritually[second id Islam, a latter side branch of christianity very modified by Muhamed to fit his beleifs].
Take a look in what America is turnong into.
God save America. and new born christians and fundies everywhere, allowing you not to live.
[where did the rest of the world go?:)]
well it just so happens they have a daughter named Sue, and since Fred and Betty are worshipping the golden calf, it would be hard for Sue not to worship it to, so she does (by choice AND INFLUENCE FROM HER PARENTS)....she has also made the stupid mistake by following her parent's "religion". Sue also gets married and she has a boy...., but this boy does not choose to worship the golden calf, and instead worship God...this boy will not be punished because he has chosen God.....but on the other hand, Fred, Betty, and their daughter Sue will be punished ( to HELL), because they did not choose God, Sue did not have much of a choice because of her parents great influence who brought her to the cattle every Saturday to worship it, and she became used to it.You speak much of people's choices here, but nothing of the Lord's: the Lord chooses to visit the iniquity of the fathers onto the sons. Is it, then, God's will that the sons should choose the calf?
thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
The sons don't die for the fathers' sins, but since they have no one else to learn from, they learn their fathers' sins.
Short form: Like father, like son.So if I have you correctly:
* The sons shall not bear the iniquities of the fathers, except that they shall because the Lord shall visit those iniquities upon them.
Nonetheless--like father, like son is a result, and speaks nothing of the process.
You seem to be avoiding the contradiction that the Bible says two things which equal opposing states. Now, that one of them is reflected in allegory is, actually, aside. These things you have addressed are known and recognized issues, but they speak nothing of the fact that the Bible makes statements which equal contradictory states.
There is an academic exploration to be undertaken here, but I'm curious why you don't pursue it; a possible reconciliation which could be provided which you choose not to offer.
Tell you what: I'll do the reading again and post it for you, since you have chosen not to address it.
thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
Since I am no expert in religion but I do think that certian things are contradicting, errors or Confusion. I start with simple things, And would like to hear simple answers. If you guys can shed some light ( religious experts ) that would be great. Don't give me every day BS by telling it is one of the God's mystery. Thanks in advance.
Jesus' first sermon plain or mount?
Matt.5:1,2: "And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him: And
he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying...."
Luke6:17,20: "And he came down with them, and stood in the plain, and the company of his disciples, and a great
multitude of people...came to hear him.. And he lifted up his eyes on his disciples and said..."
Now which one to believe in?. Aren't they talking about same moment??? Or they are different. Help me out thanks.
Another thing that confuses me is here,
The GENEALOGY OF JESUS?
In two places in the New Testament the genealogy of Jesus son of Mary is mentioned.
Matthew 1:6-16 and Luke
3:23-31. Each gives the ancestors of Joseph the CLAIMED husband of Mary and Step father of Jesus. The first
one starts from Abraham(verse 2) all the way down to Jesus. The second one from Jesus all the way back to Adam. The
only common name to these two lists between David and Jesus is JOSEPH.
How can this be true? and also How can
Jesus have a genealogy when all Muslims and most Christians believe that Jesus had/has no father.
Thanks in advance.
*Originally posted by Avatar
people are not stupid you know*
Somebody has to be, and that somebody is people.
*I have a freedom of choice and I choose in what I beleive.*
God says that.
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both you and your seed may live:
(Deuteronomy 30:19, KJV).
* And if some christian fundie thinks he can scare me with internal flames, wellllll let his think so*
Internal flames?
Is that like heartburn?
*It is truly stupid to beleive tht only christians shall be rewarded after death, or anyone will. Why that top priority. They are scared of unknown and thus think of a good hidding place, behing concept of one god, tht shall reward only them after the apocalypsis.*
It may be stupid but it works for me, except for the "reward after the apocalypse."
The reward is NOW, and then.
Wealth and riches shall be in his house: and his righteousness endures for ever.
(Psalms 112:3, KJV).
*What about Hidu, Islam, Mormon, Buddhism, all those pagan beleifs.*
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Wrong.
Does that answer your question?
*You think tht you are better then they are.*
No, just right.
*Take a look in what America is turnong into.
God save America. and new born christians and fundies everywhere, allowing you not to live.
[where did the rest of the world go?*
I don't know, is it gone?
Besides, anyone at all will allow you not to live.
Hindus will allow you not to live.
Muslims will allow you not to live.
Buddhists will allow you not to live.
Pagans will allow you not to live.
It's a free world if you want to not live.
*Originally posted by tiassa
Tell you what: I'll do the reading again and post it for you, since you have chosen not to address it.*
Thanks, tiassa.
*Originally posted by Markx
Aren't they talking about same moment?*
Jesus spoke more than once.
Luke event is immediately after choosing his disciples, whereas Matt. event is after choosing his disciples AND going thru Galilee and Syria and THEN going up the mountain.
Besides, the Luke event is closer to the Mediterranean since people were there from Tyre and Sidon which are seaports.
The Matt. event is farther from the sea since people from Jordan and beyond are mentioned as being there.
*The GENEALOGY OF JESUS?
How can this be true?*
Who said it was supposed to be true?
In fact, who said both genealogies were supposed to be true?
One genealogy is presented as a SUPPOSITION....
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
(Luke 3:23, KJV).
So what is the problem if people thought that and thought wrong?
Many people in this forum think wrong and think nothing of it.
*How can
Jesus have a genealogy when all Muslims and most Christians believe that Jesus had/has no father.*
I don't know of anyone yet that has figured that Jesus had no father.
That is definitely a new one.
Originally posted by tony1
*[i]Originally posted by Avatar
*Originally posted by Markx
Aren't they talking about same moment?*
Jesus spoke more than once.
Luke event is immediately after choosing his disciples, whereas Matt. event is after choosing his disciples AND going thru Galilee and Syria and THEN going up the mountain.
Besides, the Luke event is closer to the Mediterranean since people were there from Tyre and Sidon which are seaports.
The Matt. event is farther from the sea since people from Jordan and beyond are mentioned as being there.
*The GENEALOGY OF JESUS?
How can this be true?*
Who said it was supposed to be true?
In fact, who said both genealogies were supposed to be true?
One genealogy is presented as a SUPPOSITION....
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
(Luke 3:23, KJV).
So what is the problem if people thought that and thought wrong?
Many people in this forum think wrong and think nothing of it.
*How can
Jesus have a genealogy when all Muslims and most Christians believe that Jesus had/has no father.*
I don't know of anyone yet that has figured that Jesus had no father.
That is definitely a new one.
So what you are saing here is that those geneologies are not true??? But they are still in Bible?? Word of God?
"One genealogy is presented as a SUPPOSITION" Preseneted by a man. Correct?. Supposition in God's word? What are you trying to say here?? All our life we take Bible as word of God the True word of God and now you just told me that it is not suppose to be true?? You confuse me again.
And now you are saing that Jesus has/had a father??? So you are denying the mircle birth without a man?. Now it could be whole new topic to discuss.
"So what is the problem if people thought that and thought wrong?"
So what people are you talking about people in Bible? If thats what you mean then Bible is not pure word of God since God doesn't make mistakes ?? Am I correct??
I do apperciate you explanation regarding my first question and thank you for clearing it up.
blonde_cupid
12-31-01, 02:14 PM
Regarding the question concerning the seeming contradiction between Exodus 20:5 and Ezekiel 18:20... If one reads Ezekiel 18 in its entirety, they might find that a similar question was asked and answered more than 1400 years ago.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Ezekiel 18
1
The word of the LORD came to me:
2
"What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel: "`The fathers eat sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge'?
3
"As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel.
4
For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son--both alike belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will die.
5
"Suppose there is a righteous man who does what is just and right.
6
He does not eat at the mountain shrines or look to the idols of the house of Israel. He does not defile his neighbor's wife or lie with a woman during her period.
7
He does not oppress anyone, but returns what he took in pledge for a loan. He does not commit robbery but gives his food to the hungry and provides clothing for the naked.
8
He does not lend at usury or take excessive interest. He withholds his hand from doing wrong and judges fairly between man and man.
9
He follows my decrees and faithfully keeps my laws. That man is righteous; he will surely live, declares the Sovereign LORD.
10
"Suppose he has a violent son, who sheds blood or does any of these other things
11
(though the father has done none of them): "He eats at the mountain shrines. He defiles his neighbor's wife.
12
He oppresses the poor and needy. He commits robbery. He does not return what he took in pledge. He looks to the idols. He does detestable things.
13
He lends at usury and takes excessive interest. Will such a man live? He will not! Because he has done all these detestable things, he will surely be put to death and his blood will be on his own head.
14
"But suppose this son has a son who sees all the sins his father commits, and though he sees them, he does not do such things:
15
"He does not eat at the mountain shrines or look to the idols of the house of Israel. He does not defile his neighbor's wife.
16
He does not oppress anyone or require a pledge for a loan. He does not commit robbery but gives his food to the hungry and provides clothing for the naked.
17
He withholds his hand from sin and takes no usury or excessive interest. He keeps my laws and follows my decrees. He will not die for his father's sin; he will surely live.
18
But his father will die for his own sin, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was wrong among his people.
19
"Yet you ask, `Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?' Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live.
20
The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.
21
"But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die.
22
None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live.
23
Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?
24
"But if a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked man does, will he live? None of the righteous things he has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness he is guilty of and because of the sins he has committed, he will die.
25
"Yet you say, `The way of the Lord is not just.' Hear, O house of Israel: Is my way unjust? Is it not your ways that are unjust?
26
If a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin, he will die for it; because of the sin he has committed he will die.
27
But if a wicked man turns away from the wickedness he has committed and does what is just and right, he will save his life.
28
Because he considers all the offenses he has committed and turns away from them, he will surely live; he will not die.
29
Yet the house of Israel says, `The way of the Lord is not just.' Are my ways unjust, O house of Israel? Is it not your ways that are unjust?
30
"Therefore, O house of Israel, I will judge you, each one according to his ways, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall.
31
Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, O house of Israel?
32
For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
If one sees in the Bible a recording of a developing relationship between God* and man which involves a number of changing covenants between the two as the relationship progressed, they might come to a better understanding of the differences. In this case, Ezekiel speaks to a newer covenant than the one recorded in Exodus.
Good post for a start; it's at least a part of what I was after when I mentioned to Tony1 that there was an academic avenue yet untread. While I think the ellipsus is certainly more fair than the omissions in Tony1's text, it is always interesting to see if anyone turns to the larger text to derive context.
It would seem that the context of the Ezekiel chapter is that the sons shall not bear the iniquities of the fathers; we recognize, however, the choice of those who would continue living according to what is prescribed as sinful.
But this does not begin to approach the contradiction. You have, in your post, affirmed the contracted summary of the Ezekiel verse, and supported KalvinB's point about the choices made by the sons. However, what of what the sons do not choose?
The other half of the contradiction presented: I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation (Exodus 20.5).
The Lord has said through His prophet that the sons shall not bear the iniquities of the fathers. Is this a revision of the Lord's prior declaration that he shall visit the iniquities of the fathers unto the sons? Is this a correction? A retraction? What, on the day of Ezekiel's prophecy, prompted the change? It would seem that the Word of God, while consistent and true according to faith, continually creates transitory and contradictory states, such as asserted in the topic post.
How is it that the sons shall not bear the iniquities of the fathers if the Lord will intentionally visit those iniquities unto those sons?
We understand the point about choosing to live according to sinful ways; it speaks nothing, however, of the choices the Lord makes.
thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
blonde_cupid
12-31-01, 03:34 PM
tiassa,
At the time of Exodus, the relationship between man and God* was in its infancy. At that time, a son didn't have much of a choice as all he could know is that which his father taught him. Since it would take generations for the relationship to mature to a point where a son had the knowledge of God* sufficient to make his own decisions, it was incumbent upon the fathers of the Exodus generation to lead by example and it was made clear there would be severe consequences upon their family for generations if the fathers chose the way of unrighteousness.
At the time of Ezekiel, although iniquities continued to be visited upon sons through the example of some fathers and through the ever-present temptations in the world, by that time, sons of Israel had sufficient knowledge of God* to have their own personal relationship with God* and make their own choices.
*Originally posted by Markx
So what you are saing here is that those geneologies are not true??? But they are still in Bible?? Word of God?*
It is true that the one genealogy is a SUPPOSED genealogy.
It is true that people supposed that.
Is that some kind of a problem?
*"One genealogy is presented as a SUPPOSITION" Preseneted by a man. Correct?. Supposition in God's word? What are you trying to say here?? All our life we take Bible as word of God the True word of God and now you just told me that it is not suppose to be true?? You confuse me again.*
It's just you confusing yourself.
If you kill someone and tell the police that you didn't, it isn't a lie when the police report says, "He said he didn't kill the victim," even though you did.
*And now you are saing that Jesus has/had a father??? So you are denying the mircle birth without a man?. Now it could be whole new topic to discuss.*
Who said anything about a man?
You just brought it up.
*So what people are you talking about people in Bible? If thats what you mean then Bible is not pure word of God since God doesn't make mistakes ?? Am I correct?? *
God correctly reported that people were wrong.
Besides, where did you get the idea that the Bible is the word of God, when it has words by dozens of beings in it?
*Originally posted by tiassa
While I think the ellipsus is certainly more fair than the omissions in Tony1's text, it is always interesting to see if anyone turns to the larger text to derive context.*
Nah, in discussions like these, context is rarely discussed due to the flat, literal nature of the "contradictions."
Since most "contradictions" are a result of failing to read what is actually written, no context is required.
*However, what of what the sons do not choose? *
That would be the question of import.
*The Lord has said through His prophet that the sons shall not bear the iniquities of the fathers.*
Ezekiel is saying that the sons will not die because of the penalty due their fathers.
Each man dies as the penalty for his own sin.
*How is it that the sons shall not bear the iniquities of the fathers if the Lord will intentionally visit those iniquities unto those sons?
We understand the point about choosing to live according to sinful ways; it speaks nothing, however, of the choices the Lord makes.*
The choice the Lord makes is to honor both his and the fathers' words.
I call heaven and earth to record this day against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing: therefore choose life, that both thou and thy seed may live:
(Deuteronomy 30:19, KJV).
The father makes this choice after Exodus and prior to Ezekiel.
A choice to live means that both you and your seed MAY live.
A choice to die means that both you and your seed may NOT live.
Thus, the father curses the son by making a poor choice.
The Lord then visits that poor choice, i.e. iniquity, onto the son.
The Lord is not forcing the son to sin; he is merely enforcing the term of the contract made by the father in De. 30:19.
The son may live under the curse, cursed but not sinning, in which case he would not have to bear the iniquity of his father, i.e. die for the father's sin.
*Originally posted by blonde_cupid
it was made clear there would be severe consequences upon their family for generations if the fathers chose the way of unrighteousness.*
There still are those severe consequences, i.e. curses, in existence.
One main one is this...
And I will bless them that bless thee, and curse him that curseth thee: and in thee shall all families of the earth be blessed.
(Genesis 12:3, KJV).
Simply observe the result on any person or nation who has made anti-Semitic statements or taken anti-Semitic actions.
Curses are baaaaaaaaaaad news.
Originally posted by tony1
*Originally posted by tony1
And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli,
(Luke 3:23, KJV).
Ok here is another thing, Are they talking about same Joseph?
" MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was
the son of Heli. "
So was Jospeh son of Heli or Jacob?
I brought it up becuase I think you said,
How can
Jesus have a genealogy when all Muslims and most Christians believe that Jesus had/has no father.*
I don't know of anyone yet that has figured that Jesus had no father.
That is definitely a new one. [/B]
I am still not sure what you mean by this. So are you beeing Sarcastic?
Nah, in discussions like these, context is rarely discussed due to the flat, literal nature of the "contradictions."
Since most "contradictions" are a result of failing to read what is actually written, no context is required.That's the point, the very academic point I was hinting at. Now, I'll even put aside your running disregard for context in order to ask what is so hard for a Christian to explain about that larger reading. If the appearance of contradiction is a failure to read completely, then perhaps you might demonstrate that instead of just say it. Blonde Cupid has gotten a start on it, now if you'd like to compare the larger text of the Exodus citation, go for it. But since you say the larger text doesn't show a contradiction, show it. I, personally, agree with the appearance of contradiction; it is possible to demonstrate otherwise, but why do you sit there saying that something is and merely expect us to see it? Again, we come back to the issue whereby I accuse that you expect all people to read the same words the same way. Cupid showed us the larger text of Ezekiel, and insofar as I can tell, the larger text supports the idea that the sons shall not bear the iniquities of the father.
The Exodus citation, as offered, says that the sons shall bear the iniquities of the father by proxy of those iniquities being visited on them by the Lord. This visitation of iniquity seems to have nothing to do with the choices the sons make. What you, KalvinB, and Blonde Cupid point out is applicable, but in a different debate. You keep telling us much about the choices of the sons and of the fathers, but none about the Lord's choice to visit those iniquities unto the sons.
If the appearance of contradiction comes from an inappropriate abridgement of the text, then please demonstrate that.
chuckling,
Tiassa :cool:
At the time of Exodus, the relationship between man and God* was in its infancy. At that time, a son didn't have much of a choice as all he could know is that which his father taught him. Since it would take generations for the relationship to mature to a point where a son had the knowledge of God* sufficient to make his own decisions, it was incumbent upon the fathers of the Exodus generation to lead by example and it was made clear there would be severe consequences upon their family for generations if the fathers chose the way of unrighteousness.
At the time of Ezekiel, although iniquities continued to be visited upon sons through the example of some fathers and through the ever-present temptations in the world, by that time, sons of Israel had sufficient knowledge of God* to have their own personal relationship with God* and make their own choices.2 primary questions:
1) You continue to speak of the choices of the sons. The Exodus citation refers to the choice made by the Lord. It is not that I disagree with the principles of what you're communicating, but that I do not see the reconciliation of ideas. What do the sons' choices matter if the Lord will visit iniquity unto them anyway?
2) Does this running revision of the human relationship with God imply that all is not known from the outset? What need has God of revision? Mind you, your personal faith might explain how it is that God could need to go back and fix something about the way things are put together, but that's part of the problem: what is an individual's faith and what is a broader faith? No interpretation of God can escape the facts that the Lord says one thing in one verse and another in another, and that the two statements equal opposing states. Revision works, but I didn't think God made mistakes, and furthermore, what does this say of Biblical laws pertaining to homosexuality, diet, tattoos, haircuts, &c? That, perhaps, they are outdated laws from an earlier period in the development of the human relationship with God? What does this need for revision say of the Hebrew laws that Christ did not address? You know, the ones Paul got to, eventually? Did you go to the edge of town for the required period after your last bowel movement? It isn't that the idea isn't valid, Cupid, but that it invites a host of considerations toward the larger image of faith.
thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
blonde_cupid
12-31-01, 06:08 PM
tiassa,
I'm going out for a Japanese New Year's dinner. As for your questions, I'd better start with the first one only since I'm not sure what you're getting at:
***1) You continue to speak of the choices of the sons. The Exodus citation refers to the choice made by the Lord.***
I think we agree here. As I believe I stated, at Exodus, the sons really didn't have much of a choice:
"At the time of Exodus, the relationship between man and God* was in its infancy. At that time, a son didn't have much of a choice as all he could know is that which his father taught him."
***It is not that I disagree with the principles of what you're communicating, but that I do not see the reconciliation of ideas. What do the sons' choices matter if the Lord will visit iniquity unto them anyway?***
Perhaps we're not agreeing on what is meant by "visiting iniquity"?
Got to go...
Happy New Year.
*Originally posted by Markx
I am still not sure what you mean by this. So are you beeing Sarcastic?*
Nope.
I've heard of people arguing WHO the father was, but I've never heard of no father at all.
Anyway, Joseph in a true genealogy and in a supposed one could be the same.
But a supposed genealogy could be wrong, otherwise it would be a true one.
Therefore, Joseph's father is Jacob, since the other genealogy is supposed, i.e. subject to error.
*Originally posted by tiassa
If the appearance of contradiction is a failure to read completely, then perhaps you might demonstrate that instead of just say it.*
No, you claim a contradiction, therefore the onus is on you to prove that there is one.
It isn't sufficient to create the impression of a contradiction.
*I, personally, agree with the appearance of contradiction; it is possible to demonstrate otherwise, but why do you sit there saying that something is and merely expect us to see it?*
Because you are alleging a contradiction, not me.
*the larger text supports the idea that the sons shall not bear the iniquities of the father.*
Of course, the sons will NOT bear the iniquities of the father.
The Lord will, however, visit the iniquities to the 3rd and 4th gens of those who hate the Lord.
*This visitation of iniquity seems to have nothing to do with the choices the sons make.*
Oh no.
The visitation is only on those who hate the Lord, such as yourself.
See, in the absence of hating the Lord, the sons are just fine.
If the father makes the choice to hate the Lord, then the son defaults to hating the Lord.
At any time, however, the son could make the choice to change, as could you.
In the case of fathers choosing to love the Lord, the Lord also visits their iniquity on their sons, but since there isn't any, it's a moot issue.
*none about the Lord's choice to visit those iniquities unto the sons.*
He honors your choices even as they apply to your children.
As you can see, visiting iniquities when there aren't any is moot.
*What do the sons' choices matter if the Lord will visit iniquity unto them anyway?*
It is only visited upon those who hate the Lord, as you do.
That curse goes away when, you choose to love the Lord yourself, as you could do.
*What need has God of revision?*
None, whatsoever.
If revision is indicated, then please demonstrate.
So tony1, If you are correct on what you said. Then Bible is not in it it's true form any more?? I knew about contradictions but people always try to make some excuses, It is nice to know your views. Now let me ask you this, Since there are man made things in Bible how can a one Believe and become convert to some thing men made? I know there is real writings in Bible as well but still why would some one wana become Christian when there are things men made?? Just a thought.
Stryder
12-31-01, 08:25 PM
The Biggest Biblical Error:
Who forgot the Copyright????
Hangon.... If a supposed infallible God, forgot to place a copyright upon a book of his words, wouldn't that mean he was in fact fallible? Does that mean we are doomed Tony1?
Personally I think we are just doomed to have people quote the retched thing for eternity.
It's just sinister how the topic can be resolved, How a mention of Primitive minds being tutored to write suffered the blight of a fabricative disease that we now know of as imagination.
How one tall taled story teller, took to the road similar to that of bards of ancient greece and caught attention, purely because people lacked entertainment back then (Other than throwning Tony1's Relatives to the Lions... Oh by the way Tony1... ever thought about re-enactments?).
It's amusing to think that ships use to have bards on board to keep their sailors amused, and at each port the bards would sing of the tales of the crew and their conquests... Although the crew might have only been fishing, a Bard would tell a story of how they hoisted in Mermaids, And fought against dreaded hydras as apart of their voyage to make the sailors seem foolhardy and wrought and to be the toast of attention to a town.
The Occasional, "You should have seen the fish I caught... it was this big" was the norm, and over time, the fish got bigger, and the methods of catching got more ludicrous that only a few stubbornly iggorant people choose to believe myths over the reality of Physics. I'm sure you them personally Tony1.
One last thing TONY1....
HAPPY NEW YEAR! :D
Happy new year to all of you here too. Stryderunknown, I got something for you regards to copy right. funny you brought it up :p :p
For the first statement to disconnect from the second, one of two presumptions are necessary:
1. The Lord/God cannot control some events. In this case the god is no longer omnipotent and is therefore invalidated.
2. There is an equally powerful force that can manipulate.
The first statement also carried an implication of divine power. When a biblical phrase is stated in absolute it is often understood that God/Lord is involved. Otherwise the bibles god is not an absolute power. See argument 2.
*Originally posted by Markx
Since there are man made things in Bible how can a one Believe and become convert to some thing men made? I know there is real writings in Bible as well but still why would some one wana become Christian when there are things men made?? Just a thought. *
There are houses mentioned in the Bible.
Should I quit believing in the Bible because there is a house mentioned in the Bible?
Or are you talking about some other man-made things?
*Originally posted by Stryderunknown
forgot to place a copyright upon a book of his words*
It isn't copyright so anyone can have a copy.
Which reminds me, the idiots who think they are copyrighting the Bible, aren't.
Thus if you see a copyrighted Bible, that would be a suspicious Bible.
*Oh by the way Tony1... ever thought about re-enactments?*
Yeah, but the humane societies get all bent out of shape when lions start getting killed.
*I'm sure you them personally Tony1.*
Yeah, you, Teg, Xelios, razz, etc.
BTW, Happy New Year, O great Stryderunknown, legendary battler of the imagination!
*Originally posted by Teg
For the first statement to disconnect from the second, one of two presumptions are necessary: *
Yes?
Happy New Year
This is just the tip of the iceberg, I have about 60 pages of POSSIBLE mistakes within the bible.
Wonder what else was POSSIBLY mistaken.
As with the Resurrection, accounts clash in many respects.
(1) What color was the robe that was put on Jesus? Scarlet--Matt. 27:28 ("And they stripped him, and put on a scarlet robe") versus purple--Mark 15:17 ("And they clothed him with purple....") and John 19:2 ("...and they put on him a purple robe").
(2) When was the robe put on Jesus?
During his trial--John 19:1-2, 15 ("Then Pilate took Jesus, and scourged him. And the soldiers...put on him a purple robe.... Pilate saith unto them, Shall I crucify your King?") versus after Pilate delivered him to be crucified--Matt. 27:26-28 ("Then released he Barrabas unto them; and when he had scourged Jesus he delivered him to be crucified. Then the soldiers of the governor took Jesus into a common hall,...stripped him and put on him a scarlet robe") and Mark 15:15-17 ("And so Pilate, willing to content the people...delivered Jesus, when he had scourged him, to be crucified. And the soldiers led him away into the hall...and they clothed him with purple").
(3) At what hour was Jesus crucified?
The third hour--Mark 15:25 ("And it was the third hour, and they crucified him") versus before the sixth hour--Luke 23:43-44 ("And Jesus said unto him, Verily I say unto thee, Today shalt thou be with me in paradise. And it was about the sixth hour....") versus after the sixth hour--John 19:14-16 ("...and about the sixth hour: and he saith unto the Jews, Behold your king! But they cried out, Away with him, away with him, crucify him.... Then delivered he him unto them to be crucified. And they took Jesus, and led him away") to be crucified later.
(4) What was the inscription on the Cross?
"This is Jesus the King of the Jews" (Matt. 27:37) versus "The King of the Jews" (Mark 15:26) versus "This is the King of the Jews" (Luke 23:38) versus "Jesus of Nazareth the King of the Jews" (John 19:19).
(5) For what did the soldiers at the Cross cast lots?
His garments--Matt. 27:35 ("they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots") and Mark 15:24 ("And when they had crucified him, they parted his garments, casting lots upon them, what every man should take") and Luke 23:34 ("... And they parted his raiment, and cast lots") versus his coat alone--John 19:23-24 ("Then the soldiers when they had crucified Jesus, took his garments, and made four parts, to every soldier a part; and also his coat: now the coat was without seam, woven from the top throughout. They said therefore among themselves, Let us not rend it, but cast lots for it, whose it shall be....").
(6) What was Jesus given to drink?
Vinegar--Matt. 27:48 ("And straightaway one of them ran, and took a sponge, and filled it with vinegar, and...gave him to drink") and Luke 23:36 ("And the soldiers also mocked him, coming to him and offering him vinegar") and John 19:29-30 ("Now there was set a vessel full of vinegar: and they filled a sponge with vinegar, and put it upon hyssop, and put it to his mouth. When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, It is finished....") versus vinegar mingled with gall--Matt. 27:34 ("They gave him vinegar to drink mingled with gall") versus wine mingled with myrrh--Mark 15:23 ("And they gave him to drink wine mingled with myrrh; but he received it not").
(7) When Jesus got the sponge filled with vinegar, who said they would see if Elijah would come to his rescue?
The person who actually gave him the sponge--Mark 15:36 ("And one ran and filled a sponge full of vinegar and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink, saying, Let alone; let us see whether Elias will come to take him down") versus those with the person who gave him the sponge--Matt. 27:48-49 ("And straightaway one of them ran, and took a sponge, and filled it with vinegar, and put it on a reed, and gave him to drink. The rest said, Let be, let us see whether Elias will come to save him").
(8) How many of the thieves on the Cross reviled Jesus?
One--Luke 23:39-40 RSV ("One of the criminals who were hanged railed at him, saying, 'Are you not the Christ? Save yourself and us!' But the other rebuked him, saying, Do you not fear God, since you are under the same sentence of condemnation?") versus both--Matt. 27:44 RSV ("And the robbers who were crucified with him also reviled him in the same way") and Mark 15:32 ("And they that were crucified with him reviled him").
(9) Who were the named women watching the Crucifixion?
Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James and Joses, and the mother of Zebedee's children--Matt. 27:55-56 versus Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James the less and Joses and Salome--Mark 15:40 versus Jesus' mother, his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene--John 19:25.
(10) From where did the women observe the Crucifixion?
From afar--Matt. 27:55-56 ("And many were beholding afar off...among which was Mary Magdalene...") and Luke 23:49 ("...and the women that followed him from Galilee, stood afar off, beholding these things") and Mark 15:40 ("There were also women looking on afar off; among whom was Mary Magdalene,....") versus near the cross--John 19:25 ("now there stood by the cross of Jesus his mother and his mother's sister, Mary the wife of Cleophas, and Mary Magdalene").
Children--Punishment of children is one thing; child abuse is another. And, unfortunately, many biblical verses can be easily used to justify the former by means of the latter: Prov. 23:13-14 ("Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou beatest him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt beat him with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell"), Prov. 22:15 RSV ("Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline drives it far from him"), Prov. 20:30 RSV ("Blows that wound cleanse away evil; strokes make clean the innermost parts"), Prov. 13:24 RSV ("He who spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him"), Prov. 19:19 ("Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let not thy soul spare for his crying"), Prov. 29:15 ("Thy rod and reproof give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother"), Prov. 26:3 ("A whip for the horse, a bridle for the ass, and a rod for the fool's back <children are often foolish--Ed.>"), and Deut. 21:18-21 ("If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son, who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they chastise him, will not give heed to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city...and they shall say to the elders of his city, 'This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard. Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones; so you shall purge the evil from the midst").
And, then, there are those verses which demean and degrade children by looking upon them as little more than beings to be punished for the misdeeds of others: Ex. 20:5 ("I the Lord thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me"), Lev. 26:22 ("I will also send wild beasts among you, which shall rob you of your children...."), Hosea 13:16 ("Samaria shall become desolate: for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword; their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up"), and Isa. 13:16-18 ("Their infants will be dashed in pieces before their eyes; their houses will be plundered and their wives ravished.... Their bows will slaughter the young men; they will have no mercy on the first of the womb; their eyes will not pity children").
.................................................. .................................................
This information was sourced online.
If you find a POSSIBLE mistake... oh well...
Blame the original author..dun ask me who that was.
__________________________________________________
Cheers
RazZ
No, you claim a contradiction, therefore the onus is on you to prove that there is one.
It isn't sufficient to create the impression of a contradiction. The original contradiction was posted by Teg, and I don't know what you want toward proof of the appearance of contradiction if two sentences that create opposing states won't do it. I'd say the presence of the words is the proof of the contradiction. If you think that Teg or I or anyone else at this forum is reading those sentences incorrectly--the essence of your assertion, I believe--then the onus is quite yours.
thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
*Originally posted by razz
This is just the tip of the iceberg, I have about 60 pages of POSSIBLE mistakes within the bible.
Wonder what else was POSSIBLY mistaken.*
I've got all the issues of Biblical Errancy.
Plus, did you know that the first list of "boo-boos" was published almost 1600 years ago, and contained upwards of 3000 items?
How many do you have in your 60 pages?
*What color was the robe
scarlet
purple*
What color is a school bus, yellow or orange?
* When was the robe put on Jesus? *
3:46 pm
*This information was sourced online.
If you find a POSSIBLE mistake... oh well...
Blame the original author..dun ask me who that was.*
You were on a roll until you wrote that.
It's God or you.
Who's right and who's wrong?
You pointed out some errors.
Been there, done that.
Seen it, did it, got the Tshirt.
I still have to choose between God and you.
I bet you make more mistakes than he does.
Besides, what's the big deal about errors in the Bible, anyway?
In the Bible, God's word is always described as spoken.
Perhaps you've noticed that the Bible is written.
We know that everything that is written in the Bible isn't God's spoken word, anyway.
Satan is in there speaking, along with quite a pile of demons and dozens of different people.
They aren't all God.
I couldn't help but notice how you put the word "possible" into capital letters so I wouldn't miss how you wanted me to see it.
There are POSSIBLE errors in every single thing you think.
How can you still think?
*Originally posted by tiassa
I don't know what you want toward proof of the appearance of contradiction if two sentences that create opposing states won't do it.*
That's just it.
You claim a contradiction, and then claim that the appearance of a contradiction establishes it.
Well, no.
The appearance of a contradiction proves the existence of the appearance.
It takes some actual logic to demonstrate an actual contradiction.
*I'd say the presence of the words is the proof of the contradiction.*
That's a new low even for you.
I'd say the presence of those words is the proof that everything you say is contradictory.
The appearance of a contradiction proves the existence of the appearance. And, if you'll note the topic post, it is that appearance of contradiction that we are attempting to resolve. Honestly, Tony1, why won't you put even the slightest effort into establishing the validity of what you assert? All you have to do is show the larger text and back up your assertion that most "contradictions" are a result of failing to read what is actually written, and you won't even do that. You think somehow that your assertion means that no context is required, but it is that larger text that demonstrates the context.
Why make the assertion if you're not prepared to back it up?
The appearance of contradiction offered establishes itself by representing two contradictory states, one in which the sons will not, and one in which the sons will bear the iniquities of the fathers. If the appearance of contradiction is resolved by a different perspective on the text, please offer it instead of just tell us the idea exists.
thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
I take visiting iniquity to mean that the Lord shall cause the sons to bear that iniquity, by visiting iniquity upon them.
http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=visit (5)a. To afflict or assail: A plague visited the village.
b. To inflict punishment on or for; avenge: The sins of the ancestors were visited on their descendants. (American Heritage Dictionary)
5: impose something unpleasant: "The principal visited his rage on the students" [syn: inflict, bring down, impose] (WorldNet 1.6/Princeton)Thus the appearance of contradiction arises from two contradictory states represented in the Bible,
* That the sons shall not bear the iniquities of the fathers ... (Ezekiel)
* That the sons shall bear the iniquities of the fathers, by proxy of the Lord's will when he visits the iniquity upon the fourth and fifth generations. (Exodus)
Are we at least on the same page toward visit, if nothing else?
thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
blonde_cupid
01-01-02, 07:37 PM
tiassa,
***Thus the appearance of contradiction arises from two contradictory states represented in the Bible,
* That the sons shall not bear the iniquities of the fathers ... (Ezekiel)
* That the sons shall bear the iniquities of the fathers, by proxy of the Lord's will when he visits the iniquity upon the fourth and fifth generations. (Exodus)
Are we at least on the same page toward visit, if nothing else?***
"Visiting iniquities" probably isn't the heart of the difficulty.
More likely - What of the "appearance" of contradiction and what of God's* choices in this matter?
I think I spoke to the appearance of contradiction before.
If one looks at the respective stages of development in man's biblical relationship with God* then the appearance of contradiction disappears when one considers the degree of maturation in the relationship within the context and chronology of Exodus vs Ezekiel.
Exodus came first. At that time, analogously, man was being educated on how to handle the vehicle of life in order to get from point A to point B safely. Since the relationship between man and God* was still in its infancy, the fathers were the first to be taught with the expectation that they would teach their children well. It would take generations for man's relationship with God* to mature to a point where sons would be able to get behind the wheel themselves. In the meantime, sons remained passengers along for the ride with their fathers. Therefore, it was incumbent upon the fathers to handle their vehicles properly in order to avoid a fatal crash because it would not only cause the fathers to lose their lives - it would also cause their passengers, their sons, to lose their lives.
Ezekiel came about 1800 years after Exodus. Man's relationship with God* had matured to a point where the sons, who had been sufficiently educated over time, were given license to handle their own vehicles themselves. They were no longer dependent on their fathers' choices for survival.
What, specifically, is it that you would like to discuss concerning God's* choices in this matter?
blonde_cupid
01-01-02, 09:49 PM
tiassa,
As to your second set of questions/assertions:
***Does this running revision of the human relationship with God imply that all is not known from the outset? What need has God of revision...***
First. It's not necessarily a revision. When any good and lasting relationship is "developed" it is most likely brought to a fuller, greater or better state in a gradual manner. As such, change is known to be an inherent part of such a "developing" relationship.
***Mind you, your personal faith might explain how it is that God could need to go back and fix something about the way things are put together, but that's part of the problem...***
On a similar note, your personal faith might explain why you see it as God* going back to "fix" something, insisting that God* must have made a mistake, rather than putting things into the context of the gradual disclosure which is inherent in the development of meaningful relationships.
***No interpretation of God can escape the facts that the Lord says one thing in one verse and another in another, and that the two statements equal opposing states.***
You assert that your interpretation of "opposing states" is fact? Then, why are we having this discussion?
***Revision works, but I didn't think God made mistakes...***
If you meant to say that you think God* doesn't make mistakes, then I think that I would agree with you. However, if you insist on insisting that your interpretation is fact, then I can see how you would also insist on concluding that God* made mistakes.
I'm not insisting that I know all the facts. I'm not insisting that I understand everything that God* does. I'm not even insisting that I agree with everything that God* does (because in order to do that I would first have to insist that I understand everything that God* does). However, I do believe in God* and like you apparently used to think, I still don't think that God* makes mistakes. To me, God* making mistakes is an oxymoron. Now, if you want to try and convince me that God* does make mistakes, rendering the God* that I believe in non-existant, then I am open to listening. However, it would be appreciated if you would not take the position that an interpretation of yours is fact. Thanks.
***...and furthermore, what does this say of Biblical laws pertaining to homosexuality, diet, tattoos, haircuts, &c? That, perhaps, they are outdated laws from an earlier period in the development of the human relationship with God? What does this need for revision say of the Hebrew laws that Christ did not address? You know, the ones Paul got to, eventually? Did you go to the edge of town for the required period after your last bowel movement? It isn't that the idea isn't valid, Cupid, but that it invites a host of considerations toward the larger image of faith.***
You are correct here when you say, "It isn't that the idea isn't valid" because it is, rendering your interpretation as just that... your interpretation, not fact. As far as other considerations go, if you're open to it, we can discuss them one-by-one if you'd like.
"Visiting iniquities" probably isn't the heart of the difficulty.Perhaps not, but I thought it worth exploring per your consideration of that very issue on 12/31.I think I spoke to the appearance of contradiction before. I think you did, indeed. As I recall, part of the issue that remained was that your explanation centered entirely around the choices of the fathers and the sons, and spoke none of God's choice to visit iniquity.Therefore, it was incumbent upon the fathers to handle their vehicles properly in order to avoid a fatal crash because it would not only cause the fathers to lose their lives - it would also cause their passengers, their sons, to lose their lives.My only question regards this is what, then, of the fourth and fifth generations? How many were packed into that Buick? ;)Ezekiel came about 1800 years after Exodus. Man's relationship with God* had matured to a point where the sons, who had been sufficiently educated over time, were given license to handle their own vehicles themselves. They were no longer dependent on their fathers' choices for survival. The only note I intend to make here is that this point is noted for future reference. (It's a curious twist from the idea of God's word being perfect; it implies fallibility and the need for discovery, which does help--by creating an imperfect and limited God--to explain the apperances of contradiction, and the imperfection of the religious system and its resulting faith.)What, specifically, is it that you would like to discuss concerning God's* choices in this matter?I'm curious why discussion of God's choices centers so much around people's decisions. Why is what the Lord does so dependent upon the people? I see no codicil, appendix, footnote, clause, or otherwise indicating that the sons had much of a choice: that is, even if the sons rejected the sins of the fathers, the Lord would still visit those iniquities upon them.
You're onto that untread academic response I hinted at, Cupid. All anyone needs to do now is to show the larger text of the Exodus citation and show what Teg has left out. As a general question, why can nobody do this? Specifically, though, I think you're focusing too greatly on factors not fully introduced to the topic. What's bugging me, to be honest, is that I think this appearance of contradiction can most likely be reasonably refuted--that is, even if I disagree with the refutation, it will hold enough credibility as valid that I have to at least recognize that validity. But I'm not about to go and buld an argument that I disagree with just to resolve this debate. I'm curious why it seems that those who assert the contradiction to be invalid won't just straight out demonstrate it using the texts themselves and offering the perspective that Teg or any of us who see the contradiction are missing. It's honestly feels like you and Tony1 are waiting for us to go out and do the work for you; if there's a straightforward resolution, then all anyone wants is to see it.
And there I see your next post ... I'll get to it later.
thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
James R
01-01-02, 10:20 PM
tony1,
You ask what the big deal is with errors in the bible. The big deal is this: you continually quote the bible as the source of all truth in scientific and other matters. Yet, as has been shown, the bible contradicts even itself, let alone other documents and sources of knowledge. If there are logical contradictions in the bible, how can it be the source of all truth? If it is shown to be wrong in some respects (which you seem to agree is the case) then why can't it be wrong in other respects?
The fact is: the bible was written by fallible humans, dictated to by God or not. Even IF your God exists, how do we know that the bible is an accurate account of him or his words? It isn't even self-consistent.
*Originally posted by tiassa
And, if you'll note the topic post, it is that appearance of contradiction that we are attempting to resolve.
...
Why make the assertion if you're not prepared to back it up?*
You, as in Teg, and you because you've taken up the torch, asserted the contradiction.
There was no mention of "appearance," only of "error" and "contradiction."
Thus the onus is on you to prove that there is a contradiction.
It is not sufficent to prove the appearance of a contradiction.
*The appearance of contradiction offered establishes itself by representing two contradictory states, one in which the sons will not, and one in which the sons will bear the iniquities of the fathers. If the appearance of contradiction is resolved by a different perspective on the text, please offer it instead of just tell us the idea exists.*
How about you telling me what the idea that supposedly exists is?
You could start by explaining how an apparent contradiction is proof that a real contradiction exists.
You could even try telling me what the contradiction itself is.
So far, you've stated that you see a contradiction.
OK, I'll take your word for that, and I'll even agree that you see a contradiction.
The next step would be for you explain how what you think you see relates to reality.
*Originally posted by James R
You ask what the big deal is with errors in the bible. The big deal is this: you continually quote the bible as the source of all truth in scientific and other matters. Yet, as has been shown, the bible contradicts even itself, let alone other documents and sources of knowledge. If there are logical contradictions in the bible, how can it be the source of all truth?*
That's a good point.
Essentially what it boils down to is this....
1. The Bible, with some alleged errors in it.
2. All other knowledge, with proven, scientifically established, verified error in it.
It seems like a no-brainer, doesn't it?
As for contradiction, it remains to be seen if the Bible contradicts itself.
There is no argument from me that it contradicts myriads of other documents.
However, I can see, but you can't, that those other documents hopelessly contradict each other.
In addition, the authors of those other documents actually write them with the specific intention of contradicting the other documents.
Thus, the entire collection of all other documents is useless.
*If it is shown to be wrong in some respects (which you seem to agree is the case) then why can't it be wrong in other respects?*
You can't be serious.
If your thinking is shown to be wrong in some respects, then why can't it be wrong in other respects?
Since you are using your thinking to evaluate the Bible, how do you know your thinking isn't hopelessly muddled on that issue along with others?
Are you actually convinced that your thinking could be in error on every single point EXCEPT where the Bible is concerned?
*The fact is: the bible was written by fallible humans, dictated to by God or not.*
True, the Bible says as much.
*Even IF your God exists, how do we know that the bible is an accurate account of him or his words? It isn't even self-consistent.*
Even IF you exist, how do we know what you write is an accurate account of you or your words? Your writing isn't even self-consistent, unless of course you're infallible.
Your argument in this case is that you will tolerate no less than 100% accuracy (as defined by you) where the Bible is concerned, but less than 1% accuracy with everything else is just fine.
In essence, you say that 100% accuracy is required to believe one thing, but believing its opposite only requires, say, 0.0001% accuracy.
Your scientific method doesn't even work that way.
There a preponderance of evidence is sufficient.
For some that may be 51-49, for others it may be 99-1, but who demands 100-0.0001, which is impossible anyway because it adds up to more than 100?
In essence you've set yourself up with an impossibility.
If the Bible must be 100, then as scientific evidence increases, it will begin to approach 100, but can never reach it due to the fact that there will always be something else to check.
As time passes, your choice becomes 100-30, or 100-40, and again you're faced with an impossible choice.
Best of luck, you've set yourself up with an impossibility, precisely because of a defect in your thinking which is provably imperfect.
Then, based on that impossibility, you again use your proven defective thinking, to make the wrong choice.
Incidentally, when I am saying that you have defective thinking, it isn't an insult.
You yourself say that you could be wrong, which is an admission that you recognize that your thinking is imperfect.
"I contend that we are both atheists, I just believe in one less god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, then you will know why I dismiss yours."
Have a lovely sun shiney day
cheers
RazZ
blonde_cupid
01-02-02, 12:05 AM
tiassa,
***quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Visiting iniquities" probably isn't the heart of the difficulty.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps not, but I thought it worth exploring per your consideration of that very issue on 12/31.***
Yeah. Thanks. But after reading your response and some other posts of yours, it now appears that wasn't the difficulty after all.
***quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think I spoke to the appearance of contradiction before.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I think you did, indeed. As I recall, part of the issue that remained was that your explanation centered entirely around the choices of the fathers and the sons, and spoke none of God's choice to visit iniquity.***
Not quite. For example, as I mentioned a few posts ago "... it was incumbent upon the fathers of the Exodus generation to lead by example and it was made clear there would be severe consequences upon their family for generations if the fathers chose the way of unrighteousness."
***quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ezekiel came about 1800 years after Exodus. Man's relationship with God* had matured to a point where the sons, who had been sufficiently educated over time, were given license to handle their own vehicles themselves. They were no longer dependent on their fathers' choices for survival.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The only note I intend to make here is that this point is noted for future reference. (It's a curious twist from the idea of God's word being perfect; it implies fallibility and the need for discovery, which does help--by creating an imperfect and limited God--to explain the apperances of contradiction, and the imperfection of the religious system and its resulting faith.)***
It does imply fallibility and the need for discovery on the part of man, not God*, tiassa. It implies imperfection and limitation on the part of man, not God*, tiassa. What a curious twist, indeed.
***quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What, specifically, is it that you would like to discuss concerning God's* choices in this matter?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm curious why discussion of God's choices centers so much around people's decisions. Why is what the Lord does so dependent upon the people?***
This sounds like another twist on which came first, the chicken or the egg? God's* choices concerning man were made first. They were made first and then they were made known to the people. Once presented, it is up to the person to decide their own fate.
***I see no codicil, appendix, footnote, clause, or otherwise indicating that the sons had much of a choice: that is, even if the sons rejected the sins of the fathers, the Lord would still visit those iniquities upon them.***
Did you read Ezekiel 18 in full which I posted?
In Exodus, the sons did not know enough to reject sin. It was incumbent upon their fathers to teach them. By the time of Ezekiel, the sons knew enough to make their own choices and were held accountable for their own actions.
***All anyone needs to do now is to show the larger text of the Exodus citation and show what Teg has left out. As a general question, why can nobody do this?***
At this point, other than possibly posting God's* promise of mercy down to the thousandth generation on the children of those who love God* and keep the commandments, I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't see how the larger text of Exodus 20 changes much with respect to the alleged contradiction between Ex 20:5 vs Ez 18:20. But, since you do, I'd suggest that you be the one to demonstrate it.
***Specifically, though, I think you're focusing too greatly on factors not fully introduced to the topic.***
I was focusing on one particular contradiction which was brought up in this thread, specifically, Ex 20:5 vs Ez 18:20, by discussing the passages in the context of a bigger picture.
***What's bugging me, to be honest, is that I think this appearance of contradiction can most likely be reasonably refuted--that is, even if I disagree with the refutation, it will hold enough credibility as valid that I have to at least recognize that validity.***
It has been reasonably refuted and you've already recognized its validity, or at least hinted at it, at least once... "It isn't that the idea isn't valid, Cupid..."
***But I'm not about to go and buld an argument that I disagree with just to resolve this debate. I'm curious why it seems that those who assert the contradiction to be invalid won't just straight out demonstrate it using the texts themselves and offering the perspective that Teg or any of us who see the contradiction are missing.***
Such a perspective has already been offered with respect to Ex 20:5 vs Ez 18:20. You've seen it, you've acknowledged its validity, and now you deny it?
***It's honestly feels like you and Tony1 are waiting for us to go out and do the work for you;***
Get over yourself, will you please? If you've got something better to offer, just do it.
***if there's a straightforward resolution, then all anyone wants is to see it.***
Yeah. I'd like to see at least one debate in this forum get resolved in a straightforward manner. Why don't you take a crack at it?
Thus the onus is on you to prove that there is a contradiction.
It is not sufficent to prove the appearance of a contradiction.It has been pointed out a few times that the two passages in question represent contradictory states: one in which the sons shall bear the iniquities of the fathers, and one in which they shall not.
Now, what is so hard to grasp about that? It's shown in the topic citations, and explained several times.
What I think it might be is that you're not capable of answering the issue; or perhaps you'd like to explain why once again you have plenty to say but nothing to contribute to the progress of the topic.
If the black and white words of the Bible and the conventionally accepted lexicon and grammar of the prevailing vernacular are not sufficient proof for you that contradictory states are represented, then I don't know what else you need. For starters, it's the Bible. I didn't realize there was such a grey zone about what it says as you've established. There's also the factor of language: which one would suit you best? But I figure since we're reading an English translation of the Bible, that should be the language we consider in our debate. The nearest I can figure here is that you're not perceiving the words the same as I do. While that's obvious, I'm coincidentally stumped as to what the problem is. What words in the topic citation do you not understand?How about you telling me what the idea that supposedly exists is?
You could start by explaining how an apparent contradiction is proof that a real contradiction exists.
You could even try telling me what the contradiction itself is.I'll number these, so it's easier for you to follow:
1. Only you know what that idea is. If you were actually following the discussion instead of looking for diversions, you might have noticed that the idea in question is the one that somehow equates to you that two sentences representing contradictory states don't show a contradiction. For instance, I wrote, If the appearance of contradiction is resolved by a different perspective on the text, please offer it instead of just tell us the idea exists. Would you like me to try that again in simple language? If you think a different perspective on the text will resolve the appearance of contradiction, then tell us what that perspective is; don't just tell us it exists, try explaining it. Tell us, Tony1, why is it that by the time you demonstrate that you have a clue what the topic at hand is it's twenty posts later and you're still not willing to give it serious consideration? Why do your responses so often indicate that you simply don't understand what you're responding to?
2. Well, as presented in the topic post, the two passages are contradictory. Whether you want to call it a contradiction or the appearance thereof is actually irrelevant; the only distinction comes when you assert that the contradiction cited is not a contradiction. Very well, there still exists the appearance of a contradiction to be resolved. The easiest way for you to communicate why that appearance is false is to tell us why the two passages that represent contradictory states do not actually represent contradictory states. I find it quite the sad testament to the nature of faith that such a simple answer has either not occurred to you or else has occurred to you and been determined to be unworthy of your consideration.
3. If you're suggesting that nobody has pointed out what the contradiction is, then I seriously find myself doubting your reading skills."The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father..." -- Ezekiel 18:20
Meaning: Children will not be responsible for the actions of their parents.
"I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation..." -- Exodus 20:5
Meaning: I your God will place guilt for the actions of the fathers into the 3rd and 4th generation. (Teg to Tony1, 12/29/01)
The appearance of contradiction offered establishes itself by representing two contradictory states, one in which the sons will not, and one in which the sons will bear the iniquities of the fathers. If the appearance of contradiction is resolved by a different perspective on the text, please offer it instead of just tell us the idea exists. (Tiassa to Tony1, 1/1/02)
Thus the appearance of contradiction arises from two contradictory states represented in the Bible,
* That the sons shall not bear the iniquities of the fathers ... (Ezekiel)
* That the sons shall bear the iniquities of the fathers, by proxy of the Lord's will when he visits the iniquity upon the fourth and fifth generations. (Exodus) (Tiassa to Blonde Cupid, 1/1/02)Do you require further clarification, Tony1?
Or are you prepared to address the issue at hand: Can you answer the contradiction presented or not?
:rolleyes:,
Tiassa :cool:
blonde_cupid
01-02-02, 12:49 AM
***I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation [of those who hate me]" -- Exodus 20:5***
Hello? Hello? Hello?
"...unto the third and fourth generation."
"...unto the third and fourth generation."
"...unto the third and fourth generation."
My apologies for being so redundant. But, it seems that it might be necessary in this case.
How long does anyone here think that three or four generations lasts?
More than, say, 1800 years from Exodus to Ezekiel?
Just curious.
More than, say, 1800 years from Exodus to Ezekiel?I don't see how that's relevant. Sorry to be so blunt.
Oh, or is it that God was referring to a specific set of guilty? Is that part of the point we're missing? If so, would it not have been easier to post that portion of the text and make that point clear? We could have resolved this topic in one post, then.Not quite. For example, as I mentioned a few posts ago "... it was incumbent upon the fathers of the Exodus generation to lead by example and it was made clear there would be severe consequences upon their family for generations if the fathers chose the way of unrighteousness." Right, and by the will of God. On this point we have no disagreement.It does imply fallibility and the need for discovery on the part of man, not God*, tiassa. It implies imperfection and limitation on the part of man, not God*, tiassa. What a curious twist, indeed. Ah, so it is man that rewrites the terms of his covenant with God? I hadn't realized that Biblical man had the authority in the God-man relationship. In case you hadn't noticed, the change is God's unless we're to discredit the prophet. That is, God says one thing at one time, and another at another. These two things contradict. Now, I have no problem with the progressive relationship 'twixt God and man, but what does this say of God's method? Quite simply, that God needs to continually redefine the relationship 'twixt Himself and His creations because each state of that relationship becomes inadequate. Now my theology doesn't have a problem with this, but most people's hit a brick wall when considering the inadequacy of God. But it was God's will that the relationship should be inadequate and redefined; if God was not prepared for the experimental result, He should not have been in the lab. I hadn't meant to spend this much on this digression until it came up for a topic, but the only problem with the redefined relationship are the ideas of why that relationship needs redefining and what that means in practical application. That, indeed, makes for a curious twist. This sounds like another twist on which came first, the chicken or the egg? God's* choices concerning man were made first. They were made first and then they were made known to the people. Once presented, it is up to the person to decide their own fate.Of course, this is only after Ezekiel. See, that's the whole point of noting the contradiction. By Exodus, those who decide their own fate when presented with the law will be subject to the iniquities of the father because God will visit those iniquities upon them. Aside from your mischaracterization of the issue (was that intentional?) I'm not sure you addressed the point. Part of the contradiction at hand is the idea of why the sons who stand with God would be subject to the iniquities of the fathers. What the fathers teach and the sons decide is irrelevant if God wants the sons to bear the burdens.
What is important about the resolution is that it does not shake the broader paradigm of the faith. The resolution you've offered, while anthropologically sound insofar as any religious idea is anthropologically sound, and while easily conceivable, presents a condition whereby much of the perceived evil that God will regard and judge will result solely from His inadequacy in the relationship--why would God waste the time to fix what wasn't broken?
Now, does God make mistakes?
Obviously not; thus, we can only conclude that the need to redefine the relationship--the sense of growing inadequacy--is specifically by design; in that sense, what was the point of those sons bearing the burdens?In Exodus, the sons did not know enough to reject sin. It was incumbent upon their fathers to teach them. By the time of Ezekiel, the sons knew enough to make their own choices and were held accountable for their own actions.I see nothing in the Exodus citation in question to speak of what the sons would choose; I see nothing of what the sons did or did not know. Specifically, what I see is that the Lord will visit those iniquities upon them, regardless. And why? Jealousy. Because the fathers rejected God, the Lord will take it out on the sons. There's a mafia/golf joke about getting back at or blackballing you, your children, your children's children ... and so forth. It's a cheap line that fills predictable moments in gangster comedies. But it has precedent. The Lord will take it out on you, your children, your children's children, and so forth. And for something your father did.
We recently had an episode in the Seattle area where a five year-old brought a gun to school and killed a little girl. The investigation turned up a frightening story. The boy lived, essentially, in a crack-house. Let your most squalid nightmares run wild on that; the gun was easy enough to obtain, and we need not look farther than the occupants of the house to answer the question of where he learned that guns are a solution. Now this idea I understand. But I don't think that's the sole point of the Exodus part. God wasn't nearly so specific as the refutations of contradiction have been.
If, by Exodus, the Lord guarantees--by His will--this transferrence of method and perspective, then we have no free will, and the whole human endeavor becomes nothing more than a show of grandeur by a cruel and hidden puppeteer.At this point, other than possibly posting God's* promise of mercy down to the thousandth generation on the children of those who love God* and keep the commandments, I have no idea what you're talking about. I don't see how the larger text of Exodus 20 changes much with respect to the alleged contradiction between Ex 20:5 vs Ez 18:20. But, since you do, I'd suggest that you be the one to demonstrate it.That you should deliberately choose that path tells me what it's worth. You have to understand, on this point, since I ride Tony1 about his bowdlerized citations and off-topic responses, and the importance of context as relates such diversions, I feel obliged to invite you over and over again to simply tell us that Teg has the wrong idea about those two citations and show why. If the larger text changes nothing for you, then I'm perfectly happy to sit here and await a proper explanation of the contradiction. You're on your way to one, and please don't think I don't appreciate it. But I want to make sure you know exactly how big a theological can of worms you're opening with this notion of revising the relationship according to the growing body of human knowledge. The result of it becomes vital: we've mentioned things like tattoos, dietary law, and sexuality. It isn't that we necessarily need to undertake these issues presently--sexuality, especially, has a way of coming up--but that we see in the offered resolution a device of flexibility not present in a more relevant (to my life) form of the Christian faith, the activist faith. To use a specific point of illustration: in my political career people have died for being homosexual while the Bible was on the ballot. We can fairly say that we see among the activist-fundamentalist Christianity that lobbies for laws and demands suspension of civil rights a lack of this device of flexibility you've employed. Understand, I'm thrilled to even see it. It's all in what people do with it, then, to be just and not arbitrary; but as a practical application, I can't tell you how foreign an idea this flexibility is to my Christian experience. To steer back to direct relevance, there's a reason I'm hounding on this revising of the human relationship with God. Understanding its dimensions within the Christian endeavor is difficult since it is generally denied. I don't yet understand how it functions for you, so yeah ... there's a reason I press on that issue.It has been reasonably refuted and you've already recognized its validity, or at least hinted at it, at least once... "It isn't that the idea isn't valid, Cupid..." And here's the reason I keep asking about the larger text. I'm sure you'll find the example you're providing is irrelevant, since the validity wasn't relevant as I had pointed out. If you're referring to another time, please point me to it, but I'm pretty damn sure that's what you're citing.Such a perspective has already been offered with respect to Ex 20:5 vs Ez 18:20. You've seen it, you've acknowledged its validity, and now you deny it?Like I said, a can of worms. Big. Huge.Get over yourself, will you please? If you've got something better to offer, just do it. Ah, the last time I pointed out that you have no point, you got upset. What, are you admitting it this time? What is it about your faith that you won't put any effort into it? What, you say it is so and we believe? I know life would be easier that way, Cupid, but you've got to give a little more to justify your position. Like I noted, there's nothing in Exodus about the choices, and if God is willing to guarantee the passing of those sins--to eliminate the free choice to transcend--merely because the inadequacy of the relationship He has designed leads him to doubt the possibility of transcension ... well? It's a pretty stupid drill, then, isn't it?
I mean, Exodus makes it pretty clear that God is willing to make sure that burden of iniquity gets passed along. Now, your offered explanation is fine, except that it cracks the rest of the faith as I mentioned. It's not just the people that are confused about their relationship with God, and it's pretty fair to say that all bets are off if this constant revision of the terms of the relationship is the real and proper way of things. I mean, like I said, it's not that your refutation of the contradiction isn't valid. It just does a whole lot of collateral damage in the meantime.Yeah. I'd like to see at least one debate in this forum get resolved in a straightforward manner. Why don't you take a crack at it?Sure: I agree that the conditions of contradiction exist, and I cannot accept the refutation which, while proper within the condition it attempts to resolve, invites greater and more fundamental questions pertaining to the validity of the very faith. To accept your resolution, Cupid requires a step deeper into the forest of doubt. You raise more difficulties than you resolve.
Straightforward enough?
--Tiassa :cool:
blonde_cupid
01-02-02, 02:52 AM
tiassa,
***Part of the contradiction at hand is the idea of why the sons who stand with God would be subject to the iniquities of the fathers.***
One more time. Sons could not stand with God* at Exodus because they did not know what that meant. It was incumbent upon their fathers teach them.
blonde_cupid
01-02-02, 03:07 AM
tiassa,
I asked: How long does anyone here think that three or four generations lasts?
More than, say, 1800 years from Exodus to Ezekiel?
You respond that you don't see how that's relevant.
Of course, to be blunt, if you can't see the relevance, then you can continue to feign seeing the appearance of a contradiction.
blonde_cupid
01-02-02, 04:31 AM
tiassa,
***I feel obliged to invite you over and over again to simply tell us that Teg has the wrong idea about those two citations and show why.***
Uh. Hello. I've demonstrated why a number of times already.
***If the larger text changes nothing for you, then I'm perfectly happy to sit here and await a proper explanation of the contradiction.***
Hello again. I believe I'm the one who addressed the citations in terms of the larger text.
***You're on your way to one, and please don't think I don't appreciate it. But I want to make sure you know exactly how big a theological can of worms you're opening with this notion of revising the relationship according to the growing body of human knowledge.***
It's on the table, so let's indulge. The difference, I believe, is that you see God's* bringing man forth in God's* way as a form of inadequacy on the part of God* and I don't.
***The result of it becomes vital: we've mentioned things like tattoos, dietary law, and sexuality. It isn't that we necessarily need to undertake these issues presently--sexuality, especially, has a way of coming up--but that we see in the offered resolution a device of flexibility not present in a more relevant (to my life) form of the Christian faith, the activist faith. To use a specific point of illustration: in my political career people have died for being homosexual while the Bible was on the ballot. We can fairly say that we see among the activist-fundamentalist Christianity that lobbies for laws and demands suspension of civil rights a lack of this device of flexibility you've employed. Understand, I'm thrilled to even see it. It's all in what people do with it, then, to be just and not arbitrary; but as a practical application, I can't tell you how foreign an idea this flexibility is to my Christian experience. To steer back to direct relevance, there's a reason I'm hounding on this revising of the human relationship with God. Understanding its dimensions within the Christian endeavor is difficult since it is generally denied. I don't yet understand how it functions for you, so yeah ... there's a reason I press on that issue.***
So? What do you want to know about how it functions for me?
***Ah, the last time I pointed out that you have no point, you got upset. What, are you admitting it this time? What is it about your faith that you won't put any effort into it?***
First of all, I was unaware that it was your opinion that I had no point in this matter. If that's really how you feel then it's pretty sad, the amount of time and energy you're spending discussing no point.
Secondly, the last time? I'm pretty sure what it is you're getting at here and if you want to go there you're on your own. You assume much but know next to nothing about me, my faith or the effort I put into it.
***What, you say it is so and we believe? I know life would be easier that way, Cupid, but you've got to give a little more to justify your position.***
Oh, please. This, from one who compares "part" of one out-of-context verse to "part" of another out-of-context verse and declares, as fact, that they are opposing states?
***Like I noted, there's nothing in Exodus about the choices***
There's nothing in Exodus about what choices? Man is being educated about the choices in Exodus.
***... and if God is willing to guarantee the passing of those sins--to eliminate the free choice to transcend-***
As far as I can see, there was no guarantee that sins would pass unless the father actually sinned. The objective was, I believe, to educate man as to the choices and those who were not yet educated as to the choices were not in a position to exercise free choice.
***-merely because the inadequacy of the relationship He has designed leads him to doubt the possibility of transcension ...***
By what authority do you declare the relationship to be "inadequate"?
By what authority do you judge that God* has been lead to "doubt"?
Uh. Hello. I've demonstrated why a number of times already.I don't think you have. You've focused on the Ezekiel half, and written much of choices and inheritence of ideas, but you haven't written of why God chooses to visit that iniquity to the fourth and fifth generations. I can meet you halfway and "get it", but I'm waiting for you to say that God becomes less real and more conceptual before I do, because that's what it equals and though you leave us to assume what you're referring to by not actually mentioning it, we've all learned that it's best not to assume, even sympathetically. Oh, you have written of Exodus, you admitted that the sons don't have much choice. And in Ezekiel they have the choice. There's another way of looking at the contradiction that prevents you from resolving it by focusing solely on the people. There are choices by God afoot, and those are largely being ignored in the mad rush to declare the contradiction resolved, invalid, or anything other than what it is: extant and unanswered.Hello again. I believe I'm the one who addressed the citations in terms of the larger text. Of Ezekiel. Now, what of Exodus ... ah, that's right, the larger text doesn't change anything. Thus, the contradiction still exists.So? What do you want to know about how it functions for me? It merely involves learning the terms of how you employ the device, and whether or not it remains consistent throughout your theological application. It's a longer-term process that tells me about your spiritual integrity, and speaks much toward the value of what you have to offer. For instance, do you remember when I jumped all over KalvinB for his treatment of Godless' list of contradictions? Part of what we argued was the objector's need to separate the topic post into individual parts. This allows one to isolate each contradiction and resolve it without ever making the myriad resolutions function together. Case in point, this device of flexibility you've prescribed: if it consistently is acknowledged in your theological considerations, it's genuine. If it's something you drag out for lack of anything else, we'll know that soon enough when the device fails to reappear in future debates.Oh, please. This, from one who compares "part" of one out-of-context verse to "part" of another out-of-context verse and declares, as fact, that they are opposing states?On the one hand, it's a little late for you to hide behind context. On the one hand, you already said that the larger text of Exodus doesn't change the context, so what's the problem now? Something about argumentative integrity? For instance this, where you've thrown some away by rejecting your own statements. Good show, mate.There's nothing in Exodus about what choices? Man is being educated about the choices in ExodusRight, but whatever the sons decide, the Lord shall still visit that iniquity upon them. Why? That's the point about choices that you've failed to address: it doesn't matter what the sons choose--the Lord will whack them anyway.As far as I can see, there was no guarantee that sins would pass unless the father actually sinned. The objective was, I believe, to educate man as to the choices and those who were not yet educated as to the choices were not in a position to exercise free choice.This is as utterly irrelevant as you can get. Who gives a rat's behind about that? How can the sons bear the iniquity of the sins of the fathers if the fathers don't sin in the first place? Are you prescribing some mythical attribute to the Bible that makes it not the clear and literal truth as written? Fine with me; I'm all for the looser interpretations. But by Exodus, the Lord will intervene and ensure that the sons bear the iniquities. Has nothing to do with "education".By what authority do you declare the relationship to be "inadequate"?
By what authority do you judge that God* has been lead to "doubt"?By what authority? I didn't know I needed special authority to read a Bible:
1. Inadequate: Well? God keeps needing to revise his relationship with humans. It's not like we can rewrite the terms and call it even.
2. Doubt: It seems God is taking from people the possibility of transcending the sins of the fathers; per Exodus, why not give the sons a chance to transcend the past? Why guarantee it?
By what authority? You're almost funny, Cupid.I asked: How long does anyone here think that three or four generations lasts?
More than, say, 1800 years from Exodus to Ezekiel?
You respond that you don't see how that's relevant.
Of course, to be blunt, if you can't see the relevance, then you can continue to feign seeing the appearance of a contradictionSo, then, God was referring to specific sinners? Say, the Haymarket 7 instead of all sinners in general? (As an example)
That's why the 1800 years is irrelevant in comparison to the number of generations. Who was God referring to, then, when he said he would visit iniquity to the fourth and fifth generations?
By what authority? Is that the best you can come up with?
--Tiassa :cool:
blonde_cupid
01-02-02, 08:09 PM
tiassa,
Moving forward, we can debate the why's in more detail if you'd like.
For now, it would be appreciated if we could stay focused on the issue of whether or not there was a contradiction between Exodus 20:5 and Ezekiel 18:20 as presented by Teg. In that light, I'd like to know if you stipulate to the following:
1. In the recording of Exodus 20:5 which took place circa 1200 BC, a relative time period was expressed during which the iniquities of the fathers would be visited upon the sons (3 to 4 generations).
2. The relative time period expressed in Exodus 20:5 had expired by the time of Ezekiel 18:20, circa 600 AD.
3. Therefore, the recording of Ezekiel 18:20 approximately 1800 years after Exodus 20:5, that the sons shall not bear the iniquities of their fathers, reconciles with that which had been recorded in Exodus 20:5.
P.S. - The audience in Exodus 20:5 is the Israelites in the desert of Sinai.
*Originally posted by razz
"I contend that we are both atheists, I just believe in one less god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, then you will know why I dismiss yours."*
Neat quote.
If it is intended as a reflection of your own thoughts, then I have a simple question.
Since when does believing in 3,999,999,999,999 gods make you an atheist?
*Originally posted by tiassa
It has been pointed out a few times that the two passages in question represent contradictory states: one in which the sons shall bear the iniquities of the fathers, and one in which they shall not.*
That has in fact been pointed out.
However, in one case the sons do not bear the iniquities of their fathers, in the other the Lord visits the iniquities of the fathers on the sons.
In essence, we have two truth tables...
T
sons bear iniquities
F
sons do not bear iniquities.
T
Lord visits iniquities on sons
F
Lord does not visit iniquities on sons
You say the truth tables are identical, producing a contradiction.
I say they are not identical, thus no contradiction.
*The nearest I can figure here is that you're not perceiving the words the same as I do.*
I don't, and they actually are different.
*I wrote, If the appearance of contradiction is resolved by a different perspective on the text, please offer it instead of just tell us the idea exists.*
tiassa, tiassa, tiassa you're still laboring under the illusion that I have to come up with a resolution to the contradiction.
I don't.
You actually have to explain how "visit" and "bear" mean the same thing, even though they look and are different, even considering your earlier point about subjects and objects.
*Well, as presented in the topic post, the two passages are contradictory.*
As presented in the Bible, they're not.
*The easiest way for you to communicate why that appearance is false is to tell us why the two passages that represent contradictory states do not actually represent contradictory states.*
Maybe, but I'm not concerned about the appearance of things.
There is no actual contradiction since the two passages do not represent contradictory states, even tho you might repeat that concept in every post.
*If you're suggesting that nobody has pointed out what the contradiction is, then I seriously find myself doubting your reading skills.*
I don't doubt that some case has been elaborately constructed to simulate a contradiction.
That much effort is usually indicative of some construction project involving straw in a homuncular configuration.
*Can you answer the contradiction presented or not?*
The contradiction presented is indeed a contradiction, however it has nothing to do with the Bible.
I see no reason to resolve your own contradiction.
There isn't one in the Bible, either, so again, there is nothing to resolve.
In essence, we have two truth tables...
1. T sons bear iniquities
F sons do not bear iniquities.
2. T Lord visits iniquities on sons
F Lord does not visit iniquities on sons
You say the truth tables are identical, producing a contradiction.
I say they are not identical, thus no contradiction. The two statements represent contradictory states.
1. The sons will bear the iniquities (that the Lord visits upon them).
2. The sons will not bear the iniquities.
The hair you're splitting between bear and visit ignores the grammatical subjects of the sentences and ignores what the actual words mean when put together in that order. The sentences represent contradictory states, and you can't avoid that.tiassa, tiassa, tiassa you're still laboring under the illusion that I have to come up with a resolution to the contradiction.
I don't.
You actually have to explain how "visit" and "bear" mean the same thing, even though they look and are different, even considering your earlier point about subjects and objects.Tony, Tony, Tone. Are you illiterate? Seriously? I didn't figure you were since you can write a complete sentence, but why is it that you're once again paring down the considerations? I've accused you of shortening citations to change their meaning, and now you reduce citations to separate individual words so that you can focus on the fact that the individual words are not the same.
The sons shall bear the iniquities that the Lord visits on them.
Do you understand the relationship between visit and bear yet? If you can't, it's not my problem.
:rolleyes:,
Tiassa :cool:
So the entire law of the Old Testament only applied to four generations? Or is it just the punishment part?
For the record, the way I've read Exodus indicates that the threat does not expire after four generations, but that the Lord will still punish the fourth and fifth generations for sins. This includes the present generation. The idea of God putting a time limit on the validity of His word cracks me up.
It is, I suppose, a perfectly reasonable explanation insofar as anything about faith in the Biblical god is reasonable, but I must confess, the idea of the Bible having an expiration date is a little new to me. Would you be so kind as to point me toward the literary body which expounds on this point of faith?
thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
blonde_cupid
01-03-02, 09:30 AM
tiassa,
***For the record, the way I've read Exodus indicates that the threat does not expire after four generations, but that the Lord will still punish the fourth and fifth generations for sins. This includes the present generation.***
It is agreed that the fourth and fifth generations will still be punished for sins. The question is, as it was at the time of Ezekiel, for whose sins will individuals in the present generation be punished?
The answer, that the one who sins is the one who will be punished, was expounded upon in the full body of Ezekiel 18 for starters... "The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. "
Ezekiel 18
1
The word of the LORD came to me:
2
"What do you people mean by quoting this proverb about the land of Israel: "`The fathers eat sour grapes, and the children's teeth are set on edge'?
3
"As surely as I live, declares the Sovereign LORD, you will no longer quote this proverb in Israel.
4
For every living soul belongs to me, the father as well as the son--both alike belong to me. The soul who sins is the one who will die.
5
"Suppose there is a righteous man who does what is just and right.
6
He does not eat at the mountain shrines or look to the idols of the house of Israel. He does not defile his neighbor's wife or lie with a woman during her period.
7
He does not oppress anyone, but returns what he took in pledge for a loan. He does not commit robbery but gives his food to the hungry and provides clothing for the naked.
8
He does not lend at usury or take excessive interest. He withholds his hand from doing wrong and judges fairly between man and man.
9
He follows my decrees and faithfully keeps my laws. That man is righteous; he will surely live, declares the Sovereign LORD.
10
"Suppose he has a violent son, who sheds blood or does any of these other things
11
(though the father has done none of them): "He eats at the mountain shrines. He defiles his neighbor's wife.
12
He oppresses the poor and needy. He commits robbery. He does not return what he took in pledge. He looks to the idols. He does detestable things.
13
He lends at usury and takes excessive interest. Will such a man live? He will not! Because he has done all these detestable things, he will surely be put to death and his blood will be on his own head.
14
"But suppose this son has a son who sees all the sins his father commits, and though he sees them, he does not do such things:
15
"He does not eat at the mountain shrines or look to the idols of the house of Israel. He does not defile his neighbor's wife.
16
He does not oppress anyone or require a pledge for a loan. He does not commit robbery but gives his food to the hungry and provides clothing for the naked.
17
He withholds his hand from sin and takes no usury or excessive interest. He keeps my laws and follows my decrees. He will not die for his father's sin; he will surely live.
18
But his father will die for his own sin, because he practiced extortion, robbed his brother and did what was wrong among his people.
19
"Yet you ask, `Why does the son not share the guilt of his father?' Since the son has done what is just and right and has been careful to keep all my decrees, he will surely live.
20
The soul who sins is the one who will die. The son will not share the guilt of the father, nor will the father share the guilt of the son. The righteousness of the righteous man will be credited to him, and the wickedness of the wicked will be charged against him.
21
"But if a wicked man turns away from all the sins he has committed and keeps all my decrees and does what is just and right, he will surely live; he will not die.
22
None of the offenses he has committed will be remembered against him. Because of the righteous things he has done, he will live.
23
Do I take any pleasure in the death of the wicked? declares the Sovereign LORD. Rather, am I not pleased when they turn from their ways and live?
24
"But if a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin and does the same detestable things the wicked man does, will he live? None of the righteous things he has done will be remembered. Because of the unfaithfulness he is guilty of and because of the sins he has committed, he will die.
25
"Yet you say, `The way of the Lord is not just.' Hear, O house of Israel: Is my way unjust? Is it not your ways that are unjust?
26
If a righteous man turns from his righteousness and commits sin, he will die for it; because of the sin he has committed he will die.
27
But if a wicked man turns away from the wickedness he has committed and does what is just and right, he will save his life.
28
Because he considers all the offenses he has committed and turns away from them, he will surely live; he will not die.
29
Yet the house of Israel says, `The way of the Lord is not just.' Are my ways unjust, O house of Israel? Is it not your ways that are unjust?
30
"Therefore, O house of Israel, I will judge you, each one according to his ways, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent! Turn away from all your offenses; then sin will not be your downfall.
31
Rid yourselves of all the offenses you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, O house of Israel?
32
For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign LORD. Repent and live!
blonde_cupid
01-03-02, 10:04 AM
tiassa,
"...the idea of the Bible having an expiration date is a little new to me. Would you be so kind as to point me toward the literary body which expounds on this point of faith?"
Nice play on words. The Bible does not have an expiration date but relative time periods are stipulated for various conditions throughout the Bible.
A simple example is that the Bible expounds upon the expiration of much after the final judgement (as well as the beginning of much more).
That's it for now because I've got to get going.
It is agreed that the fourth and fifth generations will still be punished for sins. The question is, as it was at the time of Ezekiel, for whose sins will individuals in the present generation be punished?Right ... and that's the basis of the contradiction.
So, then, it would appear that the resolution is the transitional nature of God's knowledge and will. It might be a sidebar, but it's curious to note that though many reject "Catholic" concepts (e.g. Perfect Knowledge and Immutable Will) such concepts still exist in Protestant and other Christian faiths.
So in that sense, if I'm not accepting a proposed resolution, it's only because I'm waiting for a specific declaration (it would, after all, be unkind if I assumed that to be your final resolution).
So it's well enough to reconcile the contradiction by citing the transitory nature of God's knowledge and will, but I'm hesitant to accept that because of the larger issues of faith it invokes. Free will may evaporate as a faith concept, though there are Chrisitans here who have declared free will a fallacy to begin with, so we can make of that whatever we need. And the concept of the transitory nature of God also has the risk of being arbitrarily applied; I'm hoping to understand your take on the concept exactly so that we can avoid future misunderstandings should you appear to contradict the conditions you've established.
I'll actually give some consideration to a topic addressing the faith points endangered by the transitory nature of God. That one might be fun.
thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
blonde_cupid
01-03-02, 03:58 PM
tiassa,
***Right ... and that's the basis of the contradiction.
So, then, it would appear that the resolution is the transitional nature of God's knowledge and will.***
If the plan which God* designed included certain transitions in the developing relationship with man, then God's* knowledge and will are not transitional in nature.
If I set out to build a structure, for example, my planning the transition from excavating to laying the foundation, from laying the foundation to framing, etc... does not mean that my knowledge of building is transitional in nature. Nor does it mean that my will to build a structure is transitional in nature.
The limited time period expressed in Exodus and the specificity of Ezekiel indicates to me that God* planned for this transition in the relationship which needed to be explained to man per Ezekiel.
The limited time period expressed in Exodus and the specificity of Ezekiel indicates to me that God* planned for this transition in the relationship which needed to be explained to man per Ezekiel.This time thing is getting ridiculous.
On the one hand, someone once mentioned that God doesn't hold grudges; I guess several generatons is only an instant to the eternal, so it doesn't seem like several human lifetimes is that much of a grudge.
But I disagree about a point. I believe that God is saying that all sinners would be punished to the fourth generation. I do not believ that God is saying that for the next four generations, He will visit the iniquities of the fathers onto the sons.If the plan which God* designed included certain transitions in the developing relationship with man, then God's* knowledge and will are not transitional in nature. That's why Perfect Knowledge and Immutable Will were so darn important to the Catholic scholars; they realized that without those two attributes of God, the redemption scheme was bunko.
Take the christos, for instance: Why was his part necessary? Is it because God set it up so that humans should require redemption? Once again, we find ourselves back at Eden, wondering what the whole point of the fruit episode was.
It sounds like you're saying that God planned around the failures of his creations. If nothing is impossible with God, that failure of the creations can only be by His will.
Will the Devil be redeemed? (That's a yes or no answer, not a conditional one unless you plan to rewrite the tradition of the Devil in order to make the condition possible.)
Did God, then, know that Job would fail? Is that why He assigned the Devil the task of tormenting Job?
These may seem like irrelevant issues, but they are issues that arise in the rest of the Christian theology and faith once we accept the planned transitions you're asserting.
I must admit that I really do enjoy exploring these neo-theologies that attempt to settle the questions of old by changing the subject of questioning. It really does seem that just about any Christian has a "hidden" idea up his sleeve, an idea that, while perfectly acceptable to most outside the faith sphere, is unusual within that range. Time limits on God's law, and now the flexibility of God's knowledge and will. It isn't that they're unacceptable within the theistic realm, but that they're deviations from the traditions of Christian theology. That's well and fine, I say truly. But this is where doctrine and dogma come from: when people insist on varying interpretations of the Bible, some of those interpretations create circumstances contrary to the asserted faith. It's what I mean when I call Christianity a do-what-thou-will religion. Despite "God's Law" and all of these firm ideas, it pretty much seems like people enact whatever part of the religion already reflects their personalities. These louder, ugly fights that have been going on around here? They're not particularly bothersome in the sense that I've known such conditions ever since the beginnings of my Christian-related memories. I'm actually quite used to Christians saying just about whatever justifies their faith for the moment, and it's one of the reasons I hounded KalvinB about "limiting the terms of debate". Like those theological questions above: if we separate each difficult issue of faith, then each can be reconciled independently of the other, and nobody needs ever look at whether the puzzle pieces fit together and form a picture. In other words, by dismissing contradiction after contradiction, one need never make sure that Resolution A doesn't contradict Resolution B or Bible quotes C, D, or E because we should only look at these thngs one at a time. I just want to make sure these resolutions you offer are really the ones you want to put forth. After all, you've shot a few holes in other parts of the faith, but I would not be surprised if you had a rabbit in the hat for those ones, too. But if I chase down every one of these ideas, and months later am pointing back to the transitional plan of God while you're arguing on behalf of a more fixed idea, then what have we achieved in the intervening time? I wouldn't worry about wounding Catholic theology; in general, it's wounded enough. But in the modern Protestant and post-Christian faiths, there exists a large portion of the theology that is, essentially, as Catholic as the wounded Catholic theology. To unfix God's will to be transitional according to the plan alludes to the idea that God is either unable or unwilling to create humans correctly the first time. If God is unable, well ... there's a big theological conundrum right there. If God is unwilling, that pretty much states the case that Christianity is a scam.
Mind you ... I'm trying to explain why I'm so fixated on what exactly the proposed resolutions equal. I'd rather avoid the vagaries of a tit-for-tat did-not-did-too fight, as some posters have pretty much sickened me by repeatedly denying that they wrote words that were cited in their own posts. It's not that I won't accept them, but that I'm unsure of whether or not you realize that little red "Resolve" button also drops a neutron bomb into the middle of the theology upon which Christian faith depends.
thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
blonde_cupid
01-03-02, 06:01 PM
tiassa,
***It sounds like you're saying that God planned around the failures of his creations. If nothing is impossible with God, that failure of the creations can only be by His will.***
Yes, in a way. If it is God's* will that man has free will then it is, I think, logical to conclude that it is by design that people make different choices in their relationships with God* - according to their exercise of free will - and the wrong choice can be considered a failure.
James R
01-03-02, 09:10 PM
tony1,
<i>Essentially what it boils down to is this....
1. The Bible, with some alleged errors in it.
2. All other knowledge, with proven, scientifically established, verified error in it.
It seems like a no-brainer, doesn't it?</i>
It sure does. Majority wins, I guess.
<i>As for contradiction, it remains to be seen if the Bible contradicts itself.</i>
Have you read the list in the other thread? It's hardly disputable. You can dance around the issue as much as you like, but you can't seriously believe that the bible doesn't contradict itself. If you <i>do</i> seriously believe that, I won't be able to change your mind, since you're living in a fantasy world.
<i>In addition, the authors of those other documents actually write them with the specific intention of contradicting the other documents.</i>
I assume you mean scientific papers and the like. Please provide evidence for this assertion.
<i>Thus, the entire collection of all other documents is useless.</i>
This does not logically follow from your premise.
<i>If your thinking is shown to be wrong in some respects, then why can't it be wrong in other respects?</i>
It can be. I'm not claiming infallibility; you are.
<i>Since you are using your thinking to evaluate the Bible, how do you know your thinking isn't hopelessly muddled on that issue along with others?</i>
I don't, for sure. But, as I said before, I can measure myself against the opinions of others.
<i>Are you actually convinced that your thinking could be in error on every single point EXCEPT where the Bible is concerned?</i>
Where did that come from?
<i>Even IF you exist, how do we know what you write is an accurate account of you or your words?</i>
What else would it be an account of?
<i>Your writing isn't even self-consistent, unless of course you're infallible.</i>
I'm not claiming infallibility; you are.
<i>Your argument in this case is that you will tolerate no less than 100% accuracy (as defined by you) where the Bible is concerned, but less than 1% accuracy with everything else is just fine.</i>
No. That's not my argument. All I am doing is pointing out that, contrary to your apparent believe, the bible is not 100% accurate. I don't require that it be so; you do.
<i>In essence, you say that 100% accuracy is required to believe one thing, but believing its opposite only requires, say, 0.0001% accuracy.</i>
Where do you get that idea?
<i>You yourself say that you could be wrong, which is an admission that you recognize that your thinking is imperfect.</i>
Yes, I am not so arrogant as to think that I am perfect. Similarly, it would be stupid to think that the writers of the bible were perfect. Yet that is what you seem to think.
*Originally posted by tiassa
Do you understand the relationship between visit and bear yet? If you can't, it's not my problem.*
It is your problem since you can't understand what the words mean.
Let's start with "bear" since it's the simpler concept of the two.
I'm going to assume that "bear" means "carry" to you , as it does to me.
Thus, in Ezek. 18:20, the son does not carry the iniquity of the father, i.e. the son does not die for the father's sin.
Agreed, or no?
"Visit" means "assign" more or less, as in the verb form of "heirs and assigns" which a concept appearing in many contracts, such as the Bible.
Thus, when the Lord "visits" the sin of the father upon the son, that doesn't mean that the son dies for the father's sin, it means that the same sin is assigned to the son, since the son is an "heir and assign" of the father.
If the son commits the sin, then he dies for his own sin, not his father's sin.
"Visit" and "bear STILL mean different things.
From what I can gather, you appear to be arguing that the son WILL die for his father's sin, but he won't.
*Originally posted by James R
It sure does. Majority wins, I guess.*
You actually think that God is a consensus of people.
Do you have a brain?
Can you think at all?
The majority LOSES, in practically every example you can think of.
There is only one winner in any race, the majority are ALL losers.
In the stock market, few winners, many losers.
In a lottery, one winner, many losers.
Where did you get the idea that the majority wins?
Are you daft?
*I assume you mean scientific papers and the like. Please provide evidence for this assertion.*
How about cold fusion and the rebuttals of cold fusion?
*But, as I said before, I can measure myself against the opinions of others.*
Heaven as democracy.
You can only wish you're right.
Perhaps I am mistaken, and you don't actually give a shit about eternal life.
Is that a possibility?
*All I am doing is pointing out that, contrary to your apparent believe, the bible is not 100% accurate. I don't require that it be so; you do.*
I don't need it to be 100% accurate.
And actually you do, before you'll believe it.
However, you require 0% accuracy to disbelieve it.
I was actually throwing you a bone with the 0.001% thing.
You actually care zero about the accuracy of any belief when it is contradicting the Bible.
Take evolution.
While you believe you need a preponderance of evidence to believe the ToE, you don't actually care whether the evidence is evidence of the ToE, as long as a certain number of people are telling you it is.
Thus, you don't care about the accuracy of the belief, you are merely concerned with the number of people who agree with you.
Tony1,
It is not my bussiness what you believe in or not, But I do feel like that I should know what I am believing in?. If Bible is not 100% accurate but it is suppose to be word of God?? Since God doesnot make mistakes then why this one? If people wrote Bible who were inspired by God then why there are lots of "According to" in there ?. It is more like a story book rather then a relgious book with religious guidelines?.
I am sure you beleive that Jesus is God? or the Holy Trinity?. Then where did you get these Ideas? They must have come from the Bible. The Book of Books. Now if one would lay his/her faith on the believes in this book then one should know that he/she are not making a mistake. Can you also if you don't mind point out in Bible where did Jesus said that he is God? and Also about Holdy Trinity?.
Thank you.
*Originally posted by Markx
But I do feel like that I should know what I am believing in?.*
Good plan.
*If Bible is not 100% accurate but it is suppose to be word of God??*
It contains the word of God, along with some words by Satan, a number of devils, dozens of people, etc.
Satan, of course, would generally be lying, along with the lying spirits.
How accurate is that?
Of course, the reporting of the lies is accurate.
*Since God doesnot make mistakes then why this one?*
"This one" isn't a mistake, except on the part of those who think it is.
*If people wrote Bible who were inspired by God then why there are lots of "According to" in there ?. It is more like a story book rather then a relgious book with religious guidelines?.*
The Bible does contain descriptions of what people did when they heard from God, i.e. they did "according to" what they heard.
*Now if one would lay his/her faith on the believes in this book then one should know that he/she are not making a mistake.*
One would need to know that about any book or pile of books, such as the Koran, or science textbooks, or anything.
*Can you also if you don't mind point out in Bible where did Jesus said that he is God?*
I and my Father are one.
(John 10:30, KJV).
*and Also about Holdy Trinity?. *
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
(1 John 5:7, KJV).
blonde_cupid
01-04-02, 11:08 PM
tiassa,
***I believe that God is saying that all sinners would be punished to the fourth generation.***
For any sin? Or, just for the sin of having other gods?
Exodus 20:3-5:
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
P.S. Do you accept Exodus and dismiss Ezekiel?
I agree with your post. But here is something I like to point out.
Originally posted by tony1
*[i]Originally posted by Markx
*Can you also if you don't mind point out in Bible where did Jesus said that he is God?*
I and my Father are one.
(John 10:30, KJV).
*and Also about Holdy Trinity?. *
For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
(1 John 5:7, KJV).
Ok so do you believe that Jesus was God? Or Is God?. You gave me above verse regarding Jesus telling that he and God are the same. Now let me give some verses according to jesus who he really was,
Anyone can call God "Father" according to the Bible
"I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God." (John 20:17 RSV 1952)
Jesus, at the end of his mission, made it clear that God is not only his father, but father of all, and God of all, and even his own God whom he worshipped throughout his earthly career.
We cry, Abba, Father. (Romans 8:15 KJV 1611)
Here the writer is Paul and he made it clear that anyone can address God as "Father."
Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples:
". . . Do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. (Matthew 23:1,9 NIV 1984)
According to Matthew, Jesus taught everyone to call God 'Father'. He said to them:
"This, then, is how you should pray:
'Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name . . .' " (Matthew 6:9 NIV)
Jesus made it clear that he is not God
"Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." (Mark 10:18)
A man had ran up and knelt before Jesus and called him "Good Teacher." Jesus used the opportunity to make it clear to people that they must not praise him more than a human being deserves to be praised.
Jesus depends on God for Authority: God depends on no one
"I can do nothing of my own authority" (John 5:30)
"I do as the Father has commanded me." (John 14:31 RSV)
Needless to say, God does not receive commands from anyone.
"The words that I say to you I do not speak of my own authority." (John 14:10 RSV)
"I do nothing of my own authority but speak thus as the Father has taught me." (John 8:28 RSV)
God has full authority, and full knowledge. He cannot be taught, but He teaches.
Jesus is not Equal to "The Father"
"The Father is greater than I." (John 14:28 RSV)
People forget this and they say that Jesus is equal to the Father. Whom should we believe--Jesus or the people?
Jesus Does Not Know Everything
Speaking of the Last Day, Jesus said:
"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only." (Matthew 24:36)
Did Jesus Raise Himself up?
God raised him up. (Acts 2:24)
Jesus did not have power to raise himself up. God had to raise him up, as the author of Acts says.
Jesus prayed to God: God prays to no one
"Abba, Father, all things are possible to thee; remove this cup from me; yet not what I will, but what thou wilt." (Mark 14:32)
Jesus fell on his face and prayed to God, begging God to save him from crucifixion. This also shows that Jesus had a will different from God's will. The writers of Matthew, Mark, and Luke tell us that it was Jesus's wish to be saved from crucifixion, but it was God's will to let the crucifixion take place.
"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46)
Jesus did not know the tree had no fruit
He [Jesus] was hungry. And on seeing in the distance a fig tree in leaf, he went to see if he could find anything on it. When he came to it , he found nothing but leaves, for it was not the season for figs. (Mark 11 12-13)
When he saw that the tree had leaves, he thought that he might find fruit on it. But when he came up close to the tree he realised there were no fruits. After all, it was not even fig season.[/B]
Jesus referred to as Servant of God
[/B] "Behold my servant whom I have chosen." (Matthew 12:18 In this passage God calls Jesus His servant)
The God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified his servant Jesus. (Acts 3:13)
For truly in this city there were gathered together against thy holy servant Jesus. . . (Acts 4:27)
Everyone, except for God, are God's servants. Jesus, too, is God's servant.[/B]
Who was real Worker of Miracles?
Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: (Acts 2:22 KJV)
People say that since Jesus worked many miracles, he must be God. But here we see that God did the miracles; Jesus was the instrument God used to accomplish His work. Jesus was a man whom God approved of. This means he was a righteous man. A messenger.
Jesus cannot guarantee positions
"To sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father" (Matthew 20:23)
Therefore if we want to secure our position with God in the life hereafter we must turn to God and ask Him.
"A Misunderstood saying"
I and the Father are one. (John 10:30)
People like to quote this saying, but they forget the following saying:
John 17:11 Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are.
This shows that what was meant was one in purpose, not one in substance as people think. The disciples could not become one human, but they can pursue the same goal. That is to say, they can be one in purpose, just as Jesus and the Father are one in purpose.
Did Jesus say everything John says he said?
John 14:9 Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.
John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life.
John 8:12 I am the light of the world.
John 8:58 Before Abraham was, I am.
John 10:7 I am the door of the sheep.
John 11:25 I am the resurrection, and the life.
John 14:6 I am the way, the truth, and the life.
John 15:1 I am the true vine.
Known Christian scholars tell us that if Jesus had made all these fantastic claims about himself, the first three gospels would surely have recorded them. Mark was written around 70 C.E., followed by Matthew and Luke somewhere between 80-90 C.E. John, written around 100 C.E., was the last of the four canonized gospels. The Christian scholar James Dunn writes in his book The Evidence for Jesus:
"If they were part of the original words of Jesus himself, how could it be that only John picked them up and none of the others? Call it scholarly skepticism if you like, but I find it almost incredible that such sayings should have been neglected had they been known as a feature of Jesus' teaching. If the 'I ams' had been part of the original tradition, it is very hard indeed to explain why none of the other three evangelists made use of them." (The Evidence for Jesus, p. 36)
Similarly, the New American Bible tells us in its introduction, under the heading How to Read Your Bible:
"It is difficult to know whether the words or sayings attributed to Jesus are written exactly as he spoke them. . . . The Church was so firmly convinced that . . . Jesus . . . taught through her, that she expressed her teaching in the form of Jesus' sayings." (St. Joseph Medium Size Edition, p.23)
What we have in John, then is what people were saying about Jesus at the time John was written (about 70 years after Jesus was raised up). The writer of John simply expressed those ideas as if Jesus had said them. Rev. James Dunn says further in his book that, almost certainly, the writer of the fourth gospel "was not concerned with the sort of questions which trouble some Christians today -- Did Jesus actually say this? Did he use these precise words? and so on." (The Evidence for Jesus, p. 43)
Scholars have concluded that this gospel was originally written in a simple form. But this gospel was later on, as the New Jerusalem Bible says, "amplified and developed in several stages during the second half of the first century. " (The New Jerusalem Bible: Introduction to John, p. 1742)
It says further:
"It is today freely accepted that the fourth Gospel underwent a complex development before it reached its final form." (p. 1742)
On a previous page, the same Bible says:
"It would seem that we have only the end-stage of a slow process that has brought together not only component parts of different ages, but also corrections, additions and sometimes even more than one revision of the same discourse." (The New Jerusalem Bible, p. 1739)
The New American Bible says that most scholars "have come to the conclusion that the inconsistencies were probably produced by subsequent editing in which homogeneous materials were added to a shorter original." (The New American Bible, Revised New Testament, p. 143)
Oh joy! Now we see what jesus had to say about himself, So what you think? I don't know if you believe that Jesus is God or not but if you do then I don't see any sense in believing in one verse and leaving all others alone. It is more like I take what I like and leave the rest.
I will get back later on Holy trinity.
:o
St. Augustine (354-430) was one of the founders of the Roman Catholic Church. He well understood that Christianity was like a house of cards; if the church dared to admit to even a single error in the Bible, who could say there wasn't an error on every page? The resurrection story might then be false and everyone's hopes are in vain. This is what he said:
"The most disastrous consequences must follow upon our believing that anything false is found in the sacred books....If you [even] once admit into such a high sanctuary of authority one false statement, there will not be left a single sentence of those books, which, if appearing to anyone difficult in practice or hard to believe, may not by the same fatal rule be explained away as a statement, in which intentionally, the author declared what was not true." --St. Augustine in Epistula, p. 28.
Hmmm ... i see the bibles credibility has been an issue fer quite a while.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I aslo read this from a previous post...
Exodus 20:3-5:
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
................................................
*Does this mean that to worship the Pope is wrong after all?
*God says worship none but him.... so have the catholics etc, got it all wrong?
*Are they committing a sin as they bow down and worship the pope or even statues of the virgin mary??????
Cheers
RazZ:D
Originally posted by razz
St. Augustine (354-430) was one of the founders of the Roman Catholic Church. He well understood that Christianity was like a house of cards; if the church dared to admit to even a single error in the Bible, who could say there wasn't an error on every page? The resurrection story might then be false and everyone's hopes are in vain. This is what he said:
"The most disastrous consequences must follow upon our believing that anything false is found in the sacred books....If you [even] once admit into such a high sanctuary of authority one false statement, there will not be left a single sentence of those books, which, if appearing to anyone difficult in practice or hard to believe, may not by the same fatal rule be explained away as a statement, in which intentionally, the author declared what was not true." --St. Augustine in Epistula, p. 28.
Hmmm ... i see the bibles credibility has been an issue fer quite a while.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I aslo read this from a previous post...
Exodus 20:3-5:
3 Thou shalt have no other gods before me.
4 Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image, or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.
5 Thou shalt not bow down thyself to them, nor serve them: for I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation of them that hate me;
................................................
*Does this mean that to worship the Pope is wrong after all?
*God says worship none but him.... so have the catholics etc, got it all wrong?
*Are they committing a sin as they bow down and worship the pope or even statues of the virgin mary??????
Cheers
RazZ:D
Razz it is a million dollar question. What I am confuse is why no one is reading the whole Bible why people tend to chose what they like they rea, what they don't like they don't even care. Why they try to follow and believe in one part and why leave others alone.Or maybe it is what they have been thought in their churches or following their parents and grand parents religion without Questioning and reasoning.
Yes?
Well no wonder I missed it. It seems to mirror your entire position. No evidence, no statement. Just an assertion without any grounds. I don't pretend to know the impact you have made on the people here, but from my experiences I would say you are woefully inadequate at debate. That you have been here longer than I and have most likely excercised this skill, says something about your inability to learn. I have seen many wonderful examples of proper debate. Some have the problem of meandering about topics unrelated, but your issue is much worse.
I am not so closed minded to assume that you represent all of christianity. I am also very sensitive of your right to speac. I would hate to think that so many payed with their life so that you may abuse this right by simply asserting "yes" or "no". For most I would state that while I disagree with what they may say I would still die to defend their right to say it, yours may be the case I feel least passionate about.
Thus, in Ezek. 18:20, the son does not carry the iniquity of the father, i.e. the son does not die for the father's sin.
Agreed, or no?I have not seen it established that the iniquity equals death.
As a side note, and for your impish bender, I should note that one of the dumbest things I've ever heard came from a Franciscan nun--that the reason for the decree that nobody bearing phyisical imperfections could take of the holy of holies (Lv. 21.16-ff) was that their profanity came in the Lord's will of their disfigurement. Like I said, a side note.
In that sense we might wonder about the effects of some drugs. I do actually know personally of one, and possibly two cases in which heavy drug users fathered children with birth defects. Hmm ...
Blonde Cupid!P.S. Do you accept Exodus and dismiss Ezekiel? On a practical level, I may have to given the above consideration in my discussion with Tony1; this doesn't seem to have much effect on our present discussion. In terms of the nature and method of God in relation to the issues, they're both Biblical statements and thus bear equal weight.
Anyway ...
Tony1 and Blonde Cupid
At any rate, 6 Thus the LORD passed before him and cried out, "The LORD, the LORD, a merciful and gracious God, slow to anger and rich in kindness and fidelity,
7 continuing his kindness for a thousand generations, and forgiving wickedness and crime and sin; yet not declaring the guilty guiltless, but punishing children and grandchildren to the third and fourth generation for their fathers' wickedness!" (Exodus 34.6-7)* Here we see another verse reflecting the third and fourth generations; punishment is iniquity visited unto.
* Taken as we see here, to apply Tony1's point, the Lord will not declare the guilty guiltless, but assign the sin to the third and fourth generations and punish them for their own sins. I still don't get what you mean with the visit/assign angle; how is a repetition of the father's sin so different from any other sin that it is highlighted three times? (Ex. 20, Ex. 34, Num. 14) I must reject your assertion on the basis of the Bible.
* Regarding which sinners ... Blonde Cupid: I'd say all sinners, all sins.
It's worth noting that the general disorganization of how I speak to you each in turn is sort of an accident of circumstance. This started out as a response to Tony1 and then I realized I was overlapping into the train Blonde Cupid and I are on. I decided to leave it as it was because ... well, it amuses me somehow.
thanx,
Tiassa :cool:
Here we see another verse reflecting the third and fourth generations; punishment is iniquity visited unto.
That was my initial point. Visit has a definate connotation of an active role when coupled with unto. A punishment would be in line with this terminology.
Taken as we see here, to apply Tony1's point, the Lord will not declare the guilty guiltless, but assign the sin to the third and fourth generations and punish them for their own sins.
I just dismissed this possibility before going into this debate. It can clearly be represented that the second generation is included. Any other representation would make them foolish statements. Why blame the grand children and great grand children while removing blame from the child? Assign also has implications. It can also be freely exchanged with bear. Assign and bare are synonomous. Bear has a slightly stronger connotation, but then so does visit unto. In any case my point still withstands. The bible is filled with contradictory statements.
*Originally posted by Markx
Ok so do you believe that Jesus was God? Or Is God?.*
Shouldn't you have asked me that first?
*Anyone can call God "Father" according to the Bible
Jesus made it clear that he is not God
Jesus depends on God for Authority: God depends on no one
Needless to say, God does not receive commands from anyone.
Jesus is not Equal to "The Father"
People forget this and they say that Jesus is equal to the Father. Whom should we believe--Jesus or the people?
Jesus Does Not Know Everything
Did Jesus Raise Himself up?
Jesus prayed to God: God prays to no one
Jesus did not know the tree had no fruit
Jesus referred to as Servant of God
Jesus cannot guarantee positions
Did Jesus say everything John says he said?
John 14:9 Whoever has seen me has seen the Father.
John 6:35 And Jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life.
John 8:12 I am the light of the world.
John 8:58 Before Abraham was, I am.
John 10:7 I am the door of the sheep.
John 11:25 I am the resurrection, and the life.
John 14:6 I am the way, the truth, and the life.
John 15:1 I am the true vine. *
Hey, not bad.
But, like I said, shouldn't you have asked me first what I believed?
*On a previous page, the same Bible says:*
The Bible is actually considered the part from Ge. 1:1 to Rev. 22:21.
The rest is filler.
*Oh joy! Now we see what jesus had to say about himself, So what you think? I don't know if you believe that Jesus is God or not but if you do then I don't see any sense in believing in one verse and leaving all others alone.*
I'd tend to agree with you.
I was merely answering your question.
*I will get back later on Holy trinity.*
Can't wait.
*Originally posted by razz
St. Augustine (354-430) was one of the founders of the Roman Catholic Church. He well understood that Christianity was like a house of cards; if the church dared to admit to even a single error in the Bible, who could say there wasn't an error on every page?*
Hey, you guys are getting much better.
This beats the old "religion sux, atheism roolz" stuff.
Anyway, Augustine, being one of the founders of Catholicism, would be wrong.
It actually doesn't matter if there is an error on every page.
The word of God is SPOKEN, not written, so errors on every page are equivalent to having a guaranteed perfect Bible with ink dribbled on every page.
Is a perfect Bible any less perfect, just because someone spills coffee on it?
So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.
(Romans 10:17, KJV).
Can't "hear" it unless it is spoken.
*Does this mean that to worship the Pope is wrong after all?
God says worship none but him.... so have the catholics etc, got it all wrong?
Are they committing a sin as they bow down and worship the pope or even statues of the virgin mary??????*
You bet.
That's why it's been an ongoing issue here that Catholics are NOT Christians.
*Originally posted by Markx
What I am confuse is why no one is reading the whole Bible why people tend to chose what they like they rea, what they don't like they don't even care.*
That IS a problem.
*Originally posted by Teg
I would hate to think that so many payed with their life so that you may abuse this right by simply asserting "yes" or "no".*
No no, just yes.
For all the promises of God in him are yea, and in him Amen, unto the glory of God by us.
(2 Corinthians 1:20, KJV).
God doesn't bother with anything more than Yes and Amen.
At least I give you some debate once in a while.
*Originally posted by tiassa
I have not seen it established that the iniquity equals death.*
So, your point in this entire debate has been that the sons and the fathers bear or are visited by the Lord for...uh...whatever they bear and are visited upon by?
*Here we see another verse reflecting the third and fourth generations; punishment is iniquity visited unto.*
Of course, the issue is, what obscure version is that taken from, considering that none of the versions I have use the term "punishing?"
*Originally posted by Teg
A punishment would be in line with this terminology.*
Great, a pagan and an atheist mutually agreeing on what the Bible means.
I guess with a consensus like that, who could argue?
Pray tell, you two, what does Ge. 1:1 mean?
*It can clearly be represented that the second generation is included.*
That's what "to" means, especially when it is written "unto" as in the KJ and others.
*Assign also has implications. It can also be freely exchanged with bear.*
Fat chance.
Try writing a contract with the phrase "heirs and bears" in it.
It'll get laughed out of court.
Check it out.
"I, Teg, being of sound mind, bind myself, my heirs and bears to the following..."
*The bible is filled with contradictory statements.*
That, coming from you, would be more believable if you didn't contradict yourself at every turn.
ltcmmdr
01-05-02, 09:33 PM
I think the Bible is full of errors no matter what.
So tony1, do you think is Jesus God or not?. As far as I know and what I have learned in chruches in my younger years was Jesus is God but I didn't buy that. That's why I decided to learn about other religions. Then if Jesus is not God then whole christianity will collapse or it won't??
Thanks in advance.
James R
01-06-02, 12:20 AM
tony1,
Please try reading what I wrote instead of substituting your own stupidity and responding to that. I know it's easier, but it makes you look silly.
<i>You actually think that God is a consensus of people.</i>
No. Where did I say that? Oh - I didn't. Hmm....
<i>Do you have a brain?</i>
Clearly I do. Or maybe God is writing this for me.
<i>Can you think at all?</i>
It seems I can. Try some difficult questions, tony1.
<i>Where did you get the idea that the majority wins? Are you daft?</i>
Once again, I will ignore your silly personal comments and ask you to consider my statement in its original, real, context.
<i>How about cold fusion and the rebuttals of cold fusion?</i>
Oh, ok, then. You're talking about the process of peer review in science, which is a valuable, though imperfect part of the scientific method. No argument from me there. I thought you were bringing up that point for a different, invalid, reason.
<i>Perhaps I am mistaken, and you don't actually give a shit about eternal life.</i>
How are my opinions on eternal life relevant to whether the bible has contradictions? Why do you bring them up?
<i>I don't need [the bible] to be 100% accurate. And actually you do, before you'll believe it.</i>
No. That's your imaginings again.
<i>You actually care zero about the accuracy of any belief when it is contradicting the Bible.</i>
And again.
<i>While you believe you need a preponderance of evidence to believe the ToE, you don't actually care whether the evidence is evidence of the ToE, as long as a certain number of people are telling you it is.</i>
Excuse my ignorance, but what's the ToE, and what does it have to do with evolution? And numbers are a relevant but not deciding factor in my beliefs.
<i>Thus, you don't care about the accuracy of the belief, you are merely concerned with the number of people who agree with you.</i>
No, I'm afraid that's wrong too.
You know, it's very easy to refute your claims about <b>my</b> beliefs. You see, tony1, they are <b>my</b> beliefs, so I am the final authority on what they are. It makes you look even sillier when you try to put words into my mouth.
<i>[The bible] contains the word of God, along with some words by Satan, a number of devils, dozens of people, etc.</i>
Oh, ok then. So we agree that the bible has errors - even deliberate errors now? Fine. End of conversation.
It interests me that seemingly only tony1 has the ability to sort the wheat from the chaff when it comes to the bible. What's your secret recipe?
"It interests me that seemingly only tony1 has the ability to sort the wheat from the chaff when it comes to the bible. What's your secret recipe?"
ROFL....:D :D :D
I shall now go to bed while I am in a good mood. Thanks JR...nothing like a good laugh to relieve stress. There is a LOT of humor in the truth.
*Originally posted by ltcmmdr
I think the Bible is full of errors no matter what. *
And your opinion means....?
*Originally posted by Markx
So tony1, do you think is Jesus God or not?*
Jesus is God's Word.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(John 1:1, KJV).
*Then if Jesus is not God then whole christianity will collapse or it won't?*
Probably not.
*Originally posted by James R
No. Where did I say that?*
When you said, "It sure does. Majority wins, I guess."
Perhaps you are one of those people who actually thinks....
1. that there aren't any corollaries to anything you say
2. that other people can't figure out the ramifications of what you say
*ask you to consider my statement in its original, real, context.*
OK, are you still daft?
"Majority wins" is a fool's rule of thumb.
The majority loses, and anyone who thinks that consensus is the way to decide what the truth is, has completely lost sight of reality.
*You're talking about the process of peer review in science*
Duh, where else does contradiction arise?
I am not suggesting that scientists can't read numbers on, say, rulers.
In your case, I would wonder, though.
*How are my opinions on eternal life relevant to whether the bible has contradictions? Why do you bring them up?*
There are some people who draw a connection between what the Bible has to say and eternal life.
*Excuse my ignorance, but what's the ToE, and what does it have to do with evolution? And numbers are a relevant but not deciding factor in my beliefs.*
ToE = Theory of Evolution.
Anyway, numbers being relevant to belief is another way of saying that you think fallaciously.
Simply put, you cannot think straight.
What difference could it possibly make if one person or one billion people think that you should go left to get to your destination, if what you need to do is go right?
*You know, it's very easy to refute your claims about my beliefs. You see, tony1, they are my beliefs, so I am the final authority on what they are.*
That's the "you'd have to be a mind reader to understand me" fallacy.
You're transparent as glass.
You actually aren't some inscrutable incredibly wise sage far beyond all other mortals.
Your beliefs are the standard beliefs that many in your situation hold, and your denials are the same, too.
Furthermore, it is quite clear that you cannot reason analogically.
*So we agree that the bible has errors - even deliberate errors now? Fine. End of conversation.*
Only for those who cannot distinguish between "containing error" and "being in error."
*What's your secret recipe?*
Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful.
But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night.
And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.
The ungodly are not so: but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away.
(Psalms 1:1-4, KJV).
*Originally posted by Taken
There is a LOT of humor in the truth.*
There's even more in whatever that is that you post.
My sides hurt after reading some of your stuff.
Originally posted by tony1
[
*Originally posted by Markx
So tony1, do you think is Jesus God or not?*
Jesus is God's Word.
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(John 1:1, KJV).
*Then if Jesus is not God then whole christianity will collapse or it won't?*
Probably not.
[/B]
Well by simply saing that you are very close to muslim belief. Now I don't know your religion but I like to say if that's what you believe in then you are believing in exactly what Muslim Quran says, Qur'an tells us about Jesus' mission in the following verses,
[B]"And He will teach him the Book, the wisdom, the Torah, the Gospel and make him a Messenger to the children of Israel saying, “I have come to you with a sign from your Lord. I will create for you out of clay as the likeness of a bird; then I will breathe into It, and it will be a bird, by the power of God. I will also heal the blind and the leper and bring to life the dead, by the power of God. I will inform you too of the things you eat, and what you treasure up in your houses. Surely in that is a sign for you if you are believers. Likewise I will confirm the truth of the Torah that is before me, and to make lawful to you certain things that before were forbidden unto you. I have come to you with a sign from your Lord; so fear God, and obey me. Surely God is my Lord and your Lord; so serve Him. This is a straight path". (3:45-51[\B]
Now that was his mission and that's I think what you said that he is a word of God. Now where can we find that word of God is another question since we don't know what happened to it in the hands of Paul,Matthew, John etc.
Great, a pagan and an atheist mutually agreeing on what the Bible means.
I guess with a consensus like that, who could argue?
Words are universal. I can see how such vague terminology and blatant word play, could lead to your misinterpretation. It is easy to believe that the bible is perfect, if you are of faith. Blind faith, well how could such an unquestioning force of stupidity doubt the perfection of a book that originated the psychosis. An open mind will not ignore such obvious facts. That would be the least of expectations from a person of able to doubt.
Life is easier without doubt, but in the end you have learned nothing. Doubt is what keeps us in line. It is a sort of balance, but none-the-less necessary. Beyond that and to the purest form we need fear.
No no, just yes.
Play with your words, it is justification of my statement.
Pray tell, you two, what does Ge. 1:1 mean?
"In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." (Genisis1:1)
This is telling of the limited knowledge of the authors. Notice how they have the earth and then...everything else. They new nothing of absolute truths, they just guessed that the earth was created a long time ago. When? The beginning. Typically vague and typically rash in its assumptions: obviously the author was not there at the event. An average work by a primative people.
*Originally posted by Markx
Well by simply saing that you are very close to muslim belief.*
Real money is very "close" to counterfeit money.
*you are believing in exactly what Muslim Quran says,*
Nah, I've read the Koran a few times and I don't believe it.
*Now that was his mission and that's I think what you said that he is a word of God.*
You'd be wrong.
I said he is God's Word.
*Now where can we find that word of God is another question since we don't know what happened to it in the hands of Paul,Matthew, John etc. *
Let me guess, Muhammad found it 1400 years later in perfect shape.
Anyway, to answer your question, we find it right where it is all along, in the mouth of God.
The Word of God is spoken after all.
*Originally posted by Teg
Words are universal.*
So is bias.
*It is easy to believe that the bible is perfect, if you are of faith.*
Mine has a tear near the corner of one page, so mine isn't perfect, plus there's a worn spot in the binding.
*Blind faith, well how could such an unquestioning force of stupidity doubt the perfection of a book that originated the psychosis.*
The theory of evolution does funny things to a person.
Who would have thought that such blind faith would be found in the sciences, of all things?
*An open mind will not ignore such obvious facts. *
An open mind is unable to ignore anything.
*Life is easier without doubt, but in the end you have learned nothing.*
Not so.
I have learned that my life is a lot easier than yours.
*When? The beginning. Typically vague and typically rash in its assumptions: obviously the author was not there at the event. An average work by a primative people.*
Why did you bring the theory of evolution into this?
Obviously, the authors weren't there.
Assumptions, vagueness, vague assumptions and assumptions of vagueness are what the theory of evolution thrives on.
Obviously, the ToE is a substandard work by primitive people.
James R
01-06-02, 10:16 AM
<i>Perhaps you are one of those people who actually thinks.... [snip]</i>
... or perhaps I'm not one of those people.
Me: <i>...ask you to consider my statement in its original, real, context.</i>
You: <i>OK, are you still daft? [snip]</i>
You didn't do it, tony1. Try again. Third time lucky?
Me: <i>How are my opinions on eternal life relevant to whether the bible has contradictions? Why do you bring them up?</i>
You: <i>There are some people who draw a connection between what the Bible has to say and eternal life.</i>
You didn't answer the question tony1. Try again.
<i>ToE = Theory of Evolution.</i>
Thankyou. In physics ToE often means "theory of everything", a somewhat clumsy term concerned with the unification of the four fundamental forces, so you had me wondering.
<i>Simply put, you cannot think straight.</i>
Thankyou for providing your opinion (again).
<i>What difference could it possibly make if one person or one billion people think that you should go left to get to your destination, if what you need to do is go right?</i>
Well, if a billion minds have all considered the question and reached the same conclusion, and one mind reached the opposite conclusion, I think I'd generally bet on the billion rather than the one, all other things being equal. It would be a rare thing indeed for the one to be right in such a situation. Admittedly it is possible - just VERY VERY unlikely. But a rational person knows how to deal with probabilities such as this.
<i>That's the "you'd have to be a mind reader to understand me" fallacy.</i>
No, it's the "you'd have to be a mind reader to be able to read my mind" self-evident truth.
<i>You're transparent as glass.</i>
What a pity. And I try so hard to be enigmatic. :)
<i>You actually aren't some inscrutable incredibly wise sage far beyond all other mortals.</i>
Again, a pity. Maybe I need to work on my resemblance to Einstein a bit more? Or go and live a frugal life in India for a while? Perhaps I should buy some crystals? Hmm....
<i>Furthermore, it is quite clear that you cannot reason analogically.</i>
Well, at least reasoning at all is a start. I'll try to do better, if you do too.
<i>Only for those who cannot distinguish between "containing error" and "being in error."</i>
Please explain the difference for me, because I fear I am too dumb to be able to tell. If I were to imagine it's something like the difference between "visit" and "bear", would I be on the right track?
<i>[bible quote snipped]</i>
How do you know that's one of the true bits? Maybe that bit was written by a demon.
*Originally posted by James R
"Perhaps you are one of those people who actually thinks.... [snip]"
... or perhaps I'm not one of those people.*
You've got me convinced.
I finally admit that you are not one of those people who actually thinks.
It's been tough, but usually the opponent insists on being able to think.
I give up trying to convince you that you can think.
*Well, if a billion minds have all considered the question and reached the same conclusion, and one mind reached the opposite conclusion, I think I'd generally bet on the billion rather than the one, all other things being equal.*
So you admit that you would take the wrong turn, based not on rational thought but on blind probability only.
*It would be a rare thing indeed for the one to be right in such a situation. Admittedly it is possible - just VERY VERY unlikely. But a rational person knows how to deal with probabilities such as this.*
Assuming that you think of yourself as a "rational" person, you have repeatedly proven that a rational person does not know how to deal with probabilities such as this.
You're the guy who throws his winning lottery ticket away because statistically it could not have won.
Actually, you are the guy being offered a winning lottery ticket, but who refuses it on the grounds that there is no such thing because any rational person could calculate the probabilities, and the vast majority are losing tickets.
*Maybe I need to work on my resemblance to Einstein a bit more?*
No, working on your resemblance to an abacus, or a pile of rocks, would be more likely to succeed.
*Well, at least reasoning at all is a start.*
I take back any reference I may have made to your being able to reason at all.
See your first comments above ( around the "[snip]")
*Please explain the difference for me, because I fear I am too dumb to be able to tell.*
I agree, I'd be wasting my time.
*How do you know that's one of the true bits? Maybe that bit was written by a demon. *
Observation as per the scientific method, of all things.
I noted the reference to chaff blowing in the wind, and the similarity to your reasoning, or lack thereof, and the conclusion was inescapable.
James R
01-06-02, 08:26 PM
Thanks for your input, tony1. I see no need to respond to anything in your last post. Have a nice day!
*originally posted by James R
"Perhaps you are one of those people who actually thinks.... "[snip]
... or perhaps I'm not one of those people. *
Just a reminder as to why you're not posting an answer; inability to think.
I have to hand it to you, JR, when you prove a point, you prove a point.
Tony1, You are one interesting Character. You don't answer any one's question. May be you don't have any answer or may be you just don't want to answer so it will expose more holes in faith,Bible or maybe in Individual thinking.
I asked you do you believe if Jesus was God and you said he is God's word and now then when I gave you explanation from Quran you simply ditched it by saying it " I said he is God's Word". Now care to explain it??? What is that suppose to mean?.
Then you said, " Real money is very "close" to counterfeit money." Now how can counterfit is better then original?? In each and every sense.
I really don't care if you have read the Quran or not neither does it matter if you believe in or not. But care to tell us what do you read?? and what is the base of your belief??.
Twisted words, are nice but I think lots of people here are noticing that you are simply avoiding any direct answers. But it is all good. I hope you can explain us what is ur belief and how would you back it up.
Originally posted by Avatar
Post it Markx. Really. I'd like to hear smth other thn standart aswers I have heard on this religion forum lately.
I hope you read all the posts. Also for kalvinB I hope I did what you asked me to.
'In the first book of the Bible, Guinessis, God got tired of creating the world, so he took the Sabbath off.'
'Adam and Eve were created from an apple tree.'
'Noah's wife was called Joan of Ark.'
'Lot's wife was a pillar of salt by day, but a ball of fire by night.'
'The Jews were a proud people and throughout history they had trouble with the unsympathetic Genitals.'
'Samson was a strongman who let himself be led astray by a Jezebel like Delilah.'
'Samson slayed the Philistines with the axe of the Apostles.'
'Moses led the Hebrews to the Red Sea, where they made unleavened bread which is bread without any ingredients.'
'The Egyptians were all drowned in the dessert. Afterwards, Moses went up on Mount Cyanide to get the 10 amendments.'
'The first commandment was when Eve told Adam to eat the apple.'
'The seventh commandment is thou shalt not admit adultery.'
'Moses died before he ever reached Canada.'
'Then Joshua led the Hebrews in the battle of Geritol.'
'The greatest miracle in the Bible is when Joshua told his son to stand still and he obeyed him.'
'David was a Hebrew king skilled at playing the liar. He fought with the Finklesteins, a race of people who lived in Biblical times.'
'Solomon, one of David's sons, had 300 wives and 700 porcupines.'
'When Mary heard that she was the mother of Jesus, she sang the Magna Carta.'
'When the three wise guys from the east side arrived, they found Jesus in the manager.'
‘Jesus was born because Man had an immaculate contraption.'
‘Jesus said the Golden Rule, which says to do one to others before they do one to you.'
'He also explained, "A man doth not live by sweat alone."'
'It was a miracle when Jesus rose from the dead and managed to get the tombstone off the entrance.'
'The people who followed the Lord were called the 12 decibels.'
'The epistles were the wives of the apostles.'
'One of the opossums was St Matthew who was also a taximan.'
'St Paul cavorted to Christianity. He preached holy acrimony, which is another name for marriage.'
'A Christian should have only one spouse. This is called monotony.'
Please amend your Bible accordingly.
Cheers
RazZ:D
The theory of evolution does funny things to a person.
Who would have thought that such blind faith would be found in the sciences, of all things?
I do not doubt what I observe. Gravity: I notice that I am not floating about, so I deduce that some force must be acting on me to stop my free motion. Science offers the best explanation. Objects naturally attract other objects.
Evolution: I observe that two creatures are very similar in appearance and behavior. I find a fossil record of a creature similar to both. Before the fossil record, the first two are not present, only some time after they appear. Two explanations: Tony1's god created two creatures and destroyed one. Or the only rational explanation: where once one species existed it has now branched into two very similar creatures seperated by land boundries or experiences.
I have learned that my life is a lot easier than yours.
I never said that comprehension would be easy.
. Assumptions, vagueness, vague assumptions and assumptions of vagueness are what the theory of evolution thrives on.
Obviously, the ToE is a substandard work by primitive people
You know nothing of the theory of evolution. How can you attack something you have never read. It was included in Encyclopedia Brittanica's set of 50 books highlighting the greatest works of the western world. For that reason it is easy to find.
An open mind is unable to ignore anything.
The sign that you are lacking of this trait.
*Originally posted by Markx
You don't answer any one's question.*
What's to answer?
James R proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is one of those people who doesn't actually think.
I stand in awe of his debating prowess, and I have no answer left.
I am fully convinced.
*I asked you do you believe if Jesus was God and you said he is God's word and now then when I gave you explanation from Quran you simply ditched it by saying it " I said he is God's Word". Now care to explain it??? What is that suppose to mean?*
1. The Quran doesn't explain it.
2. Jesus is the word that God spoke...
For example, God said "let there be light."
Jesus was that word.
For by him (the word) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
(Colossians 1:16, KJV).
And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: (who is the word spoken by God)
(Ephesians 3:9, KJV).
*Then you said, " Real money is very "close" to counterfeit money." Now how can counterfit is better then original?? In each and every sense.*
It isn't, since the Quran isn't even a counterfeit.
It's like a hand-drawn facsimile.
Basically, it's like Muhammad saying, "See, I can write a Bible, too."
*I really don't care if you have read the Quran or not neither does it matter if you believe in or not. But care to tell us what do you read??*
The Quran?
*and what is the base of your belief??*
Having read the Quran, and of course, the Bible.
*Twisted words, are nice but I think lots of people here are noticing that you are simply avoiding any direct answers.*
Of course, I'm noticing that people can't understand simple answers.
*But it is all good. I hope you can explain us what is ur belief and how would you back it up. *
Jesus is Lord.
Jesus is the word of God.
Backup is a piece of cake.
His word is true.
*Originally posted by Teg
I do not doubt what I observe.*
I think I may have said it before...
How about a nice friendlly game of 3-card monte?
I'll deal.
*Evolution: I observe that two creatures are very similar in appearance and behavior. I find a fossil record of a creature similar to both. Before the fossil record, the first two are not present, only some time after they appear. Two explanations: Tony1's god created two creatures and destroyed one. Or the only rational explanation: where once one species existed it has now branched into two very similar creatures seperated by land boundries or experiences.*
Right about there I note your total and complete inability to separate observation from fantasy, and the total inability to reason.
For starters, your comment about "before" as related to the fossil record isn't something you observed.
You actually only observed "under."
Hence, I question your ability to observe AND your ability to reason.
*I never said that comprehension would be easy.*
Essentially I did, though.
That's why you're working so hard.
*You know nothing of the theory of evolution. How can you attack something you have never read.*
I read plenty.
Not only that, I got much higher marks in school than you did, and I was tested on the theory of evolution the same as every one else.
*It was included in Encyclopedia Brittanica's set of 50 books highlighting the greatest works of the western world.*
ooo.
I'm at a loss for words. Oh wait! I've got one.
So?
Besides I got the set called the "Great Books" when I was a little kid, and I read all of them several times.
*The sign that you are lacking of this trait.*
Thank you for noticing.
I like to think that I can ignore useless stuff.
Unfortunately, you are in the position of not being able to ignore the ToE for the useless piece of trash it is.
[QUOTE]Originally posted by tony1
*Originally posted by Markx
You don't answer any one's question.*
What's to answer?
James R proved beyond a shadow of a doubt that he is one of those people who doesn't actually think.
I stand in awe of his debating prowess, and I have no answer left.
I am fully convinced.
*I asked you do you believe if Jesus was God and you said he is God's word and now then when I gave you explanation from Quran you simply ditched it by saying it " I said he is God's Word". Now care to explain it??? What is that suppose to mean?*
1. The Quran doesn't explain it.
2. Jesus is the word that God spoke...
For example, God said "let there be light."
Jesus was that word.
For by him (the word) were all things created, that are in heaven, and that are in earth, visible and invisible, whether they be thrones, or dominions, or principalities, or powers: all things were created by him, and for him:
(Colossians 1:16, KJV).
And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: (who is the word spoken by God)
(Ephesians 3:9, KJV).
*Then you said, " Real money is very "close" to counterfeit money." Now how can counterfit is better then original?? In each and every sense.*
It isn't, since the Quran isn't even a counterfeit.
It's like a hand-drawn facsimile.
Basically, it's like Muhammad saying, "See, I can write a Bible, too."
I really don't care if you have read the Quran or not neither does it matter if you believe in or not. But care to tell us what do you read??
The Quran?
*and what is the base of your belief??*
Having read the Quran, and of course, the Bible.
*Twisted words, are nice but I think lots of people here are noticing that you are simply avoiding any direct answers.*
Of course, I'm noticing that people can't understand simple answers.
*But it is all good. I hope you can explain us what is ur belief and how would you back it up. *
Jesus is Lord.
Jesus is the word of God.
Backup is a piece of cake.
His word is true.\
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I gave you quotes from Bible and from Jesus's own saying If it wasn't in English I could say you are having hard time understanding what Jesus said, But fortunatley it is all in English, Funny how hard it is for you to understand it. Now look again what Jesus said, And think about it whta he was trying to tell.
Let me repeate again What was Jesus trying to tell People like you even back then, you existed.:rolleyes:
Anyone can call God "Father" according to the Bible
"I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God." (John 20:17 RSV 1952)
Jesus, at the end of his mission, made it clear that God is not only his father, but father of all, and God of all, and even his own God whom he worshipped throughout his earthly career.
We cry, Abba, Father. (Romans 8:15 KJV 1611)
Here the writer is Paul and he made it clear that anyone can address God as "Father."
Jesus said to the crowds and to his disciples:
". . . Do not call anyone on earth 'father,' for you have one Father, and he is in heaven. (Matthew 23:1,9 NIV 1984)
According to Matthew, Jesus taught everyone to call God 'Father'. He said to them:
"This, then, is how you should pray:
'Our Father in heaven, hallowed be your name . . .' " (Matthew 6:9 NIV)
Jesus made it clear that he is not God
"Why do you call me good? No one is good but God alone." (Mark 10:18)
A man had ran up and knelt before Jesus and called him "Good Teacher." Jesus used the opportunity to make it clear to people that they must not praise him more than a human being deserves to be praised.
Jesus depends on God for Authority: God depends on no one
"I can do nothing of my own authority" (John 5:30)
"I do as the Father has commanded me." (John 14:31 RSV)
Needless to say, God does not receive commands from anyone.
"The words that I say to you I do not speak of my own authority." (John 14:10 RSV)
"I do nothing of my own authority but speak thus as the Father has taught me." (John 8:28 RSV)
God has full authority, and full knowledge. He cannot be taught, but He teaches.
Jesus is not Equal to "The Father"
"The Father is greater than I." (John 14:28 RSV)
People forget this and they say that Jesus is equal to the Father. Whom should we believe--Jesus or the people?
Jesus Does Not Know Everything
Speaking of the Last Day, Jesus said:
"But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father only." (Matthew 24:36)
Did Jesus Raise Himself up?
God raised him up. (Acts 2:24)
Jesus did not have power to raise himself up. God had to raise him up, as the author of Acts says.
Jesus prayed to God: God prays to no one
"Abba, Father, all things are possible to thee; remove this cup from me; yet not what I will, but what thou wilt." (Mark 14:32)
Jesus fell on his face and prayed to God, begging God to save him from crucifixion. This also shows that Jesus had a will different from God's will. The writers of Matthew, Mark, and Luke tell us that it was Jesus's wish to be saved from crucifixion, but it was God's will to let the crucifixion take place.
"My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" (Matthew 27:46)
Jesus referred to as Servant of God
"Behold my servant whom I have chosen." (Matthew 12:18 In this passage God calls Jesus His servant)
The God of Abraham and of Isaac and of Jacob, the God of our fathers, glorified his servant Jesus. (Acts 3:13)
For truly in this city there were gathered together against thy holy servant Jesus. . . (Acts 4:27)
Everyone, except for God, are God's servants. Jesus, too, is God's servant.
Who was real Worker of Miracles?
Jesus of Nazareth, a man approved of God among you by miracles and wonders and signs, which God did by him in the midst of you, as ye yourselves also know: (Acts 2:22 KJV)
People say that since Jesus worked many miracles, he must be God. But here we see that God did the miracles; Jesus was the instrument God used to accomplish His work. Jesus was a man whom God approved of. This means he was a righteous man. A messenger.
Jesus cannot guarantee positions
"To sit at my right hand and at my left is not mine to grant, but it is for those for whom it has been prepared by my Father" (Matthew 20:23)
Therefore if we want to secure our position with God in the life hereafter we must turn to God and ask Him.
"A Misunderstood saying"
I and the Father are one. (John 10:30)
People like to quote this saying, but they forget the following saying:
John 17:11 Holy Father, keep through thine own name those whom thou hast given me, that they may be one, as we are. \
Very hard to understand??? Jesus repeatdly trying to tell to dumb people who really is and yet still you don't get it. Now let me tell you why Jesus cannot be God.
Let's see some aspects of your so called God of yours.
Numerous quotations from the Bible are given below to prove that Jesus neither SHARED THE NATURE OF GOD, nor is he IN EVERY WAY LIKE GOD. He can, therefore, NEVER be GOD. These quotations are from the Bible without comment, because the Bible speaks for itself! TO SAY THAT JESUS IS GOD OR SON OF GOD IS NOT ONLY A MOCKERY OF GODHOOD, BUT BLASPHEMY OF THE LOWEST ORDER AND AND INSULT TO THE INTELLIGENCE OF MEN! (All quotations from the Bible are given from the Authorized Version. All the headings and subheadings I have referred to Jesus as "God" in inverted commas in order to show the ABSURDITY of the claim that Jesus is God!)
THE BIRTH OF "GOD"
"God" was created from the seed of David: "Concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the SEED of David according to the flesh." (Romans, 1:3) "God" was the fruit of the loins of David: "Therefore being a prophet, and knowing that God had sworn with an oath to him, that of the fruit of his loins, according to the flesh, he would raise up Christ to sit on his throne." (Acts, 2:30)
The Ancestors of "God":
"The generations of Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham." (Matthew, 1:1)
The Sex of "God":
"And when eight days were accomplished for the circumcising of the child, his name was called Jesus." (Luke, 2:21)
How Mary Conceived and Delivered "God"
Mary conceived Jesus like any other woman:
"The days were accomplished that she should be delivered," (Luke, 2:6) which means that she went through all the normal stages of pregnancy. Nor was her delivery any different from other expectant mothers: "And she being with child cried, travelling in birth, and pained to be delivered." (Revelation, 12:2)
"God" Sucked The Paps of a Woman:
"And it came to pass, as he spake these things, a certain woman of the company lifted up her voice, and said unto him, Blessed is the womb that bare thee, and the paps which thou hast sucked." (Luke, 11:27)
The Country of Origin of "God":
"Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judaea in the days of Herod the king. (Matthew, 2:1)
The Occupation of "God":
"Jesus was a carpenter by trade." (Mark, 6:3), "and the son of a carpenter." (Matthew, 13:55)
The Transport of "God":
"Behold, thy king cometh unto thee, meek, and sitting upon an ass." (Matthew, 21:5) "And Jesus, when he had found a young ass, sat thereon." (John, 12:14)
The Wining and Dining of "God":
"The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners." (Matthew, 11:9; Luke, 7:34)
The Poverty of "God":
"And Jesus saith unto him, the foxes have holes, and the birds of the air have nests; but the Son of man hath not where to lay his head." (Matthew, 8:20)
The Meagre Possessions of "God":
[/B] "Shoes of Jesus" (Luke, 3:16),
"Garments and coat of Jesus" (John, 19:23)
"God" Was a Devout Jew:
[B]"And in the morning, rising up a great while before day, he went out, and departed into a solitary place, and there prayed." (Mark, 1:35)
"God" Was a Loyal Subject:
Jesus was a good citizen, he was loyal to Caesar. He said: "Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's." (Matthew, 22:21)
He paid his tax regularly. (Matthew, 17:24-27)
THE FAMILY OF "GOD"
"God" Was the Son of Joseph:
"Philip findeth Nathanael, and saith unto him, we have found him, of whom Moses in the law, and the prophets, did write, Jesus of Nazareth, the son of Joseph" (John, 1:45)
Brothers and Brothers-in-law of "God":
"And when he was come into his own country, he taught them in their synagogue, insomuch that they were astonished, and said, whence hath this man this wisdom, and these mighty works? Is not this the carpenter's son? Is not his mother called Mary? and his brethren, James, and Joses, and Simon, and Judas? And his sisters, are they not all with us? Whence hath this man all these things? (Matthew, 13:54-56)
THE DEVELOPMENT OF "GOD"Spiritual Development
of "God":
"And the child grew, and waxed strong in spirit, filled with wisdom." (Luke, 2:40) Mental,
Physical and Moral Development of "God":
"And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and man." (Luke, 2:52)
"God" Was 12 Years Old When His Parents Took Him to Jerusalem:
"Now his parents went to Jerusalem every year at the feast of the passover. And when he was twelve years old, they went up to Jerusalem after the custom of the feast." (Luke, 2:41-42)
Powerless "God" (Jesus) said:
"I can of mine own self do nothing." (John, 5:30)
"God" Was Ignorant of the Time. Jesus said: "But of that day and that hour knoweth no man, no, not the angels which are in heaven, neither the Son, but the Father." (Mark, 13:32)
"God" Was Ignorant of the Season:
"And on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he (Jesus) was hungry: and seeing a fig tree afar off having leaves, he came, if haply he might find anything thereon: and when he came to it, he found nothing but leaves; for the time of figs was not yet." (Mark, 11:12-13)
"God" Was Unlettered:
"Now about the midst of the feast Jesus went up into the temple, and taught. And the Jews marvelled, saying, How knoweth this man letters, having never learned?" (John, 7:14-15)
"God" Learnt Through Experience:
"Learned he obedience by the things which he sufered." (Hebrews, 5:8)
THE TEMPTING OF "GOD"The Devil Tempted "God" For 40 Days:
"And immediately the spirit driveth him into the wilderness. And he was there in the wilderness forty days, tempted of Satan." (Mark, 1:12-13) The Devil Tempted
"God" Continuously:
"And when the devil had ended all the temptation, he departed from him for a season." (Luke, 4:13) Like the Sinners, "God" Was Tempted In All Things: "But (he) was in all points tempted like as we are, yet without sin." (Hebrews, 4:15)
True God Cannot be Tempted With Evil:
[B]"God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man." (James, 1:13) Only The Ungodly Are Tempted With Evil: "But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed." (James, 1:14)
THE MISSION OF "GOD"The Confession and Repentance of "God":
before the beginning of his public ministry: "Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist" (Matthew, 3:13), "which signified the confession of sins" (Matthew, 3:6), "and repentance from sins (Matthew, 3:11).
"God" Did Not Come to Save the Sinners:
"And when he was alone, they that were about him with the twelve asked of him the parable. And he said unto them, unto you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but unto them that without, all these things are done in parables: That seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand; lest at any time they should be converted, and their sins should be forgiven them." (Mark, 4:10-12)
THE RACIAL "GOD""God" Was a Tribal Jew:
"The lion of the tribe of Juda." (Revelation, 5:5)"God" Came For The Jews Only:
"But he answered and said, I am not sent but unto the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matthew, 15:24)
Racial Discrimination of "God":
"These twelve Jesus sent forth, and commanded them, saying, Go not into the way of the Gentiles, and into any city of the Samaritans enter ye not: But go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel." (Matthew, 10:5-6)
According to "God", The Gentiles Are Dogs:
"It is not meet to take the children's bread, and to cast it to dogs." (matthew, 15:26) The Kingdom of "God": And he (Jesus) shall reign over THE HOUSE OF JACOB for ever; and of his kingdom there shall be no end." (Luke, 1:33)
The Titles of "God":
"The king of the Jews" (Matthew, 2:2), "The king of Israel" (John, 1:49; 12:13) A "GOD" UNLIKE THE GODA Hungry "God": "And when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, he was afterward an hungered." (Matthew 4:2), "Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he hungered." (Matthew, 21:18), "and on the morrow, when they were come from Bethany, he was hungry." (Mark, 11:12)\
A Thirsty "God": "(He) saith, I thirst." (John, 19:28)A
Sleepy "God":
"He was asleep." (Matthew, 8:24), "He fell asleep" (Luke, 8:23), "And he was in the hinder part of the ship, asleep on a pillow." (Mark, 4:38)
A Weary "God":
Jesus therefore, being wearied with his journey, sat thus on the well." (John, 4:6) A Groaning "God": "He groaned in the spirit, and was troubled." (John, 11:33), "Jesus therefore again groaning in himself cometh to the grave." (John, 11:38) A
Weeping "God": "Jesus wept." (John, 11:35) A Sorrowing "God": "And (he) began to be sorrowful and very heavy." (Matthew 26:37). "Then saith he unto them, my soul is exceeding sorrowful, even unto death." (Matthew, 26:38) A
Hysterical "God":
"And (he) began to be soreamazed and to be very heavy." (Mark, 14:33) A Weak "God": "And there appeared an angel unto him from heaven, strengthening him." (Luke, 22:43)
THE WARRING "GOD"The Strong-Arm Method of "God":
"And he went into the temple, and began to cast out them that sold therein, and them that bought." (Luke, 19:45). "And the Jews' passover was at hand, and Jesus went up to Jerusalem, and found in the temple those that sold oxen and sheep and doves, and the changers of money sitting: and when he had made a scourge of small cords, he drove them all out of the temple, and the sheep, and the oxen; and poured out the changers' money, and overthrew the tables." (John, 2:13-15)
The "God" of War: Jesus said:
"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword." (Matthew, 10:34) The Sabre-Rattling "God": Jesus said: "And he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one." (Luke, 22:36)
The "GOD" ON THE RUN"God" Was Panic-Stricken: "After these things Jesus walked in Galilee: for he would not walk in Jewry, because the Jews sought to kill him." (John, 7:1) "God" Walked in Fear of the Jews: "Then from that day forth they took counsel together for to put him to death. Jesus therefore walked no more openly among the Jews." (John, 11:53-54) "God" Has Shown a Clean Pair of Heels: "Therefore they sought again to take him: but he escaped out of their hand." (John, 10:39) "God" Fled in Disguise: "Then took they up stones to cast at him: but Jesus hid himself, and went out of the temple, going through the midst of them, and so passed by." (John, 8:59)
THE CAPTURE OF "GOD"
A Friend Betrayed the Secret Hiding Place of "God": "And Judas also, which betrayed him, knew the place: for Jesus off-times resorted thither with his disciples. Judas then, having received a band of man and officers from the chief priests and Pharisees, cometh thither with lanterns and torches and weapons." (John, 18:2-3) "God" Was Arrested, Bound and Led Away: "Then the band and the captain and officers of the Jews took Jesus, and bound him, and led him away." (John, 18:12-13)
"God" Was Humiliated:
"And the men that held Jesus mocked him, and smote him. And when they had blindfolded him, they struck him on the face." (Luke, 22:63-64). "Then did they spit in his face, and buffeted him; and others smote him with the palms of their hands." (Matthew, 26:67)
"God" Was Defenseless:
"One of the officers which stood by struck Jesus with the palm of his hand", he said: "Why smitest thou me?" (John, 18:22-23)
"God" Was Condemned to Death:
"And they all condemned him to be guilty of death." (Mark, 14:64). "They answered and said, he is guilty of death." (Matthew, 26:66)
The Dumb and Docile "God": "He was led as a sheep to the slaughter; and like a lamb dumb before his shearer, so opened he not his mouth." (Acts, 8:32)
THE SUPPOSED END OF "GOD"The Dying "God":
"And Jesus cried with a loud voice, and gave up the ghost." (Mark, 15:37) The "God" That Was Supposed Dead and Defunct: "Christ died." (Romans, 5:6). "He was dead". (John, 19:33)
The Supposed Corpse of "God": "he (Joseph of Arimathaea) went to Pilate, and begged the body of Jesus. Then Pilate commanded the body to be delivered." (Matthew, 27:58)
The Shroud of "God": "And when Joseph had taken the body, he wrapped it in a clean linen cloth." (Matthew, 27:59)
The Orbituary of The Late And Lamented "God":
"Now when the centurion saw what was done, he glorified God, saying, certainly this was a righteous man." (Luke, 23:47)
According to the quotations of the Bible given above, I find that Jesus did neither SHARE THE NATURE OF GOD nor is he IN EVERY WAY LIKE GOD. He is, therefore, definitely NOT God! Either you must prove that Jesus is God, or you must admit that you are a a polytheist, . WITH ALL THE TRICKS AND VERBAL LEGERDEMAIN OF your qutations, You WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO PROVE THAT JESUS IS GOD!!
Or you can cry and repeate your two or three verses and deny all others. Sorry to make it so leanthy but you seems to be lost in your own world. If this is not even enoug I can dig up some more. Oh and by the way if you believe in Bible then please read again since I didn't make all that up. It was from Bible. Now if you still think jesus is LORD or GOD then you are wrong. Now also let me clear this up. Quran did mention that jesus was God's word. I only read it once but I know what is in there unlike you. You might have it but you have never read it. It is funny that you think Quran is self made. LOL I can only laugh about it.
We should start a new thread regarding Holy books and yes we have to inculde Bible in there :(
*Originally posted by Markx
According to the quotations of the Bible given above, I find that Jesus did neither SHARE THE NATURE OF GOD nor is he IN EVERY WAY LIKE GOD. He is, therefore, definitely NOT God! Either you must prove that Jesus is God, or you must admit that you are a a polytheist, . WITH ALL THE TRICKS AND VERBAL LEGERDEMAIN OF your qutations, You WILL NEVER BE ABLE TO PROVE THAT JESUS IS GOD!! *
Hey, I've got no problem admitting that I'm a polytheist.
There must be trillions of gods and there is one God.
Jesus is the Word of God.
And he was clothed with a vesture dipped in blood: and his name is called The Word of God.
(Revelation 19:13, KJV).
*Or you can cry and repeate your two or three verses and deny all others. Sorry to make it so leanthy but you seems to be lost in your own world.*
It's lengthy because you weren't listening to me.
I get all that.
Where did I say that Jesus was exactly the same as God, anyway?
*Now if you still think jesus is LORD or GOD then you are wrong.*
Nope, I'm right.
Jesus is Lord.
*Now also let me clear this up. Quran did mention that jesus was God's word. I only read it once but I know what is in there unlike you.*
What do you mean you only read it once but you know what is in there?
I've read the two versions of the Koran several times each.
*You might have it but you have never read it. It is funny that you think Quran is self made. LOL I can only laugh about it.*
Self-made?
You mean Muhammad didn't write it?
Does anyone else know this?
*Originally posted by Taken
AMEN!*
Did someone tell youi to put a handful of marbles in your mouth when you started going to church?
And did they tell you to take a marble out each time you ignored the Bible?
Because if that's what happened, you lost your marbles a long time ago.
Here I was, thinking you were a whale-worshipping Hindu/Buddhist.
Now I see you're a Muslim, too.
Why were you even bothering to pretend you were a Christian?
Originally posted by tony1
*[i]Originally posted by Markx
*Originally posted by Taken
AMEN!*
Here I was, thinking you were a whale-worshipping Hindu/Buddhist.
Now I see you're a Muslim, too.
Why were you even bothering to pretend you were a Christian?
Oh so now Taken is Muslim??.....:p :eek:. lol.
Tony1, I really would like to get another or different Version of Quran since I have never had it. Please tell me who is it by or you can give info regarding both. Like I said before I have seen only one. Also since you said that Quran didn't explain who jesus was can you tell me what did Quran said about Jesus???. As far as I know Quran mention that he was a messenger of God and he brought the message( word ) of God.
Jesus was the LIVING word of God. In other words He was the perfect "manifestation" of Gods word...or will. He was the "FULLFILLMENT" of Gods perfect word. He was NOT God. Jesus said before He gave up the spirit "Father it is finished". It is clear that He was here to "complete" the prophecy...i.e. word of God...the plan of salvation.
Tony you shouldn't be hard on Muslims if they atleast have understanding of the word where you are lacking in it.
Right about there I note your total and complete inability to separate observation from fantasy, and the total inability to reason.
You of all people should not invoke the word fantasy. That is the most apt description for your book. There is less fantasy in the Lord of the Rings.
For starters, your comment about "before" as related to the fossil record isn't something you observed.
You actually only observed "under."
Hence, I question your ability to observe AND your ability to reason.
Just because you are ignorant, doesn't mean that others are incapable of opening their eyes. Aspeciation is observable to all. The most common representative, the man/ape similarities are undeniable. Not much seperate our genetic material from them. But when you look back into history, variations on the two have come and gone. If you actually bothered to look back through the records, you would find that the lines become increasingly similar while going backward. Time is the only factor. Seperate two groups of a species for a sufficiently long period and they will begin to differ. That you hadn't noticed speaks to the gravity of your psychosis.
Not only that, I got much higher marks in school than you did, and I was tested on the theory of evolution the same as every one else.
You are a very pathetic creature. Now you are compensating for your lackings by imaging that you received higher marks in school. On who's authority did this information come to you? I find it difficult that you should prove knowledge of something you have yet to show here. Display even a hint of true awareness on the subject, I dare you.
Unfortunately, you are in the position of not being able to ignore the ToE for the useless piece of trash it is.
Again you display ignorance.
James R
01-09-02, 11:39 PM
I've said this in another thread, but I thought I'd throw it in here, too, since it's relevant:
tony1,
Please realise that <i>ad hominem</i> attacks do nothing to advance your position. They just make you look childish and support the view that you have no substantive answers to the arguments put to you.
*Originally posted by Markx
Oh so now Taken is Muslim??.....*
It's hard to tell.
She may be Isduddhuwhaleian.
*Tony1, I really would like to get another or different Version of Quran since I have never had it.*
You read it and you don't have one?
Do you have a djinn whispering the words in your ear?
I have one version by Abdullah Yusuf Ali, and I use one by M.H. Shakir, and I also have a hard copy version which was translated by some English guy, from what I recall, since I can't find it at this moment.
That's actually three different versions.
*Also since you said that Quran didn't explain who jesus was can you tell me what did Quran said about Jesus???*
It says that Muslims make no distinction between Jesus and any of the prophets.
See The Family of Imran [3.84].
*As far as I know Quran mention that he was a messenger of God and he brought the message( word ) of God. *
It sort of does say that, but Jesus didn't bring the word of God, he IS the Word of God.
*Originally posted by Taken
Jesus was the LIVING word of God.*
Jesus IS, repeat IS, the living Word of God.
This kind of thing is how I know you are out to lunch.
*He was NOT God.*
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
(John 1:1, KJV).
*Tony you shouldn't be hard on Muslims if they atleast have understanding of the word where you are lacking in it.*
I'm not being hard on Muslims, just YOU, since you make some claim to be Christian, but instead are Isduddhuwhaleian.
*Originally posted by Teg
You of all people should not invoke the word fantasy.*
I'm actually the most qualified here TO invoke it.
You're the guy who essentially claims that "under" means "millions of years before."
*But when you look back into history, variations on the two have come and gone.*
Nobody has looked back into "history."
They've looked into fantasy and imagination and have imagined these so-called "variations."
*If you actually bothered to look back through the records*
What "records?"
The imaginary "records" of your feverish mind?
*That you hadn't noticed speaks to the gravity of your psychosis.*
Luckily, I DID notice the "records" are purely imaginary and exist only in the minds of evos and in clever graphics in TV documentaries purporting to "explain" evolution.
*Now you are compensating for your lackings by imaging that you received higher marks in school. On who's authority did this information come to you?*
The instructors who marked the papers.
*Display even a hint of true awareness on the subject, I dare you.*
OK.
You are living in dreamland, nay, fantasyland.
*Originally posted by James R
Please realise that ad hominem attacks do nothing to advance your position.*
I don't do ad hominem attacks.
I do ad dementem attacks.
*you have no substantive answers to the arguments put to you.*
Of course, given mere hot air to debate, I see no need for substantive arguments.
In any case, you demonstrated your own inability to think, so that hardly qualifies as an ad hominem attack, unless you're referring to your own effective demolition of your own position.
James R
01-10-02, 12:54 AM
I rest my case.
Ordinarily, a person rests his case AFTER he builds one, not before.
Thus, my point about your arguments being hot air is well taken, and the need for substantive arguments is obviated.
What substantive argument can there be opposing the masterful "I rest my case," when no case has been built?
... that compel me to question your reading comprehension, Tony1.Ordinarily, a person rests his case AFTER he builds one, not before. I believe that you're missing a vital point of the chronology. After positing an argument that your dismissive, infantile regard for the topic A) advances your point none, and B) makes you look childish.
I generally would oppose (A) on the grounds that I'm not sure you ever have a point. At least, not one that has anything to do with the topics you post in. It's not uniformly true, but it's damn consistent.
As to point (B), I think it's fair to rest his case: you built it for him in your response. I mean, really, Tony1, when the best response you can manage is, you have demonstrated your own inability to think, it pretty much indicates that you are incapable of seeing the issues to which those thoughts are oriented. Of course it doesn't make sense to you, because you're not paying attention.
What more can be said to drive home the point of your demonstrative behavior? The childishness of your argumentative approach is quite apparent and quite useless.
Or like your exchange with Taken? Is You're not a Christian really, really, really the best you can do when you're confused?
The point of your childishness was proven before JamesR made the point upon which your response allows him to rest. I think he was trying to tell you, as so many people have tried, that you're being ridiculous and making a joke out of Christianity.
--Tiassa :cool:
Tony1
First of all I think you have three different Translations not Versions. I believe version is something which has modifications or changes made however I may be wrong. But again the one I have is by Yusuf Ali also.
Yes Quran didn't differe Jesus then any other Prophet. Which make perfect sense to me according to Quran.
Now what the heck is this term?? " Isduddhuwhaleian "?.
"Do you have a djinn whispering the words in your ear"
I have only one What I meant was I never read other version or translation. Now what is Djinn??? You mean Jinn??? Correct?.
" It sort of does say that, but Jesus didn't bring the word of God, he IS the Word of God."
Not sort a it clearly stated it. Now he is word of God or God's word I care less. The point is Christianity failed to prove the authenticity of Bible. I can't believe books and stories by So and so and so and so.. Some one saw a dream and some one heard by so and so etc. You don't even follow jesus's teachings you follow what matthew, paul and mark etc wrote. You take their words on Jesus's word. That is your choice. Absurd however.
Now since you are a devouted christian I believe you have number of bibles if you have noticed, I believe it was KJV Saying by Jesus are marked in red. That make only probably 5% of whole Bible. Rest is all by different people and for many books of Bible we don't even know their writers. Now they are added, subtracted and fixed . You know that and I know that. It is your belief and I have no problem with it. But admit it that you are beliving in not what Jesus try to preach but what Paul, mark, matthew etc preached.
:rolleyes: :rolleyes:
*Originally posted by tiassa
I think it's fair to rest his case: you built it for him in your response.*
Admittedly, it is "fair" for a person to rest his case any time he deems it necessary to do so.
I just felt that James R chose an unusually poor time to do so, not that there's anything wrong with that.
He made his case, namely...
*"Perhaps you are one of those people who actually thinks...."[snip]
... or perhaps I'm not one of those people. *
James R, 01-06-02 09:16 AM
Rather than gloat over such a definitive proof of one's own, well, antireasoning, I thought it would be more civilized to suggest that he try to build a better case, or a case.
*The point of your childishness was proven before JamesR made the point upon which your response allows him to rest.*
It is just so dashedly difficult to convince anyone of "my" childishness, when the convincer has laid it all on the line and has stated that he is not one of those people who actually thinks.
*I think he was trying to tell you, as so many people have tried, that you're being ridiculous and making a joke out of Christianity.*
I think you are a Johnny-come-lately attempting to jump on JR's antithinking bandwagon.
For a person who is "trying" to tell me something, why would he be so obviously successful in telling me he doesn't think?
*Originally posted by Markx
First of all I think you have three different Translations not Versions.*
Since they are all different, I have three versions which happen to be three translations.
*Which make perfect sense to me according to Quran.*
Ah, so you see the purpose of the Quran, then?
It is designed to make that which makes no sense seem to make perfect sense.
*Isduddhuwhaleian*
Taken's religion - "Is"lam, Hin"du," Bu"ddh"a, q"u"estions, "whale" worshipper, "ian."
*You mean Jinn?*
Djinn, Jinn.
---jin·ni or jin·nee also djin·ni or djin·ny (jn, j-n)
n. pl. jinn, also djinn (jn)
In Muslim legend, a spirit often capable of assuming human or animal form and exercising supernatural influence over people.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
[Arabic jinn, demonic, demon, from jinn, demons, from janna, to cover, conceal. See gnn in Semitic Roots.]---
*I can't believe books and stories by So and so and so and so.*
The Quran was by so and so.
*That make only probably 5% of whole Bible. Rest is all by different people and for many books of Bible we don't even know their writers.*
That's what I was saying earlier.
*But admit it that you are beliving in not what Jesus try to preach but what Paul, mark, matthew etc preached.*
They agree, though.
So what one says, they all say.
James R
01-11-02, 12:19 AM
tony1,
Let's just clarify things and get this particular bee out of your bonnet.
You said:
<i>Perhaps you are one of those people who actually thinks....
1. that there aren't any corollaries to anything you say
2. that other people can't figure out the ramifications of what you say</i>
I did not want to quote all of that, so instead I quoted enough so that you would be able to follow what I was replying to. Specifically, I quoted the first line - i.e.
<i>Perhaps you are one of those people who actually thinks....</i>
and replied "...or perhaps I am not one of those people."
Stupidly, I credited you with enough intelligence to be able to realise that I was responding to your particular allegations (numbered 1 and 2 above), and not to a general statement (which you didn't make) regarding my ability to reason.
Clearly you are <b>not</b> intelligent enough to pick up this level of subtlety, and I shall be more careful in future to explain things in a way that your limited mind can understand.
I hope that, having had this point explained at length to you, you will now stop repeating my statement as if I meant something different by it. I must say, though, that I will not be surprised if I discover that you lack the maturity to do that.
*Originally posted by James R
tony1,
Let's just clarify things and get this particular bee out of your bonnet.
You said:
"Perhaps you are one of those people who actually thinks....
1. that there aren't any corollaries to anything you say
2. that other people can't figure out the ramifications of what you say"
I did not want to quote all of that, so instead I quoted enough so that you would be able to follow what I was replying to. Specifically, I quoted the first line - i.e.
"Perhaps you are one of those people who actually thinks...."
and replied "...or perhaps I am not one of those people."
Stupidly, I credited you with enough intelligence to be able to realise that I was responding to your particular allegations (numbered 1 and 2 above), and not to a general statement (which you didn't make) regarding my ability to reason.*
And being "stupidly" as you describe yourself, you didn't seem to notice the extremely subtle effect of snipping those two particular "allegations" out of my statement.
You actually proved that what I said was true, and by saying what you said, you actually proved that you don't actually think.
If you did actually think you would have been able to see the ramifications of "snipping" at the critical point.
*Clearly you are <b>not</b> intelligent enough to pick up this level of subtlety, and I shall be more careful in future to explain things in a way that your limited mind can understand.*
Clearly, you are not as intelligent as you think and the level of subtlety in my statements completely escapes you, so you can count on looking foolish in the future.
*I hope that, having had this point explained at length to you, you will now stop repeating my statement as if I meant something different by it.*
I find it truly amusing that you would continue denying that you "meant something different" when it is clear from the statement you edited that you had no idea what it meant and that editing it like that would in fact both prove my point and reveal your faliure to think EXACTLY as you yourself state it.
*I must say, though, that I will not be surprised if I discover that you lack the maturity to do that. *
Aww, appeal to emotion.
I wonder if you truly do not understand what you did.
Given your previous track record, I'd say you have no clue, which is why I will repeat it from time to time whenever you get to thinking that you have some ability to think.
James R
01-11-02, 03:25 AM
<i>And being "stupidly" as you describe yourself, you didn't seem to notice the extremely subtle effect of snipping those two particular "allegations" out of my statement.</i>
*sigh*
Wrong again, tony1. You really are very thick. Of course I knew it could be interpreted that way, if somebody was childish enough to want to do it. I credited you with far too much intelligence and maturity, but I've learnt my lesson now.
<i>Clearly, you are not as intelligent as you think and the level of subtlety in my statements completely escapes you, so you can count on looking foolish in the future.</i>
You've never made a subtle statement. Most of your statements are knee-jerk reactions to things beyond your comprehension. I can picture you sitting at your computer, slicing and dicing posts and adding in a sentence here and there which you think actually addresses a point, whereas in fact practically everything you write consists of easy shots at matters of exact wording and composition - something your average eight year old could do with little training. Since you have no originality yourself, you need to draw on the originality of others for whatever limited inspiration you have.
<i>...I will repeat it from time to time whenever you get to thinking that you have some ability to think.</i>
Yes, I expected that of you, tony1. You're a very simple creature to predict.
*Originally posted by James R
You really are very thick. Of course I knew it could be interpreted that way,*
It's a little late to argue that now.
I laid a trap for you and you fell into it, and now you are trying to make it look as though you "understood" my comments.
I wonder if you realize that you are now proving that you still don't understand my statements.
*I credited you with far too much intelligence and maturity, but I've learnt my lesson now.*
That is called "argument by appeal to emotion."
I mention that so you won't do it in the future.
*You've never made a subtle statement.*
They're all subtle.
You are merely too stupid to recognize that, oh excuse me, you react to the subtlety by accidentally missing it.
*Most of your statements are knee-jerk reactions to things beyond your comprehension. I can picture you sitting at your computer, slicing and dicing posts and adding in a sentence here and there which you think actually addresses a point, whereas in fact practically everything you write consists of easy shots*
If they're so "easy" why don't you try a few?
Claiming "superior" maturity at this point will make you look like an idiot, since you made the claim that they were easy.
*at matters of exact wording and composition - something your average eight year old could do with little training.*
I have to admit that an 8 year old could in fact make all the statements an evolutionist with multiple PhDs could.
I admit that it takes little training to turn your average 8 year old into a PhD in, say, evolutionary biology.
*Since you have no originality yourself, you need to draw on the originality of others for whatever limited inspiration you have.*
There is something to be said for playing off what others give you in the way of comedic material.
It's like improv, it hones the senses.
Speaking of originality, the concept of the crap mountains isn't one you've run across before.
Where was your originality when you really needed it?
"Pooh-pooh," doesn't qualify as original, you know.
*Yes, I expected that of you, tony1. You're a very simple creature to predict. *
"Predict" actually refers to the future.
Saying you predicted something after the fact is called something else.
James R
01-12-02, 07:50 PM
I said: <i>... whereas in fact practically everything you write consists of easy shots</i>.
The whole of your previous post just goes to prove my point once again.
<i>If they're so "easy" why don't you try a few?</i>
Because I have this thing called integrity. You might want to look it up.
*Originally posted by James R
Because I have this thing called integrity.*
I'd beg to differ.
In actual fact, since this is a debate, if I present arguments, you shoot them down if you can, and vice versa.
When you define my "shots" as easy, you're pretty much telling the world what is happening.
If you could take easy shots, you would, since you've been trying to, anyway.
The point of all this is that, integrity doesn't consist of calling your opponent "thick," "silly," "childish," etc. anyway, so your "integrity" argument goes nowhere.
Furthermore, your debating style appears to be to complain about your opponent's style as though that has something to do with anything.
Real integrity means ignoring potential slights and dealing with the issues at hand.
It also doesn't mean complaining because your opponent rejects your thoughts, since that is what happens during debate.
Otherwise, it would be called "agreement."
James R
01-13-02, 05:09 AM
tony1,
<i>In actual fact, since this is a debate, if I present arguments, you shoot them down if you can, and vice versa.</i>
1. You haven't debated anything so far.
2. You have presented no arguments - just unsupported assertions.
3. When there is nothing to shoot down, no shooting is needed.
And you're complaining that I'm taking easy shots?
What heavy-duty arguments have you presented that should require, uh, difficult shots?
James R
01-14-02, 09:11 PM
Um... I'm sorry, what was this thread about again? :)
Some time ago a huge list of biblical contradictions was posted. None of these were ever disputed. KalvinB complained of some difficulty with the size of the piece. Well this one is short. I only hope that its brevity pleases KalvinB.
"The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father..." -- Ezekiel 18:20
"I the LORD thy God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers upon the children unto the third and fourth generation..." -- Exodus 20:5
So what can you offer to shed light on these two statements, both from your book and in obvious opposition? The language is similar but the concepts are diametrically opposed.
Proverbs 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
So how do I respond you now?
Medicine*Woman
08-18-05, 11:55 AM
enton: Proverbs 26:4 Answer not a fool according to his folly, lest thou also be like unto him.
Proverbs 26:5 Answer a fool according to his folly, lest he be wise in his own conceit.
So how do I respond you now?
*************
M*W: You don't. You've been caught resurrecting really old threads in order to make stupid comments. If you don't have anything new to say, then get lost.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.