Contradictions in the bible

[eight bits]

Howdy, Copa

Or, and there should be another OR here; he creates without sin.......

I just wouldn't be me without my sins. So, this universe never comes into being. Thus, it and everyone in it is punished for its sins, everlastingly - or existence is inherently mixed anyway.

Pardon my skepticism here, I have a hard time believing that the creator of all can be in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. You know that whole speaking and creating and making it so kind of thing.

Well, it's not like he'd miss a meal or anything. The idea of the post was to respond to joc's

And please people, I absolutely loath the question: if god is all powerful, can he create a rock to heavy for him to lift! This is NOT that kind of a question. This is a logical question which deserves a logical answer;

It is the same kind of self-referential question, given that (if the usual theist premises are granted) God made a decision whether or not to create this universe.

[+joc]

joc

It's hard to be confident about that, once it has been established that self-reference is possible within the system. That is, the rub in the question you hate is defining the required rock by reference to the means by which the rock would come about. If the system supports any self-reference, then it will have lots of it, and not always as obvious as the self-reference you happened to notice.

God did not create the possibility of this world. This is a possible world, and if the Creator premise is granted, then it is a possible word of which God became aware.

So, at that moment of awareness,

So, God can either bring this world into existence or else he can forever refrain from bringing this word into existence, because of sin.

We are almost home: Is existence a good thing? If not, then whatever God creates will be a mixture of good and not-good, and we are done. If yes, then unless God creates this world despite its sin, then God will have punished it by denying it a good thing because of its behavior. And by the way, since not to create this world he must never ever create this world, then the punishment is everlasting, and so infinite, punishment for what will be a finite amount of sin.

Damned if he does, and damned if he doesn't. It IS that kind of question. The invidious self- reference has been shifted from what he can do to why he does things and with what data. That is, the difficulty is to account for him reasoning about his preferences and goals, subject to "omni-" constraints about the preferences and goals (omniscient, omni-good and omni-just).

The logic of your argument fails me. There is always an infinite pool of possibility. A somewhat more limited pool of probablility. The whole concept of God weighing the probability of outcome...i.e. deciding the 'probability of good' were he to create the universe out-weighs the 'probability of bad' is a silly thought for an omnipotent deity to be considering. But, again, I am looking from 'outside' the Bibe box.

God said let there be light...the morning and the evening were the first day...but God waited 4 days to create the sun? Preposterous...unless you are an ancient human who has no concept of planets, solar systems etc.

And he created the stars as well...for signs and seasons...etc. A mere mention of the creation of the vastness and infiniteness of the Universe. Again, the whole thing is preposterous when viewed from outside the Bible Box.

Virgins don't have babies. Dead people don't come back to life. Only in the movies...and...in the Bible Box.

[+Liquid Gardens]

1- I don't believe in eternal suffering as a punishment so that argument doesn't work with me. You'll have to ask that question to another Christian who does believe in eternal punishment for sin.

2- Punishing people for "not believing" is an over-simplification. People are punished for sin. But by believing in Jesus (more correctly by believing he paid that punishment for us) we are saved from that punishment. I can understand how you may perceive that to be akin to being punished for not believing but it is wrong in a theological sense to put it that way.

3- The Amelakites/plagues/etc - were done in order to achieve God's purposes in upholding the covenant God made with the Hebrews in Genesis 12. If these actions were done by Satan I would say they weren't good because Satan does not work towards "good". If they were committed by a God in another mythos I would not necessarily say it was not good, depending on the context of why it was done.

Although I have several things I disagree with you guys about, I'm having trouble in my discussions with you and IamsSon determining what the fair 'fixed points' should be. Since I don't believe the Bible is anything more than any other book but to some extent I have to sometimes entertain some of it as true in order to make my points contra-Christianity, the latest responses from you guys have me thinking about specifically where to draw that line. I wanted to respond though and let you know that I appreciate both yours and his direct answers to my questions, especially concerning the 'bad' (my view obviously) things that God ordered and did in the OT, subjects that are often dodged in other conversations I've had.

[IamsSon]

Although I have several things I disagree with you guys about, I'm having trouble in my discussions with you and IamsSon determining what the fair 'fixed points' should be. Since I don't believe the Bible is anything more than any other book but to some extent I have to sometimes entertain some of it as true in order to make my points contra-Christianity, the latest responses from you guys have me thinking about specifically where to draw that line. I wanted to respond though and let you know that I appreciate both yours and his direct answers to my questions, especially concerning the 'bad' (my view obviously) things that God ordered and did in the OT, subjects that are often dodged in other conversations I've had.

LQ, thanks for your answers. I am really enjoying the conversation.

I understand the difficulty you must be facing. As I posted earlier to HavocWing, whether you believe the Bible to be true or not, if we are going to discuss the God of the Bible, especially his actions, motivations and any contradictions that may be in the Bible, the conversation will be more productive if we assume, for the sake of the conversation, that God is real much like we would assume the characters in the Harry Potter books are real if we discussed their actions and possible (true to character) motivations.

Edited February 21, 2013 by IamsSon

[+Paranoid Android]

You know what I hear there? 'It's theologically incorrect that non-belief condemns us... but not beliving condemns us'. I do not see any difference and I don't know why you're acting as if there is.

I'm sharing what I believe, simple. I doubt we'll get any further by continuing this particular line of argument.

I'm not saying that's a bad thing. However you have to be careful that it doesn't lead to another. That's one of my big problems with the teaching.It's not the feeling of anger or lust that's the problem, it's the action/reaction to it that is. Yet the teaching is that feeling it is just as bad as doing it.

A danger does exist that someone comes to believe that they have to purge emotions entirely. I'm simply advocating training ourselves to react automatically inside our head in a way that is in line with God's wishes.

That just sounds like insanity.

Sex between two consenting people can be a beautiful thing, but one of the big problems is that christianity making se outside marriage a dirty thing. Which is problematic, unhealthy and, quite frankly, unhelpful.

In your opinion! My opinion is obviously quite different.

Aalright then. However I do have problems with how they handled other issues and how they actually ended up defeating several things in the process (women's rights for example).

Ok, so you're dropping that argument and bringing up an entirely new one just to try and keep your point alive. That said, have you ever studied about women's Rights BEFORE Christianity. For example, did you know that before Christianity, women and men worshipped God in different buildings. After the Jesus-movement, women and men were congregating together for the first time.

Yes, as history progressed, and particularly as Christianity developed from a cultural grass-roots movement into a State religion controlled by power-hungry men, those Rights were slowly taken away by men. But that didn't happen for several hundred years after Jesus. You can't blame the biblical authors (who were part of that movement that gave new Rights to women) because power-hungry men centuries later wanted to assert their dominance again.

The problem i have with that is that we are all human and we should al have the ability to go 'our way'.

Why? Or rather, why should this be the case without consequences.

We have our own lives and we need to make our own way in the world. By saying that choosing to go 'our way' is the first sin just seems absurd and a trap. What else are we supposed to do? Not do anything until we've checked our bibles first? That in and of itself is problematic because you need a scertai level of reading ability to read the bible, which may come after the 'age of accountability'.

Some things we know are wrong before doing it, and yet we still do it anyway. I once bought a Hotwheels toy car play set for a friend's kid (it was their birthday). The set came with six cars and a ramp-city to build. He was playing with one of the cars. He put it down and started playing with another. His friend started playing with the first car, and this kid yelled "I'm still playing with that" and threw the toy car straight at his friend's head.

When the dust settled, he knew he'd done the wrong thing, he knew it. He was sorry, and distraught. But at the time, he was overpowered by his greed and anger. Was this the child's first sin at the age of accountability? I don't know, he was 6. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. The example is there simply to point out that we don't necessarily need a Bible to tell us right from wrong, and that people will sin regardless of what the Bible says. As we grow older and we can cognitively understand the Bible better, we can start moving away from simple concepts and get more involved in understanding what the Bible says. But our humanity is such that we will still do that which we know to be wrong anyway, because that's how humanity works (simple example - how many people travel at 60km/h in a 50 zone, or 70 in a 60 zone or whatever - it's only a little law breaking, and most people see nothing wrong with it).

You see that, to me, just sounds absurd. That's the eequivelent of being friends with someone and the first mistake you make (even a minor one) destroys the relationship forever. Or a parent that tosses a child out for the first mistake they make. Why is god so absurdly touchy that the slightest thing 'breaks' thee relationship? And why would you want a relationship with something that gets offended by pretty much everything we do?

Why should there be such a harsh penalty in the first place?

Because I love God. The harsh penalty is there in the first place to show us how important an issue sin is to God. It's not a light issue, God takes it very very seriously. His zero-tolerance policy is evidence of how serious he takes it. But God is also merciful and wants us to find our way back to him, so he provided a way, a path that has been closed to us was reopened by God in order that we may come to him.

Not just the promise of a reward but there's also the command from god to do good deeds. Christians have an incentive for doing good, as well as a punishment for being 'bad' and commands to do those things.

Ok, so your comment is still generalised to "Christians only do good because they are promised reward in heaven and they are commanded to do good by God". That is still a massive assumption, one that I challenge. Sure, I understand that this may be the case for some Christians. But it is way too simplistic to cover Christianity and make a statement such as you did.

Were they really necessary? One does have to wonder. I certainly question if there's ever a time to purposely slaughter children and call it 'necessary'. But the trick is, because god did it you can't even manage to think like that. God does it and it's acceptable because it's god. You may not label it as good (which i guess is something) but you still label it as necessary and that's still a problem. Why? Because the intentional murder of children is a very big 'bad' thing in any and all other circumstances. Such an act is barbaric, evil, cruel. Yet what word do you choose? None of those. You choose 'necessary'. And that comes off as extremely cold and makes me severely question your morality.

Yes, I believe they were really necessary. I'm just sharing my belief, I've shared why in previous posts so there's no need to go over it again. Agree with me or not (I know you don't) there's no point in going over this again, either.

~ Regards, PA

Edited February 21, 2013 by Paranoid Android

[buckskin scout]

shadowhive, on 20 February 2013 - 04:41 AM, said:

Not just the promise of a reward but there's also the command from god to do good deeds. Christians have an incentive for doing good, as well as a punishment for being 'bad' and commands to do those things.

Ok, so your comment is still generalised to "Christians only do good because they are promised reward in heaven and they are commanded to do good by God". That is still a massive assumption, one that I challenge. Sure, I understand that this may be the case for some Christians. But it is way too simplistic to cover Christianity and make a statement such as you did.

~ Regards, PA

When a "Christian" has a fear-based relationship with God it makes me wonder if this individual has even ever received the Holy Spirit. He is the one teaches believers the love of God and He is the one that convicts the believer against sin. The Holy Spirit works in the believer's for their entire lives, picking them back up when they stumble or fall, and leads them into full spiritual maturation (which never occurs just overnight).

[+Paranoid Android]

When a "Christian" has a fear-based relationship with God it makes me wonder if this individual has even ever received the Holy Spirit. He is the one teaches believers the love of God and He is the one that convicts the believer against sin. The Holy Spirit works in the believer's for their entire lives, picking them back up when they stumble or fall, and leads them into full spiritual maturation (which never occurs just overnight).

A fear-based relationship is just plain wrong. When I first heard about Christianity, I was 12 years old and I heard it from a fire-and-brimstone preacher who scared me into converting. The conversion lasted a couple of weeks or so and then I stopped believing again. To this day, I cannot imagine living my life worshipping God because of a fear of hell. It would be debilitating. When I finally turned to Christ properly as a healthy 20-year old, I did so for love. It seems to me that a person who has a fear-based relationship cannot have a love-based relationship at the same time. There is no fear in love! Whether they have the Holy Spirit or not, that's not my place to say, but it certainly does bring the question up, I agree with you on that.

[jules99]

Lust has always puzzled me. Looking at those three things what seems wrong with them? Nothing really (although the last one is unrealistic). I don't see anything wrong with having sex (and certainly nothing wrong with thinking about it). Now if you'd said "wow, she's cute and I'd like to rape her' then yeah, that presents a problem. But lust in and of itself seems puzzling to me to list as a sin (then again the same could be said about half of them or more).

Hi shadowhive;

I think Lust is imaginary....once a scenario is acted out in the imagination it only takes vocalization to make the act a possible criminal offense, take conspiracy for example..? Thats the Law we live with and mebbe the gist is that its probably best not to entertain thoughts in the mind that are criminal, illegal. offensive or for whatever reason immoral.

visualize to actualize so its said. If you are in control of your thoughts then it becomes a choice as to whether or not you acknowledge or develope instinctive or base thoughts or inclinations.

Cheers

[Marcion Meets E. Sibyl]

He's supposed to love his enemies.

Hi HavocWing,

The resurrected Jesus Christ has NO enemies. "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." This is the NEW, transformed Jesus -- THE Christ.

Most people's concept of unconditional love is impossible, unrealistic, because it is viewed as an exchange (a give and take, "conditional" situation), where as the real meaning of unconditional love, IMHO, is only possible in the presence of Jesus Christ/God because He is the embodiment of love, itself.

Unconditional love is not an act but a state of being, the actual nature of certain heavenly beings. For example, people who have personally experienced the presence of the Virgin Mary have mentioned that she emanated this love (beyond compare). If Mary were all that, could you imagine what it would be like in the presence of Jesus Christ? And yet, many people reject Him, the man who gave His life to "free" us (the true meaning of freedom). People consciously push themselves away from that powerful, unrelenting love. Yes, we have our free will, but is it logical to use it to push ourselves away from the promise of paradise ("light" and perfection) and infinite compassion -- unconditional love?

We are in this world, this planet, because we think we want our free will (but we tend to ignore the negative consequences of being in this world, for living is not always honky dory)..., and yet, through our free will, we have a way to get closer to that unconditional love and all the good truths that go with it. My Jesus Christ is compassionate, understanding, and knows what's in my heart. His resurection is a new beginning. I believe that the Old and New Testiment Books are for reference purposes. After the crucification, Jesus Christ has become a "human" God. Jesus is the merging of infinite logic, unconditional love, forgiveness, and then some.

To let Jesus Christ in to your heart will cause a change in you. "Come near to God (Jesus Christ) and He will come near to you." Again, the Bible is a reference, but the resurrected Jesus Christ, Himself, is the unconditional love and compassion (now and forever). The Holy Spirit is always around.

If you had met Jesus in person, I could have accepted the reasoning behind your strong opposition (while I was reading your posts). Is it fair to judge someone based on hearsay and second-hand knowledge? Seek Jesus and get His side of the story. That's only fair. The Holy Spirit is around. He is making Himself known more and more.

Peace.

[eight bits]

joc

The logic of your argument fails me. There is always an infinite pool of possibility. A somewhat more limited pool of probablility. The whole concept of God weighing the probability of outcome...i.e. deciding the 'probability of good' were he to create the universe out-weighs the 'probability of bad' is a silly thought for an omnipotent deity to be considering. But, again, I am looking from 'outside' the Bibe box.

I don't know about any of that, nor did I argue it. I do know that, if the Creator-God premise is granted, then God considered at least one possible world, this one. Whether there were others, and what happened to them, if anything, I don't know.

I especially don't know if any of them were "sinless." Maybe there can be no such thing, which is one of the ways existence as such could be "mixed." If it is, then God has a different decision to make. If he creates anything at all, then it must have some bad features anyway, so it is pointless to hold God accountable for what is inevitable.

But if existence as such is a good thing, and I have been considered as a candidate for existence, which I have been, and God had judged that I ought not come to exist because if I do, then I will sin, then God would have punished me for that sin he foresees, everlastingly.

IamsSon

I understand the difficulty you must be facing. As I posted earlier to HavocWing, whether you believe the Bible to be true or not, if we are going to discuss the God of the Bible, especially his actions, motivations and any contradictions that may be in the Bible, the conversation will be more productive if we assume, for the sake of the conversation, that God is real much like we would assume the characters in the Harry Potter books are real if we discussed their actions and possible (true to character) motivations.

I disagree. One of the uses of identifying contradiction is to determine whether the object described actually exists, and exists as described. If we assume that the object exists, then when contradictions are found, the only consistent possibilities are that the source isn't completely reliable, or is not to be taken literally.

Your example supports this. Harry Potter isn't real. Recognizing that fact is the only basis upon which it makes sense to ask whether the character traits and the motivations ascibed to him are "realistic." Far from there being much value in a conversation premised upon "Harry Potter is real," I would be very nervous to be in the same room with anybody who would assume that.

[shadowhive]

I'm sharing what I believe, simple. I doubt we'll get any further by continuing this particular line of argument.

I realise you are. However, I'm confused by the fact that your statement is contradictory in nature when you seem to uphold it's not and that puzzles me.

A danger does exist that someone comes to believe that they have to purge emotions entirely. I'm simply advocating training ourselves to react automatically inside our head in a way that is in line with God's wishes.

Such 'training' in action is possible, but inside our head? That's less simple, especially since we really have no control over what we think and feel.

In your opinion! My opinion is obviously quite different.

Obviously. I think that christian teaching on this has resulted in a real danger. The focus on sex has been that it should be in marriage, but without a focus on it being consentual. Marital rape happened for a long time because of that teaching, because sex was about marriage not conent and it was a woman's 'duty' to have sex and they shouldn't say no to their husband.

And that's all down to the rather backward focus on sex. (Which is pretty much all I'll say but I feel that's something that needs to be said.)

Ok, so you're dropping that argument and bringing up an entirely new one just to try and keep your point alive. That said, have you ever studied about women's Rights BEFORE Christianity. For example, did you know that before Christianity, women and men worshipped God in different buildings. After the Jesus-movement, women and men were congregating together for the first time.

Yes, as history progressed, and particularly as Christianity developed from a cultural grass-roots movement into a State religion controlled by power-hungry men, those Rights were slowly taken away by men. But that didn't happen for several hundred years after Jesus. You can't blame the biblical authors (who were part of that movement that gave new Rights to women) because power-hungry men centuries later wanted to assert their dominance again.

Oh, so I'm not allowed to change points am I? I guess I should just agree with you and keep my mouth shut then.

Yes, I do know that women were given 'new rights' in the religion And yes, that was an impovement at the time. However, two parts of teaching at the time ended up having lasting consequences for womens rights. The one was about women talking in church which was because of those new rights of being put together with men. Now, I understand why it was put in. I've read what you've said before that it was about women asking questions and being disruptive. But because it was a rule specifically targetting women, it became expanded on very easily in later on. If the rule had been gender neutal and general, it couldn't have been abused. The second is about women having a senor role in the church. Which again makes sense for a similar reason at the time, but again, it's been hijacked and applied elsewhere to.

Now you can say that because we have the benefit of hindsight, we can see those obvious problems and how they've been abused. Now that would be fair enough if the bible was treated like any book written by men (because hey, you're right, those men wouldn't necessarily realise how thoe things would be abused). However, the bible isn't that is it? It has the claim that god (and onmipotent/all seeing/all knowing being) has a hand in it.o why would god let something in thta would be abused by so many so easily? (The same could be said for other parts that have been used in a similar way too.)

Why? Or rather, why should this be the case without consequences.

First off, we are all human and we all have free will. We all have our own lives and should be able to our thing. Here are some examples of things that we choose: what classes we take, what job we do, what kind of car we drive, what we have for lunch. Now these are just a few and these are things we can and do choose for ourselves. Correct me if I'm wrong, but such decissions aren't covered in the bible are they? You have to (by necessaity) bmake choices for yourself. Now yes, some do have consequences, but many are fairly innocent. Now labelling choosing to go 'our way' as bad seems... well, bad because we have to go our way. We have to make decisions and think for ourselves, because the bible isn't a self-help guide that has answers for every decision we make in our lives.

Some things we know are wrong before doing it, and yet we still do it anyway. I once bought a Hotwheels toy car play set for a friend's kid (it was their birthday). The set came with six cars and a ramp-city to build. He was playing with one of the cars. He put it down and started playing with another. His friend started playing with the first car, and this kid yelled "I'm still playing with that" and threw the toy car straight at his friend's head.

When the dust settled, he knew he'd done the wrong thing, he knew it. He was sorry, and distraught. But at the time, he was overpowered by his greed and anger. Was this the child's first sin at the age of accountability? I don't know, he was 6. Maybe he was, maybe he wasn't. The example is there simply to point out that we don't necessarily need a Bible to tell us right from wrong, and that people will sin regardless of what the Bible says. As we grow older and we can cognitively understand the Bible better, we can start moving away from simple concepts and get more involved in understanding what the Bible says. But our humanity is such that we will still do that which we know to be wrong anyway, because that's how humanity works (simple example - how many people travel at 60km/h in a 50 zone, or 70 in a 60 zone or whatever - it's only a little law breaking, and most people see nothing wrong with it)

Children make mistakes and they do stuff like that all the time. My mum works at a playgroup with kids that age and younger and sometimes I help out there at events like parties. Every day one kid or another does something of that nature but they are kids. That's what they do. They're not fully developed emotionally/psychologically or in any other way you'd want to put it and yes, they make mistakes but it's through those mistakes that they learn.

The problem (and I know I've said this before) is that the bible lists so many things as being 'wrong' that it is impossible ot do them all. You're right, we are human and yes we make mistakes. But, like kids, everyone makes me mistakes, To quote The Simpsons 'Everyone makes mistakes, that's why they put erasers on the end of pencils'.

Because I love God. The harsh penalty is there in the first place to show us how important an issue sin is to God. It's not a light issue, God takes it very very seriously. His zero-tolerance policy is evidence of how serious he takes it. But God is also merciful and wants us to find our way back to him, so he provided a way, a path that has been closed to us was reopened by God in order that we may come to him.

You see, the problem I have with the 'harsh penalty' is what it's for. Is it reserved for murderers, rapists, pedophiles, genocidal dictators? Nope. Anyone that's anger for a nano second gets that punishment. Anyone that disbelieves in god gets that piunishment. The list goes on and it rapidly because absolutely absurd.

The zero tolerence policy and what it covers, sounds completely like it comes from the mind of a genocidal madman. Yet no. It's out of 'love'.

I've heard the god/person relationship compared to a parent/child one. If a parent treated their kid (zero tolerance, anything labelled a sin getting a punishment/expusion from the family) you would say without doubt or hesitation that said paret was an unfit one and shouldn't have kids in the first place. You certainly wouldn't be encouraging the kid to try and form an obsessive need to please their parent.

Ok, so your comment is still generalised to "Christians only do good because they are promised reward in heaven and they are commanded to do good by God". That is still a massive assumption, one that I challenge. Sure, I understand that this may be the case for some Christians. But it is way too simplistic to cover Christianity and make a statement such as you did.

No. My comment can be generalised differently than that.

Christians have a reward for doing good. Also they have a command to do good. Now, if a christian does good, they have an incentive to do good (heaven) and they have a command to do good. That means they have two drives to do good (and you could add fear to that too).

Now you've assumed I've said all christians do good for one reason of the other, which I've to said. I've just said that a christian has those two things in play. That doesn't mean either impact on the good a christian does (indeed it could even happen that they influence the person subcnciously).

Now on the flipside an atheist doesn't do good deeds because of heaven or a command from god. They don't have those two things in play. What puzzles me is that, all things considered, a christian (who has incentives to do good) doing a good deed is better thought of than the person that has no such incentive.

Yes, I believe they were really necessary. I'm just sharing my belief, I've shared why in previous posts so there's no need to go over it again. Agree with me or not (I know you don't) there's no point in going over this again, either.

~ Regards, PA

Fine The trouble I have is that if i were any other situation labelling any form of genocide/ethnic cleansing as necessary would be considered as a completely immoral stance.

[shadowhive]

Hi shadowhive;

I think Lust is imaginary....once a scenario is acted out in the imagination it only takes vocalization to make the act a possible criminal offense, take conspiracy for example..? Thats the Law we live with and mebbe the gist is that its probably best not to entertain thoughts in the mind that are criminal, illegal. offensive or for whatever reason immoral.

visualize to actualize so its said. If you are in control of your thoughts then it becomes a choice as to whether or not you acknowledge or develope instinctive or base thoughts or inclinations.

Cheers

Well I think there's very big difference between something crossing your mind and conspiracy to do it. Let's take an example similar to one PA used. Say I was out in town and saw an attractive person and thought 'They're attractive, I'd like to have sex with them'. Now that thought, in and of itself is harmless (and, most likely, fleeting). On top of that when most people would think such a thing they'd also add the word consentual in there (so it's be 'They're attractive, I'd like to have connsentual sex with them'). The next thing from that is if you think of asking the person out. Even if you have an intent of having sex with them, there's nothing wrong with that.

Now where I see lust as problematic is if you see someone and think 'They're attractive, I'd like to rape them'. Now that's the problematic thought (not the sex in general, but specifically rape). Again, though, if it's fleeting it's harmless.

Now conspiracy is intent. It's planning to do something. It's taking that thought to the next step: 'They're attractive, I'm going to rape them' and then planning the way of doing so.

There is a very big and obvious difference between consentual sex and rape. Yet christianity seems concerned move with demonising sex as a whole, rather than rape, which is worthy of it.

[IamsSon]

IamsSon

I disagree. One of the uses of identifying contradiction is to determine whether the object described actually exists, and exists as described. If we assume that the object exists, then when contradictions are found, the only consistent possibilities are that the source isn't completely reliable, or is not to be taken literally.

Your example supports this. Harry Potter isn't real. Recognizing that fact is the only basis upon which it makes sense to ask whether the character traits and the motivations ascibed to him are "realistic." Far from there being much value in a conversation premised upon "Harry Potter is real," I would be very nervous to be in the same room with anybody who would assume that.

I have to disagree. Obviously, Harry Potter is not real, I think we all agree on that; but if we are discussing one of the characters, say Snape, we have to examine him within the "Reality" created in the series. If someone then says, "Well, there is a contradiction between "The Order of The Phoenix" and "The Half-blood Prince" because Snape did thus and such in one, and also said this and that, but then in the next book he did this which is in contradiction, so the whole character is flawed and the writing is terrible. It's possible that the claim of contradiction would look solid until someone mentioned, Yes, but in "The Prisoner of Azkhaban" he and Dumbledore had this conversation, which means his actions in "The Order of the Phoenix" were actually part of a plan and so although there seems to be a contradiction, between Snape's actions in "Order" and "Half-blood," the character was acting properly and there is no flaw in the writing or the story. But that conversation only makes sense if we are examining the characters as if they are real and should have some consistency.

Although there is an obvious disagreement regarding the validity of the Bible and the reality of the God of the Bible, if this conversation has any chance of actually being sensical, we have to agree, that for the sake of the conversation, God is real, and then examine any "contradictions" within that context.

Edited February 21, 2013 by IamsSon

[GoldenWolf]

Hi HavocWing,

The resurrected Jesus Christ has NO enemies. "This is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for the forgiveness of sins." This is the NEW, transformed Jesus -- THE Christ.

Most people's concept of unconditional love is impossible, unrealistic, because it is viewed as an exchange (a give and take, "conditional" situation), where as the real meaning of unconditional love, IMHO, is only possible in the presence of Jesus Christ/God because He is the embodiment of love, itself.

Unconditional love is not an act but a state of being, the actual nature of certain heavenly beings. For example, people who have personally experienced the presence of the Virgin Mary have mentioned that she emanated this love (beyond compare). If Mary were all that, could you imagine what it would be like in the presence of Jesus Christ? And yet, many people reject Him, the man who gave His life to "free" us (the true meaning of freedom). People consciously push themselves away from that powerful, unrelenting love. Yes, we have our free will, but is it logical to use it to push ourselves away from the promise of paradise ("light" and perfection) and infinite compassion -- unconditional love?

We are in this world, this planet, because we think we want our free will (but we tend to ignore the negative consequences of being in this world, for living is not always honky dory)..., and yet, through our free will, we have a way to get closer to that unconditional love and all the good truths that go with it. My Jesus Christ is compassionate, understanding, and knows what's in my heart. His resurection is a new beginning. I believe that the Old and New Testiment Books are for reference purposes. After the crucification, Jesus Christ has become a "human" God. Jesus is the merging of infinite logic, unconditional love, forgiveness, and then some.

To let Jesus Christ in to your heart will cause a change in you. "Come near to God (Jesus Christ) and He will come near to you." Again, the Bible is a reference, but the resurrected Jesus Christ, Himself, is the unconditional love and compassion (now and forever). The Holy Spirit is always around.

If you had met Jesus in person, I could have accepted the reasoning behind your strong opposition (while I was reading your posts). Is it fair to judge someone based on hearsay and second-hand knowledge? Seek Jesus and get His side of the story. That's only fair. The Holy Spirit is around. He is making Himself known more and more.

Peace.

No means no.

The reasons why I have always hated him throughout my life (besides the unrelenting pain of his so called love) summed up in one page:

http://dwindlinginun...not-fan-of.html

Love is not supposed to hurt. I seriously question your understanding (and all of the religious people on earth) of love.

Edited February 21, 2013 by HavocWing

[+Sherapy]

I have to disagree. Obviously, Harry Potter is not real, I think we all agree on that; but if we are discussing one of the characters, say Snape, we have to examine him within the "Reality" created in the series. If someone then says, "Well, there is a contradiction between "The Order of The Phoenix" and "The Half-blood Prince" because Snape did thus and such in one, and also said this and that, but then in the next book he did this which is in contradiction, so the whole character is flawed and the writing is terrible. It's possible that the claim of contradiction would look solid until someone mentioned, Yes, but in "The Prisoner of Azkhaban" he and Dumbledore had this conversation, which means his actions in "The Order of the Phoenix" were actually part of a plan and so although there seems to be a contradiction, between Snape's actions in "Order" and "Half-blood," the character was acting properly and there is no flaw in the writing or the story. But that conversation only makes sense if we are examining the characters as if they are real and should have some consistency.

Although there is an obvious disagreement regarding the validity of the Bible and the reality of the God of the Bible, if this conversation has any chance of actually being sensical, we have to agree, that for the sake of the conversation, God is real, and then examine any "contradictions" within that context.

Iamson, Your error is in that one needs to beleive in the reality of the characters.The point in this type of work is not to. In Literary Analysis (Harry Potter namely) the structural power/potency of this story is the liberal use of imagination. Harry Potter is framed in a way that allows a free flowing imagination (by freeing it from reason) so it can take the shape of the authors desired affect which IMO is to take a break from reality and logic and enjoy your imagination.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Sherapy

[+joc]

I have to disagree. Obviously, Harry Potter is not real, I think we all agree on that; but if we are discussing one of the characters, say Snape, we have to examine him within the "Reality" created in the series. If someone then says, "Well, there is a contradiction between "The Order of The Phoenix" and "The Half-blood Prince" because Snape did thus and such in one, and also said this and that, but then in the next book he did this which is in contradiction, so the whole character is flawed and the writing is terrible. It's possible that the claim of contradiction would look solid until someone mentioned, Yes, but in "The Prisoner of Azkhaban" he and Dumbledore had this conversation, which means his actions in "The Order of the Phoenix" were actually part of a plan and so although there seems to be a contradiction, between Snape's actions in "Order" and "Half-blood," the character was acting properly and there is no flaw in the writing or the story. But that conversation only makes sense if we are examining the characters as if they are real and should have some consistency.

Although there is an obvious disagreement regarding the validity of the Bible and the reality of the God of the Bible, if this conversation has any chance of actually being sensical, we have to agree, that for the sake of the conversation, God is real, and then examine any "contradictions" within that context.

But I AM's Son...the whole point of showing that there are contradictions is to point out the non-sensical nature of the literature with the conclusion being, that it is a work of fiction. I (and others) are attempting to show that the contradictions prove the work to be fiction. You (and others) are attempting to show that the work is consistent and that there are no real contradictions. The work is either fiction or non-fiction. If one assumes it to be non-fiction when they actually believe it to be fiction then they do the entire argument on both sides a disservice.

[Copasetic]

But that conversation only makes sense if we are examining the characters as if they are real and should have some consistency.

Claiming you have pretend a literary character is real to examine them is....silly, to say the least.

[Copasetic]

Howdy, Copa

I just wouldn't be me without my sins. So, this universe never comes into being. Thus, it and everyone in it is punished for its sins, everlastingly - or existence is inherently mixed anyway.

Can't really be a punishment for you, if you simply never existed, even the "idea" of you.

And again, I still would think he could create "this" universe with the entities that inhabit it without sin. Is that not within the purview of an all-powerful creator?

Obviously that isn't the case, which necessitates apologetics for this misshapen creation. Seems an awful lot like the puddle who ponders the perfect hole he resides in.

[+Sherapy]

But I AM's Son...the whole point of showing that there are contradictions is to point out the non-sensical nature of the literature with the conclusion being, that it is a work of fiction. I (and others) are attempting to show that the contradictions prove the work to be fiction. You (and others) are attempting to show that the work is consistent and that there are no real contradictions. The work is either fiction or non-fiction. If one assumes it to be non-fiction when they actually believe it to be fiction then they do the entire argument on both sides a disservice.

In Literature it is called front loading, the genre and the writng conventions themselves are framed in a way that an author can ellicit a specified effect. Contradiction can be used and is used (in bible analysis) to encourage one to look closer, go deeper,and ask questions that lead to new questions.Contradiction gets you to think, to question.

[IamsSon]

But I AM's Son...the whole point of showing that there are contradictions is to point out the non-sensical nature of the literature with the conclusion being, that it is a work of fiction. I (and others) are attempting to show that the contradictions prove the work to be fiction. You (and others) are attempting to show that the work is consistent and that there are no real contradictions. The work is either fiction or non-fiction. If one assumes it to be non-fiction when they actually believe it to be fiction then they do the entire argument on both sides a disservice.

But joc, so far you have not shown any actual contradictions, the supposed contradictions you have so far seem to have more to do with what people who rarely read the Bible "believe" is in the Bible than what is actually written there. One of the big arguments seems to be with the idea of "omni-benevolence," meaning that God is all-good and wants nothing more than to be everyone's genie with unending wishes, and as I pointed out in an earlier post, that idea does not match what we actually find in the Bible. What we do find in the Bible is that God is an eternal being, that God The Son, Jesus, told His followers that in this world they could expect to have hardships (John 16:33), and we also see God saying that He will do what He needs to do and we see that in the end, those who trusted Him will live in eternity in an Earth that is perfect and in perfect communion with Him. So, God's benevolence can't be separated from eternity, and the trials and tribulations that humanity experiences in this world are part of that benevolence. This idea of God's omni-benevolence meaning that He wants to be everyone's omnipotent slave has ZERO Biblical support. So, the contradiction exists in people's perceptions, not in the Bible.

[eight bits]

Copa

Can't really be a punishment for you, if you simply never existed, even the "idea" of you.

If my life had been cut in half for my sins, then I would have been punished. He takes the other half as well, and you say, "Oh, in that case, no problem."

Cheese and crackers, Copa, you shouldda gone to Law School instead of Med School.

And again, I still would think he could create "this" universe with the entities that inhabit it without sin. Is that not within the purview of an all-powerful creator?

I don't know. That's a metaphysical question. It's not obvious that it's possible, if he's looking for autonomous beings realized in anything we would recognize as material form. Hell, even with robots, things would still go wrong, go wrong, go wrong ...

[Copasetic]

Copa

If my life had been cut in half for my sins, then I would have been punished. He takes the other half as well, and you say, "Oh, in that case, no problem."

Cheese and crackers, Copa, you shouldda gone to Law School instead of Med School.

Cut in half vs never possible/existed/"idea".

I don't know. That's a metaphysical question. It's not obvious that it's possible, if he's looking for autonomous beings realized in anything we would recognize as material form. Hell, even with robots, things would still go wrong, go wrong, go wrong ...

Seems like an opportune time for him to pop in and say;

If the lowly mortal me can imagine it, I'm sure he/she/it can make it so.

[eight bits]

Copa

If the lowly mortal me can imagine it, I'm sure he/she/it can make it so.

I have complete confidence that you can imagine things that cannot be.

[Marcion Meets E. Sibyl]

No means no.

The reasons why I have always hated him throughout my life (besides the unrelenting pain of his so called love) summed up in one page:

http://dwindlinginun...not-fan-of.html

Love is not supposed to hurt. I seriously question your understanding (and all of the religious people on earth) of love.

Hi HavocWing,

Most people still see Jesus Christ in the past tense. Humans have a tendency to put a god in a box and put it away in some dark corner until "it" is needed. Also keep in mind that Jesus was on a mission, as regards to that website link.

"Understand what power is, understand what glory is. If you knew all that I knew, my poor Jerusalem,

you'd see the truth, but you close your eyes. While you live, your troubles are many..." JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR

Love doesn't hurt when the "mind" is shut and only "awareness" is present. Human love is complicated by "mind." The "mind" is very dubious, it's the slayer of the soul. It's filled with unnecessary ideas, especially in this day and age; there are too many diversions. The immature free will resides in the "mind." In fact, Jesus' love, an unconditional love (from a divine being), is all absorbing, and through grace alone that one is able to want to leave it.

Question your beliefs. Seek the resurrrected, "transformed" Jesus Christ -- directly. Find out what this love that I'm sharing with you is all about. It will change your life, I guarantee it.

Peace.

[Copasetic]

Copa

I have complete confidence that you can imagine things that cannot be.

You give me too much credit