Jump to content




Welcome to Unexplained Mysteries! Please sign in or create an account to start posting and to access a host of extra features.


* * * * * 1 votes

Contradictions in the bible


  • Please log in to reply
591 replies to this topic

#511    Paranoid Android

Paranoid Android

    ????????

  • 25,777 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney

  • Paranoid Android... No power in the verse can stop me...

Posted 22 February 2013 - 05:27 AM

View PostHavocWing, on 22 February 2013 - 05:13 AM, said:

Like god commanding abraham to sacrifice his son.
That's an example, not a principle.  You stated a principle - love is not supposed to hurt.  I shared examples where that is indeed the case, so your principle is either faulty (love can hurt) or you had something different in mind (which requires  a clarification of the principle).  Stating an example of where a character did x action cannot prove the principle you stated since it's already been disproven unless clarification can be given!

That said, for the sake of comprehensiveness, you are right that God told Abraham to sacrifice his son.  However, if you go back a few chapters, you also have evidence of God keeping his promise to Abraham that he would give birth to a child (this while his wife was barren and elderly - a double-whammy against the physical possibility of childbirth).  God then gives Abraham another promise - that Isaac (the son he is to sacrifice) will grow up to be the one whom God counts Abraham's descendants.  This promise was given after God had already kept his promise about Sarah's childbirth, so Abraham knew God would keep his word. So when Abraham was asked to sacrifice his son, Abraham had no worries in doing so.  He wasn't afraid of losing Isaac because he knew God would keep his promise to make Isaac into a great nation.  God had essentially given Isaac a DPG (Divine Protection Guarantee, my own invention that term is).

So Abraham was not afraid of losing his son, Abraham knew Isaac was safe.  So in this sense, I am uncertain how this example proved your principle that "love is not supposed to hurt".  But, as I've said, you still haven't explained the principle clearly, since I can think of several times where love can and does hurt.

~ Regards, PA

Edited by Paranoid Android, 22 February 2013 - 06:18 AM.

Posted Image

My blog is now taking a new direction.  Dedicated to my father who was a great inspiration in my life, I wish to honour his memory (RIP, dad) by sharing with the world what he had always kept to himself.  More details, http://www.unexplain...showentry=27811

#512    eight bits

eight bits

    ...

  • Member
  • 6,211 posts
  • Joined:24 May 2007

Posted 22 February 2013 - 10:17 AM

PA

Quote

you are right that God told Abraham to sacrifice his son.  However, if you go back a few chapters, you also have evidence of God keeping his promise to Abraham that he would give birth to a child (this while his wife was barren and elderly - a double-whammy against the physical possibility of childbirth).  God then gives Abraham another promise - that Isaac (the son he is to sacrifice) will grow up to be the one whom God counts Abraham's descendants.

So, there you have it, a contradiction in the Bible: God says one thing, and then a few pages later, God says something else. A few pages later still, God says a third thing, and we're back to the first thing being in force again.

That all of that is a contradction is a fact. And how should we discuss the contradiciton? Well, it can be discussed as a literary choice, and we see the whole thing as a parable, except with proper names, teaching the lesson that God doesn't like human sacrifice, but does like the sacrifice of other sentient beings.

So, yes, the attempted murder of Isaac has elements which contradict the larger narrative of which it is a part (the fact of contradiction never goes away). But if it were in fact simply a parable with proper names, then it can be read as the lesson it is under this assumption, rather than reading it as history. Notice that we never reach the question of divine inspiration, because there is no Biblical foundation for denying God the prerogative to inspire parables.

A different approach to analysis, still "literary," but now premised upon the intent is to tell real events, wonders why Abraham, supposedly a real character in a real situation in this analysis, doesn't remark on the contradiction. He's been promised something, he has mutilated his own penis (no minor operation for an adult man, BTW) and those of others in consideration of the promise, and now the promise is, to all appearances, rescinded. And not a peep out of Abraham.

I think it is a worse comment on those who would aspire to follow this God: that not only do  they appluaud attempted child-murder on his say-so, they also would do so without protest. It is impossible to read this incident as a real report and not feel that Abraham has succumbed to a severe inability to apply his rational faculties to what is going on around him, and he has thereby become an immediate danger to himself and others. In American terms, he is "certifiable," meaning that he could be involuntarily confined to receive emergency custodial care and mental health services.

And then, as a third thing, there is the familiar counterapologetic analysis, which is directed to the character of God, rather than of Abraham. This incident easily exceeds the callous indifference one would expect when one species interferes in the affairs of another species. It is how human beings treat lab rats.

I am not eager to rehash with you the merits of your reading, which we have already done to no great effect on either side. What I do point out is that your reading is unresponsive to any of the analyses of the contradiction that exists regardless of analysis.

If it is a parable anyway, then no further explanation is needed. If yours is "the correct reading," then Abraham's failure to comment upon the contradiction compounds an already troubling willingness to kill an innocent for no reason except the voice in his head told him to do it. And, of course, if the "usual" counterapologetic reading is being discussed, that God is a player, not a lover, of humankind, then God's supposed giving, taking back, and then giving again is no rebuttal at all, but rather a confirmation and an ampilification of the web-counterapologists' view.

Posted Image

#513    shadowhive

shadowhive

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,951 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Uk

Posted 22 February 2013 - 01:22 PM

View PostParanoid Android, on 22 February 2013 - 04:02 AM, said:

Why write in a gender-neutral language when the issue being dealt with by the letters was gender specific?  Just because humans corrupted the word of God to bring oppression to women is not the fault of the BIble.  It is the fault of humanity.  That's all I can really say.  I don't blame God because mankind corrupted his word for their purposes. I blame mankind for that.

Because god is supposedly part writer. All would have taken is to change 'not letting women speak' to 'not letting anyone speak' and bam! an excuse to keep women down is gone. Because it was targeted at one group, it was used (and for a shamefully long time I might add) against said group of people. Again the problem is that god is meant to be co-author and he let something slip in that could be misued so easily.

Quote

And in and of themselves, many of those things (what classes we take, what job we do, what kind of car we drive, what we have for lunch) aren't necessarily sinful.  But sometimes the action we take is in direct opposition to what God wants - should I buy a new and completely unnecessary second $100,000 car, or should I use that money to serve God's ministry?  That's not to say that a second car may be sinful, I'm saying that if money is devoted to yourself alone with complete disregard to God, then it is sinful, for God wants us to be generous and kind (I'm not talking about paying money to a church, either - it may be that, but it may be through charity work or such).  Think to the example that I gave as a prime example - travelling 50km/h in a 40 zone - most people don't think anything wrong with that.  At least, whenever I drive through any speed zone, there's almost ALWAYS several people overtaking our car which is doing the speed limit.

The problem with that is you could use that logic to apply to anything which drags you down a slippery slope. Why buy anything when that money could go elsewhere? Then (by default) buying just about anything because a sin. The whole thing rapidly becomes ridiculous and absurd.

Now I'm not saying doing things for others is a bad thing at all, but sometimes you have to do things for you as a person or you're no good to anybody. I see no point in labelling doing things for you as a sin in and of themselves. ie: You could do charity work 16 hours a day with no breaks for 7 days a week. Now if you do that for too long, youd burn out and be no good to anyone so you have to take time and do things for you.

Well, I'm no expert on driving or cars or anything so I cna't feel confident to comment too much on that example. I do know some people overtake others and, yes, some go over the speed limit and think nothing of it. It may be a cultural thing or because you're in a more urban area, because here it doesn't really happen that often as far as I'm aware.

Quote

Exactly, children make mistakes.  At some point in their cognitive development they choose to willingly do something that goes against God.  At that point, they have sinned.  It may be just a "mistake" but it's also a conscious decision to act for their own needs and against God's needs.  And the older we get, the more we do it.  No one is with excuse.  I don't see that as a problem.

No. They don't 'choose to go against god'. I highly doubt many children are even away of god in any real sense, let although making such a choice.

I see it as a very big problem because it's punishing humans for being human.

Let's say you have a bird. The older it gets, the more it flies because it's in it's nature to do so. Now would it make sense to punish that bird for flying? No it wouldn't. The bird needs to fly to get around, to feed itself and it's young, to escape from predators.

Punishing humans for being human for their humanity makes as much sense as punishing a bird for flying, or a fish swimming. Yet not only do you accept it, you don' see it as a problem.

Quote

The thing is, while one sin is enough to condemn us, we don't only commit one sin, we sin repeatedly.  We don't have an excuse and say "oh, I only got angry for a nano-second" because undoubtedly you have sinned far more significantly than that.

Zero tolerance is God's response to the seriousness of sin.  But to use the parent/child analogy, for your extension of the logic to apply, God would have to react immediately - you're angry for a nano-second, he smites you down in righteous retribution.  That's not what happens though.  We have a lifetime of sins to work through (and true, some lifetimes are longer than others), and God has a method for you to avoid the punishment that you can accept any time.  All you need do is ask.

Have you ever considered that, looking at the list of sins, god is just a little too touchy? I mean come on. The sheer volume and number of things labelled as a sin seems patterned especially so that (no matter what we do) we're all guilty.

It's a situation where the house always wins and everyone else gets screwed over.

And god's method of avoiding the punishment is becoming a slave to religion instead. Doesn't sound worth it.

It sounds like having a debt to pay off but instead of being allowed simply to pay it off, you're forced to do whatever the person you owe wants indefinitely.

Quote

What do you mean "better thought of"?  A good deed done by an atheist and a good deed done by a Christian are both good deeds.  The only difference between the two (from a Christian perspective) is that a Christian has had their penalty of sin paid for.

God things absolutely nothing of any good done by an atheist. All that matters to god is that theyre an atheist and that's worthy of death. That sounds like being better thought of to me.

Quote

Well, the fact is that this is not "any other situation".

That sounds like an excuse. And genocide/ethnic cleansing is immoral. Doesn't matter if it's done by a psychotic dictator or your god. God doing it doesn't instantly make it right/ok/necessary. It's still mass murder of men, women and children. But hey, you excuse him doing it to sinners so I'm not terribly surprised. Just disappointed.

So just take off that disguise, everyone knows that you're only, pretty on the outside
Where are those droideka?
No one can tell you who you are
"There's the trouble with fanatics. They're easy to manipulate, but somehow they take everything five steps too far."
"The circumstances of one's birth are irrelevent, it's what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are."

#514    Paranoid Android

Paranoid Android

    ????????

  • 25,777 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney

  • Paranoid Android... No power in the verse can stop me...

Posted 22 February 2013 - 01:27 PM

View Posteight bits, on 22 February 2013 - 10:17 AM, said:

PA



So, there you have it, a contradiction in the Bible: God says one thing, and then a few pages later, God says something else. A few pages later still, God says a third thing, and we're back to the first thing being in force again.

That all of that is a contradction is a fact. And how should we discuss the contradiciton? Well, it can be discussed as a literary choice, and we see the whole thing as a parable, except with proper names, teaching the lesson that God doesn't like human sacrifice, but does like the sacrifice of other sentient beings.

So, yes, the attempted murder of Isaac has elements which contradict the larger narrative of which it is a part (the fact of contradiction never goes away). But if it were in fact simply a parable with proper names, then it can be read as the lesson it is under this assumption, rather than reading it as history. Notice that we never reach the question of divine inspiration, because there is no Biblical foundation for denying God the prerogative to inspire parables.

A different approach to analysis, still "literary," but now premised upon the intent is to tell real events, wonders why Abraham, supposedly a real character in a real situation in this analysis, doesn't remark on the contradiction. He's been promised something, he has mutilated his own penis (no minor operation for an adult man, BTW) and those of others in consideration of the promise, and now the promise is, to all appearances, rescinded. And not a peep out of Abraham.

I think it is a worse comment on those who would aspire to follow this God: that not only do  they appluaud attempted child-murder on his say-so, they also would do so without protest. It is impossible to read this incident as a real report and not feel that Abraham has succumbed to a severe inability to apply his rational faculties to what is going on around him, and he has thereby become an immediate danger to himself and others. In American terms, he is "certifiable," meaning that he could be involuntarily confined to receive emergency custodial care and mental health services.

And then, as a third thing, there is the familiar counterapologetic analysis, which is directed to the character of God, rather than of Abraham. This incident easily exceeds the callous indifference one would expect when one species interferes in the affairs of another species. It is how human beings treat lab rats.

I am not eager to rehash with you the merits of your reading, which we have already done to no great effect on either side. What I do point out is that your reading is unresponsive to any of the analyses of the contradiction that exists regardless of analysis.

If it is a parable anyway, then no further explanation is needed. If yours is "the correct reading," then Abraham's failure to comment upon the contradiction compounds an already troubling willingness to kill an innocent for no reason except the voice in his head told him to do it. And, of course, if the "usual" counterapologetic reading is being discussed, that God is a player, not a lover, of humankind, then God's supposed giving, taking back, and then giving again is no rebuttal at all, but rather a confirmation and an ampilification of the web-counterapologists' view.
I honestly don't understand what you are pointing out.  The fact is that Isaac was given a DPG (read last post for meaning), thus anything else that is said is meaningless.  Certainly I don't understand how this is being used to combat the comment made by HavocWing that somehow his statement that "Love is not supposed to hurt".  This comment has yet to be proven true, not by you, not by anyone.

Posted Image

My blog is now taking a new direction.  Dedicated to my father who was a great inspiration in my life, I wish to honour his memory (RIP, dad) by sharing with the world what he had always kept to himself.  More details, http://www.unexplain...showentry=27811

#515    Paranoid Android

Paranoid Android

    ????????

  • 25,777 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney

  • Paranoid Android... No power in the verse can stop me...

Posted 22 February 2013 - 01:45 PM

View Postshadowhive, on 22 February 2013 - 01:22 PM, said:

Because god is supposedly part writer. All would have taken is to change 'not letting women speak' to 'not letting anyone speak' and bam! an excuse to keep women down is gone. Because it was targeted at one group, it was used (and for a shamefully long time I might add) against said group of people. Again the problem is that god is meant to be co-author and he let something slip in that could be misued so easily.
And man is also part-writer.  You have to remember (and this is a MUST) that every text has its own audience and context to consider.  I'll repeat what I said, I see no reason why the earthly authors must needs to make it gender neutral when the issue in the church was gender specific.  You apparently feel otherwise, just don't expect me to agree.


View Postshadowhive, on 22 February 2013 - 01:22 PM, said:

The problem with that is you could use that logic to apply to anything which drags you down a slippery slope. Why buy anything when that money could go elsewhere? Then (by default) buying just about anything because a sin. The whole thing rapidly becomes ridiculous and absurd.

Now I'm not saying doing things for others is a bad thing at all, but sometimes you have to do things for you as a person or you're no good to anybody. I see no point in labelling doing things for you as a sin in and of themselves. ie: You could do charity work 16 hours a day with no breaks for 7 days a week. Now if you do that for too long, youd burn out and be no good to anyone so you have to take time and do things for you.

Well, I'm no expert on driving or cars or anything so I cna't feel confident to comment too much on that example. I do know some people overtake others and, yes, some go over the speed limit and think nothing of it. It may be a cultural thing or because you're in a more urban area, because here it doesn't really happen that often as far as I'm aware.
The logic was inclusive, not exclusive.  I was making suggestions not giving dogmatic ideas for you to follow.  Every person must act according to their heart, and every Christian acts with their heart and with God in mind.  Does buying a second car qualify as a "sinful act"?  It depends on the motives of the person buying!  Only God can decide.  I'm not offering absolutes, I'm offering ideas.  Everything that Christian adults do should revolve around God, if they can fit a second car into that and still remain faithful, then so be it, God will decide.  If they are being selfish and not giving back to God what is God's, then also - so be it.


View Postshadowhive, on 22 February 2013 - 01:22 PM, said:

No. They don't 'choose to go against god'. I highly doubt many children are even away of god in any real sense, let although making such a choice.
Hence the reason I brought up the "Age of Accountability".  I don't hold to a specific age (7 years, 8 years, whatever), but at some point children do willingly turn against what is right and willingly do what is wrong.  Your only argument against this is to say it's part of human nature, and that really supports my argument....


View Postshadowhive, on 22 February 2013 - 01:22 PM, said:

I see it as a very big problem because it's punishing humans for being human.

Let's say you have a bird. The older it gets, the more it flies because it's in it's nature to do so. Now would it make sense to punish that bird for flying? No it wouldn't. The bird needs to fly to get around, to feed itself and it's young, to escape from predators.

Punishing humans for being human for their humanity makes as much sense as punishing a bird for flying, or a fish swimming. Yet not only do you accept it, you don' see it as a problem.
You still don't understand sin....


View Postshadowhive, on 22 February 2013 - 01:22 PM, said:

Have you ever considered that, looking at the list of sins, god is just a little too touchy? I mean come on. The sheer volume and number of things labelled as a sin seems patterned especially so that (no matter what we do) we're all guilty.

It's a situation where the house always wins and everyone else gets screwed over.

And god's method of avoiding the punishment is becoming a slave to religion instead. Doesn't sound worth it.

It sounds like having a debt to pay off but instead of being allowed simply to pay it off, you're forced to do whatever the person you owe wants indefinitely.
Have you ever considered that your standards of what is "acceptable" for heaven are too low?


View Postshadowhive, on 22 February 2013 - 01:22 PM, said:

God things absolutely nothing of any good done by an atheist. All that matters to god is that theyre an atheist and that's worthy of death. That sounds like being better thought of to me.
After all we've spoken of, if that is what you still think then I'm afraid no amount of further discussion will help.  I accede the debate to you.


View Postshadowhive, on 22 February 2013 - 01:22 PM, said:

That sounds like an excuse. And genocide/ethnic cleansing is immoral. Doesn't matter if it's done by a psychotic dictator or your god. God doing it doesn't instantly make it right/ok/necessary. It's still mass murder of men, women and children. But hey, you excuse him doing it to sinners so I'm not terribly surprised. Just disappointed.
Nevertheless, the fact remains that this situation is very different to every other situation you are trying to compare them to.

~ Regards, PA

Posted Image

My blog is now taking a new direction.  Dedicated to my father who was a great inspiration in my life, I wish to honour his memory (RIP, dad) by sharing with the world what he had always kept to himself.  More details, http://www.unexplain...showentry=27811

#516    shadowhive

shadowhive

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,951 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Uk

Posted 22 February 2013 - 02:20 PM

View PostParanoid Android, on 22 February 2013 - 01:45 PM, said:

And man is also part-writer.  You have to remember (and this is a MUST) that every text has its own audience and context to consider.  I'll repeat what I said, I see no reason why the earthly authors must needs to make it gender neutral when the issue in the church was gender specific.  You apparently feel otherwise, just don't expect me to agree.

And you have to remember (and this also is a must) that this text has persisted for long after those audiences have died. It has been twisted and manipulated so many times and a text like that is just one thing that was (very easily) used in that way.

I think otherwise solely because there's meant to be a second author (god) who wants this text around for a lot longer and yet he did absolutely nothing to inculde parts to prevent the misuse.

Quote

The logic was inclusive, not exclusive.  I was making suggestions not giving dogmatic ideas for you to follow.  Every person must act according to their heart, and every Christian acts with their heart and with God in mind.  Does buying a second car qualify as a "sinful act"?  It depends on the motives of the person buying!  Only God can decide.  I'm not offering absolutes, I'm offering ideas.  Everything that Christian adults do should revolve around God, if they can fit a second car into that and still remain faithful, then so be it, God will decide.  If they are being selfish and not giving back to God what is God's, then also - so be it.

It does depend on the motives of the person you are quite right. But people do need to be able to do their own things for them (and their families) without being guilted all the time because (instead) they could have been 'giving back to god' (which is extremely vague). It just sounds like (yet anothher) system that is open to abuse and manipulation which can be especially felt amongst the vulnerable.

Quote

Hence the reason I brought up the "Age of Accountability".  I don't hold to a specific age (7 years, 8 years, whatever), but at some point children do willingly turn against what is right and willingly do what is wrong.  Your only argument against this is to say it's part of human nature, and that really supports my argument....

My arguement is (simply) that everyone makes mistakes in some way or another during their lifetime. Now the key thing isn't necessarily that you made the mistake (in most cases anyway) but what you do about it. Now if someone lies and then makes it up to the person the person is forgiven. That is the mature response from both of those people. However, to you there''s a third party (god) that gets offended by lie. unlike the person that was lied to, making things right doesn't change anything to god. God does not act like a mature adult, but an immature child holding a grudge.

Quote

You still don't understand sin....

Because, quite frankly, it sounds like an absolutely insane concept. It is utterly and completely absurd.

When I strated talking to you i thought the concept of sin was mad. Everything you've said just confirms it's insanity.

Quote

Have you ever considered that your standards of what is "acceptable" for heaven are too low?

Have you ever considered that your standards are too high?

Quote

After all we've spoken of, if that is what you still think then I'm afraid no amount of further discussion will help.  I accede the debate to you.

It's still what I think, largely because all you've said hponestly comes off as double speak. You've not said anything to make me change my mind.

Quote

Nevertheless, the fact remains that this situation is very different to every other situation you are trying to compare them to.

~ Regards, PA

Ah yes because 'god did it'. God could make the moon fall and kill off all life on the planet and you'd still be singing his praises and excusing him, despite mass murder. But hey, it's god.

Edited by shadowhive, 22 February 2013 - 02:21 PM.

So just take off that disguise, everyone knows that you're only, pretty on the outside
Where are those droideka?
No one can tell you who you are
"There's the trouble with fanatics. They're easy to manipulate, but somehow they take everything five steps too far."
"The circumstances of one's birth are irrelevent, it's what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are."

#517    eight bits

eight bits

    ...

  • Member
  • 6,211 posts
  • Joined:24 May 2007

Posted 22 February 2013 - 02:49 PM

PA

Quote

The fact is that Isaac was given a DPG (read last post for meaning), thus anything else that is said is meaningless.

That surely is one possible explanation of your statement,

Quote

I honestly don't understand what you are pointing out.

since you have flatly assumed that what I am pointing out is meaningless.

However, does it really need to be said that I don't find that to be persuasive rebuttal?

As you will recall, you and I disagree whether, based on the text, Isaac enjoys any guarantee that he won't die then and there. Another Jewish fellow, later in the book, at least in your version of the book, dies and lives to tell about it. At least two Jewish fellows, in fact, one of whom we have no clue whether or not he later had children.

I don't see how any Bible-believing Christian could deny that it is within God's power to allow a man to be killed, and yet later that man might yet have children of his body. Even if Jesus was held to be unique in other ways, Lazarus came back, too.

In any case, Abraham wouldn't know about Lazarus or Jesus, nor has he any basis to think that God would tell him to do something God didn't want done. This same Abraham is depicted earlier as questionning God's promise, and even bargaining with God for the safety of other kin. His failure to inquire here about how God's request squares with the fulfillment of God's earlier promise, then, is unexpected within some (like yours, but not all) interpretations of the incident. His disinterest in his son's safety is also unusual in some interpretations, even when compared with his own behavior on another occasion.

Quote

This comment has yet to be proven true, not by you, not by anyone.

I don't recall ever having addressed HavocWing's comment, not even to say whether or not I agreed with it. This would account for my not having proven it.

As my post said, my interest in the attempted murder of Isaac by his father is as an example of the topic of the thread, which is "contradictions in the Bible." I'd like to discuss the variety of ways in which those contradictions can be interpreted, without denying their presence. That you have had a discussion with another poster about some other aspect of the same incident needn't interfere with anybody else's discussion of this topical aspect of the story.

Posted Image

#518    Paranoid Android

Paranoid Android

    ????????

  • 25,777 posts
  • Joined:17 Apr 2005
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Sydney

  • Paranoid Android... No power in the verse can stop me...

Posted 22 February 2013 - 02:50 PM

View Postshadowhive, on 22 February 2013 - 02:20 PM, said:

And you have to remember (and this also is a must) that this text has persisted for long after those audiences have died. It has been twisted and manipulated so many times and a text like that is just one thing that was (very easily) used in that way.

I think otherwise solely because there's meant to be a second author (god) who wants this text around for a lot longer and yet he did absolutely nothing to inculde parts to prevent the misuse.
I don't think you quite understand the concept of "dual authorship" quite yet.


View Postshadowhive, on 22 February 2013 - 02:20 PM, said:

It does depend on the motives of the person you are quite right. But people do need to be able to do their own things for them (and their families) without being guilted all the time because (instead) they could have been 'giving back to god' (which is extremely vague). It just sounds like (yet anothher) system that is open to abuse and manipulation which can be especially felt amongst the vulnerable.
As long as God is being considered in each decision, then God is being glorified.  If someone is doing something for no other reason than they want to glorify themselves (or their money/status/whatever) then that is a different question..


View Postshadowhive, on 22 February 2013 - 02:20 PM, said:

My arguement is (simply) that everyone makes mistakes in some way or another during their lifetime. Now the key thing isn't necessarily that you made the mistake (in most cases anyway) but what you do about it. Now if someone lies and then makes it up to the person the person is forgiven. That is the mature response from both of those people. However, to you there''s a third party (god) that gets offended by lie. unlike the person that was lied to, making things right doesn't change anything to god. God does not act like a mature adult, but an immature child holding a grudge.
You're focusing on the "one mistake" issue.  While I agree that this "one mistake" is what condemns us, you are trying to avoid the fact that a lot of what we do since that point is also a sin.   And sure, I get that we try to make up for what we do when we sin.  But how do we make up for what we do against God?  It's (relatively easy) to make up for what we do against others if we can see the trail, but what about God?


View Postshadowhive, on 22 February 2013 - 02:20 PM, said:

Because, quite frankly, it sounds like an absolutely insane concept. It is utterly and completely absurd.

When I strated talking to you i thought the concept of sin was mad. Everything you've said just confirms it's insanity.
Which is entirely your Right to believe and feel as such.


View Postshadowhive, on 22 February 2013 - 02:20 PM, said:

Have you ever considered that your standards are too high?
Yes.  I have.  It was interesting to say the least.  And so I repeat, have ou considered that your standards are too low?


View Postshadowhive, on 22 February 2013 - 02:20 PM, said:

It's still what I think, largely because all you've said hponestly comes off as double speak. You've not said anything to make me change my mind.
Then so be it.


View Postshadowhive, on 22 February 2013 - 02:20 PM, said:

Ah yes because 'god did it'. God could make the moon fall and kill off all life on the planet and you'd still be singing his praises and excusing him, despite mass murder. But hey, it's god.
Dismiss it if you wish, I'm simply pointing out what is.

Posted Image

My blog is now taking a new direction.  Dedicated to my father who was a great inspiration in my life, I wish to honour his memory (RIP, dad) by sharing with the world what he had always kept to himself.  More details, http://www.unexplain...showentry=27811

#519    shadowhive

shadowhive

    Government Agent

  • Member
  • 3,951 posts
  • Joined:21 Nov 2004
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Uk

Posted 22 February 2013 - 03:28 PM

View PostParanoid Android, on 22 February 2013 - 02:50 PM, said:

I don't think you quite understand the concept of "dual authorship" quite yet.

i understand it seems to mean pretty much anything you want.

Quote

As long as God is being considered in each decision, then God is being glorified.  If someone is doing something for no other reason than they want to glorify themselves (or their money/status/whatever) then that is a different question.

Why should he be considered in each decision? How is (for instance) what we have for breakfast a decision that we should think about god for? Why we considered god whenever we do anything?

Quote

You're focusing on the "one mistake" issue.  While I agree that this "one mistake" is what condemns us, you are trying to avoid the fact that a lot of what we do since that point is also a sin.   And sure, I get that we try to make up for what we do when we sin.  But how do we make up for what we do against God?  It's (relatively easy) to make up for what we do against others if we can see the trail, but what about God?

I'm not avoiding that. However, when god can't get over one mistake (regardless of how minor) and then keeps being offended by just about everything we do (which is his fault alone for having an exhaustive list of things to have a problem with) it becomes rather impossible doesn't it. While we can make it up to others, we cant make anything up to god because there's always another thought/feelign/deed that he'll hate us for, so by the time you fix one he's found five more to hold against you.

Now if there was a person and they were that critical of you, would you honestly want a relationship with them? Would it be worth the time trying to deal with every issue they raised with you?

Quote

Which is entirely your Right to believe and feel as such.

It is now thankfully.

Quote

Yes.  I have.  It was interesting to say the least.  And so I repeat, have ou considered that your standards are too low?

Hmm.

I believe everyone deserves an afterlife. Everyone, without acception. I don't think you deserve to have your soul cast into a fire for being christian (and it's a shame the same can't be said in return). While your god would gladly cast the whole human race into the fire, there's no way I could condone it or share in that bloodlust. Most people (for all their flaws) are good people and certainly wouldn't deserve the fate you condone.

I'd be reluctant to say that anyone deserved that fate.

But then again, I think  our ideas of what an afterlife is differ greatly.

Quote

Dismiss it if you wish, I'm simply pointing out what is.

It comes down to this. When is mass murder not appalling? When god does it. The danger there, of course is that some people also say that when god orders it makes mass murder acceptable too. Cue all the bloodshed done in the name of god.

Edited by shadowhive, 22 February 2013 - 03:30 PM.

So just take off that disguise, everyone knows that you're only, pretty on the outside
Where are those droideka?
No one can tell you who you are
"There's the trouble with fanatics. They're easy to manipulate, but somehow they take everything five steps too far."
"The circumstances of one's birth are irrelevent, it's what you do with the gift of life that determines who you are."

#520    Sherapy

Sherapy

    Sheri loves Sean loves Sheri...

  • Member
  • 21,940 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:At the Beach-- San Pedro, California

  • Dysfunctional you can fix, ******** can't be.

Posted 22 February 2013 - 05:04 PM

View PostParanoid Android, on 22 February 2013 - 04:23 AM, said:

No, I didn't know what you meant.  Perhaps you can explain it further, because I can conceive of several instances where love can and does hurt (and not in the "oh, you can't leave me, I love you and would die without you" kind of hurt)

For me, I would say it is the  reality of teething that hurts. I would not see this as "love" or lack of, I would see it as a reality that has a practical solution ( a teething ring to relieve the pain or call the dentist for suggestions.) Kids that young would not put that kind of thought into swappping one cold thing for another. IMO


I say this understanding that your understanding of love is different from mine, so this is really just another way to look at this.




#521    Sherapy

Sherapy

    Sheri loves Sean loves Sheri...

  • Member
  • 21,940 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:At the Beach-- San Pedro, California

  • Dysfunctional you can fix, ******** can't be.

Posted 22 February 2013 - 05:34 PM

View PostIamsSon, on 22 February 2013 - 04:32 AM, said:

I would like to point out the story I related earlier in the thread about having to hold my son down so he could be vaccinated.  I did that out of love, but, I can tell you my son experienced quite a bit of pain.

I have 3 sons, all who got vaccinations, all who were scared of the process. I didn't hold anyone down, I was honest  and expalined how it would feel (like a pinch) but I assured them it would be over quick, and that I was there I reassured them they could handle it.  The interesting thing is all of my sons were astonished how well they handled their shots (turned out it wasn't so bad.) There are things in life that are not pleasant including getting shots, but we all get through it.

Now I ask you am I more loving then you as a parent?  The answer is no, we just have different approaches to the reality of getting shots.

Edited by Sherapy, 22 February 2013 - 05:35 PM.




#522    Frank Merton

Frank Merton

    Blue fish

  • Member
  • 14,260 posts
  • Joined:22 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam

  • fmerton.blogspot.com

Posted 22 February 2013 - 05:38 PM

I can't believe anyone feels any kind of pain nowadays from a simple vaccination.  Even blood draws nowadays are done with needles so thin you don't feel a thing -- not even the proverbial "pinch."  Where are your clinics getting their needles from?  Maybe Vietnam is more advanced?


#523    Sherapy

Sherapy

    Sheri loves Sean loves Sheri...

  • Member
  • 21,940 posts
  • Joined:14 Jun 2005
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:At the Beach-- San Pedro, California

  • Dysfunctional you can fix, ******** can't be.

Posted 22 February 2013 - 08:38 PM

View PostFrank Merton, on 22 February 2013 - 05:38 PM, said:

I can't believe anyone feels any kind of pain nowadays from a simple vaccination.  Even blood draws nowadays are done with needles so thin you don't feel a thing -- not even the proverbial "pinch."  Where are your clinics getting their needles from?  Maybe Vietnam is more advanced?

You do have a point, I am talking about 20 years ago, myself. Incidently-- to this day I do not like to have blood drawn, it's a mental thing for me ( and it includes the damn pinch) LOL.

Edited by Sherapy, 22 February 2013 - 08:39 PM.




#524    IamsSon

IamsSon

    Unobservable Matter

  • Member
  • 11,865 posts
  • Joined:01 Jul 2006
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Houston, TX

  • ďIf you canít explain it simply, you donít understand it well enough.Ē ~ Albert Einstein

Posted 22 February 2013 - 09:12 PM

View PostFrank Merton, on 22 February 2013 - 05:38 PM, said:

I can't believe anyone feels any kind of pain nowadays from a simple vaccination.  Even blood draws nowadays are done with needles so thin you don't feel a thing -- not even the proverbial "pinch."  Where are your clinics getting their needles from?  Maybe Vietnam is more advanced?
I guess you missed that I said my son is now 20 years old and this happened when he was 1.  But, unless needles in Vietnam are made of cotton candy, I'm sure they still "pinch."

"But then with me that horrid doubt always arises whether the convictions of man's mind which has been developed from the mind of the lower animals, are of any value or at all trustworthy. Would any one trust in the convictions of a monkey's mind, if there are any convictions in such a mind?" - Charles Darwin, in a letter to William Graham on July 3, 1881

#525    Everdred

Everdred

    Ectoplasmic Residue

  • Member
  • Pip
  • 192 posts
  • Joined:10 Jan 2013
  • Gender:Male

Posted 22 February 2013 - 11:46 PM

View Posteight bits, on 22 February 2013 - 10:17 AM, said:

So, there you have it, a contradiction in the Bible: God says one thing, and then a few pages later, God says something else. A few pages later still, God says a third thing, and we're back to the first thing being in force again.

Where's the contradiction?  It's a perfectly consistent narrative.  I must wonder if you've even read the relevant passages.





0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users