Arjuous Posted July 23, 2006 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 90 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/22/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted July 23, 2006 2- They ignore the historic character of God's Revelation. Certain passages suit an epoch or a situation and cannot be taken absolutely. This has much to do with what I just addressed. I would like to say, however, that God should not be able to be 'surprised' about anything. He is omniscient, omnipresent, all-knowing, all-powerful, he is yesterday, today, tomorrow, etc, etc. If that is true, than he knew and knows exactly what will happen everywhere, and indeed he knew that before creation. So being surprised is impossible. I could go on and on and on about the existence of God in general, which I would love to since I've yet to form a concrete opinion, but this debate on Christianity. Which I was for 20 years, including private Christian school and avid youth group attendance, just to make that clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arjuous Posted July 23, 2006 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 90 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/22/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted July 23, 2006 4- The Bible is a very special book written over a long span of time by different people from different backgrounds in different places. The unity of the Book is given by Its Ultimate Author (God) and Its Main Subject (Our Salvation.) The Bible is naturally cross-referenced: it contains its own answers. The level at which you understand The Bible depends on your own level of spiritual progress triggered and sustained by God Himself. Your argument here is flawed, in that it takes belief in the Bible before reading it to accept it as true. The Bible indeed is a 'very special book,' if only for the history that has occurred under it's flag, yet I also think it is a good piece of literature containing some very good points about how we should live our lives (in a non-religious sense). The problem is that, and I truly don't mean to offend you, but God didn't write it. And I know he didn't write it, because of all the problems with it. Not only the contradictions, but because of BLATENT HATEFUL IGNORANT things contained within it, such as an absolute disgust with homosexuals. Before you start beating the pulpit, No, I am not Gay, but discriminating against any human being for any sort of biological trait is IGNORANCE. Also, this claim that 'the Bible explains itself' is logically bankrupt. You're completely trusting one source for your information about the world, and then saying that the world is wrong when the source turns out to have made FALSE assumptions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arjuous Posted July 23, 2006 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 90 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/22/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted July 23, 2006 (edited) For some reason I can't post anything longer than a paragraph, so I must dice it up, I have one more reply, I'll try and add it shortly [Can't post]: I suppose to conclude, I would say that the Christian God's historical, theological, and moral inconsistencies prove his inexistence. Edited July 23, 2006 by Arjuous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayin jade Posted July 23, 2006 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 44 Topic Count: 6,178 Topics Per Day: 0.87 Content Count: 43,798 Content Per Day: 6.19 Reputation: 11,244 Days Won: 58 Joined: 01/03/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted July 23, 2006 So, a principle is, let's say, James 1:13 that says "Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, NEITHER HE TEMPTETH ANY MAN." But that principle is contradicted BY GOD in Genesis, where in Genisis 22:1 the author wrote "And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham." Let no one say God tempted man to do evil. Read that verse in context with other verses rather than in isolation. Jam 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: Jam 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. The "tempting" you speak of in Genesis 22 was a test of faith. The word tempt there means test. Not the same thing at all. God was proving the measure of Abraham's faith. nâsâh naw-saw' A primitive root; to test; by implication to attempt: - adventure, assay, prove, tempt, try. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arjuous Posted July 23, 2006 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 90 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/22/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted July 23, 2006 (edited) Let no one say God tempted man to do evil. Read that verse in context with other verses rather than in isolation. Jam 1:13 Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God: for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man: Jam 1:14 But every man is tempted, when he is drawn away of his own lust, and enticed. The "tempting" you speak of in Genesis 22 was a test of faith. The word tempt there means test. Not the same thing at all. God was proving the measure of Abraham's faith. nâsâh naw-saw' A primitive root; to test; by implication to attempt: - adventure, assay, prove, tempt, try. Thank you for posting. Edited July 23, 2006 by Arjuous Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayin jade Posted July 23, 2006 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 44 Topic Count: 6,178 Topics Per Day: 0.87 Content Count: 43,798 Content Per Day: 6.19 Reputation: 11,244 Days Won: 58 Joined: 01/03/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted July 23, 2006 The only reason for him to do so would be to have him advance as a person in his faith. If THAT is your argument, it's a valid one, but again, it isn't the crux of the issue. Yep that is what I mean. He knows Abrahams faith, but Abraham didnt know the depths of his faith. After Genesis 22, Abraham knew how deeply he felt about the Lord. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arjuous Posted July 23, 2006 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 90 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/22/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted July 23, 2006 The only reason for him to do so would be to have him advance as a person in his faith. If THAT is your argument, it's a valid one, but again, it isn't the crux of the issue. Yep that is what I mean. He knows Abrahams faith, but Abraham didnt know the depths of his faith. After Genesis 22, Abraham knew how deeply he felt about the Lord. No, he knew before he created the universe how deeply Abraham would feel about the Lord. I see your point, but God did not 'need' to test Abraham, he 'chose' to because it would further Abraham's faith. If that is your case, that God furthered Abraham's existence by acting as a catalyst, it's a valid point in this case, but does not address all of the problems. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayin jade Posted July 23, 2006 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 44 Topic Count: 6,178 Topics Per Day: 0.87 Content Count: 43,798 Content Per Day: 6.19 Reputation: 11,244 Days Won: 58 Joined: 01/03/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted July 23, 2006 But, in Jer. 20:7 it says "O Lord, thou has deceived [marginal reading, 'enticed'] me, and I was deceived [enticed]." Or in Matt 6:13 in the Lord's prayer, "Lead us not into temptation." That admits the possibility that he could. You cannot conclude that temptation is not a Christian-Godly attribute when in the Lord's prayer they ask for him not to do it. It is presupposed that he can. Matthew: That doesnt mean, God dont tempt me to do evil, but rather God dont let my heart be led to do evil. Note the second part of that sentence is "deliver us from evil" It is similar to what is expressed here: Psa 141:4 Let not my heart turn aside to any evil thing, to practice wicked works with men who work iniquity; and let me not eat of their delicacies. For the Jeremiah verse, do you understand what he is saying? Jeremiah is accusing God of deceiving him, but that doesnt mean God did deceive him. You are taking isolated verses, but not reading in context. What is your purpose here? Are you here to "teach us"? To "show us"? Ive got the worthy prayer team praying for you, for your salvation. God bless. In Matthew it is implied that God has such control over the tempter (the devil) as to save us from his power if we call upon him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arjuous Posted July 23, 2006 Group: Nonbeliever Followers: 0 Topic Count: 2 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 90 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 07/22/2006 Status: Offline Author Share Posted July 23, 2006 "That doesnt mean, God dont tempt me to do evil, but rather God dont let my heart be led to do evil." No it doesn't, it says, LEAD ME NOT (admitting his capacity to do so) INTO TEMPTATION. "What is your purpose here? Are you here to "teach us"? To "show us"? " This is a place to debate faith, correct? I am not so egotistical as to think I could assume a prioritary role over anyone's life, I'm simply debating. "Ive got the worthy prayer team praying for you, for your salvation" I appreciate the thought. The overall point is addressing the contradictions, or rather, the fact that they exist. Do you admit that Contradictions exist within the Bible? What does that mean for the legitimacy for the Bible Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ayin jade Posted July 23, 2006 Group: Worthy Ministers Followers: 44 Topic Count: 6,178 Topics Per Day: 0.87 Content Count: 43,798 Content Per Day: 6.19 Reputation: 11,244 Days Won: 58 Joined: 01/03/2005 Status: Offline Share Posted July 23, 2006 The bible is inerrant. I am not. If there is something that appears to contradict, it is my understanding of it I would question, not the bible. And that is the difference. You look for flaws, for reasons to prove it is flawed. So you wont take the time to see what it really says. You have already dismissed it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts