|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Aug 16, 2017 13:00:56 GMT
You're contradicting yourself. You said it's not for 11-year olds to understand - 11-year olds THINK they understand it, and this you acknowledged. But now you say you DID understand it? How would you even know? Because as I pointed out, there is no consensus among scholars as to what the Bible says. So if you are claiming to have actually understood the Bible, as it was meant to be understood, you are making a no less bold claim that you are God. But let us assume that you're some sort of genius who magically understands what nobody else can agree on - that still leaves the rest of the world. The fact that you can't seem to understand the problem here makes me very certain indeed that you did not understand the Bible at 11, nor at any point since. You may think you do, but if you happen to be right about anything in it, it is only due to a lucky guess - and you are yourself not in a position to know what you're right about. I understand some specific points. I understand that this is not the Garden of Eden. I understand that as creatures with free will some might make evil choices. I understand that the rain falls on the just and the unjust. I understand that God does not dictate much, at least not here on Earth. You needed the Bible to tell you these things? Yes you most certainly did. Here's what I said, which you STILL haven't addressed: "Wouldn't it be possible for an omnipotent and omniscient being to inspire someone to write something which would be understood clearly, even by an 11-year old? That way, no bickering over interpretation, no schisms, no religious feuds, everybody in agreement. Nothing whatsoever to do with the Fall or "free will"."To which you replied: "I understood it when I was 11."This does NOT in any way suggest you only understood the parts in the Bible which are blatantly obvious, even to people who have never read the Bible. What you were saying was that you understood it all, and as if to ram the point home, you added: "The problem seems to be on your end."As you have clearly demonstrated, the problem is on your end, and you realize this, or you wouldn't keep dodging a perfectly simple question. Which still stands: Wouldn't it be possible for an omnipotent and omniscient being to inspire someone to write something which would be understood clearly, even by an 11-year old? |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Aug 16, 2017 14:58:07 GMT
To the average ancient person that information wasn't important. Today is is. But that is all beside the point. The ancient author would have written the story of Joshua differently had he known what we know about physics and the earth. Why? You're still trying hopelessly to reduce communication to some one-size-fits-all scheme. How writers address audiences depends quite much on the audience. Why shouldn't it? Furthermore, while I really do doubt the sun and moon "stood still" in other than some poetic sense there is the possibility that they did. After all the universe has to have forces unknown to us if it is to maintain itself against the heat death of entropy Funny you should accuse with the "one-size-fits-all" adjective in your contorted Bible apologetics (besides the creative way of dismissing an obvious defect), considering how this mantra applies to so much of the Bible's messages (eg. "All fall short of the glory of God", "No one comes to the Father except through Me", etc.) |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 16, 2017 18:42:39 GMT
"Wouldn't it be possible for an omnipotent and omniscient being to inspire someone to write something which would be understood clearly, even by an 11-year old? That way, no bickering over interpretation, no schisms, no religious feuds, everybody in agreement. Nothing whatsoever to do with the Fall or "free will"." The answer to your question is yes. Yes it would be possible, but I do not think worthwhile. There are many facets to the bible and each book normally needs to be interpreted in it's own light, but in terms of spiritual guidance, which is what I personally read the bible for (meaning I am not too fussed about the laws of man that have been put in there) what is required on the part of the user is some effort to understand. This is a basic Jewish (and therefore Christian) rule, that the words can be there,but it is not until we come to an internal understanding that we have made any growth. Yes it could be spoon fed, but I would question it's usefulness in helping us to grow. |
|
|
|
Post by general313 on Aug 16, 2017 19:12:12 GMT
"Wouldn't it be possible for an omnipotent and omniscient being to inspire someone to write something which would be understood clearly, even by an 11-year old? That way, no bickering over interpretation, no schisms, no religious feuds, everybody in agreement. Nothing whatsoever to do with the Fall or "free will"." The answer to your question is yes. Yes it would be possible, but I do not think worthwhile. There are many facets to the bible and each book normally needs to be interpreted in it's own light, but in terms of spiritual guidance, which is what I personally read the bible for (meaning I am not too fussed about the laws of man that have been put in there) what is required on the part of the user is some effort to understand. This is a basic Jewish (and therefore Christian) rule, that the words can be there,but it is not until we come to an internal understanding that we have made any growth. Yes it could be spoon fed, but I would question it's usefulness in helping us to grow. And separate, into Arians, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Mormon, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. Yeah the Bible is obscure by design, makes sense to me! |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 16, 2017 19:18:57 GMT
The answer to your question is yes. Yes it would be possible, but I do not think worthwhile. There are many facets to the bible and each book normally needs to be interpreted in it's own light, but in terms of spiritual guidance, which is what I personally read the bible for (meaning I am not too fussed about the laws of man that have been put in there) what is required on the part of the user is some effort to understand. This is a basic Jewish (and therefore Christian) rule, that the words can be there,but it is not until we come to an internal understanding that we have made any growth. Yes it could be spoon fed, but I would question it's usefulness in helping us to grow. And separate, into Arians, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Mormon, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. Yeah the Bible is obscure by design, makes sense to me! Not the whole bible, just the parts that teach spirituality, in fact this is often spoken about in mystic circles that the truth his hidden until someone can understand. The politics is of no concern, any extensive examination of a single church will net you a number of people that disagree on salient points of spiritual truth, they don't have to attend a different denomination. The point being that spiritual advancement is not a one size fits all, do 6 hail marys four times a day and your spiritual growth is assured, you need to work on it and it will become personal. We accept koan in Japanese philosophy, they are obscure statements that require individual contemplation and will result in differing conclusions, why is it so hard to accept the same thing is not found in western texts. It reminds me of the people who thing the Europeans have no martial arts. |
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Aug 16, 2017 21:48:24 GMT
And separate, into Arians, Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Lutheran, Presbyterian, Mormon, Jehovah's Witnesses, etc. Yeah the Bible is obscure by design, makes sense to me! Not the whole bible, just the parts that teach spirituality, in fact this is often spoken about in mystic circles that the truth his hidden until someone can understand. The politics is of no concern, any extensive examination of a single church will net you a number of people that disagree on salient points of spiritual truth, they don't have to attend a different denomination. The point being that spiritual advancement is not a one size fits all, do 6 hail marys four times a day and your spiritual growth is assured, you need to work on it and it will become personal. We accept koan in Japanese philosophy, they are obscure statements that require individual contemplation and will result in differing conclusions, why is it so hard to accept the same thing is not found in western texts. It reminds me of the people who thing the Europeans have no martial arts. The difference between Buddhism and Christianity, however, is that in Buddhism truth is different from one person to the next - whereas in Christianity, it is preached that there is one truth - Jesus. "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me." The entire purpose of the Bible is to guide people towards salvation. This would be accomplished a lot better were it more clear, and not subject to (mis)interpretation. And most denominations traditionally insist that you must adhere to their interpretation, or your soul may be damned - and for all we know they may be right in that assumption. In which case it is nothing short of irresponsible for the Bible to have been written with anything less than perfect clarity. A koan presents a question, the purpose of which is to cultivate doubt. This is the antithesis to the Bible, which purports to have the answers, answers which you should not doubt. The purpose is to cultivate faith. And a volume claiming to contain answers had better be precise, especially when you are rewarded or punished according to your faith in them. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 16, 2017 22:03:20 GMT
Not the whole bible, just the parts that teach spirituality, in fact this is often spoken about in mystic circles that the truth his hidden until someone can understand. The politics is of no concern, any extensive examination of a single church will net you a number of people that disagree on salient points of spiritual truth, they don't have to attend a different denomination. The point being that spiritual advancement is not a one size fits all, do 6 hail marys four times a day and your spiritual growth is assured, you need to work on it and it will become personal. We accept koan in Japanese philosophy, they are obscure statements that require individual contemplation and will result in differing conclusions, why is it so hard to accept the same thing is not found in western texts. It reminds me of the people who thing the Europeans have no martial arts. The difference between Buddhism and Christianity, however, is that in Buddhism truth is different from one person to the next - whereas in Christianity, it is preached that there is one truth - Jesus. "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me." The entire purpose of the Bible is to guide people towards salvation. This would be accomplished a lot better were it more clear, and not subject to (mis)interpretation. And most denominations traditionally insist that you must adhere to their interpretation, or your soul may be damned - and for all we know they may be right in that assumption. In which case it is nothing short of irresponsible for the Bible to have been written with anything less than perfect clarity. A koan presents a question, the purpose of which is to cultivate doubt. This is the antithesis to the Bible, which purports to have the answers, answers which you should not doubt. The purpose is to cultivate faith. And a volume claiming to contain answers had better be precise, especially when you are rewarded or punished according to your faith in them. I disagree when it comes to the spiritual teaching of the bible, I think that they statements are presented in a way that cultivates contemplation, just as an aside I don't think a Koan is supposed to cultivate doubt, but contemplation, It might be a small difference but I think it is important. Let me ask you this, the bible was written by human beings more than 1500 years ago, why would we expect (no matter what the narrative is today) that they were able to present the truth? Which I would consider a personal journey and not something that can be mapped in the way you are suggesting. |
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Aug 16, 2017 22:08:50 GMT
The difference between Buddhism and Christianity, however, is that in Buddhism truth is different from one person to the next - whereas in Christianity, it is preached that there is one truth - Jesus. "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one can come to the Father except through me." The entire purpose of the Bible is to guide people towards salvation. This would be accomplished a lot better were it more clear, and not subject to (mis)interpretation. And most denominations traditionally insist that you must adhere to their interpretation, or your soul may be damned - and for all we know they may be right in that assumption. In which case it is nothing short of irresponsible for the Bible to have been written with anything less than perfect clarity. A koan presents a question, the purpose of which is to cultivate doubt. This is the antithesis to the Bible, which purports to have the answers, answers which you should not doubt. The purpose is to cultivate faith. And a volume claiming to contain answers had better be precise, especially when you are rewarded or punished according to your faith in them. I disagree when it comes to the spiritual teaching of the bible, I think that they statements are presented in a way that cultivates contemplation, just as an aside I don't think a Koan is supposed to cultivate doubt, but contemplation, It might be a small difference but I think it is important. Let me ask you this, the bible was written by human beings more than 1500 years ago, why would we expect (no matter what the narrative is today) that they were able to present the truth? I don't - but there are those who do, who claim that the Bible is inerrant because it was inspired by God. In which case, there isn't really any room for ambiguity - and indeed, Christians tend to claim that it isn't ambiguous at all, that it "clearly" says such and such. But still they can't agree. If God authored (or inspired) the Bible, why would he wish to sow discord by it? That is my point. A journey towards salvation, surely. And why shouldn't such a journey be mapped out precisely? When the destination is salvation, the destination is more important than the journey. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Aug 16, 2017 22:19:45 GMT
I disagree when it comes to the spiritual teaching of the bible, I think that they statements are presented in a way that cultivates contemplation, just as an aside I don't think a Koan is supposed to cultivate doubt, but contemplation, It might be a small difference but I think it is important. Let me ask you this, the bible was written by human beings more than 1500 years ago, why would we expect (no matter what the narrative is today) that they were able to present the truth? I don't - but there are those who do, who claim that the Bible is inerrant because it was inspired by God. In which case, there isn't really any room for ambiguity - and indeed, Christians tend to claim that it isn't ambiguous at all, that it "clearly" says such and such. But still they can't agree. If God authored (or inspired) the Bible, why would he wish to sow discord by it? That is my point. A journey towards salvation, surely. And why shouldn't such a journey be mapped out precisely? When the destination is salvation, the destination is more important than the journey. Ok yeah fair call, inerrancy (not really a word but you know) bugs me, it does not seem possible. The 'clearly' point is even worse, inerrant literalists are the stupidest Christians on the planet. I don't think God inspired the whole bible, I think parts were written by men who were 'enlightened' (for lack of a better word), but there are also parts written by people who wanted to control other people. I cannot be mapped out precisely as it is such a personal journey, as with the point with Koan, spiritual growth really has to come from inside, all an external source can do is make a suggestion and hope that you can make something out of it. In addition there is a path of belief that suggests that paradox are the best way to move forward spiritually and so what seems obscure can actually be advantageous in terms of furthering spiritual growth. Moreover I suspect that salvation looks different for every person so the destination cannot be mapped out. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 16, 2017 22:40:19 GMT
Wouldn't it be possible for an omnipotent and omniscient being to inspire someone to write something which would be understood clearly, even by an 11-year old? To very specifically address your question, if God can do anything, can he write so that any child will immediately understand? I can only speculate, but I would guess that you're attempting to mix two things that don't mix. Infinity and algebra don't mix. "Omnipotence" as some describe it and reason do not mix. You've heard some of the arguments before. Can a god create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it? It appears that even "omnipotent" (the word does not occur in the Bible) beings must have limits of some sort. I have suggested on my Facebook page that two opposite things cannot be true at the same time and place. If I am correct then no a god cannot make a rock that is both too heavy to lift and light enough to lift at the same time and place. He can make a light enough rock here and now. He can make a heavier rock there and then. However no rock can be both at the same time and place. I will not address here the sort of arguments that deal with alternate universes existing at the same time and place because that and reason do not mix. It serves no purpose to address such arguments. It would be like working with infinity plus seven, it makes no sense. We have found the problem then. It is your concept of a god's powers that makes no sense. Your human understanding of omnipotence and what a god should be able to do is likely flawed. We encounter that often on this board. Several here believe that "eternal" punishment makes no sense if god is omnipotent. I am not so certain. I suspect that perhaps even a god cannot undo things once they've been done. If a human commits a murder or a rape then perhaps there is no way to undo that. Perhaps there is no way to go back in time. You realize that time travel is just science fiction so far, correct? If the murder is a fact for all eternity then how is it that the punishment be less than for eternity? How can a murder and a free roaming murderer exist in the same fair universe? How can a murderer ever be the "same" as a person who never committed a murder? I'm not saying that a god cannot "erase" the murder. I'm not saying that a god cannot travel back in time and arrange for the murder to never happen in the first place. I am saying however that such things might not be possible even for an "omnipotent" being. On the topic of yet unanswered questions, you did not answer my question about what sort of dictator you want a god to be. I notice that your attempts to dictate anything are not successful. I have suggested that God wants it that way. Maybe God does not want children dictating anything. |
|
|
|
Post by Karl Aksel on Aug 16, 2017 23:24:28 GMT
Wouldn't it be possible for an omnipotent and omniscient being to inspire someone to write something which would be understood clearly, even by an 11-year old? To very specifically address your question, if God can do anything, can he write so that any child will immediately understand? I can only speculate, but I would guess that you're attempting to mix two things that don't mix. Infinity and algebra don't mix. "Omnipotence" as some describe it and reason do not mix. You've heard some of the arguments before. Can a god create a rock so heavy that even he cannot lift it? It appears that even "omnipotent" (the word does not occur in the Bible) beings must have limits of some sort. Indeed, the Bible never claims God is omnipotent, except in passing comments which smack of hyperbole. And indeed, going by the Biblical stories, God cannot possibly be omnipotent. But I'm not the one trying to argue that he is. My argument is based on your concept of God, not mine. The paradox, "can God create a stone so heavy not even He can lift it?" has no relevance here. The question is simply, "can God make himself understood?" This is not a paradox. On the contrary, your criticism is of your understanding of God's powers - because that is what I have used as vantage point. Assuming God even exists, the Bible's shortcomings can easily be explained if either 1) God is nowhere near omnipotent or omniscient, but actually quite human in his flaws, or 2) God had nothing to do with its writing. The problem arises if, as you believe, the Bible does come from God (albeit indirectly), and God is as great as you claim him to be. I haven't heard anyone claim that it is God's alleged omnipotence which causes eternal punishment to make no sense. Eternal punishment (or reward, for that matter) makes no sense to begin with, omnipotence or no. Yet the Bible claims Jesus resurrected Lazarus. That would only make sense if we lived eternal. As it is, we are all going to die eventually anyway, meaning a murder has limited impact. Nothing eternal was destroyed, only something temporary. You answered your own question: if the murder victim is still around to roam, then what crime has been committed? If there is an afterlife, all the murderer has done is to cause the transition to happen sooner than it otherwise would. Because people change. I am not the same person I was 30 years ago, or even 10 years ago. I'm sure you haven't stayed the same all your life, either. Why would he have to? If you punch someone in anger and they survive, are you a murderer? If you punch someone in anger - the same punch - and they die, are you a murderer? If you plan to murder someone and succeed, are you a murderer? If you plan to murder someone but fail, are you still a murderer? And can you not learn from the experience? Peter denied Jesus three times, yet when he heard the cock crow and was thus reminded of Jesus' words, he never denied Jesus again. He thus used to be someone who denied his saviour, but after that experience ceased to be such a person. Having learned his lesson, what would be the point of punishing him for being someone he no longer was? Isn't repentance supposed to be a thing in Christianity? That was pathetic. You keep trying very hard to insult people by calling them children, but you are the only one who has behaved like a child here. As to your question, I have no desire either way, as I do not believe in God in the first place. If there is a god, I expect him not to be concerned with what we do or believe, but is rather studying us with fascination. The sort of god I'd like to exist wouldn't be alone - I rather like the idea of a pantheon of gods, each with a different personality. If there is just the one god, I hope he stays out of our hair. If there is, in addition, an afterlife (this does not automatically follow), then I expect he rewards according to deeds and not beliefs. |
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Aug 17, 2017 1:41:57 GMT
1 My argument is based on your concept of God, not mine. 2 The question is simply, "can God make himself understood?" 1 What do you believe my concept of God is? 2 Not really. I said the Bible was probably not intended to make children practicing attorneys. It makes sense to me, but apparently not you. Your expectation that God should be able to make children practicing attorneys is based on your understanding of "omnipotence," not mine. The Bible is a very important book to millions of people around the world. It contains a complex ethical system that is obviously beyond your abilities to recognize. Meanwhile in comparison you are an insignificant person. Your arguments have no value whatsoever. If you find that insulting, I'm sorry, but it remains true anyway. God has paid nothing to people like you for centuries and isn't likely to start now. I appreciate your attempts to better yourself and your understanding. You might learn something yet. I never required eternal punishment for murderers. I simply explained that it might be necessary if certain things are immutable and they might well be immutable. I said no more than that. To say that when you learn from a mistake that you are "no longer" the person who made the mistake is an interesting opinion, but it is just your opinion, which we both know isn't worth two cents. Good luck with that anyway. I suspect you're trying to "win" something here. The Bible will be an important book to millions of people long after both of us are dead. So I have nothing to prove, you do. That's how the burden of proof actually works. You are the failure here. That you believe there are "contradictions" in the Bible merely shows what a superficial understanding of the wide world you have. That you believe the Bible should make children practicing attorneys shows what a superficial understanding of the wide world we live in you have. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Aug 30, 2017 9:44:38 GMT
@filmfaneur Of course show scripture in context helps. That's the dumbest statement I've heard from you. In this case none of the context you show removes the essential meaning of what is claimed about your deity - which explicitly contradicts what is asserted elsewhere. And don't call me dumb. After all, I don't call you gullible.
I am still waiting to hear how the words about your god are altered in meaning by an exegesis of the context. Either it created something or it did not.
If you think that your (only) direct bald answer so far that
does not qualify as special pleading for the different presentation of a deity who is nevertheless regularly characterised as unchanging, then you need to think again. It is not good enough to suggest that on that particular day God is attributed as the creator or disaster or evil, while on this other day, by another author asserted to be wholly good, as if the nature of your deity is a moveable feast and it all somehow marries up consistently. Common sense says not.
Neither is the view that cancers, surely one of the worst disasters in a person's life, are not part of a natural evil explicitly owned up to by God.
And ad hominems btw, even if slight, tell the reader much more about you than they ever do I.
It is certainly true that opinions will differ, if that what is what you mean. Those with an emotional and intellectual stake in a problematic text will be predictable. But you haven't explained anything. Just cut 'n' pasted the surrounding verse as if this is good enough LOL. Give me a good answer and I will always appreciate it. Even after being away for two weeks on holiday you don't seem to have come up with much other than the insinuation that I am dumb to draw obvious conclusions about a Biblical text which was, after all, written, edited, compiled and interpolated by a host of different authors, each with their own agenda down many years. It would be hard to think why inconsistency would not be expected given this history, especially as all this was 'inspired' by God and not His perfect word, set down in one go through dictation. You are entitled to your opinion. But I still need to see some exegesis as to why "I [God] form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster ['evil' in some Bibles]; I, the Lord do all these things" would not be meant to be read as exactly that. Is disaster good? Or "For everything God created is good " Is some of the stuff your deity apparently created not so good after all? Translation: I haven't been able to offer an explanation, so I will just attack the messenger. |
|
