Conflicting statements in the bible

[Statler Waldorf]

No, it isn't........................................

Sure it is, I am claiming morals are not relative, you’re taking the positive position that they are, I need proof.

Do you and I share the same morals?

We are supposed to live by the same moral law, yes.

Proof of what...? Is/ought? Either you take that or you leave it. Your call.

You’re the one committing the is/ought fallacy, not me.

Indeed, now get to work

Waiting for you to refute the historically accepted position….still waiting…

No more or less so than "theistic morals". Neither collection of morals are likely to be arbitrary -or- meaningless...even if the justifications offered -are- ( I like to leave room for people who simply cant articulate their thoughts very well.....)

Christian standards of morality are not arbitrary, atheistic standards of morality apparently are. The former is meaningful, the latter is meaningless.

That explains why Calvanists abound!

You’re assuming the majority of people are rational, that’s funny.

So, he wanted it but he didn't want it. Got it.

God has two wills; I thought you’d know that since you claim to have been a Calvinist.

I have proven it by making conscious choices throughout this conversation.

How do you know you’re making a conscious choice?

For example: at first, my responses were prompt and now they are delayed. A varied approach, just as many things are varied.

That does not prove you freely chose your approach.

There absolutely is. Your position preposes that all things meaningless, not to mention extremely petty.

More misrepresentations I see, all things work together for the good of those who believe and to bring glory to God, that’s the opposite of meaningless.

Like I said, it's a difference of progression. I simply have a wider perspective than you, and because of that, I understand the contradictions involved.

You’d have to understand my position first, start there.

Chapter VI…II. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body. III. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed; and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by ordinary generation. (Palmer, p. 126)

Amen.

Not at all. It's not my fault that the doctrines contradict themselves. That's the nature of the bible.

Your misconception of the doctrines contradict themselves, but that’s a reflection upon your mind, not the actual doctrines.

When (or if) you ever graduate, then will talk. Right now it's like trying to discuss the planet with a flat earther.

You’d get schooled this badly by a flat-earther too? That’s funny, but believable.

Just stating one of their contradicting beliefs.

Prove it’s an actual contradiction, set up a syllogism, come on! Nail it!

That makes sense. "God's Word" is so powerful and "appealing" that most people don't truly get it and aren't compelled by it.

Everyone He wants to understand it does.

At its most base level, I think so. Our concept of morals and moral behavior may have developed from there.

Interesting.

As far as I am aware, standards of behavior have changed throughout the centuries, and continue to do so today. They seem to be based on opinion.

I do not see how this proves that morals are therefore relative, rather than there being an objectively true standard that people ought to follow but they simply rebel against and replace with false standards.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure it is, I am claiming morals are not relative, you’re taking the positive position that they are, I need proof.

Proof easily supplied. As below.

We are supposed to live by the same moral law, yes.

Not what I asked you, do we share the same morals? If we don't... (and we don;t) what does this tell us about morality? Take a breath before you say it, I know how hard it's going to be.

You’re the one committing the is/ought fallacy, not me.

Hardly, as I'm only telling you what morality -is-, not what it ought to be.

Waiting for you to refute the historically accepted position….still waiting…

If you really want to give up any room to bitch about having things proven...we could go this way sure..I'll just sit around waiting for you to "refute" whatever comes to my mind next.

Christian standards of morality are not arbitrary, atheistic standards of morality apparently are. The former is meaningful, the latter is meaningless.

I'm glad you feel compelled to offer that tidbit up, but since I never claimed that christian morals were arbitrary, in fact I explicitly stated that I wouldn't sign on with such a summary...perhaps that belongs in a conversation with someone else? Both remain in a similar position, neither meaningless, neither meaningful - by simple virtue of what camp they hail from.

[Brian37]

No, it isn't........................................

Sure it is, I am claiming morals are not relative, you’re taking the positive position that they are, I need proof.

Do you and I share the same morals?

We are supposed to live by the same moral law, yes.

Proof of what...? Is/ought? Either you take that or you leave it. Your call.

You’re the one committing the is/ought fallacy, not me.

Indeed, now get to work

Waiting for you to refute the historically accepted position….still waiting…

No more or less so than "theistic morals". Neither collection of morals are likely to be arbitrary -or- meaningless...even if the justifications offered -are- ( I like to leave room for people who simply cant articulate their thoughts very well.....)

Christian standards of morality are not arbitrary, atheistic standards of morality apparently are. The former is meaningful, the latter is meaningless.

That explains why Calvanists abound!

You’re assuming the majority of people are rational, that’s funny.

So, he wanted it but he didn't want it. Got it.

God has two wills; I thought you’d know that since you claim to have been a Calvinist.

I have proven it by making conscious choices throughout this conversation.

How do you know you’re making a conscious choice?

For example: at first, my responses were prompt and now they are delayed. A varied approach, just as many things are varied.

That does not prove you freely chose your approach.

There absolutely is. Your position preposes that all things meaningless, not to mention extremely petty.

More misrepresentations I see, all things work together for the good of those who believe and to bring glory to God, that’s the opposite of meaningless.

Like I said, it's a difference of progression. I simply have a wider perspective than you, and because of that, I understand the contradictions involved.

You’d have to understand my position first, start there.

Chapter VI…II. By this sin they fell from their original righteousness and communion with God, and so became dead in sin and wholly defiled in all the parts and faculties of soul and body. III. They being the root of all mankind, the guilt of this sin was imputed; and the same death in sin and corrupted nature conveyed to all their posterity, descending from them by ordinary generation. (Palmer, p. 126)

Amen.

Not at all. It's not my fault that the doctrines contradict themselves. That's the nature of the bible.

Your misconception of the doctrines contradict themselves, but that’s a reflection upon your mind, not the actual doctrines.

When (or if) you ever graduate, then will talk. Right now it's like trying to discuss the planet with a flat earther.

You’d get schooled this badly by a flat-earther too? That’s funny, but believable.

Just stating one of their contradicting beliefs.

Prove it’s an actual contradiction, set up a syllogism, come on! Nail it!

That makes sense. "God's Word" is so powerful and "appealing" that most people don't truly get it and aren't compelled by it.

Everyone He wants to understand it does.

At its most base level, I think so. Our concept of morals and moral behavior may have developed from there.

Interesting.

As far as I am aware, standards of behavior have changed throughout the centuries, and continue to do so today. They seem to be based on opinion.

I do not see how this proves that morals are therefore relative, rather than there being an objectively true standard that people ought to follow but they simply rebel against and replace with false standards.

We are supposed to live by the same moral law, yes.

And lucky us you just happen to have the right instruction manual. Funny how Jews and Muslims claim that too.

Here is the problem though. It was written over 1,000 year period by 40 authors with books left out under the watch of this alleged "all powerful" god who "poofed" everything into existence. Hardly sounds efficient to take all that time and use mere mortals when you are "all powerful". That is just an efficiency issue I have with the God claim.

But morally it is worse. Where are the human's consent to be ruled? In civilized western society WE consent to the laws WE make, and when WE don't like them we can change them. And when we don't like our leaders we can vote them out of office. We can even have them held to account and even put in jail for corruption.

Now please tell me how the God character as depicted in the Bible is anything less than a dictator? Does he need our consent? No. Can we vote him out of his position without fear of reprisal? No.

"Just do it, because I say so" is what dictators say.

And even the 10 Commandments start out with the God character, not addressing human conditions, but demanding you pay attention to him and him only, just like a dictator. Seems hardly selfless. And when you go down the line of those "commandments" humans read like subjects of a king in a sexist feudal system.

Now if you want to cop out to "metaphor" I'd still have a problem with that. And in no particular order.

"Thou shalt have no other god/s before me", well in reality our secular laws say we don't have to kiss your god's ass.

"Obey your mother and father", but what if they sexually abuse you?

"Thou shalt not kill" sorry, but if you are coming at me with a knife or gun and like a criminal, I have every right to defend myself.

"Do not covet thy neighbors wife" Sexist statement putting women in property status as if they are not capable of "coviting they neighbor's husband". Oh and it also mentions other property men might own such as livestock, so women are on par with livestock.

"Keep the Sabbath Holy" I don't go to church and on Sundays I work and during the NFL season I go home and drink beer and watch football.

"Thou shalt not take the lord's name in vein", blasphemy is perfectly legal in most places in the west, and most PC attempts to silence blasphemy mostly get overturned because wise people realize those types of laws could prevent them from speaking ill of a god or religion they might not agree with.

So please tell me how such an ancient tribal book written by tribal gang clubs inspired by the idea that feudalism and success of the kings who were supported by religion back then, has any relevance to modern reality?

[Tonus]

I do not see how this proves that morals are therefore relative, rather than there being an objectively true standard that people ought to follow but they simply rebel against and replace with false standards.

I think that's where belief in a god or god(s) comes in. If you believe that there is a higher being who built us to prosper when we follow his guidelines, then morality can be absolute and there are actions that will always be moral or always immoral.

[smax]

You’re assuming the majority of people are rational, that’s funny.

Considering that over 80 percent of the world have an imaginary friend, NO.

But I do find it interesting that "the one and only true way" isn't very compelling to the obviously gullible masses.

Even the naive see how distorted and illogical your beliefs are.

It's really this simple:

1. Calvanism best represents the position of the bible
2. The Bible is an extremely flawed book that science and basic logic have thoroughly discredited
3. Therefore, today's Christians prefer a more logical and socially acceptable form of Christianity.

God has two wills; I thought you’d know that since you claim to have been a Calvinist.

Again, graduation vs. progression/digression.

Let me help you:

Will: The mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action

The teaching of two wills is a ridiculous attempt to cover up the obvious negative moral implications associated with Calvanism.

But I'm glad you made the mistake of bringing it up.

How do you know you’re making a conscious choice?

How do you know you are not in a matrix?

And, yes, this is a completely relevant counter-question.

That does not prove you freely chose your approach.

Again, how do you know you are not in a matrix.

Once you trivialize the obvious, you render everything meaningless and unprovable.

More misrepresentations I see, all things work together for the good of those who believe and to bring glory to God, that’s the opposite of meaningless.

Wrong, it's the very definition of it.

You’d have to understand my position first, start there.

Clearly I do. However, I'm hardly proud of that fact, so you should stop trying to compel me to become re-indoctrinated with these silly challenges of yours.

Amen.

So you concede my point. Good.

Your misconception of the doctrines contradict themselves, but that’s a reflection upon your mind, not the actual doctrines.

It's not my fault you don't understand the actual implications of your faith.

You’d get schooled this badly by a flat-earther too? That’s funny, but believable.

You mean God vs. God, right? Isn't that what's really happening here? God is having what you perceive to be a ridiculously one-sided debate with himself?

Right? LOL.

Prove it’s an actual contradiction, set up a syllogism, come on! Nail it!

Don't even need to. The moment you introduced the two wills of God into a discussion about the merits of free will, you slam dunked your own contradiction!

Congratulations!

[Bad Writer]

Seeing as there are already 40 pages to this thing, I think I'll just start with a simple addition. I know there are contradictions in the Bible because I've read it, and I've seen them. That being said, I don't have to show the contradictions because this Thread kind of speaks for itself. What I will speak to, though, is the fact that people who explain them away in some form or another are practicing special pleading. Reason dictates that this practice in deciding the truth of something is wrong. In the face of overwhelming evidence, the verdict should be clear.

Great discussion so far though!

Oh, one more point. Far more simpler...who cares if the Bible contradicts itself? We don't know who wrote many of the books in it, so it should all be taken with a grain of salt anyway.

[Statler Waldorf]

Not what I asked you, do we share the same morals? If we don't... (and we don;t) what does this tell us about morality? Take a breath before you say it, I know how hard it's going to be.

Yes, as Humans we share the same morals and are to live by the same moral law. The fact you incorrectly believe you can create your own moral law does not prove that morality is relative.

Hardly, as I'm only telling you what morality -is-, not what it ought to be.

You cannot tell me what morality is because morality is a normative system, and you cannot arrive at a normative system using only descriptive premises, that’s logically invalid.

If you really want to give up any room to bitch about having things proven...we could go this way sure..I'll just sit around waiting for you to "refute" whatever comes to my mind next.

So you’re conceding that you cannot prove morality is relative?

And lucky us you just happen to have the right instruction manual. Funny how Jews and Muslims claim that too.

Multiple groups claiming to be right does in no way necessitate that all groups are wrong. The Jews have the first part of the manual, they are just lacking the second part for proper understanding.

Here is the problem though. It was written over 1,000 year period by 40 authors with books left out under the watch of this alleged "all powerful" god who "poofed" everything into existence. Hardly sounds efficient to take all that time and use mere mortals when you are "all powerful". That is just an efficiency issue I have with the God claim.

In order to demonstrate God did something incorrectly you’ll have to first prove He should have done it differently. So, where is it? I for one really like the way God did it.

But morally it is worse. Where are the human's consent to be ruled? In civilized western society WE consent to the laws WE make, and when WE don't like them we can change them. And when we don't like our leaders we can vote them out of office. We can even have them held to account and even put in jail for corruption.

Western society is not the ultimate moral standard, God is; so what we do in America does not prove anything.

Now please tell me how the God character as depicted in the Bible is anything less than a dictator? Does he need our consent? No. Can we vote him out of his position without fear of reprisal? No.

He’s King and I see no problem with that.

"Just do it, because I say so" is what dictators say.

I wouldn’t know, I’ve never spoken to a dictator before.

And even the 10 Commandments start out with the God character, not addressing human conditions, but demanding you pay attention to him and him only, just like a dictator. Seems hardly selfless. And when you go down the line of those "commandments" humans read like subjects of a king in a sexist feudal system.

Yup, the purpose of creation is to bring glory to our Lord God, why did you ever think it was all about you?

"Thou shalt have no other god/s before me", well in reality our secular laws say we don't have to kiss your god's ass.

God’s laws trump man’s laws.

"Obey your mother and father", but what if they sexually abuse you?

Well this says “Honor”, not “Obey”, but if they engage in sexual immorality they’ll be punished for it. I doubt that was much of an issue in Israel though considering everyone lined up and threw stones at you if you committed such crimes.

"Thou shalt not kill" sorry, but if you are coming at me with a knife or gun and like a criminal, I have every right to defend myself.

The word translated as kill here means an undeserving/unjustified killing, the Bible supports a person’s right to defend themselves. Where does your right to defend yourself come from?

"Do not covet thy neighbors wife" Sexist statement putting women in property status as if they are not capable of "coviting they neighbor's husband". Oh and it also mentions other property men might own such as livestock, so women are on par with livestock.

How does that prove women are on par with livestock? That’s a non-sequitur. Do you think it’s good to covet your neighbor’s wife?

"Keep the Sabbath Holy" I don't go to church and on Sundays I work and during the NFL season I go home and drink beer and watch football.

The Sabbath was Saturday bub.

"Thou shalt not take the lord's name in vein", blasphemy is perfectly legal in most places in the west, and most PC attempts to silence blasphemy mostly get overturned because wise people realize those types of laws could prevent them from speaking ill of a god or religion they might not agree with.

I am not sure why you think that pointing to people who disobey these commandments proves anything, God’s laws trump man’s laws.

So please tell me how such an ancient tribal book written by tribal gang clubs inspired by the idea that feudalism and success of the kings who were supported by religion back then, has any relevance to modern reality?

It’s the word of God who owns both you and me, done.

Considering that over 80 percent of the world have an imaginary friend, NO.

If you now claim that the majority of people are not rational then why would you try to point out the fact that the majority of people do not accept Calvinism? That’d be expected then, you sure are inconsistent.

But I do find it interesting that "the one and only true way" isn't very compelling to the obviously gullible masses.

So the case for God’s existence is compelling since the majority of people accept theism? That’s an interesting concession for an atheist to make.

Even the naive see how distorted and illogical your beliefs are.

And yours apparently Mr. Atheist, that’s funny.

1. Calvanism best represents the position of the bible

Which you have also admitted is true.

2. The Bible is an extremely flawed book that science and basic logic have thoroughly discredited

False.

3. Therefore, today's Christians prefer a more logical and socially acceptable form of Christianity.

Nope, they prefer a more worldly form of Christianity, and as you have helped to demonstrate the world is not logical at all.

Will: The mental faculty by which one deliberately chooses or decides upon a course of action

Oops you forgot (or intentionally left out) the other four definitions for the noun “Will”!

1. the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action; the power of control the mind has over its own actions: the freedom of the will.
2. power of choosing one's own actions: to have a strong or a weak will.
3. the act or process of using or asserting one's choice; volition: My hands are obedient to my will.
4. wish or desire: to submit against one's will.
5. purpose or determination, often hearty or stubborn determination; willfulness: to have the will to succeed.

God’s efficacious will is consistent with definition number 3 and 4, and His decreed will is consistent with definition number 4.

How do you know you are not in a matrix?

Wait, so you cannot prove that man has a free will? Ok.

Once you trivialize the obvious, you render everything meaningless and unprovable.

You claimed that you could prove that you have a free will, I am still waiting for that formal proof. Until I get it, I’ll just chalk it up as another one of your classic embarrassing blunders.

Wrong, it's the very definition of it.

I just gave you the meaning of creation, and free of charge.

Clearly I do.

And that is why you were completely ignorant of the two wills of God? That’s just classic smax right there.

So you concede my point. Good.

What point? That I agree with the Westminster Confession of Faith? That’s hardly a point worth arguing, of course I do.

You mean God vs. God, right? Isn't that what's really happening here? God is having what you perceive to be a ridiculously one-sided debate with himself?

Nope, God is bringing glory to Himself through this debate by showing how utterly illogical and hopeless unbelievers are without His regenerating grace.

Don't even need to. The moment you introduced the two wills of God into a discussion about the merits of free will, you slam dunked your own contradiction!

God having two wills is not a contradiction because a contradiction must be in the same sense and in the same relationship. You’re really bad at this.

[smax]

If you now claim that the majority of people are not rational then why would you try to point out the fact that the majority of people do not accept Calvinism? That’d be expected then, you sure are inconsistent.

Calvanists have imaginary friends as well. Seemed like an obvious implication to me, but I'll better clarify in the future.... with you, anyway.

So the case for God’s existence is compelling since the majority of people accept theism? That’s an interesting concession for an atheist to make.

Not at all. You said Calvanism ".. is appealing..." I was simply demonstrating that it is not. Try and keep up.

And yours apparently Mr. Atheist, that’s funny.

Atheists, for the most part, do not entertain imaginary friends.

Calvanists, however, call on the same god that super freaky charasmatic televangelists like Benny Hinn call upon.

Which you have also admitted is true.

Don't get too excited. It's hardly a complement.

False.

Wow, you settled that didn't you!

Nope, they prefer a more worldly form of Christianity, and as you have helped to demonstrate the world is not logical at all.

That's over 80 percent true.

Oops you forgot (or intentionally left out) the other four definitions for the noun “Will”!

1. the faculty of conscious and especially of deliberate action; the power of control the mind has over its own actions: the freedom of the will.
2. power of choosing one's own actions: to have a strong or a weak will.
3. the act or process of using or asserting one's choice; volition: My hands are obedient to my will.
4. wish or desire: to submit against one's will.
5. purpose or determination, often hearty or stubborn determination; willfulness: to have the will to succeed.

God’s efficacious will is consistent with definition number 3 and 4, and His decreed will is consistent with definition number 4.

Wait, so you cannot prove that man has a free will? Ok.

Can you prove you are not in a matrix?

You claimed that you could prove that you have a free will, I am still waiting for that formal proof. Until I get it, I’ll just chalk it up as another one of your classic embarrassing blunders.

I gave it to you in the form of conversation that you couldn't predict. However, you chose to continue to trivialize that, and so I ask again:

Can you prove that you are not in a matrix?

I just gave you the meaning of creation, and free of charge.

Did you do that, or god do that? And was my response generated by god, or was that me?

Just trying to see if you still believe in free will, or if you are still contending that god is debating himself here.

And that is why you were completely ignorant of the two wills of God? That's classic smax right there.

Not at all. Classic smax is making a mockery of religion knowing all too well what many sections believe.

Don't get mad, god made me say that.....

and that too.

What point? That I agree with the Westminster Confession of Faith? That’s hardly a point worth arguing, of course I do.

Oh, I see. So when a contradiction is pointed out, you'll just simply agree to both and avoid addressing the conflcting information. That's classic Stat there.

Nope, God is bringing glory to Himself through this debate by showing how utterly illogical and hopeless unbelievers are without His regenerating grace.

So then you concede that I have free will. Great. Don't know why it took you so long.

By the way, soak in that feeling right now........

........

........

Okay, break is over! Go back to feeling like a robot now.

God having two wills is not a contradiction because a contradiction must be in the same sense and in the same relationship. You’re really bad at this.

You mean god is bad at this, right?

Or am I just bad of my own free will?

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, as Humans we share the same morals and are to live by the same moral law. The fact you incorrectly believe you can create your own moral law does not prove that morality is relative.

I'm actually insulted that you'd state that you and I share the same morals. You've betrayed yourself here in any case.

You cannot tell me what morality is because morality is a normative system, and you cannot arrive at a normative system using only descriptive premises, that’s logically invalid.

I can tell you that morality is relative. I don't care to bicker with you over which set of moral norms is the correct one, or which set avoids circularity, or which set it logically valid. It doesn't matter in the context of our disagreement about whether or not morality is relative.

So you’re conceding that you cannot prove morality is relative?

As above- your desperation to avoid simply conceding that you and I have disparate moral principles (after having disagreed on those principles -with no concessions from either side....for almost two years now..isn't it?) is beyond disingenuous. As expected, however, you've proven my point for me, you know enough about that disparity to have implied that I am somehow incorrect on some unstated and nebulous issue of my moral principles. Done and done, next?

If you'd like to prove my point for me a second time, try this:

I am of the opinion that the worship of your immoral god is, itself, immoral. Do you agree that the worship of your immoral god is, itself, immoral?

[Minimalist]

[quote]Seeing as there are already 40 pages to this thing, I think I'll just start with a simple addition./quote]

Nice try at getting the thread back on track, Sparts, but I can see that you don't know Waldork. Once he goes off the rails he goes WAAAAAAAAAAYYYYYY off the rails. He is much like this.




By all means feel free to keep trying but know what you are up against.