(August 15, 2012 at 12:15 pm)spockrates Wrote: Wish you would have participated in the discussion thread where I asked if anyone knew of any biblical contradictions. Will you please name a significant one (biblical contradiction) so I may consider it?

No thanks. I've had my fill of the apologists mental & verbal gymnastics. As in all things religious, it's all about interpretation, and you have no more authority on the "true meaning" of the scriptures than any other christard. There's nothing you could ever say that can ever justify the horrific things in the bible or ever convince me that your inept, impotent god could ever be the "one true god." Sorry, but I'm quite sure that your religion is stupid and your god is a phoney.

(August 16, 2012 at 3:37 pm)Cinjin Wrote:

(August 15, 2012 at 12:15 pm)spockrates Wrote: Wish you would have participated in the discussion thread where I asked if anyone knew of any biblical contradictions. Will you please name a significant one (biblical contradiction) so I may consider it?

No thanks. I've had my fill of the apologists mental & verbal gymnastics. As in all things religious, it's all about interpretation, and you have no more authority on the "true meaning" of the scriptures than any other christard. There's nothing you could ever say that can ever justify the horrific things in the bible or ever convince me that your inept, impotent god could ever be the "one true god." Sorry, but I'm quite sure that your religion is stupid and your god is a phoney.

No problem. Please let me know if you care to share other reasons why someone should become an atheist.

spockrates Wrote:Well, I suppose it would save me a lot of time if I could determine that it is impossible for any being to be perfectly and completely powerful, and at the same time perfectly and completely loving, and at the same time perfectly and completely wise. That feat would fell a full house of God concepts! Please explain how you know these three attributes to be incompatible. Or would you like to talk with me about it in the other discussion thread?

No, that's fine, we can discuss here.

I think the 3 omnis are incompatible with what the Bible says. An all knowing god would be able to create man in a way that wouldn't have sinned. If he knew this was going to happen then he's not all loving because he didn't care enough to avoid it. Alternatively, he did care and is all knowing but just not all powerful and couldn't create us how he wanted to. This notion that we weren't supposed to have fallen is justified by Jesus himself. God clearly wanted us to be back up to 'his level' hence why Jesus supposedly died for our sins.

May I ask, what do you think God's attributes are, based on the Bible? For example, Drich has shown me that his love is not unconditional but actually conditional (John 3:16). To me, that's saying the god of the Bible is actually benevolent and not omnibenevolent. What do you think about the 3 omnis? Are the other two also misrepresented according to the Bible?

Quote:

FallentoReason Wrote:Because that gives rise to the possibility that he used Mark as the basis for his work, which it seems like he did. The Synoptics are best understood with a Markan priority type approach. That helps to explain why Mark is so short compared to the other two, why it misses out on important things like a birth narrative and witness accounts of a resurrected Christ, and why Matthew + Luke are more incredible sounding (because Mark toning down the miracles wouldn't really make much sense.. at least to me).

Not sure I understand. Seems to me that all this suggests is that Matthew might have plagiarized Mark. It does not appear to demonstrate Matthew never not wrote the gospel bearing his name. Am I missing something, or have I correctly state the point you are trying to make?

I think you are backing up my point, but you haven't connected the dots in your mind. I think because we can say that Matthew most likely plagiarized it, it then greatly undermines the claim that the Apostle Matthew who witnessed Jesus for himself wrote his own Gospel, the Gospel of Matthew. I think a witness would have no logical reason to not use his own experience as the basis for his work.

Quote:Never said John's evidence was more substantial; just tried to make the point that John's information is additional. He added details of Jesus' life the others left out of their gospels. We see the same today, don't we? Some journalist writes a biography of some president. It sells a lot of copies, and the public becomes interested. A former member of the president's administration writes another biography, with details not found in the previous one. People buy that one, too--not because the new biography rehashes the same old details of the man's life, but because the new biography has additional information not presented in the previous biography. See what I mean?

Ok, I see what you're saying in this case. If we use your metaphor, then what I understood (wrongly?) last time was that a younger journalist would be getting more/better information than an older journalist. I didn't see anything to do with the person's position. Maybe I misunderstood.

Either way, let's go with what you have written here. I can see how it would be reasonable to expect John to have more information. Is it coincidence though that his Gospel was the last one written as well? It seems to me like the content in it is the icing on the cake where the cake is simply a shaky foundation consisting of the dubious Synoptics. So I guess my question would be how much did 'John' know of the others and how much did he stretch the truth? I'm sure you're familiar with all the instances where Jesus seems to be a lot more divine than in the Synoptics.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

(August 17, 2012 at 1:06 am)FallentoReason Wrote:

spockrates Wrote:Well, I suppose it would save me a lot of time if I could determine that it is impossible for any being to be perfectly and completely powerful, and at the same time perfectly and completely loving, and at the same time perfectly and completely wise. That feat would fell a full house of God concepts! Please explain how you know these three attributes to be incompatible. Or would you like to talk with me about it in the other discussion thread?

No, that's fine, we can discuss here.

I think the 3 omnis are incompatible with what the Bible says. An all knowing god would be able to create man in a way that wouldn't have sinned. If he knew this was going to happen then he's not all loving because he didn't care enough to avoid it. Alternatively, he did care and is all knowing but just not all powerful and couldn't create us how he wanted to. This notion that we weren't supposed to have fallen is justified by Jesus himself. God clearly wanted us to be back up to 'his level' hence why Jesus supposedly died for our sins.

May I ask, what do you think God's attributes are, based on the Bible? For example, Drich has shown me that his love is not unconditional but actually conditional (John 3:16). To me, that's saying the god of the Bible is actually benevolent and not omnibenevolent. What do you think about the 3 omnis? Are the other two also misrepresented according to the Bible?

I do appreciate your reply. I think I have a tedious way of asking simple questions that sometimes turns people off. I do find your answer fascinating and want to hear more.

I think you are correct in saying that all of the attributes of the God portrayed in the Bible fall under one of these three categories that you mention. The interesting thing to me is that the Christians often say the greatest of all is love, so they believe that omnibenevolence is the greatest attribute of God. Solomon, however states in Proverbs that nothing one desires is greater than wisdom, which would mean omniscience is greater still. I'm open to discussing this with you if you like.



In answer to your question, I'd say I'm not convinced, yet. I'm unsure of the premise that it is possible for God to create a person in such a way that she would never choose what is morally wrong. It's actually an ancient question answered by an early Christian by the name of Iraenius.. His answer to the question went something like this:

1. God's purpose is that we will love one another and love him

2. Love requires freedom to freely choose to love or not love

3. If God made us so we were incapable of choosing to hate, we would be incapable of freely choosing to love or not love

4. To prevent us from freely choosing to love would be unloving and unwise

5. If God were unloving, he would not be omnibenevolent, and if he were unwise, he would not be omniscient

6. If God were not omnibenevolent, nor omniscient, he would cease to be God

7. It is impossible for God to cease to be who he is

Therefore,

A. God cannot possibly still be God and at the same time, make us incapable of doing what is morally wrong

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irenaean_theodicy


I'm thinking Iraenius is right. Making us like puppets on strings, or robots incapable of choice would make not only make hate impossible; it would also make love impossible. Can an existence void of love be the most perfect God could possibly create?

What morals are we using here?

(sorry late to the party again)

(August 17, 2012 at 7:13 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: What morals are we using here?

(sorry late to the party again)

One might be to love others the same way you would want them to love you.



If we were incapable of freely choosing to not follow that moral, would we be capable of freely choosing to follow it?

(August 17, 2012 at 7:21 am)spockrates Wrote:

(August 17, 2012 at 7:13 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote: What morals are we using here?

(sorry late to the party again)

One might be to love others the same way you would want them to love you.

My darling spock.... you NEED an organised religion to do this??

(August 17, 2012 at 7:21 am)spockrates Wrote: If we were incapable of freely choosing to not follow that moral, would we be capable of freely choosing to follow it?

What is morality?? Right now we have xtians plundering the globe for resources and subjugating women in line with the bible and koran.... this is moral? Morality that leaves children and women in poverty whilst the "Religious Organisation" is basking in wealth and depravity?? ... this is moral??


The above defies logic and as such is not worthy of attention nor worship and for me should be taken out with last weeks garbage.

(August 17, 2012 at 7:30 am)KichigaiNeko Wrote:

(August 17, 2012 at 7:21 am)spockrates Wrote: One might be to love others the same way you would want them to love you.

My darling spock.... you NEED an organised religion to do this??

(August 17, 2012 at 7:21 am)spockrates Wrote: If we were incapable of freely choosing to not follow that moral, would we be capable of freely choosing to follow it?

What is morality?? Right now we have xtians plundering the globe for resources and subjugating women in line with the bible and koran.... this is moral? Morality that leaves children and women in poverty whilst the "Religious Organisation" is basking in wealth and depravity?? ... this is moral??


The above defies logic and as such is not worthy of attention nor worship and for me should be taken out with last weeks garbage.

Would you say that what you describe is an example of loving others the way one wants to be loved, or is it antethetical to this idea?

(August 16, 2012 at 10:04 am)spockrates Wrote: Sounds much like Reformed Theology to me. Calvin would be proud!

1. It does not fit with certain passages of the Bible that contradict it. Seems to me a Christian should adopt a position that is consistent with the books they profess to be divine in origin.

2. The goal of God according to most Christian views is to promote love among people for each other and for him. It seems to me love is impossible without freedom of will.

I would not expect you to defend (1), so let's consider (2). Please explain how a person could freely love God without the freedom to choose to not love him.

I wasn't aware I was presenting a purely Calvinist view, rather one that seemed to follow logically from the proclaimed properties of God. If God has these properties then hard determinism follows, as far as I can tell.
I won't try to defend against 1., because I don't care how often the Bible contradicts itself. 2., however, is just another form of 1.; basically, Xtians will tell you their God is loving and promotes love, contradicting free will. But wait, why is love something you must choose? Regardless, that doesn't really matter.
Love supposedly contradicts the qualities their God (sometimes) has, like omniscience and the ability to make a universe. If God had free will at the time of creation it follows that we didn't and vice versa. Neither one nor two contradict my arguments. Defining God out of this dilemma is an option, as is forfeiting free will and all that comes with it.
To defeat this, you must
1. Redefine your God, or simply arrogantly tell me I have defined him wrong and the passages I used to do so somehow didn't mean what they say.
or,
2. Concede the argument, giving up your free will as an illusion.

(August 17, 2012 at 8:43 am)Skepsis Wrote:

(August 16, 2012 at 10:04 am)spockrates Wrote: Sounds much like Reformed Theology to me. Calvin would be proud!

1. It does not fit with certain passages of the Bible that contradict it. Seems to me a Christian should adopt a position that is consistent with the books they profess to be divine in origin.

2. The goal of God according to most Christian views is to promote love among people for each other and for him. It seems to me love is impossible without freedom of will.

I would not expect you to defend (1), so let's consider (2). Please explain how a person could freely love God without the freedom to choose to not love him.

I wasn't aware I was presenting a purely Calvinist view, rather one that seemed to follow logically from the proclaimed properties of God. If God has these properties then hard determinism follows, as far as I can tell.
I won't try to defend against 1., because I don't care how often the Bible contradicts itself. 2., however, is just another form of 1.; basically, Xtians will tell you their God is loving and promotes love, contradicting free will. But wait, why is love something you must choose? Regardless, that doesn't really matter.
Love supposedly contradicts the qualities their God (sometimes) has, like omniscience and the ability to make a universe. If God had free will at the time of creation it follows that we didn't and vice versa. Neither one nor two contradict my arguments. Defining God out of this dilemma is an option, as is forfeiting free will and all that comes with it.
To defeat this, you must
1. Redefine your God, or simply arrogantly tell me I have defined him wrong and the passages I used to do so somehow didn't mean what they say.
or,
2. Concede the argument, giving up your free will as an illusion.

There is a third option: Suggest a different purpose God has in mind. You said:

Quote:No, you got it. Here's why I think that this would have to be the case in a world with a God whose attributes included omnipotence and the power to create:
If this creator has the power to make any world he wants, then it follows that he necessarily takes free will from the equation. Reason being, if it is the case that he can make any world, he chose a world where events played out a certain way. If he chose a world where events played out a certain way, then all the events of that world are subject to his will. If all events are subject to his will, then nothing that occurs in that world is against his will (unless he is too stupid to make a world where everything matched his will) and all choices you could possibly make are null. Choices are nullified because the your will is really the will of that God, having chose the universe where you would make the decisions you are making and not different decisions. To rephrase, you aren't the arbiter of your own choice, the omniscient God chose the world where you would choose as you do. True free will isn't subject to a God's choice of a world.

What if the world (or reality) God intended to make was one in which you and I have freedom of will? Would it then necessarily follow that God would have to create a reality with no freewill? I'm thinking the purpose of God the Bible describes is to create us to be free to love, or hate as we choose. For without choice, love is impossible. The Bible indicates the end game of God is to promote this love that requires freedom, I believe. I can cite several passages to this effect, but perhaps this will be sufficient to demonstrate why I hold this opinion. John records Jesus as saying:


34 “A new command I give you: Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. 35 By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.”

(John 13)


To counter this premise, you would need to show either (a) God's ultimate goal is not that we love him and each other, or (b) love is possible with the complete absence of freewill.

I would not ask you to accept this argument, but if I've inadvertently made some factual errors, or logical errors, please point them out.

---

Perhaps it would help to imagine a scenario where a being without freewill exists. Let's say you are a scientist exploring deep space hundreds of years from now. During the trek, you create a drug that gives you perpetual youth, so that you might live forever. Unfortunately, the members of the spaceship's crew all refused to take the drug. One by one they die of old age, eventually leaving you all alone.

You decide to make a companion for yourself--a robot. You create this robot to look like a beautiful woman and program her to say she loves you. She can never say otherwise, for this is how you programmed her--without the freedom to choose to not love you. When she says the words, "I love you," are they a genuine expression of love? If so, why?

---

(August 17, 2012 at 1:06 am)FallentoReason Wrote:

spockrates Wrote:Not sure I understand. Seems to me that all this suggests is that Matthew might have plagiarized Mark. It does not appear to demonstrate Matthew never not wrote the gospel bearing his name. Am I missing something, or have I correctly state the point you are trying to make?

I think you are backing up my point, but you haven't connected the dots in your mind. I think because we can say that Matthew most likely plagiarized it, it then greatly undermines the claim that the Apostle Matthew who witnessed Jesus for himself wrote his own Gospel, the Gospel of Matthew. I think a witness would have no logical reason to not use his own experience as the basis for his work.

Perhaps you right, Matthew got much of his material from Mark. But why would this mean that Matthew did not write the gospel attributed to him? He could have included the information from Mark's gospel because he agreed that it was factual and chronologically correct. He (like John) could have then included additional details omitted by Mark. I don't yet see a problem.