Bible contradictions?

[The Grand Nudger]

Agreed. Suppose you define the Cosmos like Sagan did as "all that is, was or ever will be." Does your understanding of the "strong metaphysical sense" include only physical reality? Can the Cosmos include things on which physical reality depends but which in themselves are distinguishable from physical reality? Mathematics and logic for example.

Wait, what? Physical reality depends on logic and math, who sold you up the river on this one? Descriptive, not prescriptive. Neither logic nor math are magical forces that float around arranging the cosmos in accordance with their "laws". These "laws" are a description (cobbled together by human beings) of how the cosmos appears to behave.

[Cyberman]

That's what I said. God is apart from time and space.

So God to you exists nowhere and at no time?

That's what I always go with.

[Norfolk And Chance]

How the Hell did you even remain single for one day of your life? No matter! The fools simply could not stand in the aura of your dark presence. You regenerate me my queen... you are my salvation. A salvation of fire, passion, and lust.... of war and blood. I can almost feel the blood of the innocent bathing us now as we writhe in pure Ecstasy. I cannot wait to feel the searing embrace of your demonic arms and the thundering pound of your dark heart against mine.

That is the most amazing and romantic thing that anyone has ever said to me.

I think he's saying he wants to give you one.

[ThomM]

In short I believe that the Bible has a major contradiction with the portrayal of God:


Actually - the main god of the bible (THERE are several in the bible) - cannot be true - because the claim of Almighty and the claim of ALL Knowing cannot simultaneously be true.

IF a god is all knowing - then there is ONLY ONE possible outcome to all situations - the one the god knows - and NONE other. Obviously - for the god to be all knowing - you would NOT be able to do something that the god did not know - and NEITHER could the god- eliminating almighty.

IF what the god knows is that you are going to be evil - YOU cannot choose to be good. THE idea of freedom of choice cannot be true as well - and without choice - personal responsibility is also gone.

Obviously - this god is a human creation - as were all others - and the humans who defined the god - simply added more and more claims to make their god better than all the others. What they forgot to do it check to see if their claims contradict each other - or can be true - based on other claims - which is often NOT THE CASE.

[Undeceived]

In short I believe that the Bible has a major contradiction with the portrayal of God:


Actually - the main god of the bible (THERE are several in the bible) - cannot be true - because the claim of Almighty and the claim of ALL Knowing cannot simultaneously be true.

IF a god is all knowing - then there is ONLY ONE possible outcome to all situations - the one the god knows - and NONE other. Obviously - for the god to be all knowing - you would NOT be able to do something that the god did not know - and NEITHER could the god- eliminating almighty.

IF what the god knows is that you are going to be evil - YOU cannot choose to be good. THE idea of freedom of choice cannot be true as well - and without choice - personal responsibility is also gone.

Obviously - this god is a human creation - as were all others - and the humans who defined the god - simply added more and more claims to make their god better than all the others. What they forgot to do it check to see if their claims contradict each other - or can be true - based on other claims - which is often NOT THE CASE.

Interesting points. So you're saying that knowledge = control? It's true that God had the choice to create us, knowing we would or would not believe, but we still make the decision. Knowing what a person would choose is not the same as deciding it for them. God, being our creator, has motives too complex for us to understand. It's like trying to guess the end of the play while in part 1, or a computer trying to understand the human brain. The created is always less complex than the creator, as a clay figurine is less detailed than the sculptor. Just because human logic makes God seem impossible does not mean He does not exist. In fact, it might make more sense to think that if the Bible were fabricated the writers would have made God more logical since they'd actually have control over His attributes.

1 Corinthians 1:20-25 says:
20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? 21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. 22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, 23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, 24 but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. 25 For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.

[Minimalist]

You really should read up on science before you look stupider.

That would take all the fun out of it for them, Phil. "Faith" means never having to learn anything.

[The Grand Nudger]

Interesting points. So you're saying that knowledge = control? It's true that God had the choice to create us, knowing we would or would not believe, but we still make the decision. Knowing what a person would choose is not the same as deciding it for them. God, being our creator, has motives too complex for us to understand. It's like trying to guess the end of the play while in part 1, or a computer trying to understand the human brain. The created is always less complex than the creator, as a clay figurine is less detailed than the sculptor. Just because human logic makes God seem impossible does not mean He does not exist. In fact, it might make more sense to think that if the Bible were fabricated the writers would have made God more logical since they'd actually have control over His attributes.

Who said anything about deciding? Why would he have to? He knew what we would do, he knew what he would do, he created us anyway. Malicious precog, definitely not the "prince of peace". This is a kid that tortures ants who fall for the poisoned cake bait, knowing they would fall for the cake bait, and placing it in front of them in the first place.

[Phil]

You really should read up on science before you look stupider.

That would take all the fun out of it for them, Phil. "Faith" means never having to learn anything.

Then let em argue from faith and only faith. If they even think they can argue based on science they better learn lots or stop feigning offense when they get laughed at for their stupidity.

[DeistPaladin]

Did you know that dogs don't exist in nature? They're the result of artificial selection (that is, they were bred from wolves).

Only proves that verity can exist without millions of years.

With artificial selection, ala horse breeding or dog breeding, yes. Artificial selection is much faster than natural selection. So, hypothetically, humans could have possibly been bred from ape-like beings by some artificial process by an alien or higher intelligence in just a few hundred thousand years. Hypothetically!

My point is that evolution is a very real and observed process that both explains and predicts the variety of life on this planet, whether the process is by artificial, natural or combined selection. Evolution is simply the observation that life forms change over time as needed to suit its environment.

The only difference between natural and artificial selection is with the latter involves manipulation of the environment and breeding to produce some planned result. Therefore, a god (or, hypothetically, an alien race) being involved is beside the point. Evolution is both real and observed.

It is not clearly defined. I can only give examples, such as all dogs are a kind. All horses are a kind and donkeys and possibly zebras.

If "kind" is not clearly defined, we're going to have a hard time discussing it. In science, we use very strictly defined terms so communication is clear. For example, a "species" (the most finely that biologists will categorize life) is defined according to its ability to breed with other life forms. If two life forms can't produce a fertile offspring, they are of different species. For example, a donkey and a horse will produce a mule if mated, but the mule is infertile. Therefore, donkeys and horses are of different species. When a life form evolves to a point where it can no longer mate and produce a fertile offspring with its original life form, it's called "speciation".

It seems to me like "kind" is a crude expression of "species" only without any specific definition of the term so the goal posts can move about.

You are right if you go by today's evidence. However, I believe our genetics have gotten worse over the generations making imbreading impossible today but not back then. Plus, Noah's sons brought their wives FYI. Genesis 7:13.

Noah's grandchildren would all have the same paternal grandfather, so you'd still end up with a family tree that doesn't sufficiently fork to produce a viable species. The animals would be in even worse shape, since their children wouldn't have any offspring to breed with except each other. You say our genetics have "gotten worse" but I'm not sure how inbreeding would ever produce a sustainable species.

That verse does not say God created the stars on day 2.

Yes, it does. Stars can't "sing" if they don't exist yet. They clearly existed when Yahweh laid the foundation of the earth, ergo stars came before the earth.

[YahwehIsTheWay]

http://www.gotquestions.org/God-physical-body.html

---

That's one way of explaining it. Personally, I use the growing snake theory (not to be confused with the "talking snake theory" of Creationism).

Here's how it works: Yahweh once had a physical body. Then, as He grew, He shed that body much like how a snake sheds its skin. He grew to be a spiritual god like how a caterpillar grows to become a butterfly.

Sure I just pulled that out of my ass but you can't disprove it, can you? And since you can't disprove it, it's no less valid an explanation than any other. Except that mine is correct and everyone else is wrong but that goes without saying in any discussion of religion.