Conflicting statements in the bible

[Savannahw]

I found this very interesting graphic online.

The red arcs connect conflicting statements within the bible.

Too small to really get a good look at but looks interesting.

Any thoughts?

Personally, I find this list very helpful. http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/co..._name.html

[Statler Waldorf]

Not at all. You are just stuck at a point that I happened to progress beyond. As a result, I now understand the conflct inherent in my previous views.

No, I hold a view you obviously never understood to begin with, or else you would have never abandoned it.

You see, in the real world, divine election makes no sense because, in the real world, free will exists.

Proof?

I don't recall trying.

So you admit intentionally misrepresenting what we believe? That’s not surprising.

[smax]

No, I hold a view you obviously never understood to begin with, or else you would have never abandoned it.

Well, at least you admit that you are locked into religion's grip. Doesn't help your argument, but at least it's "intellectually honest".

You see, in the real world, divine election makes no sense because, in the real world, free will exists.

Proof?

Sure, I'm making a conscious choice to respond to you right now, just as you will make a conscious choice whether to respond to me.

Pretty simply, and pretty obvious. But I get that you have a lot of hurdles in the way of accepting that right now.

So you admit intentionally misrepresenting what we believe? That’s not surprising.

I admit that I have made no attempt, up to this point, to thoroughly explain Calvanism.

The fact is, the vast majority of Christians are not Calvanists, so it's rarely relevant in any of these discussions.

In fact, around here, it's just with you, as far as I can tell.

[Cato]

So you admit intentionally misrepresenting what we believe? That’s not surprising.

Who's we and what do you believe? Can I assume by your use of the word we you mean 'all' Christians? Or is there some undefined subset of Christians with which you more closely associate with theoligically? Why is this distinction important? Because, in another thread you reduced the argument to a definition of 'atheism', which had fuck all to do with the original argument.

[Tonus]

I am not following you at all on this one. You admit that given your definition of morality genocide would be moral progress, but then you make an appeal for societies not to follow that pattern. If it really was moral progress then why should societies not follow that pattern? That does not seem to make any sense; shouldn’t all societies desire to progress morally?

I am saying that a moral code that justifies genocide is not logical; it reflects the sort of tribal thinking that human societies have followed in the past, and which I think humanity is working to overcome today. It's one reason that I think mankind developed morals all on his own: moral codes of the past justified actions that more and more people today would reject as cruel and irrational. I think that tribalism slows the development of moral codes because it gives us a reason to segregate ourselves based on criteria (ethnic origin, skin color, language, religious belief) that shouldn't be a barrier to finding common ground.

[Statler Waldorf]

Well, at least you admit that you are locked into religion's grip. Doesn't help your argument, but at least it's "intellectually honest".

There’s no reason to abandon a logically sound position.

Sure, I'm making a conscious choice to respond to you right now, just as you will make a conscious choice whether to respond to me.

That’s not a proof, that’s an assertion. How do you know you are making a conscious choice freely?

I admit that I have made no attempt, up to this point, to thoroughly explain Calvanism.

I was not talking about a thorough explanation; I was talking about your misrepresentation of Calvinism up to this point in time.

The fact is, the vast majority of Christians are not Calvanists, so it's rarely relevant in any of these discussions.

The vast majority of theologians are Calvinists though.

In fact, around here, it's just with you, as far as I can tell.

There are a couple of us on here, but I am not sure why you think that’s relevant.

Who's we and what do you believe? Can I assume by your use of the word we you mean 'all' Christians? Or is there some undefined subset of Christians with which you more closely associate with theoligically? Why is this distinction important?

Yes, I am a Reformed Christian, and the distinction is very important.

Because, in another thread you reduced the argument to a definition of 'atheism', which had fuck all to do with the original argument.

Surely you’re not talking about the thread that was totally about what the term atheism properly meant are you? I sure hope not!

I am saying that a moral code that justifies genocide is not logical; it reflects the sort of tribal thinking that human societies have followed in the past, and which I think humanity is working to overcome today. It's one reason that I think mankind developed morals all on his own: moral codes of the past justified actions that more and more people today would reject as cruel and irrational. I think that tribalism slows the development of moral codes because it gives us a reason to segregate ourselves based on criteria (ethnic origin, skin color, language, religious belief) that shouldn't be a barrier to finding common ground.

You’re going to have to be a bit more specific because I am not aware of what is necessarily illogical about genocide. I mean if the goal is to get rid of a particular group of people, then how is killing that group of people illogical? I am not following that my friend. You also said that morals develop, what do they develop towards? This is very interesting, thanks for the patience.

[smax]

There’s no reason to abandon a logically sound position.

There's nothing logically sound about your position, nor is there anything appealing about it.

That’s not a proof, that’s an assertion. How do you know you are making a conscious choice freely?

So then it is your position that you are arguing with someone who is perfectly carrying out the will of god.

That's sensible! LOL.

What was that again about your position being logically sound?

I was not talking about a thorough explanation; I was talking about your misrepresentation of Calvinism up to this point in time.

I haven't misrepresented it, I've made absolutely no attempt to represent it at all.

I've mocked it to a degree to expose how meaningless and flawed it is, but I'd hardly call that a representation.

Anyway, you should really stop acting as if you are part of some extremely complicated version of Christianity.

Some are chosen for destruction, some for mercy. It's not that complicated:

“By predestination we mean the eternal decree of God by which he determined with himself whatever he wished to happen with regard to every man. All are not created on equal terms, but some are preordained to eternal life, others to eternal damnation; and, accordingly, as each has been created for one or other of these ends, we say that he has been predestined to life or death.” -- John Calvin (ICR 3:21:5)

The vast majority of theologians are Calvinists though.

I don't have those numbers, but I'd be surprised if that were true. Most Christians (theologians or not) are turned off by Calvanism. Just ask a few, they'll tell you.

There are a couple of us on here, but I am not sure why you think that’s relevant.

Calvanism isn't relevant, I agree.

[Statler Waldorf]

There's nothing logically sound about your position, nor is there anything appealing about it.

It’s appealing because it is logically sound.

So then it is your position that you are arguing with someone who is perfectly carrying out the will of god.

His efficacious will yes, but not His decreed will. Do you have an actual proof to demonstrate that you have a free will or are you conceding you cannot prove you in fact do?

What was that again about your position being logically sound?

It is; there’s nothing logically unsound about my position.

I haven't misrepresented it, I've made absolutely no attempt to represent it at all.

Sure you have, you claimed that Calvinists believe that everyone is a vessel prepared for wrath, which is not true at all; God’s elect are vessels prepared for mercy (Romans 9). You also seem to be completely ignorant of how Calvinists view God’s wills, which is surprising for someone claiming to have once been a Calvinist.

I've mocked it to a degree to expose how meaningless and flawed it is, but I'd hardly call that a representation.

You’ve mocked a misrepresentation of it, which is in itself meaningless and a sign of positional weakness.

Anyway, you should really stop acting as if you are part of some extremely complicated version of Christianity.

It’s not too complicated for most to understand, only apparently for you.

Some are chosen for destruction, some for mercy. It's not that complicated:

Now are you trying to represent Calvinism?

I don't have those numbers, but I'd be surprised if that were true. Most Christians (theologians or not) are turned off by Calvanism. Just ask a few, they'll tell you.

What most Christians believe about Calvinism is irrelevant; it has no bearing on what the Bible actually teaches.

[Tonus]

You’re going to have to be a bit more specific because I am not aware of what is necessarily illogical about genocide. I mean if the goal is to get rid of a particular group of people, then how is killing that group of people illogical? I am not following that my friend. You also said that morals develop, what do they develop towards? This is very interesting, thanks for the patience.

I think that this is where practicality and our ability to empathize/sympathize come into play. I don't think that getting rid of a group of people, based on a trait that in itself is not harmful (ethnicity, skin color, etc) is a logical goal. Group A may have as its goal to claim an area of land, and this may entail forcing the residents (Group B) to leave, and that may entail war and killing. Genocide would imply that if, after a period of war Group B begged for peace and offered to accept any terms, Group A would reject the terms and continue to fight until every last member of Group B was dead. This strikes me as very impractical for Group A, if the goal was to claim land.

Regarding the development of morals, I think that any system of morals or ethics can be reduced to the desire for the group (tribe, nation, community, etc) to prosper. In situations or environments where survival is difficult, morals will be less refined. In situations or environments where the group is prospering and its survival seems assured, issues of morality and ethics are very different.

[Statler Waldorf]

I think that this is where practicality and our ability to empathize/sympathize come into play. I don't think that getting rid of a group of people, based on a trait that in itself is not harmful (ethnicity, skin color, etc) is a logical goal. Group A may have as its goal to claim an area of land, and this may entail forcing the residents (Group B) to leave, and that may entail war and killing. Genocide would imply that if, after a period of war Group B begged for peace and offered to accept any terms, Group A would reject the terms and continue to fight until every last member of Group B was dead. This strikes me as very impractical for Group A, if the goal was to claim land.

Are you saying that people have a moral obligation to be logical?

Regarding the development of morals, I think that any system of morals or ethics can be reduced to the desire for the group (tribe, nation, community, etc) to prosper. In situations or environments where survival is difficult, morals will be less refined. In situations or environments where the group is prospering and its survival seems assured, issues of morality and ethics are very different.

You keep using terms that make it sound like there’s a system of moral standards that apply to all groups. I am not sure how you can say one group is more “refined” than the other if no such standard exists. Thoughts?