Conflicting statements in the bible

[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.