Thrasher
Wheeee!
Whatever that means.
No, the KJB was wrong. Period.
So why would an infallible all knowing being change his mind? He should already know the best course of action.
Pope Francis describes ‘ideological Christians’ as a ‘serious illness’
- Thread starter Thrasher
- Start date
Whatever that means.
No, the KJB was wrong. Period.
So why would an infallible all knowing being change his mind? He should already know the best course of action.
dteowner
Shoegazer
Actually, I agree with you on this. If we're going to talk about the rationality of Grimm's fairy tales, I'd say we're going to have to allow a certain amount of hoo-doo into the discussion since the basis of Grimm's involves magic. Without magic, there is no Grimm's to even debate. Replace with faith, rinse and repeat.
Hubris, good man. It's blind arrogance to assume that you can comprehend and understand everything. After all, reason and logic gave us a flat earth for quite a while until someone had an idea that didn't fit prevailing reason and logic. Reason and logic gave us a geo-centric solar system until someone had an idea that didn't fit prevailing reason and logic. Can you say, with any real certainty, that tomorrow we won't discover that all this hoo-doo might be a little more true than we thought?
Thrasher
Wheeee!
It's a little different believing in something with no evidence and only faith, vs believing in something that fits all evidence.
Exactly. We dont know how God introduced light to the universe without the sun initially we can only guess.
Exactly, the KJB is the translation.
Of course he does. Bu we can change is mind through a righteous petition even though we are wrong.
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2012
- Messages
- 4,388
Thrasher
Wheeee!
So it's an incomplete story. Fair enough.
But the KJB is upheld as the infalilble word of God. How can that be if it's incorrect?
How can God be both displeased and pleased with his creation if he is infallible? Or how can he change his mind about what pleases him? That's different than what you are referring to as changing his mind to something that is incorrect by "righteous petition". BTW, the term righteous for something that is wrong sounds like a contradiction in terms. Lots of paradoxs here.
I really dont know how anyone can just use the KJB as the infallible word of God. No theologian does that. Its the original texts that are infallible.
God is please with what he had made in the beginning because he what he made was good in his eyes then man became evil and he was displeased. Man can change God cant.
God will do things even if it isnt for the best if the persons heart was in the right place. That is why people pray "if it is your will" these days.
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2012
- Messages
- 4,388
When you have a question for which you don't know the answer then the reasonable approach is to say just that... we don't know it. There are an infinity of ways that the universe could possibly be, but isn't. There's not a 50/50 choice between bible god or not bible god. Whilst we can't absolutely rule out anything that's logically possible, that doesn't make bible god any more likely than Zeus, the spaghetti monster, Father Christmas or a myriad of other fantasies I could dream up that aren't absolutely impossible. People seem to imagine that because you can't prove the non existence of something that somehow makes it plausible... It doesn't.
Just a minor point here. What you should perhaps have said is no evidence that YOU are willing to accept
There is plenty of evidence for the veracity of the Bible and other elements of Christianity, but many simply choose to ignore such evidence because it doesn't fit THEIR belief system. For example, if you like to read, get hold of a copy of the book Evidence Which Requires a Verdict by Josh McDowell.
txa1265
SasqWatch
- Joined
- October 18, 2006
- Messages
- 14,955
I am not sure I totally get what you are saying, but here is my thing - Damian and Corwin are making statements that are claiming that the Bible, God, and Christian precepts hold up to intellectual scrutiny.
Others, including myself, have said that isn't the case - and when challenged, they have often come back with reasons that come down to 'you wouldn't understand' or 'god is everything, and that is explanation enough'. Those are inherently anti-intellectual answers, which in and of themselves suggest a failure to hold up to scrutiny.
But ultimately it doesn't matter - because those brainwashed by magic and mystical faeries will believe anything and given the long and brutal history of being the most murderous cult in existence, Christians are more than willing to kill for basic questioning of their precepts. So why bother with a silly attempt at intelligent discourse in an arena - as you say - where logic and reason and rational thought are off-limits.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2006
- Messages
- 14,955
There's plenty of evidence for the existence of fairies too. Many people claim to have seen them and two little girls took some rather convincing pictures that persuaded many, such as the author of Sherlock Holmes.
As to evidence for the veracity of the bible as a whole, that's a pretty tall order. Steve Shives does a good job of demolishing EWRAV on you tube - None of those Christian books provide any evidence that is even as convincing as the Cottingley fairies.
txa1265
SasqWatch
- Joined
- October 18, 2006
- Messages
- 14,955
Again, and for the last time - there is serious and significant disagreement over words and passages from original texts. There is significant disagreement over the 'oral tradition' aspects of the post-Christ years. Original veracity DOES NOT EXIST.
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2006
- Messages
- 14,955
dteowner
Shoegazer
Because, in order to debate the veracity of the text, you have to accept some of the fundamentals laid out by it. In other words, if the fundamental structure of their system relies on a certain level of hoo-doo, it's unreasonable to demand that any examination of it be hoo-doo-free. I think it's safe to say that a text that pivots around resurrection is fairly deep into the hoo-doo, so by even entering into the debate you've acknowledged that hoo-doo is "in play". Sure, it's unfair that the other side can use the hoo-doo to tap dance out of any awkward position (and one can certainly draw certain conclusions based on how often any specific one of them goes to that well), but such is life.
Let me try another metaphor. Describe breathing and be able to defend your description to intellectual scrutiny. Piece of cake, right? Now, since I can't see air and therefore don't accept its existence, your description cannot refer to air in any way. Gets a little tougher, doesn't it.
txa1265
SasqWatch
- Joined
- October 18, 2006
- Messages
- 14,955
It would have perhaps 100 years ago, but based on modern technology and the ability for gas chromatography to understand compositions, and the biological understanding of chemical transport systems in the body and mapping of autonomic biologic processes ... much less so.
But I totally get your point
- Joined
- Oct 18, 2006
- Messages
- 14,955
Thrasher
Wheeee!
And since the original texts are not available, then that makes it difficult to demonstrate I imagine.
If he created everything, including the source of evil, and is infallible then why would he be displeased with what he created?
Thrasher
Wheeee!
Can you give me evidence for everything in the Bible being true? I'd be very surprised that such a body of evidence exists.
You can find jewish and greek texts online these days. Like from the biblehub.com .
The source of evil is rebellion against God and not the tree just like when Satan fell and took 1/3 of the angels with him. That is what evil is atleast according to the bible.
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2012
- Messages
- 4,388
D
DArtagnan
Guest
Are you saying God is not capable of creating free will without sinful behavior?
Are you also saying he was not aware of his own limitation? Because otherwise, he'd basically be willfully creating sinful people only to kill them to teach them what he was unable to instill at creation.
That would seem to be.... not too impressive for a supreme being.
No, of course not, I have never claimed I have evidence for EVERYTHING. However, if you bother to look, actual evidence for many things does in fact exist. I was responding to the claim that there was NO evidence!!
He could have but that would make human beings not the image of God though quite a bit lesser. We were made in the image of God. He was aware of the risks. I guess it comes from the nature of God. It is like the difference between having a child and a pet. You probably have far more control over a pet.
- Joined
- Jul 22, 2012
- Messages
- 4,388