Freethought & Rationalism Archive

makerowner · 01-07-2008, 09:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by George Hathaway

Quote:

Originally Posted by makerowner

I don't see him claiming to be God, I see him claiming to be the Son of Man.

The key is that in answering the the theological stance that God only can forgive sins Yeshua states that he did have that ability and thus was equivalent to God. He never denied that only God can forgive. He even implies that it is easier to cure paralysis with miracle than to forgive sins.

Here is a religious site with a number of quotations concerning just how Jesus did claim to be God. http://www.probe.org/content/view/90/77/

I think this sentence belies that claim: “But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins”; a claim the the Son of Man has that power, not just God.
Most of the quotations on the page you linked to show Jesus claiming to be the Messiah or the Son of Man, rather than God. The ones in John are much stronger, but I don't think any of these sayings in John are regarded as likely to be authentic.

juergen · 01-07-2008, 11:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Christianity should be identified as that which the Bible says and not as that which those who profess to be Christians claim it is. Humans who still struggle against their old nature can let that old nature control them at times.

What the Bible says depends on who you ask among Christians, unless the only group you are in contact with is your own denomination. In that case, it looks a lot more like "everyone" agrees. I see two parts to this difficulty, the first one lies with what the Bible actually says if you don't try to impose an interpretation onto the text (like in this case, what Jesus really meant when he was talking about the impardonable sin vs what is really there in the text) to make seeming contradictions fit into the model you hold as a more reliable model of understanding what the Bible wants to say. Up until today, Christians aren't in agreement over a whole lot of specific things they think the Bible wants to say. The second one is the differing models of interpretation that have fought each other over the centuries, each one of them claiming it fits best.

So our human logic and understanding is flawed and shouldn't be used to analyze the whole thing, yet this same logic and understanding is trusted in putting together a whole system of beliefs (Baptist, Assemblies of God, Reformed, Mennonite, Methodist, Oneness Pentecostal, etc etc etc).

I see little point in talking about "what the Bible means here" or "it is actually saying this" because Christians under the supposed guide of a God (who is said to be a God of unity and clear understanding, not of confusion) differ in what God tells them, and I'd just be getting different answers.

Who is the Holy Spirit speaking clearly to? Obvoiusly not to every denomination. Unless God doesn't care which system you embrace, as long as you believe there is a God and that people should try to live near him in whichever way they interpret this to mean.

The Bible doesn't say anything which is not previously interpreted in a certain way to make it fit according to a model. If someone doesn't interpret what the Bible wants to say, the Bible says a lot of things. The existence of heated discussion over these matters is proof that there is not one right way of interpretation that God is showing to a group of humans in a special way differentiated from how an interpretation might be normally be presented.

If there is, it's just looking like every other model with its strengths and weaknesses, having been influenced by the interpreter's own culture, what church he grew up in, or who brought this person to the faith, what his family life was like, and the world this person was reacting to.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

The Scriptures are very clear about many things, especially about the nature of man and his need to be saved from the consequences of his sin (assuming he wants this). The differences among denominations tend to be about things unrelated to salvation.

That would mean that the difference between calvinism vs arminianism had been settled, and that Christianity had overcome different interpretation on what salvation is given or attained, in unity, which is until now, not the case.

Johnny Skeptic · 01-07-2008, 11:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

God need only explain what He is doing to those few. God also wants those who are not to be saved to know what is going on, so that if they do not like that outcome, they can do something about it. Everyone should know their eternal destiny and be comfortable with that destiny.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

That is obviously false since millions of people have died without hearing the Gospel message.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

God gives parents the freedom to keep the gospel from their children. Some parents are not very nice.

On the contrary, in 3500 B.C., most parents who lived far away from Palestine never heard of the God of the Bible, nor did their parents. That is because during Old Testament times, God did not want everyone in the world to know who he specifically is. Of course, a much better explantion is that the Jews appointed themselves to be God's chosen people. If the Jews appointed themselves to be God's chosen people, that explains why Christianity, Islam, and Judaism exist, and why belief in the God of the Bible started in Palestine and not somewhere else.

It is beyond a reasonable possibility that God would choose to spread the Gospel message exlusively by using humans, thereby needlessly mimicking the way that it would have been spread if he did not exist, and deliberately limiting the number of people who become Christians.

Do you wish to claim that during Old Testament times God told people all over the world who he specifically is?

Considering the fact that you believe that God injures and kills people and animals, and refuses to protect women from rapists, I find your comment "Some parents are not very nice" to be quite odd.

Johnny Skeptic · 01-07-2008, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I guess you don't debate contradictions.......

On the contrary, I guess that you don't debate contradictions. When I mentioned God breaking his promise to give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar as a compensation for his failure to defeat Tyre, you evasively suggested that I start a new thread on that topic. I did start a new thread, and you made only one serious post which was just for show, and another post that was not serious.

In your first post, you said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Till, of course, has little interest in the spiritual welfare of people and would naturally read the passage for its physical elements. I don't really do much with the OT prophecies.

I replied:

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

That is ridiculous. The passage contains physical elements that did not happen. That no doubt harmed the spiritual welfare of some Bible believers. The same goes for Nebuchadnezzar's failure to defeat Tyre after Ezekiel called him a "kings of kings," reference Ezekiel chapter 26. I suspect that the "many nations" part of Ezekiel 26 was added after it became apparent that Nebuchadnezzar would not conquer Tyre. It is doubtful that Ezekiel would claim that a "king of kings" would get into the city of Tyre, tear down lots of its towers, and kill lots of people, and then fail to capture the city. Several generations of people who knew about the Tyre prophecy died without seeing if fulfilled. If anything, that would have caused doubt, certainly not confidence. You obviously do not have any idea whatsoever what you are talking about.

Instead of making a serious reply, which would have been the appropriate thing to do, all that you did was waste your time posting and replying to my last sentence. My last sentence was "You obviously do not have any idea whatsoever what you are talking about." You replied "That makes two of us." I assume that that absurd reply was an intent to draw attention away from the issue. If so, your attempt did not work since you still have an apparent contradiction to explain.

Consider the following:

http://www.infidels.org/library/maga.../992front.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by Farrell Till

The article in this issue on the Tyre prophecy referred to Ezekiel's promise that Nebuchadnezzar would be "given" Egypt as compensation for his failure to take Tyre as the prophecy had predicted, but when the ensuing prophecy against Egypt is analyzed, it becomes clear that it failed too. In a four-chapter tirade against Egypt, Ezekiel said that Yahweh would give Nebuchadnezzar Egypt as "wages" for the labor he had expended on Tyre in an unsuccessful siege (29:19-20). The devastation of Egypt was to be complete. The land would be an "utter waste and a desolation" from Migdol (in the north) to the border of Ethiopia (in the south). So thorough would the devastation be that "neither foot of man nor foot of beast would pass through it, and it would be uninhabited for 40 years and the Egyptians scattered among the nations (29:9-12). At the end of the 40 years, Yahweh would gather the Egyptians back to their country from where they had been scattered, but Egypt would forever be "the lowliest of kingdoms" (v: 15). It would never "exalt itself above the nations" and would not "rule over the nations anymore" (v:15).

Needless to say, none of this ever happened. There are no historical records of a 40-year period when Egypt was so desolate that neither animals nor humans inhabited it, and the population of Egypt was never scattered among the nations and then regathered to its homeland. It's political influence has fluctuated through the centuries, but there has never been a time when it could have been considered the "lowliest of kingdoms." No self-respecting biblicist, however, would allow minor details like these to deter him in his insistence that the Bible is inerrant, so all sorts of attempts have been made to show that this is not a prophecy failure.

The fulfillment is yet future: Some inerrantists admit that this prophecy has not been fulfilled, but they insist that it will be someday. This explanation ignores some rather explicit language in the prophecy. It began with Yahweh telling Ezekiel to "set [his] face against Pharaoh king of Egypt" and "to prophesy against him" and to say, "Behold I am against you, O Pharaoh, king of Egypt" (29:2-3). Specific language is also directed to "Pharaoh king of Egypt" in 30:21-22, 25; 31:2, 18; and 32:2, 31-32. Furthermore, the prophecy was very clear in stating that this desolation of Egypt would be done by Nebuchadnezzar, who would be "brought in to destroy the land" and to "fill the land with the slain" (30:10-11). Needless to say, the rule of the pharaohs ended in Egypt centuries ago, and Nebuchadnezzar has been dead even longer, so if the total desolation of Egypt and scattering of its population did not happen in that era, it is reasonable to say that the prophecy failed. Inerrantists, however, are not reasonable when the integrity of the Bible is at stake, so some will go so far as to say that even though the rule of the pharaohs has ended, it will be restored someday, at which time Yahweh will bring about the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy, possibly by a ruler who will come from the same region as Nebuchadnezzar.

Although seriously proposed by some inerrantists, this "explanation" is such a resort to desperation that it hardly deserves comment. It makes Yahweh a petty, vindictive deity who will punish Egyptians in the distant future for something that their ancestors did, and it makes possible the explanation of any prophecy failure in any religion. Believers in the prophecy could simply say that even though it has not yet been fulfilled, it will be "someday." That type of "logic" may impress biblical fundamentalists, but rational people will see it for exactly what it is--desperation to cling to belief in prophecies that have been discredited by time.

The prophecy was figurative in its meaning: This "explanation" may take two forms: (1) Some contend that this prophecy was fulfilled but that critics of the Bible have not recognized it because they have interpreted literally what Ezekiel conveyed in figurative language. They quibble that he meant only to say that great damage would be inflicted on Egypt and that this was done when Nebuchadnezzar invaded Egypt in 568/7 B. C. The fact that total devastation of Egypt obviously didn't happen at that time (or any other time) doesn't matter to those who hold to this view. By rationalizing that plain language in the Bible was actually "figurative," they are able to convince themselves that the prophecy was fulfilled. (2) Other proponents of the figurative view number themselves with the futurists. They accept that the prophecy was obviously predicting a total devastation of Egypt, and they admit that this has not happened yet. They use the figurative argument to explain away not the descriptions of destruction but Ezekiel's references to Nebuchadnezzar and the pharaoh's of Egypt. To them, it doesn't matter that Nebuchadnezzar and the pharaohs are long gone, because they contend that these were only "figures" or "symbols" of the rulers who will be in power when Yahweh finally brings about the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy against Egypt. This "explanation" of the prophecy is really no better than the one that sees a futuristic restoration of the Egyptian pharaohs and Babylon's former empire. It reduces the god Yahweh to a petty, vindictive deity who will punish future Egyptians for what their ancestors did. It's most obvious flaw, however, is that it resorts to unlikely scenarios to try to make the Bible not mean what it obviously says. In rather plain language, Ezekiel predicted a total destruction and desolation of Egypt that would last for 40 years. It never happened, and no amount of rationalization can make that failure a success.

What is your explanation for that? At the very least, it is needlessly confusing, as are the two apparently different versions of the death of Judas, as are the apparent different versions of the events at the tomb. If God inspired the Bible, there would not have been any need for him to inspire confusing and misleading writings that even Christians themselves often disagree on regarding what they mean. Many Christians have killed each other regarding disputes over interpreations of the Bible. Such would not have been the case if God has acted properly.

I seldom debate Bible contradictions because 1) it is not emcumbent upon skeptics to reasonably disprove PRIOR assertions that are in the Bible, and because 2) there are many ways to adequately dispute the Bible without discussing contradictions. The only reason that I brought up the Nebuchadnezzar issue is because it is either an obvious contradiction, or needlessly confusing and misleading.

I will enjoy discussing the contradictory events at the tomb with you in the near future.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I don't really do much with the OT prophecies.

How utterly absurd. Perhaps you wanted to make a joke. Essentially, there is no difference between a contradiction and a failed prophecy since either one reasonably proves that the Bible is not inerrant. Since you have been willing to discuss many contradictions in this thread, your comment does not make any sense. The simple truth is that if you believe that you had a good rebuttal for my arguments, you would have posted it.

What does "really much" mean? You made a post in the that thread about the Nebuchadnezzar prophecy, but you quickly left town when you got into trouble. Typical of evasive fundamentalist Christians, you carefully cherry-pick arguments so that you will not embarrass yourself. However, you still frequently embarrass yourself anyway. One especially ridiculous argument that you made in some thread, possibly in this thread, was about amputees. You said that people should ask God to prevent them from becoming amputees. That is quite odd since sometimes God causes people to become amputees, not to mention that he sometimes kills babies and innocent animals.

You have said that people can ask God for tangible benefits. Why did you say that since everyone already knows that people can ask God for tangible benefits, or Buddha, or President Bush for that matter? The point is not whether or not people can ask God for tangible benefits, but whether or not people can ask God for tangible benefits and expect to receive them. If the God of the Bible does not exist, all tangible benefits would be indiscriminately distributed at random according to the laws of physics without any regard for a person's needs, worldview, or requests. The only benefits that anyone could ask God for and expect to receive would be subjective spiritual/emotional benefits. What evidence do you have that the preceding scenarios are not the case today? You need to establish a cause/correlation between asking God for tangible benefits and receiving tangible benefits from God?

Do you recommend that amputees ask God for new limbs? Why does God always refuse to give amputees new limbs? Why would God want to provide food for people? Why would God want to give amputees new limbs?

juergen · 01-07-2008, 11:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

God also wants those who are not to be saved to know what is going on, so that if they do not like that outcome, they can do something about it.

Not according to Calvinism. They can't do a damn thing, because God didn't regenerate their understanding in order to do something about it. Telling them they should do something about it, when they can't because God won't let them (he didn't predestine them) has absolutely no value to them, because they can't do anything about it, because God won't let them, because they are not to be saved, because they are not predestined.

juergen · 01-07-2008, 11:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

God also wants those who are not to be saved to know what is going on, so that if they do not like that outcome, they can do something about it.

On the other side of the coin, according to a Calvinist perspective, Christians don't choose God either, God makes that choice for them.

Unless the definition of "Irrevocable Calling" has changed so drastically that it doesn't mean what the words it is composed of actually mean.

I thought the whole reason why God left the choice up to Adam and Eve was so that he wouldn't have to make them choose him, which, in the end he ends up doing with every single human being.

Edit: I'm sorry for derailing the thread like this. I'll try to stick to the subject at hand.

mikumiku · 01-07-2008, 12:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eddie Schultz

For rhutchin, and any others who believe the bible to be inerrant. The bible claims the earth to be around 6,000 years old (some say between 6 and 10 thousand years). The thread is about contadictions in the bible, but I thought this would fit, as it's blatantly not true (to rational thinkers, anyway).

How old is the earth?
If we go back 500 years, we come to the time of Martin Luther (born in 1483), and Columbus, who “sailed the ocean blue in 1492.”

If we go back 1000 years, we come to the time of Leif Ericson, Christian explorer, who preached Christ to pagans. (World Book, 1983, vol.6, page 270.)

If we go back 2000 years, we come to the birth of Jesus Christ. Our calendar is dated from His birth.

If we go back 3000 years, we come to the time of David and Solomon; they ruled Israel about 1000 BC.

If we go back 4000 years, we come to the time of Abraham (2000 BC), ancestor of Arabs and Jews.

If we go back 5000 years, we come to the time of Enoch, who “walked with God 300 years … and God took him [into Heaven].”

If we go back 6000 years, we come to the time of Creation, and Adam and Eve (4004 BC). Luke, evangelist and historian, records Adam as the first man (Luke 3:38).

The earth is about 6000 years old. Let God's people rejoice in Him who made them! (Psalm 149:2)

To me, this is the case closer, because there isn't one Creationist that can show evidence for this. (if they do, it is not peer reviewed evidence, only what their faith tells them to present as truth) And they can't present any evidence to dispute the earth to be around 4.5 billion years old, as over 99% of all Scientists have found to be fairly accurate.

Any takers?

Happy New Year, everyone! :wave:

Indeed, their arguments have been addressed, and found lacking... this is... REALITY

Salam · 01-07-2008, 01:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Of course, a much better explantion is that the Jews appointed themselves to be God's chosen people. If the Jews appointed themselves to be God's chosen people, that explains why Christianity, Islam, and Judaism exist, and why belief in the God of the Bible started in Palestine and not somewhere else.

Can you explain why does Islam exist because the Jews appointed themselves to be god's chosen people?

Muslims doesn't believe that worshiping God was exclusive to Jews. Other prophets and messengers where sent to other people.

[Pickthal 3:67] Abraham was not a Jew, nor yet a Christian; but he was an upright man who had surrendered (to Allah), and he was not of the idolaters.

makerowner · 01-07-2008, 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Salam

Quote:

Of course, a much better explantion is that the Jews appointed themselves to be God's chosen people. If the Jews appointed themselves to be God's chosen people, that explains why Christianity, Islam, and Judaism exist, and why belief in the God of the Bible started in Palestine and not somewhere else.

Can you explain why does Islam exist because the Jews appointed themselves to be god's chosen people?

Muslims doesn't believe that worshiping God was exclusive to Jews. Other prophets and messengers where sent to other people.

[Pickthal 3:67] Abraham was not a Jew, nor yet a Christian; but he was an upright man who had surrendered (to Allah), and he was not of the idolaters.

There were Jews and Christians living in 7th century Arabia, and the Arabs adopted some of their beliefs, added some of their own practices, and came up with a holy book in Arabic. There you go.

Salam · 01-07-2008, 01:26 PM

I see.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-07-2008, 01:26 PM	#190
Salam Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2007 Location: Saudi Arabia Posts: 440	I see.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.