Mullibok

Found what I'm referring to on the main site:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode.../prophecy.html

Relevant section:

Wayne Delia

And how odd it might have looked if it actually happened as described! In order to fulfill His misunderstanding of a prophecy, Jesus rides on two animals into Jerusalem like a clown in a rodeo, and the two animals have no idea what's going on with all the people and the palms being laid down in the road and people yelling "Hosanna" and all the confusion, so the ass and the colt start walking in different directions and Jesus falls on His own sacred ass. That would somewhat detract from the solemnity of the situation.

WMD

Rational BAC

What is much more interesting about the NT is that so much contradictory stuff was left in.

The most obvious conclusion is that those who wrote and compiled the Bible were trying to be accurate as best they humanly could. Put a lot of stuff in there that they very easily could have left out to make the Bible more consistent.

(If Stalin or Hitler had compiled the Bible you better be damned sure that all the "i"s would have been dotted and all the "t"s would have been crossed-----truth be damned and the only thing important would have been "politically correct" consistency.)

I say give the writers and compilers of the Bible an "E" for effort and for honesty. You have to love the Bible for its inconsistency and error. Does seem to show that there was no intention to defraud in most of its parts.

It is up to us to figure out what Christianity is all about. You make do with what you got.

(not to say that there was not an attempt sometimes to make the NT somewhat consistent by corruption-----

---What I am saying is that it is very surprising how much inconsistency was left in when so very easily the NT Bible could have been very consciously "made" to be perfect in every way--------and that was very obviously not done)

Wayne Delia

What's the difference? "The evil spirit [sent] from God" would be functionally equivalent to "God's evil spirit."

Quote:

God does do his own dirty work though, he destroyed Saddam(sp?) and Gamora(sp?) all by himself.

God destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah but offered to spare the lives of Lot and his family, because they were righteous. While two angels were visiting Lot, an angry mob banged on the door, wanting to sexually violate the angels. Instead, Lot offers the mob his virgin daughters to do with as they pleased. During the firestorm, Lot's wife turned around and looked back at the destruction of her village, defying an arbitrary order not to, and she was turned into a pillar of salt. After the firestorm, Lot's virgin daughters arrange to get their father drunk, and each one has sex with him without him apparently noticing. They get pregnant, and each produce a son (actually, half-son, half-brother!), both of whom go on to become the leader of nations.

My question is, what lesson is taught which requires all this "God's dirty work?"

Quote:

It seems as if you are arguing that a parent who disciplines (punishes) its child is not being loving or forgiving.

Absolutely not. That's a notoriously poor analogy. First, human parents are not omnipotent as God is claimed to be. God can do anything and everything He wants, and parents have to do the best they can. God could immediately and painlessly bring about a behavioral change or a more complete understanding in those He is displeased with, but frankly, that doesn't make for interesting, compelling reading in the Bible so the authors took the opportunity of spicing it up a little, with their ideas of what they would do to their enemies if they were omnipotent like the God character they were writing about. Second, human parents expect and try to understand radical changes in their children's lives, such as teenage rebellion and toddler independence (the "terrible two's"). Children are not threatened with eternal punishment in hell for relatively minor offenses such as failure to pay the proper respect to their parents, analogous to failing to believe in and worship God. Third, there is actual, physical, forensic evidence that parents exist, but there's no corresponding evidence of God's existence. If a parent was absent from a child's life since birth, and never made any physical appearances or introductions, it would be completely unreasonable for the missing parent to demand respect from the child. That seems to be the case with God.

Quote:

And, if you continue reading, you see that both Saul and David benefited from this evil spirit. Saul became refreshed, as well as a much better king as a result of David. And later David became a great king.

Then what was the purpose of God sending an evil spirit into Saul? It's like a character in a play who has no bearing on the plot or action at all.

WMD

Wayne Delia

Taking into account the possibility that you're not being serious here, not being able to do ANYTHING (which is logically do-able) denies omnipotence.

Quote:

Omnipotence is a divine quality that can't go against any other divine qualities.

"Going against other divine qualities" is not logically impossible, therefore an inability to perform that would imply that God is not omnipotent.

Quote:

Contrary to popular ( atheist) belief, omnipotence doesn't mean do anything imaginable, even that which is logically impossible and creates a paradox.

I'm explicitly disallowing logical impossibilities, so your strawman argument doesn't apply to me or my argument.

Quote:

And sin is also below what God can do. Sin is inferior to good. Being able to do all good, and not sin is more powerful than being able to do both.

Regardless, sinning is not logically impossible. If God can't sin, He's not omnipotent.

Quote:

Being the creator of those laws in the first place, Jesus has the right to change them whenever He pleases, although He didn't actually violate any laws.

The violations are clearly described, and the special pleading excuse you're offering is that Jesus is above the law. That excuse did not serve Richard Nixon well during the Watergate era, for very good reasons: the makers or enforcers of laws are subject to the laws as well as the citizens of the society who would be governed by those laws. Nixon was impeached for covertly attempting to circumvent those laws, and in the Bible situations, Jesus is explicitly doing that. Why (apart from the special pleading logical fallacy) does Jesus get a free pass, but Nixon does not?

Quote:

In that day and age, calling your mother woman was not disrespectful. The word used is the greek, Gune, which is a respectful word. In modern English, it may sound inappropriate, but in the original greek, it was out of respect.

The problem is that Jesus's response to His mother's request for more booze (no kidding) was "Woman, what have you to do with me? My hour has not come." That's essentially "Mom, get off my back," and very disrespectful.

Quote:

First of all, being God, Jesus owns everything.

Bullshit. That's not even in the Gospel story at all. If that were the case, Jesus would have simply said "Go get my animals."

Quote:

He created those animals and can take them if He wants. Its not stealing when they belong to you.

Ipse dixit (argument by assertion). How would you react to the would-be messiah of another religion proclaiming himself the son of a non-Christian god, who immediately laid claim to all of your possessions? If you resist or object, you'd be guilty of violating your own line of reasoning here.

Quote:

And second, Jesus said, if anyone questions the taking of those, tell them the Lord needs them. No one objected to the taking of the animals.

Does that excuse stealing? "Your Honor, at the time I took the money from the plaintiff's house, he was not home, and did not object to me taking the money." And, how do you figure the prophecy is mistranslated? It says 2 animals, a donkey and a colt. [/B][/QUOTE] Not in Luke 19:28-35 it doesn't. Apparently, the author of Luke translated it to a single colt.

How're you doing on that problem with the Old Testament laws being overturned because of Jesus's sacrifice, so Christians are free to perform formerly-prohibited acts like eating shellfish and wearing clothing of mixed fabrics? Wouldn't that also include being able to have sex with animals, which was also previously prohibited?

WMD

BrazenPenguin

This isn't true. I have plenty of respect for the religious traditions of others. I have many friends who aren't christians. one of my good friends is hindi. Many of my friends are atheists or agnostics. I would rather have a devout hindi president than a fake christian president.
This is true, verrry good point. Also, what does IMO mean?
Then wouldn't that small point disqualify an atheist from being called a Christian Atheist?
Yes, this verse confused me greatly. What does he mean by the Law? The Ten Commandments? Alll the laws of the Jews? I'm not sure. I didn't understand this verse, nor do I understand the human brain.
yes, how different are the differences? could you show me an example or two? thanks.

BrazenPenguin

Yes, I will admit that I have been force-fed Christianity since I was born. however, I am getting older now and have the choice weather or not I go to church, yet I still go (when I don't have too much homework). I no longer follow my parents religion and am old enough to decide for myself what i will believe in. The real test will be when I go to college, that will show what me and my religion are made of.
Once again, its back to faith. "I have faith that there are errors only in insignificant places..."
But I do accept the cristian beliefs as true! I just can't prove that they are.

BrazenPenguin

woah now, without evidence? what happened to the 5,000 or so people that Jesus fed? Or the healings? What about raising from the dead? yes, it is difficult, if not impossible, to prove that Jesus healed a man's hand. But there is a lot of evidence relating to the resurection of Jesus. There is a book where a former atheist who is a journalist investigates the claim the Jesus rose from the dead. You should read it, if only I remembered the title. I'll try to find it out tonight.

Those people make me sick. They are so wrong. But not all televangelists are bad, just most of them.
I found this in another thread. It disgusted me.
http://www.kentaxrecords.com/iaca/tactics_deception.htm These people should be ashamed of themselves. I wonder if these stories really are true? This also reminds me of how sometimes I see poor people wearing christian shirts, then realise they were a "gift" from a church. Yay, free advertisement! Maybe you guys could give some shirts to poor people?
That isn't what I meant, i knew that you were very knowlegeable in chritianity. What i meant was, well, draw a box on a picece of paper. All of the knowlege of the universe is inside this box, everything. Now, shade in that parts that would represent what you know. Is it possible that God could be in the unshaded part? Im not sure if this is a good example, but it was what i was refering too when I said ignorance.
Yeah, what are atheist teachings? The only official atheist belief is that there are no gods, right? Why can't they have more beliefs, like you should be nice to people? If you can't believe that God exists, then you are an atheist, not a Christian Atheist.
True, why doesn't God just hand everybody a blank check? Because God is just.
I wasn't meaning to say that Christianity was valid because they changed the calendar when Jesus came. I was just saying that it was a big thing that happened. Course, I'm not sure what that says about the Norse gods.
Hmmm, this seems like another one of those translation "mistakes", maybe? Maybe, in Herbrew, the first two legs of an insect are reffered to as his arms, the back four, are referred to as his legs. I don't know. But if I ever meet a Hebrew with a degree in biology, I'll ask. I didn't find the part about the birds with four legs.

BrazenPenguin

So, If I payed the mafia to take out this person with one of their hitmen, would that hitman be mine? No, he would still take his orders from the mafia, not me. Even though the mafia would be honoring my request, and having the hitman do what I wanted. The mafia still controled the hitman and could change his orders.
As you said, God saved Lot and his family because they were righteous, not because they were perfect. Righteous means a person who's sins have been forgiven, or moral.
When God created humans, he gave them free will, the ability to chose to do right or wrong. Would you rather have imperfect children (pretend you have some if you don't) chose to obey you, or would you rather have perfect children who you controled completely?
Without that evil spirit, David and Saul wouldn't have gotten that hook-up. Yes, i know that is a fallacy but i don't know which one, we just started fallacies in my tok class. Also, we wouldn't have the story to read and learn from an apply.

Mullibok

You needn't bother, we've all heard this one before. Rebuttal here:

http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...r/strobel.html