Cutter

You seriously expect me to believe that in a time when medicine was practically non-existant, people had a life expectancy approaching that as in today's western socities? Dream on!

And I'm starting to get a little out of my element here, Biblical criticism isn't my strong point. However, what your saying just doesn't jibe with what I've read posted in BC&H, by people far more knowledgable than I.

(Mods, perhaps this thread needs to be moved to BC&H, or split?)

sandlewood

I’m glad you believe that if God exists, that he should be logical. Would you then agree that that which is illogical should be evidence against his existence?

If God didn’t want Adam and Eve to eat the apple, he would not have put it within their reach in the first place. Remember that God is defined as having infinite power. If he can do anything, then he can make it so Adam and Eve would not eat it. He can stop the snake from coming into the garden for from even existing. So none of this makes sense.
What I get from that paragraph is that it was a good thing for us that we sinned. Otherwise, we never would have gotten the spirit of God, God would have never sent Christ down to earth to die, and we would have never really known God.
Can you explain that apparent contradiction? If we are sinful by nature, and God created us, then he created our nature, right? So it is a matter of him making us.
Why should he? Then why did he bother to make us? Why does he bother to send us to Hell is we don’t believe he exists? Why does he bother to listen to all the people praying? Why does he care if people worship him or not, or obey him or not? What are you saying there exactly? Was that rhetorical?
So it is good that sin happened. And in fact, God probably planned it that way, right? So why was he going to send people to Hell for sinning?
He didn’t even have to punish us in the first place for sin. Or, he could have simply chosen to forgive us right off without nailing himself to a cross to somehow pay himself back for some loss that we apparently cost him by sinning, which as you say, he planned to happen anyway and which was a good thing. And that makes sense?

I’m also curious about your definition of “robot”.

Koyaanisqatsi

Carbuncle, you should also spend some time seeking out other theists' first few posts around here.

They all say the exact (and I mean uncannily, eerily, frighteningly exact) same fallacies and declarations.

It is literally like you're all given a handout of "what to say," which, literally, is, of course, what is being done. If I may ask you a question, what would you do if faced with say a hundred or two hundred people, interviewed them all one by one and found that after the first three or four, a pattern was developing? That they all said--almost literally word-for-word--the exact same things as one another; the same quotes, the same false logic, almost the same order of arguments and the same counter-responses to every question; literally the same almost word-for-word.

What would you think had happened to those two hundred people? To make them all think almost exactly alike and say almost the exact same things and arguments and responses? Almost literally like robots?

I don't ask any of this to be insulting, believe it or not; I'm seriously wondering how you'd view such a group of people? And how you'd start to respond to the exact same arguments spoken almost in the exact same manner and pattern of response by each and every one of them, and almost always with a wish or desire that they "have a good day?" as if there isn't an anlysis going on, just proselytizing thinly veiled?

ComestibleVenom

It is more than a copout. It is the acknowledgement of limitations built in to the sort of epistemological gaps faith tends to commit us to.

There's no real genuine, consistent, wholistic way of resolving just what God does in reality. Our prediction of human behavior is quite poor, and we observe human beings (nearly) every day! How do we measure the magnitude of our predictive folly in beings where merely human norms and rules need not apply?

Yes, I am committed to the scientistic position that man must be able to measure effects and trace their lineage to find god.

Alas, all the God's we find are anonymous imposteurs. Imposing themselves upon us by human stories rather than the evolution of the universe itself.

Why ask the cosmos why Jesus Christ died on the cross when you can ask questions that can be answered outside the domain of human fiction.

The_Unknown_Banana

See Buffy followers vs. Bible followers
Might give you an idea as to why some of us don't buy into the explanations some theists provide. (whilst it might seem perfectly logical to the theist!)

conkermaniac

I know! It's absolutely pathetic. I mean, how many times have I had to refute (with ease, I assure you) to the "Can you see the wind?" argument.

I think we should start passing out pamplets too.

conkermaniac

Uh huh...and perhaps you can explain to me why 1 John 1:18 says, "No man hath seen God at any time", and why 1 Timothy 6:16 refers to God as one "whom no man hath seen nor can see".

reddhedd

Not to step on toes, conkermaniac, but that's one of the big contradictions in the bible, as I see it.
There are 29 verses that say that God appeared to someone, or met with them face to face. There are 6 that repeat what you say.
If the god of carbuncle really has everything under his control, then why can't his "inspired" book be consistent?
If Carb. was really interested in the Truth, he would at least read the whole bible, even if he won't read anything else. Just reading it would open his eyes to the lack of logic, mercy or justice in his god's actions and dealings with folks. However, he won't do that, because truth is not as important as keeping his head buried while telling all of us how wrong we are. At least we are willing to research it, and are not afraid of what we might find out.

AndresDeLaHoz

Isn't the logical (and accepted) explanation that Matthew and Luke copied from Mark? No wonder they're similar.

I'm no biblical scholar, but from what I can remember, the Gospel of John's differences against the other gospels are far from "secondary details".

Carbuncle

Well now, first off, many scholars today are starting to have reservations about the idea that Matthew copied directly off of Mark. In fact, Mark wasn't even one of the original disciples, while Matthew was. However, Mark's material was gotten from Peter, who was among the three inner disciples, so it makes sense that Matthew could have taken some things from Mark that were originally revealed to those three disciples. But you couldn't really say that Matthew copied directly off of Mark. The Gospel of Matthew was written for a different purpose than the Gospel of Mark. While Matthew could have taken some of Mark's gospel for his, he would still need his own material for his purpose.

Also, the discrepencies between John and the other three Gospels cannot just be viewed in a mere historical and literal light; they must be compared in a theological light as well. While Matthew, Mark, and Luke were written more like a chronicle of Jesus' life for others to read, the Gospel of John was written for a theological purpose. If not read with a theological perspective as well as a historical perspective, it's too easy to fall into the trap that the Gospels disagree with one another. Being written by different authors with different perspectives and purposes, it's no surprise that they are different. But I have yet to see you guys give one example about a core detail (as opposed to a secondary detail) that they disagree on.

Which brings me to the topic of 1 John 1:18 and 1 Timothy 6:16.

First of all, you can't take everything written in the Bible and apply it using your own experiences and worldy views. A theological approach is also necessary. Without theology, Christianity would mean nothing. Without theology, the Bible would be just another boring book.

Oh, and I think you got your references wrong. 1 John chapter 1 only has ten verses. Could you have meant John 1:18? ^_^

John 1:18 refers to Christ when He was with the Father in heaven ("The only begotten God who is in the bosom of the Father,"). In fact, practically the entire chapter of John 1 is about Jesus Christ. Now, this particular verse could be interpretted as saying, "No one has ever seen the Son when He was first with the Father," and not, "No one has ever seen God."

Now, let's look at 1 Timothy 6:16. Verses 14-16 talks about the coming of the Lord Jesus Christ (i.e. the second coming). He is described in his compete glory ("dwells in unapproachable light). So it is not refering to just seeing God, but seeing Him in an "unapproachable light". In other words, in all His holiness. And this makes sense, since humans are sinful beings, who cannot look upon His holiness. God knows this too. When He reveals Himself to humans, He does not appear in His full glory. When He appeared to Moses first, He spoke through the form of a burning bush, so as to not reveal His complete glory. He does not reveal Himself entirely, so that those who see Him are not consumed. See, theology does help, eh?

*sigh*

Reddhedd, I'd appreciate it if you wouldn't assume so much about me. That comment about how I don't care about the truth really hurt. If I didn't care about the truth, then I wouldn't have come to this board. I could have been perfectly insulated from all these people who argue against my religion, but I didn't. I've only started posting here yesterday, so please don't assume you know how I act, how I feel, how I think, etc. I still don't understand all of you. My perspective is limited, just as all humans are.

I actually care deeply about the truth. Unfortunately, we both have predetermined opposing ideas on what the truth is. To you, I'm wrong, and to me, you're wrong. I'll try to not be harsh or scolding when I'm refuting your points, though.

And as for all those people who have the same argument, well, that's sort of to be expected when we're on the same side. Also, unlike the first century, Christians today have the complete Bible. Back in the first century, when the Gospels were written, the authors didn't have any written form from which they were to copy. However, today, we have a book with which we could use. Based on these different circumstances, it's understandable that Christians today think more alike, because they have a written word for them to use. I suppose Christians do have a "pamphlet" that they recite from. It's called the "Bible".

And without the Bible, I don't think I could call myself a Christian.

Good-bye for now. ^_^