|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
 Posted - 01/25/2003 : 20:10:04 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Doomar
quote:
An omnipotent being can, presumably, cause a state-of-affairs to obtain through force-of-will, or some other, equivalent, non-physical action. Obviously, God sometimes fails to "persuade men to turn from evil doing..." but an omnipotent being cannot fail to do anything, by definition. Contradiction city. Haven't you been there before, Doomar?
Yes, I have thought about this before, PH, but your definition of failure doesn't work in this context. If God has given men a choice, i.e., "free will", then that is one of His parameters in persuasion, as not to violate that edict.
Then he wishes good SOAs and evil SOAs to obtain. If he did not wish evil SOAs to obtain, they would not obtain. QED.
quote:
He also will not violate His nature, that is, do something "evil", like tempt a man to sin.
*cough* Job *cough*
quote:
Nor will He commit acts contrary to His own will.
This makes rather a mockery out of God's omnipotence. We can devote another thread to this, if you like.
quote:
Without understanding these basic tenents (perhaps not basic to us, but evident in the Bible), or parameters, we'll accuse God of failing, when it was men who failed and "chose poorly".
Why did man "cho[o]se poorly"? Was Adam also corrupt from the get-go or was his decision to eat the apple random and uncaused? You can't have it both ways. Either Adam was intentionally disobeying God, in which case God is responsible for Adam's initial state-of-mind, or Adam unintentionally disobeyed God, in which case he literally did not know better. Again, God's problem for not providing the necessary knowledge to make the correct decision.
quote:
Man tends to blame God because man is basically corrupt and thinks wrong about the creator. Man likes to blame others and not blame himself. That is an evident reality in life. It is abundantly clear that man has a free choice in life.
What do you mean by "free choice"? Do you mean 'choices based on past experience and nature' or do you mean 'choices that are entirely uncaused'? In any case, nothing is "abundantly clear" save for Christian presuppositionalism. Try reading some secular philosophy. Lots of it around.
quote:
The many evils deeds in the world done by men are obviously allowed by this omnipotent God. He does promise to judge all who have ever lived at the time of judgment, which is yet to come. If God judged men in "real time", there would not be too many survivors, thus, his longsuffering and patient nature are evident.
What is patience to an eternal being? What difference does it make to God when we are judged?
quote:
His will is made clear in Peter's writing: "God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." Hereby is His will and our hope defined.
Peter (or the translator) was obviously wrong. God's will cannot fail to obtain.
quote:
quote:
What I can also do is read, and your interpretation of the verses in question is silly. It says, multiple times and in multiple ways that God actively hardened the Pharaoh's heart.
In these verses Biblical scholars have difficulty and cannot agree. I must agree to disagree with you and leave this point at that.
Biblical scholars? Is that another term for "apologists who try to make the Bible mean what they want it to mean"? |
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
 |
|
|
jmcginn
Skeptic Friend
343 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2003 : 10:28:56 [Permalink]
|
quote:
If God or any other being? So if your mom knows you're not going to work, you are predestined to do it? Explain how that makes any sense whatsoever? You mean, you could not change your mind and decide to go?
What an asinine response! My mom doesn't "know" if I am going to work tomorrow or not, she might be guessing that I will, but she at least to my knowledge has never claimed to be an omni everything being. If my mom "knows" that I am not going to go to work tomorrow and I change my mind, it turns out my mom didn't "know" if I was going to work or not. She was guessing. Is that what God does? Is he just guessing like my mom? Can I change my mind and surprise God and make his guess wrong? If not then I have no real free will.quote:
Let's say God knows you are going to fall asleep at the wheel...
What in the hell does this have to do with free will, by the way if God knows beforehand that he is going to intervene and save my life then he knows beforehand that I will not die that day. I was already predestined to almost fall asleep and be saved by an angel. My actions are those of a puppet in God's preordained play.quote:
Am I to assume you are 'pro-life'?
Yes I am.quote:
You are against the death penalty in all cases?
Yes I am.quote:
Not sure where you found that.
Isiah chapter 13 for starters, when God finds the wicked he will dash their children to pieces and ravish their wives. Numbers chapter 31 is also a good place to go where God has Moses kill all the boys and the little ones and all the women who knew a man, but kept the virgins for themselves. Why? Of course to make forced wives out of them. Then he demands 32,000 of the virgins for himself. What does God need with virgins?quote:
It seems that way.
he killed people for all sorts of reasons.
Never for doing good, it seems.
Oh yes all of those babies and Egyptian first born were up to all kinds of bad things. quote:
Guess you sort of skipped around allot and missed all the good stuff.
The only parts that I am aware of that I skipped are the long genealogies and some of the repetitive descriptions on the proper way to perform a sacrifice. It gets a little old and boring especially the parts dealing with how to kill and burn flesh because it pleases God.quote:
Well is the evil today a result of men's corruption or just what is it?
Corruption? That would imply that we were in some perfect state in the past. Man seems to have quite a bit of skill in being wicked to one another. This can result from ignorance, fear, irrational hate, revenge for past grievances, or ideologies that cast one group against another such as nationalities, politics, religions, etc.
The irrationality that your brand of Christanity causes really makes me shudder. To justify such horrible acts as killing babies and raping women because they were supposibly done by God is beyond any reasonable sense of morality. The fact that you believe this collection of myths sa some divine truth |
|
|
|
Tim
SFN Regular
USA
775 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2003 : 14:45:06 [Permalink]
|
Look, I haven't been able to get to this forum in a few weeks, and I missed a lot of good stuff. I am really inyerested in this subject, and I admit that I haven't had time to read this entire thead,yet. However, I'd like to get back to the geneologies again.
I keep hearing how Jesus is descended from David through Mary, since Joseph did not actually participate...God did the dirty deed. Yet, I have as yet to find one other single case where in the Bible, or contemporary Jewish writing that folks found the maternal line of enough consequence to matter. Can someone point me in the right direction, or is this another case of wishful thinking.
Besides, to be accurate in an infallible work of God, the geneologies should exactly match, otherwise we know nothing without further evidence. We have an unprovable, and highly questionable prophesy. |
"We got an issue in America. Too many good docs are gettin' out of business. Too many OB/GYNs aren't able to practice their -- their love with women all across this country." Dubya in Poplar Bluff, Missouri, 9/6/2004
|
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2003 : 19:06:04 [Permalink]
|
Phd: quote:
Unbelievable. You dismiss the entirety of personality research because it's obvious? And you, yes you, can be a
lay-expert in String Theory as well. Pick up a copy of Brian Greene's The Elegant Universe.
I don't simply "dismiss" anything,but nonsense, such as something posing as scientific and yet refuses to provide a definition that is staring you right in the face because it runs counter to your materialistic presuppositions.  |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2003 : 20:31:26 [Permalink]
|
| That is science. |
|
|
|
PhDreamer
SFN Regular
USA
925 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2003 : 20:48:15 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by darwin alogos
I don't simply "dismiss" anything,but nonsense, such as something posing as scientific and yet refuses to provide a definition that is staring you right in the face because it runs counter to your materialistic presuppositions.
Oh, you're asking me for a definition of "personality"? Hell, I don't know and I'm not ashamed to admit it. I just observe behaviors. I don't have any built-in dogma that madates things like "personality is X, Y and Z regardless of what observations suggest." Maybe you should try admitting to yourself that you're just as ignorant as I am? Honesty and all that.
|
I believe that, as a species, human beings define their reality through suffering and misery.
-Agent Smith |
|
|
|
Fireballn
Skeptic Friend
Canada
179 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2003 : 22:15:06 [Permalink]
|
| Freud described the structure of personality in terms of three forces that are in conflict- the id, the ego, and the superego. Jung saw it as a complex network of interacting systems that strive toward eventual harmony. I'm not sure if anybody takes this seriously anymore but it is a point of view. The term personality is difficult to define because there is little common agreement on how the term should be used. In everyday speech it usually refers to one's public image. Different personality theorists present us with their own definitions of the word based on their theoretical positions. |
If i were the supreme being, I wouldn't have messed around with butterflies and daffodils. I would have started with lasers 8 o'clock day one!
-Time Bandits- |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 01/27/2003 : 23:10:50 [Permalink]
|
Phd: quote:
Maybe you should try admitting to yourself that you're just as ignorant as I am? Honesty and all
that.
Like I said before cogito ergo sum.If I admitted your nonsensical position then we wouldn't be having this discussion,because how could we be certain that there was/is another person to be talking to on the other end? My position is undeniable. |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
|
|
|
Slater
SFN Regular
USA
1668 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2003 : 00:01:01 [Permalink]
|
| Cogito ergo sum??!!! Yikes! In your case you must be fadeing away like in Back to the Future |
-------
I learned something ... I learned that Jehovah's Witnesses do not celebrate Halloween. I guess they don't like strangers going up to their door and annoying them.
-Bruce Clark
There's No Toilet Paper...on the Road Less Traveled |
|
|
|
Tokyodreamer
SFN Regular
USA
1447 Posts |
Posted - 01/28/2003 : 06:42:03 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tim
Look, I haven't been able to get to this forum in a few weeks, and I missed a lot of good stuff. I am really inyerested in this subject, and I admit that I haven't had time to read this entire thead,yet. However, I'd like to get back to the geneologies again.
I keep hearing how Jesus is descended from David through Mary, since Joseph did not actually participate...God did the dirty deed. Yet, I have as yet to find one other single case where in the Bible, or contemporary Jewish writing that folks found the maternal line of enough consequence to matter. Can someone point me in the right direction, or is this another case of wishful thinking.
Besides, to be accurate in an infallible work of God, the geneologies should exactly match, otherwise we know nothing without further evidence. We have an unprovable, and highly questionable prophesy.
To me, this in one of the obvious areas where the NT authors had to attempt to shoe-horn in something that would make their story fit with "prophecy". Unfortunately (for them, of course), it's so blatant that it's laughable.
In my (rather shallow so far, I must admit) forays into the info regarding this, there seems to be little contention to the fact that ancestral lines were always traced through the male line. Xian websites that I have seen that claimed one of the geneaologies was through Mary simply stated that as if it were fact (even though both passages clearly state they are referring to Joseph's line!) without any explanation. |
|
|
|
Computer Org
Skeptic Friend
392 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2003 : 10:27:11 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Slater
Cogito ergo sum??!!! Yikes! In your case you must be fadeing away like in Back to the Future (emphasis added)
"Back to the Future"? Yes. Indeed. We humans were there once and we shall go back there.quote:
The meek shall inherit the Earth.
|
Do thou amend thy face, and I'll amend my life. --Falstaff |
|
|
|
walt fristoe
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 01/29/2003 : 15:10:36 [Permalink]
|
"Armies of Bible scholars and theologians have for centuries found respected employment devising artful explanations of the Bible not really meaning what it says." J. S. Bullion, Jr.
|
"If God chose George Bus of all the people in the world, how good could God be?"
Bill Maher |
|
|
|
darwin alogos
SFN Regular
USA
532 Posts |
Posted - 01/30/2003 : 00:05:02 [Permalink]
|
TD:quote:
To me, this in one of the obvious areas where the NT authors had to attempt to shoe-horn in something that would make
their story fit with "prophecy". Unfortunately (for them, of course), it's so blatant that it's laughable.
In my (rather shallow so far, I must admit) forays into the info regarding this, there seems to be little contention to the fact
that ancestral lines were always traced through the male line. Xian websites that I have seen that claimed one of the
geneaologies was through Mary simply stated that as if it were fact (even though both passages clearly state they are
referring to Joseph's line!) without any explanation.
26. Was Jacob (Matthew 1:16) or Heli (Luke 3:23) the father of Joseph and husband of Mary?
(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)
The answer to this is simple but requires some explanation. Most scholars today agree that Matthew gives the genealogy of Joseph and Luke gives that of Mary, making
Jacob the father of Joseph and Heli the father of Mary.
This is shown by the two narrations of the virgin birth. Matthew 1:18-25 tells the story only from Joseph's perspective, while Luke 1:26-56 is told wholly from Mary's point of
view.
A logical question to ask is why Joseph is mentioned in both genealogies? The answer is again simple. Luke follows strict Hebrew tradition in mentioning only males.
Therefore, in this case, Mary is designated by her husband's name.
This reasoning is clearly supported by two lines of evidence. In the first, every name in the Greek text of Luke's genealogy, with the one exception of Joseph, is preceded
by the definite article (e.g. 'the' Heli, 'the' Matthat). Although not obvious in English translations, this would strike anyone reading the Greek, who would realize that it was
tracing the line of Joseph's wife, even though his name was used.
The second line of evidence is the Jerusalem Talmud, a Jewish source. This recognizes the genealogy to be that of Mary, referring to her as the daughter of Heli (Hagigah
2:4).
(Fruchtenbaum 1993:10-13)
27. Did Jesus descend from Solomon (Matthew 1:6) or from Nathan (Luke 3:31), both of whom are sons of David?
(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)
This is directly linked to 'contradiction' 26. Having shown that Matthew gives Joseph's genealogy and Luke gives that of Mary, it is clear that Joseph was descended from
David through Solomon and Mary through Nathan.
28. Was Jechoniah (Matthew 1:12) or Neri (Luke 3:27) the father of Shealtiel?
(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)
Once again, this problem disappears when it is understood that two different genealogies are given from David to Jesus, those of both Mary and Joseph (see #26). Two
different genealogies mean two different men named Shealtiel, a common Hebrew name. Therefore, it is not surprising to recognize that they both had different fathers!
29. Which son of Zerubbabel was an ancestor of Jesus Christ, Abiud (Matthew 1:13) or Rhesa (Luke 3:27), and what about Zerubbabel in (1 Chronicles
3:19-20)?
(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)
As with #28, two different Shealtiels necessitates two different Zerubbabels, so it is no problem that their sons had different names.
It should not surprise us that there was a Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel in both Mary's and Joseph's ancestry. Matthew tells us that Joseph's father was named Jacob. Of
course, the Bible records another Joseph son of Jacob, who rose to become the second most powerful ruler in Egypt (Genesis 37-47). We see no need to suggest that
these two men are one and the same, so we should have no problem with two men named Zerubbabel son of Shealtiel.
The Zerubbabel mentioned in 1 Chronicles 3:19,20 could easily be a third. Again, this causes no problem: there are several Marys mentioned in the Gospels, because it
was a common name. The same may be true here. This Zerubbabel would then be a cousin of the one mentioned in Matthew 1:12,13. A comparison of Matthew and 1
Chronicles gives the following possible family tree:
Jehoiachin
|
Shealtiel----Malkiram----Pedaiah----Shenazzar----Jekamiah----Hoshama----Nedabiah----...
| |
Zerubbabel Zerubbabel----Shimei----...
| |
Abiud 7 sons
| (1 Ch. 3:19,20)
|
Joseph
30. Was Joram (Matthew 1:8) or Amaziah (2 Chronicles 26:1) the father of Uzziah?
(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)
This answer is of a similar nature to that in #24. Just as the Hebrew bat (daughter) can be used to denote a more distant descendant, so can the Hebrew ben (son). Jesus
is referred to in Matthew 1:1 as the son of David, the son of Abraham. Both the genealogies trace Jesus' ancestry through both these men, illustrating the usage of 'son'.
Although no Hebrew manuscripts of Matthew's gospel are extant today, it is clear that he was a Jew writing from a Hebrew perspective and therefore completely at home
with the Hebrew concept of son ship.
With this in mind, it can easily be shown that Amaziah was the immediate father of Uzziah (also called Azariah). Joram/Jehoram, on the other hand, was Uzziah's
great-great-grandfather and a direct ascendant. The line goes Joram/Jehoram - Ahaziah - Joash - Amaziah - Azariah/Uzziah (2 Chronicles 21:4-26:1).
Matthew's telescoping of Joseph's genealogy is quite acceptable, as his purpose is simply to show the route of descent. He comments in 1:17 that there were three sets of
fourteen generations. This reveals his fondness for numbers and links in directly with the designation of Jesus as the son of David. In the Hebrew language, each letter is
given a value. The total value of the name David is fourteen and this is probably the reason why Matthew only records fourteen generations in each section, to underline
Jesus' position as the son of David.
31. Was Josiah (Matthew 1:11) or Jehoiakim (1 Chronicles 3:16) the father of Jechoniah?
(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)
This question is essentially the same as #30. Jehoiakim was Jeconiah's father and Josiah his grandfather. This is quite acceptable and results from Matthew's aesthetic
telescoping of the genealogy, not from any error.
32. Were there fourteen (Matthew 1:17) or thirteen (Matthew 1:12-16) generations from the Babylonian exile until Christ?
(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)
As Matthew clearly states (1:17), there were fourteen. In the first section there are fourteen names, in the second fifteen and in the third, fourteen. Perhaps the simplest
way of resolving the problem is to suggest that in the first and third sections, the first and last person is included as a generation, whereas not in the second. In any case,
as Matthew has clearly telescoped his genealogy with good reason, a mistake on his part is by no means shown conclusively. If by some chance another name or two has
been lost from the list in the originals, by scribal error, we cannot know. Whatever the real situation, a simple explanation can be afforded, as above.
33. Who was the father of Shelah; Cainan (Luke 3:35-36) or Arphaxad (Genesis 11:12)?
(Category: misunderstood the Hebrew usage)
Although a conclusive answer is not possible, plausible explanations can be found. The most probable answer to this is that the genealogy in the Masoretic text of Genesis
telescopes the |
To deny logic you must use it.To deny Jesus Existed you must throw away all your knowledge of the ancient world. To deny ID
you must refute all analogical reasoning. So the question is why deny? |
| Edited by - darwin alogos on 01/30/2003 00:08:20 |
|
|
|
walt fristoe
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
|
|
walt fristoe
SFN Regular
USA
505 Posts |
Posted - 02/01/2003 : 16:51:43 [Permalink]
|
Hey Doomar!
You said that God had never killed anyone for doing good, but you may have overlooked 2 Samuel 6:6-8, where Uzzah saved the ark from falling to the ground when the oxen stumbled. It would seem that he did a good thing, and yet God killed him anyway! |
"If God chose George Bus of all the people in the world, how good could God be?"
Bill Maher |
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
