Author Topic: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters  (Read 27154 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline pianodwarf

  • Global Moderator
  • ******
  • Posts: 4371
  • Darwins +208/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • Je bois ton lait frappé
Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
« Reply #58 on: April 20, 2012, 01:52:55 PM »
This is my last post.

TruthSeekerToo, if you change your mind about this and decide to continue posting, please learn to use the quoting function.  Posts such as the one you just made are hard to read because it is difficult to determine who is saying what.  Thank you.
[On how kangaroos could have gotten back to Australia after the flood]:  Don't kangaroos skip along the surface of the water? --Kenn

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
« Reply #59 on: April 20, 2012, 03:11:05 PM »
TS2,

Your claims are the same as all theists.  You are sure that your version is right but withno evidence.  You make baseless claims and have nothing to support them. And you tell outright lies, whether out of ignorance or spite I have no idea. 

No, the bible is not a record of real events as you have tried to claim.  None one essential event in the bible can be shown to have happened. No genesis, no exodus, no Sodom or Gomorrah, no magical birth or resurrection. It’s all as mythical as any other religion’s claims. 

People do believe in gods but not your personal version.  They all have their own, and they all contradict each other.  Each “god” tells his followers to hate the followers of another “god”.   You claim that your god “revealed” itself to you and that’s what everyone else says. How can we tell who is telling the truth? 

Claiming that the bible is credible evidence for the events in it is just like saying that since the Iliad mentions Athena and Poseidon as being real that means that they are as real as your supposed god.  Do you agree? Are Athena and Poseidon as real as Jesus Christ and the Christian God?  If you don’t, then you’ve just shot your argument dead.  This supposed savoir of your is claimed to have had thousands of people following him just outside of Jerusalem, right around the same number of a Roman legion.  And you want to pretend that the occupying force in a fractious country wouldn’t have noticed. &)  You want to ignore your own bible’s claims that there were dead walking in the streets, the sun going dark and an earth quake strong enough to rip a curtain in half, and no one notice.  Do you realize how stupid of an excuse that is?  There is no evidence of any trial or anyone being cruxifed with thieves (your bible can’t even agree on what those thieves did), or anyone being “resurrected” and coming back to do, per your bible, so many magical events that there would not be enough books on the earth to record them all.  You depend on hoping others are as ignorant about your bible as you obviously are.   

Then you claim that you “know” that your god allows bad things to happen for a reason.  But of course you can’t actually tell us what that is.  And you intentionally use the lie that yoru god only “allows” such horrible things.  As I said, and as I can demonstrate, he approves of them and encourages them. You worship a god that does horrible things.  The golden rule, to treat others as you would like ot be treated, isn’t from your religion. It’s been around far longer than that and people have been decent and humane for far longer than your little religion and indeed in spite of it.  Your god doesn’t even live up to that.  Your god fails at even living up to the definition of love in the bible.  Your god is simply “might equals right” a primitive and ignorant notion. 

You try to claim free will but again show how ignorant you are of your own bible, and that you’ve created your own religion.  There is no free will in your bible.  Your bible has your god interfering constantly which means no free will.  It would be nice if some Christian would actually know their bible and not try to lie to former Christians who do.

The willful ignorance and arrogance that so many Christians evince is sad. The impotence they confer on their god is funny though. Poor god, can’t stop satan, can’t eradicate anything in anyone mind’s but oh can force people to obey him when they don’t want to (see the Pharoah), etc.  The ignorance of your own religion makes you funny, TS2 but nothing special. Such a pathetic and dangerous fatalism you have.  it’s not your god that does anything, it’s only hard and dirty work by humans.

now, go live on an island somewhere with no computer, no modern medicine and no modern foods if you are so pious.  Since you’re not, keep on truckin’ hypocrite.
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline jeremy0

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 694
  • Darwins +26/-12
  • Gender: Male
    • Economics and Technology
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
« Reply #60 on: April 20, 2012, 05:11:08 PM »
<snip - invalid> Since he created our brains he would know how to communicate with us whether it be through electrical impulses, chemical input or some other way we have never thought of.
He created our brains so he could cook them and eat them!!!   ;D  Remember what I said to you - if you talk to god, you're christian; but if god responds, you are insane.  Common psychological point..
Quote
The bible is a real world record and was written by real world people.  Once God reveals himself to you, you begin to see that God is an all powerful loving God who cares deeply about his creation.
Still, unfounded arguments - God 'revealed' himself to S&G and is definitely not 'an all powerful loving God' - do you want me to point to other people's sufferings?  Should I tell them - look, god doesn't love you.  You're probably damned.  Look at how much you suffer..
Bullshit.  God has never revealed himself to anyone except the ficticious stories like the burning bush..  again, I point to another person's argument that an omnipotent god could indeed manifest in our world to 'reveal himself'.. pervert.

I agree that (1) the bible was written by real world people.  However, (2) it was written, even the five gospels, at different times and in different places to appeal to particular audiences for acceptance to spread the religion at the time.  It is not, however, a real-world record in any shape or form.  It is a story told by authors.  Nothing more.
Quote
Since the bible is a real world record written by real world people it serves as a credible source of  evidence for the resurrection of Jesus Christ.  <snip - due to lies and make-believe>
Liar.  Who paid off the guards?  Where was that recorded?  Again, no credible source of evidence whatsoever except a story in a book.  That's like me saying Harry Potter existed 500 years ago and defeated The Dark Lord with Magic!!  I love and worship Harry Potter!! Or the Dark Lord!! doesn't matter, they're both omniscent..
Quote
Just because we know that people don’t rise from the dead after 3 days is no proof that one didn’t especially in the light of the only contemporary record of the time that said he did.  Besides, we are not talking about “people” rising from the dead after 3 days.  We are talking about one man who rose from the dead after 3 day and 3 nights for the purpose of conquering death for all people.
Then I have conquered death and should 'rise after 3 days..'  I'll bet you a billion dollars I won't rise after 3 days.  You had better be ready to pay up to my late family..
Quote
<snip>There are only two basic ways of life.  The giving of yourself to others for their good with no thought of reward (God‘s way).
Then we are all doing exactly this, regardless of our 'postures'..
Quote
Or the getting for yourself without regard for others (Satan‘s way). 
Which you also do.  Explain this...
Quote
<snip>Before that happens, God will intervene to save us.
I have ample evidence that shows to the contrary.. there will be no intervention to global warming, nuclear weapons, or widespread rampant diseases.  God has never intervened in recent history regardless of samples of what I just mentioned.  I tell you what - while you are saying 'we can't fix it', and I am saying 'we can', you will be the dumbass that dies like a sheep while I was fighting for your worthless asses.  I do this constantly, while you idiots pray that some miraculous thing happens.  Prayer: 'the realization that you are doing something without actually having to do jack shit.' 
Quote
There are no more options to try, we are at the end of our rope.  God can now make thing right and no one will doubt that God exists.
No more options?  You seem dumfounded in your short-sightedness and futility.  I tell you again - you pray, I'll do the actual work trying to fix your broken shit.  Hopefully my work saves both of our asses, and that finally proves myself..
<snipt..>
« Last Edit: April 20, 2012, 06:06:38 PM by jeremy0 »
"If you find yourself reaching for the light, first realize that it has already touched your finger."
"If I were your god, I would have no reason for judgement, and you have all told endless lies about me.  Wait - you do already. I am not amused by your ignorance, thoughtlessness, and shallow mind."

Offline gonegolfing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1224
  • Darwins +23/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • God ?...Don't even get me started !
Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
« Reply #61 on: April 23, 2012, 09:12:16 AM »
Truthseekertoo:

Quote
This is my last post.  I want to thank all of you for your replies.  It has been an experience and I have learned a lot.

Seriously ? And just what is that ?

Has what you have learned, going to convince you to stop displaying the cowardice that you willingly do by not accepting the facts about your existence and the scientific explanations for the reality that we exist in ? 

Has what you have learned, given you the inspiration and courage to face your future with passion and hope and to do so without the god-idea, and to relax your disappointments, unpleasant thoughts, and fears of your mortality ?

Has what you have learned, shown to you clearly--as it should--that we atheists are normal, loving, and moral individuals. And especially, that our arguments for our position are sound and although our position is not a position that you can hold, you see clearly why we do ?   

If not, then you have learned nothing and your experience meant nothing.

That was your last post because the well ran dry for you--you ran out of gas--there was no wood left for the fire--the air got to thin to breath-- yada..yada..fucking cliche' yada...... Which is the sum total of what you brought to the table when you came here--a bunch of preachy phrases and opinions that betrayed you and exposed your lack of depth and original thought.

See ya. 
"I believe that there is no God. I'm beyond atheism"....Penn Jillette.

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1814
  • Darwins +33/-115
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
« Reply #62 on: April 25, 2012, 03:17:54 PM »
I have not read every post in this thread and the topic has changed so please forgive me.  I also don't have a perfect understanding of the Bible nor history so please forgive me again.  I would, however, like to chime in with my understanding of these things in light of the Bible.  I will try to be brief.

To the best of my knowledge the Bible account does not claim that Adam and Eve were perfect.  It says creation was "very good".  But either way you look at things the perfection was only relative as the Bible also says "only God is good".  Adam and Eve were perfectly suited for the life that God had made for them which was to live in a paradise, to take care of it, and to multiply.

And to touch on the subject of human suffering I will give my understanding.  A major theme in the Bible is the question "Can man survive without God?"  This question was first raised in Genesis and indeed many still prefer a world without God.  If God constantly intervened then that question could never be settled and would exist for all eternity, in heaven and earth.  It has been admitted in this thread that God has not intervened.  So the question is what has been the result?  I surely don't need to enumerate all the human failings in history.  But as bad as things have been/are the question has not yet fully been answered as many people still hold out they can do fine without God, although history does not support this claim.  From my understanding, God will not intervene until the point that "no flesh would survive".  At this point there will be not even a sliver of doubt that "man has dominated man to his own injury."

Also I would like to say about Sodom and Gomorrah and other similar places that their destruction was not God trying to teach them a lesson but rather it was God's judgment that they were worthy of nothing but death just like the flood of Noah's day.  An even larger destruction is prophesied for the future for the "wicked".
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
« Reply #63 on: April 26, 2012, 08:21:15 AM »
I have not read every post in this thread and the topic has changed so please forgive me.  I also don't have a perfect understanding of the Bible nor history so please forgive me again.  I would, however, like to chime in with my understanding of these things in light of the Bible.  I will try to be brief.
To the best of my knowledge the Bible account does not claim that Adam and Eve were perfect.  It says creation was "very good".  But either way you look at things the perfection was only relative as the Bible also says "only God is good".  Adam and Eve were perfectly suited for the life that God had made for them which was to live in a paradise, to take care of it, and to multiply.
So, your god decided to make something that would fail?  Interesting.  And it seems that they weren’t made perfectly suited for living in paradise or take care of it or multiply since if they were, they would never have eaten the apple.  With your logic, this means that your god made them so they would have no choice but eat the apple thus damning everyone if you believe in the nonsense of original sin.
Quote
And to touch on the subject of human suffering I will give my understanding.  A major theme in the Bible is the question "Can man survive without God?"  This question was first raised in Genesis and indeed many still prefer a world without God.
Well, jst, since we’ve been doing fine so far, your god has failed to support this claim of yours.  There is no evidence for yoru god’s mere existence, much less that it does anything at all. 
Quote
If God constantly intervened then that question could never be settled and would exist for all eternity, in heaven and earth.
But god has intervened and that demonstrates that this god isnt’ at all interested in the free will you would try to claim.  This god of yours repeated interfered in the most drastic ways possible, a flood that killed everyone but one drunkard and his family plus animals (which is hysterical since its such a myth), he made everyone’s langage different, he repeatedly commanded genocide, and then he decided that he needed to interfere again by requiring a bloody murder of supposed himself to himself.  If all of the miracles claimed now by Christians, he’s still interfering with free will.  Looking in the bible we see that your god intentionally makes sure people will never be able to accept this nonsense of his (Romans 9 and what Jesus says when asked why he uses parables) so much for free will there.  We have a god that in 2 Thessalonians intentionally makes people believe a lie.   And if we look to the supposed future, this god really is a manipulating twit and even goes to the length of killing all of the people that don’t accept him and *then* works with his supposed greatest enemy to corrupt the people who are left.  what a good god.  &)   

Quote
It has been admitted in this thread that God has not intervened.
No, it has been said that god doesn’t intervene since he doesn’t exist and we see repeatedly that per the bible and per Christian claims this god has intervened.  So who are the true Christian here so we know who to believe, jst? 
Quote
So the question is what has been the result?  I surely don't need to enumerate all the human failings in history.  But as bad as things have been/are the question has not yet fully been answered as many people still hold out they can do fine without God, although history does not support this claim.
Ah, yes history does show that people do much better without this god.  We have far fewer witch and heretic burnings now that Christian idiots don’t do that even though their bible says to kill anyone who doesn’t believe like they do.  They get further and further from their primitive violent religion.  Countries who have less religious belief (and no megalomaniacs running them) do much better.
Quote
From my understanding, God will not intervene until the point that "no flesh would survive".  At this point there will be not even a sliver of doubt that "man has dominated man to his own injury."
And one more Christian who has a different baseless opinion from the rest.  I do like to watch Christians be so sure that their version is the only “right” version.  It’s also amusing to watch someone cite Matthew 24 and its lunacy that the stars will fall from the sky and that the flood was real. Ah, the ignorance of the bible authors. 
Quote
Also I would like to say about Sodom and Gomorrah and other similar places that their destruction was not God trying to teach them a lesson but rather it was God's judgment that they were worthy of nothing but death just like the flood of Noah's day.  An even larger destruction is prophesied for the future for the "wicked".
  Oh yes, the lovely claim that somethings aren’t worthy anything but death.  So, since Paul said that god finds that a lot of things worthy of death (Romans 1), seems your god is now rather impotent.  Got all of that hatred and murder by the hand of god in your bible and now with the same types of people around, poor thing can’t do anything about them.  Yep, there are all sorts of “prophecies” and I do enjoy watching Christians make claim after claim when it will happen and failing.  It’s like watching a child insist that they’ll “get” those who have shown them wrong.  What a pathetic sadistic fantasy. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline jeremy0

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 694
  • Darwins +26/-12
  • Gender: Male
    • Economics and Technology
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
« Reply #64 on: April 26, 2012, 05:06:58 PM »
Also I would like to say about Sodom and Gomorrah and other similar places that their destruction was not God trying to teach them a lesson but rather it was God's judgment that they were worthy of nothing but death just like the flood of Noah's day.  An even larger destruction is prophesied for the future for the "wicked".
I've already answered the 'mysteries of S&G in another topic..'  Also, you make a conflicting claim - that God doesn't intervene and that's obvious, however, here in the bible we have god intervening...

Conclusion: garbage belonging in the trash-can...
"If you find yourself reaching for the light, first realize that it has already touched your finger."
"If I were your god, I would have no reason for judgement, and you have all told endless lies about me.  Wait - you do already. I am not amused by your ignorance, thoughtlessness, and shallow mind."

Offline Jstwebbrowsing

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1814
  • Darwins +33/-115
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
« Reply #65 on: April 27, 2012, 08:06:16 PM »
Well, jst, since we’ve been doing fine so far, your god has failed to support this claim of yours.  There is no evidence for yoru god’s mere existence, much less that it does anything at all.

How so?  God is not supporting his claim.  He's allowing humans to support theirs.  They're the ones claiming they best rule the earth.  Maybe you measure success differently than I but I don't think humans are doing a very good job.  I tend to agree with the Bible's view that "man has dominated man to his own injury.  All this suffering that you blame on God is ridiculous.  Man is running the show, not God.  If babies die and other sad things happen it because humans cannot fix it.  It's their failure!  Remember humans don't need God.  This is your claim.

Quote
But god has intervened

Okay let me clarify.  God has only intervened to the extent required to make sure his purposes are fulfilled in the end.  He has not interfered with man's attempt to take care of their selves.  And yes, as sometimes recorded in the Bible, this has been judicial destruction at times. 

Oh and by the way.  The Bible never says they at an apple.  You must know nothing about what you're talking about.  Just kidding, not about the first statement, but this is the attitude I get around here.  I think it's starting to rub off.
Ye are my witnesses, saith Jehovah, and my servant whom I have chosen; that ye may know and believe me, and understand that I am he: before me there was no God formed, neither shall there be after me.

Isaiah 43:10

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
« Reply #66 on: April 30, 2012, 09:57:31 AM »
How so?  God is not supporting his claim.  He's allowing humans to support theirs.
Lovely excuse here.  You claimed that your god exists, and that the bible is true, which would mean that yoru god repeatedly interfered with humanity and isn’t interested at all in allowing humans to live without his interference at all.  You see, jst, your claims don’t jibe with the stories your bible tells or the stories your fellow theists tell.  You want to claim that your god is hands off but they claim that he’s doing miracles all of the time.  Please do show evidence supporting your claims are the valid ones.  Show that your god exists at all. 
Quote
They're the ones claiming they best rule the earth.  Maybe you measure success differently than I but I don't think humans are doing a very good job.
Oh yes, the usual theist claim that the humans are failing and it’s just been getting *worse* since we decided that gods weren’t so important.  Well, jst, we’ve ended diseases that killed millions.  We’ve ended slavery (something your god approves of) in much of the world and are trying our best to eliminate all together.  We have fewer wars in the world and definitely fewer based on idiots who war over whose invisible friend is the best.  Back in eras where gods were popular, we didn’t give a damn about the environment and we had rivers that caught on fire, people dumping chemicals willy-nilly, and no one cared.  Now that we know that there is no magical god to come and save us, we have very human and very secular laws that help the environment.
Quote
I tend to agree with the Bible's view that "man has dominated man to his own injury.  All this suffering that you blame on God is ridiculous.  Man is running the show, not God.  If babies die and other sad things happen it because humans cannot fix it.  It's their failure!  Remember humans don't need God.  This is your claim.
I love how theists like you want to excuse your god.  Poor thing, it can’t do anything.  And babies dying?  Hmmm, death rates of children at birth and in the first years of life were vastly higher when the majority of people worshipped your god.  Now, they have dropped substantially thanks to human actions, not some ludicrous god. 
Quote
Okay let me clarify.  God has only intervened to the extent required to make sure his purposes are fulfilled in the end.  He has not interfered with man's attempt to take care of their selves.  And yes, as sometimes recorded in the Bible, this has been judicial destruction at times.
And thus there is no free will.  See there, where *you* have admitted that there is some magical plan that your god has?  What a fail.  And judicial destruction?  ROFL.  That’s rich, the annihilation of everything on the face of the earth because your poor little god got upset that humans forgot about him since he didn’t show himself.  What a pathetic brat. I do love sycophants like you who are all about might equals right.

Quote
Oh and by the way.  The Bible never says they at an apple.  You must know nothing about what you're talking about.  Just kidding, not about the first statement, but this is the attitude I get around here.  I think it's starting to rub off.
The bible says that they ate a fruit.  Since apples have had mystical connotations since long before your religion, people who have claimed to believe in the bible god have claimed it’s been an apple.  It’s also been claimed to be a pomegranate since that’s also considered a mystical fruit.  But since you can’t show that any of this utter nonsense was real, it’s a moot point.  Your religion has nothing unique about it, not even claiming that “fruit” will get a human in trouble. . 

"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline jeremy0

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 694
  • Darwins +26/-12
  • Gender: Male
    • Economics and Technology
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
« Reply #67 on: April 30, 2012, 11:48:08 AM »

How so?  God is not supporting his claim.  He's allowing humans to support theirs.

Because God is Imaginary...  An imaginary tart cannot support his own claims simply because he/she isn't there to do so.  Maybe they are hiding out in the other reality(ies) just to bring us justice that he couldn't show us the truth to begin with (truth being a fallacy when dealing with something that just hasn't been completely false [however, almost everything right now points to its falseness..])

Quote
I tend to agree with the Bible's view that "man has dominated man to his own injury.  All this suffering that you blame on God is ridiculous.  Man is running the show, not God.  If babies die and other sad things happen it because humans cannot fix it.  It's their failure!  Remember humans don't need God.  This is your claim.
I want to reiterate your statements (1) God doesn't intervene (2) god intervenes, but only in the ancient days, now he never does (3) now man runs the show and has been the whole time   What the fuck is it then??
Just put the blame on god for incompetence and let's be done with it!

Quote
Okay let me clarify.  God has only intervened to the extent required to make sure his purposes are fulfilled in the end.  He has not interfered with man's attempt to take care of their selves.  And yes, as sometimes recorded in the Bible, this has been judicial destruction at times.
And, here we are.  He only intervenes in order to accomplish his objectives.  Rubbish.  I can't believe you have bought into such ridiculous stories.  You can look at the posts you have been making on this forum, and easily realize that the bible was written by different groups, by different authors, at different times to try to appeal to their audience and push Christianity.  When you are quoting and talking about the bible, generally you are referring to 0BC-land - a place and time that was completely different today.  And, when you can't explain your position, you keep changing the meaning.  Total Rubbish + lying = farce.  Judicial destruction as the only means to save a race of intelligent (or rather dumb) beings displays a completely incompetent god, relying on man's way of doing things as a means to an end.  This is complete crap.  You are one of those 'yay! I'm saved and everyone not in my religion isn't' kind of people.  I revere that as the most grotesque and ignorant race of religious bastards out there.[1]

Quote
Oh and by the way.  The Bible never says they at an apple.  You must know nothing about what you're talking about.  Just kidding, not about the first statement, but this is the attitude I get around here.  I think it's starting to rub off.

Your nonsense is indeed rubbing off - I don't care if they ate a freaking rubix cube, if we continue to eat it then we should still be getting poisoned by the 'truth of knowledge of good and evil'.  Who the fuck cares what type of fruit it was - it was just a fucking story that was made up.  Talking snake.  period.

[1] Here I am calling you a bastard since you don't fit into this group.  We are actually the ones to be saved, for using our brain and proving to your god that we can think and reason clearly.  Pun against you intended..
"If you find yourself reaching for the light, first realize that it has already touched your finger."
"If I were your god, I would have no reason for judgement, and you have all told endless lies about me.  Wait - you do already. I am not amused by your ignorance, thoughtlessness, and shallow mind."

Offline Maggie the Opinionated

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 144
  • Darwins +4/-52
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
« Reply #68 on: May 01, 2012, 10:18:41 PM »
Just a story? Well, it is certainly a story. So, if one looks at it in that light, a number of very interesting stylistic devices fairly jump out. Two creation accounts? One is cosmocentric; the other is anthropocentric. The order of the events is not accidental, nor is it the result of the author's stupidity. It is an example of chiasmus. If you look at Genesis as an example of ancient literature (which it is, of course), what emerges is a rather sophisticated literary work that is quite fascinating.

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6760
  • Darwins +819/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
« Reply #69 on: May 01, 2012, 10:38:21 PM »
Welcome Plain Jane.

If the creation account is indeed a  chiasmus, does that in any way add to its validity? I can see where it might add to its value as literature. But I don't see how that helps authenticate the story.
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline jeremy0

  • Postgraduate
  • *****
  • Posts: 694
  • Darwins +26/-12
  • Gender: Male
    • Economics and Technology
  • User is on moderator watch listWatched
Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
« Reply #70 on: May 01, 2012, 10:42:54 PM »
It fascinates me that you find a story written by people in 0BC to still be fascinating..  I guess I still find it fascinating that there are some people in the world, like the nomads (where are these guys still found?  Forgot) still think that the world is flat, and their reasoning is picking up a stone and dropping it.  If the world was round, we would all fall away on the other side!

It's just a book - I will re-iterate that it was written for its time, for its own audiences.  It has underwent several revisions since those times, to better fit what we knew at certain times along the way, just so it still makes sense.  And the fact that a lot of it is still shrouded in mystery and we struggle to 'interpret' it, that we have to find 'hidden meaning' that only appears to the righteous, and that in the beginning of the writings in the NT the message was 'hidden from people, so that those on the outside could listen but not understand'; then yes, I would conclude these are just 'stories'...
"If you find yourself reaching for the light, first realize that it has already touched your finger."
"If I were your god, I would have no reason for judgement, and you have all told endless lies about me.  Wait - you do already. I am not amused by your ignorance, thoughtlessness, and shallow mind."

Offline Maggie the Opinionated

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 144
  • Darwins +4/-52
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
« Reply #71 on: May 01, 2012, 11:20:34 PM »
If the creation account is indeed a  chiasmus, does that in any way add to its validity?
Depends on what you mean by validity! I am not very sympathetic to those who want to use Genesis as a science text book. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that the creation story is told in figurative language but affirms a primeval event at the beginning of human history. That strikes me as the right approach. What does the story say about the human condition?

The RCC is not blazing any trails here. St Jerome says somewhere that Genesis was written "after the manner of a poet". His contemporary, St. Augustine, wrote a whole treatise called "On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis" which starting with Gen. 1:1, asks questions that would bewilder (and, possibly, enrage) any fervent literalist. I don't mind that so many people feel that it must be taken literally but it seems to me that that approach misses so much of the richness of the text.

Of course, it works the other way around, too. People who still get all uptight because the OT classes bats among birds also need to remember that it isn't a science text book. There is something else going on.  :)


 
« Last Edit: May 01, 2012, 11:24:37 PM by Plain Jane »

Online ParkingPlaces

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 6760
  • Darwins +819/-6
  • Gender: Male
  • If you are religious, you are misconcepted
Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
« Reply #72 on: May 01, 2012, 11:31:35 PM »
Bats are mentioned when theists tell us that the OT is a science book. And we get that a lot around here.

The bible may well be a very interesting, and perhaps even exciting, work of literature. However, that attribute gets lost easily when adherents insist that the book is the word of their god and start stabbing, etc. over the issue.

I wouldn't have to be an atheist if the bible god (along with all other god claims) was just seen as a story and the Cliff Notes version was the bigger seller.
Jesus, the cracker flavored treat!

Offline Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2125
  • Darwins +135/-3
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
« Reply #73 on: May 02, 2012, 05:41:31 AM »
I don't mind that so many people feel that it must be taken literally but it seems to me that that approach misses so much of the richness of the text.

Welcome Plain Jane,

I agree. But what are your thoughts on original sin? If Adam and Eve, the tree, and the talking snake are allegorical- what does this mean for sin? What about souls? Are those concepts allegory as well? And if it is, what does this mean for the Jesus character in the New Testament? Where does the metaphorical view end and the literalism begin?

Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
« Reply #74 on: May 02, 2012, 08:58:32 AM »
If the creation account is indeed a  chiasmus, does that in any way add to its validity?
Depends on what you mean by validity! I am not very sympathetic to those who want to use Genesis as a science text book. The Catechism of the Catholic Church says that the creation story is told in figurative language but affirms a primeval event at the beginning of human history. That strikes me as the right approach. What does the story say about the human condition?
So this is what your magic decoder ring says, Jane?  I've been looking for years for someone who knows exactly what this god really means.  Are you the one with the "right" answers?  Can you provide evidence to me showing that?
Quote
The RCC is not blazing any trails here. St Jerome says somewhere that Genesis was written "after the manner of a poet". His contemporary, St. Augustine, wrote a whole treatise called "On the Literal Interpretation of Genesis" which starting with Gen. 1:1, asks questions that would bewilder (and, possibly, enrage) any fervent literalist. I don't mind that so many people feel that it must be taken literally but it seems to me that that approach misses so much of the richness of the text.
The text isn't so rich.  It's a pretty standard creation myth that most religions have, and it's pretty much like any of Rudyard Kipling's "Just-so" stories.    I do admit it is quite fantastical, as are most of the claims of the bible.  Are those all metaphor too?  Can I consider the resurrection of Jesus Christ to be only a myth that describes mankind becoming more caring toward each other and not a literal occurence?
Quote
Of course, it works the other way around, too. People who still get all uptight because the OT classes bats among birds also need to remember that it isn't a science text book. There is something else going on.  :)
  That's a pretty standard claim from a Christian, that their book really truly does mean somethign else when the Christian finds it convenient.   
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Maggie the Opinionated

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 144
  • Darwins +4/-52
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
« Reply #75 on: May 02, 2012, 10:54:35 AM »
I don't mind that so many people feel that it must be taken literally but it seems to me that that approach misses so much of the richness of the text.

Welcome Plain Jane,

I agree. But what are your thoughts on original sin? If Adam and Eve, the tree, and the talking snake are allegorical- what does this mean for sin? What about souls? Are those concepts allegory as well? And if it is, what does this mean for the Jesus character in the New Testament? Where does the metaphorical view end and the literalism begin?
Well, they may or may not be allegorical but, and in this venue I need to use the word carefully, they are certainly mythological. Now myth, as literary types tend to use the word, does not mean fiction. It means that the story reflects certain truths but, clearly, the author wasn't there and is handing on his people's collective understanding of the past and God's dealings with humanity. Story is, after all, the chief way the ancients remembered and passed on their histories. In other words, I agree with the RCC that the story tells us about an event at the beginning of human history that broke the intimate bond between God and man. The details are actually quite fascinating-- the story, tree, snake, and all, is actually quite sophisticated. Maybe we can talk about that another time.

Jesus is in a different category. We have a number of contemporary and near contemporary primary historical sources that testify to his existence and doings. Something I notice frequently is that many atheists assume that the Bible is a book. It isn't. It is a compilation of a lot of books. In the New Testament we have 26 independent, primary, historical sources that tell us about a specific person at a specific time and place. (I leave Revelation out, since it is an example of apocalyptic literature-- a genre beloved at the time but hardly to be taken literally.) We don't have nearly as much good evidence for most of the people in the ancient world, produced so near in time, too, as we do for Jesus. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of trained historians who deny the historicity of Jesus.

Original sin is a funny subject. Not every denomination understands it the same way. We (the RCC) are adamant that Christians should understand that we do not inherit the guilt of Adam. Thus we are not punished for what he did. Rather, we suffer because of what Adam did. Essentially, what died first when Adam disobeyed God was the perfect spiritual nature he had been given-- What he lost, he could no longer pass on to his descendants. Thus, we have a propensity to sin that none of us can resist.

Offline Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2125
  • Darwins +135/-3
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
« Reply #76 on: May 02, 2012, 11:05:07 AM »
The details are actually quite fascinating-- the story, tree, snake, and all, is actually quite sophisticated. Maybe we can talk about that another time.

Sounds good to me.

Original sin is a funny subject. Not every denomination understands it the same way. We (the RCC) are adamant that Christians should understand that we do not inherit the guilt of Adam. Thus we are not punished for what he did. Rather, we suffer because of what Adam did.

I see. So rather than original sin you believe in an ancestral sin. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
« Reply #77 on: May 02, 2012, 11:56:02 AM »
Well, they may or may not be allegorical but, and in this venue I need to use the word carefully, they are certainly mythological. Now myth, as literary types tend to use the word, does not mean fiction. It means that the story reflects certain truths but, clearly, the author wasn't there and is handing on his people's collective understanding of the past and God's dealings with humanity.
Literary types?  what types are those? Myth: a usually traditional story of ostensibly (being such in appearance, plausible not demonstrably real) historical events that serves to unfold part of the world view of a people or explain a practice, belief, or natural phenomenon.  Now an allegory is the expression by means of symbolic fictional figures and actions of truths or generalizations about human existence (both from Merriam-webster)  They both seem to mean a fiction, one to convey a generalization of human behavior. The bible can be seen as that. So is it all allegory and all mythical? 
Quote
Story is, after all, the chief way the ancients remembered and passed on their histories. In other words, I agree with the RCC that the story tells us about an event at the beginning of human history that broke the intimate bond between God and man. The details are actually quite fascinating-- the story, tree, snake, and all, is actually quite sophisticated. Maybe we can talk about that another time.
And we know that those rememberings were not always accurate or even truthful aka big fish stories. 
Quote
Jesus is in a different category. We have a number of contemporary and near contemporary primary historical sources that testify to his existence and doings. Something I notice frequently is that many atheists assume that the Bible is a book. It isn't. It is a compilation of a lot of books. In the New Testament we have 26 independent, primary, historical sources that tell us about a specific person at a specific time and place. (I leave Revelation out, since it is an example of apocalyptic literature-- a genre beloved at the time but hardly to be taken literally.) We don't have nearly as much good evidence for most of the people in the ancient world, produced so near in time, too, as we do for Jesus. I can count on the fingers of one hand the number of trained historians who deny the historicity of Jesus.
Tah-dah, the invocation of special pleading.  No, we do not have these things you claim, Jane. Lots of Christians want to believe that such things exist but they don’t.  And no the bible isn’t a bunch of primary historical sources.  You evidently don’t know what that term means. We have no idea what the originals were or might have said and we know the bible’s books have undergone changes and simple get things utterly wrong.  You repeat the lie about historical personages in comparison to Jesus.  We have plenty and they aren’t making claims of magic happening so there is little reason to doubt what we have.  I also am not impressed by your counting or your knowledge or your appeal to authority.  We have no evidence for a man/god, the Jesus *you* are claiming to be real.  You are not claiming a itinerate rabbi that had stories told about him, not a collection of myths about many different people. Let me ask you, do you belive that Emperor Vespasian healed people? Why or why not?   
Quote
Original sin is a funny subject. Not every denomination understands it the same way.
Not every denomination accepts it.
Quote
We (the RCC) are adamant that Christians should understand that we do not inherit the guilt of Adam. Thus we are not punished for what he did. Rather, we suffer because of what Adam did. Essentially, what died first when Adam disobeyed God was the perfect spiritual nature he had been given-- What he lost, he could no longer pass on to his descendants. Thus, we have a propensity to sin that none of us can resist.
  So, since you think you know the “right” answers, are you willing to be in a competition between various types of Christians to see who is the TrueChristian?  I do love the equivocation between punishment and suffer.  One suffers a punishment, Jane.  If we did nothing wrong, we should not have to suffer for it, if your god is the benevolent being you claim.  It’s like saying well “suzy spilt the milk and was punished by having no cookies, but we’re also not giving any cookies to jimmy because he was on the planet at the same time”. 

And funny for Adam having a  “perfect spiritual nature” that he screwed up first thing.  I guess it wasn’t so perfect. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Maggie the Opinionated

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 144
  • Darwins +4/-52
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
« Reply #78 on: May 02, 2012, 12:20:16 PM »
It fascinates me that you find a story written by people in 0BC to still be fascinating..
  Different strokes, I guess! But do you really mean that you don't understand why we still read ancient literature? Not Homer? Virgil? Beowulf? Song of Roland? Song of the Nibelungs?

I see. So rather than original sin you believe in an ancestral sin. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I am not sure I understand. All actions have consequences. There was an original sin, the disobedience of Adam, and the result of that was the loss of the uncorrupted spiritual nature with which he had been endowed at creation. Since he no longer had it, he could not pass it on to his children. All he had to give was his corrupted nature.  So, we, like all who have gone before, inherit it, too.

I do love the equivocation between punishment and suffer.  One suffers a punishment, Jane.  If we did nothing wrong, we should not have to suffer for it, if your god is the benevolent being you claim.  It’s like saying well “suzy spilt the milk and was punished by having no cookies, but we’re also not giving any cookies to jimmy because he was on the planet at the same time”. 
Oh? Tell that to the 4 children who, as I type this, are grieving for their father who was killed by a drunk driver last night. The drunk's sin is the cause of the kids' suffering; such is the nature of reality. They did nothing to deserve it. No man is an island and all that. What we do impacts others around us, sometimes with horrific  results.

Quote
And funny for Adam having a  “perfect spiritual nature” that he screwed up first thing.  I guess it wasn’t so perfect.
Yes, it was perfect.  Some people don't take the notion of free will seriously enough. God could have created a race of puppets. For some reason he did not. We really are the masters of our destiny in the way that ultimately matters. It is a great gift but a terrifying one, too.

Offline screwtape

  • The Great Red Dragon
  • Administrator
  • *******
  • Posts: 12682
  • Darwins +709/-28
  • Gender: Male
  • Karma mooch
Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
« Reply #79 on: May 02, 2012, 12:26:02 PM »
There was an original sin, the disobedience of Adam, and the result of that was the loss of the uncorrupted spiritual nature with which he had been endowed at creation. Since he no longer had it, he could not pass it on to his children. All he had to give was his corrupted nature.  So, we, like all who have gone before, inherit it, too.

But you said "we do not inherit the guilt of Adam."  It kind of looks like you are saying we did.

Links:
Rules
Guides & Tutorials

What's true is already so. Owning up to it does not make it worse.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
« Reply #80 on: May 02, 2012, 12:44:10 PM »
Oh? Tell that to the 4 children who, as I type this, are grieving for their father who was killed by a drunk driver last night. The drunk's sin is the cause of the kids' suffering; such is the nature of reality. They did nothing to deserve it. No man is an island and all that. What we do impacts others around us, sometimes with horrific  results.
  The drunk is at fault, not some magical sin. Now, if your god does exist, I do wonder about such a god that does nothing and allows a father to be killed by a drunk.  As I pointed out, and which you avoided, your bible has nothing about free will, so why not interfere with a miracle yet again?  Omnipotent, omniscient surely he can?  Or was it part of “God’s Plan” that a man die with four children now grieving?   
Quote
Yes, it was perfect.  Some people don't take the notion of free will seriously enough. God could have created a race of puppets. For some reason he did not. We really are the masters of our destiny in the way that ultimately matters. It is a great gift but a terrifying one, too.
“Yes it was perfect”.  Care to stomp your feet again, Jane? It works about as well as making a claim with no evidence.  Nothing shows it was or even that your story is true. 

Again, your bible has nothing about free will, it has your god repeatedly interfering with humanity, so no free will.  Your bible says that your god controlled the pharaoh so it could show off.  It controlled the Egyptians so the Israelites could take their gold and silver.  Your bible says that some people have absolutely no choice to be able to accep this god of yours.  So much for free will.  You have no idea about free will so your opinion about people taking it seriously enough is just silly.  You obviously don’t when you make such things up to excuse your god’s impotence and evidence non-existence. 

“for some reason”,  the only reason is it doesn’t exist.  Christians all make claims that contradict each other and are as baseless as the next.  We get the Calvinists with their predestination and you with your pious assurances that you are right and that we have free will.  Can’t both be true and since none of you have evidence, I see that you are both making things up.  I agree with you up to a point. We are masters of our own destiny, limited by our psychology and the laws of physics and chemistry.  We can’t fly on our own no matter how much we hope we can.  No gods to bother us at all.
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Maggie the Opinionated

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 144
  • Darwins +4/-52
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
« Reply #81 on: May 02, 2012, 12:55:32 PM »
But you said "we do not inherit the guilt of Adam."  It kind of looks like you are saying we did.

No, I do not mean to say that at all. But what Adam did impacts the rest of us. For anyone who is interested, original sin is discussed in the Catechism. For our purposes, it might be enough to say that what Adam and Eve did had profound consequences for all of creation. Their relationship is corrupted, work becomes bitter and hard, and death enters the world. Adam and Eve could not pass on to their descendants what they no longer had-- that uncorrupted, spiritual nature.

Now, again, we are dealing with a story. Obviously, as a Christian, I believe the lesson it tells but I do so not because the story can comprehensively answer all the questions it raises but because I believe in Christ, the second Adam who made good for us what the first Adam spoiled. If I were not a Christian, I would still enjoy the Old Testament literature very much. I would still understand how much it tells us about the ancient world, its customs, beliefs, etc. But I would not accord it any more honor than I do the Illiad. Of course, I am a fan of Homer, too...
« Last Edit: May 02, 2012, 12:57:44 PM by Plain Jane »

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
« Reply #82 on: May 02, 2012, 01:13:50 PM »
No, I do not mean to say that at all. But what Adam did impacts the rest of us.
why did it *have* to? and how is spiritual nature passed on?  the sperm? the egg?
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Maggie the Opinionated

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 144
  • Darwins +4/-52
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
« Reply #83 on: May 02, 2012, 01:18:36 PM »
The drunk is at fault, not some magical sin.
What on earth is a magical sin? What do you think sin is?

Quote
Now, if your god does exist, I do wonder about such a god that does nothing and allows a father to be killed by a drunk.  As I pointed out, and which you avoided, your bible has nothing about free will, so why not interfere with a miracle yet again?  Omnipotent, omniscient surely he can?  Or was it part of “God’s Plan” that a man die with four children now grieving?   
It would be lovely if every time a thug pulled the trigger on a gun, roses came out instead of bullets. But that is not the nature of reality. It would be lovely, if every time an arsonist struck a match and threw it into a pile of leaves in a forest, it would rain lemonade. But that is not the nature of fire. Or rain. You can't have it both ways. Either we are puppets or we are not. Free will is all over the Bible. How could you possibly miss it?

Demanding constant miracles; intervention to prevent the outcome of our actions, plays havoc with reality. Laws that are constantly circumvented are no longer laws and we can wave bye-bye to science. I can't even imagine what a totally unpredictable world would look like. Well, for one thing, there would be no such thing as a miracle since nothing can be a miracle in a world that does not work in predictable ways.

One really doesn't need a decoder ring to read the Bible intelligently and think about what one is reading. However, it is a mistake to suppose that you can pick up an ancient work of literature written over at least 1000 years in a couple of different languages and in different places and expect it to be as transparent as your daily newspaper. It isn't going to be. Not by a long shot.

Offline Zankuu

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2125
  • Darwins +135/-3
  • Gender: Male
    • I am a Forum Guide
Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
« Reply #84 on: May 02, 2012, 01:20:52 PM »
I am not sure I understand. All actions have consequences. There was an original sin, the disobedience of Adam, and the result of that was the loss of the uncorrupted spiritual nature with which he had been endowed at creation. Since he no longer had it, he could not pass it on to his children. All he had to give was his corrupted nature.  So, we, like all who have gone before, inherit it, too.

The idea behind original sin is that every human to be conceived after "The Fall" deserve hell due to the liability of the first, original sin. I like to similize this with beating new born puppies with a newspaper because their mother peed on the floor.

By comparison ancestral sin isn't nearly as radical. This concept of sin acknowledges that while a gateway sin did occur, we aren't responsible for it. So it doesn't suggest that a person is liable for another person's transgression. The first sin does allow for sin into individual lives, and it is the burden faced by all to come since Adam.

Does this help clear things up?
Leave nothing to chance. Overlook nothing. Combine contradictory observations. Allow yourself enough time. -Hippocrates of Cos

Offline Maggie the Opinionated

  • Emergency Room
  • ***
  • Posts: 144
  • Darwins +4/-52
  • Gender: Female
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
« Reply #85 on: May 02, 2012, 01:30:12 PM »
The idea behind original sin is that every human to be conceived after "The Fall" deserve hell due to the liability of the first, original sin. I like to similize this with beating new born puppies with a newspaper because their mother peed on the floor.
By comparison ancestral sin isn't nearly as radical. This concept of sin acknowledges that while a gateway sin did occur, we aren't responsible for it. So it doesn't suggest that a person is liable for another person's transgression. The first sin does allow for sin into individual lives, and it is the burden faced by all to come since Adam.

Does this help clear things up?
Yes, thanks. But that is not the Catholic understanding of the matter. I best let the Catechism explain it:
By yielding to the tempter, Adam and Eve committed a personal sin, but this sin affected the human nature that they would then transmit in a fallen state. It is a sin which will be transmitted by propagation to all mankind, that is, by the transmission of a human nature deprived of original holiness and justice. And that is why original sin is called "sin" only in an analogical sense: it is a sin "contracted" and not "committed" - a state and not an act.  ...

Although it is proper to each individual, original sin does not have the character of a personal fault in any of Adam's descendants. It is a deprivation of original holiness and justice, but human nature has not been totally corrupted: it is wounded in the natural powers proper to it, subject to ignorance, suffering and the dominion of death, and inclined to sin - an inclination to evil that is called "concupiscence". Baptism, by imparting the life of Christ's grace, erases original sin and turns a man back towards God, but the consequences for nature, weakened and inclined to evil, persist in man and summon him to spiritual battle.

I must say that I have found the notion of original sin as "contracted and not committed" very helpful.

Offline Ivellios

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1077
  • Darwins +52/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Seek and Ye Shall Find
Re: Contradiction begins in the first two chapters
« Reply #86 on: May 02, 2012, 01:33:35 PM »
Yes, it was perfect.  Some people don't take the notion of free will seriously enough. God could have created a race of puppets. For some reason he did not. We really are the masters of our destiny in the way that ultimately matters. It is a great gift but a terrifying one, too.

Sorry, but I have to chime in. According to the bible, there is no free will. Everything that happens, is according to his will. You are like Rose DeWitt Bukater before getting onto the Titanic. It already happened, yet you watch it as if it's happening right now. Rose appears to have freewill but she really does not, because Kate is just going according to the script. No matter what she does, she cannot alter the outcome because it has already been seen. Even in the incarnation you watch, all events that happen, happened months ago before the film was released to the theaters. Then there's those that saw it in theater in '97 as well. Rose was meant to live, Jack was meant to die[1], they were never meant to be together. Life is the same way according to the bible.

God knew that drunk was going to kill him, yet in his infinite he didn't give a warning... no way to prevent the tragedy. Now 4 innocents and others have to suffer for it.

It's the same... when 2 people believe they're "meant to be together." They're made specifically for each other. God made it impossible for them to be happily married to anyone else, and if they're meant to be, they have no choice but to marry, so how's that "freewill?"
 1. iirc he died in the water holding the wood she was floating on.