Religious inconsistency question

[Retro Rob]

Upon what basis do you assume that your Biblical interpretation is the only correct one?

I could ask you the same thing -- how do you know your rationalization is the correct way to understand why XYZ had to be done?

I have no "interpretation", I try to understand details behind certain accounts so I won't rush to judgment. Sure, there are times where information simply isn't available, though.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

I could ask you the same thing -- how do you know your rationalization is the correct way to understand why XYZ had to be done?

I have suggested no such thing. Rather, I have argued repeatedly that there was nothing that was necessary for your god to have done. Can you please make a stronger effort to understand my arguments before you waste your time making senseless counterarguments that are irrelevant to mine?

I'll also note that nowhere in your response was an answer to the question you were posed.

I have no "interpretation",

Then you do not understand the meaning of the word.

I try to understand details behind certain accounts so I won't rush to judgment. Sure, there are times where information simply isn't available, though.

It would appear you haven't thoroughly examined the significance of omnipotence.

 

[Moonbeam]

ummm, we fell from grace in the Garden of Eden.

As Rob says, so many atheists take individual passages from the Bible out of context and do not understand the meaning behind the complete story. The Bible is perfectly written; our failing to understand has to do with our evil and not any lack of clarity on God's part. His message is quite clear.

Mankind of course will interpret the bible in many, many different ways. My interpretation may or may not be always correct, but underlying everything is my unshakeable faith that the Bible is God's Word. And that faith is the support in understanding their are no inconsistencies, just our lack of understanding God's message because we are imperfect beings.

Imperfect not because God made a mistake but because of our downfall by not following God's law.

All that I am saying is that you have your answers and they are acceptable to you. You are comfortable with the illogic that you believe. I was not. You went from the belief that God is perfect and created beings in his image that fell without having any explanation as to how such a thing could happen. You accept and do not question. But people who want things to be reasonable and make sense can't do that. You believe we fell in the Garden without having any idea what that meant, without any awareness of the allegorical implications, without awareness of any deeper meaning. You believe that mankind fell because Adam ate an apple. To me that's complete nonsense. But it does make sense when you realize that the Tree of Knowledge represents the mischief caused by the evolution of language and how put-downs create self hate.

The results of belief for you are your unshakable faith, your ability to accept anything, your personalization of God as a being rather than a symbol of a conscious state. You have fallen in love with the bridge that was built to be crossed, in my opinion. My only objection is that when people who think come along and grow up exposed to you kind of religion, they reject it as the atheists in this thread do. They simply can't accept things on faith and so reject any and all notions of God. They reject the bridge that was built to cross because the faithful have no answers to their questions. If we were to see all the religions of the world as bridges built to end duality, we can better keep our eyes, I think, on the real goal.

 

[Moonbeam]

babble. articulate nonsense. Also, I explicitly stated that it's not impossible, so what doors have i closed? The people claiming to know are the arrogant ones.

Please don't suppose that I am offended when you call what I wrote 'babble and articulate nonsense' and then close your post complaining of the arrogance of people claiming to know. I find it quite humorous, a standard, quite typical example of closing the door.

I offered you only words the intention of which was to point to a place you do not see. There is nothing in the words themselves without the seeing. There are no words that can impart to another an altered conscious state without the spark of insight or shock that creates it. My words are always simply empty.

After I lost my faith in the Christian religion I chanced on some books about Zen and found some folk who seemed quite happy without any faith at all. This was a shock to me. This was an impossibility and yet there it was but I couldn't understand how. This made me extremely angry. Now I had rage on top of hopelessness. Hehehehe! It seemed to have created some kind of need. Seek and you will find, they say, but I think the need to seek is key.

The real princess is found, in the story of the princess and the pea, by placing a pea under 39 mattresses and finding the girl who can't sleep in such an uncomfortable bead. Now to me that princess is a symbol for the kingdom of heaven. We have all been numbed and deadened by life and hidden that pea under 39 mattresses. Follow any sense you may have that something about our usual state of consciousness is wrong, that something is missing, that something was lost, that we have been separated from God.

 

[justoh]

Please don't suppose that I am offended when you call what I wrote 'babble and articulate nonsense' and then close your post complaining of the arrogance of people claiming to know. I find it quite humorous, a standard, quite typical example of closing the door.

I offered you only words the intention of which was to point to a place you do not see. There is nothing in the words themselves without the seeing. There are no words that can impart to another an altered conscious state without the spark of insight or shock that creates it. My words are always simply empty.

After I lost my faith in the Christian religion I chanced on some books about Zen and found some folk who seemed quite happy without any faith at all. This was a shock to me. This was an impossibility and yet there it was but I couldn't understand how. This made me extremely angry. Now I had rage on top of hopelessness. Hehehehe! It seemed to have created some kind of need. Seek and you will find, they say, but I think the need to seek is key.

The real princess is found, in the story of the princess and the pea, by placing a pea under 39 mattresses and finding the girl who can't sleep in such an uncomfortable bead. Now to me that princess is a symbol for the kingdom of heaven. We have all been numbed and deadened by life and hidden that pea under 39 mattresses. Follow any sense you may have that something about our usual state of consciousness is wrong, that something is missing, that something was lost, that we have been separated from God.

I wasn't supposing or hoping that you would be offended. I don't make statements to offend anyone. I sometimes make statements which may be offensive or likely to offend, but it's not the purpose or intent of making them.

I wasn't complaining about their arrogance. It was stated in response to a previous post where you called me arrogant. The religious make extraordinary claims, with no evidence at all, and then, ironically, often call the skeptical arrogant. I guess you aren't exactly one of them, but you're some kind of sympathizer.

Why do you find the inconsistencies of the christian bible particularly interesting and worthy of debate? Why is it inappropriate to take for granted as probably untrue propositions or anything without evidence, that are so transparently man-made, such as the christian narrative.

If we invented a new creation myth right now that was consistent, inasmuch as it could be - one that at least doesn't contradict itself - would that be a good reason to believe in it? If the religious authorities edited the bible (again) to make it a little less silly, would that help? It shouldn't.

 

[ThinClient]

You say that as if science and religion are mutually exclusive terms, or as if science and religion are "against" one another.

Seeing the amount of believers that contribute to science day in, day out, your premise is false if that is your premise.

There are also a number of scientists that pray to a personal God and/or attend worship services, and then walk into their labs everyday, do their thing, and go worship their God after work.

I've always wondered why people make this a Science vs Religion debate, when there is plenty of religion in science.

Aye, the two concepts are opposed in every way.

 

[Moonbeam]

I wasn't supposing or hoping that you would be offended. I don't make statements to offend anyone. I sometimes make statements which may be offensive or likely to offend, but it's not the purpose or intent of making them.

I wasn't complaining about their arrogance. It was stated in response to a previous post where you called me arrogant. The religious make extraordinary claims, with no evidence at all, and then, ironically, often call the skeptical arrogant. I guess you aren't exactly one of them, but you're some kind of sympathizer.

Why do you find the inconsistencies of the christian bible particularly interesting and worthy of debate? Why is it inappropriate to take for granted as probably untrue propositions or anything without evidence, that are so transparently man-made, such as the christian narrative.

If we invented a new creation myth right now that was consistent, inasmuch as it could be - one that at least doesn't contradict itself - would that be a good reason to believe in it? If the religious authorities edited the bible (again) to make it a little less silly, would that help? It shouldn't.

Well, the reason is obvious if you know that the God Christians think is real but imagine improperly, is none the less real. The point of our dialog, I hope, is to show you that you see from the point of view of non-belief, that this is your ground condition, and that once you analyze the question from that point of view, you aren't dealing with real facts. You are thinking of the problem from the point of view of an imaginary being, a completely irrational belief, when you should be looking for a God who can only be known via a conscious state of a conscious state of being. You are looking out there and do not believe in the God who isn't out there but is within you. You are inside out on the way you view things. One can believe in God or not, but to know that God is real isn't related to faith. You don't need faith. You need awakening, an inversion of the way you see you and it where you and it cease to be. You can call it enlightenment, or being reborn, or cosmic consciousness, or a million other names, all words that are empty if you lack the conscious experience of that state.

We are having a dialog and I am using some words to point to something.

 

[PowerEngineer]

No you are making an assumption that is not true. All of us sin. Sin is evil. That does not mean you are evil or I am evil all the time. But you and I both have done, do and probably will do a sinful (evil) act again in our lives.

No, I chose my words more carefully than you realize. I did not say that you or I are evil. What I did say is that at least in your eyes a person is being evil if he/she has doubts and/or looks for inconsistencies in the bible. If you want to swap "sinful" for "evil", that's fine with me.

Our differences stem from the idea that I see no inconsistencies in the Bible as there can be none since it is God's Word. "Man" finds what "man" thinks are inconsistencies because none of us have the capabilities of God Himself. So we do our best to try to understand what His Word is and in the attempt think we find those passages that are seemingly inconsistent with other passages.

Our "differences" actually stem from your assertion that there can be no inconsistencies in the bible. Given this as your starting point and adding your belief that finding inconsistencies in the bible is sinful (being evil), it's hardly surprising that you don't "see" (and can't even open your eyes to the possibility) that inconsistencies exist.

As for being open to discussion, I most certainly am as I continue to hold a discussion with you in attempting to more clearly outline my position for your understanding. I would like to see you do the same.

I think I understand your position quite clearly. A definition of the word discussion is: "the action or process of talking about something, typically in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas." If you aren't open to the idea that the bible may contain inconsistencies that point towards it being less than the unerring dictation of your god (which you seem to believe amounts to tempting you to sin), then there's not much of an exchange to be had (and certainly no hope of a decision).

 

[ThinClient]

Our differences stem from the idea that I see no inconsistencies in the Bible as there can be none since it is God's Word.

http://www.gizmodo.co.uk/2013/08/th...races-463-of-the-bibles-major-contradictions/

Your statement WREAKS of religious brainwashing. The Bible is the infallible word of god. We know because it says it is. Therefore it is infallible.

HURRRR DURRR

 

[justoh]

Well, the reason is obvious if you know that the God Christians think is real but imagine improperly, is none the less real. The point of our dialog, I hope, is to show you that you see from the point of view of non-belief, that this is your ground condition, and that once you analyze the question from that point of view, you aren't dealing with real facts. You are thinking of the problem from the point of view of an imaginary being, a completely irrational belief, when you should be looking for a God who can only be known via a conscious state of a conscious state of being. You are looking out there and do not believe in the God who isn't out there but is within you. You are inside out on the way you view things. One can believe in God or not, but to know that God is real isn't related to faith. You don't need faith. You need awakening, an inversion of the way you see you and it where you and it cease to be. You can call it enlightenment, or being reborn, or cosmic consciousness, or a million other names, all words that are empty if you lack the conscious experience of that state.

We are having a dialog and I am using some words to point to something.

Indeed. Well, carry on. Sorry for interrupting.

 

[Moonbeam]

Indeed. Well, carry on. Sorry for interrupting.

'We' referred to you and I with the intention of expressing the notion of communication rather than confrontation. I am quite used to the fact that people often react defensively especially to certain ideas. Nothing I can do about it but express my awareness of that inevitability.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

It isn't an opinion. Nothing is necessary for universe-creator, by definition.

It happened because it's His will and plan for the universe and is ultimately good.

You calling it unnecessary is definitely your opinion on the whole matter. You appear to not notice how ridiculous your thought process becomes when talking about evil.

If carried to its logical conclusion, the best way to not have any evil is to not create the universe in the first place.

Remember that evil is just the absence of good. It's not a thing in and of itself.

In fact, it's a lot more evil for man to turn away from God than any other sin. However, God wills that it would be possible for man to do so. God created man with free will as part of his nature.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

It happened because it's His will and plan for the universe and is ultimately good.

So then genocide is not really evil. Christians believe genocide is good.

Figures. :thumbsdown:

You calling it unnecessary is definitely your opinion on the whole matter.

You also appear not to have fully considered the significance of omnipotence.

You appear to not notice how ridiculous your thought process becomes when talking about evil.

No, of course I don't notice circumstances that are not instantiated in reality.

If carried to its logical conclusion, the best way to not have any evil is to not create the universe in the first place.

Preposterous. A universe creator can arbitrarily decide that nothing which transpires within its universe constitutes evil. You said yourself at the beginning of your post that anything which happens is part of "His plan for the universe" and "ultimately good."

Remember that evil is just the absence of good. It's not a thing in and of itself.

I do not accept this wholly unsubstantiated definition.

In fact, it's a lot more evil for man to turn away from God than any other sin.

Says who?

However, God wills that it would be possible for man to do so. God created man with free will as part of his nature.

And my next door neighbor has three rabbits! Cool, huh?

 

[dphantom]

Quote:
Originally Posted by dphantom
As for being open to discussion, I most certainly am as I continue to hold a discussion with you in attempting to more clearly outline my position for your understanding. I would like to see you do the same.

I think I understand your position quite clearly. A definition of the word discussion is: "the action or process of talking about something, typically in order to reach a decision or to exchange ideas." If you aren't open to the idea that the bible may contain inconsistencies that point towards it being less than the unerring dictation of your god (which you seem to believe amounts to tempting you to sin), then there's not much of an exchange to be had (and certainly no hope of a decision).

Exactly. If you are not willing to see that there are no inconsistencies, then you are right there is little hope for an exchange of ideas. We are diametrically opposed. My position is there are no inconsistencies, simply our lack of understanding.

For me to admit there are inconsistencies would be to reject God. For you to accept my position would have you accept God's infallibility and Truth as written in the Bible.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Exactly. If you are not willing to see that there are no inconsistencies, then you are right there is little hope for an exchange of ideas.

For reasonable people, it isn't a matter of will. We note that those inconsistencies are real because we are honest with ourselves, and do not begin with preconceived ideas which are immune from falsification.

We are diametrically opposed. My position is there are no inconsistencies, simply our lack of understanding.

Of course, you are free to abdicate your reason. Forgive the rest of us that we are not so willing.

For me to admit there are inconsistencies would be to reject God. For you to accept my position would have you accept God's infallibility and Truth as written in the Bible.

It rather appears to us outsiders that you worship the bible, not god.

 

[Paul98]

Exactly. If you are not willing to see that there are no inconsistencies, then you are right there is little hope for an exchange of ideas. We are diametrically opposed. My position is there are no inconsistencies, simply our lack of understanding.

For me to admit there are inconsistencies would be to reject God. For you to accept my position would have you accept God's infallibility and Truth as written in the Bible.

That is not what is happening, rational people don't start by assuming anything. They then look at the text and see what's in it, if there are inconsistencies or no inconsistencies it is what it is. You just assume there are none, what's in the bible be damned.

Why do you take the bible as God's infallible word? We can already show it was written by many different people, heck look at the multiple versions of the flood story. How do you explain all of the parts that are simply taken from previous texts and put into the bible?

 

[Pray To Jesus]

So then genocide is not really evil. Christians believe genocide is good.

Figures. :thumbsdown:

Figures you can't understand the simple logic behind ultimate good. :thumbsdown:

War is evil, but war against Nazi Germany is considered by many to be necessary and ultimately good.

You also appear not to have fully considered the significance of omnipotence.

Oh I know what it means. Since you keep arguing this point from ignorance, I have to think that you have a hard time learning and understanding more complicated ideas if it's not explained clearly.

Omnipotence means God has the power to do everything that is not self-contradictory in its nature.

No, of course I don't notice circumstances that are not instantiated in reality.

You are admitting to willful ignorance on your part. Makes perfect sense to explain your posts.

Preposterous. A universe creator can arbitrarily decide that nothing which transpires within its universe constitutes evil. You said yourself at the beginning of your post that anything which happens is part of "His plan for the universe" and "ultimately good."

God wishes free will. Evil is because of man, not because of God.

In order for God to create a universe with no evil from the start necessarily requires not giving his creatures free will.

God wanted to give man free will. Adam and Eve used their free will in choosing not to trust God's word, leading them to disobey God. This led to the fall of creation.

I do not accept this wholly unsubstantiated definition.

Your opinion doesn't matter in this regard. Refusal to accept the truth doesn't make it less true.

 

[Retro Rob]

Why do you take the bible as God's infallible word? We can already show it was written by many different people, heck look at the multiple versions of the flood story. How do you explain all of the parts that are simply taken from previous texts and put into the bible?

Are you saying for certainty the Bible's flood account was taken from others stroies?

Got any proof of this?

FWIW, the US can have laws that reflect those of other countries, so I guess we borrowed from them, or I wear the same color pants as an Arab -- so I MUST have borrowed his style...

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Figures you can't understand the simple logic behind ultimate good. :thumbsdown:

Ad hominem

War is evil, but war against Nazi Germany is considered by many to be necessary and ultimately good.

You're just contradicting yourself.

Oh I know what it means.

Quite false.

Since you keep arguing this point from ignorance...

I have made no argument from ignorance.

I have to think that you have a hard time learning and understanding more complicated ideas if it's not explained clearly.

More ad hominem.

Omnipotence means God has the power to do everything that is not self-contradictory in its nature.

But yet you suggest that God cannot do a thing which is not self-contradictory -- namely, to create a universe without evil.

You are admitting to willful ignorance on your part. Makes perfect sense to explain your posts.

Further ad hominem. Can you not muster actual arguments?

God wishes free will. Evil is because of man, not because of God.

Your positions are inconsistent.

Your opinion doesn't matter in this regard. Refusal to accept the truth doesn't make it less true.

It absolutely matters, since definitions are not a matter of truth. If you cannot substatiate your defintion in a meaningful way, you cannot assemble a persuasive argument.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

Given that Cerpin Taxt doesn't use logic and reason in his posts, it appears that it's difficult for him to understand that logic and reason are basics required for intelligible discussion.

Useless to discuss anything further with him.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Seems like Cerpin Taxt can't understand anything I post. Pretty useless to discuss it further.

More ad hominem. Is that what Jesus would do?

 

[Paul98]

Are you saying for certainty the Bible's flood account was taken from others stroies?

Got any proof of this?

FWIW, the US can have laws that reflect those of other countries, so I guess we borrowed from them, or I wear the same color pants as an Arab -- so I MUST have borrowed his style...

I was making the point that there were multiple authors, along with point that there are multiple flood stories in the bible. The part about parts coming from previous sources being put into the bible was a total different point, not about the flood stories. It was a question about how can you think an infallible god wrote the bible if people just took some stories from other places and put them in the bible. And I don't know but I wouldn't be surprised if the flood stories were rewritten from a previous story.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Given that Cerpin Taxt doesn't use logic and reason in his posts, it appears that it's difficult for him to understand the basics required for discussion club.

Useless to discuss anything further with him.

Hahaha! Using a bunch of extra words doesn't change the fact that it's still ad hominem.

 

[Retro Rob]

I was making the point that there were multiple authors

Are you taking about that Document Theory? C'mon, that isn't proof of multiple authors....its just someone disecting the books and looking for any slight inconsistency as if people can't interchange words and phrases while writing something (the words "dad" and "father" come to mind....just because I choose a different word to describe my male parent doesn't mean I didn't write it).

I mean, I don't know if you were referring to the Theory, but it sounded like it.

along with point that there are multiple flood stories in the bible

I don't know about more than one flood story...I may have missed something.

It was a question about how can you think an infallible god wrote the bible if people just took some stories from other places and put them in the bible. And I don't know but I wouldn't be surprised if the flood stories were rewritten from a previous story.

You're saying that as if you know for sure, or can prove, the Bible stole stories from other places and tried to make them authentic. I don't think you know, or can prove factually. Like I said above, similarties doesn't NOT mean someone stole something.

I will grant you though, that Bible writers did use outside sources to report certain accounts about people who may have been dead at the time of writing...but modern day scholars do the same thing....they use other sources to validate what they're writing about, or researching.

 

[Pray To Jesus]

Hahaha! Using a bunch of extra words doesn't change the fact that it's still ad hominem.

LoL. I agree that you should cry about ad hominem, because crying is only thing you can do when faced with logic and reason.

You don't bother with logical explanations in posts.

Your argument and posts all boils down to, "this is my opinion, and that's the way it is." You can't understand simple concepts that I bring up, so you resort to using your opinions as a response.

Sad.