Does God exist? (7 Viewers)

[SammyT123]

The fact that they differ on the details debunks the claim that they just copied off each account, and show they are independent accounts.

HAHAHA If only this were true. I could just copy my friends' essays and make it so mine "differs in the details".
Using your logic, because my essay "differs in the details", it shows our essays are independant work.

Seriously dude. Just because two historical accounts differ on the details slightly, it doesn't mean they are not copied.

If my essays SIGNIFICANTLY differs from my friends, then yes, the university would not charge me of any plaguarism
If the Bible differs significantly tho, I would be worried ...

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why does God contradict himself?

1. God loves his children, so he becomes human and suffers and dies for their sins
2. God hates the world so much he committed genocide ( Great flood )

He cannot make up his mind. Two completely different ways of dealing with sinners.
"I will only save Noah because he is righteous"
VS
"I will save all the sinners who are not righteous"
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Plus, if God DOES exist I would be extremely worried. He sounds like a total jerk
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt_list.html
Some of those verses are just downright disgusting, as if they were taken from some sick sadistic head. Why send the devils to chase innocent animals who then run into the water and die?


Another thing to think about. Why does god create such a terrible world? Why not improve the quality of life, even a little? If I were a god, I would at least do something about innocent children being born with life threatening diseases.

 

[SammyT123]

[1] & [6] Technical Explanation:
One is tracing lineage to Joseph, the other to Mary. The translation isn't super clear for Luke, but that is the difference. The phrasing in Luke "son so it was thought of" was to alert the reader of the non-convention of taking the mother's line instead of the father's line. (But was written as such to demonstrate the theological significance but that is another point).
[2] Actually it is very likely that Matthew is giving Joseph's perspective and Luke is giving Mary's perspective. Two different announcements, and hardly contradictory.
[3] 12 years pass, the parents could have quite forgotten or not fully understood what was said to them 12 years earlier.
[5] Matthew deliberately omitted generations in his genealogy. (7 was symbolic number)
[6] - see [1] above
[7] Peter was called Cephas as well as Simon. Paul was also called Saul. Common practice for people to have multiple names. Emmanuel is more of an allusion to Isaiah 9:6, it means "God with us"
[8] Argument from ignorance. We don't know whether John the Baptist fled or not; or anything concerning him. Some make the claim that John's father was killed, but really I don't know.
[11] John 14:30 taken out of context. It doesn't say Satan has no interest in Jesus. It says that he has no power/hold over me, something completely different. Claim made is false or misleading.
[12] Omission of information on part of Mark or John, doesn't mean contradiction.
[13] Matthew 11:1-3 taken out of context. Even, John the Baptist, had his doubts while in prison.
[14] John's Gospel makes no mention of Jesus beginning his ministry in Galilee. He was baptising but maybe that was not considered as part of his teaching ministry, which is emphasised by Mark.
[15] Different perspective, not a contradiction.
[16] Matthew passage doesn't state who God is addressing. Claim made is false.
[17] Would have to look into the chronology in John.

[1] Doesn't matter. Still a contradiction regardless of why it arose.
[2] Joseph and Mary had such different perspectives about their son? Good to know. Why use the word parents then when it is clearly misleading?
[3] Fair point, parents forgot after such a long time. Accounts still contradict each other.
[4] Im assuming the parents forgot again, which is reasonable. Accounts are still contradictory
[5] Where does it say he removed generations?
[6] Still a contradiction, regardless of why it arose
[7] That makes sense, not a contradiction
[8] So did they or did they not flee? Did the Herod slaughter all males under 2 years old or not? You do not know because the two accounts contradict each other.
[9] Blatant contradiction
[10] Another contradiction

And so forth....
You give (good) reasons for why the contradictions arose (Different perspectives, a long time has passed so people forget etc).
But it is still contradictory. Do you think any other person will have any sort of credibility if they write books with so much inconsistency? The person may have perfectly reasonable explanations for them, but I would much rather not read it, let alone alter my entire perspective on the universe because of it.

 

[dan964]

[1] Doesn't matter. Still a contradiction regardless of why it arose.

[2] Joseph and Mary had such different perspectives about their son? Good to know. Why use the word parents then when it is clearly misleading?

Not really.

[3] Fair point, parents forgot after such a long time. Accounts still contradict each other.

Show it? I think you will find the parents didn't quite understand fully what was going on at the time. So it reasonable to think that
"“Do not be afraid, Mary, for you have found favor with God. And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall call his name Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High. And the Lord God will give to him the throne of his father David, 33 and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there will be no end.”" - Luke 1

"And he said to them, “Why were you looking for me? Did you not know that I must be in my Father's house?” And they did not understand the saying that he spoke to them." - Luke 2

It is reasonable to think that despite being told everything they were told at conception, that they still didn't understand. The problem with the site, is it takes the passage, takes what it wants to say and then shoves together with another text.

[4] Im assuming the parents forgot again, which is reasonable. Accounts are still contradictory

The angel told them both, what is the problem?

[5] Where does it say he removed generations?

This requires understanding of Jewish literature. 7 is a symbolic number, Matthew's genealogy had more of a theological point.

[6] Still a contradiction, regardless of why it arose

Nope not if they are different genealogies. One of the mother's line and one of the father's line. Although there are variety of ways that people view the two:
https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-genealogy.html

[7] That makes sense, not a contradiction

[8] So did they or did they not flee? Did the Herod slaughter all males under 2 years old or not? You do not know because the two accounts contradict each other.

The site you linked makes the conclusion/argument from ignorance and presumptions. It is assuming a lot of information that wasn't recorded about John the baptist.
It also doesn't carefully read the text. Herod slaughtered infants in Bethlehem and its surrounding district, not the whole country.
This is what happens when verses are taken out of context.
[/QUOTE]
Sorry, I didn't address 9-10; as I didn't in my original reply either. Probably because I felt they fell under the reason [0].

You give (good) reasons for why the contradictions arose (Different perspectives, a long time has passed so people forget etc).
But it is still contradictory.

I give good reasons why a simple out-of-context generates a lot of problems to understanding the text. Some of them appear contradictory, but when properly understood, seem to synthesis fine. Others, end up being differing in the details, which in reality, is no different than 2 witnesses disputing whether the car was black or charcoal.

Do you think any other person will have any sort of credibility if they write books with so much inconsistency? The person may have perfectly reasonable explanations for them, but I would much rather not read it, let alone alter my entire perspective on the universe because of it.

You forget they are written by different authors. If they copied off each other, they would all be the same. I think the fact that the details differ at points, depending on the style of writing (Mark is very fast paced, so he squashed content together), is not a bad thing, but actually shows they are somewhat writing independently of each other.

As mentioned before, you give very little reasons and many of the site, displays very little attempt to properly read the text in context or understand key Christian teachings (in the letters), unfortunately (which is why I didn't bother addressing some of the later ones)

 

[dan964]

HAHAHA If only this were true. I could just copy my friends' essays and make it so mine "differs in the details".
Using your logic, because my essay "differs in the details", it shows our essays are independant work.

Seriously dude. Just because two historical accounts differ on the details slightly, it doesn't mean they are not copied.
If my essays SIGNIFICANTLY differs from my friends, then yes, the university would not charge me of any plaguarism
If the Bible differs significantly tho, I would be worried ...

Your essay and the Bible are two different things because basically your argument is:
- If they are the same, they were copied (make sense it is called plagiarism)
- If they are different, they still were copied.

So there is your assumption. You assume they must be copied or if they weren't they must be so vastly different, so they are wrong.
I reject such an assumption.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why does God contradict himself?

1. God loves his children, so he becomes human and suffers and dies for their sins
2. God hates the world so much he committed genocide ( Great flood )

Yes it is possible for God to both hate and love. Psalm 11:5 and John 3:16, read in the same mouthful.
Tricky thing to understand why though. Even Christians don't understand fully.

God loves, because we are his creation.
God hates, because we reject him. It is loving for him to bring justice to a world. Unfortunately we (all humanity) are a part of the problem, and not a part of the solution.

He cannot make up his mind. Two completely different ways of dealing with sinners.
"I will only save Noah because he is righteous"
VS
"I will save all the sinners who are not righteous"

You might need to actually find where they are in the Bible, the Bible nevers says directly: "I will save all the sinners who are not righteous" (otherwise all would be saved).
In fact God tends to save only a remnant, in the time of Noah, it was only Noah and his family.

In the time of Exodus, a whole generation except 2 men died wandering in the desert.
I think you are making conjectures without actually understanding the full picture.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Plus, if God DOES exist I would be extremely worried. He sounds like a total jerk
http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/cruelty/nt_list.html

Some of those verses are just downright disgusting, as if they were taken from some sick sadistic head. Why send the devils to chase "innocent" animals who then run into the water and die?

Good question. What do you think? To be specific, they were pigs. And the demons* (pick a better translation) asked him, and he allowed it. (Jews must have not liked pigs, oh wait they don't - slightly sarcastic)

Got to love the skeptics annotated bible though, using the Old english translations. (more sarcasm)

On a serious note, why are animals innocent? (I am pretty sure Jesus was not a vegan)

Another thing to think about. Why does god create such a terrible world? Why not improve the quality of life, even a little? If I were a god, I would at least do something about innocent children being born with life threatening diseases.

Another good question. Maybe he does.

Presumption: The world is terrible because God made it that way. Eh, no.

God did not create a terrible world, he created a very good world. Then humans rejected God, and that is why the world is terrible. Long story short that is why people are born with disease and poor quality of life.

Well you might ask why doesn't God fix it. He will, but to clean up the mess properly, he would have to remove the problem, us. That is problematic, as you yourself have commented on verses that speak of this very concept (called judgement).

That is why Jesus came, in a sense, so that those who trust in him, won't be cleaned up in the massive clean up job. He steps into our mess, undergoes the same kind of suffering even dying ETC.

Obviously that answer isn't going to satisfy you or your many questions.

 

[SammyT123]

Thanks for being bothered to reply
It is nice discussing this with someone like you (knowledgable)

]
Show it?
It is reasonable to think that despite being told everything they were told at conception, that they still didn't understand.

Yes they did not understand. Yes they probably forgot after 12 years.
A contradiction still exists.

]
This requires understanding of Jewish literature. 7 is a symbolic number, Matthew's genealogy had more of a theological point.

You did not answer my question.
Not quite happy with this answer either . You can't say Matthew removed generations with no reason other than "The number 7 is special".

]
Nope not if they are different genealogies. One of the mother's line and one of the father's line. Although there are variety of ways that people view the two:
https://www.gotquestions.org/Jesus-genealogy.html

Which one is correct? You cannot say (and will not say), because both are contradictory.

]

The site you linked makes the conclusion/argument from ignorance and presumptions. It is assuming a lot of information that wasn't recorded about John the baptist.

May be the case, but be specific.

]
It also doesn't carefully read the text. Herod slaughtered infants in Bethlehem and its surrounding district, not the whole country.
This is what happens when verses are taken out of context.

A Red herring. I do not care about the geographical span of the murder.
Let me be clear
Verse A: Joseph, Mary, and Jesus flee to Egypt
Verse B: Joseph, Mary, and Jesus did not flee to Egypt

Verse A: Herod slaughters all males under 2 years old
Verse B: No mention of any slaughter

I see a contradiction.

]
Sorry, I didn't address 9-10; as I didn't in my original reply either. Probably because I felt they fell under the reason [0].

Thats ok. What do you mean by reason 0?

]
I give good reasons why a simple out-of-context generates a lot of problems to understanding the text. Some of them appear contradictory, but when properly understood, seem to synthesis fine.

See above

]
Others, end up being differing in the details, which in reality, is no different than 2 witnesses disputing whether the car was black or charcoal.

Black or charcoal can be mistaken. The site I mentioned above contains contradictions of a much higher severity. 194 of them.

]
As mentioned before, you give very little reasons

Be clear. Reasons for what?

]
... and many of the site, displays very little attempt to properly read the text in context or understand key Christian teachings (in the letters), unfortunately (which is why I didn't bother addressing some of the later ones)

Sure, but as mentioned above. Point them out. Sadly I will not take your word for it

 

[SammyT123]

Your essay and the Bible are two different things because basically your argument is:
- If they are the same, they were copied (make sense it is called plagiarism)
- If they are different, they still were copied.

So there is your assumption. You assume they must be copied or if they weren't they must be so vastly different, so they are wrong.
I reject such an assumption.

You do not comprehend my argument correctly (if at all)
You said: The fact that they differ on the details debunks the claim that they just copied off each account, and show they are independent accounts.


No it does not. Just because two pieces of work differ slightly in detail, it does not 'debunk the claim that they are copied'
Also, I never made the claim that they were copied. Not sure why you assumed this. However I reject the statement.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Why does God contradict himself?

Yes it is possible for God to both hate and love. Psalm 11:5 and John 3:16, read in the same mouthful.
Tricky thing to understand why though.

It is possible for anyone to both hate and love. I do not doubt that.
You missed the point. See below

Even Christians don't understand fully.
You might need to actually find where they are in the Bible, the Bible nevers says directly: "I will save all the sinners who are not righteous" (otherwise all would be saved).
In fact God tends to save only a remnant, in the time of Noah, it was only Noah and his family.

Let me be clear
First treatment of sinners : Kill them all in a great flood
Second treatment of sinners: Become human, suffer and sacrifice myself for them
?????????

Good question. What do you think? To be specific, they were pigs. And the demons* (pick a better translation) asked him, and he allowed it. (Jews must have not liked pigs, oh wait they don't - slightly sarcastic)

Please provide one justification for the cruel treatment of those pigs by god.

On a serious note, why are animals innocent?

Simple. They do not have moral agency. They cannot distinguish right from wrong.

Another good question. Maybe he does.
Presumption: The world is terrible because God made it that way. Eh, no.
God did not create a terrible world, he created a very good world. Then humans rejected God, and that is why the world is terrible. Long story short that is why people are born with disease and poor quality of life.

So, god created a very good world, but a child is born with disease because the child rejected god? That is an extremely poor justification.

You missed my second point. God could, right at his very instant, heal everyone from cancer. Why not? What gives? It almost seems like a dick move not to.

Well you might ask why doesn't God fix it. He will, but to clean up the mess properly, he would have to remove the problem, us. That is problematic, as you yourself have commented on verses that speak of this very concept (called judgement).

:/
God does not have to "remove us' to heal my friend of cancer. He could do it via a miracle. But he will not.
If I were an all knowing god, I would heal my friend (unless I was an asshole).

That is why Jesus came, in a sense, so that those who trust in him, won't be cleaned up in the massive clean up job. He steps into our mess, undergoes the same kind of suffering even dying ETC.

Not sure why he went through suffering with us when he could just help us.
And woah, that is quite a terrible being. If you don't trust in him, you will be 'cleaned up in the massive clean up job'
and I thought Kim Jong Un was bad...

Obviously that answer isn't going to satisfy you or your many questions.

Correct. See above



Oh, and one more thing..
I still haven't got anything from you when you referred to a "collection of arguments". Third time asking, can you give me just one? The one which is the most convincing in your personal opinion.

 

[dan964]

===quote:
It is reasonable to think that despite being told everything they were told at conception, that they still didn't understand. Yes they did not understand. Yes they probably forgot after 12 years.
===

Yep even after the disciples saw the feeding of the 4000, and the 5000, they still didn't believe or understand properly. In fact they are pretty "daft" if you would like throughout most of the accounts, (doesn't look too good for them)

====quote:
You did not answer my question.
Not quite happy with this answer either . You can't say Matthew removed generations with no reason other than "The number 7 is special".
====

It is in Jewish literature. The account in Genesis is 6 + 1 = 7. Jewish sabbath was on the 7 days. Even in our culture, numbers have meaning, such as 13 meaning a curse; or in Chinese culture, number 8 mean lucky. 7 is meaning completeness. Didn't quite catch what your question was. In the book of Revelation, there are 7 churches, 7 spirits of God, 7 seals, 7 trumpets, 7 bowls; for the Jews 7 was a significant number of completness, and Matthew intentionally reflects that in his decision to omit names.

===quote:
Which one is correct? You cannot say (and will not say), because both are contradictory.
===

Ah, no. As mentioned before, one is tracing the mother's line and one is tracing the father's line. Mary & Joseph are both descended from David by different lines.

One traces his lineage through his mother and the other the father, how is that contradictory? Maybe not super clear for us. Let me us my own example:
My father's lineage is TDP, DP, LP (formerly LD) and my mother's lineage is AP (nee AO), KO (her father) etc. (just using intiials for privacy sake). I think that is what is in view with the two different accounts.
Luke is more definitely using Mary's perspective, as there are bits of information that only Mary would know; so it makes sense that the lineage is through Mary (the phrasing "as was supposed" in English for the reader then, is supposed to a 'aha' something unconventional is happening here, the Greek is the word nomizo (long o sound), which means to "suppose, presume" or "to be usual, customary")

====quote:
May be the case, but be specific...
A Red herring. I do not care about the geographical span of the murder.
Let me be clear
Verse A: Joseph, Mary, and Jesus flee to Egypt
Verse B: Joseph, Mary, and Jesus did not flee to Egypt
Verse A: Herod slaughters all males under 2 years old
Verse B: No mention of any slaughter
I see a contradiction.

===

I think a key problem, arising is presuming that events occur one after the other, and so there is no room for other things to happen. That is incredibly bad assumption when coming to the Gospel accounts, as in general, events recorded were more of a collation, (I am not sure the site you linked picked up on this, but there are differences in the ordering of the events, which if they are supposed to be completely chronological, it would lead to much more problems than the 194)

For instance, do we know that John the Baptist was in the same vicinity that Herod killed the children?
No, although, as there is no data from the Bible. However, some catholics argue from a non-biblical text (called the protoevangelum of James) that Elizabeth did flee with John in the desert. Some argue that John was born in Hebron so wasn't affected (as only Bethelehem was affected).

The issue is understanding the timing:
the events in Matthew appear happen over a larger time frame than those in Luke's nativity account. They are complimentary accounts in one sense, Matthew mentions the escape to Egypt, Luke does not. To argue there is a contradiction, simply because it doesn't make sense; or because both people don't mention the same things, is genius, but also flawed in its approach. All gospel accounts (whether you think this is convenient or not), don't cover every detail, and sometimes smash events that didn't necessarily occur one after the one
(one such example is Luke 2:39, Jesus circumcised in the temple then immediately returning to Galilee, that is where the supposed problem is)

We assume incorrectly that the wise man came immediately when Jesus was born,
I will start actually putting the verses in, rather than just recycling what the skeptic site is.
Matthew writes placing the events of the wise men (or magi) not as directly after Jesus' birth.
"After Jesus was born in Bethlehem in Judea, during the time of King Herod". (2:1)

"Herod realized that he had been outwitted by the Magi, he was furious, and he gave orders to kill all the boys in Bethlehem and its vicinity who were two years old and under, in accordance with the time he had learned from the Magi" (2:16)
There are some bits of information in that last section. Herod kills all those under 2 years old, why 2, if Jesus had just be born, why not kill those under 3 months? The only information we have is "accordance with the time he had learned". It has been suggested that Jesus was around the age of 2 years old, or at least several days after the events in Luke (temple rituals), which are given a strict time of 8 days after Jesus' birth.

Links here to the two books using a fairly accepted translation, as I cannot copy/paste it all for time reasons.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew+1-2&version=ESV
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+1-2&version=ESV

In general, the two chapters of Matthew & Luke can be synthesised using the information that is there (rather than as follow)

>>A. Luke 1:26-38 === Announcement to Mary by angel (Mary is already betrothed).
1:39 indicates that with haste (implies 'soon afterwards')
1:56 makes clear that Mary returns to her own home after 3 months (traditionally in Nazareth)

>>B. Matthew 1:18-24 === Joseph finds out Mary is pregant
1:18 Joseph discovers Mary to be with child.
1:24 They are then married, and Mary enters his home. (Which means that A must definitely has to come before B)
1:25 Jesus is born and named as such (Luke's account suggests this single statement covers at least the 8 days)
(Interestingly Matthew makes no detailed account of the actual birth, Luke unpacks this one verse)

>> B'' Luke 2:1-38/39
Luke's account zooms in 1:25.
2:1-16: Jesus' birth
2:21-2:38 Fixes the events in the temple as 8 days after the birth
2:39*** = when they return to Galilee. This is where you could argue your case.

Note: Jesus is only named 8 days after his birth. Since it would make sense for the events in Matthew 1:25, to come before Matthew 2:1

>>B''' (or C) Matthew 2:22-23
2:1 Events after Jesus' birth (after is very generic)
2:22-23 Exactly the same as Luke 2:39, the return to Nazareth.

And then some suggest that the flight on Egypt is "shoved in" between Luke 2:38-39.
(The Law refers to the Law and prophets, refer to the link for detail on 2:39)

In summary these are their movements from Jesus' birth:
A: MJ&J in Bethlehem(Luke 2:1-20)
B': Circumcision and naming of Jesus (Luke 2:21) - this was 8 days after J birth
(location not given)
B'': MJ&J in Jerusalem for dedication - this was 40 days after J birth
C: MJ&J return to Bethlehem to live in house (as opposed to 'stable'*) - Matthew 2
D: Magi visit and then flight to Egypt
E: Return to Nazareth (as per 2:39, when Law/Prophets are fulfilled) after death of Herod.

This site is probably much better worded than I could on a forum
http://www.biblecenter.de/bibel/widerspruch/e-wds06.php
*using term loosely, as this is not mentioned. Note: 'inn' is ok as a translation but that is an interesting aside. (Look up whether Jesus was actually born in an stable, might come as an interesting read)

Alternatively, some suggest that Matthews account is at least one year and suggests a slightly different movement for Joseph/Mary.
A. Go to Bethlehem
B. Return to Nazareth
C. Back to Bethlehem
D. Magi visit, then Egypt and then back to Nazareth.

This site http://www.answering-islam.org/Responses/Menj/egypt.htm presents this another way goes into a lot more detail (note: it is addressing Muslims not atheists, so don't expect it to answer all questions). And please note, I don't agree with everything he says hear, on necessarily on the rest of the site.

The main thing to note, "whatever the age, it seems clear, that the Magi's visitation didn't occur only days after Christ's birth." The timing isn't super clear and I can understand why you though the accounts couldn't be harmonized.
===quote:
Thats ok. What do you mean by reason 0?
===
The pre-amble before the other reasons, which you already addressed. I type up things separately sometimes and didn't paste the number.

===quote
Sure, but as mentioned above. Point them out. Sadly I will not take your word for it.
===

Sure I will create a short but not exhaustive list in the next reply.

 

[dan964]

Part 2: your quotes don't have your name on them oh well

Your essay and the Bible are two different things because basically your argument is:
- If they are the same, they were copied (make sense it is called plagiarism)
- If they are different, they still were copied.
So there is your assumption. You assume they must be copied or if they weren't they must be so vastly different, so they are wrong.
I reject such an assumption.

You do not comprehend my argument correctly (if at all)
You said: The fact that they differ on the details debunks the claim that they just copied off each account, and show they are independent accounts.
No it does not. Just because two pieces of work differ slightly in detail, it does not 'debunk the claim that they are copied'

No, of course not but it causes great doubt to the claim. It is a legal argument of witness, rather than a english argument. If every person recounted the story EXACTLY the same, as in a test, then that would show that they are MOST CERTAINLY copied.

Your example was elementary. The fact that Matthew and Luke differ significantly on the nativity story should add to that, and comment on different things. Most scholars believe that Matthew & Luke were inspired from Mark and some source Q, that is technically what is going on, sorry for not being more specific.

Also, I never made the claim that they were copied. Not sure why you assumed this. However I reject the statement.

It was implied from the example about essays that you gave. Sorry if i was being too presumptious.

It is possible for anyone to both hate and love. I do not doubt that.
You missed the point. See below

Even Christians don't understand fully.
You might need to actually find where they are in the Bible, the Bible nevers says directly: "I will save all the sinners who are not righteous" (otherwise all would be saved).
In fact God tends to save only a remnant, in the time of Noah, it was only Noah and his family.

Let me be clear
First treatment of sinners : Kill them 'all' in a great flood
Second treatment of sinners: Become human, suffer and sacrifice myself for them

'All' except the righteous that is Noah and his family.

After Noah, God made a covenant:
"I will remember my covenant that is between me and you and every living creature of all flesh. And the waters shall never again become a flood to destroy all flesh. " - Genesis 9:15

(Although just in general, Christians take care with trying to literally interpret events like the flood and all that, most Christians including myself generally are pretty vague on whether the flood was literal or symbolic to be honest, but that is an aside)

So that is your answer, God promised not to do it then. Peter argues in his letters
"By the same word the present heavens and earth are reserved for fire, being kept for the day of judgment and destruction of the ungodly." - 2 Peter 3:7

So through out the Bible, God judges the wicked and saves or justifies the righteous. That is what a judge will do. So then you may ask, how on earth can God can God justify the ungodly?

That is wonderful thing of the cross. Paul talks of how God put forwards Jesus as a "atonement" payment, or a ransom payment (buy-back slave language), and by dying meets the needs of God's justice.

People still die though, and will face judgement; but some will be saved at the final day, and live because of Jesus. The writer of Hebrews includes Noah in those people, who trusted in God's promises (which all point forward to Jesus).

Good question. What do you think? To be specific, they were pigs. And the demons* (pick a better translation) asked him, and he allowed it. (Jews must have not liked pigs, oh wait they don't - slightly sarcastic)

Please provide one justification for the cruel treatment of those pigs by god.

See below...

On a serious note, why are animals innocent?

Simple. They do not have moral agency. They cannot distinguish right from wrong.

Not really my subject domain, but that is a philosophical argument at the moment on that.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16906349
I don't think we can declare animals as either guilty or innocent to be consistent. But that is just my take on it. So if a lions goes out an mauls a child, we kill the bear usually (isn't there something similar with the Harambe case).
I am not exactly an avid animal-rights activist at all, nor understand the complexities in your position. In Leviticus, God gave the Jews (just the Jews though), a list of foods that were considered clean or unclean, to set them apart from other nations. These foods including pig, shellfish were seen as 'ceremonially' unclean. As a result, pigs and those who herded pigs were viewed as unclean in Jewish culture. (and yes Jesus was a Jew)
Another term for demons (or devils) were called "unclean spirits", so there is a bit of irony in the instance that the demons would want to go into the unclean animals.

Another good question. Maybe he does.
Presumption: The world is terrible because God made it that way. Eh, no.
God did not create a terrible world, he created a very good world. Then humans rejected God, and that is why the world is terrible. Long story short that is why people are born with disease and poor quality of life.

Well you might ask why doesn't God fix it. He will, but to clean up the mess properly, he would have to remove the problem, us. That is problematic, as you yourself have commented on verses that speak of this very concept (called judgement).

:/
God does not have to "remove us' to heal my friend of cancer. He could do it via a miracle. But he will not. If I were an all knowing god, I would heal my friend (unless I was an asshole).

So you are putting yourselves in God's shoes, but you are not God.
Hmm, continued after more comments...

So, god created a very good world, but a child is born with disease because the child rejected god? That is an extremely poor justification.

You missed my second point. God could, right at his very instant, heal everyone from cancer. Why not? What gives? It almost seems like a dick move not to.

Not quite like that. Christians reject karma, and the book of Job, as well as several parts of the New Testament, makes it clear that in Christianity, that the connection between a specific sin and suffering is tenuous and blurred. The exact cause of a particular suffering is never given and in Christianity, it is deliberately not clear. I will elaborate.

Jesus picks up on that saying:
"Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them: do you think that they were worse offenders than all the others who lived in Jerusalem? No, I tell you; but unless you repent, you will all likewise perish.”"
The tower in Siloam was a disaster, suffering if you were, people were thinking that they had committed some sin/wrong to deserve that suffering (like karma), and Jesus says clearly No (and then implies that we all have the same fate). Jesus argues similarly in John 9, that a man's blindness (born blind), was not due to his individual sin nor his parent's sin.
The reason there is disease, and sorry it was clear yes is because of sin, but there is more detail needed:

In Romans, Paul writes "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men". When Adam sinned and disobeyed God, he was kind of like our representative of humanity, and when he fell, we fell; and so we are all in sense in slavery to sin. (think of ambadassadors to other countries, or Olympic medallists, when they win, our nation wins in a sense).

When God created the world, he created it with this order...
God > Man > Everything else (creation).

In think of it as logically, when you cut off the source of life, death* results with all its variations. (* term used loosely here)

What happened, when Adam sinned is this got flipped: Creation > Man > God. And so the world including all forms of suffering, illness is because the world is as you would say "terrible", or as I would call it broken. Now the reality we see and experience is suffering and seemingly unjust suffering too!
Why doesn't God heal everybody? Does he have to? He certainly has the power to.
In comes down to the big question of the whole picture of history. God could yes heal someone's cancer, but surely he can do something much spectacular than that? We have done lots of cancer research, but what God will do will certainly fix the problem totally.
(When Jesus came, we saw a taste platter of it I guess)

Aside: the logical flow is this:
Humans reject God > Sin breaks the world > World is now broken > Bad things now happen.

My answer is two-fold:
1. Suffering highlights to us this world is broken. It speaks of our "human-ness" and our desperate condition. Not every specific suffering can be explained, but in general there is a purpose as to why creation (including disease/natural disaster) isn't fixed by a snap of God's fingers. Maybe it is hard to understand, because we don't certainly come neutral when judging what should be done, but God is somehow able to hold all the pieces and all possibilites together.

The writer of the Ecclesiastes notes the futility of human's struggles, we work, we eat and then we die kind of thing.
2. Secondly, God is not immune to our suffering, he actually steps into it, as mentioned before (I will come back to this a bit later)
Paul then writes this:
"For I consider that the sufferings of this present time are not worth comparing with the glory that is to be revealed to us. For the creation waits with eager longing for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not willingly, but because of him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself will be set free from its bondage to corruption and obtain the freedom of the glory of the children of God." - Romans 8
I will return to explain why he subjects the world to futility. Paul argues in Romans, as part of his justice, he gives us over to what we want, but unfortunately what want is not God (we don't seek God).

I have been reading through Exodus with a friend, and it is about God rescuing (the Israelites) out of Israel. God sends Moses to Pharaoh who then says to let the Israelites, let my people go. But Pharaoh rejects God. God then in judgement (like a judge), sends disasters, but Pharaoh keeps refusing.

But what gets me, is God would send plague/disaster, Pharaoh would realise that and promise to let God's people go, and ask God to end the plague, he would but then Pharoah would go back and pretend that God didn't exist again.
Suffering should be a wake up call that something is broken and needs fixing, kind of like a warning sign.
I don't have a full answer for case by case of course, because suffering is real and personal for everyone, and I could give all these nice tight philosophical answers about why, it doesn't change anything of the reality.
Jesus in Mark 2:1-14, demonstrates however there is much more bigger problem. God could keep on healing cancer, in fact Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, but then he died again;
God has to deal with the root-cause of suffering and evil not just the outward cases of it. And that is where for Christians, Jesus steps into the picture...
I continue after throwing another quote in...

That is why Jesus came, in a sense, so that those who trust in him, won't be cleaned up in the massive clean up job. He steps into our mess, undergoes the same kind of suffering even dying ETC.

Not sure why he went through suffering with us when he could just help us.
And woah, that is quite a terrible being. If you don't trust in him, you will be 'cleaned up in the massive clean up job'. and I thought Kim Jong Un was bad...

Do you think the Nuremberg trials were just in their condemnation of SS soldiers and that?
You see the measure God uses to judge, is very different to ours. We look at people like Mother Teresa or the Dalai Lama and say they are good people; and look at Hitler or Pol Pott and say they are bad. But God doesn't have such a standard, and such a standard to him is double standard.
Let me us an illustration, imagine your parents paid for your entire university course, e.g. you receive like $100 payments every week, got in the degree, that made them happy, you got in a high-paying job, the top of the world, and had a 'model' family etc. But there is only one problem, you never talk to your parents; and most of all you continue to take that payment.
In the same way, how all of humanity, old and small, treat God. It is a terrible thing.
And we think God is being unreasonable in cutting off the supply of good things from his end (thankfully he still gives rain and that), because we don't want him anyway?
We want God to heal us, fix us but when he has done that, we still reject God.
Is God unjust?

I think there needs to be a bigger perspective, which frankly even I don't have down-packed. To come back to (2), why did Jesus have to suffer?
Isaiah writes concerning the Christ (and many other Old Testament writings say also things):
"But he was pierced for our transgressions, he was crushed for our iniquities; the punishment that brought us peace was on him, and by his wounds we are healed.
We all, like sheep, have gone astray, each of us has turned to our own way; and the Lord has laid on him the iniquity of us all...
Yet it was the Lord’s will to crush him and cause him to suffer, and though the Lord makes his life an offering for sin, he will see his offspring and prolong his days, and the will of the Lord will prosper in his hand. After he has suffered, he will see the light of life and be satisfied; by his knowledge my righteous servant will justify many, and he will bear their iniquities."
and in Romans, Paul writes
"For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith."

In the God's great courtroom, the verdict is we are guilty, this is a much bigger problem that needs fixing, we fall short of God's standard. And death and by a loose extension, suffering is supposed to point us to this bigger problem.
Jesus then comes and takes on our sin and satisfies the justice of God:
- Offering a payment to buy back people from slavery to sin.
- A sacrifice, a substitute: paying the penalty owed (death) from the offence instead of us
- Bringing new life
And these benefits come to those who trust in him, justified by faith. (Declared innocent through trusting in his things). (That is the heart of the Christian message, BTW)
That is why Jesus had to suffer, that is how he helps us.

Obviously that answer isn't going to satisfy you or your many questions.

Correct. See above
Oh, and one more thing..
I still haven't got anything from you when you referred to a "collection of arguments". Third time asking, can you give me just one? The one which is the most convincing in your personal opinion.

No, because no-one was ever convinced of their views by one single argument, even you aren't but since you insist, I will give you this one as a key one:

The resurrection of Jesus of course. Because the Christian faith stands or falls on that one.

 

[dan964]

Theology problems with some objections: and this is just a small selection...

[52] Misunderstanding about who is righteous. People are declared righteousness because of Jesus (skeptic failed to read Romans 3:10 in context), other two verses flow logically fit in with Paul's argument in Romans 3:10-25.

[96] Misunderstanding about death. John is referring to the second death. Hebrews 9:27, not understood, properly: men die and face judgement. This judgement is determined who will be raised to life again and who will undergo the "second death".
[141] Misinterpretation of the book of Revelation. As one studying this very book, as mentioned with number 7, Jews used numbers sometimes as symbols. 12 is the number of Israel, times by 12, times by a really big number 1000. that is where the figure comes from.
Also taken out of context, because it describes a great multitude that no-one could count.
[32], [90], [170]
[171] Misunderstanding about Jesus as the God-Man. Lack of understanding of the titles used. (Yes they are both titles)
[172] Although not really in this category, again out of context. I am really not thinking this site does a good job of handling the text properly. Reading in context, Paul is paraphrasing a "human" argument. He himself is not saying that he lies. Other verses used here, are referring when Paul wanted to stress the truthfulness of what he was saying in general.

[194] Conflation. More than several "apostles" (simply means 'sent')

 

[SammyT123]

Yep even after the disciples saw the feeding of the 4000, and the 5000, they still didn't believe or understand properly. In fact they are pretty "daft" if you would like throughout most of the accounts, (doesn't look too good for them)

Ok, verse is still contradictory

It is in Jewish literature ....

That is so fkn sketchy that he intentionally altered numbers so it includes the special digit 7. He pretty much lied to include the digit. If I did that as an accountant I would go to jail.

Also, why did he only modify this number and not other numbers which appear in the bible to include a 7?

Ah, no. As mentioned before, one is tracing the mother's line and one is tracing the father's line. Mary & Joseph are both descended from David by different lines.
...
...

My father is S. No matter which way you trace it. Any human or animal has one biological father. What are you confused about?

I think a key problem, arising is presuming that events occur one after the other, and so there is no room for other things to happen. To argue there is a contradiction, simply because it doesn't make sense; or because both people don't mention the same things, is genius, but also flawed in its approach.

Did they, or did they not flee to Egypt?
Did Herod slaughter infants or not?
You can not give me an answer that is does not contradict at least one of the two statements.

However, some catholics argue from a non-biblical text (called the protoevangelum of James) that Elizabeth did flee with John in the desert. Some argue that John was born in Hebron so wasn't affected (as only Bethelehem was affected).

Yes. There seems to be much confusion amongst christians and I will have to read up on this before commenting.

The rest of your argument is about timing.
1. Joseph, Mary, and Jesus flee to Egypt while Herod slaughters all males under 2 years old.
2. Joseph, Mary, and Jesus did not flee to Egypt, but remained for temple rituals.

It seems to me that (2) explicitly mentions that they DID NOT flee to Egypt, rather than mentioning that they did sometime later.


Joseph, Mary, and Jesus flee to Egypt while Herod slaughters all males under 2 years old.
Sam, Steve, Nary flee USA while there was a Tsunami.
^^Any reasonable person would assume that the events in 1 are happening relatively close to one another

Also

Others, end up being differing in the details, which in reality, is no different than 2 witnesses disputing whether the car was black or charcoal.

Black or charcoal can be mistaken. The site I mentioned above contains contradictions of a much higher severity. 194 of them.

Do you see the difference?

and

As mentioned before, you give very little reasons

Be clear. Reasons for what?

 

[kendallkreene]

I'm not going to read over the whole thread, but yes He does exist. I don't have concrete proof because faith is enough.

 

[dan964]

@SammyT123
what verse? that is what my last question which you brought up.
I have only touched some of the ones raised in the 194, but I think there a lot of issues with the way that sites reads a lot of the text.

Some of them, such as those around nativity

concerning the genealogy, as I have said several times, that one is tracing he mothers line and one is tracing the fathers line what is contradictory about that? Convention, was to take fathers' line; but as I also mentioned, looking at Luke's genealogy, the phrasing is perculiar alerting us to break convention here.

any reasonable person? that is a just a conjecture. reading ideas in how we think a text should be composed isn't doing justice to the style of communication chosen by the author. the reality is especially in marks account, events are often squished together.
if I was to give a summary of my life; I would say I went to high school and then went to uni. (well technically I didn't go straight to uni) but the style of writing of the Gospels should alert to not make that assumption. even if you don't think it is true, it should be studied properly (which the site you linked hasn't for the most part)

again you seem to have not read anything properly. M, J and Jesus did temple rituals; your presumption is exactly as I thought, you are presuming two things:
1. That events next to each to other, occur immediately after one another
2. That the Magi visit occur immediately after Jesus birth.

if one accepts those, then I can see why you think the way you do.
But as I may or may not have communicated, both of these are not right to assume.
(2) - is the one you need to remember.

There is a period of up to 1-2 years before the Magi visit. This is implied directly from the text. Implying that the tempe rituals occurred definitely before any flight to Egypt or slaughtered children and before any return to Nazareth. What isn't clear in that?

you mean the site that couldn't even get things in context, and took whatever reading was convenient to proof the bible wrong, including ones that are ignoring simple things about literature, the way things are written yes there are some genuine things that need to be somehow reconciled and for most Christians have, otherwise they wouldn't trust the resurrection.

and to answer about Matthew's geanology, why he truncates it, I wouldn't know. even I don't have all the answers
could be common practice for Jews, or just Matthew making a theological point or bothz

 

[dan964]

I'm not going to read over the whole thread, but yes He does exist. I don't have concrete proof because faith is enough.

that is probably a wise thing. stuff on the internet barely changes people's minds

 

[SammyT123]

No, of course not but it causes great doubt to the claim. It is a legal argument of witness, rather than a english argument.

Please be careful when you say it 'debunks the claim' and then go back on your own statement to say 'of course not'.
The fact that two texts differ slightly does not cause great doubt to the claim they were copied.
The fact that my essay differs slightly to my friends does not cause great doubt on the claim I plaguarised.

If every person recounted the story EXACTLY the same, as in a test, then that would show that they are MOST CERTAINLY copied.

agreed

Your example was elementary. The fact that Matthew and Luke differ significantly on the nativity story should add to that, and comment on different things.

If they differ significantly, they were indeed not copied.They are contradictory which is even more alarming.
Witness A: I saw a black man do the murder
Witness B: I was there too! I saw a white man do the murder

Sorry for not being more specific.

Thats ok, I understand

It was implied from the example about essays that you gave. Sorry if i was being too presumptious.

I gave the essay example in response to your post

Most of the supposed contradictions can be explained by the fact that they are corroborating accounts. The fact that they differ on the details debunks the claim that they just copied off each account, and show they are independent accounts.

'All' except the righteous that is Noah and his family.

EXACTLY
First treatment of sinners: "Kill them all in a flood and save Noah because he was righteous
Second treatment of sinners: "I will become human, suffer, and sacrifice myself for sinners "

(Although just in general, Christians take care with trying to literally interpret events like the flood and all that, most Christians including myself generally are pretty vague on whether the flood was literal or symbolic to be honest, but that is an aside)

This is concerning. Is there an objective test you use to tell if it is symbolic, or is everything up to subjective interpretation?

That is wonderful thing of the cross. Paul talks of how God put forwards Jesus as a "atonement" payment, or a ransom payment (buy-back slave language), and by dying meets the needs of God's justice.

Funny you should say this. There is a TED talk about a captor who escapes North Korea. Reading transcripts of her interview, she says something along the lines of
"Kim Jong Un will forgive you for the crimes if you die"
Dying meets the needs of Gods justice....
This is terrible

Not really my subject domain, but that is a philosophical argument at the moment on that.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16906349
I don't think we can declare animals as either guilty or innocent to be consistent.

Correct.

So if a lions goes out an mauls a child, we kill the bear usually

Did the pig go out and maul a child?

I am not exactly an avid animal-rights activist at all, nor understand the complexities in your position.

It is not complex. God ordered the killing of the pigs. If I order the killing of sentient beings for no reason whatsoever, I am cruel.

God gave the Jews a list of foods that were considered clean or unclean, to set them apart from other nations. As a result, pigs and those who herded pigs were viewed as unclean in Jewish culture.

God declared animals X, Y and Z as unclean. He then ordered the killing of the pigs.
This is not a good justification for the slaughter of sentient beings.

I am not an animals right activist either. It does not matter. To say animal X is unclean and then let the animal be chased by a demon to its death is disgusting.

Not quite like that. Christians reject karma, and the book of Job, as well as several parts of the New Testament, makes it clear that in Christianity, that the connection between a specific sin and suffering is tenuous and blurred.

A newborn did not sin. A baby does not deserve to be born with terrible disorders.

Jesus argues similarly in John 9, that a man's blindness (born blind), was not due to his individual sin nor his parent's sin.

So why can't this god ensure he is not born blind?

In Romans, Paul writes "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men". When Adam sinned and disobeyed God, he was kind of like our representative of humanity, and when he fell, we fell; and so we are all in sense in slavery to sin. (think of ambadassadors to other countries, or Olympic medallists, when they win, our nation wins in a sense).

Why does a newborn pay for sins commited by some ambassador?

Now the reality we see and experience is suffering and seemingly unjust suffering too!
Why doesn't God heal everybody? Does he have to? He certainly has the power to.
God could yes heal someone's cancer, but surely he can do something much spectacular than that?

"I can help out my friend next to me who is about to fall off a cliff, but I can do something much more spectacular than that so I wont!"
Why doesn't god heal Jim's 3 month old son right now?
"Because he can do things which are more spectacular, such as heal everyone!"
So why doesn't he hurry the fk up and do it already...

We have done lots of cancer research, but what God will do will certainly fix the problem totally.

Why doesn't he do it right now? If you are saying he can fix the problem totally and he certainly has the power too, he must be a massive jerk to have not done it already.

My answer is two-fold:
1.Suffering highlights to us this world is broken. It speaks of our "human-ness" and our desperate condition. Not every specific suffering can be explained

Not all suffering can be explained. I agree. Some people suffer for no reason. Dick move

but in general there is a purpose as to why creation (including disease/natural disaster) isn't fixed by a snap of God's fingers. Maybe it is hard to understand...

What is this purpose?
I thought you just said God has the power to do so.
It is only hard to understand because you did not provide me a r

Paul argues in Romans, as part of his justice, he gives us over to what we want, but unfortunately what want is not God (we don't seek God).

Whether we want god or not is influenced heavily by the place we were born and the enviornment we live in.
A young child does not want god because the child has not been taught about him. What's your point?
The child may be born with a terrible disease. Are you trying to say this is because the child reject god?

But Pharaoh rejects God. God then in judgement (like a judge), sends disasters, but Pharaoh keeps refusing.

This is another red herring. The Pharoah deliberatley refuses. A newborn does not

But what gets me, is God would send plague/disaster, Pharaoh would realise that and promise to let God's people go, and ask God to end the plague, he would but then Pharoah would go back and pretend that God didn't exist again.
Suffering should be a wake up call that something is broken and needs fixing, kind of like a warning sign.

If Pharoah had enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists, he is ignorant
I, and many other people, do not have such evidence.

I don't have a full answer for case by case of course, because suffering is real and personal for everyone, and I could give all these nice tight philosophical answers about why, it doesn't change anything of the reality.

Agreed

Jesus in Mark 2:1-14, demonstrates however there is much more bigger problem. God could keep on healing cancer, in fact Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, but then he died again;
God has to deal with the root-cause of suffering and evil not just the outward cases of it. And that is where for Christians, Jesus steps into the picture...

Clearly god has not dealt with this root-cause of suffering very well...
Also
At any given point of time, God can improve some single individual or beings life significantly. But he does not. Why?

Do you think the Nuremberg trials were just in their condemnation of SS soldiers and that?
You see the measure God uses to judge, is very different to ours. We look at people like Mother Teresa or the Dalai Lama and say they are good people; and look at Hitler or Pol Pott and say they are bad. But God doesn't have such a standard, and such a standard to him is double standard.

Sure. He may have different standards and methods of judging good or bad. Still a terrible person for doing a "massive clean up job" of anyone who does not trust in him.

God: I will not give Steve enough evidence of my existance to convince him. However easy it may be.
Also god: Fuck you steve, you did not beleive in me. I will clean you up (I.e Kill you)

Let me us an illustration, imagine your parents paid for your entire university course, e.g. you receive like $100 payments every week, got in the degree, that made them happy, you got in a high-paying job, the top of the world, and had a 'model' family etc. But there is only one problem, you never talk to your parents; and most of all you continue to take that payment.
In the same way, how all of humanity, old and small, treat God. It is a terrible thing.
And we think God is being unreasonable in cutting off the supply of good things from his end (thankfully he still gives rain and that), because we don't want him anyway?
We want God to heal us, fix us but when he has done that, we still reject God.
Is God unjust?

So this all knowing ever powerfull kind god requires us to praise him and do service to him, and becasue we don't (no good evidence exists for his existance), he will cut off the goods
My parents on the otherhand, will not cut off the payments even If I do not talk to them. This is because they love me and want the best for me, even If I do not want the best for them.

In the God's great courtroom, the verdict is we are guilty

What am I guilty of? What is the newborn guilty of?
A just (and sensible) court punishes those who are guilty

this is a much bigger problem that needs fixing, we fall short of God's standard. And death and by a loose extension, suffering is supposed to point us to this bigger problem.

Just like some people fall short of a violent dictators standard.
Death is what usually happens next

What the heck is this bigger problem? Death is the only way to point us to it????

Jesus then comes and takes on our sin and satisfies the justice of God:
That is why Jesus had to suffer, that is how he helps us.

There is a very good reason Person A can't just "take on" crimes commited by person B and be punished instead...
God: I will take on your sins by letting my son suffer
Also god: Damn sinners! I will "clean you all up" in a massive flood. Except you Noah, You are righteous. Sinners die!

No, because no-one was ever convinced of their views by one single argument, even you aren't but since you insist, I will give you this one as a key one:

Just a little joke on my end (don't take it seriously )
Dan: There are actually a collection of arguments proving my case
Sam: Okay, give me one
Dan: But you won't be convinced because its more of a collection
Sam: Dude just give me one
Dan: No, because no-one was ever convinced of their views by one single argument
Sam: Ok but can we start with one???? DUDE GIVE ME A SINGLE ONE PLS

The resurrection of Jesus of course. Because the Christian faith stands or falls on that one.

[/QUOTE]
Sure. What are your best pieces of evidence for this ever occuring?

 

[SammyT123]

I'm not going to read over the whole thread, but yes He does exist. I don't have concrete proof because faith is enough.

Please explain to me why faith is a valid substitute for concrete evidence.
Would either of you accept faith as a substitute whilst writing or reading a scientific report or a medical journal?
I really hope not.


Dan, let me ask you. Why is there a very high standard of proof required in mathematics?

that is probably a wise thing. stuff on the internet barely changes people's minds

Might be the case. I see no evidence of the existence of Jesus. Give me something, and I will consider it

 

[dan964]

Please explain to me why faith is a valid substitute for concrete evidence.
Would either of you accept faith as a substitute whilst writing or reading a scientific report or a medical journal?

What you do mean by faith? That is the real question. I suspect there is not agreement on the term. So I will not answer.

Dan, let me ask you. Why is there a very high standard of proof required in mathematics?

Don't know. Probably very little room for grey matter.

Might be the case. I see no evidence of the existence of Jesus. Give me something, and I will consider it

Is Tacitus or Josephus not evidence?
I think you will find almost all historical scholarship agrees that Jesus existed and died.

The rest of his claims are contested, depending on whether the person is a Christian or not.
(Except Muslim scholars who reject Jesus death, and the hardcore atheist blogger, who will deny Jesus existed)

 

[dan964]

Sorry, SAMMYT123, I accidentally edited your post instead of mine, so to capture what you have said, what you said is quoted....

Dan, you have on father. I don't care how you trace lineage. Your father is the man who fertilised your mothers egg. One person. One man. Yet the two statements refer to two different men.

You have two grandfathers though not one. That is my point, one is not tracing Joseph's lineage.
Does your mother have the same father as your father? No of course not. And that is the point that you are missing.

Point in question. Matthew is tracing Joseph's lineage back to Abraham; Luke is tracing the father's through Mary's line (not Joseph) back to Adam (which is why it is much longer as well), and there is a slight "odd-wording" that is suggested.

I understand you did not directly go to uni.
But if you said: 1. I went to uni
and
2. I did not go to uni

These are contradictory.
Similarly


1. They fled to Egypt
2. They did not have to flee to Egypt

Where are you gettting (2) from the text?
No where in Luke, does it even mention the flight or lack thereof.
You are reading that idea on the assumption that of difficulty in reconciling timing, when I have gone to the detail in explaining why (2) is false.

Just because Luke doesn't mention it, doesn't mean that (2) is true. Just because it is difficult to reconcile the timing, doesn't mean that (2) is true.

There lies the problem. We will have to disagree because this has been going back and forth circularly. Arguments from "omitted" information are weak, and so the claim of contradiction does not stand.

When I tell someone
Sam, Steve, Nary flee USA while there was a Tsunami
They would assume that Sam fled the USA very close to the time there was a tsunami

Yes but that is you. Have you ever tried summarising 33 years of your life. Events in the Gospels are not necessarily compiled chronologically nor sequenced immediately one after the other, the only clues we have is when exact time periods are given.

I can say that most people who read that line will also make the assumption that the events happened close to one another, and probably because of each other.

Maybe that is a problem, as it doesn't understand the author's style of writing and compilation in reporting the events. For instance Mark, often uses immediately, squashing events together.

Kind of think of it like watching reality TV, obviously there is stuff that happens between the different things that we are shown on the screen, e.g. Masterchef, that is sequential as you would think, but in reality it is compiled in a way to make. That is similar (but not identical) to how the gospels come across.

and to answer about Matthew's geanology, why he truncates it, I wouldn't know. even I don't have all the answers
could be common practice for Jews, or just Matthew making a theological point or bothz

Well I looked a bit closely myself, and noticed Matthew does not trace the lineage as far back as Luke does, so that would account for the most part a significant difference in generations. (I haven't done the maths to see whether it checks out though yet)

Goes to show that even I miss things (I think from memory).

 

[dan964]

No, of course not but it causes great doubt to the claim. It is a legal argument of witness, rather than a english argument.

Please be careful when you say it 'debunks the claim' and then go back on your own statement to say 'of course not'.

Yeah I know, it causes great doubt to the claim. The key thing is the amount of differences, examine:
1. No differences - copied
2. Some differences - ok and in fact good for witness testimony (which is what the Gospel and a lot of 'historical-type' accounts are)
3. Major difference - contradiction (provided we can prove such difference existed in original text, and also argue that it is not a literary device).

If they differ significantly, they were indeed not copied.They are contradictory which is even more alarming.
Witness A: I saw a black man do the murder
Witness B: I was there too! I saw a white man do the murder

I don't think on the key matters such as the identity of the murder, that scale of differences I have in view. Would need to look further into specific cases of course.

Most of the supposed contradictions can be explained by the fact that they are corroborating accounts. The fact that they differ on the details debunks the claim that they just copied off each account, and show they are independent accounts.

To refine this, to a degree. How do we determine when a difference is as you would say is contradictory, or simply a textual difficulty in reconciling two completely different texts by two different authors? Context is key and understanding how the writers would have compiled the text is important.

'All' except the righteous that is Noah and his family.

EXACTLY
First treatment of sinners: "Kill them all in a flood and save Noah because he was righteous
Second treatment of sinners: "I will become human, suffer, and sacrifice myself for sinners "

As explained that is perfectly consistent.

(Although just in general, Christians take care with trying to literally interpret events like the flood and all that, most Christians including myself generally are pretty vague on whether the flood was literal or symbolic to be honest, but that is an aside)

This is concerning. Is there an objective test you use to tell if it is symbolic, or is everything up to subjective interpretation?

of course not. Generally Christians are more concerned about taking meaning out of a text; rather than forcing it to be literal That means that sometimes we cannot set on a literal or symbolic reading of that text, simply because it is convenient (especially because it fits up with pseudo science or science or our own comfortable standard of living).

That is wonderful thing of the cross. Paul talks of how God put forwards Jesus as a "atonement" payment, or a ransom payment (buy-back slave language), and by dying meets the needs of God's justice.

Funny you should say this. There is a TED talk about a captor who escapes North Korea. Reading transcripts of her interview, she says something along the lines of
"Kim Jong Un will forgive you for the crimes if you die"
Dying meets the needs of Gods justice.... This is terrible

Kim Jong Un and God are two different things. Why is it terrible? Again this is your perspective.

If God is the source and giver of life, which by definition, if he exists, he has to be; and then you cut yourself off from him somehow, logically, what should result, but death.
That is fair and reasonable. Also if God says, that if you reject me you die, and we don't listen to the warning, then how can we complain?

Not really my subject domain, but that is a philosophical argument at the moment on that.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16906349
I don't think we can declare animals as either guilty or innocent to be consistent.

Correct.

So if a lions goes out an mauls a child, we kill the bear usually

Did the pig go out and maul a child?

Kind of irrelevant my quote is hillarious though out of context, except maybe for vegans. We rear animals and kill them for our food, I personally don't see any reason for outcry there.
If animals are innocent, then maybe an outcry. But we have no justification to say or argue that they were; so to complain about many pigs dying because God let them, I would be much more concerned about other things, wouldn't you?

I am not exactly an avid animal-rights activist at all, nor understand the complexities in your position.

It is not complex. God ordered the killing of the pigs. If I order the killing of sentient beings for no reason whatsoever, I am cruel.

Technically God allowed, different to ordered.

My questions:
Are pigs sentient beings?
Why is it cruel to kill animals?
What if God was demonstrating a point in killing those pigs? (hence a reason)

God gave the Jews a list of foods that were considered clean or unclean, to set them apart from other nations. As a result, pigs and those who herded pigs were viewed as unclean in Jewish culture.

God declared animals X, Y and Z as unclean. He then ordered the killing of the pigs.
This is not a good justification for the slaughter of sentient beings.
I am not an animals right activist either. It does not matter. To say animal X is unclean and then let the animal be chased by a demon to its death is disgusting.

It is because? Why aren't people being sued for killing flies for no apparent reason?

Not quite like that. Christians reject karma, and the book of Job, as well as several parts of the New Testament, makes it clear that in Christianity, that the connection between a specific sin and suffering is tenuous and blurred.

A newborn did not sin. A baby does not deserve to be born with terrible disorders.

A baby does not deserve to be aborted by its mother, but yet it happens. It is an injustice.
A newborn doesn't have to sin, for their to be suffering, as mentioned Christians reject karma; it is a product of a broken world the infant is born into.

But regarding the innocence of babies, where is the justification?

Jesus argues similarly in John 9, that a man's blindness (born blind), was not due to his individual sin nor his parent's sin.

So why can't this god ensure he is not born blind?

In that particular case Jesus says " Jesus answered, “It was not that this man sinned, or his parents, but that the works of God might be displayed in him"

In Romans, Paul writes "Therefore, just as sin came into the world through one man, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men". When Adam sinned and disobeyed God, he was kind of like our representative of humanity, and when he fell, we fell; and so we are all in sense in slavery to sin. (think of ambadassadors to other countries, or Olympic medallists, when they win, our nation wins in a sense).

Why does a newborn pay for sins commited by some ambassador?

Simple answer: He doesn't. Each pays for their own sins. But what actually is sin?

Although you never had to teach a toddler how to do wrong. We presume innocence, only because they haven't done anything. When Paul is talking about sin, in fact the Bible talks about sin, in a greater scope, not as simply whether you have done good or wrong (or so therefore newborns are all clear), even though sometimes it does;
but in an inherit bias:

"born this way" kind of idea. Our bias when we are born is to reject God. The only reason newborns look as if would be all clear, is because they haven't done anything.
That is why it is not so much a specific action, but a status or a condiiton if you like.

Now the reality we see and experience is suffering and seemingly unjust suffering too!
Why doesn't God heal everybody? Does he have to? He certainly has the power to.
God could yes heal someone's cancer, but surely he can do something much spectacular than that?

"I can help out my friend next to me who is about to fall off a cliff, but I can do something much more spectacular than that so I wont!"

Why doesn't god heal Jim's 3 month old son right now? "Because he can do things which are more spectacular, such as heal everyone!"

Because temporal healing, it would be great for God to heal fully every person's disease, but that doesn't change the inherit bias/condition against God that we have.
Even one your friend was healed, he would reject the very God who healed him. Unless God fixes that first.

So why doesn't he hurry the fk up and do it already...

You know Christians wonder why Jesus hasn't returned yet as well. Sendiment understood, will be addressed a bit later.

We have done lots of cancer research, but what God will do will certainly fix the problem totally.

Why doesn't he do it right now? If you are saying he can fix the problem totally and he certainly has the power too, he must be a massive jerk to have not done it already.

Why is a massive jerk. Do you realise what it will actually take for sin to be removed and evil to be done away fully from this world, and hence all the things that have flowed.
It would involve changing us, I don't think you would like that would you? (rhetorical). As I have said previously, for God to fully deal with the problem, he would have to remove all of us, because we are just as much a part of the problem as that supposedly innocent pig, the whole world is as you have said - terrible.

My answer is two-fold:
1.Suffering highlights to us this world is broken. It speaks of our "human-ness" and our desperate condition. Not every specific suffering can be explained

Not all suffering can be explained. I agree. Some people suffer for no reason.

but in general there is a purpose as to why creation (including disease/natural disaster) isn't fixed by a snap of God's fingers. Maybe it is hard to understand...

What is this purpose? I thought you just said God has the power to do so.

He does. But does he have? Why should he? We don't want him. We want him to do all these good things, we boss him around, saying he doesn't exist, unless he acts in a particular way that we want him to. But he doesn't act in that, we complain back to him. And when he does, we still refuse to acknowledge him. If God heals or he doesn't, it won't change the fact that people refuse to believe in him, because inherited all people are hard towards God (even the newborn).

Paul argues in Romans, as part of his justice, he gives us over to what we want, but unfortunately what want is not God (we don't seek God).

Whether we want god or not is influenced heavily by the place we were born and the enviornment we live in.

You are right in some sense. It is not so much the city we are born reality is all are the same, when born, we don't want God, we like Santa, but we don't want God, we are all hardened towards God. It should be surprising that some are even Christian and saved, it is really that dismal.

A young child does not want God because the child has not been taught about him. What's your point?

Doesn't follow sorry. Does not a baby crave its mother's milk even though it has not been taught about it? Does not a newborn crave things that it has no understanding of?

A person's desire for something cannot depend on whether they have been taught or not.

The child may be born with a terrible disease. Are you trying to say this is because the child reject god?

No, there is no answer on that one sorry. It is because humanity rejected God, and that child is part of humanity. So while it is not directly because of their own rejection, it is because of the overall rejection.

To use a limited example: the Hutt river province declared its sovereignity from Australia, as a result the WA government withdrew all its council services. People who are born there for instance have very little choice over whether they receive such services because of the actions of others...

But Pharaoh rejects God. God then in judgement (like a judge), sends disasters, but Pharaoh keeps refusing.

The Pharoah deliberately refuses. A newborn does not

Where is the basis for the second statement? in that example of Pharaoh, despite God restoring healing and all that, he refused God.
and while you may think a newborn cannot refuse God, the inherit bias is already there.

But what gets me, is God would send plague/disaster, Pharaoh would realise that and promise to let God's people go, and ask God to end the plague, he would but then Pharoah would go back and pretend that God didn't exist again.
Suffering should be a wake up call that something is broken and needs fixing, kind of like a warning sign.

If Pharoah had enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that God exists, he is ignorant
I, and many other people, do not have such evidence.

Depends on what you count and measure as evidence. If you are looking for only scientifiic/mathematical arguments then you may be right to make your conclusions. But surely we can consider more things as evidence.

I don't have a full answer for case by case of course, because suffering is real and personal for everyone, and I could give all these nice tight philosophical answers about why, it doesn't change anything of the reality.

Agreed

Jesus in Mark 2:1-14, demonstrates however there is much more bigger problem. God could keep on healing cancer, in fact Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead, but then he died again;
God has to deal with the root-cause of suffering and evil not just the outward cases of it. And that is where for Christians, Jesus steps into the picture...

Clearly god has not dealt with this root-cause of suffering very well...

Well he has, think of it as a long work in progress. He is putting off doing the final cleanup, so that people can be saved. That is a big reason.

Also

At any given point of time, God can improve some single individual or beings life significantly. But he does not. Why?

He sometimes does, we just genuinely assume it is something else. maybe he wants to demonstrate that you cannot find life outside of him, you cannot find good things.

Do you think the Nuremberg trials were just in their condemnation of SS soldiers and that?
You see the measure God uses to judge, is very different to ours. We look at people like Mother Teresa or the Dalai Lama and say they are good people; and look at Hitler or Pol Pott and say they are bad. But God doesn't have such a standard, and such a standard to him is double standard.

Sure. He may have different standards and methods of judging good or bad. Still a terrible person for doing a "massive clean up job" of anyone who does not trust in him.

Yeah his standards are much tighter than ours. We often think that for instance speeding is ok, but murder is not. God is fairly consistent.
He seems terrible to us, because we don't want to be cleaned up. We want a God who will accept us as we are, not bother us, and while you are at it, why don't you bless and improve my life? Yet all the more, we don't acknowledge him as God, we don't want him as God, and most of all we don't let him speak for himself.

Why? Does not a king have a right to execute those who commit treason? That is how serious God sees it. It seems terrible, but that is only because of how terrible it is.
Imagine if you said seriously to your father who gave you birth, "I wish you had never been born", that is serious. Imagine if you said that to Queen of England for instance.
Let alone to the one who is responsible for the fabrics and order of the universe.

God: I will not give Steve enough evidence of my existance to convince him. However easy it may be.
Also god: Fuck you steve, you did not beleive in me. I will clean you up (I.e Kill you)

Again where are you looking for your evidence. If you are looking only in science (or for that matter pseudo-science), then you won't get very far.

Let me us an illustration, imagine your parents paid for your entire university course, e.g. you receive like $100 payments every week, got in the degree, that made them happy, you got in a high-paying job, the top of the world, and had a 'model' family etc. But there is only one problem, you never talk to your parents; and most of all you continue to take that payment.
In the same way, how all of humanity, old and small, treat God. It is a terrible thing.
And we think God is being unreasonable in cutting off the supply of good things from his end (thankfully he still gives rain and that), because we don't want him anyway?
We want God to heal us, fix us but when he has done that, we still reject God.
Is God unjust?

So this all knowing ever powerfull kind god requires us to praise him and do service to him, and becasue we don't (no good evidence exists for his existance), he will cut off the goods
My parents on the otherhand, will not cut off the payments even If I do not talk to them. This is because they love me and want the best for me, even If I do not want the best for them.

God wants us and we should, of obligation, kind of like how we should submit to our leaders and our parents, and obey them.

And God does want the best for him, but at the same time, God is a God of justice. Even your parent's discipline you for your own good.

In the God's great courtroom, the verdict is we are guilty

What am I guilty of? What is the newborn guilty of?
A just (and sensible) court punishes those who are guilty

Yes and we say to God, I want everything you have but not you; and that comes out in everything we do.
We basically commit treason against God in our attitude towards him.
We want to live our own lives as king without God.

this is a much bigger problem that needs fixing, we fall short of God's standard. And death and by a loose extension, suffering is supposed to point us to this bigger problem.

Just like some people fall short of a violent dictators standard.

Maybe we are guilty of calling God violent, simply because we don't like the fact that he says things that make us feel uncomfortable and have to change; and we want to live our own lives? We don't want his input. We don't like his laws. We call him unjust because he doesn't let us off the hook; and so on.

God allows it for a time, and allows suffering to remind us of this reality. But he will come.


Death is what usually happens next

What the heck is this bigger problem? Death is the only way to point us to it????

Jesus then comes and takes on our sin and satisfies the justice of God:
That is why Jesus had to suffer, that is how he helps us.

There is a very good reason Person A can't just "take on" crimes commited by person B and be punished instead...

What is that reason?

God: I will take on your sins by letting my son suffer
Also god: Damn sinners! I will "clean you all up" in a massive flood. Except you Noah, You are righteous. Sinners die!

Before Jesus came, God' justice was not satifisfied. In the same way, God would do the same again. He could do it today or tommorrow. Why doesn't here, just wipe us all out now? (slightly rhetorical).

The resurrection of Jesus of course. Because the Christian faith stands or falls on that one.

[/QUOTE]
Sure. What are your best pieces of evidence for this ever occuring?

I agree for the most part with this, rather than type out things
http://www.desiringgod.org/articles/eight-reasons-why-i-believe-that-jesus-rose-from-the-dead

But there are more arguments for God's existence, the common ones along with their common objections are littered through their thread such as the
- first cause argument

If the universe had a beginning that resulting in all the other processes of the universe happening.
Then it is logically that the universe's beginning is consistent with the effects of its beginning, and
That first cause needs some concrete explanation/understanding.

- ontological argument
- if there is existence, then God exists (it is a bit more complicated than that, but the argument goes...
if God doesn't exist then we have to account for the universe's existence.

 

[dan964]

my quoting is very dodgy though, lol
sometimes I haven't quoted you lol

 

[braintic]

Assuming for a moment this fictional sky daddy exists, why would it demand acknowledgement and subservience? It seemingly suffers from the mortal "sin" of pride which it supposedly decries.