deleted

Post Reply New Topic

anyone can google bible contradictions to see the "word of god" isnt from god

Conservative Christianity has nothing to do with it. I mean, SURE, Conservative Christians will be at the right hand of God, but that doesn't mean only Baptists will make it into heaven!



In all seriousness, the only thing I have trouble understanding is why you have to make everything so complicated. I can't really help you with a new post, except only suggest you reread what I've already written.

Greenblue: I don't see how Luke 1:1-4 contradicts anything. It's likely that Luke's account of the life and deeds of Jesus and the 12 really was one of the first accounts to do so. And there's no reason to think that the eyewitnesses or even any among the 12 gave Luke false information.

The main problem I see is that Luke was writing at a time when there were few (if any) written sources and more witnesses telling about what they'd seen firsthand. It seems that, as often can happen, that numerous oral reports developed some gaps and inconsistencies among those who DID attempt to codify the Gospel. It appears that Luke borrowed from the Gospel of Mark and was likely aware of other written sources as well. Luke is unique among the gospels in that it is the only one that is treated in more of a literary style. OK. So what does that really mean? Simply that Luke was a good writer and an adept, compelling storyteller. It just happened that the story he tells in the gospel is a compilation of things that were known by those who followed Christ to have happened. Think of it this way: When a poor redneck in a trailer park talks about a tornado, you get something like this: Yeah, well, I wuz watchin da TEEVEE drinkin' a beer when all'a'sudden I hurd dis noiz lahk a FREIGHT TRAIN, and den muh trailuhr dun turnded over! It was turble! It destroyed mah meth lab and EVERthang!! !! Compare that to how a meteorologist might report the event by simply saying that numerous residences were destroyed, property damage is estimated in the millions of dollars, many injuries were reported, but remarkably no loss of life. Luke is a well-written biography of Jesus, a historical account of His life and ministry.

I need to give that passage a little more attention because of who I suspect Theophilus isn't. I'm guessing that "Theophilus" wasn't actually a real, single individual. "Phila," I believe, is a Greek root which means "love," and "Theos" refers to God. I'm not familiar enough with Greek to know what this is literally--either "God loves" (as in "one loved by God") or "loves God" ("one who loves God"). Actually, the word "theology" originally referred SPECIFICALLY to Christianity. Anyway, the point is I doubt Theophilus was actually a single person but was rather a reference to any or all who loved or were loved by God (whichever the correct translation is).

Quite simply, I take it to mean Luke's Gospel was written specially for any reader who was in search of the truth about God, particularly those interested in the teachings of Jesus. If Theophilus WAS originally a single real person, then it's not likely that Theophilus was his real name--probably a secret or code name to prevent the true identity of the intended reader to be known in order to prevent unnecessary persecution. It's just a guess, but why name someone Theophilus? And why just HAPPEN to write a book about the life of Jesus to that person? It's a WEIRD coincidence. And pure coincidences are not known to happen in the Bible.

Just a hint about circular reasoning: Religion is inherently prone to circular reasoning and is not NECESSARILY a bad thing. Most arguments, even non-religious ones, possess a degree of circularity. If you make a statement about something and base your statement on logic, you are presupposing that there IS such a thing as logic to make your case with. A Christian can't make any kind of Biblical case without assuming that the Bible is true, nor can a believer make any arguments regarding God unless he assumes God exists. An atheist can't build a case against God without first assuming there is no God. So even though we try to stay away from logical errors, a minimal amount of circularity is unavoidable.

On the issue? It has a lot to do with the issue, and I don't think denying that gets us anywhere.


I do this because I am smart and not mentally handicapped, like some people are. I don't think I am being crazy for thinking that the shift in thought required by Christianity is rather extreme compared to other beliefs.



AngelRho, most of us don't believe very much in the presuppositional apologetic mindset.

Do we need to presuppose a such thing as logic to make a logical case? I suppose one could make the argument, but even if one accepts that, this doesn't mean that the presupposition of logic is merely circular.(this is hard to say as worlds in which logic does not hold are pretty much inconceivable)

Can a Christian make a Biblical case without assuming the Bible is true? Well.... what does "Bible is true" mean? Most people don't think it means "inerrancy", as "true doesn't mean inerrancy in any other field. Even further, a Christian can certainly justify the Biblical epistemology to make the Biblical case, so I don't see the problem here.

Can an atheist make a case against God without first assuming there is no God... well, um... I wouldn't think this the case. Building a case against God could start off while a person is a declared Christian. It is possible that one is holding God to be an epistemic black hole, and so in that case the claim you make is true, but less due to circularity on the atheists part, and more due to the self-destructive nature of an affirmation of God.

I can't believe that people take this nonsense seriously.

Your "loving" and "forgiving" god is quite happy to torture you FOREVER if you piss him off. Would you do that to your children?

I don't think the Jews even believe in hell and they knew god first, didn't they?

Perhaps I should be a Muslim and get the 72 virgins. But wait! Where did these 72 virgins come from? They can't be real women. And what about Muslim women? Do they get 72 hot studs to service them?

Or perhaps the Valkyries will take me to Valhalla where I can fight all day then drink, feast and wench all night.

Perhaps the Buddhists and the Hindus are right. If you have been naughty then you will be reincarnated as a frog or something.

Wait... You're saying that overcomplicating the Gospel makes you smart? That's the dumbest thing I've ever read!



The problem is you are already assuming the "self-destructive nature of an affirmation of God." Without that assumption, your statement doesn't make any sense.

It's a double-edged sword either way you look at it. I can't state something as a matter of Biblical fact without making a Biblical reference. You can't believe that faith in God is anything other than "self-destructive." So there you go.

And don't think I'm saying that ALL circular reasoning is plausible, nor that we SHOULD look at logical errors as acceptable. I believe God created the universe with a logical order. The plan of salvation is also a creation of God, and given the need for atonement for sins, a self-sacrifice on the part of the God who created us is perfectly logical given the circumstances. So, yes, it's important to keep our reasoning guarded. I'm just saying recognize the fallibility of certain rules concerning human wisdom. No arguments either way are going to work without SOME degree of flexibility, even if we want to keep such rule-bending to a minimum.

I see you don't read your own writings.


Hunh???? I don't think you understood what I wrote. "self destructive nature of an affirmation of God" is a result of the notion that theistic belief is an epistemic blackhole, not an assumption before the entire discourse. I even talked about how this might not be the case.


Ummm..... do you have reading comprehension?



You aren't talking about the fallibility of certain rules concerning human wisdom, you are outlining a philosophical position on the nature of all discourse, and one that... well... strangely enough might be self-defeating. After all, if you are assuming that all worldviews break down into irresolvable presuppositions, then how is that anything but another presupposition? And how do you move from "I presuppose this" to "this is true"? You've presented nothing of the sort, but your confidence requires this.

to the OP:
if there is a god, and if there is a heaven, then if you love, you will go there.
heaven is pure love and god will not cast love to hell.

if you can love, then there is heaven in you already.

love has no rules to be understood. it just is, and it is completely innocent.

that is all i have to say because i was sad to read what you were afraid of.

I'm not the one making things complicated. The simple truth of the Bible is that salvation is needed and a means to reach that salvation is provided in the person of Jesus.

What YOU are saying is that by making things complicated, i.e. by making the simple Biblical truth complicated, you are therefore somehow smart. I fail to see how making something simple into something confusing in anyway increases your intelligence. That doesn't sound very smart at all to me.

As to my reading comprehension, I'm not the one writing about blackholes and such. I'm just responding to what you wrote.

Logic is a chief component of philosophy, which is the study of wisdom (by definition, though this has been altered to also mean worldviews among other things). Presuppositionalism as I understand and use it isn't a reliance on unresolvable circularities as some philosophical cheap shot or silver bullet. It's just an acceptance of certain conditions of gaining and understanding knowledge. I'm not trying to get into the presuppositional argument for God and all the details of it because I'm not that knowledgeable or disciplined in it, but I AM pointing the flaws of the simple accusation of circularity when the reality of circularity of one argument is no greater than the circularity of the opposing argument. I COULD have been unnecessarily harsh and requested that greenblue not be a hypocrite. But instead I chose to be constructive and show how in a discussion of a RELIGIOUS nature some degree of circularity is inherent and actually acceptable, while more empirically-driven discussions seek to avoid this entirely. What both have in common is some degree of circularity, however minute, must be accepted in order to present the argument at all.

Here's the problem with the whole "salvation" concept: I am an agnostic. Yeah, I'm not perfect, I'm the first to admit I do stuff I regret later, but I'm not a murderer, I don't break into ppl's houses and steal their stuff, I don't beat people up, I don't torture small animals, I work for a living and give to charity, I am generally kind, I try to be a good person, blahblahblah...BUT I find it impossible to believe in things without proof. That's just how my mind works. Yet, there can be a child-raping mass-murdering scum of the earth as*hole who repents on his deathbed and **believes** and Christianity treats HIM better than ME. He gets eternal happiness and I get sent to be tortured forever, if you buy into Christianity.

There's something WRONG with that. In a major way. It makes no sense...omnibenevolent? Just? I don't THINK so.

~Kate

Kate , the wrong thing is not salvation . The wrong thing is thinking of salvation as a reward .. it is not a reward .. simply put it is choosing to have a relationship with God while here on earth and continuing that relationship in heaven. Those who choose not to have anything to do with Him here , He will not force Himself on later . The reason He would accept scum who repent is that we all need to repent(turn away ) , even if you dont do big things , have you never spoke in anger ? even the tiny things we do that are not right need to be turned away from , we cant really do that without His help .. God wants us .. He wants us with him really bad , but not at the cost of overriding our on choice . Choose Him ? He will snatch you up no matter what .. Choose not Him ? He will respect your wishes .. hope that helps to clarify some .

Actually, if some of the Baptists that I have known are indeed going to Heaven, then there is no way in HELL that I want to go there. Give me eternity in the lake of fire and sulphur any day. It will be much less stressful.

It's not really a choice. I believe what's proven. I don't believe what's not proven. If there's a creator (which I don't believe there is, or isn't, because neither has been proven) then he/she/it created me that way! It would be pretty cruel (opposite of omnibenevolent, no?) to create me that way and then torture me forever, wouldn't it? It would be like me creating a computer that could only do certain things and then smashing it because it couldn't do a certain thing I didn't create it to do. No logic to it whatsoever. And I'd think that anything powerful and smart enough to create me would be SUPERIOR in logic to me, not inferior.

And, of course I've spoken in anger. I've done things I regret...I'm not perfect. No one is. BUT, none of them are of the scale that I'd say I'm a bad person. I do try to be a good person. I can't understand how the "blind faith" thing is more important to an "omnibenevolent" god than how I treat other people. If a murderer or thief or rapist is better than I am because he has the capability of blind faith and I don't, then I must question how just the standards are.

~Kate

No, you're the one who isn't seeing the communicative difficulties of an idea when it is present.


Right, pointing out that something is difficult when it actually is difficult isn't a problem. Also, I don't see the logical argument:
"Biblical truth is complicated ergo I am very smart"? I never said anything like that, it just is rather difficult to have a meaningful understanding of what is going on.


I said "epistemic blackhole". Basically I am going off the idea here that there are some forms of things that we can consider "intellectual black holes", which is presented here:
http://www.philosophyetc.net/2009/01/in ... holes.html

The reason they are blackholes is because they can suck you in, and once you are there, you cannot get out. Basically, anything like that if it exists, is terribly destructive and harmful to people's minds, as they can get trapped and continue holding to something ridiculous that they cannot sensibly make sense of the world by.


Yes, however, even logic can be proposed as alterable, and this was actually considered with the discovery of quantum physics as some professors believed that quantum physics violates the rule of the excluded middle. As it stands, to this day, there actually exist multiple variations of logic.


I don't accept a raw presuppositionalism, but rather I find that the premise that we find knowledge through trial and error and continually modifying current belief systems rather than propositional structures to be more enlightening of the entire affair here. This is to say that total circularity doesn't exist so much as a web of belief.


Well, ok, the real question is whether you are properly identifying circularity, or whether you are forcing circularity onto the interpretation of beliefs and positions.

Now, it may be true that greenblue is starting with presumptions, and that some of these presumptions are questionable, but it does not follow from that that greenblue is being a hypocrite, only that some of his ideas can reasonably be questioned, or that this is some sort of "standoff between two equally valid ideas". Some ideas are better than others, and some presuppositions are better than other presuppositions. We might say "this is presupposed", but it is also what happened to survive and make the more progress.

you are right . that would be pretty cruel .. thats not the reality tho . I dont doubt that you have a hard time with things that are not proven . Dont we all to some degree or another ? I am not in any way saying you are a bad person or that someone who IS a bad person all their lives is better than you somehow . God is not going to with hold the gift of faith to you if you ask for it , then punish you somehow for not having it . He only says , ask ... so ? If you ask with an open heart to really know if God exists or not .. you will find out . If you dont ask , you may not find out as soon as you could . We will all find out in the end at our death . Please tell me if you want this conversation to continue in this vein . Some times what is debate to me is arguing to another , I would not argue with you if thats how you feel . Thanks for listening

you are right . that would be pretty cruel .. thats not the reality tho . I dont doubt that you have a hard time with things that are not proven . Dont we all to some degree or another ? I am not in any way saying you are a bad person or that someone who IS a bad person all their lives is better than you somehow . God is not going to with hold the gift of faith to you if you ask for it , then punish you somehow for not having it . He only says , ask ... so ? If you ask with an open heart to really know if God exists or not .. you will find out . If you dont ask , you may not find out as soon as you could . We will all find out in the end at our death . Please tell me if you want this conversation to continue in this vein . Some times what is debate to me is arguing to another , I would not argue with you if thats how you feel . Thanks for listening

To clarify something about "deathbed" conversions:

I'm not going to say that deathbed conversion DON'T happen. But I do have a problem with the idea that a person can wait their entire lives, live however they want, and all-of-a-sudden decide, hey, I'm about to die anyway, so what's the harm? Simply "saying" you believe something and actually believing it are two different things. Reciting some ritual words/prayers/psalms/whatever will not save you. It's the genuineness of heart that counts. So it's not IMPOSSIBLE for a child rapist murderer to convert right before the executioner throws the switch. I just have doubts as to his sincerity.

Also, it's quite human of us to rank sinful behavior. Abusing a child, taking a life, and similar offenses are at the top of the list. According to the Law of Moses, the remedy for any given sin was an equivalent punishment ("eye for an eye"). The Pharisees believed that most offenses could be remedied by incurring some form of indebtedness to the victim. The Sadducees had a stricter interpretation of crime and punishment: You put out someone's eye, we'll take yours. Only very specific sexual sins, idolatry, and murder could result in the death of the criminal because there did not exist any kind of equivalent to repay the cost of life.

There is a wide gap between human justice and God's justice. Human justice operates in degrees. God's justice holds that there IS no forgivable sin. There MUST be a penalty, and the penalty for ALL sin is death.

So if there is no such thing as acceptable sin and we are ALL sentenced to death, the only way we can come into God's mercy is if there is some kind of redeeming act on our behalf. The ancient Israelites performed sacrificial rites. Christians believe and accept that Jesus paid the final penalty of sin on behalf of all believers and thus there need not be any fear of death, also ending the need for ritual sacrifice.

Now, in saying all this, understand my point: While you may believe that child rapist/murderers ought to be doomed to an eternity in Hell, you are ignoring your OWN sinful tendencies which are equally unacceptable. You have to understand that God cannot allow ANYONE with any record of sin in their heart to come into His presence (Heaven). Faith is the only remedy for this. And if you truly allow yourself to come to that kind of understanding, you'll be satisfied that there is justice as well as mercy for even the most hopeless among us.