 |
Sinfest
welcome to the fest
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
kame
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 2563
Location: Alba Nuadh
|
 Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 7:56 am Post subject: |
 |
|
this has been pointed out before, but just for edification:
Premise: The Bible is the inerrant word of God.
Proof: It says so in the Bible.
Is not, I repeat, not logically consistent. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Zeku
Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 117
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 12:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
1. You then said that parts of the Bible say: 'be merciful, love others, etc, etc,' and other parts of the Bible say 'kill all the heathens.' Well guess what, I do different stuff every day. You can't claim that a God is flawed, who by his very nature would have to be at least -several times- as complex as you, (I kid) does different stuff at different times, and has different solutions to different problems.
Isn't it your assumption that's flawed, believing that "truth" is some fact off in the background that even God himself must follow carefully?
We know (because we read the book with an actual intent to learn it's contents) that the various heathen nations that were killed off were killed for their extreme wickedness. Civilization as we currently know it would not exist if evil was simply allowed to continue unchecked.
You're currently taking advantage of civilization by sitting in an air-conditioned room and posting on a forum, but are you willing to acknowledge that evil have to be destroyed in order to make that possible? Isn't it really just your definition of evil that's at discussion here?
2. You said, in essence, that parts of the bible are dependent upon pre-existing moral concepts. That may or may not be provable, but is there anything in the universe that isn't built upon some pre-existing foundation? Is the Bible flawed because it's written on paper, or because it doesn't follow what some random person thinks is a proper format? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Flion
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 589
Location: Don't look up! (Damn pigeons...)
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 1:29 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Oh gods, another one!  Yet, I just can't resist. I'm drawn to futility like a flame...
| Quote: | | You can't claim that a God is flawed, who by his very nature would have to be at least -several times- as complex as you, (I kid) does different stuff at different times, and has different solutions to different problems. |
Yes I can. In fact, I do. The wording should be "different but similar problems." I don't hammer a nail one time and then use a screwdriver on a different nail just because it's not the same as before. However, you may be the first to explicitly give God a new attribute: God is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent and ... random? Interesting.
| Quote: | | Civilization as we currently know it would not exist if evil was simply allowed to continue unchecked. |
I don't see any pantheon stepping up to check the evils in civilization today. Yet it seems to be existing. What was it you were trying to prove again?
| Quote: | | You're currently taking advantage of civilization by sitting in an air-conditioned room and posting on a forum, but are you willing to acknowledge that evil have to be destroyed in order to make that possible? Isn't it really just your definition of evil that's at discussion here? |
Nope, seems to be working just fine and evil still exists.
| Quote: | | 2. You said, in essence, that parts of the bible are dependent upon pre-existing moral concepts. |
Nobody said that at all. *Phweeeet!* Spurious argument! Penalty: 5 reincarnations. Seriously, half the stuff you preface with "You" or "You're" I can't find anyone saying in the thread. And the statements you make have no structure, making the whole thing gibberish. Pretty random ... say, waitaminute? Are you God?  
| Quote: | | is there anything in the universe that isn't built upon some pre-existing foundation? |
Now, there's an interesting philosophical question. Too bad you followed up with a non sequitor.
_________________
| Halen wrote: | | The reason that "people actually see the points people make" = "people agree with me" is because I. Am. Right! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Zeku
Joined: 17 Jul 2006
Posts: 117
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 1:54 pm Post subject: |
|
|
kame said:
"That the Bible as a source of morals and values require a pre-existing set of morals and values to distinguish the good parts...(from the bad parts)"
You're seriously splitting hairs on this quote? That's kind of like when the news reports on kitten rescues. They have nothing to say so they just pick something.
Regarding randomness:
Again, the incorrect assumption you're making is that the same problem warranted a different solution. Ie, genocide one day, and universal forgiveness the next. The problems were different.
Are you seriously applying human logic to (our premise) an omniscient God? Again, the incorrect assumption you're making is that you're qualified to determine what is or isn't consistent/logical/acceptable. We all exist in partial ignorance, and ignoring this will just lead to a 'negative faith' that makes the same kind of silly assumptions Sherlock Holmes does. (ie whatever remains must be true)
Regarding the world today:
Are you assuming that the evils of current civilization are the same as the evils of the ancient civilizations that were destroyed? Or are you assuming that because God hasn't solved (what you're calling) a problem at 8am today, he must be inconsistent.
Regarding rhetorical questions:
There is nothing in the universe that doesn't have a precedent except God himself. If you let yourself get bogged down by fancy questions that make you feel smart, you'll never learn anything. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Snorri
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 10706
Location: hiding the decline.
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 2:36 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Zeku wrote: |
Regarding the world today:
Are you assuming that the evils of current civilization are the same as the evils of the ancient civilizations that were destroyed? Or are you assuming that because God hasn't solved (what you're calling) a problem at 8am today, he must be inconsistent.
|
I wouldn't call the problems in todays society something that just happened this morning. In fact, I think most problems were there from the start.
Also, a lot of christians are saying that the evils today are the same as those in the bibledays. (Frequently equating our cities with Sodom& Gomorra.)
| Quote: |
Regarding rhetorical questions:
There is nothing in the universe that doesn't have a precedent except God himself. If you let yourself get bogged down by fancy questions that make you feel smart, you'll never learn anything. |
If you just accept everything given to you at face value, you'll never learn anything either.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mouse
Joined: 10 Jul 2006
Posts: 15450
Location: under the bed
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:42 pm Post subject: |
|
|
ok, i didn't want to get involved, but some things just can't be allowed to stand. so zeku, listen closely:
SHERLOCK HOLMES DID NOT MAKE SILLY ASSUMPTIONS.
thank you, we now return you to your usual nonsense.
_________________
aka: neverscared! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
dazedb42
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 2348
Location: Margaret River, Australia
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
SHERLOCK_ HOLMES_ DID_ NOT_ MAKE_ SILLY_ASSUMPTIONS.
|
If I may be so bold *fixed*
_________________
(_**_) *note to self, insert bottle at other end. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
thewaitersitsondown
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 2673
Location: The walrus was Paul
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 5:47 pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'd just like to take this opportunity to back mouse up and hopefully derail this thread a bit by saying that, if I recall correctly, what Sherlock Holmes said was that when one has eliminated all possible explanations, the impossible must be considered. That's a pretty damn solid logical statement, provided one understands that by "the impossible" Holmes means "what we assume to be impossible." In fact if anything, Sherlock Holmes is arguing against silly assumptions with this statement! So bloody there.
_________________
TORTOISE RUGBY. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Snorri
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 10706
Location: hiding the decline.
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 6:45 pm Post subject: |
|
|
*sexes thewaitersitsondown*
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Flion
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 589
Location: Don't look up! (Damn pigeons...)
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 8:33 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Again, the incorrect assumption you're making is that the same problem warranted a different solution. Ie, genocide one day, and universal forgiveness the next. The problems were different. |
Unproven and unconceded. But thank you for playing anyway.
| Quote: | | Are you seriously applying human logic to (our premise) an omniscient God? |
Not at all. You're the one using 'human' logic. I'm using the universal stuff. You know, the logic that, like math, applies everywhere equally. You'll recognize it; it's the kind you don't use.
| Quote: | | Again, the incorrect assumption you're making is that you're qualified to determine what is or isn't consistent/logical/acceptable. |
Actually, I'm the only qualified person to make that determination for myself. According to fundie dogma, God purposely set it up this way so each person had to experience free will for themselves.
| Quote: | | We all exist in partial ignorance, and ignoring this will just lead to a 'negative faith' that makes the same kind of silly assumptions Sherlock Holmes does. (ie whatever remains must be true) |
Not borne out by history. For centuries we had the 'silly assumption' that the universe revolved around the earth but we got over it. Same with flat earth, sound barrier, and so on. We only err when we claim absolutes. Like "God is..." or "God wants...". Working assumptions are never silly if they are 1) useful and 2) able to be abandoned when a better one comes along.
| Quote: | | Are you assuming that the evils of current civilization are the same as the evils of the ancient civilizations that were destroyed? |
What has that to do with the question? The statement you made was that '... evil have(sic) to be destroyed in order ...'. You didn't specify a particular evil or class of evil. But, Ok, if you want to be picky about it, what evils of civilizations past have been 'destroyed' to make way for our enlightened civilization? Murder? Rape? Slavery? Worship of heathen gods? War? Usury? As far as I know, we still got the lot.
| Quote: | | Regarding rhetorical questions: |
Philosophical != rhetorical. Typical of your gibberish, you misquote to frame a question or statement that was never made so that you can then refute it ... and then you flub that.
| Quote: | | There is nothing in the universe that doesn't have a precedent except God himself. |
Cannot be true if you accept a beginning to the universe (necessary for a created one). In any created universe, there will be a first (insert object or event here), which will then exist without precedent, though it may or may not have antecedents.
I'll take this opportunity to tell mouse, "Slug 'im again for Sir Arthur, and another for me!" and to thewaitersitsondown: Well put. I move that QED be replaced with SBT(So Bloody There) in texts henceforth. 
_________________
| Halen wrote: | | The reason that "people actually see the points people make" = "people agree with me" is because I. Am. Right! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lasairfiona
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9614
Location: I have to be somewhere? ::runs around frantically::
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 10:11 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| MellowFish wrote: | | EDIT: Thanks for using scripture to attck my argument. I appreciate you not simply rejecting it out of hand. |
I never dismissed your arguements out of hand. You ain't the only one who has read the Bible. If all you will listen to is scripture, then scripture it is but you should know that logic and common sense can be law as well when used properly.
You should stop dismissing other's arguement just because they don't quote scripture. Most of us here know what we are talking about and just because we aren't beating you over the head with your own holy book doesn't mean we are wrong.
_________________
Before God created Las he pondered on all the aspects a woman might have, he considered which ones would look good super-inflated and which ones to leave alone.
After much deliberation he gave her a giant comfort zone. - Michael |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kame
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 2563
Location: Alba Nuadh
|
| Posted: Wed Nov 08, 2006 10:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Being set up as a strawman, I feel so used. Though it appears other's have refuted your arguments, but let's see if I can turn the screws in further:
Are you aware, Zeku, that the 10 commandments were only intended for the Jews? So, a commandment such as:
| Exodus 20:17 wrote: | | "Thou shalt not covet thy (jewish) neighbour's house, thou shalt not covet thy (jewish) neighbour's wife, nor his manservant, nor his maidservant, nor his ox, nor his ass, nor any thing that [is] thy (jewish) neighbour's." |
makes that whole genocide bit of the old testament consistent with their values. But it still makes no moral sense, that's the point I was trying to make. There has to be a pre-existing set of morals in place if you are to use the Bible as a source of morality. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MellowFish
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 755
Location: The Train to Gloryland
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:40 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Lasairfiona wrote: | | MellowFish wrote: | | EDIT: Thanks for using scripture to attck my argument. I appreciate you not simply rejecting it out of hand. |
I never dismissed your arguements out of hand. You ain't the only one who has read the Bible. If all you will listen to is scripture, then scripture it is but you should know that logic and common sense can be law as well when used properly. |
It was a statement in general, I wasn't accusing you, and I am sorry if it read that way.
| Quote: | | You should stop dismissing other's arguement just because they don't quote scripture. Most of us here know what we are talking about and just because we aren't beating you over the head with your own holy book doesn't mean we are wrong. |
Eh, I dont mean to. But I will say that I often cannot argue my point of view using standard logic and no biblical references. You people are smart but not infallible.
_________________
Those who profess to favor freedom, and yet depreciate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground. -- Frederick Douglass |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lasairfiona
Joined: 09 Jul 2006
Posts: 9614
Location: I have to be somewhere? ::runs around frantically::
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 3:51 am Post subject: |
|
|
| MellowFish wrote: | | But I will say that I often cannot argue my point of view using standard logic and no biblical references. You people are smart but not infallible. |
Then you have nothing to say until you become more informed. You have no way to call any of us infallible if you have no way to prove us wrong. At least if you use Biblical references, you will be consistant even if many people don't agree with you. If you are going to participate in a discussion, realize that you are going to have to hold your arguements up to people that are very intelligent and may not agree with you much less your methods. Avoid looking like a fool by not speaking when you don't have a good arguement.. I trust I don't have to quote scripture for that one.
_________________
Before God created Las he pondered on all the aspects a woman might have, he considered which ones would look good super-inflated and which ones to leave alone.
After much deliberation he gave her a giant comfort zone. - Michael |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
kame
Joined: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 2563
Location: Alba Nuadh
|
| Posted: Thu Nov 09, 2006 3:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
But you could! ::wiggles butt::
| Proverbs 8:11 wrote: | | For wisdom is better than rubies; and all the things that may be desired are not to be compared to it. |
Notice, mellowfish, that this isn't limited to Biblical wisdom
_________________
bi-chromaticism is the extraordinary belief that there exists only two options
each polar opposite to each other
where one is completely superior to the other. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
