Contradictions

[crimsonleaf]

4. For believers, do you think all the supposed problems are not problems? Or ...
5. Do you believe problems exist, but they don't affect the message?
6. For believers, even if you believe the Bible doesn't have problems, are there some that still niggle at you, where you don't really have a satisfactory answer yet?

As a believer I believe that the Bible is infallible, but not inerrant.

There are a number of copyist errors, scientific fact is often spoken of loosely or poetically ( that pi = 3 for example) and there are always going to be interpretive errors, made by us later on.

As far as our relationship with God is concerned, our knowledge of Him and our Salvation I believe in inspired infallibility.

I probably sit at No. 5, in that I believe any problems have a resolution and where I can't immediately see a resolution I believe that the fault lies with my understanding. This is not as great a faith statement as it sounds, as I base it purely on the experience of past problems which have ceased to be problems as my knowledge has increased. The faith statement comes in that I expect that to continue to be the case .

 

[Resha Caner]

It could be inspired them, but not necessarily infallible then. How many angels were there at the tomb?

I don't know. It's funny that most people are arguing about whether there was 1 or 2. As I read it, there could have been 4 ... or more. The accounts seem to be talking about different times: Matthew before they entered the tomb, Mark when they were in the tomb, and Luke after they came out of the tomb.

Have you ever watched football? I always find it interesting the way tackles are recorded. The credit often goes to just 1 or 2 players, but when I watched the play there were about 15 people involved. Or, they'll credit someone that I couldn't even see from where I was sitting. Can you imagine the chaos of the moment? All the babbling that was going on as they were trying to get the story out. And then Luke is supposed to sit down and ask, "Wait a minute. Did you say there was 1 or 2 angels?" We're talking about angels ... something unbelievers don't accept in the first place. We're talking about the resurrection of God. And people worry about whether there was 1 or 2 angels.

Oh, well.

Did God really command the mass murder of women and children? Or did some people use God to justify their immoral actions, as has happened through history.

This is another interesting one. We're all going to die. If this is how you're going to look at it, he's commanded the mass murder of all life.

What?

There are several different types of contradictions. But supposing the claim was a logical contradiction, then we should be able to look at the "square". We should be able to define S and P, and then decide which of the 4 claims are being made:

1. All S are P
2. No S is P
3. Some S are P
4. Some S are not P

Then we can determine what the claims constitute. Are they contradictory, contrary, or merely subaltern?

So, what types of contradictions are we dealing with here?

 

[essentialsaltes]

So, what types of contradictions are we dealing with here?

I think those formal contradictions are not the best way to look at these examples. A more fundamental logical rule is the Law of Noncontradiction:
"the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive"

The number of angels is one.
The number of angels is two.

These are contradictory. Inasmuch as one is not two.

The number of angels is at least one.
The number of angels is at least two.

These are not (necessarily) contradictory.

So the question revolves on what is the 'best' way to translate the verses into logical statements. If you start with the assumption that the Bible contains no contradictions, this will affect your opinion about which translation is better.

 

[Gadarene]

I think those formal contradictions are not the best way to look at these examples. A more fundamental logical rule is the Law of Noncontradiction:
"the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive"

The number of angels is one.
The number of angels is two.

These are contradictory. Inasmuch as one is not two.

The number of angels is at least one.
The number of angels is at least two.

These are not (necessarily) contradictory.

So the question revolves on what is the 'best' way to translate the verses into logical statements. If you start with the assumption that the Bible contains no contradictions, this will affect your opinion about which translation is better.

Direct contradictions of the former kind in the Bible, however, are creatively reinterpreted into the latter kind, iirc.

 

[Resha Caner]

I think those formal contradictions are not the best way to look at these examples. A more fundamental logical rule is the Law of Noncontradiction:
"the two propositions "A is B" and "A is not B" are mutually exclusive"

OK.

The number of angels is one.
The number of angels is two.

These are contradictory. Inasmuch as one is not two.

I think we'd have to go farther to reach your conclusion. I would agree if the statements are:
A=1
A=2

But, my proposition was that they should be:
A(t1) = 1
A(t2) = 2
That is, A is a function of time, t1 & t2 being specific points in time.

The number of angels is at least one.
The number of angels is at least two.

These are not (necessarily) contradictory.

Actually, I think they still are contradictory. I would write those statements as:
A >= 1
A >= 2

In order for them to be non-contradictory, they would need to be
A >= 1
A <= 2

which, in verbage, would be:
The number of angels is at least one.
The number of angels is at most two.

If you start with the assumption that the Bible contains no contradictions, this will affect your opinion about which translation is better.

Don't overstate your case. It is also true that if you start with the assumption that the Bible has contradictions (or something similar akin to assuming that perfection is impossible), your opinion will be affected. Attribution of false motives is a problem for many of these discussions. I think we'll have to put motives aside.

So the question revolves on what is the 'best' way to translate the verses into logical statements.

Agreed. I don't have my Greek text handy at the moment, but going off the English versions the text doesn't say, "There were x angels." It says, "They saw x angels."

Motivations aside, it is difficult to translate that into a logical statement. How would you do that? Would you convert "saw" to mathematical terms by assuming a standard field of vision and making it a function of the area encompassed by it? That makes it similar to what I did earlier with time. The statements would need to be something like:

A(r,theta) = 1; 0 <= r <= 3 meters; 0 <= theta <= 45 deg
where (r,theta) are polar coordinates

Further, since Mark was written by Mark (or possibly dictated by Peter), and since Mark is neither Mary nor Martha, we must assume Mary and Martha told the story to Mark. But which one? What if Martha saw one angel and told Mark and Mary saw two angels and told Luke. In other words, A1(r1,theta1) might have a different origin than A2(r2,theta2), and the text gives us no information to resolve that.

 

[Davian]

BTW, I like the cartoon.

Thanks.

sigh



And again, sigh.

Indeed.

Yeah, that's probably it.

Agreed.

It depends what you mean. Do you mean my BELIEF or some of my beliefs? In the case of the latter, I have changed when the problems couldn't be resolved.

The example I use is my biological father. If someone were to ask me, "What would it take to convince you Caner Sr. doesn't exist?" I would be a bit perplexed. Um, well, since he's standing right over there, it would take quite a bit.

However, if someone came to me and said, "I can prove that even though your father says he's Republican, that he's actually a closet Democrat," well, they'd have a chance of convincing me of that.

sigh.

 

[essentialsaltes]

OK.
But, my proposition was that they should be:
A(t1) = 1
A(t2) = 2

Yes, that's another possibility for resolving the matter.

Actually, I think they still are contradictory. I would write those statements as:
A >= 1
A >= 2

They are certainly not equivalent or identical. I'm not sure whether they necessarily contradict, but it's not important. If A happens to be 47, I would say that "47 is at least 1" and "47 is at least 2" are both true and non-contradictory. But I see what you mean, and (as I say) I don't see it as an important point.

Motivations aside, it is difficult to translate that into a logical statement.

I agree. Just as the Bible is not a science text or a history text, neither is it a formal logic text.

 

[Paradoxum]

I don't know. It's funny that most people are arguing about whether there was 1 or 2. As I read it, there could have been 4 ... or more. The accounts seem to be talking about different times: Matthew before they entered the tomb, Mark when they were in the tomb, and Luke after they came out of the tomb.

I just read the accounts, and they don't seem to make alot of sense all together. I'll paraphrase what is said to try to show what I mean.

Matthew 28: 1-10; The two Marys go to the tomb. One angel, that looked like lightning in white, came down, moved the stone, sat on it, and terrified the guards.

Then the angels tells the women not to be afraid, that they are looking for Jesus, and that he is risen. The women leave. Jesus meets them and says, "Greetings", they hold his feet and worship him, and Jesus says a few things. They leave.

Mark 16: 1-8; The two Marys, and Salome, go to the tomb. They find the stone rolled away. They find a man inside the tomb in white. He tells them not to be afraid, that they are looking for Jesus, and that he is risen. Then the women leave and tell no one.

(No Jesus encounter, to point out only one difference for the moment).

Luke 24: 1-12; 'The women' (who appear to be an even bigger group of women), go to the tomb and find the stone rolled away. They entered the empty tomb. Then two men like lightening appeared. They tell the women that Jesus is risen. The women go back and tell others. Peter runs to look at the tomb.

(No Jesus encounter).

John 20: 1-18; Mary M went to the tomb and found the stone rolled away. She ran to Simon Peter. He, another disciple, and presumably Mary return to the tomb. Simon Peter and the other disciple go into the empty tomb and talk to no one there.

At some point (I have no idea when) Mary is outside the tomb crying. She then sees two angels in white inside the tomb, and they ask her why she is crying. She replies, then turns around to see Jesus, whom she thinks is the gardener. She then realises. Jesus tells her not to hold him. She returns and tells the disciples.

I'm sure you don't need me to tell you, but there seem to be contradictions. If not contradictions, then a crazy set of events, with many people an angels running around everywhere.

To name a few things, some of which are contradictions, some are just strange, and some are queries:

How many women went to the tomb, and how many saw anything supernatural?

Did they run and get Simon Peter or not?

How many angels were there?

Did they all say practically the same thing? That seems strange.

Did the angels look like lightning, or just men in white?

Did the tomb have anyone inside it or not?

Did the women tell the disciples straight after or not?

Was Jesus touched or not, and was he recognized straight away?

Did anyone even see Jesus at this time or not?

Do they meet Jesus as they leave the tomb, or when they return later?

I find it all rather strange.

Have you ever watched football? I always find it interesting the way tackles are recorded. The credit often goes to just 1 or 2 players, but when I watched the play there were about 15 people involved. Or, they'll credit someone that I couldn't even see from where I was sitting. Can you imagine the chaos of the moment? All the babbling that was going on as they were trying to get the story out. And then Luke is supposed to sit down and ask, "Wait a minute. Did you say there was 1 or 2 angels?" We're talking about angels ... something unbelievers don't accept in the first place.

Well, yes I do expect that. It can't be that hard to get people to recount their story. They weren't barbarians. A fallible human could do a better job. If God is meant to be making this without error, and look like it is history and not a legend, he did a poor job.

Me and my friends could possibly recount our drunken New Years Eve with similar clarity. Isn't a book without error meant to be a bit better than that?

I don't mean to insult your book (I am leaving it open that it could be inspired, but with error), but the state of this story is worse than I thought it was before I read it.

We're talking about the resurrection of God. And people worry about whether there was 1 or 2 angels.

Oh, well.

It makes a difference.

This is another interesting one. We're all going to die. If this is how you're going to look at it, he's commanded the mass murder of all life.

I'm sorry, but really? You don't see a difference between someone dying naturally at an old age, and being killed when young? If someone wrote a book now claiming that God told them to kill all Polish people we could consider them (and their fictional God) immoral.

The mass murder by the Jews in the Bible seem little different from the mass murder of the Jews in the 20th century.

Also, morally (and physically) it makes sense for humans not to live forever, but to kill them off in a genocide is highly immoral.

There are several different types of contradictions. But supposing the claim was a logical contradiction, then we should be able to look at the "square". We should be able to define S and P, and then decide which of the 4 claims are being made:

1. All S are P
2. No S is P
3. Some S are P
4. Some S are not P

Then we can determine what the claims constitute. Are they contradictory, contrary, or merely subaltern?

So, what types of contradictions are we dealing with here?

I guess the most direct contradiction is the resurrection story is whether the women told anyone straight away or not. There could be others, but I don't want to go all through it against a decide how direct or implied the difference is.

 

[Resha Caner]

Just as the Bible is not a science text or a history text, neither is it a formal logic text.

Mmm. Sort of. They weren't written with the idea that the statements should be reducable to quantitative terms for formal analysis. But few primary historical texts are. Regardless, it is a primary historical source. In other words, I think you would have the same problem with a text discussing Caesar, Napoleon, or Washington.

Regardless, I think there is some value in doing what we did. It helps to uncover the assumptions people are making and the method they are using for processing the story. It doesn't validate one side or the other. I realize these difficulties can be used to hide contradictions, but I think they can also be used to create contradictions. Any difference between two sources could be used as a wedge to claim a contradiction.

I'm sure you don't need me to tell you, but there seem to be contradictions. If not contradictions, then a crazy set of events, with many people an angels running around everywhere.

I'll go with the latter because that was one of my points. This was a crazy set of events. It's not something too many people have experienced.

Well, yes I do expect that. It can't be that hard to get people to recount their story. They weren't barbarians. A fallible human could do a better job. If God is meant to be making this without error, and look like it is history and not a legend, he did a poor job.

Me and my friends could possibly recount our drunken New Years Eve with similar clarity. Isn't a book without error meant to be a bit better than that?

Maybe you haven't tried too often to get a story out of someone who has just had a very emotional experience. When I'm in those situations (such as when my boys are excited about something they want to tell me), the story seems to come out rather chaotically. Even after they've calmed down, trying to recall what happened through the emotional veil that was in place during the experience makes it very difficult.

I'm not saying that excuses errors. I'm saying, if you were to remove all the errors from such an account, it leaves a rather disjointed story. Further, I think it would be dishonest for someone to go back and smooth the story out to make it sound better. In fact, I'd be quite suspicious of someone who claimed to have seen something spectacular who then describes it in cold, clinical, emotionless terms.

Finally, what I would point out is that omission is not an error. Most of your questions seem to center around what one version said that another omitted. As such, I would make the same comment as I did to Essential: breaking down how you interpret the story into some logical sentences can be very illuminating.

I'm sorry, but really? You don't see a difference between someone dying naturally at an old age, and being killed when young? If someone wrote a book now claiming that God told them to kill all Polish people we could consider them (and their fictional God) immoral.

The mass murder by the Jews in the Bible seem little different from the mass murder of the Jews in the 20th century.

Also, morally (and physically) it makes sense for humans not to live forever, but to kill them off in a genocide is highly immoral.

Why does the age make a difference? Isn't it always sad when someone dies? It sounds to me like you're saying there is some "moral" or "physical" sense to old people dying. I wouldn't agree to that at all ... especially since I'm much closer to that than you are.

And who was it that dictated death as the consequence? It was God (Gen 2:16-17). So, if you're going to blame God for dictating one death, I think you should blame him for them all.

But I know you don't see it that way. So, how does it make sense to you that people shouldn't live forever? Does that mean you oppose efforts to extend people's lives?

 

[Paradoxum]

I'll go with the latter because that was one of my points. This was a crazy set of events. It's not something too many people have experienced.

I didn't mean it how you mean it. I mean that it is so weird it can't all be pieced together so that all of it can be considered true.

Maybe you haven't tried too often to get a story out of someone who has just had a very emotional experience. When I'm in those situations (such as when my boys are excited about something they want to tell me), the story seems to come out rather chaotically. Even after they've calmed down, trying to recall what happened through the emotional veil that was in place during the experience makes it very difficult.

I get that it that it is humanly possible to have a messed up story. My point is that that means the Bible has errors. Either the women (or woman) saw one or two angels in the tomb.

I'm not saying that excuses errors. I'm saying, if you were to remove all the errors from such an account, it leaves a rather disjointed story. Further, I think it would be dishonest for someone to go back and smooth the story out to make it sound better. In fact, I'd be quite suspicious of someone who claimed to have seen something spectacular who then describes it in cold, clinical, emotionless terms.

As one would expect for a fallible book.

Finally, what I would point out is that omission is not an error. Most of your questions seem to center around what one version said that another omitted. As such, I would make the same comment as I did to Essential: breaking down how you interpret the story into some logical sentences can be very illuminating.

Omissions may not strictly be errors, but I also wouldn't to use something so holey as the judge of all other sources of truth. Ie: I would trust reason and evidence more.

Why does the age make a difference? Isn't it always sad when someone dies? It sounds to me like you're saying there is some "moral" or "physical" sense to old people dying. I wouldn't agree to that at all ... especially since I'm much closer to that than you are.

Is it sad to the same degree. Everyone has their story, and stories end. It is sad that they are gone, sad that you wont see them again, but the death of the young seems not only sad but cruel also. Unfair. I don't know how I will feel when I am older, but I hope to accept that my time will end and that is ok.

And who was it that dictated death as the consequence? It was God (Gen 2:16-17). So, if you're going to blame God for dictating one death, I think you should blame him for them all.

Genesis 2 didn't happen. It is a spiritual myth. Why do you want me to blame God for all death, why does that help you?

But I know you don't see it that way. So, how does it make sense to you that people shouldn't live forever? Does that mean you oppose efforts to extend people's lives?

For one thing it would over populate the earth, so it makes physical sense. Also living forever might be boring. But I don't oppose extending lives. Do you think science should aim at making us immortal? At least safe from natural causes. I guess it will happen eventually, but after our deaths. Perhaps it is better to live without ageing and only die when one chooses too.

 

[Resha Caner]

Genesis 2 didn't happen. It is a spiritual myth. Why do you want me to blame God for all death, why does that help you?

I don't want you to blame God. It's just that you seem to be applying your judgements unevenly. If Genesis 2 didn't happen, then neither did Genesis 19 (one of the cases you might consider genocide). So what exactly is it that you're objecting to? If you're objecting to God issuing a death sentence in Gen 19, I expected you would also object to the death sentence issued in Gen 2.

I haven't come right out and said it yet, but I'm keying off your word "kill," which is a different view of God's sovereignty over life than mine.

For one thing it would over populate the earth, so it makes physical sense.

No, because when science affords us immortality we'll also have spaceships for settling other planets.

Also living forever might be boring.

Then you get bored too easily. Think how bored God must be - being eternal and such. Actually, that's one of the elegant aspects of the "middle knowledge" idea - that God can take infinite pleasure from our finite world.

But I don't oppose extending lives. Do you think science should aim at making us immortal? At least safe from natural causes. I guess it will happen eventually, but after our deaths. Perhaps it is better to live without ageing and only die when one chooses too.

Not because of boredom, but just because of how cruel this world can be, I wouldn't want to live forever if this is how it's going to be. So, I'm not supportive of immortality as an end in itself. However, I think we have a duty to relieve as much suffering as we can. In the process of doing that, I expect people will live longer.

 

[crimsonleaf]

I just read the accounts, and they don't seem to make alot of sense all together. I'll paraphrase what is said to try to show what I mean.

Matthew 28: 1-10; The two Marys go to the tomb. One angel, that looked like lightning in white, came down, moved the stone, sat on it, and terrified the guards.

Then the angels tells the women not to be afraid, that they are looking for Jesus, and that he is risen. The women leave. Jesus meets them and says, "Greetings", they hold his feet and worship him, and Jesus says a few things. They leave.

Mark 16: 1-8; The two Marys, and Salome, go to the tomb. They find the stone rolled away. They find a man inside the tomb in white. He tells them not to be afraid, that they are looking for Jesus, and that he is risen. Then the women leave and tell no one.

(No Jesus encounter, to point out only one difference for the moment).

Luke 24: 1-12; 'The women' (who appear to be an even bigger group of women), go to the tomb and find the stone rolled away. They entered the empty tomb. Then two men like lightening appeared. They tell the women that Jesus is risen. The women go back and tell others. Peter runs to look at the tomb.

(No Jesus encounter).

John 20: 1-18; Mary M went to the tomb and found the stone rolled away. She ran to Simon Peter. He, another disciple, and presumably Mary return to the tomb. Simon Peter and the other disciple go into the empty tomb and talk to no one there.

At some point (I have no idea when) Mary is outside the tomb crying. She then sees two angels in white inside the tomb, and they ask her why she is crying. She replies, then turns around to see Jesus, whom she thinks is the gardener. She then realises. Jesus tells her not to hold him. She returns and tells the disciples.

I'm sure you don't need me to tell you, but there seem to be contradictions. If not contradictions, then a crazy set of events, with many people an angels running around everywhere.

To name a few things, some of which are contradictions, some are just strange, and some are queries:

How many women went to the tomb, and how many saw anything supernatural?

Did they run and get Simon Peter or not?

How many angels were there?

Did they all say practically the same thing? That seems strange.

Did the angels look like lightning, or just men in white?

Did the tomb have anyone inside it or not?

Did the women tell the disciples straight after or not?

Was Jesus touched or not, and was he recognized straight away?

Did anyone even see Jesus at this time or not?

Do they meet Jesus as they leave the tomb, or when they return later?

I find it all rather strange.



Well, yes I do expect that. It can't be that hard to get people to recount their story. They weren't barbarians. A fallible human could do a better job. If God is meant to be making this without error, and look like it is history and not a legend, he did a poor job.

Me and my friends could possibly recount our drunken New Years Eve with similar clarity. Isn't a book without error meant to be a bit better than that?

I don't mean to insult your book (I am leaving it open that it could be inspired, but with error), but the state of this story is worse than I thought it was before I read it.



It makes a difference.



I'm sorry, but really? You don't see a difference between someone dying naturally at an old age, and being killed when young? If someone wrote a book now claiming that God told them to kill all Polish people we could consider them (and their fictional God) immoral.

The mass murder by the Jews in the Bible seem little different from the mass murder of the Jews in the 20th century.

Also, morally (and physically) it makes sense for humans not to live forever, but to kill them off in a genocide is highly immoral.



I guess the most direct contradiction is the resurrection story is whether the women told anyone straight away or not. There could be others, but I don't want to go all through it against a decide how direct or implied the difference is.

You may want to read Who Moved the Stone by Frank Morrison, which does a good job of harmonising these stories.

 

[GenetoJean]

4. For believers, do you think all the supposed problems are not problems? Or ...

5. Do you believe problems exist, but they don't affect the message?

6. For believers, even if you believe the Bible doesn't have problems, are there some that still niggle at you, where you don't really have a satisfactory answer yet?

I believe the 5. I believe God inspired the Bible but didnt control everything put in it.

 

[Paradoxum]

I don't want you to blame God. It's just that you seem to be applying your judgements unevenly. If Genesis 2 didn't happen, then neither did Genesis 19 (one of the cases you might consider genocide). So what exactly is it that you're objecting to? If you're objecting to God issuing a death sentence in Gen 19, I expected you would also object to the death sentence issued in Gen 2.

Why does Gen 2 not happening mean Gen 19 didn't? Gen 2 has been proven to be not historic, but it is more possible that gen 19 happened.

But yes, if Gen 2 happened then I might blame God for the whole silly set up.

I haven't come right out and said it yet, but I'm keying off your word "kill," which is a different view of God's sovereignty over life than mine.

I'm not sure what the phrase 'key off' means. God is subject to morality just like humans, so him killing a human is no different from a human doing it. Just because he is powerful and creator doesn't put him above morality.

No, because when science affords us immortality we'll also have spaceships for settling other planets.

True, but I meant if God made us immoral and left us on earth.

Then you get bored too easily. Think how bored God must be - being eternal and such. Actually, that's one of the elegant aspects of the "middle knowledge" idea - that God can take infinite pleasure from our finite world.

Why too easily? After a few hundred thousand years we might have done everything there is to do. I don't think God can be bored because he is timeless.

Not because of boredom, but just because of how cruel this world can be, I wouldn't want to live forever if this is how it's going to be. So, I'm not supportive of immortality as an end in itself. However, I think we have a duty to relieve as much suffering as we can. In the process of doing that, I expect people will live longer.

Well that makes sense.

We seem to have left our talk about the tomb and angels behind.

 

[Resha Caner]

Why does Gen 2 not happening mean Gen 19 didn't? Gen 2 has been proven to be not historic, but it is more possible that gen 19 happened.

Proven? I'd be interested to know what proves Gen 2 as non-historic.

I'm not sure what the phrase 'key off' means. God is subject to morality just like humans, so him killing a human is no different from a human doing it. Just because he is powerful and creator doesn't put him above morality.

By what authority is God subjected to anything? Who would ever enforce that accountability? I believe God keeps his promises, and so in that sense he is subject to himself - to the promises he has made. I also believe he has promised to follow certain precepts that you could call "moral" (there are also physical precepts, etc.) But there is nothing "above" God that he must obey. So, there is no means by which you can accuse him of "killing" something. That's why I said that word is key, and why I brought up Gen 2.

It's a limited analogy, but consider this. I work as an engineer for a heavy construction company (machines used for agriculture, mining, construction, etc.). We use an economic basis for designing them. Based on what the customer is willing to pay, we promise to provide a machine with certain abilities - it can move x tons/hour and will last y years. For a customer to then come back and say, "I moved x+1 tons/hour with my machine and it broke after y-1 years. You killed it." is just silly. I didn't kill the machine. The machine was used for something I didn't design it for. That's Gen 2.

Even further, we sometimes help run rental fleets. If a customer says, "I need to move x+5 tons/hour and I'm going rent a machine and do that," we can then say, "OK, then I'm going to charge you more and I'll decommission that machine after y-5 years." It was, in a sense, my decision to "kill" the machine at a young age, but only because the customer agreed (free will) to pay the price (sin, death) to do something I didn't design for (immorality). That's Gen 19.

Why too easily? After a few hundred thousand years we might have done everything there is to do. I don't think God can be bored because he is timeless.

That's why I made the comment about middle knowledge. There are an infinite number of things to do.

I don't know exactly what you mean by "timeless", but I don't think I agree with you. And I don't understand why that would relieve his boredom.

We seem to have left our talk about the tomb and angels behind.

Somewhat purposefully on my part. I sensed a bit of digging in - some statements near to, "Well, just because," that seemed headed toward causing frustration. That's not what I want - the same old same old for a debate.

What I wanted was the exercise of dissecting such things into assumptions and "logical sentences" (A >= 1) just to see what that would yield. But, further, I sensed little interest in doing that.

If I was wrong in those inferences, we can resume.

 

[Paradoxum]

Proven? I'd be interested to know what proves Gen 2 as non-historic.

Evolution, biology, physics, geology, most of science.

By what authority is God subjected to anything? Who would ever enforce that accountability? I believe God keeps his promises, and so in that sense he is subject to himself - to the promises he has made. I also believe he has promised to follow certain precepts that you could call "moral" (there are also physical precepts, etc.) But there is nothing "above" God that he must obey. So, there is no means by which you can accuse him of "killing" something. That's why I said that word is key, and why I brought up Gen 2.

God doesn't need an authority to be moral, just as I don't. I recognize a moral law which I should follow, but that doesn't mean I need a man in the sky threatening me if I don't do it. Why does God need that if I don't?

Is God just making stuff up? Could he have made rape good? In which case I wonder if your theology is much better than those of child sacrificing cults.

For God to be subject to morality, just like us, doesn't mean morality is some magical thing prior to God. It can just mean that morality is within God just like it is within all of us. Just as it is 'written on our hearts', it is also written on the heart of God.

It's a limited analogy, but consider this. I work as an engineer for a heavy construction company (machines used for agriculture, mining, construction, etc.). We use an economic basis for designing them. Based on what the customer is willing to pay, we promise to provide a machine with certain abilities - it can move x tons/hour and will last y years. For a customer to then come back and say, "I moved x+1 tons/hour with my machine and it broke after y-1 years. You killed it." is just silly. I didn't kill the machine. The machine was used for something I didn't design it for. That's Gen 2.

God cursed them unnecessarily. It seem more comparable to a creator taking a sledge hammer to their own creation out of frustration.

I quite like the creation stories, and they can be understood in a good way, but thinking they are historic isn't helpful.

Even further, we sometimes help run rental fleets. If a customer says, "I need to move x+5 tons/hour and I'm going rent a machine and do that," we can then say, "OK, then I'm going to charge you more and I'll decommission that machine after y-5 years." It was, in a sense, my decision to "kill" the machine at a young age, but only because the customer agreed (free will) to pay the price (sin, death) to do something I didn't design for (immorality). That's Gen 19.

What? That is nothing like it. God shot fire out of the sky to kill them. If he didn't do that they would have lived. It wasn't necessary and part of the design.

Gen 19 isn't even what I was thinking of until you brought it up. I was thinking of when the Hebrews attack different peoples and killed them all in the name of God. The man, women, children and animals. All of them.

That's why I made the comment about middle knowledge. There are an infinite number of things to do.

Most of which get repetitive after a while.

I don't know exactly what you mean by "timeless", but I don't think I agree with you. And I don't understand why that would relieve his boredom.

God (if real) is outside of time (time-space is a physical thing). For God there is no yesterday, or tomorrow. Everything is now and always. You need time to be bored.

Somewhat purposefully on my part. I sensed a bit of digging in - some statements near to, "Well, just because," that seemed headed toward causing frustration. That's not what I want - the same old same old for a debate.

I thought you were giving up because you couldn't answer.

What I wanted was the exercise of dissecting such things into assumptions and "logical sentences" (A >= 1) just to see what that would yield. But, further, I sensed little interest in doing that.

If I was wrong in those inferences, we can resume.

I didn't know what you were on about. Make these logical sentences if you wish, but you should be able to understand anything I say not in that form too.

When the women went in the tomb, was there a man sitting down in white, or did two like lightning appear next to them?

Did they meet Jesus when they first went to the tomb, or the second time?

 

[crimsonleaf]

When the women went in the tomb, was there a man sitting down in white, or did two like lightning appear next to them?

Did they meet Jesus when they first went to the tomb, or the second time?

You could try the link I gave you...

 

[Paradoxum]

You could try the link I gave you...

I'm not reading that whole link.

If you want to answer my questions you can.

 

[Resha Caner]

Evolution, biology, physics, geology, most of science.

I see. I don't think that falsifies Gen 2. The positions of some people conflict with Gen 2, but they don't falsify it.

God doesn't need an authority to be moral, just as I don't. I recognize a moral law which I should follow, but that doesn't mean I need a man in the sky threatening me if I don't do it.

Actually, you do. Welcome to big brother. It's called a social contract. Sure, you can do anything you want, but then don't expect anything back from society.

Is God just making stuff up? Could he have made rape good? In which case I wonder if your theology is much better than those of child sacrificing cults.

You can say it that way if you want (that he makes stuff up). I don't think his design was arbitrary, but neither do I think he had to do it the way he did.

You seem to miss the point though. God can't do contradictions. He can't make bad things good. As such, he gave us a list. If you kill, it hurts, so let's call that bad. If you steal, rape, pillage ... bad, bad, bad. Rape hurts because God didn't want it to happen, and doing what God doesn't want hurts.

God cursed them unnecessarily. It seem more comparable to a creator taking a sledge hammer to their own creation out of frustration.

It is your judgement that it wasn't necessary. So, you are judging God. By what standard? If you can prove an absolute standard to me apart from God, I'd be surprised.

In the case of Sodom, what would those children likely have grown up to accept? That the horrible things occurring there were justified. People always throw at me this, "People born Christian are more likely to be Christian, those born Muslim are more likely to be Muslim" thing as an argument against Christianity. But I don't disagree. Being born a woman in Pakistan means you've been given a tough row to hoe. Absolutely.

I suppose I differ from you in thinking that death is not the worst possible thing. Some of the things that have happened to my children were more painful than what my own death will be. And, yeah, I know that. At one point in my life I was told that if treatment failed, I had 6 months to live. Not a fun place to be. But what one of my sons went through ... I would have died to spare him that.

What? That is nothing like it. God shot fire out of the sky to kill them. If he didn't do that they would have lived. It wasn't necessary and part of the design.

You missed the point. The design has been violated, and we must suffer the consequences.

But, OK. Let's say you're right and God messed up. It didn't seem to work to wipe everything out and start over (Noah), so what should God do? I don't know, maybe offer life after death to those who want to do it his way? And let those who don't want to do it his way completely separate from him?

Most of which get repetitive after a while.

Some of the repetitive things that bored me when I was young don't bore as much now - maybe because I've learned that each time I do it, it's a little bit different.

God (if real) is outside of time (time-space is a physical thing). For God there is no yesterday, or tomorrow. Everything is now and always. You need time to be bored.

Time is physical? In what sense? Can you see it, touch it, smell it, taste it? It makes for a nice model for science, but other than that ...

I thought you were giving up because you couldn't answer.

You didn't like my answer. I think that is because we're assuming different things and analyzing the text in different ways.

 

[Gadarene]

You seem to miss the point though. God can't do contradictions. He can't make bad things good. As such, he gave us a list. If you kill, it hurts, so let's call that bad. If you steal, rape, pillage ... bad, bad, bad. Rape hurts because God didn't want it to happen, and doing what God doesn't want hurts.

.....

It is your judgement that it wasn't necessary. So, you are judging God. By what standard? If you can prove an absolute standard to me apart from God, I'd be surprised.

In the case of Sodom, what would those children likely have grown up to accept? That the horrible things occurring there were justified. People always throw at me this, "People born Christian are more likely to be Christian, those born Muslim are more likely to be Muslim" thing as an argument against Christianity. But I don't disagree. Being born a woman in Pakistan means you've been given a tough row to hoe. Absolutely.

So God can't make bad things good except when he can? This line against the Biblical genocides is based on the assumption that every single child of those civilisations will be wholly unregenerate and unrepentant, which is dubious. And the argument you've cited (people in Christian cultures being Christian) is hardly against the point - people who point that out aren't about to light people on fire for having the heritage they have, which they have no control over. The argument is about the rightness of cultural beliefs, not whether or not they should be murdered because of it.

"Tough row to hoe" means "eat fire and brimstone, sinner" depending on which row was administered to you by a god that is in control of everything.

Being a utilitarian, I like that some Christians are inclined to go utilitarian when it suits, but those kinds of arguments cannot reasonably account for all of God's actions in the Bible.

You missed the point. The design has been violated, and we must suffer the consequences.

But, OK. Let's say you're right and God messed up. It didn't seem to work to wipe everything out and start over (Noah), so what should God do? I don't know, maybe offer life after death to those who want to do it his way? And let those who don't want to do it his way completely separate from him?

Don't make the punishment eternal when it's his [bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse][bless and do not curse]-up in the first place.

Don't judge people for making honest decisions to not follow him because there is no good evidence for belief. If people are honestly mistaken, then that is not justification for lighting them on fire.