God exists

Originally posted by Jenyar
Two nights ago my cousin was mugged by three men. After they had stolen everything on him, they stabbed him three times in the back with a knife - he felt three blows that he knew weren't punches, and his (brand new) jersey was cut above the shoulder and had another knifepoint hole just below his shoulder.

All he had to show for it was a small bruise.
How does that prove anything? So they didn't really stab him? Maybe one wanted to show the other two how tough he was without actually killing your cousin?

Getting mugged and not dying does not proove God exists. I have been in a car and I am still alive. Does that mean God exists?
 
How does that prove anything?
Of course not. Nothing proves anything if you don't believe it.

Trust me, you don't survive a stabbing in South Africa. Criminals here don't have anything to prove to their "buddies". How do you intentionally miss stabbing someone with a knife?

I knew it meant nothing to you - which is part of why I posted it. That my cousin survived means a lot to me and my family, however. The difference is love. Love or lack thereof is the only thing that makes anything between people relevant.

God is just as irrelevant to you, because you don't love Him and don't believe He loves you - you have no wish to recognize Him as the author or saviour of your life.
 
Originally posted by Jenyar
Of course not. Nothing proves anything if you don't believe it.
I suppose that is true in a way. I like to think that I am rational though, I will listen to an argument and dismiss it if it requires no more thought.
Trust me, you don't survive a stabbing in South Africa. Criminals here don't have anything to prove to their "buddies". How do you intentionally miss stabbing someone with a knife?
Don't get me wrong, I am happy for you that your cousin is okay. But when it comes down to it what are you telling me? That a knife went in to your cousin's back and came back out three times without an injury because God Loves him? Maybe your cousin should look in to becoming a prophet or something then because for some reason he has been chosen to be special by God. Rationally don't you think that the mugger must have intentionally missed? Either that or he picked up the fake knief on the way to the office today instead of the real one, he is the worst killer/mugger ever, God protected him from being killed and joining him in heaven, or the person really didn't want to kill your brother. Which one is the most obvious to you? I hope it isn't God.

I knew it meant nothing to you - which is part of why I posted it. That my cousin survived means a lot to me and my family, however. God is just as irrelevant to you, because you have no wish to recognize Him as the author or saviour of your life.
Once again, I apologize if I hurt your feelings. I don't want any innocent people killed. Yes, God is somewhat irrelevant to me. That is because I have heard the arguments both ways and I have decided that the only solution is that God does not exist in the form of the Christian, Muslim or Jewish God. Obviously thought I am interested in finding out anything else that I can, that is why I am talking to you now. Maybe there is a religion that is right for me, maybe one of the big three will surprise me and I will start to believe. But I am not going to blindly believe in something because 95% of the world does.

PS: If the crime is so bad near you why don't you move?
 
posted by Ectropic
Don't get me wrong, I am happy for you that your cousin is okay. But when it comes down to it what are you telling me? That a knife went in to your cousin's back and came back out three times without an injury because God Loves him? Maybe your cousin should look in to becoming a prophet or something then because for some reason he has been chosen to be special by God. Rationally don't you think that the mugger must have intentionally missed? Either that or he picked up the fake knief on the way to the office today instead of the real one, he is the worst killer/mugger ever, God protected him from being killed and joining him in heaven, or the person really didn't want to kill your brother. Which one is the most obvious to you? I hope it isn't God.
No worries. I'm really not emotional about it. My cousin wasn't quite sober when it happened, and he certainly doesn't make any claims about knowing why they missed. It's only the people who knew it should have turned out differently who are thankful, and none of us believe it was "his lucky stars" (if there were such a thing he doesn't have any!). God has taken care of our family for long enough not to be able to think this time was luck.

I'm really just trying to show you that the subjective experience and the objective reality sometimes overlap - that God is visible in both but "evident" in neither. You'll always have the same experience with any religion, since they are invariably a mixture of both.

All I'm trying to do in these forums is show that someone who believes in God does not have to be a gulllible, irrational fanatic. (There will be people who exerience me as such regardless, I assume).

But consider this: from a purely earthly perspective, God can't win - even if He is an uncontestable reality. Suffering lead some people to Him, and others away from Him. His mercy is only evident when it is acknowledged, otherwise people see it as glimpses of how things could be without Him. To be accepted a reality people would have objective evidence - evidence that would at the same time affect His authority and probably destroy our very existence. When He does make himself visible and believable, people deny His majesty and give Him no glory or recognition. When He presents himself as an historical God, people assume His witnesses were deluded or currupt or both. When He preents himself as a present God, people deny His involvement (as I have shown you). As a future God, people deny His future.

People deny God every chance they get - and it is working: religions have become either personalized or irrelevant, people are growing accustomed to living independent from God, simply because it is possible in the false Matrix we have created for ourselves - completing the separation that started at the garden of Eden.

If you want my advice Ectropic, if you want to find God, don't look. Everything you see will be trying to point away from God. Maybe when you realize this, you'll begin to question whether you yourself are really standing still and objective. It's a bit like thinking everything is moving with you, and only being able to see the universe expand by inference - and as the stars move by wondering what it is they are expanding from.

*I just saw your PS.
In spite of the crime (I'm not naive enough to believe it's that much better anywhere else), this country's got a lot going for it. If the opportunity presents itself, I'll go anywhere, but I'm not going to flee from a place that I love because of people who don't.
 
Last edited:
Originally posted by Jenyar
People deny God every chance they get - and it is working: religions have become either personalized or irrelevant, people are growing accustomed to living independent from God, simply because it is possible in the false Matrix we have created for ourselves - completing the separation that started at the garden of Eden.
So you believe in the Garden of Eden as a literal story?
If you want my advice Ectropic, if you want to find God, don't look.
This is the argument I like least from theists. The argument that I can't find God by looking for him. Why not? If he is as real as everyone claims that he is then why can't I look for him? I'm not incapable of understanding what to look for. I'm not looking for the physical form of God, I am just looking for real evedence of his existance. All that I can find is the possibility that he may have at least once existed to start the universe. The creation of the universe is my only unanswerable question. I accepy biology and evolution without a second thought because it makes sense, but I can't answer where the universe came from. Then again, if there was a God to create the universe where did the God come from? (Another Cliche argument :D)
Everything you see will be trying to point away from God. Maybe when you realize this, you'll begin to question whether you yourself are really standing still and objective. It's a bit like thinking everything is moving with you, and only being able to see the universe expand by inference - and as the stars move by wondering what it is they are expanding from.
See, I really see it the opposite way. A theist sees the questions that we have answered and those that have answers and take the information to mean that things we don't understand are God. A Theist sees those as holes that need more research. I see the value in a scientist because they are looking to understand, not assuming that they already do.

*I just saw your PS.
In spite of the crime (I'm not naive enough to believe it's that much better anywhere else), this country's got a lot going for it. If the opportunity presents itself, I'll go anywhere, but I'm not going to flee from a place that I love because of people who don't.
Understandable.

I'm really enjoying our talk. I have been looking forward to each of your posts Jenyar.
 
Trust me, you don't survive a stabbing in South Africa. Criminals here don't have anything to prove to their "buddies". How do you intentionally miss stabbing someone with a knife?

On the 7th of July a friend of mine went to the shopping mall to buy his daughter a birthday present. As he walked out the mall, two gangs were battling it out. He got shot in the crossfire and died 2 days before his daughters birthday.

I suppose, in line with your reasoning, that proves god does not exist.

No? Then don't use stupid examples like someone getting stabbed in the back and surviving as proof of god.

Furthermore, "criminals here don't have anything to prove to their "buddies"."

So obviously by that statement, you know every single criminal in south africa and know exactly what they will do or will not do at any given moment?

No? Then don't make stupid statements like that.

"his lucky stars"

I suppose they're as real as god. lol. You can see how simple people are.. "lucky stars", "lady luck" etc etc etc

Nobody can just sit down and realise things just happen. There's no ladies smiling down from space to make someone win the lottery, no lucky stars in the sky twinkling to save someones life, and no invisible being making criminals knives not work.
 
Snakelord
No? Then don't use stupid examples like someone getting stabbed in the back and surviving as proof of god.
I want proof! No not that proof! I want scientific proof! Yes of course God must be scientifically provable, if He is indeed an objective reality. Yes all objective realities are provable scientifically. Well, at least if you accept objectivity as an independent objective reality itself.

My example is stupid for the same reason yours is. It doesn't prove anything - which is the point I made to Ectropic.

What atheists really want to do, is isolate some kind proof for "objective" analysis. Am I right? And the methodology you propose assumes that God is somehow observable through isolated occurrences in a reality you define.
So obviously by that statement, you know every single criminal in south africa and know exactly what they will do or will not do at any given moment?
No? Then don't make stupid statements like that.
Ouch. No, my experience is that you have to take every criminal seriously, because there has never in all my life here been an experience or police report about criminals who mugged people at knifepoint and afterwards ran away laughing and joking. My only "assumption" here is that three stabs with a knife constitutes three attempts at murder or grievous bodily harm.
Nobody can just sit down and realise things just happen.
Survival or no comes down to life or death. In the meantime you have neatly explained away both and replaced any possibility of God with a sweeping statement like "things just happen".

I'd like to see your comments when I say science is not needed because "things just happen" anyway. See the similarities: Life-reproduces-"things happen"-evolution-progression (hopefully);
Science-reproduce results-"things happen"-problem solved-advancement (hopefully).
We term the "black box" in both instances, respectively: biological and rational "things that happen". These things seem to happen with no objective evidence for their cause, but they are nevertheless perceived reality. God is a spiritually perceived reality (with certain rational qualities and physical manifestations which you do not recognize).

Ectropic,
So you believe in the Garden of Eden as a literal story?
I think it is what what happened would look like if you had to look at it through the mysts of time - sort of like if you were squinting against a present that is almost to blinding to ignore, to see something that has really happened in the past. You won't see anymore if you squinted any harder.
This is the argument I like least from theists. The argument that I can't find God by looking for him. Why not? If he is as real as everyone claims that he is then why can't I look for him? I'm not incapable of understanding what to look for. I'm not looking for the physical form of God, I am just looking for real evedence of his existance.
What I meant to suggest is that you open your eyes, so to speak. I don't like to use the word 'spiritually' among rationally-inclined people, (I am one myself and I know what it feels like when someone else uses that word) but it does come up.

If you had been squinting to see something against a brigth light, it usually leaves an after-image. When you open your eyes again, you can still see the after-image when you look around at your present circumstances. What I do, is I look around keeping this after-image in mind, and try to see where it fits in by superimposing it on what I see. I believe what we realize 'spiritually' only agrees with reality by the measure in which we manage to see through our physical boundaries. I think Plato had the same thing in mind with his "forms and archetypes". The New Testament authors certainly uses this kind of thinking a lot when looking at the Old Testament. Mainly because the prophets considered even themselves as "signs and symbols" (in the words of Isaiah).
See, I really see it the opposite way. A theist sees the questions that we have answered and those that have answers and take the information to mean that things we don't understand are God. A Theist sees those as holes that need more research. I see the value in a scientist because they are looking to understand, not assuming that they already do.
In the light of what I said above you make a valid point. But you must also see where I'm coming from. What's real is real and could never be otherwise - scientific enquiry and reasoning is the crown of human achievement. We can't change what already exists, but we strive to become aware of its existence, and even then we try to see it more and more clearly and accurately. Whether you believe in God or not will not change what is known or not known, whether you understand or not. It does not make any claims more or less valid. But belief in God can change the legs you stand on, the heart you live with, the longs you breath with, the eyes you see with, and the motives you do things with - it changes your boundaries to include the unseen. Even though it remains unseen.

My God is not one of holes. He is not deduced or reduced naturally from observed/observable phenomena. I know that some things are really real and other things are only reality perceived. As well-behaved postmodernists we should know that the difference is far from clear or obvious. For science or religion to make it out as such is narrow-minded. And the Matrix wouldn't have been nearly as good or thought-provoking.

Theists can't prove God with the information they have, because others don't believe they have it. And they can't prove God with information others don't have, because no-one will have it. The information we have consist of testimonies, lives changed, love received, mercy experienced. That is what makes God real for us.

Not to reach any kind of 'conclusion' about God, but my experience is that His removal from reality is only in our eyes - perhaps because of our eyes: by our laws and limits of observation. By the standard "all men have equal reason to believe", I always ask: if science could provide the only proof necessary for belief, could a retarded person believe? If sight, could a blind man believe? If sound, could a deaf person believe? Could a poor illiterate beggar believe? How hard or easy is it for them to believe in God? Why is it harder the more selfish your thoughts become?

When God comes first, faith follows, some things strengthen it and other things weaken it, but it remains in God's hands. When man comes first, doubt follows, some things strengthen it and other things weaken it, but it remains trapped in man's abilities.

Have you ever been at sea in a dense fog, when it seemed as if a tangible white darkness shut you in and the great ship, tense and anxious, groped her way toward the shore with plummet and sounding-line, and you waited with beating heart for something to happen? I was like that ship before my education began, only I was without compass or sounding line, and no way of knowing how near the harbor was. "Light! Give me light!" was the wordless cry of my soul, and the light of love shone on me in that very hour. - Helen Keller (deaf and blind)
 
My example is stupid for the same reason yours is. It doesn't prove anything - which is the point I made to Ectropic.

Before you get too confused, you didn't say it proves nothing. You said it proves nothing if you dont believe it- which is to imply it's proof enough for someone who just wants to believe and then concluded by saying "trust me, nobody survives a stabbing here"..... as if that in itself is 'proof' enough.... Get real.

If you knew beforehand that it was stupid, why even post it in a "god exists" thread? Cris said: Give evidence to show god exists and that was the outcome... Someone you know got stabbed and lived... To make the evidence, which isn't evidence btw, seem more appealing you added some generalisation about every single criminal in south africa, and then claimed everyone dies when stabbed there.

Did you notice yet that this doesn't even amount to evidence, let alone proof. Cris asked for evidence, you haven't supplied any here.

What atheists really want to do, is isolate some kind proof for "objective" analysis. Am I right? And the methodology you propose assumes that God is somehow observable through isolated occurrences in a reality you define.

Perhaps some do. However, proof is not important at this particular moment.... some evidence would be sufficient enough. Imagine you see a cup of tea sitting on a table.. You could say "That is a hot cup of tea." which is to go on complete faith. You could go upto the tea, touch the side of the mug, take a small sip, put hand over the top, look for steam etc etc... That is gaining evidence to support a claim. By just saying "That is a hot cup of tea" you have not offered anything of worth to anyone. Yes, there's always a 50% chance of being right, but if we accept 50% as good enough we can just make claims to anything we want. I know it's said far too much but it is relevant: green spotted diplodocus exist and live in the bahamas. There's a 50% chance that's a true statement. Is that good enough?

Ouch. No, my experience is that you have to take every criminal seriously,

Serious or not, the fact that they failed, (intentionally or by accident), in no way gives evidence to existence of god/s.

My only "assumption" here is that three stabs with a knife constitutes three attempts at murder or grievous bodily harm.

There was a guy who had an inoperable brain tumour, so he decided to kill himself. He got a gun, pointed it at his head and pulled the trigger. The bullet disintegrated the tumour but the guy survived. That's one for Ripley! Really weird things like this do happen BUT it still offers no evidence to the existence of a god/s.

Survival or no comes down to life or death. In the meantime you have neatly explained away both and replaced any possibility of God with a sweeping statement like "things just happen".

That sweeping statement "things just happen", is no worse than saying "god did it". Both are said by people who don't have the answer to every little thing. Some, as we've seen, call things "lady luck", "lucky stars", "it's sod's law", etc because things that happen cannot be explained. That's why we have people looking for proof, instead of just accepting because it's easier to do so.

I cannot tell you why this guy survived, so i said "things just happen", in the same manner you suggested it was evidence of god/s. Of course if you provide medical diagnosis etc i would have evidence to suggest something better than "things just happen". Now you see why evidence is so important?

(with certain rational qualities and physical manifestations which you do not recognize).

List them plz.
 
Before you get too confused, you didn't say it proves nothing. You said it proves nothing if you dont believe it- which is to imply it's proof enough for someone who just wants to believe and then concluded by saying "trust me, nobody survives a stabbing here"..... as if that in itself is 'proof' enough.... Get real.
What proof is really proof, in that case?

Everything is proof of something... the subjective choice is what do you assign the evidence to?
However, proof is not important at this particular moment. ...some evidence would be sufficient enough
Evidence of what, exactly? And how should I present it to you that would isolate it nicely enough?
List them plz.
No list I could provide will do anything but reflect what you can read for yourself in the Bible. Or even experience for yourself.
 
What proof is really proof, in that case?

maybe there is none... Mostly what we have is evidence to support a belief. Yes, anyone can make wild assumptions that thor causes lightning, but evidence can help on the probability scale. As i said, yes there is always a 50/50 at the end of the day- but following a a path of evidence seeking we can lower the probability of an assumption or make an assumption stronger.

For instance read by cup of tea analogy. If that cup of tea has rising steam you could call that good evidence to it being hot- it could also be the holy spirit taking a bath, so let's look for more evidence..... We feel the cup- wow, that burnt my hand. Probability now suggests it is in fact a hot cup of tea. Ok, sure it could be satan blowing flames onto it.. so let's look for more... I take a sip... Ouch! Thats hot.. I guess that wraps it up. Probability now shows beyond 'reasonable' doubt that this is in fact a hot cup of tea. Ok ok ok, it could be god showing us what hell will feel like if we anger him but now we look for evidence to suggest that..... Doh! There is none. Probability is not very high in that case.

Ok, we don't know everything... nobody does.

Yes, we can all make assumptions.

However just having an assumption and never being in a position where you need to show evidence is worthless. Or indeed showing evidence that isn't even evidence, (as in your former post about the stabbing incident). You might aswell just say Lenny the Leprachaun of Lunatic Road came and saved him in the nick of time.

Everything is proof of something... the subjective choice is what do you assign the evidence to?

But where does a god play any part in this, and where's credible evidence showing god might play any part in this. There's no evidence to suggest good old Lenny played any part of this, and there's none to suggest god/s did either. Try and get hold of the medical records and then we can see if that offers any evidence that did play a part in it.

About assigning evidence... Well, i wouldn't say my cup of tea being hot is evidence of there being a god/s. The evidence would suggest it had something to do with me boiling the kettle.

I wouldn't say a hot cup of tea is evidence to suggest the cause for a nuclear explosion. I'm sure it might well have been my cup of tea that caused chernobyl, the evidence just suggests otherwise.

I wouldn't say god is evidence to suggest why my lighter works.

We can all make a claim of something unseen, unknown, unheard as being the cause of everything and anything. We can also make a claim that an evil red guy with horns is the cause for all the nasty people and criminals... i could say lady chatterly is the reason i have 10 toes, but that is not evidence. That's mere speculation and conjecture.

Evidence of what, exactly? And how should I present it to you that would isolate it nicely enough?

Evidence pertaining to the existence of a god/s. There probably is none, which in itself doesn't prove there isn't, it just lowers the probability. Fuck, who knows.... there very well might be a god, there's just no worthy evidence to suggest there is. Thus any claim made is pure unfounded speculation. You can't say "There IS" and just leave it at that.... well, maybe you can, but you're only fooling yourself.

You can offer some evidence, whatever you feel is pertinent, to raise the probability of a god/s existence but that's only if you want to/can do so. However, it seems you think just because you say so, everyone should "trust" you, and believe the same. Shall i expect to see any evidence?

No list I could provide will do anything but reflect what you can read for yourself in the Bible. Or even experience for yourself.

The bible is hardly credible evidence. I will agree it's a very interesting read, but it is so blatantly flawed that it can hardly be taken overly seriously. A couple of examples:

1) genesis/ exodus/ leviticus etc are close copies of older sumerian texts based on completely different beliefs. The similarity in stories is intruiging- ranging through creation itself, noah, abraham, moses etc etc...

Old Babylonian beliefs can also be seen within the bible, (such as babylonian astronomy concerning the firmament, and the "windows" or "floodgates" that god opened and closed during the noah episode. (Not to mention the very first page where god separates the waters below and the waters above)

Here's a pic: Click

I will explain this in greater depth if asked to do so.

2) Simple lack of human understanding..

The bible is packed to the brim with errors made due to lack of human understanding at those times. I suppose now's about the time we can look at god's own lack of understanding:

"And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomina- tion: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, etc etc... and the bat."

"And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you."

"But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you."

Bats are NOT birds, hares do NOT chew the cud, and insects/flying creepy things do NOT have four legs. I suppose you could give some pathetic argument to the last one like: "Oh but god only meant anything with a minimum of four legs." But that is the style with which the thiest stretches everything to it's utter limits in a shallow attempt at rebuttal.

We can then look at the "flat earth" belief.. angels standing on the four corners of the earth etc... Even in isaiah where it states god made the 'ends' of the earth.... There are no ends, we live on a big round ball. You might well claim it's all figurative, but it fits in well with the human belief of how the planet was.

We could look mention josh 10 etc claiming god stopped the sun... even though it's actually earth thats moving, again a sign of ancient lack of understanding.

3) Plain outright contradictions.

"And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth"

Here he makes animals, then man.... now look at the next bit

"And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof."

Here he makes them after man.... But nevermind, it's not important right?

jesus says: "I and my Father are one"

jesus says: "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I."

Make up your mind.. yeesh.

"The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree."

"The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart."

O.....k

jesus' last words: matt/luke and john: jesus says 3 completely different last words in all of them. Obviously 2 of them are wrong, unless jesus said all 3 things in which case all of them got it wrong.

That shows beyond reasonable doubt that the bible is not an inspired work of god/gods prophets etc but the work of separate individuals who kinda made it up as they went along.

"So God came to David, and told him, and said unto him, shall SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE come unto thee in thy land? or will thou flee three months before thine enemies, while they pursue. thee?"

"So God came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee. Either THREE YEARS OF FAMINE or three months to be destroyed before thy foes, while that the sword of thine enemies overtaketh thee"

hmmmmmmm

"And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Isreal and Judah."

"And SATAN stood up against Isreal, and provoked David to number Israel."

Oh man..... was it god or satan ffs? surely they can't be that hard to tell apart?

"And I will take away my hand, and thou shalt see my backparts."
"And the Lord spake to Moses face to face, as a man speaketh to his friend."
"For I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved."

"No man hath seen God at any time."
"And he said, Thou canst not see my face; for there shall no man see me and live."
"Whom no man hath seen nor can see."

Oops....

"And it came to pass after these things, that God did tempt Abraham."

"Let no man say when he is tempted, I am tempted of God; for God cannot be tempted with evil, neither tempteth he any man."

I apologise for length but that just goes to show the outrageous amount of errors, (what i have put here is but a minsicule amount of overall contradictions within the bible).

4) Impossibilites.

Let's use noah as the example. 7 of each type of bird, (would make a total of 69,300 birds) [we currently know of 9,900 different birds- this changes quickly of course]. and 7 of each clean/2 of each dirty animal. Let's pretend they're all dirty to lower the amount for you. We know of 4,600 mammals. I have not included reptiles, amphibians etc. (i'm in a nice mood). That gives us 9,200 mammals that must have been on the ark. That's a grand total of 78,500 animals on an ark that biblical schematics don't give a lot of room to work with. The ark was to be made out of cypress wood- granted, it's strong, but so are elephants, rhinos etc. You'd also have to separate animals- can't put lions and deer together- so you'd need separate quarters and in many cases areas with stronger support than cypress wood.

Sorry, it's getting too long. In short, it's an impossibility. The minute you say "it's just a metaphor" that denounces any validity the rest of the bible may be given. My advice: Read the sumerian original.

Add all of these points together and what you're left with is an interesting book and look at ancient humans who didn't know too much. Aside from that it's worth absolute donkey poop.

So much for the bible....
 
1) genesis/ exodus/ leviticus etc are close copies of older sumerian texts based on completely different beliefs. The similarity in stories is intruiging- ranging through creation itself, noah, abraham, moses etc etc...

Old Babylonian beliefs can also be seen within the bible, (such as babylonian astronomy concerning the firmament, and the "windows" or "floodgates" that god opened and closed during the noah episode. (Not to mention the very first page where god separates the waters below and the waters above)
I don't think that this proves anything. For all we know, God may have created the Genesis account using his knowledge of common beliefs at the time. Nor do I think that represents a literal creation account. I beleive that the garden of Eden is within Adam's and Eve's hearts. This is why in Ezekiel, God says he will build them a new heart and why Jesus says that the kingdom of God is within you.


About assigning evidence... Well, i wouldn't say my cup of tea being hot is evidence of there being a god/s. The evidence would suggest it had something to do with me boiling the kettle.
Think harder about it. Why do you fell heat? Perhaps the electricity goes up to your brain, which then processes it. But why does it really feel painful? What can consitutes the range of degree of pain? What makes pain different than other sensations? I don't think that we have answers for these questions. At some point the soul interacts with the brain and enables us to feel these sensations.

And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomina- tion: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, etc etc... and the bat."

"And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you."

"But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you."

Bats are NOT birds, hares do NOT chew the cud, and insects/flying creepy things do NOT have four legs. I suppose you could give some pathetic argument to the last one like: "Oh but god only meant anything with a minimum of four legs." But that is the style with which the thiest stretches everything to it's utter limits in a shallow attempt at rebuttal.
I've already answered these in the other thread.

We can then look at the "flat earth" belief.. angels standing on the four corners of the earth etc... Even in isaiah where it states god made the 'ends' of the earth.... There are no ends, we live on a big round ball. You might well claim it's all figurative, but it fits in well with the human belief of how the planet was.

We could look mention josh 10 etc claiming god stopped the sun... even though it's actually earth thats moving, again a sign of ancient lack of understanding.
The accounts of Joshua stoping the Sun are human accounts of the event. If you were a human at that time, you would describe it similarly. There is evidence of this because the Aztecs describe a similar event happening.

We can then look at the "flat earth" belief.. angels standing on the four corners of the earth etc... Even in isaiah where it states god made the 'ends' of the earth.... There are no ends, we live on a big round ball. You might well claim it's all figurative, but it fits in well with the human belief of how the planet was.
Many of these apparant contradictions, is man of that time praising God using common idioms. Isaiah is poetic. Revelation uses many other metaphores such as the sea being Satan's home. I'm sure that there is no problem with the angel who stands on the sand being a metaphor. The earth can be described at having ends of course, at the poles and two other points that describe the sphere.

Here he makes them after man.... But nevermind, it's not important right?
Genesis is collection of four different oral accounts of creation combined by scribes into one 3000 years ago.

I agree but that means that God cannot be omniscient since that requires perfect knowledge of everything past, present and future.
An all powerful God can give his creatures knowledge. Because his creatures have the feeling of doubt, God too must know what doubt feels like. The key thing though is that God is powerful enough to take away our freewill just like other spiritual gifts.
 
I don't think that this proves anything. For all we know, God may have created the Genesis account using his knowledge of common beliefs at the time. Nor do I think that represents a literal creation account. I beleive that the garden of Eden is within Adam's and Eve's hearts. This is why in Ezekiel, God says he will build them a new heart and why Jesus says that the kingdom of God is within you.

Now we leave the scene of any possible evidence and walk off into the land of groundless assumption...

Don't bother responding if that's all you have. I can't stand time wasters.

Think harder about it. Why do you fell heat? Perhaps the electricity goes up to your brain, which then processes it. But why does it really feel painful? What can consitutes the range of degree of pain? What makes pain different than other sensations? I don't think that we have answers for these questions. At some point the soul interacts with the brain and enables us to feel these sensations.

*sarcasm* So.... god did it. Ah mission achieved. you don't know how much joy it is to answer every question in the world with 3 words. */sarcasm*

However most of what you ask above has been thoroughly documented and shown by science. Trying to squeeze a soul in there for good measure is groundless, evidence-less, and many other things ending in 'less'.

Where's ANY evidence to corroborate ANYTHING you've said?

I've already answered these in the other thread.

I've already replied showing how far off the scope of reality your reply was.

The accounts of Joshua stoping the Sun are human accounts of the event. If you were a human at that time, you would describe it similarly. There is evidence of this because the Aztecs describe a similar event happening.

Aztecs are irrelevant here. The fact remains the account is inaccurate. I am showing how the bible is not a credible source for truth, you are actually agreeing with me.

Many of these apparant contradictions, is man of that time praising God using common idioms. Isaiah is poetic. Revelation uses many other metaphores such as the sea being Satan's home. I'm sure that there is no problem with the angel who stands on the sand being a metaphor. The earth can be described at having ends of course, at the poles and two other points that describe the sphere.

Yes, it's always a metaphor until you decide otherwise *yawn*. I can't believe how groundless your claims and debates are- but what i really do not believe is the fact that you believe what you're saying. It's scary.

Either way, this shows inaccuracy which does nothing but lower the bibles credibility as a source of truth.

Genesis is collection of four different oral accounts of creation combined by scribes into one 3000 years ago.

That was supposed to be an answer to something? genesis is contradictory- end of argument. The fact that it contradicts itself, (because of 4 scribes or 20 mcdonalds employees), gives less credibility to the bible as being a source of truth.

Come back when you have something of worth to offer. groundless stuff made up on the spur of the moment is not needed. Furthermore i don't need you to make my point stronger for me, but it seems you like doing that, so be it.
 
originally posted by SnakeLord
Now we leave the scene of any possible evidence and walk off into the land of groundless assumption..

*sarcasm* So.... god did it. Ah mission achieved. you don't know how much joy it is to answer every question in the world with 3 words. */sarcasm*
However most of what you ask above has been thoroughly documented and shown by science. Trying to squeeze a soul in there for good measure is groundless, evidence-less, and many other things ending in 'less'.
If you don't believe the evidence, or in the credibility of the source - it does not matter what it points to, you will always find fault with it. Humans will always try to understand God using concepts and contexts that they are familiar with and do understand. When someone has a different insight on the same thing, that can also be true. The point of everything in the Bible is for man to form a conception of how he came here, what happened, and what he is supposed to do in the light of what God intended, intends and wishes for us. If getting it wrong about whether a bat is a bird (by the way, you have to ask what the word for "bird" meant) makes any difference about our perception of God, then it is negligable, I can assure you.

Aztecs are irrelevant here. The fact remains the account is inaccurate. I am showing how the bible is not a credible source for truth, you are actually agreeing with me.

Either way, this shows inaccuracy which does nothing but lower the bibles credibility as a source of truth.

That was supposed to be an answer to something? genesis is contradictory- end of argument. The fact that it contradicts itself, (because of 4 scribes or 20 mcdonalds employees), gives less credibility to the bible as being a source of truth.
Congratulations. You figured out that the Bible doesn't replace science. It cannot take away knowledge, but it can add to it. The fact that you know everything you do and still fail to see that the Bible is everything we know about God - not everything we know about the earth - shows that you have no interest in whether the Bible is reliable or not.

If I take everything you said about Sumerians, and compare it with everything Dr. X of the National Historical Society has to say about Sumerian culture, I am bound to find "contradictions". Does that mean neither you nor Dr. X are credible sources? Even if you claim to be Dr.X-inspired, I'm sure that you'll only use whatever information you agree with, or need in order to say what you intend on saying about Sumerian culture. While whatever you or he has to say might be "inaccurate" or even "contradicting", if you both base what you say on established truths there will be no denying the validity of either of your accounts.

The Bible says exactly what it intends to say, it reports exactly what it intends to report - the amazing thing is that it consists of hundreds of different accounts (as you are keen to point out). If you are more interested in the scientific accuracy of these stories - you are clearly missing the point. If you can show me where those inaccuracies portray God inaccurately, it's a different story.
jesus says: "I and my Father are one";
jesus says: "Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I."
The contradiction? That you don't understand how God can be God and human at the same time? If I told you blue and red are different colours, but in reality both are simultaneous instances of white, as little as 250 years ago, you would have no reason to believe me, and I would not have had the technology to prove it to you either. Would a rainbow make you believe? QED.

You said it yourself: "2) Simple lack of human understanding.."

"The righteous shall flourish like the palm tree."
"The righteous perisheth, and no man layeth it to heart."
Again: what is the contradiction, beside from the apparent paradox? Is it a contradiction to say "people live and die at the same time"?

Here is my personal favourite paradox:
Proverbs 26
4 Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
or you will be like him yourself.
5 Answer a fool according to his folly,
or he will be wise in his own eyes.

It clearly indicates the Bible is completely devoid of anything credible. I agree: it clearly is full of many incredible things.

What would happen if scientists started using the mentality that if something contradicts, it can't point to something true? Why do you think we have come up with incredible theories like the Many Worlds theory, or Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle?
 
Last edited:
Jenyar,

It clearly indicates the Bible is completely devoid of anything credible. I agree: it clearly is full of many incredible things.
You are correct but do you really mean this?

From Webster – incredible: too extraordinary and improbable to be believed; also: hard to believe.

Is it any wonder that so many don’t believe and require some credible evidence first?

What would happen if scientists started using the mentality that if something contradicts, it can't point to something true? Why do you think we have come up with incredible theories like the Many Worlds theory, or Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle?
For the sake of argument we might agree that the imagination of religionists is as good as scientists but there is one major difference between the two groups –

Religionists fully expect their imaginative ideas to be accepted as true, scientists have no expectation that their ideas will be accepted until there is proof.
 
If you don't believe the evidence, or in the credibility of the source - it does not matter what it points to, you will always find fault with it.

If there is a fault, there's a fault. Don't try and blame it on everyone else. The faults are there, you try to cover up for that by blaming it on anyone who doesn't happen to agree 100% with your groundless faith. Furhtermore i could use your same sentence this way: If you do have total faith you will never find fault- even when it's staring you in the face. It's kinda like going out with a new woman.. You could not find fault with her no matter how hard you tried. Later on, once you become slightly less attached, you notice the faults that have always been there- it's just your eyes were blind to them before.

Humans will always try to understand God using concepts and contexts that they are familiar with and do understand.

So what else? We're supposed to think, with our human brains, that we have the ability to understand any godly concept or context? If not, we're all in the same boat. But at the end of the day you claim you know what it "really" means and in doing so, ignore everything it actually says.

The point of everything in the Bible is for man to form a conception of how he came here, what happened, and what he is supposed to do in the light of what God intended, intends and wishes for us.

And none of those questions have been answered. There is not one piece of credible evidence to suggest the reality of adam/eve- in fact so many theists themselves claim it's nothing more than a metaphor. The events depicted hold very little evidence to suggest a reality. Errors do not help out... for example the 3 different last words of jesus.... who was at the tomb etc etc.. When there's an error, there's an error. There's no reason a book written by/dictated by god wouldn't be able to get jesus last words right. I mean really..... he's god, the son of, whatever... and his very last words he left to the humans who worship him couldn't even be remembered and written down accurately. I noticed you didn't put any rebuttal to that on your response. I'd be interested to hear one.

Furthermore there's no real evidence to suggest god exists. Ok, i know you don't care- i mean after all it was you who said "if you want to find god, dont look." If all you need to do is not bother, it defeats the very reason to have a brain.

If getting it wrong about whether a bat is a bird (by the way, you have to ask what the word for "bird" meant) makes any difference about our perception of God, then it is negligable, I can assure you.

As far as the bird/bat scenario goes, i will concede it's not a biggie- but i wonder why you picked that particular one out of so many, and yet completely ignored the majority i posted.

However, anyone interested in details and facts needs to research things and look into things. I won't expect you to understand that, you don't need such things as facts and details so it's of no consequence, but the majority of people do. We find errors and flaws, you lot blame us as the cause. We don't put them there- we just point them out.

The fact that you know everything you do and still fail to see that the Bible is everything we know about God - not everything we know about the earth - shows that you have no interest in whether the Bible is reliable or not.

What are you babbling on about? A person in your position is in no place to be telling others they're not interested in reliability. If you were we wouldn't be having this discussion.

If I take everything you said about Sumerians, and compare it with everything Dr. X of the National Historical Society has to say about Sumerian culture, I am bound to find "contradictions". Does that mean neither you nor Dr. X are credible sources?

To answer your question: If there was a contradiction, that's a contradiction and lowers the validity of complete truth. That's just one contradiction, imagine if there were hundreds.

dr.x died yesterday. His last words were: "argggggggg, this sucks."

dr.x died yesterday. His last words were: "Hey, whats for supper?"

Somewhere in there is an error. Simple. What's very strange is, dr.x is god/son of god and surely his last words would have been remembered accurately? So howcomes we have 2, (in this version), different colliding accounts of what he said?

Sure, we could just say "who gives a shit, its not important" and ignore it, or we could be interested in this thing called truth and this other thing called fact and try and find out which, if any, is valid. Surely as a lover/worshipper of this guy, you'd also want to know exactly what his last words were? Maybe not... Very strange, he's god... if he's as mighty as everyone suggests i'd listen intently to every word he ever uttered and wouldn't ever dare not know what his final words to the human race were. If i was put in charge of writing his biography i'd make damned sure to get it accurate.

I really don't understand why you fail to see the importance.. but, well, that's your choice.

I'm sure that you'll only use whatever information you agree with, or need in order to say what you intend on saying about Sumerian culture.

I could tell you a billion things concerning it.... but then how is any valid unless it has corroborating evidence? Answer= it isn't. If there is evidence but it's heavily flawed what does that suggest?

{Your most likely reply} The evidence is perfect as it is, ignore the flaws.

In that case everything is true. That picture of the loch ness monster is real.... it doesn't make a difference you can see a plastic strip on the bottom of it, who gives a shit about errors?

Furthermore, it's the work of theists to use only whatever suits them. The rest of us look at everything.

While whatever you or he has to say might be "inaccurate" or even "contradicting", if you both base what you say on established truths there will be no denying the validity of either of your accounts.

Not for a theist, no. That's how you guys work. If there are inaccuracies and contradictions they will be found and studied. The infactuated, cloud-9 evidence-less believers will claim the flaws/contradictions aren't there.... They are there it just takes open eyes to see them. But i guess the way you've stated it makes sense for a religious person.

"There's no denying validity if you both agree with it." That's all it takes for you guys heh.

The Bible says exactly what it intends to say, it reports exactly what it intends to report - the amazing thing is that it consists of hundreds of different accounts (as you are keen to point out). If you are more interested in the scientific accuracy of these stories - you are clearly missing the point.

What point is that? That all errors and flaws are irrelevant as long as i believe in god and jesus? :bugeye:

The contradiction? That you don't understand how God can be God and human at the same time? If I told you blue and red are different colours, but in reality both are simultaneous instances of white, as little as 250 years ago, you would have no reason to believe me,

The silly blue analogy is irrelevant here. However...

{blue} White and i are one and the same.
{blue} White is greater than me.

If white and blue=same, blue would not claim white is greater, because blue is in fact white, and white is in fact blue. They are in fact one and the same. How can white be greater than blue even though white is blue?

The problem isn't lack of understanding that god can be god and man at the same time.... it's that one has claimed the other is greater- even though there is no other.... its him. Unless you're a pagan of course...

I am aware of the ridiculous trinity notion but that is of no assistance here.

Yes they can go around by themselves... however for one of them to claim one of the others is greater, denounces themselves from having the same power as the other, lowering their status. No matter how many different sections they break into, they're still one and the same- thus they wouldn't claim they are greater than themselves.

"I am greater than me."

Well, whatever.

Of course we could argue this for the next millennium, even though jesus himself said he was not god, and god himself said jesus was only a priest (forever). Still... you just believe whatever you want to regardless of what the evidence shows. Oh and ignore whatever might possibly collide with your beliefs. It's of no consequence.

Again: what is the contradiction, beside from the apparent paradox? Is it a contradiction to say "people live and die at the same time"?

i'm glad to see you managed to point out two of the list..., of course it's a shame you didn't get round to all of them but i understand time restraints. Suffice it to say paradox examples, such as the one you showed in return can be argued about until the end of time without result.

However, to really go into the issue it requires a look at more than two examples. Yes, we could not bother looking at any, but we'd only be fooling ourselves. I'd still like to know what jesus last words were, wouldn't you? I'd also like to know whether it was satan or god who told david to go number israel, whether god sais 3 or 7 years of famine and so on.. Maybe one day he'll tell us and we wont have to rely on the bible any more.

What would happen if scientists started using the mentality that if something contradicts, it can't point to something true?

When you have 3 colliding claims of fact it is apparent they're not all accurate. It's not to say one of them isn't accurate- but to say they can't all be accurate.

Scientist 1 "This pill cures headaches"
Scientist 2 "This pill causes headaches"
Scientist 3 "This pill doesn't cure headaches"

Would you say all of that is true? Isn't at least one of them false? Would you just take the pill after hearing these 3 statements, or would you try and find out the truth?

Why do you think we have come up with incredible theories like the Many Worlds theory, or Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle?

And the 'there's a god' theory? Theories are not facts. That's why there's people who study them in order to ascertain fact from fiction. When there are many flaws it doesn't help establish something as being fact.
 
Last edited:
Ok I just want to address a few of these points. As for Jesus' last words: Matthew and Mark say Jesus said "My God my God why have you forsaken me. (He was quoting a psalm.) It then says he was offered some wine and cried out again before giving up his spirit. We are not told in Matthew or Mark what his last words were. Luke says he cried "Father into your hands I commit my spirit." Then it sais he breathed his last. These are his last words. John says After he was offered the wine he said "it is finished" It is likely all three of these things were stated. Only Luke claimes he died emmediatly after speaking. By looking at scripture with an open mind rather than looking for a fault I have been able to answer your question. You could read many faults into scripture if that is what you are looking for, but if you go at it with an open mind you will find answers. Just because something seems contradictory or unclear does not mean it is untrue. Be willing to look a bit deeper.

As for God saying "I am greater than me": Jesus was in human form when he said this. He was restricted just like we are. He did this voluntarily, but he was still restricted. He had to learn things the way we did (Though he was much better at it) and he could only do miracles on a basis of faith. He did not know when the last day was; he said only the father knew. So for him to say the father is greater was probably accurate, but only because of the restrictions he put on himself. He had to drink eat and sleep and he could only be one place at a time. When Jesus was on Earth, the father was greater. It was not contradictory for him to say that. I hope I have helped clear somethings up.

In Christ's undying love,

Mystee
 
As for Jesus' last words:

Matt.27:46,50: "And about the ninth hour Jesus cried with a loud voice, saying, "Eli, eli, lama sabachthani?" that is to say, "My God, my God, why hast thou forsaken me?" ...Jesus, when he cried again with a loud voice, yielded up the ghost."

Luke23:46: "And when Jesus had cried with a loud voice, he said, "Father, unto thy hands I commend my spirit:" and having said thus, he gave up the ghost."

John19:30: "When Jesus therefore had received the vinegar, he said, "It is finished:" and he bowed his head, and gave up the ghost."

Mark15::34: "And at the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, eloi, lama sabachthani?" which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" etc etc etc... With a loud cry, Jesus breathed his last."

We are not told in Matthew or Mark what his last words were.

Yes you are.

It is likely all three of these things were stated.

No it isn't. your claim is pure eisegesis.

"It's likely" - as if that adds worth to the debate or any value to reality. It's only "likely" because you do not have an open mind to accept the possibility it's flawed and you can come up with no other excuse, thus you settle on the first available one without paying any attention to the evidence at hand. Twist, distort, corrupt.

Only Luke claimes he died emmediatly after speaking.

Wrong. Both John and Luke mention the very last word before death. Both of these differ with what that last word was. Furthermore neither of the other accounts mention anything else being said. There's no reason they would leave out anything he did say, and you have no justification to claim he did say anything else. It's so readily convenient for you to adjust/make addons/change and distort the written word when there's a problem unless you do so. That is merely evading the evidence and showing that it's nothing but a book that can be twisted and bent to suit yourself. If you need an example just name any book in existence and i'll claim there were extra words in there... just because it doesn't say they weren't there, means they were? Pathetic.

By looking at scripture with an open mind rather than looking for a fault I have been able to answer your question.

No you haven't. You have made groundless assumptions based on your own opinion instead of the evidence present. It was looking at the bible with an open mind that made me notice the fault in the first place. If i had have been a devoted jesus lover like you obviously are, i wouldn't have ever even noticed it, or questioned it if i had. And no, "It's likely" is not an answer to the question, especially when it bears no relevance to the evidence.

You could read many faults into scripture if that is what you are looking for, but if you go at it with an open mind you will find answers.

Actually, i was looking for an interesting read about human history. From page 1 through page end i just stumbled upon an overwhelming amount of errors. I considered the possibility it was just me who'd noticed these, but then purely by chance i stumbled upon a whole galaxy worth of bible contradiction pages. I found some new ones there, and contributed some other ones.. They are there... it's no coincidence the only people that deny the flaws are there are those who would burn in hell if they even considered the possibility. Thus having an "open mind" isn't a possibility for theists. The flaws/contradictions etc exist, you just block them out, for to acknowledge their existence is to go against your god, and to do so would be to receive eternal damnation. Shit, if that's not a motive to NOT see any flaws i'm hardly surprised. However, don't ever mention "open mind", when you're stuck in such a fragile position.

He did not know when the last day was; he said only the father knew. So for him to say the father is greater was probably accurate, but only because of the restrictions he put on himself. He had to drink eat and sleep and he could only be one place at a time. When Jesus was on Earth, the father was greater. It was not contradictory for him to say that. I hope I have helped clear somethings up.

Well this causes a barrage of trinity/omnipresent/omniscient problems that would take the next millennium to sort through. I'll try be brief...

Well........ if all 3 are one and the same then wherever one goes they all go, (seeings as they are just one and that one is omnipresent). So if the father is sitting up by his lounge in heaven so is jesus because they are both the same being and are omniscient. So whatever god knows, he knows..... so to say jesus didn't know is a false statement because he did know... unless they are separate entities. If jesus didn't know when the end was, it's apparent he is separate to the father, or if he is still the father- is not actually omniscient.... but if one part is omniscient, but the other isn't, then they're not of the same status. One is a god, one isn't.... because one fails on the omniscient/omnipresent/ factor.... but how can he fail if he's god? And how can he not know when the end days are but the other part of the trio does- that again states he's not godly because god knows, and he- being god, must also know....

Fuck this, no wonder you guys are insane....

I will try to put this in some organised formula.... gimme a month :D
 
Originally posted by SnakeLord
Fuck this, no wonder you guys are insane....
I will try to put this in some organised formula.... gimme a month :D [/B]

Haha! Great Post Snake, although I read it fast

-Jahiro
 
Snakelord
The reason I don't answer every single objection you come up with, is because if you don't understand the principle of clearing up their understanding, I might as well leave it altogether. However, if you can see the validity of one "contradiction" you might, with a little effort, be able to figure out the others yourself. That, and long posts tend not be read with the same attention.

As for Jesus' last words:
We know that John was the only one standing near the cross (John 19:25). From the rest of his writings, we also know his perspective and intent is on describing the subtext - what happened even though it weren't explicit.

From their combined accounts, a reconstruction is possible:

About the ninth hour Jesus cried out in a loud voice, "Eloi, Eloi, lama sabachthani?" which means, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"
When some of those standing there heard this, they said, "He's calling Elijah."
Jesus said, "I am thirsty." A jar of wine vinegar was there, so (i)mmediately one of them ran and got a sponge. He filled it with wine vinegar, put it on a stick, and offered it to Jesus to drink (MT)/ they soaked a sponge in it, put the sponge on a stalk of the hyssop plant, and lifted it to Jesus' lips (JN). The rest said, "Now leave him alone. Let's see if Elijah comes to save him."

When he had received the drink Jesus said, "It is finished." With that, he bowed his head and gave up his spirit. (JN)/And when Jesus had cried out again in a loud voice(MT)/ Jesus called out with a loud voice (LK)/"Father, into your hands I commit my spirit." When he had said this, he breathed his last(LK)/gave up his spirit(MT).

Jesus last words might have been: "It is finished; Father into your hands I commit my spirit". Luke used the last words that he felt were necessary for his gospel account, which concentrated on the humanity of Christ. John uses the part that emphasizes the conclusion of Jesus' role as Saviour. Apart from this, you just readily assume that whatever was "cried out" by Jesus wasn't intelligable and therefore not words.

It is only an unresolvable contradiction if the difference cannot be reasonably resolved.

In this vein - you describe Jesus' words about the Father and Himself as logically unresolvable. You back this up with more assumptions on your part, and by putting words in our mouths:
So if the father is sitting up by his lounge in heaven so is jesus because they are both the same being and are omniscient. So whatever god knows, he knows...so to say jesus didn't know is a false statement because he did know... unless they are separate entities
This interpretation does nothing to explain Jesus' words, in fact they do the opposite - how can they be valid assumptions then?
The fallacy here is that you assume that God is unable to remain God, even when He separates his physical nature from his spiritual one. Jesus is for all intents and purposes the Son of the Living God - of the same Spirit, but of a different nature.

Let me ask you this: are you and your finger "one"? Does your finger act independently of "you"? Might your finger say something like: "I and the body are one" and at the same time, "the body is greater than me alone?"

dr.x died yesterday. His last words were: "argggggggg, this sucks."
dr.x died yesterday. His last words were: "Hey, whats for supper?"
If this was an account by the same person, I would say he should think about it first and try again... but if these were two different accounts, a whole range of possible explanations are available. One person might have gone to fetch his supper and only heard a "loud cry" from the other room.

I propose you post one or two contradictions at a time, so that we might be able to discuss them sensibly. It's a much more reasonable strategy. If I can clear up a fallacy using one example, it might be valid for more than one objection, and we won't have to repeat ourselves endlessly.
 
Last edited:
Back
Top