The Bible/Headscratchers: Difference between revisions
Rescuing 1 sources and tagging 0 as dead.) #IABot (v2.0.9.2
Derivative (talk | contribs) m (Fixing links to disambiguation pages) |
(Rescuing 1 sources and tagging 0 as dead.) #IABot (v2.0.9.2) |
||
| (6 intermediate revisions by 5 users not shown) | |||
Line 6:
Note: this isn't meant as destructive criticism. If anything, it encourages creativity in defending [[The Bible]].
'''Free Will Guilt Trip''': Does not hold water because the idea that God provided free will and that we choose our own Hell is so [[Newer Than They Think|Newer Than You Think]], that predestination not only was acceptable until the 18th Century, but is actually supported by the Bible, depending on how you interpret some passages (see Acts 13:48, Romans 8:29 and 30, 2 Timothy 1:9, Ephesians 1:4 and 5, 2 Thessalonians 2:13, Jude 4)
* Free will in Judaism and Christianity [[Older Than You Think|actually predates predestination]]. Also, foreknowledge is not predestination and does not preclude or prevent free will. The interpretation you mentioned is not universally accepted.
{{quote|''Previous to Augustine there was no serious development in Christianity of a theory of predestination.''
|'''The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. IX''', [http://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/encyc09.html?term{{=}}Predestination page 192]}}
{{quote|''The Greek Apologists and Fathers...They know nothing of unconditional predestination; they teach free will.''
|'''Encyclopedia of Religion and Ethics, Vol. X''', [http://www.archive.org/stream/encyclopaediaofr10hast2#page/230/mode/2up/search/know+nothing+of+unconditional+predestination%3B+they+teach+free+will page 231]}}
'''Pandora's Box Predicament''': God pretty much was the one to lay the punishment; at no point was it indicated in Genesis that Adam and Eve "opened a Pandora's Box", hence Yahweh is responsible for the world's evils. This is supported by the fact Yahweh is honest enough to describe himself as "creator of good AND evil". (see 2 Kings 6:33)
Line 73 ⟶ 75:
**** To make a point. Reading between the lines in Genesis chapter 3, Satan was challenging God's right to rule mankind in the Garden of Eden, inferring that humans would be better off if they were left on their own or in Satan's control. If God had killed off Satan, Adam, and Eve immediately, it would have looked like Satan was right or at least that he could pose some threat to God's sovereignty. Instead, God gave Satan and humans free reign on Earth for millennia in order to prove that Satan is a bad ruler and that humans would screw themselves over without God's guidance.
* So, God tells Adam and Eve not to eat the fruit from The Tree of Knowledge. Satan becomes a snake and tells Eve to eat the Fruit. Adam and Eve do so, and God punishes not Satan, the one who caused the problem, but snakes themselves, removing their legs. [[What the Hell, Hero?|What The Hell, God]]? Are you forgetting that it wasn't the snake itself who made A&E disobey, but Satan? That'd be like if a bunch of guys in gorilla suits robbed a bank and shot lots of people, and then all gorillas had to be shipped to Antarctica because of the aforementioned robbery, it just doesn't seem right.
** It never actually says the snake was Satan, and many don't think he is. People inferred that from a reference to Satan as "the great serpent" or something like that, which sounds similar, but could just as likely refer to [[Reptiles Are
Line 230 ⟶ 232:
*** This happens for the first half of the plagues, not the last half, and is in the original.
** [[Two Words|Three words:]] God hates slavery.
*** The Bible actually condones the practice, with certain limits on cruelty towards the slave, such as releasing slaves every 50 years.
**** Although the fact that it's only permission to enslave ''pagan'' nations indicates some pretty severe [[Moral Myopia]].
**** Slavery back then tended to be a bit different and slaves weren't necessarily slaves for life. In some cases, it was more of an indentured servant sort of deal. You also couldn't take them against their will for the purpose of making them a slave (apart from prisoners of war, but that's different).
**** Ancient Egypt didn't practice slavery at all. It would have served no purpose in their economy, where the farming majority were displaced with nothing better to do for a chunk of every year anyway.
**** In dealing with any forms of slavery one has to understand that different cultures have different forms of slavery which can aren't always analogous to American/Colonial slavery.
Line 253 ⟶ 254:
**** A column of smoke and fire is hardly divine. Additionally other gods had ALREADY used both smoke AND fire as symbols and disguises. And that's nothing of that when Moses went for the "talk" they had NOT been forbidden from creating 'idols'.
** A traditional Jewish answer to this kind of question is that the trauma and theatrics of leaving Egypt, as well as the completely unnecessary length of the time spent wandering in the desert, were really intended to purge the Israelites of any traces of "slave mentality." If they'd just been magically transported out of Egypt, as you suggest, their external condition would have changed but their mindsets wouldn't have. All the unnecessary stuff was really intended to constitute them as a free people.
*** Still superfluous, then. The golden calf is a symbol that they had still had
** Here is a bit better
*** Punish the bully, yes. Punish the bully's family, his employees' families, his neighbor's families, rather than the bully himself? That'd just make ''me'' a lot worse than the bully.
**** You guys don't seem to know how racism works. It's a ''system'' everyone is complicit, especially the Upper class merchants and farm lords (think sharecropping [[Older Than You Think]] 500 years early) and the prissy soon to be Pharaoh kids. These people were evil. And as anyone would tell you in the american South (for example) it's pretty powerful,, that whole nation had the sin on its hands, the fact that he didn't level the bastards and instead left them off easy to repent is a sign of his mercy.
Line 260 ⟶ 261:
***** And not to mention killing all of the first-born sons, including young infants. [[Sarcasm Mode|Because people are born 'racist'...]]
***** Ahem... are all of you forgetting that the Egyptians were terrorizing and killing the Israelites' children for ''years'' before Moses showed up to lead them out, as well as the whole slavery bit? Even after one of God's people had basically saved Egypt from starvation a few years back? In my opinion, A) God hardened pharaohs heart so he could punish the Egyptians properly; if he had simply said "Oh, well, sure, you can leave", justice wouldn't have been met (the "Old Testament [[God Is Evil]]" thing is baseless if you realize that, if God punished someone, they ''really'' deserved it; you're mistaking evil for strictness). B) He wanted to show the Egyptians that their gods were absolutely ''nothing'' compared to him; he even left their "strongest" gods for last, creating a heavy darkness (Ra) and showing his power over death (which was also a [[Take That]] for them doing the same thing to the Israelites)
* One of the plague was the slaughter of all the animals in Egypt. Then what did the Pharaoh army harnessed to their chariots to pursue the
** The plague was not God killing all of Egypt's animals. Apart from God distinguishing between the Egyptians' animals and the Israelites' animals, the plague was only to kill livestock. Livestock are defined as "farm animals regarded as an asset." The horses at farms were livestock, but the horses pulling chariots weren't. Those latter horses were war horses, or military animals to use a modern term; they're bred and trained to be used in war which involves combat and carrying supplies. As they weren't livestock, they weren't targeted by the plague as God stipulated it only targeted livestock. Even if their war horses died, the Egyptians could've gotten more war horses from other nations with coin or trade or as tribute.
== Maccabees ==
Line 292 ⟶ 293:
** Joseph died before his ministry years. Mary was, according to Catholic doctrine, born without any original sin as a prerequisite to conceiving the lord and savior of humanity. His siblings/cousins/whatever were involved in the church from the beginning (particularly James the Just, who was with Peter and Paul one of the paramount leaders of the early church).
*** So were all his cousins including but not limited to third-sixth cousins and siblings were involved in the church and what do other christian doctrines have to say about Mary sin state and what would happen to his family members if they didn't accept him as lord and savior or stayed orthodox jews?
** Other doctrines do not believe in the immaculate conception (that Mary was conceived without sin). Nowhere in [[The Bible]] is it said that Mary was sinless or needed to be sinless to conceive Jesus. After all, if [[God]] was capable of causing two sinful parents to have a sinless child, then Jesus' death would be pointless. And while Jesus' half-brother James was an early Christian leader, he was only a Christian ''after'' Jesus had already died.<ref>Paul mentions at 1 Corinthians 15:7 that [[Back
*** How would God using two sinful parents to give birth to a sinless kid affect the story in anyway and isn't Jesus God so Jesus would send his family to hell and what do you mean by the term unbelievers?
*** The whole point of having a Messiah was so that the people who were already sinners could be redeemed. Jesus Himself would be able to save everyone since he was also divine, as well as sinless, making his sacrifice more powerful. If God created a sinless normal person, and allowed him to die as a Messiah, it would only be good enough to spare one sinner.
**** Not exactly. The thing is, Jesus being Divine means that he is able to rise from the dead, thus triumphs over death. Had Jesus been a normal person, his sacrifice is meaningless and we're all screwed regardless our belief.
*** The Angelic Salutation (when the angel Gabriel reveres Mary as being "full of grace") might actually give Bibical support to the Immaculate Conception. First, the angel is referring to Mary as "filled with grace" before she conceived Jesus (as the whole point of the salutation was to get her permission for her to become pregnant), indicating that God preserved her in some form of holiness earlier in her life. Second, the fact that an angel is actually revering Mary, indicates that she must be greater than an angel in the eyes of God, which would seem less likely if she was a sinner.
*** By 'unbelievers' I meant someone who didn't ''believe'' in Jesus' [[Back
* Why wait so long to be sacrificed why didn't he just sacrificed himself during the Garden of Eden?
*** one of the major reoccurring theme of the bible it that god does thing at his own pace. keep in mind that it took 300 years! for god to send someone to get childeren of isreal out of egypt. 40 years too take them to their promise land and it took god a whole week to destroy the walls of jericho for them too.
Line 312 ⟶ 313:
** The basic context of Jesus' content was after a group of Pharisees claimed that he was doing his miracles by means of demonic powers. The main point was that Jesus was performing miracles in the name of God, and the Jewish tradition of the day stated that if someone was performing all these miracles in the name of God, than it's accepted that God sent them, because otherwise God wouldn't allow them to perform the miracles. Jesus fit the criteria (and followed all the Law), but they accused him of being a demon. In that case, the unpardonable sin was attributing to the devil something that was clearly performed by the power of the Holy Spirit solely because he was undermining their authority. The blasphemy is that they refused to accept an act that, according to their standards, was clearly from God, and calling it demonic. It's not so much that the sin is unpardonable. It's saying that anyone who rejects a clear sign from God in this manner has essentially reached a point where they are irredeemable. That said, that's only one interpretation, and there are many others. It's just the only one I could think of off the top of my head.
*** Pretty much that. Blasphemy against the Holy Spirit essentially means denying God to the point of being irredeemable.
*** However, this ''only'' applies '''if you are a believer.''' Unfortunately, [
*** Open to interpretation, of course, but what this troper has learned is that the Holy Spirit is the holiness within/connected to you. So committing blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is committing blasphemy against a soul (presumably yours, but it works with anothers).
*** When it comes to the "unforgivable sin" it is twofold; the nature of this sin is where you come to know that the Gospel is true but say no to it anyway. It is one thing for an atheist to go "screw you" because the atheist is ultimately, ignorant. Yet if someone came to know that Jesus is God, believed it and then said no to it - you are denying truth openly of your own volition. As the Holy Spirit is the 'Spirit of Truth' then to blaspheme against the Holy Spirit is to deny openly the very truth you profess. The second part of this twofold statement is that in order for God to forgive, you have to be truly sorry (repentant or in a state of contrition), but of course if you openly say no to the truth ''after knowing it to be true'' then you're not going to be sorry, are you? Therefore, it is unforgivable not because it is so horrible, but because God quite simply cannot forgive you because you are not sorry!
Line 506 ⟶ 507:
****** And we cannot do all those things ''in'' haven because...?
*** On euthanasia, the question is open. Some Christians find it reprehensible others do not. It's up to you to decide what the Bible says and whose explanation makes the most sense. Opposition to euthanasia is not an article of the faith.
** This is one of the ''many'' [[Dub
** Except killing people in war is murder also if you look at it that way.
*** The Hebrew word translated as "kill" in the King James Version, and which (as mentioned above) would be better translated as "murder", had a specific legal meaning. State-sanctioned killing, such as the killing of enemy soldiers in war or the execution of a condemned prisoner, was expressly excluded from that definition.
Line 636 ⟶ 637:
*** Obviously you have no knowledge of the subject matter, then. The english translations of the Bible are notoriously for being utter parodies of the original hebrew and greek verses.
*** You realize that you're making statements without backing them up? The burden of proof is on you here. Post a few links supporting this point of view.
*** [https://web.archive.org/web/20131031060232/http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_bibl.htm This offers a good start]. Really, it's such basic knowledge that it surprises me that you don't understand the concept.
*** See, you should have posted that in the first place, rather than assuming that "everyone knows this stuff", and I'll ignore that condescending remark that you felt the need to include with it.
* Many Chiristians consider Satan irredeemable, and thus not "worth" prayer. He has already been judged by God and cast from Heaven, and Revelation indicates that he isn't going to be suddenly saved (though that book is especially open to interpretation). Most Christians who believe Satan or some form of the Devil exists consider him/it/them the cause of evil, possibly delighting in making people hurt, suffer, and turn against each other and God.
Line 647 ⟶ 648:
"Heaven will be a place where a big sound heard will be, 'Oooooooooooooohhhhhhh'" as our questions are given a near perfect answer.
{{worksubpagefooter}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Bible, The}}
[[Category:Literature/Headscratchers]]
| |||