The Bible/Headscratchers: Difference between revisions

Rescuing 1 sources and tagging 0 as dead.) #IABot (v2.0.9.2
(Rescuing 1 sources and tagging 0 as dead.) #IABot (v2.0.9.2)
 
(4 intermediate revisions by 3 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]}}
|'''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]}}
|'''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 AbhorentAbhorrent]] in general. What you pointed out is another reason that the "snake is Satan" theory just doesn't add up.
 
 
Line 260 ⟶ 262:
***** 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 Hebrews??
** The plague was not God killing all of Egypt's animals. Apart from God distinguishing between the EgyptianEgyptians's animals and the IsraeliteIsraelites's 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 311 ⟶ 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, [httphttps://wwwweb.archive.org/web/20061224081806/http://blasphemychallenge.com/ some folks] don't understand that.
*** 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 635 ⟶ 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 646 ⟶ 648:
"Heaven will be a place where a big sound heard will be, 'Oooooooooooooohhhhhhh'" as our questions are given a near perfect answer.
 
{{worksubpagefooter}}
{{reflist}}
{{DEFAULTSORT:Bible, The/Headscratchers}}
[[Category:Literature/Headscratchers]]
[[Category:{{SUBPAGENAME}}]]
{{DEFAULTSORT:Bible, The/Headscratchers}}
[[Category:{{TOPLEVELPAGE}}]]