|
Post by kevin on Apr 26, 2007 6:11:33 GMT -5
Matthew 19:16--17 16 And, behold, one came and said unto him, Good Master, what good thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? 17 And he said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God: but if thou wilt enter into life, keep the commandments. ____________________________________________________ Mark 10:18--19 18 ¶ And a certain ruler asked him, saying, Good Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? 19 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God. ____________________________________________________ Luke 18:18--19 18 And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? there is none good but one, that is, God.
I assume that these are the verses that tell us that God is " all-good". Problem is, I've known these for 20 years now. None of them state that God is "all-good" which implies that there therefore is no room for evil since "all" is "fully". All you really have to do is look at one of the verses you've quoted, and one that is overlooked by SOOOOO many people. Mark 10:19 - And Jesus said unto him, Why callest thou me good? none is good, save one, that is, God. Uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but is Jesus not part of the triune God, and therefore God in the flesh when he made this statement? Do we not say he was the only perfect man in that he was the only human to never sin? Would that then not make him "all-good" in the sense that is brought out in relation to evil? Jesus was merely stating here these facts: Jesus had the capacity to sin. He just chose not to. He also had the weakness of human flesh. And although the Bible states on several occasions that God was tempted by man, it was not the same as the temptation that man, and therefore Jesus, faced. The tempting that man did to God was the mocking of God, "pushing the envelope" to speak. We call it "taking it too far" because they were basically trying to test God and His mercy by carrying out actions they knew where outside of God's will. Comparison: Matthew 4:1 -- Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil. Psalm 78:56 - Yet they tempted and rebelled against the Most High God And did not keep His testimonies, And finally James 1:13 - Let no one say when he is tempted, " I am being tempted by God"; for God cannot be tempted by evil, and He Himself does not tempt anyone.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Apr 26, 2007 6:46:58 GMT -5
I don't have time to go into this but will upon my return (gotta render unto Caesar folks!), but chew on this if you really want to know why so many people struggle with believing in God: 1 John 4:5-6 - They are from the world; therefore they speak as from the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God; he who knows God listens to us; he who is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the spirit of truth and the spirit of error. How much simpler can this be?
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 26, 2007 8:53:29 GMT -5
Blondie, you make references to people who are "new age" Christians versus "traditional" Christians. Me, I'm a bible-believing Christian. Of all the zillion different versions of Christianity every single one of them believes they are a "Bible-believing Christian." You're understanding is nothing special. No more valid than David Koresh, the Pope, the Mormons. Not even more valid than lawman or Phineas. When I say traditional Christian I mean someone who will say "I am a Presbyterian www.pcusa.org/today/believe/believe.htm or I am a Catholic. etc. If you have your own understanding of the Bible and go with what feels right to you then I call you a new-age Christian. But this concept of God being "all good" -- someone please give me some scriptures that back that up. I may get some negative points from other Christians for this statement, but I can't find an implication in the Bible that God is "all good". Sure there are words such as "holy" and "righteous" but do these necessarily equate to "all good"? If you don't believe God is all-good you are definitely a new-ager. You worship a god that has a 60's Hindu flavor. The God worshiped by Jews, Christians and Muslims is all-good. Wikipedia: "Orthodox Jews believe in the omnipotent, omniscient God of the Bible - “Attribute to the Lord all glory and power” (Psalms 29). Thus, most rabbinic works present God as having the properties of omnipotence, omniscience and omnibenevolence (being all good). This is still the primary ways that most Orthodox and many non-Orthodox Jews view God." That aside, how then does this disprove Christianity (which is a concept and label and really not a biblical term anyway) or even God for that matter? We haven't gotten to Christianity yet. This is just point 1.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 26, 2007 10:18:37 GMT -5
"When I say traditional Christian I mean someone who will say "I am a Presbyterian
www.pcusa.org/today/believe/believe.htm
or I am a Catholic. etc. If you have your own understanding of the Bible and go with what feels right to you then I call you a new-age Christian."That's an assumption YOU made. There has not been a discussion yet that required the Christians on the forum to announce their particular denomination as a point of argument. You haven't declared what TYPE of atheist YOU are yet.
|
|
|
Post by bamagatr on Apr 26, 2007 16:40:49 GMT -5
You haven't declared what TYPE of atheist YOU are yet. Sure he/she has....several times...a relative one... Seems "nihilist" would fit pretty well too...
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Apr 26, 2007 22:51:55 GMT -5
Here's this new-ager thing again. I just provided verses out of the Bible which support my beliefs. Last I looked, the Bible wasn't a new-age text. As far as your quote from Wikipedia, what does this prove? That someone made an entry of their opinion and now I'm supposed to adhere to it? Wikipedia doesn't have anything to offer me in daily living. I've seen more from Wikipedia in your posts than I've ever looked at for myself -- that's how little I refer to it. Ya know, come to think of it, Christians quote from the Bible and you -- an atheist -- seem to quote mostly from Wikipedia. Does that make Wikipedia the "Bible for Atheists"? You seemed to have missed the latter part of my sentence. I'll restate it again: "...or even God for that matter". What you stated in point #1 does not prove there is no God. All it proves is that your the concept of an "all good", "all powerful", "all knowing" God does not fit the concept of God as pointed out in Wikipedia. So in essence, all you've really done is show that Wikipedia is unreliable. And how can being "all powerful" mean that God cannot be "all knowing" or vice-versa? Here's your original thought process In your mind, that sounds logical, I suppose. But why would He even consider changing anything? After all, He is all knowing after all. Christians also believe God is in control, so if He is in control, the things that He knows are part of His plan in the first place! Therefore He wouldn't change anything anyways because its all part of His plan. Psalm 135:6 - Whatever the LORD pleases, He does, In heaven and in earth, in the seas and in all deeps. Daniel 4:34-35 - "But at the end of that period, I, Nebuchadnezzar, raised my eyes toward heaven and my reason returned to me, and I blessed the Most High and praised and honored Him who lives forever; For His dominion is an everlasting dominion, and His kingdom endures from generation to generation. All the inhabitants of the earth are accounted as nothing, but He does according to His will in the host of heaven; and among the inhabitants of earth; and no one can ward off His hand or say to Him, 'What have You done?' Let's see...God does according to His will, therefore that which is being done is according to His will -- His plan -- therefore He knows all as He has already planned it...so, why would He ever want to change anything that is part of His plan in the first place?!? Thus "all knowing" in the case of God does not eliminate "all powerful". Now can you move on to #2?
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 27, 2007 8:23:47 GMT -5
Now can you move on to #2? I can quote the Bible and "prove" Unicorns exists, donkeys talk, Jesus told his followers to castrate themselves etc. If you want to dismiss the concept of the all-good God of western tradition that's fine. I don't believe you or anyone here has actually tried to face the Omnipotence paradox. There is a postmodern answer but nobody got it. There are also traditional Christian answers but nobody seems to be aware of them either. But none of these add any credence to the existence of a God. They just argue against the paradox. Your concept of God is a 20th century one. I assume you're an Evangelical. Obviously it's easier to rationalize the 20th/21st century American-style Jesus because he is understood to represent our societal norms. If you want to move to point 2 knock yourself out. "There are natural explanations for the most of what we know and reason to believe that there are natural explanations for what we don’t yet know."
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 27, 2007 8:52:20 GMT -5
"But none of these add any credence to the existence of a God. They just argue against the paradox."
I would imagine the above is the reason why nobody is bringing them up or any other response to you. You have already discounted whatever anybody else will say.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Apr 27, 2007 20:17:53 GMT -5
I'm not trying to prove God is real, and that's where you'll failing to see the point here. The Bible does not teach those who are His followers that they must prove that God is real. I'm just showing that you cannot prove He is not real. Thus far, you have only supplied supposed logical -- no proof whatsoever. Therefore, your assertion that God is not real has not been proved. And as far as quoting scripture, is that not what Christians are supposed to use? 2 Timothy 3:16-17 - All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. As for why you continue to assert that God is not real -- and therefore Christianity as an extension I suppose -- that's an easy one: Acts 13:38-41 - "Therefore let it be known to you, brethren, that through Him forgiveness of sins is proclaimed to you, and through Him everyone who believes is freed from all things, from which you could not be freed through the Law of Moses. Therefore take heed, so that the thing spoken of in the Prophets may not come upon you: BEHOLD, YOU SCOFFERS, AND MARVEL, AND PERISH; FOR I AM ACCOMPLISHING A WORK IN YOUR DAYS, A WORK WHICH YOU WILL NEVER BELIEVE, THOUGH SOMEONE SHOULD DESCRIBE IT TO YOU.'" (italics mine) John 8:47 - "He who is of God hears the words of God; for this reason you do not hear them, because you are not of God." Yeah, I know, you don't believe in the Bible. Yet, what source do you have to adhere to atheism? I've never seen any proof that God does not exist -- at least I have the Bible which tells me that God does. The rest is faith. Romans 10:17 - So faith comes from hearing, and hearing by the word of Christ.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Apr 27, 2007 20:32:16 GMT -5
Neither do they take away from the existence of God. In the end, they just show that you are hung up on something that really doesn't matter.
Ask God when you see Him. He'll finally give the true answer since there is no agreement on this so-called paradox anyway.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 28, 2007 8:43:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Apr 28, 2007 9:28:29 GMT -5
2 Timothy 3:16-17 - All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work. You know that there was no Bible when this was written right? Gasp, really? 20 years of Christianity, all wasted. I was highly convinced that Paul and Timothy had a leather bound King James bible with the letters of Jesus in red. No, they didn't use any of those you listed. If you'd like to get an idea of what Paul was talking about in Timothy, you can go here: Hebrew Scriptures And DeuterocanonicalsYou remind me of a guy I was visiting years ago. His wife had asked us to come by and talk to him about Christ. He kept avoiding the issue and asked us about other things. I found it humorous. One thing in particular he wanted to know about was interracial relationships. I guess this was a hangup to him and if I gave the "wrong" answer, he would discount the rest of what I had to say. When I responded that the Bible does not address interracial relationships, he quit listening to me. I supposed he wanted me to say the Bible condemned them. Just like you. I give you responses and you pick out one thing that you think will make me stumble. Try harder. And good luck.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 28, 2007 9:35:40 GMT -5
"http://home.aol.com/DrSwiney/secret.html"
What, evilbible.com doesn't have this info?
Well, just like evilbible.com, this guy can't get it right either. Why? Because they don't read and they can't understand.
"There is a puzzling phrase in canonical Mark that suggests something was edited out: Mark 10:46 "Then they came to Jerico. As he was leaving Jerico..." What happened in Jerico?"
Answer: See Luke 19. That tells you what happened in Jericho. Not some stupid made up gay story.
You will of course, say I am rationalizing something away versus simply acknowledging the truth. I'll debunk the other one later. I have some yard work to do.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 28, 2007 11:30:39 GMT -5
So we can agree that there is no reason to believe the NT is "inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." and the Apocrypha is.
We all know that Protestants disregard all th OT stuff they don't like. Tiny little things that are the cornerstone of the religion like circumcision and the sabbath.
I just mocked your quote because you went on to use it as a foundation to quote Acts. See. Can't get off square one can ya'?
The reason I "discount" the Bible is the same reason we all discount other mythological writings from the same period.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 28, 2007 11:36:20 GMT -5
Answer: See Luke 19. That tells you what happened in Jericho. Not some stupid made up gay story. The whole story's stupid and made up, not just the gay part. Besides, Jesus (if he did exist) might have been gay. We don't know. It's Greek to me. www.religioustolerance.org/chr_jegay.htm
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 28, 2007 11:49:15 GMT -5
Like I figured, you can't admit that your premise, which you are holding up from another person's premise in a link, is wrong. What you do can not be called a legitimate debate. Instead it should be classified as a perpetual display of the mastery of logical fallacies.
You find any and all opinions on the Internet that lay claim of an issue with the Bible or Christianity and regurgitate, no...."Bazooka Puke" that off on this forum without the slightest concern of it actually having any substance.
Odds are, you are not going to be able to bombard the Christians on this forum with 10,000 "smoking guns" before we get tired of this form of interaction.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 28, 2007 11:55:51 GMT -5
What's my premise?
The one that's wrong.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 28, 2007 12:02:38 GMT -5
Step A: State a premise. Step B: Use logical fallacies to counter a legitimate refutation of stated premise. Step C: If that fails, act dumb and act like you don't know what your orginal premise was. Step D: ?
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 28, 2007 12:05:51 GMT -5
Step A: State a premise. Step B: Use logical fallacies to counter a legitimate refutation of stated premise. Step C: If that fails, act dumb and act like you don't know what your orginal premise was. Step D: ? Didn't think so.
|
|
|
Post by phinehas on Apr 28, 2007 12:20:41 GMT -5
Step A: State a premise. Step B: Use logical fallacies to counter a legitimate refutation of stated premise. Step C: If that fails, act dumb and act like you don't know what your orginal premise was. Step D: Go back to step B and repeat.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Apr 28, 2007 12:30:02 GMT -5
So we can agree that there is no reason to believe the NT is "inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." and the Apocrypha is.. With every response you make, I smile a little more. You've yet to list anything that is convincing in the least to me. I'm sure you could respond in kind, but your answers really make little sense. Yes, Paul was speaking of scripture that predated his teachings to Timothy. Yet, how do they discount any future writings inspired by God, as we maintain the New Testament is? Because you failed to see the tense in the verse: Had your thoughts about it been true than he would have said "was", as in strictly past tense and therefore only applying to scripture that had predated these teachings. People tend to disregard anything in the Bible they don't like, OT or NT. Good 'ol Mark Twain -- a man who was in no means a friend of the church, Christianity, or any other religion it seems -- actually hit a good point that applies to Christians rather well: As far as the circumcision, that was a sign of the covenant between God and Israel. It has no meaning in Christianity. The only reason Jesus was circumcised was that he was born a Jew. The Sabbath was also a Jewish thing -- I can't find an instance where Jesus spoke on honoring the Sabbath. In fact John 9:16 - Therefore some of the Pharisees were saying, "This man is not from God, because He does not keep the Sabbath" But others were saying, "How can a man who is a sinner perform such signs?" And there was a division among them. Hmmm, I guess you and the Pharisees have something in common...Also Mark 2:27 - Jesus said to them, "The Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath." That does not mean that we can't honor the Sabbath but it does tend to imply that the Sabbath is not a sticking point. But there again, I fail to see how any of this disproves God or Christianity. Because people disregard parts does not disprove anything. I can go down the interstate at 90 mph but that doesn't abolish the speed limit. See above, note the tense. Your mocking is displaced. I left square 1 in my initial post (reply #12). You're the one struggling with it.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 28, 2007 13:03:22 GMT -5
This is pointless. I understand how Evangelicals interpret the Bible.
What I don't understand is why you believe what Saint Paul wrote at all or why you take for granted he wrote Timothy.
Wikipedia:
"many, perhaps most modern scholars, beginning in the nineteenth century, have concluded that the author could not have been Paul, citing various and serious problems in associating it therewith."
We're just going around in circles.
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Apr 28, 2007 16:21:15 GMT -5
This was from you Wikipedia source as well It mirrors our thread thus far, as we don't seem to be reaching a consensus either ;D. I don't think we can claim ours is a scholarly one though . Let us move on to other threads then!
|
|
|
Post by kevin on Apr 29, 2007 22:19:56 GMT -5
What I don't understand is why you believe what Saint Paul wrote at all
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 30, 2007 10:54:24 GMT -5
Yes, Paul was speaking of scripture that predated his teachings to Timothy. Yet, how do they discount any future writings inspired by God, as we maintain the New Testament is? Because you failed to see the tense in the verse: Timothy is very old, we're not sure who wrote it or if the version we have is much different than the original. That's a fact. What we do know is that the verse quoted above from the Bible we have today contradicts the Protestant doctrine of Saved by Grace. Because the author seems to imply that the laws of Moses are still in effect. Possibly a reason that the Pauline authorship is disputed.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Apr 30, 2007 11:17:04 GMT -5
Timothy is very old, we're not sure who wrote it or if the version we have is much different than the original. That's a fact. What we do know is that the verse quoted above from the Bible we have today contradicts the Protestant doctrine of Saved by Grace. Because the author seems to imply that the laws of Moses are still in effect. Possibly a reason that the Pauline authorship is disputed. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 - "All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; so that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work." Is this the verse you're referring to? How does this contradict the doctrine of Saved by Grace? How does it imply that the laws of Moses are still in effect? I've already shown you that Saved by Grace through Faith has been around since the beginning. That is one of the things that makes Christianity stand out from other religions. It has nothing to do with man. It's all about God and His glory. Who can be glorified if a man earns his salvation? The man who earned it. Who can be glorified if salvation is freely given despite what the man has done in his past? God. Just because we are no longer under the law of Moses does not mean it is useless to us.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 30, 2007 11:24:50 GMT -5
I've already shown you that Saved by Grace through Faith has been around since the beginning. Not as understood by Protestants. What about the Sacraments? I think the Protestant version of Saved by Grace is a reaction to them (Luther, Calvin and Zwingli) being excommunicated and not being able to receive the Sacraments. That's just my theory.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Apr 30, 2007 11:33:19 GMT -5
Gen. 15:6. Please show me where works or sacraments come into play here. Show me anywhere that sacraments have anything to do with Salvation.
|
|
|
Post by blondie on Apr 30, 2007 14:24:59 GMT -5
Gen. 15:6. Please show me where works or sacraments come into play here. Show me anywhere that sacraments have anything to do with Salvation. You said: "Saved by Grace through Faith has been around since the beginning" Not the version of Christianity practiced before the Protestant revolution. All religions believe they've been around since the beginning of time, no matter how new they are. And anyone can invent a linear history leading all the way through time right to their dogma. The fact is Sacraments have long been used by the Christian Church. They were/are thought of as necessary.
|
|
|
Post by zoomixer on Apr 30, 2007 15:31:49 GMT -5
Gen. 15:6. Please show me where works or sacraments come into play here. Show me anywhere that sacraments have anything to do with Salvation. You said: "Saved by Grace through Faith has been around since the beginning" Not the version of Christianity practiced before the Protestant revolution. All religions believe they've been around since the beginning of time, no matter how new they are. And anyone can invent a linear history leading all the way through time right to their dogma. The fact is Sacraments have long been used by the Christian Church. They were/are thought of as necessary. Here's a link that I quickly found to help you out. Once I have more time I can find others if you're not satisfied with this one. I think this is a key paragraph: "Thus medieval Scholastics still taught justification as an instantaneous act. It was not until the Council of Trent (1545-1563) that justification was officially confirmed as a process based on human merit derived through divine grace. This was the article in Session VI, Canon 7 of the Council of Trent which led the Roman Catholic Church away from the orthodox teaching on justification." It was the Roman Catholic Church that moved away from this teaching.
|
|