http://www.beliefnet.com/story/203/story_20334_1.htmlHere’s a great article from Richard Dawkins on hostility towards religion.Question: Is religion tolerable? Is religion something that must be cured in believers, or must we give them the same intellectual respect we demand?
won2have,
I read the above but unless I missed it you totally avoided my single very simple, narrow scope question. I shall repost again. And please just address this one question or let me know you decline…
won2have,
Your first line asked… “what are some inconsistencies in Gods nature.”
There are many but to keep things breif an focused let take one at a time, after you clear up one we can move to another, and vice versa for me (this will be fun)…
Bible states:
- God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow… he is unchanging
Bible also states…
- Men have changed God’s mind in numerous places and in fact the very doctrine of prayer could be said to encourage the idea that prayer can change God. There is the C.S Lewis view that prayer changes us not God so for this argument I will throw out prayer and stick only to the texts that say quote… God changed
Two discriptions of his nature that contridict… your serve
wantohave,
OK,OK,OK, I get it, you believe. This is all a personal test, right? You don’t want to convert anyone so you are just trying to figure out how it is that you can FEEL that you believe in something so mysterious, even though no one could possibly comprehend the immensity of His emmensiousity.
I think I can summarize your position and save you all this pointless verbiage: there is a lot that cannot be explained therefore there has to be something bigger than me, and besides I feel it to be true.
Your beliefs are not even remotely like love or art and certainly not like our senses. (What in the world is touch love?). All of these can be tested, even love. Even if they couldn’t be tested that is no reason to assume that they exist in a different realm to which humans have no access.
Maybe it wasn’t you, but I thought you were going away to study the bible and evolution. You can’t have done this yet. You have to study the History of the bible as well. You will find that Mathew did not write Mathew. Of course that doesn’t make it false, just completely and utterly unreliable as the word of god (or Jebus or the spirit). (Actually ’spirit’ is a mistranslation; it should read ‘breath’,the noun not the verb.} The Gospel of Thomas is thought by many to be closer to the actual word of Jebus but it’s considered heresy so I guess you can’t use it as a proof. TTFN
Remy -
It was I who was going to study things about atheism(and have to mot much avail).
To make an assertive statement about Matthew not writing Matthew and the gospel of Thomas being more valid is ridiculous. Please do not assume i am addressing you unless I use your name. No offense but i am not here to pander to your “I hate God spew”. I am here to ask and answer questions. Tell us all of your personal qualifications as to Biblical history, genetics and psychology, them you may go on with the chlorophyll my friend. AH! Sorry I simply hate disagreement for the sake of extolling a useless point. I get it, You do not believe! Great! Then continue in your blind faith with out being so sanctimonious towards every Christian who is interested in conversation. Sorry to sound rude but you kinda piss me off, most of the time. But no hard feelings.
Thad – sorry i did forget this one
“Bible states:
- God is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow… he is unchanging
Bible also states…
- Men have changed God’s mind in numerous places and in fact the very doctrine of prayer could be said to encourage the idea that prayer can change God. There is the C.S Lewis view that prayer changes us not God so for this argument I will throw out prayer and stick only to the texts that say quote… God changed”
How does God’s to change hinder His nature of perfect holiness? I think it misunderstands the idea that perfect holiness is not derived from a single outcome that is predestined. God could easily have say 10 routes that ultimately fulfill or bring about the design he wishes to happen. I think he chooses the one he wants and that brings him the most glory ultimately. So when Elijah prays and it doesn’t and then does rain or when God “changes” it needs to be seen in light of the context. I know i say that a lot and you’ll hopefully not accuse me of playing it as a scape card. It is a use of literary critique in all writing especially historic narrative.
Remember that the pentateuch(sp?) is a poetic writing probably from Moses and was carried traditionally to the future generation in song. So there is a bit of alliteration.
so when God changes, it is most likely a reference that is written in a form of aramaic or hebrew language to understand the feelings or circumstances surrounding the situation. This where the poetry comes in. If i say, “i could kill him for that” does that make me a kill cause i said it. No, it illustrates the idea of emotional attachment to whatever “he” did. Similar with God changing. This is mostly my opinion. google that verse and see what real biblical scholars think about it. I am a novice on most biblical subjects.
Does that work for you?
Same in the use of the texts that say
“..saw the face of God or sat face to face with God…” when “no man has see God’s face”
It is funny how many people will not just use normal interpretation skills to render the Bible useful, but instead just at a chance to prove inconsistent or contradiction theories. thanks for reading.
won2have
I’m afraid you’ll have to clarify for me.
Why? Most Biblical scholars, xian and otherwise agree. I stated that Thomas was considered by many to be closer to the truth of His word. It’s their informed opinion. Notice here the word ‘informed’, something you have as yet to cultivate. No offence, just a factual statement.
Well, I once read a book or two. (I think one of them might have been green) Is it a requirement that I have a Doctor of Divinity, AND doctorates in every discipline? If so, it kinda puts an end to discussion. I guess I’d better shut up until I get more education.
Now that’s just fallacious; your pants are on fire. You do little else than extol useless points.
Sometimes I do feel guilt as I type and in a lot of ways I feel sorry for you. Be of good cheer and remember that your Daddy in the Skyheaven will punish me. Actually that’s not true; it’s Beelzebub who does that. God just won’t me in with all the good people on account of my sanctimony.
PS. Someone else used the term ‘blind faith’. This is a redundancy. (unless one is speaking of the musical trinity). Faith is blind by definition. I am afraid I have no faith; trust, beliefs, yes, faith, not so much.
won2have
I’m having so much trouble understanding your points in the posts you’ve made today. I’m hopig someone else will respond to them, because I don’t know if it’s just me, or if it’s the way you write.
I did understand your point to remy, however.
Is there a way you could simplify your answer to thaddeus. It still doesn’t seem to me to be answering the question.
Sorry Karen.
I am Just trying to be elaborative so as not to be confusing. Seems i have missed the mark.
Umm… i guess you want to know why i believe God is comprehend-able?
With out all the banter of does he exist lets make a supposition that he does. And if he then does then is he knowable or does he want to be known.
So as far back as there is history there is worship. But if God is real and we believe that, we then will attempt to know Him, i think by our nature. We do not mostly believe in God and then just leave it there, if pressed. I think we continue to believe and seek more evidence and explanations or we become content and selfish because we are afraid it will change us in to something different and that is scary. (very general)
I guess i just do not see why a person would believe in God and then just stop and not have the internal drive to know as much as possible or as much as seems knowable. (more specific)
Besides this the Bible states that God is knowable His divine attributes, eternal power and such are evident in creation. So this is where i stand as a Christian in terms of general revelation. (yet more specific)
it gets more specific as you get closer to Jesus as the final revealing of God’s plan/desire/comprehension
Best Shot….
won2have
Seems to me that IF god is real and knowable, then it would be a simple thing for him to exhibit himself plainly to all as a real and knowable being. Especially if he wishes to be loved and glorified.
The inconsistencies of the bible point to god not being real, perfect or unchanging, but something made in the image of man, rather than the other way around.
God changes radically from the old testament to the new. He switches his style of communication and his behavior and his presence. You may say that he was always God and Christ at the same time, but the book says Jesus was his only begotten son, not an extension of his appearance. You may say that “God could easily have say 10 routes that ultimately fulfill or bring about the design he wishes to happen”, but that’s just a cop-out for someone/thing that shouldn’t need more than one route.
How is it not normal to interpret that according to this, at some time, someone saw the face of god, or sat face-to-face with him, (while now there is no evidence that this happens anymore), yet the bible also tells us does it not, that we may not see the face of god? That is a contradiction. How do you explain that it is not? Without going in circles, please.
Won2Have,
I know this could sound very self serving of me and that I am just feigning confusion… but I am not following your points… at all.
I do sense you are sincere and I appreciate your tone but beyond that…
I am not an expert but I have spent an enormous amount of time in the scriptures, hermeneutics, original language study and you can not simply just wish to believe that the doctrines I am speaking of can just be explained away by pretending metaphor, poetry, whatever.
If you honestly look at the whole scriptures it is plain that there is a doctrine that you can petition and change God… that he will hear and respond. There are narratives that are intened just as that NARRATIVES or HISTORIES of what happened and they plainly state God changed his mind, changed his action and yet the scripture at the same time say he is unchangeable.
As to Karens point (which is a good one!)… I would ask, have you read the Bible through beginning to end?
If so how do you explain the two VERY opposing pictures of God?
Have you read through the simple lists of contradictions available on the net.
Have you researched the Bibles history, where it came from, how it got here, by whom and what was going on in the church that brought it to us. have you read comparitive studies that show what is very obvious borrowing from earlier traditions?
If you have done this then please tell me how you can reasonable accept the bible as GODS best shot at communication. Please i write clearer office memos than HE does and HE is supposed to be the gretest of the greatest of the greatest?
won2have,
i mean does not the fact that it is so blasted hard to understand, read or make sense of even strike you as strange… here is a perfect god, with perfect love, with perfect reason and yet this Bible is the best he can do at PERFECT COMMUNICATIONS?
Oh yes, sure it is confusing so it remains mysterious… great mystery above misery is a great trade off… keep it mysterious even though many will burn in hell for that feature.
Please, it is obvious it is what it is… many different books from many different writers over several centuries. it is a study in schizophrenia.
I think Won2have is saying that God does not have to be free of contradictions. That as part of Him being outside time and space and being unknowable means maybe we get contradictions. Correct me if I have the wrong impression.
While Thaddeus sees the contradictions as evidence that the bible is not divine (because something divine should be perfect) Won2have does not seem to share that opinion.
Won2have I have a simple question for clarity – do you think the bible contains no contradictions? Because that doesn’t seem to be what you are arguing.
Yes, no, no ,yes ,no….
sorry i had to break the tension and you can’t hear me sighing, or see my look of confusion.
Monika i think is leading me at least to where i was going. I do not think scriptures are contradictory. Her point is great, from my position. She is exactly on point with how i “see” God. There are all kinds of dualities in scripture, its like a peg board. Take some yarn and tie it to one peg of God’s immutability(unchangeable nature) and tie the other to how our prayers can affect God. And all kinds of things like this. Do i chose to believe-yes. Does God elect people-yes. Was Jesus God-y. Was he man-y. You are absolutely right if you call all of these contradictions. they are to those of us who work through our best science and study to have a straight line connecting two points. I totally agree this all sounds, to those who do not believe in God, as a huge farce. I can not defend God where he does want defense. I mean that if a person does not have faith they couldn’t believe. And not just Christian faith, but the ability to believe in a higher power.
Thanks to Monika for clearing up my ramblings.
Karen,
So God being different in NT and OT…? Is it because of the way he is portrayed by the authors, or the ways which we see him relate to people.
Briefly, I think that God can be seen as different as time goes forward from Gen1-Rev22 is that perfection on earth interrupts fellowship and a chain of events is set in motion. Sin enters, and progressively gets quantitatively worse with seemingly increasing degrees immorality as well. It is kind of like God is excused by men, but then b/c they still have the closeness in time and culture to him tolerate him. Some are truly devout, others play the harlot with idols and false gods. So i see the process as going somewhere. The things that happen, how and why God relates differently with people and the way he seems to become less “visible” and such.
If we think of all things as a means for God to bring about total peace. Then the way things happen is just the story, and being humans we get to see the plot thicken and thin.
I’m sorry it is so hard to express fully my thoughts on the total purpose of all things as giving glory to God and bringing about His Kingdom. Those are total cliches but deeply true as you see scripture in light of God reconciling all things to Himself.
God is not chiefly concerned with me getting to heaven. He is chiefly concerned with Himself being glorified. Jesus didn’t come to merely save me or you. He came so that God would have the legitimate right to reconcile and still be completely just in doing it.
that should be “I think the reason that God can be seen as different as time goes forward from Gen1-Rev22 is b/c imperfection on earth”
won2have,
Okay thanks for the response. I appreciate your admission that it does contridict and as such is unreasonable and can only be followed if you do so in blind faith.
To continue so is certianly a freedom nay of us have, but as a thinking person, and you seem that you are, why believe this book of contradictions… why not believe Islams booh of contradictions, or mormans or Greek mythology for that matter. My point is if the foundational basis of your belief system (the BIBLE) is admittedly contridictory the whole house of cards fall.
The thing is I think Won2have is working from the basic assumption that God exists and the bible etc are imperfect attempts of man to know God.
The rest of us work from an assumption that there is nothing supernatural until we are presented with evidence that there is.
Obviously I think our position is the more reasonable one but these discussions are interesting.
Monika is the real working translator here. Thank you for understanding me and making sense of my musings.
Thad – I do not believe Scripture is contradictory. I do confess that there are dual truths that appear in it. As in life around us. Sexual asexual, amphibians, photons wavelengths…etc. There exist things that can not be seen. Infrared, wind or whatever else, i am simply saying that blind faith is kind of a cop out for an agnostic or atheist to claim of Christians. Is see science as fitting and making so much sense b/c that’s how God works. Orderly and un-chaotic.
Thanks Won2have – I am glad I could add a little clarity. I was reading all your posts and all Thaddeus’ and just thinking you were both working from different assumptions. Of course I agree more with Thaddeus than your own point of view but I guess that goes without saying.
I see the wonder of science fitting and making so much sense not as a higher power but just as a beautiful and awe inspiring universe. In a way I see the concept of God as taking away some of that awe. Instead of this amazing universe that has developed and grown and evolved over time in interesting ways that we can study and explore you just have a being snapping his fingers and creating it all. It is unsatisfying to me as an explanation. I know I am simplifying things but I do that to try and emphasise the contrast of the ideas.
Mon-
I totally agree. I think it is also awe inspiring to see and watch the wonders and mechanics of the universe work in this harmonious pattern. That is why when i came back to thinking about it’s consistence and order i wondered/wonder how it works so seemingly perfect. Thus our differing opinions. It’s so funny that we see the same things and end in opposite theories.
I still am curious about the jump to life that most science folks think occurred. How or what is it that makes life from molten hydrogen and carbon…? Is this the Primordial goo theory or the “probability over a gazzilion years” theory? I have read some of the evolut. ideas, but there is just no really good scientific theory there, to me. I am about to watch the “God who isn’t there”. With an open mind i might add, however i have caught some clips and think it is probably similar propaganda that Michael Moore uses in “Columbine and 9/11″. We’ll see though…wish me luck!
i dont know if i can answer that question with a yes or a no cus i think it can go either way. but i deffinatly belief that we should respect their views as we would want them to respect ours. but at the same time there’s people and organizations out there that will go to the extreme with it weather christian or islamic or whatever, More people have died in the name of God that anything else. religion is dangerous if u miss use it and miss interpret it. I realize that it also “Saves” alot of people from Drug addiction or depression it helps them recover, they basically trick themsevles to belief that god is helping them and all of a sudden their happy and its a MIRACLE! but it does have its possitive side and it does keep some of these humans out there in check. eventually tho after we evolve some more and GROW UP i beleif society with eventually grow out of spirituality and religion,it will take a long time before we get there, its a slow processes of evolution and maturity, people will look back in school in history class and laugh at how rediculous the human race used to be, it will almost be like an embarrassment to the human race, like slavery. No one will tolerate it in the future but as of now we can only realize it ourselves being ahead of our time with that mentallity and hope that religion doesn’t Screw anything else up worse in the future.
won2have:
Sure. Anthropomorphism.
See, gawd got laid, so he settled down quite a little bit.
Ahem. Pardon moi, but
A. Wind can be felt, & infrared can be proven to exist.
B. Blind faith is the copout the xtians use.
What, is that doublespeak for contradictions?