Thread: Banned From The Bible II

The bible implies they will get larger approaching the second coming.

Well god just doesn't seem as good as he di, does he? So the comic was right, and you verified.

He'll forgive me!

Wait phychology student a question. Are you saying that before Jesus, humans had no concept of forgiveness?

Originally Posted by psychology student

The story of lot, is the story of lot, there doesn't need to be a general morality to appease people like you.

I don't understand what you are saying. I just thought it was a very strange story--surely if it was important enough to include in the bible, it must have some meaning. What do people say about it at bible study when they get to that part?

That's another funny thing to think about--people having "bible study" and coming to the parts of the bible where god says to kill every living thing in a particular town (including the babies and animals; see the battle of Jericho in the book of Joshua), to be happy about smashing babies heads (For your reference: Psalms 137:9 - Happy is he who takes your little ones and dashes them against the rocks.), and killing pregnant women (Hosea 13:16 - They will fall by the sword; their little ones will be dashed to pieces, and their pregnant women ripped open.) I wonder what people talk about when they get to those parts; or do they just kind of turn their heads and skip over them?

Originally Posted by psychology student

That is called the stroy of Noah
People had descended into sin
Thats pre-christ sin.
Pre-christ = no forgiveness.

You do know your bible after all, I'm impressed! I was starting to think you had never read it. That makes perfect sense--now I understand why god killed every person (and almost all the animals) on the planet (except one family). Thanks.

Originally Posted by dragonoverlord

Wait phychology student a question. Are you saying that before Jesus, humans had no concept of forgiveness?

Divine forgiveness for sin. Before Jesus, sinners would go to hell, supposedly.

Originally Posted by Mark75

My psychic powers are telling me this thread will be filed under
QUIETLY IGNORED.

Quietly ignored in size 50 font

Originally Posted by psychology student

To be honest, I like Bush, hes a good Christian guy who made a few mistakes.

Hey, everyone's a sinner!

I'm not a sinner.


Sin literally translates from Greek as "falling short of God's expectation"


If God is all knowing ie omniscient, then before i was born he knew exactly how my life would turn out, so whatever i do is his expectation.




Hence I'm not a sinner.

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

I'm not a sinner.


Sin literally translates from Greek as "falling short of God's expectation"


If God is all knowing ie omniscient, then before i was born he knew exactly how my life would turn out, so whatever i do is his expectation.




Hence I'm not a sinner.

But since you are an atheist, how can you fall short of "God's" expectation. As far as your concerned God is not real. Therefore, to use that statement, God must be replaced with something more relevant, perhaps "morality". Now, are you a sinner?

Psychology student, don't confuse things (lil strawman fallacy over there). He's just giving an example of the several contradictions involving god. There are many others, such as omniscience, potence, and presence being logically impossible, and so many other things.

If the definition of god is contradictory is one thing. If Carou believes god or not is another thing.

Originally Posted by psychology student

But since you are an atheist, how can you fall short of "God's" expectation. As far as your concerned God is not real. Therefore, to use that statement, God must be replaced with something more relevant, perhaps "morality". Now, are you a sinner?

You don't understand basic arguing. I am putting myself in the hypothetical situation of believing in God and demonstrating how this places me in a contradiction, and hence the contradictions in belief in God. The fact that I used the term "I" is inconsequential; I could have said "you" or "a christian", the point remains.

"Falling short of God's expectation", you assume that this solely means expectation of actions over a temporal duration. Expectation refers to moral or religious rules as opposed to a prediction by God. Sin clearly has connotations of morality, and it is completely subversive to dispute this.

Essentially your argument completely misinterprets expectation, and it is dependent on this misinterpretation to hold water.

Originally Posted by psychology student

"Falling short of God's expectation", you assume that this solely means expectation of actions over a temporal duration. Expectation refers to moral or religious rules as opposed to a prediction by God. Sin clearly has connotations of morality, and it is completely subversive to dispute this.

Essentially your argument completely misinterprets expectation, and it is dependent on this misinterpretation to hold water.

I am using the most widely used and accepted definition of the term; and that of the dictionary. You seem to be bending the definitions to save God.



Ok; so you explain to me then what "falling short of God's expectation/ [or target, in some translations]" means.


Because if he is all knowing, even in a moral sense he knows what we will achieve, both morally and in my sense in time, and in every sense; hence his expectation is either exactly what we do meaning that sin contradicts itself, or alternatively he sets us targets he knows we won't reach and then condemns us for not reaching them, when he knew all along that we wouldn't from before we existed.

Give me a citation that "expectation" in that context is synonomous for prediction.

well student, if a (supposedly) omniscient being expects something, then it is a prediction. lol

But thats not answering my question

Originally Posted by psychology student

Give me a citation that "expectation" in that context is synonomous for prediction.

I don't think you fully understand.

I'll try to put it simply;



Expectation in the context doesn't mean prediction. It means just "expectation". Like, a target. You know.

So a teacher will have the expectation for the kid to hand in homework. If the kid doesn't hand in the homework; the teacher will be let down, because he expected the kid to hand it in. OK?



That works in the same way as sin. By the definition of it; God expects us to abide to a certain moral code. Expectation means he wants us to get it, he hopes we will, and he expects it.


But the problem is with omniscience. If he already knows what we will do in the future.


Look;


1. Expectation in this sense is expecting and hoping for us to achieve a level of morality.

2. If God is omniscient; he already knows what level of morality we will achieve by his laws.

3. So there is no way, logically he can expect us or hope for us to do better than he knows we actually do.

4. So no matter what we do; we are as God expects and hopes.

5. What you are arguing would be that God knows what we WILL achieve. But sets us a target higher than that. And so condemns us.

Originally Posted by Carôusoul

I don't think you fully understand.

I'll try to put it simply;



Expectation in the context doesn't mean prediction. It means just "expectation". Like, a target. You know.

So a teacher will have the expectation for the kid to hand in homework. If the kid doesn't hand in the homework; the teacher will be let down, because he expected the kid to hand it in. OK?



That works in the same way as sin. By the definition of it; God expects us to abide to a certain moral code. Expectation means he wants us to get it, he hopes we will, and he expects it.


But the problem is with omniscience. If he already knows what we will do in the future.


Look;


1. Expectation in this sense is expecting and hoping for us to achieve a level of morality.

2. If God is omniscient; he already knows what level of morality we will achieve by his laws.

3. So there is no way, logically he can expect us or hope for us to do better than he knows we actually do.

4. So no matter what we do; we are as God expects and hopes.

5. What you are arguing would be that God knows what we WILL achieve. But sets us a target higher than that. And so condemns us.

Man your like a lawyer trying to get God on a technicality, while not realising that he is the judge! Ok I see what your saying, so I'll try and defame the way you use the word omniscience.

Basically the definition is "all-knowing or infinite knowledge", there is no relation with time whatsoever. So God knows everything at one fixed point. Yet it need not imply that he passively knows everything that may occur in the future.
But then you may say that how can his knowledge be "infinite", as in the definition, without applying to a temporal context. Well, this can be answered by the infinity of space.

Anyway, why should God have an awareness of the future, (if you still believe that omniscience applies to a temporal context) surely his omnipotence should allow him to prevent this gift, if he chooses, to really allow the concept of free will to flourish, and to see if his expectations are followed in a non-omniscient realistic humanistic way.

Originally Posted by psychology student

Man your like a lawyer trying to get God on a technicality, while not realising that he is the judge! Ok I see what your saying, so I'll try and defame the way you use the word omniscience.

Basically the definition is "all-knowing or infinite knowledge", there is no relation with time whatsoever. So God knows everything at one fixed point. Yet it need not imply that he passively knows everything that may occur in the future.
But then you may say that how can his knowledge be "infinite", as in the definition, without applying to a temporal context. Well, this can be answered by the infinity of space.

Anyway, why should God have an awareness of the future, (if you still believe that omniscience applies to a temporal context) surely his omnipotence should allow him to prevent this gift, if he chooses, to really allow the concept of free will to flourish, and to see if his expectations are followed in a non-omniscient realistic humanistic way.

OK; so we conclude that he isn't all knowing. Because if he doesn't know the future, well, it's something he doesn't know.

That's all I wanted; the argument inevitably ended with bending the definition of God to avoid the arguments.


But Yeah. I understand your point, and ok.


That'll do.

Hey, God has free choice too! Omniscience can get boring!

Originally Posted by psychology student

Hey, God has free choice too! Omniscience can get boring!

And in keeping with your lawyer example..



I rest my case.

Free choice isn't a technality, my friend, its a foundation.

Originally Posted by psychology student

Free choice isn't a technality, my friend, its a foundation.

That's an assertion, not an argument.