Christians, anything wrong with the following?

[Kenny]

While interesting, you've neglected the setup.

For reference.
The original exchange in Salvation For Dummies.

"Let me in."
"Why?"
"So I can save you."
"From what?"
"From what I'm going to do to you if you don't let me in!"
​

A far better analogy:

The setup: A judge straps dynamite to a guy, which he can trigger remotely, and then forces him to rob banks.

The exchange:

The judge then tells the guy, "It's imperative that I talk to you." ("Let me in")

The guy asks, "Why should I care if you want to talk to me?" ("Why?")

The judge says, "So I can save you." ("So I can save you.")

The guy asks, "From what?" ("From what?")

The judge says, "From sending you to jail because you robbed banks." ("From what I'm going to do to you if you don't let me in!")

.​

Great mythological story.

 

[Skwim]

Great mythological story.

If you're going to tell it, then tell it so it makes sense.

.

 

[1robin]

Yes, but the thousands of different Christian denominations alone are testament to the fact not everyone gets the same interpretation from the same book.

90% of Christians believe 90% of the same doctrines. The bible is 750,000 of the most scrutinized words ever written. It covers creation, sin, wars, prophecy, good, evil, hell, heaven, angels, the Holy Trinity and everything in between. Its surprising we have as much unity as we do.

 

[Kenny]

90% of Christians believe 90% of the same doctrines. The bible is 750,000 of the most scrutinized words ever written. It covers creation, sin, wars, prophecy, good, evil, hell, heaven, angels, the Holy Trinity and everything in between. Its surprising we have as much unity as we do.

This is so true... The percentage, IMO, is even higher.

 

[1robin]

This is so true... The percentage, IMO, is even higher.

Could be.

 

[Kenny]

Could be.

At least by 1%

 

[Shadow Wolf]

90% of Christians believe 90% of the same doctrines.

So? The point was that despite there being one book/Bible, there are many scores upon scores of different denominations and interpretations of that same Bible.

 

[Kenny]

So? The point was that despite there being one book/Bible, there are many scores upon scores of different denominations and interpretations of that same Bible.

The reality that we are human and that is why we need the Bible. If not, then we would create all sorts of gods. (in the Christian understanding)

 

[Shadow Wolf]

The reality that we are human and that is why we need the Bible.

Just because of a simple quirk in human cognition does not mean we need the Bible. Or even god.

If not, then we would create all sorts of gods. (in the Christian understanding)

We did create all sorts of gods. Perhaps probably even over a million different ones.

 

[1robin]

So? The point was that despite there being one book/Bible, there are many scores upon scores of different denominations and interpretations of that same Bible.

It would (and is) the same concerning any exhaustive, complex, and detailed hypothesis. Even the very reliable ones like MMT or the BGVT.

Why in the world would you expect complete agreement concerning everything involved in just?

1. Uncaused first cases.
2. The ontology of an Omni-being.
3. Modal logic.
4. Foreknowledge's impact on freewill.
5. Three persons composing 1 being.
6. Creation ex-nihilo.
7. The coming into being of all things.
8. Original sin.
9. The tree of knowledge.
10. Antediluvian society.
11. An allegorical, local, or global flood.
12. A book which leaves open the question of whether everything was created 5 - 10 thousand years ago with the appearance of age or 15 billion years ago and had to evolve to produce the first primate with a soul over billions of years.
13. Minor prophets.
14. Major prophets.
15. 2500 prophecies composed of tens of thousands of details.
16. Transubstantiation.
17. Substitutionary atonement.
18 Covenant application.
19. The ontology of Christ's dual natures.
20. Immaculate conception.
21. The death of one of the 3 divine persons.
22. The arrival of the comforter.
23. Whether we are dual or triune creatures.
24. Moral ontology.
25. Moral epistemology.
26. Eschatology.

I could record details or opportunities for disagreement every second, of every hour, every day, for weeks or months over which Christians can disagree. It is no different for science, history, mathematics, moral theory, or any other complex idea composed of countless facets.

BTW those disagreements are the fault of humanity, not their source material.

 

[1robin]

At least by 1%

Very possible, but it would be hard to get exact data for a claim as nebulas as the one I mentioned.

 

[Skwim]

It would (and is) the same concerning any exhaustive, complex, and detailed hypothesis. Even the very reliable ones like MMT or the BGVT.

Why in the world would you expect complete agreement concerning everything involved in just?

1. Uncaused first cases.
2. The ontology of an Omni-being.
3. Modal logic.
4. Foreknowledge's impact on freewill.
5. Three persons composing 1 being.
6. Creation ex-nihilo.
7. The coming into being of all things.
8. Original sin.
9. The tree of knowledge.
10. Antediluvian society.
11. An allegorical, local, or global flood.
12. A book which leaves open the question of whether everything was created 5 - 10 thousand years ago with the appearance of age or 15 billion years ago and had to evolve to produce the first primate with a soul over billions of years.
13. Minor prophets.
14. Major prophets.
15. 2500 prophecies composed of tens of thousands of details.
16. Transubstantiation.
17. Substitutionary atonement.
18 Covenant application.
19. The ontology of Christ's dual natures.
20. Immaculate conception.
21. The death of one of the 3 divine persons.
22. The arrival of the comforter.
23. Whether we are dual or triune creatures.
24. Moral ontology.
25. Moral epistemology.
26. Eschatology.

I could record details or opportunities for disagreement every second, of every hour, every day, for weeks or months over which Christians can disagree. It is no different for science, history, mathematics, moral theory, or any other complex idea composed of countless facets.

The only difference is that for the most part science, and mathematics in particular, eventually come to agreement as to the facts.

BTW those disagreements are the fault of humanity, not their source material.

With all this disagreement one has to wonder why god would bother to inspire such a divisive and misleading book as the Bible---being omniscient he obviously knew how it would turn out. Think sowing such confusion is just another side of his character that creates evil?
.

 

[Kenny]

Just because of a simple quirk in human cognition does not mean we need the Bible. Or even god.

I am speaking in reference to Christian understanding and in answer to your statement. You don't have to receive the Bible... you can throw it out if you want.

We did create all sorts of gods. Perhaps probably even over a million different ones.

EXACTLY!! That's why we need the Bible... it's the plumb line (I speak as a Christian... others may say it is their scriptures that is the plumb line)

 

[Shadow Wolf]

EXACTLY!! That's why we need the Bible... it's the plumb line (I speak as a Christian... others may say it is their scriptures that is the plumb line)

They can't all be right, even though they all claim to be right.

 

[Kenny]

They can't all be right, even though they all claim to be right.

You have absolutely NO argument about that on my side!!!!!

 

[1robin]

The only difference is that for the most part science, and mathematics in particular, eventually come to agreement as to the facts.

It is the same in Christianity, the majority agree on the majority of things. Science is just as flawed. After 5000 years of scientific discoveries Einstein decided he liked a steady state universe instead of one that was expanding so he simply invented a number and tried to impose it on nature, he said it was his greatest professional mistake.

One of the greatest examples of our having educated our selves into imbecility is this gem from Hawking.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.
Stephen Hawking says universe not created by God

Can you count how many things that are dead wrong in his statement?

With all this disagreement one has to wonder why god would bother to inspire such a divisive and misleading book as the Bible---being omniscient he obviously knew how it would turn out. Think sowing such confusion is just another side of his character that creates evil?

.

New Living Translation
For God is not a God of disorder but of peace, as in all the meetings of God's holy people.

The author of disorder is staring back at us in the mirror.

If you were Satan would you waste time confusing the drunks, crack heads, and tyrants or spend most of your time trying to distort truth with what looks appealing but is vacuous? Especially concerning those that actually carry the message of truth.

 

[Skwim]

It is the same in Christianity, the majority agree on the majority of things. Science is just as flawed.

Curious thing about the flaws of science, unlike those of Christianity, once they're spotted scientist go about correcting them as quickly as possible. On the other hand, Christians seldom, if ever, do, and when they do it takes them hundreds of years.

For every 100 accomplishments of science I bet you won't find a single accomplishment of Christianity that has had as big an impact.
For every 100 improvements in civilization I bet you won't find a single improvement of Christianity that has had as large an impact.

One of the greatest examples of our having educated our selves into imbecility is this gem from Hawking.

"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," he writes. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist.
Stephen Hawking says universe not created by God

Can you count how many things that are dead wrong in his statement?

Unlike you, not having read the book and his reasoning I can't comment. But I do understand your eagerness to jump on such a statement. It doesn't sound right so it can't be right; although, believing that someone rose from the dead is a foregone fact because The Bible tells me so.

New Living Translation
For God is not a God of disorder but of peace, as in all the meetings of God's holy people.

Buttttt . . . . . . . . he is the creator of evil: Isaiah 45:7, and delights in killing innocent babies: Hosea 13:16, 1 Samuel 15:3, but in a better mood will simply rob mothers and fathers of their children: Leviticus 26:22. Of course none of this causes any disorder, but brings smiles to all involved.

.

 

[1robin]

Curious thing about the flaws of science, unlike those of Christianity, once they're spotted scientist go about correcting them as quickly as possible. On the other hand, Christians seldom, if ever, do, and when they do it takes them hundreds of years.

Every modern bible has every conceivable or potential error indicated and most explain the historical uncertainty. Do you know how long it took Ptolemy's earth centric solar system to be clawed out of existence, for the Piltdown man to be debunked, and there are still people who believe the Earth is flat?

For every 100 accomplishments of science I bet you won't find a single accomplishment of Christianity that has had as big an impact.
For every 100 improvements in civilization I bet you won't find a single improvement of Christianity that has had as large an impact.

Sometimes I can't make up better stuff than others post.

1. 78% of Nobel Laureates are Christians.
2. The modern scientific revolution occurred only in Christian Europe.
3. An atheist wrote a multivolume work trying to explain that away but in the end admitted their faith is what drove them. They believed that a rational God would create a rational universe and science was the way to decode the lawfulness found in nature.
4. Christ has potentially made billions of dead people live eternally with God, science can't even prevent a single person from dying.

I did not make a theism is better than scientism argument but I will provide one last response.


"The character of Jesus has not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice, and has exerted so deep an influence, that it may be truly said, that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind, than all the disquisitions of philosophers and than all the exhortations of moralists."

William Lecky One of Britain’s greatest secular historians.

He was the meekest and lowliest of all the sons of men, yet he spoke of coming on the clouds of heaven with the glory of God. He was so austere that evil spirits and demons cried out in terror at his coming, yet he was so genial and winsome and approachable that the children loved to play with him, and the little ones nestled in his arms. His presence at the innocent gaiety of a village wedding was like the presence of sunshine.

No one was half so compassionate to sinners, yet no one ever spoke such red hot scorching words about sin. A bruised reed he would not break, his whole life was love, yet on one occasion he demanded of the Pharisees how they ever expected to escape the damnation of hell. He was a dreamer of dreams and a seer of visions, yet for sheer stark realism He has all of our stark realists soundly beaten. He was a servant of all, washing the disciples feet, yet masterfully He strode into the temple, and the hucksters and moneychangers fell over one another to get away from the mad rush and the fire they saw blazing in His eyes.

He saved others, yet at the last Himself He did not save. There is nothing in history like the union of contrasts which confronts us in the gospels. The mystery of Jesus is the mystery of divine personality.

Scottish Theologian James Stuart

Unlike you, not having read the book and his reasoning I can't comment. But I do understand your eagerness to jump on such a statement. It doesn't sound right so it can't be right; although, believing that someone rose from the dead is a foregone fact because The Bible tells me so.

You do not need to read the book, at most you would need a freshman class in philosophy. His statement broke several logical laws which have no known or possible exceptions.

Buttttt . . . . . . . . he is the creator of evil: Isaiah 45:7, and delights in killing innocent babies: Hosea 13:16, 1 Samuel 15:3, but in a better mood will simply rob mothers and fathers of their children: Leviticus 26:22. Of course none of this causes any disorder, but brings smiles to all involved.

Boy, you must have emptied your entire clip in a single paragraph.

Evil is an English term. Here is the most accepted commentary on Isaiah 45:7 (since posting the Hebrew word that was actually written wouldn't help much).

Matthew Henry Commentary
45:5-10 There is no God beside Jehovah. There is nothing done without him. He makes peace, put here for all good; and creates evil, not the evil of sin, but the evil of punishment.

God is just and does punish sin. That is what that verse is talking about.

Hosea 13:16 Samaria will be held guilty, For she has rebelled against her God. They will fall by the sword, Their little ones will be dashed in pieces, And their pregnant women will be ripped open.

Because Samaria had rebelled against God, his protection was taken from them. This is what another group of people will do to Samaria, not what God will do. However lets assume God was directly killing babies, heck let's pretend he killed us all. You would have to show that God does not have a morally sufficient reason to destroy what he himself created and has complete sovereignty over. Also according to the bible God takes children into heaven because he holds them unaccountable.

Since all your "complaints" seem to be the same I will respond to just one more.

…2"Thus says the LORD of hosts, 'I will punish Amalek for what he did to Israel, how he set himself against him on the way while he was coming up from Egypt. 3Now go and strike Amalek and utterly destroy all that he has, and do not spare him; but put to death both man and woman, child and infant, ox and sheep, camel and donkey.'"

For God to cause harm or suffering all he needs to have is a morally sufficient reason for doing so. In this case it stated why he ordered the attack of the Amalekites in the verse prior to one you cherry picked but it gets even worse. If I am not mistaken this was the battle where Saul did not do as God had commanded. I think every time God ordered a cultural group to be destroyed he did so because they would have corrupted Israel. It is easy to see this because Israel always disobeyed, and in every case they literally suffered for years in the exact ways God described as his reasons for wanting them destroyed.

In the verse you chose Saul let the king and queen live, I think it was the prophet Samuel who busted through the tent door and cut the king's head off but the queen got away. She was pregnant, her son's name was Haman I believe. He later became an official in Persia (4/5ths of the known world) and promised the king of Persia (Xerxes father Darius perhaps) that he would kill every Hebrew in the entire Persian empire. It was only by God's intervention that Haman failed to carry out his threat.

A little context helps.

 

[Skwim]

I did not make a theism is better than scientism argument

Didn't say you did. You made a silly, "science is just as flawed as Christianity," argument.

You do not need to read the book, at most you would need a freshman class in philosophy. His statement broke several logical laws which have no known or possible exceptions.

Okay, I'll bite. What are these "several logical laws" Hawking broke?

Boy, you must have emptied your entire clip in a single paragraph.

Far from it. As you know, there are many more.

Evil is an English term.

It's the English spelling of the term.

Language.....Term
English......,..."evil"

Albanian........e keqe
Basque..........gaiztoak
Belarusian.....зло
Bosnian.........zlo
Bulgarian.......зло
Catalan..........mal
Croatian.........zlo
Czech............zlo
Danish...........onde
Dutch.............kwaad
Estonian........paha
Finnish..........paha
French..........mal
Galician........mal
German........böse
Greek...........ακό
Hungarian....gonosz
Icelandic.......illt
Irish..............olc
Italian...........male
Latvian.........ļaunums
Lithuanian.....blogis
Macedonian..зло
Maltese.........ħażen
Norwegian....onde
Polish............zło
Portuguese...mal
Romanian.....rău
Russian........зло
Serbian.........зло
Slovak...........zlo
Slovenian......zlo
Spanish........mal
Swedish.......ondska
Ukrainian......зло
Welsh...........drwg
Yiddish..........בייז​

Here is the most accepted commentary on Isaiah 45:7 (since posting the Hebrew word that was actually written wouldn't help much).

Matthew Henry Commentary
45:5-10 There is no God beside Jehovah. There is nothing done without him. He makes peace, put here for all good; and creates evil, not the evil of sin, but the evil of punishment.

It's stuff like this that makes non-Christians sputter in disbelief at the extent Christian apologists go to gild their god and prop up their religion. Believe me, while you may revel in its reassuring words, we on the outside shutter at your gullibility, and your presumption that we would give it any credence. This is preaching-to-the-choir material and not something one brings to a save-the-sinner intervention.

As for relying on Matthew Henry and his Commentary, one has to ask why? Other than appeasing ones concerns,why bother with it? Henry was no theological or linguistic scholar, or a scholar of any kind for that matter, but rather an ordinary, but non-conforming, Presbyterian minister who simply liked to comment on what he believed all the verses in the Bible meant. A nice pastime I guess, but only slightly more meaningful than what he had to eat each Christmas.

.



.

 

[Muffled]

That is the problem with the Trinity and the Triune god.

Even Pope A Dope agrees with the picture.

I believe the fact that you think so shows you don't have a clue about what it means to be a Christian.