Conquer Club

Jesse, Bad Boy wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

AlgyTaylor wrote:

AlgyTaylor wrote:2) Why didn't God prevent a false translation in the Bible? You said that he wouldn't allow any errors in the Bible.


I'm not questioning whether or not the Bible is the word of God or not, just establishing that - because of human error - it contains errors. I'll get on to the deeper theological debate once we've passed the first milestone of accepting that regardless of whether God exists or not, the Bible, divinely inspired or not, is primarily a human creation which contains human errors.

Well done Jay, you did well on question 1; basically it's an ambiguous passage which I've taken to mean one thing and you another ...

But please, answer my second question. But bear in mind that you'll get a lot more of them

Good speaking with you man.

Thats like asking why God didn't prevent 911. Or the December 2005 Tsunami. I can't answer it. But 911 was free will.

Free will you say?


Tell me, jay, why would an omnibenevolent deity allow such evil to exist?

He's allowing us to choose Good or evil. And the time for evil to exist is limited. It will end in time.

Jay... I just... hope you take this the way it's intended.

I would really, really love to beat you black and blue.

jay_a2j wrote:He's allowing us to choose Good or evil. And the time for evil to exist is limited. It will end in time.

Is this choice necessary, or is it more psychodrama?

Sounds like irreality TV to me... let's put a lot of people in one place and give them some weird stuff to deal with and see what happens.

jay_a2j wrote:Thats like asking why God didn't prevent 911. Or the December 2005 Tsunami. I can't answer it. But 911 was free will.

You said that God wouldn't allow there to be any errors in the Bible! Yet there is an error in translation.

So do you agree that the Bible does contain some errors?

AlgyTaylor wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:Thats like asking why God didn't prevent 911. Or the December 2005 Tsunami. I can't answer it. But 911 was free will.

You said that God wouldn't allow there to be any errors in the Bible! Yet there is an error in translation.

So do you agree that the Bible does contain some errors?

What tickles moi is that all these contradictions, problems and paradoxes, eg:
Why does god allow evil, why does the bible contradict itself, why is the god of the OT such a shit, why did god need to impregnate a virgin and have his own son murdered to absolve humanity of 'sins' most of it was unaware it had committed, why doesn't prayer work, why is there not a single shred of physical evidence that god exists, why is so much slaughter and hatred still carried out in his name (and celebrated by many xians), why do thousands of presumably innocent children die in natural disasters each year, why does every major religion claim to have a monopoly on the truth, why does 'god's word' so often fly in the face of what science tells us...
...all disappear with the simple and elegant answer: because god is imaginary.

And in a massive burst of geekiness, here is a passage from an H.P.Lovecraft story I was reading on the weekend, which sums it up pretty well IMHO:
"In the first days of his bondage he had turned to the gentle churchly faith endeared to him by the naive trust of his fathers, for thence stretched mystic avenues which seemed to promise escape from life. Only on closer view did he mark the starved fancy and beauty, the stale and prosy triteness, and the owlish gravity and grotesque claims of solid truth which reigned boresomely and overwhelmingly among most of its professors; or feel to the full the awkwardness with which it sought to keep alive as literal fact the outgrown fears and guesses of a primal race confronting the unknown."

Well basically ... as Charles Darwin wrote many, many years ago - to primitive people, how a large ship floats on water (or an aeroplane flies in the air) must seem like some miraculous event, but with our intellect we can explain it.

I suspect that early man could not explain how humankind came to be, or why the world worked in the way that it does, so used an omnipotent god as an explaination. When you think about it, if you discount what we now know about the world it makes sense really. Without a theory of evolution and without geology, it's the most sensible explaination of how many different species of animals have come to be on earth, but that non of them appear to be the same, and with no obvious 'transitional' animals available.

Unfortunately some people still cling on to the Theory of God to explain these things ...

AlgyTaylor wrote:Well basically ... as Charles Darwin wrote many, many years ago - to primitive people, how a large ship floats on water (or an aeroplane flies in the air) must seem like some miraculous event, but with our intellect we can explain it.

I suspect that early man could not explain how humankind came to be, or why the world worked in the way that it does, so used an omnipotent god as an explaination. When you think about it, if you discount what we now know about the world it makes sense really. Without a theory of evolution and without geology, it's the most sensible explaination of how many different species of animals have come to be on earth, but that non of them appear to be the same, and with no obvious 'transitional' animals available.

Unfortunately some people still cling on to the Theory of God to explain these things ...

I need to buy you a drink...or three.

AlgyTaylor wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:Thats like asking why God didn't prevent 911. Or the December 2005 Tsunami. I can't answer it. But 911 was free will.

You said that God wouldn't allow there to be any errors in the Bible! Yet there is an error in translation.

So do you agree that the Bible does contain some errors?

No. (again)

jay_a2j wrote:

AlgyTaylor wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:Thats like asking why God didn't prevent 911. Or the December 2005 Tsunami. I can't answer it. But 911 was free will.

You said that God wouldn't allow there to be any errors in the Bible! Yet there is an error in translation.

So do you agree that the Bible does contain some errors?

No. (again)

So to be clear. Every word is THE direct word of your god, and every word is correct, without error and ironclad?

Sorry to keep harping on about this, but...

Jay, how do you explain the myriad evidence of humans, both through direct archaeological remains, evidence of settlement, tools etc. etc. which is dated as pre 4000BC?

Please. I just can't comprehend how anyone can believe it untrue, and what rationale they have for this...

jay_a2j wrote:

AlgyTaylor wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:Thats like asking why God didn't prevent 911. Or the December 2005 Tsunami. I can't answer it. But 911 was free will.

You said that God wouldn't allow there to be any errors in the Bible! Yet there is an error in translation.

So do you agree that the Bible does contain some errors?

No. (again)

"an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" (Exodus 21: 24)

"If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:39)

Kahless wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

AlgyTaylor wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:Thats like asking why God didn't prevent 911. Or the December 2005 Tsunami. I can't answer it. But 911 was free will.

You said that God wouldn't allow there to be any errors in the Bible! Yet there is an error in translation.

So do you agree that the Bible does contain some errors?

No. (again)

"an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" (Exodus 21: 24)

"If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:39)

Are you serious?

jay_a2j wrote:

Kahless wrote:
"an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" (Exodus 21: 24)

"If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:39)

Are you serious?

Deep down you know he is.

Backglass wrote:I need to buy you a drink...or three.

can I get in on this?

Guiscard wrote:Sorry to keep harping on about this, but...

Jay, how do you explain the myriad evidence of humans, both through direct archaeological remains, evidence of settlement, tools etc. etc. which is dated as pre 4000BC?

Please. I just can't comprehend how anyone can believe it untrue, and what rationale they have for this...

Look, I don't believe the methods used for scientific "dating" are accurate. Back in the 90's there was a story that they dated a Pepsi can to be something like 10,000 years old. Do the math.


On the flip side you criticize my faith in God because I believe what the Bible says. In the meantime its ok for you to believe whatever science says. A tad hypocritical there eh? Here's a question for you... Does Science contain flaws? Could science be wrong about its "dating"? (yeah I know its two questions you need not be a troll and point it out)

jay_a2j wrote:Look, I don't believe the methods used for scientific "dating" are accurate. Back in the 80's there was a story that they dated a Pepsi can to be something like 10,000 years old. Do the math.


On the flip side you critisize my faith in God because I believe what the Bible says. In the meantime its ok for you to believe whatever science says. A tad hypocritical there eh? Here's a question for you... Does Science contain flaws? Could science be wrong about its "dating"? (yeah I know its two questions you need not be a troll and point it out)

Doesn't science do a heck of a lot more to validate it's ideas than Religion?

Does science give rise to whack jobs who blow themselves up or alternatively insist against all reason that one day soon all nonbelievers will be punished for heir lack of faith, in spite of the whole omnibenevolence gig?

I can't wait for all the Christian whackjobs to think that the Rapture/Jubilee/Armageddon is coming so they can all start sending out messages to their loved ones about how they need to be saved before they can ascend up to heaven...

jay_a2j wrote:Look, I don't believe the methods used for scientific "dating" are accurate. Back in the 90's there was a story that they dated a Pepsi can to be something like 10,000 years old. Do the math.

Bullshit. Find the story please and post it.

Jay logic: Back in the 90's I read a story about a preacher stealing money in the name of a god and spending it on prostitutes. Therefor all preachers are money stealing whore mongers.

jay_a2j wrote:Look, I don't believe the methods used for scientific "dating" are accurate. Back in the 90's there was a story that they dated a Pepsi can to be something like 10,000 years old. Do the math.

Oh I see how it is.

You're so caught up in this mystical God stuff you don't even believe in Pepsi coming in cans!

Ha ha ha u r waring blinders!

Anarkistsdream wrote:I can't wait for all the Christian whackjobs to think that the Rapture/Jubilee/Armageddon is coming so they can all start sending out messages to their loved ones about how they need to be saved before they can ascend up to heaven...

Well the index is at unprecedented levels.

jay_a2j wrote:Look, I don't believe the methods used for scientific "dating" are accurate. Back in the 90's there was a story that they dated a Pepsi can to be something like 10,000 years old. Do the math.

When was this, how common is this error? Are you familiar with the concept of "isolated incidents?" You may not 'believe' in them, but that's simply because you refuse to give science the amount of attention that you do to your dogma.

On the flip side you criticize my faith in God because I believe what the Bible says. In the meantime its ok for you to believe whatever science says. A tad hypocritical there eh? Here's a question for you... Does Science contain flaws? Could science be wrong about its "dating"? (yeah I know its two questions you need not be a troll and point it out)

Does science contain flaws? Yes. Could the dating be off? It's certainly possible.

Let me put a question to you, how does faith react when new information is put to it? Does it adjust to accept new data, or does it reject any new ideas in favor of archaic dogma?

Science changes as we learn new things. Scientists debate, argue, and experiment constantly and adjust theories to fit new data. From all that I've seen, faith simply adjusts and interprets facts to fit their already drawn conclusions.

Unfortunately, nature isn't 6th Grade English class. You can't paw through data and cherry pick the parts that fit your own beliefs when there are a myriad of other facts and theories that contradict them.

If the theory does not fit the facts, there are two things you can do. You can try to adjust the theory to fit the new information or you can twist the facts so you can hold onto your outdated ideas.

jay_a2j wrote:

Kahless wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:

AlgyTaylor wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:Thats like asking why God didn't prevent 911. Or the December 2005 Tsunami. I can't answer it. But 911 was free will.

You said that God wouldn't allow there to be any errors in the Bible! Yet there is an error in translation.

So do you agree that the Bible does contain some errors?

No. (again)

"an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth" (Exodus 21: 24)

"If someone strikes you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also." (Matthew 5:39)

Are you serious?

You say the bible has no errors, yet it blatantly contradicts itself. I guess that's why you couldn't find a proper reply to my previous post

2dimes wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:Look, I don't believe the methods used for scientific "dating" are accurate. Back in the 90's there was a story that they dated a Pepsi can to be something like 10,000 years old. Do the math.

Oh I see how it is.

You're so caught up in this mystical God stuff you don't even believe in Pepsi coming in cans!

Ha ha ha u r waring blinders!

backglass? Is that you?

jay_a2j wrote:

2dimes wrote:

jay_a2j wrote:Look, I don't believe the methods used for scientific "dating" are accurate. Back in the 90's there was a story that they dated a Pepsi can to be something like 10,000 years old. Do the math.

Oh I see how it is.

You're so caught up in this mystical God stuff you don't even believe in Pepsi coming in cans!

Ha ha ha u r waring blinders!

backglass? Is that you?

No, I use WHOLE WORDS when typing.