The acclaimed contradictions are in bold and the replies are given in regular type. This discussion took place on a website called "www.jude3.org" between "Truman" (me) and "Jacob Geri." This is the reason I might mention the name "Jacob" through the discussion. Jacob gave these to me from his website "infidels.org" to show how "obvious" it was that there are numerous contradictions.
This was originally separated into just 2 parts, but due to the length, I'm dividing it into 10 parts to keep each post easier to read.
Are there really contradictions in the Bible? We shall see...
PART 1:
God good to all, or just a few?
PSA 145:9 The LORD is good to all: and his tender mercies are over all his works.
JER 13:14 And I will dash them one against another, even the fathers and the sons together, saith the LORD: I will not pity, nor spare, nor have mercy, but destroy them.
Jeremiah refers to God punishing those who stand against Him in wickedness. In the Psalms, King David talks about how the Lord is good to all men who obey and seek Him. He is righteous when He destroys, for whenever He does destroy anyone in the Bible, He does it out of righeousness. He put the Israelites into bondage because they turned their backs on Him. He even implies in two scriptures before that God is merciful and good to all who obey Him:
"And men shall speak of the might of thy terrible acts: and I will declare thy greatness. They shall abundantly utter the memory of thy great goodness, and shall sing of thy righteousness."
--Psalms 145:6-7
This scripture refers to "goodness" as being "righteousness."
War or Peace?
EXO 15:3 The LORD is a man of war: the LORD is his name.
ROM 15:33 Now the God of peace be with you all. Amen.
God is characterized by both. So was Ronald Reagan. So what?
Who is the father of Joseph?
MAT 1:16 And Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
LUK 3:23 And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being (as was supposed) the son of Joseph, which was the son of Heli.
Jacob was Joseph's true father. Heli was Joseph's father-in-law: Mary's dad.
Who was at the Empty Tomb? Is it:
MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.
MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.
JOH 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.
These are not contradictions, but variations in writing of the gospel. Each of the verses do not say that the others were not there, but just mentions certain people coming to the tomb. The Bible writers do this many times, where they leave out a few things, and later mention them in scripture. But these scriptures do not contradict in any way. They just mention things not said before. So, it is obvious that Mark 16:1 is the scripture that shows the most people coming then. Maybe there were even more people who came. But it does not contradict.
Is Jesus equal to or lesser than?
JOH 10:30 I and my Father are one.
JOH 14:28 Ye have heard how I said unto you, I go away, and come again unto you. If ye loved me, ye would rejoice, because I said, I go unto the Father: for my Father is greater than I.
Refers to Jesus being the Son of God. He is one with God because He is God in the flesh. The Father is greater than the Son in authority, but they are equal in nature -- both are deity.
Which first--beasts or man?
GEN 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
GEN 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
GEN 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
GEN 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
God directly formed animals out of the ground for Adam to name them. This doesn't mean he created them after Adam. It was just saving time so they didn't have to call all of the animals. How simple is that to understand?
The number of beasts in the ark
GEN 7:2 Of every clean beast thou shalt take to thee by sevens, the male and his female: and of beasts that are not clean by two, the male and his female.
GEN 7:8 Of clean beasts, and of beasts that are not clean, and of fowls, and of every thing that creepeth upon the earth, GEN 7:9 There went in two and two unto Noah into the ark, the male and the female, as God had commanded Noah.
Refers to the animals going into the ark two by two, not only two of each kind.
How many stalls and horsemen?
KI1 4:26 And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.
CH2 9:25 And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.
Read the verses carefully and you will see that there is no contradiction. They had chariot teams with ten horses and ten men per chariot in case you got a flat tire! If he had "four thousand stalls for horses and chariots" he would need fourty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots.
Sunday, July 20, 2008
Did Jesus Really Say to Hate Your Loved Ones To Be His Disciple?
This was written by Michael J. Bumbulis as a counter-argument to one particular issue that non-Christians have a problem with. I thought I'd post it here.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hatred to kindred is enjoined in Luke 14:26:
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters -- yes, even his own life -- he cannot be my disciple."
Hatred to kindred is condemned in Ephesians 6:2:
"'Honor your father and mother' -- which is the first commandment with a promise."
& in Ephesians 5:25 & 29:
"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her ... After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church."
This verse is used numerous times from atheists in an attempt to show that Jesus was not a nice guy. But let's see if this verse really supports that position. Many atheists interpret this verse literally. To them, it is clear that Jesus was instructing us to hate our families. But is it?
It is a fairly basic rule in hermeneutics that a particular teaching should be interpreted in the light of general teaching, that is, in light of its context. So, does this hate-message fit into the overall context of Jesus' teaching? Not really.
Elsewhere, Jesus responds to an inquiry about attaining eternal life. He replied, "honor your mother and father" (Matthew 19:19). In fact, on another occasion Jesus censured those theologians who argued that people who had vowed to give God a sum of money which they later discovered could have been used to help their parents in need were not free to divert the money from religious purposes to which it had been vowed. In His characteristic condemnation of human traditions, Jesus observed: "Thus you nullify the Word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites!" (Matthew 15:6-7)
Now, how can you hate your parents, yet also honor them? These seem to be exclusive sentiments.
On the cross, Jesus tells John to take His mother as his own. Was he telling John to hate her? Then why did John take Mary into his home?
An interesting thing happens if you put together some of these teachings. If we are to hate our family, why must we love our enemies? And by hating our families, they become our enemies, but then we are supposed to love them!
No, I find this literalistic interpretation of Luke 14:26 to be plagued with problems and taken out of context.
So what sense are we to make of this teaching? Perhaps Jesus is simply employing hyperbole to emphasize an important point. Let's return to the immediate context of this verse. In Luke 14:27, He notes that a disciple must be willing to carry his cross. In verses 28-29, he teaches from the example of building a tower and that one should count the costs before beginning. In verses 31-32, he uses an example of a king going to war to illustrate the same point. Then in verse 33, he explains that we must be willing to give up everything to be His disciple. In verses he alludes to salt that loses its saltiness, which is thrown out. And finally, he sums it all up by saying, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear" (in verse 35).
Now throughout this whole preaching, Jesus uses symbolic parables and hyperbole to drive His points home. And what is the point? I think it is rather clear, that commitment to Jesus is primary and always comes first. Thus, if you are willing to put others before Christ and unwilling to follow through with your commitment, you may as well never commit in the first place.
It is well known that in Jewish idiom, hate could also mean "love less." In fact, I think the same message taught in Luke 14:26 is taught in Matthew 10:37:
"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me."
In this case Jesus is speaking to his disciples, while in Luke He was addressing the crowds. But the same theme is present in both and His teaching to the disciples clearly explains the hyperbole in Luke.
I should also go back to that idiom. In the OT, the love-hate antithesis was used to distinguish between the intensity of one's love, and not meant as a polarization of concepts. Perhaps the clearest example is in Genesis 29:30-31:
"So Jacob went to Rachel also, and he loved Rachel more than Leah, and served Laban another seven years. When the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb."
Thus, Leah's being hated or not loved really meant that she was loved less. In fact, in the poetry of the ancient Near East numerous terms were paired together. In such instances the meaning of these terms is far more dependent upon their idiomatic usage rather than their literal meaning in isolation.
Given that Jesus often teaches using symbolic parables and hyperbole, given the context of Luke's passage, along with the context of other teachings of Jesus which certainly contradict a literal reading of Luke's verse, and the use of the love-hate comparison in Hebrew idiom, all added to Matthews account of the same theme, a consistent picture comes out that Jesus was teaching that we should love our families less than He. His use of hyperbole is an effective way of getting attention and emphasizing his point at the same time. Commitment to Jesus comes first. By the way, this is another subtle implicit expression of Jesus as God, as elsewhere, he reminds us that we are to love "the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" (Matthew 22:37).
Anyway, if Bob was to tell Sue that he loved her so much that "he'd walk a thousand miles without food and water just to be with her," must Bob fulfill the literal sense of his statement for Sue to understand the depth of his love? If we insisted that hyperbole be taken literally, a very effective and deep method of communicating would be lost!
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Hatred to kindred is enjoined in Luke 14:26:
"If anyone comes to me and does not hate his father and mother, his wife and children, his brothers and sisters -- yes, even his own life -- he cannot be my disciple."
Hatred to kindred is condemned in Ephesians 6:2:
"'Honor your father and mother' -- which is the first commandment with a promise."
& in Ephesians 5:25 & 29:
"Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her ... After all, no one ever hated his own body, but he feeds and cares for it, just as Christ does the church."
This verse is used numerous times from atheists in an attempt to show that Jesus was not a nice guy. But let's see if this verse really supports that position. Many atheists interpret this verse literally. To them, it is clear that Jesus was instructing us to hate our families. But is it?
It is a fairly basic rule in hermeneutics that a particular teaching should be interpreted in the light of general teaching, that is, in light of its context. So, does this hate-message fit into the overall context of Jesus' teaching? Not really.
Elsewhere, Jesus responds to an inquiry about attaining eternal life. He replied, "honor your mother and father" (Matthew 19:19). In fact, on another occasion Jesus censured those theologians who argued that people who had vowed to give God a sum of money which they later discovered could have been used to help their parents in need were not free to divert the money from religious purposes to which it had been vowed. In His characteristic condemnation of human traditions, Jesus observed: "Thus you nullify the Word of God for the sake of your tradition. You hypocrites!" (Matthew 15:6-7)
Now, how can you hate your parents, yet also honor them? These seem to be exclusive sentiments.
On the cross, Jesus tells John to take His mother as his own. Was he telling John to hate her? Then why did John take Mary into his home?
An interesting thing happens if you put together some of these teachings. If we are to hate our family, why must we love our enemies? And by hating our families, they become our enemies, but then we are supposed to love them!
No, I find this literalistic interpretation of Luke 14:26 to be plagued with problems and taken out of context.
So what sense are we to make of this teaching? Perhaps Jesus is simply employing hyperbole to emphasize an important point. Let's return to the immediate context of this verse. In Luke 14:27, He notes that a disciple must be willing to carry his cross. In verses 28-29, he teaches from the example of building a tower and that one should count the costs before beginning. In verses 31-32, he uses an example of a king going to war to illustrate the same point. Then in verse 33, he explains that we must be willing to give up everything to be His disciple. In verses he alludes to salt that loses its saltiness, which is thrown out. And finally, he sums it all up by saying, "He who has ears to hear, let him hear" (in verse 35).
Now throughout this whole preaching, Jesus uses symbolic parables and hyperbole to drive His points home. And what is the point? I think it is rather clear, that commitment to Jesus is primary and always comes first. Thus, if you are willing to put others before Christ and unwilling to follow through with your commitment, you may as well never commit in the first place.
It is well known that in Jewish idiom, hate could also mean "love less." In fact, I think the same message taught in Luke 14:26 is taught in Matthew 10:37:
"Anyone who loves his father or mother more than me is not worthy of me; anyone who loves his son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me; and anyone who does not take his cross and follow me is not worthy of me."
In this case Jesus is speaking to his disciples, while in Luke He was addressing the crowds. But the same theme is present in both and His teaching to the disciples clearly explains the hyperbole in Luke.
I should also go back to that idiom. In the OT, the love-hate antithesis was used to distinguish between the intensity of one's love, and not meant as a polarization of concepts. Perhaps the clearest example is in Genesis 29:30-31:
"So Jacob went to Rachel also, and he loved Rachel more than Leah, and served Laban another seven years. When the LORD saw that Leah was hated, he opened her womb."
Thus, Leah's being hated or not loved really meant that she was loved less. In fact, in the poetry of the ancient Near East numerous terms were paired together. In such instances the meaning of these terms is far more dependent upon their idiomatic usage rather than their literal meaning in isolation.
Given that Jesus often teaches using symbolic parables and hyperbole, given the context of Luke's passage, along with the context of other teachings of Jesus which certainly contradict a literal reading of Luke's verse, and the use of the love-hate comparison in Hebrew idiom, all added to Matthews account of the same theme, a consistent picture comes out that Jesus was teaching that we should love our families less than He. His use of hyperbole is an effective way of getting attention and emphasizing his point at the same time. Commitment to Jesus comes first. By the way, this is another subtle implicit expression of Jesus as God, as elsewhere, he reminds us that we are to love "the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind" (Matthew 22:37).
Anyway, if Bob was to tell Sue that he loved her so much that "he'd walk a thousand miles without food and water just to be with her," must Bob fulfill the literal sense of his statement for Sue to understand the depth of his love? If we insisted that hyperbole be taken literally, a very effective and deep method of communicating would be lost!
Saturday, July 19, 2008
Atheism is Illogical
Did you ever consider that atheists are not rational? I'll clarify. The word, "atheist" comes from two Greek roots: "Theos" meaning "god" and the prefix "a-" meaning "not." In English, it is translated to "atheist," meaning, "a rejector of 'god.'"
A "theist" is a believer of a "god." This is a belief in something. However, if a person rejects something that they cannot prove in the first place, how is it rational to believe so? For it to even come close to being a rational belief, one must be omnipresent: everywhere at the same time. Otherwise, you've got a flawed belief. It's like saying there aren't little green men living in outer space: there is only the option of believing that they don't exist. It is impossible to actually know that they don't, so rejecting this idea would be irrational.
If you could travel into outer space and search every star of every galaxy, every asteroid of all of space and come back to say, "I didn't find any, therefore, they don't exist," you would still be irrational in your rejection. Why? Because when you were searching that star over there, he zipped over to another one when you weren't looking. To prove that little green men didn't exist, you would have to be in every place at the same time. Otherwise, your rejection of their existence would be unreasonable.
Therefore, atheism is an irrational belief, because atheists reject something that can't be proven to not exist in the first place. To conclude this thought, it is also irrational to claim that logic dictates there's a God.
Logic does, however, dictate that God created everything. Now you ask, "Why would the very idea of god be illogical and his creating of the universe logical? Isn't that a contradiction?"
No. See, since God cannot be proven to exist, it is illogical to claim to know He exists, but not illogical to believe he exists. God creating everything can be considered "logical" since everything is extremely complex. It seems that evolutionists proclaim that such "complicated" things like wooden boxes with nails in them could not possibly arrive by chance, but the human eyeball with its trillions of rods and cones that adjust to every tiny detail of everything it focuses on arrived by "a slow, gradual process which involved a light-sensitive pigment in the head of a creature."
It is logical to conclude that everything was created, but not logical to claim to know it happened. Atheists claim to know that God does not exist by simply saying they reject Him as existing. But rejecting a belief in something is illogical since the belief was never proven in the first place, but never not proven either.
But I must explain that I do not follow the rules of logic; I only know what they lay down. I know that God created the universe because I believe the Bible to be infallible and inspired by God. Therefore, I am not being logical; I am being a fundamentalist.
A "theist" is a believer of a "god." This is a belief in something. However, if a person rejects something that they cannot prove in the first place, how is it rational to believe so? For it to even come close to being a rational belief, one must be omnipresent: everywhere at the same time. Otherwise, you've got a flawed belief. It's like saying there aren't little green men living in outer space: there is only the option of believing that they don't exist. It is impossible to actually know that they don't, so rejecting this idea would be irrational.
If you could travel into outer space and search every star of every galaxy, every asteroid of all of space and come back to say, "I didn't find any, therefore, they don't exist," you would still be irrational in your rejection. Why? Because when you were searching that star over there, he zipped over to another one when you weren't looking. To prove that little green men didn't exist, you would have to be in every place at the same time. Otherwise, your rejection of their existence would be unreasonable.
Therefore, atheism is an irrational belief, because atheists reject something that can't be proven to not exist in the first place. To conclude this thought, it is also irrational to claim that logic dictates there's a God.
Logic does, however, dictate that God created everything. Now you ask, "Why would the very idea of god be illogical and his creating of the universe logical? Isn't that a contradiction?"
No. See, since God cannot be proven to exist, it is illogical to claim to know He exists, but not illogical to believe he exists. God creating everything can be considered "logical" since everything is extremely complex. It seems that evolutionists proclaim that such "complicated" things like wooden boxes with nails in them could not possibly arrive by chance, but the human eyeball with its trillions of rods and cones that adjust to every tiny detail of everything it focuses on arrived by "a slow, gradual process which involved a light-sensitive pigment in the head of a creature."
It is logical to conclude that everything was created, but not logical to claim to know it happened. Atheists claim to know that God does not exist by simply saying they reject Him as existing. But rejecting a belief in something is illogical since the belief was never proven in the first place, but never not proven either.
But I must explain that I do not follow the rules of logic; I only know what they lay down. I know that God created the universe because I believe the Bible to be infallible and inspired by God. Therefore, I am not being logical; I am being a fundamentalist.
Notes on Theology
---> Why would any man make a law forbidding adultery, or any of the other Ten Commandments for that matter? I sure wouldn't. The laws in the Bible are against things that men usually want to do. If I invented a god, I sure wouldn't put those laws down. Why would anyone think the Israelites would either?
---> The Israelites had such severe punishments like death for adultery because they had to preserve the line of Jews, without disease to disrupt them. Since these laws were ignored elsewhere, many sexual diseases have arisen. This isn't from over-time processes, but from the act of committing the actions. God was right to say "don't do this" and "don't do that" because if they did, it's time to die. Ancient civilizations had these as well as modern society today. What happened? Diseases. Terrible things have happened so we have fundraisers for AIDS, HIV, and the like.
My take on this is simply that these diseases are punishment in an alternate way from God. If they won't be punished or executed, let them suffer the consequences of the act. Why doesn't God stop the sickness in the world? Well I have a theory about that. Maybe since we disobeyed His laws we're getting punished.
---> Does anyone know everything? No. Does anyone know half of everything? No... Ok, imagine you knew half of everything. Is it possible that God exists in the other half you don't know? Then someone might say, "No, because god is undefined, and there is no reason to believe in something that natural phenomena can explain." Well, I've got to say to that person, "The God of the Bible is indeed defined, and if you'd look into the information found, it is much more logical to believe God created it than a rock did."
---> The First Law of Thermodynamics states roughly that matter cannot be created or destroyed. Well then, how could evolution occur? Hmm, I sense a problem. But, they'll say, "Well God couldn't do it then either! HA!" Question: who did you just say couldn't do it? God, right? Since when is God brought down to the level of man?
I get this kind of idiotic statement many times, put into different forms. A rough form of it could be asking something like, 'Can God make a rock so big He can't lift it?' Right there you're bringing God down to the level of man, and not considering He's God. This question is based on 'Can God do everything?' Of course not. He can't learn for one (already knows it all). He can't sin. He can't do anything unrighteous. Jesus often answered a question with a question. What do you say to these morons who ask this crap? Well, "In geometry, a ray goes on forever in one direction, and a line goes on forever in both directions. Tell me, which one is longer?" You ask 'em to answer that and then you'll tell him about the rock.
---> "God is so cruel; he puts people in hell cause he's mean." Whatever. This is based on the assumption that man is good, when he is not. Have you lied? You're a lier then. Have you stolen? Then you're a thief. Have you looked lustfully at another man/woman? Jesus said those who do this have committed adultery already in their hearts. Have you done this? Yes, so you're an adulterer. These are just three of the Ten Commandments (and there are more than just the Ten Commandments to live by). You are a thieving, lying, adulterer. Sounds pretty just to throw you into Hell. God cannot stand sin. You can't walk in like it's a bar. It's not like the cartoons where it's an eternal dream taking place in the clouds. It's holy. How do you get there? Commit your heart to Jesus.
---> If God intervened with every major and minor thing that happened on earth then He wouldn't be God. There would be no free will since he'd be a bodyguard to everyone and everything. God is letting "the suffering" occur because of man's sin.
---> An analogy by Kent Hovind about God. "In plane geometry, you deal with just flat substances. Now, we'll suppose we have two people: Mr. and Mrs. Flat. They are squares that live in Flatland on a piece of paper. They have no comprehention of the third dimension at all. We are three-dimensional people. We can see two-dimensions, and we understand width, height, and depth. But, in a sense, we really don't see depth. You can take a photograph of what you're looking at but you would still perceive the depth in it, even though it's a flat substance. 3D is just something we perceive; we cannot see it. Mr. Flat would see Mrs. Flat as a straight line. He can walk around her and understand she's a square. She can do the same, but they both only see each other as straight lines. Suppose I put a finger on the paper on Mr. Flat's side while Mrs. Flat wasn't looking. Since I created them by drawing them, I'd like them to get to understand me, the creator. Now, I cannot put a 3D object into a 2D land, I can only put my finger on the paper. So Mr. Flat comes along and sees my finger and tells Mrs. Flat, 'I've seen him: he's a circle.' He only saw the cross section of my finger. Then, I put three fingers on the paper next to Mrs. Flat while Mr. Flat wasn't looking. Mrs. Flat goes over to Mr. Flat and says, 'Oh no honey, I've seen him. He's three circles.' Both have a very small and limited view of what I truely am. Both are right...and wrong at the same time. There is no possible way that I'll ever be able to explain who I am to the 2D people. But yet, I have the capacity of being closer to them, than they are to each other, and they aren't even aware of my presence."
---> An explaination by me about God. I think God has a completely different deminsion to begin with. He is beyond length, width, height, and depth. He's beyond time and other dimensions. God's vision of the universe is beyond all nature, since He created it. The people who invented the car, the computer, and the calculator are above and beyond their creation. Those things can't envision it, however, if they were alive, since they can only understand the data put into the calculator, or car, or computer. The creators of these things aren't affected by them. The inventor of the watch isn't affected by it. He made the watch! And since God is the creator, and since He wouldn't be affected by His creation, this would rule out the god of the pantheist view, like god is the rock, or god is the tree, or god is the water. This is a very limited and pantheistic view of God. He's really above and beyond his creation: unaffected by it. If He wants to come down and walk on water or raise the dead He could if He wanted to. He is unlimited totally to it. That is the Christian God: the God that says "Poof! There's the world." And if it sounds fantastic to you, does God care?
---> Consider the movie "I, Robot." Yes, it's not a godly movie. But one point brought up in it is the fact that the robots are programmed to save the life of a person who has more of a percentage of surviving. That's where a programmed machine cannot discern what to do, like what a human can. In the case of saving people from Hell, the easier one to save would obviously be the one to save last, if the case were between two people in danger. The person more likely to survive can hold on longer than the other, so it's in human nature to take the harder first and the easier last. If a person is taking a test on something, the intelligent mind would choose to answer the hardest questions first. The easier questions can wait since the mind holds the information with less stress. Once the harder questions are accomplished no worries are held any longer. The easier questions become the target. This especially concerns a timed test. If the harder questions are answered, the easier questions can be answered at greater pace, thus finishing on time. The same logic must be applied with saving a soul. The less the risk, the better to hold it 'till the end.
---> The atheist excuse: "I can do anything I want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone." To any Christian this may seem as evil a statement as blaspheming God. There is, however, only one thing I can think of that cancels out this statement. It may be only a single reply, but it involves unlimited thought. Is abortion wrong? Naturally, the atheist would respond with, "It's the mother's choice." Does the baby have a choice? If the fetus or embryo is human, wouldn't it be murder? As if any atheist would have the right to judge if it is! Is murder wrong to an atheist? "Well it hurts someone, doesn't it? Of course!" Is killing an unborn child murder? By what standard does the skeptic judge if it is or isn't? If it is, it would be hurting someone, correct? If it isn't, proof must be supplied for this claim. Is there proof? Not a trace. So if an atheist or skeptic says something like, "I can do anything I want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone," ask them if abortion is murder. That'll get them thinking. Explain the bumping and shoving inside the womb as the child is pinched apart and pulled out piece by piece in a mid-term abortion. Explain how the baby moves inside the womb. Explain the thrashing arms and legs of a baby just before the "doctors" plunge the scissors into the back of the neck and suction out the brains in a partial-birth abortion. That'll get them thinking.
---> Divorce is looked down at by God. Here's a parable. Let's say the man and the woman who married were two nails, put by point into into a single wooden board. The nails connot be taken out unless by force. If the nails were to be driven out after a very brief period they would probably still be straight and sharp enough to hammer into another board. On the other hand, if the nails were to be taken out after a long period, they would most definitely be stubbed, bent slightly, and/or rusted. After all, the nail has been out in the rain and sun for years. It would most definitely have something wrong with it if driven out after all it's been through. After a long while, a nail might come out without being destroyed, but on only very rare occasions. But the search for a new board to drive into would be very long, for the house is built. Occasionally there might be something in need of fixing, so the nail is used again. And that's the parable of the nail. A story like many people's divorce situations today, unless the couple has kids, then this is a totally void parable.
---> The Israelites had such severe punishments like death for adultery because they had to preserve the line of Jews, without disease to disrupt them. Since these laws were ignored elsewhere, many sexual diseases have arisen. This isn't from over-time processes, but from the act of committing the actions. God was right to say "don't do this" and "don't do that" because if they did, it's time to die. Ancient civilizations had these as well as modern society today. What happened? Diseases. Terrible things have happened so we have fundraisers for AIDS, HIV, and the like.
My take on this is simply that these diseases are punishment in an alternate way from God. If they won't be punished or executed, let them suffer the consequences of the act. Why doesn't God stop the sickness in the world? Well I have a theory about that. Maybe since we disobeyed His laws we're getting punished.
---> Does anyone know everything? No. Does anyone know half of everything? No... Ok, imagine you knew half of everything. Is it possible that God exists in the other half you don't know? Then someone might say, "No, because god is undefined, and there is no reason to believe in something that natural phenomena can explain." Well, I've got to say to that person, "The God of the Bible is indeed defined, and if you'd look into the information found, it is much more logical to believe God created it than a rock did."
---> The First Law of Thermodynamics states roughly that matter cannot be created or destroyed. Well then, how could evolution occur? Hmm, I sense a problem. But, they'll say, "Well God couldn't do it then either! HA!" Question: who did you just say couldn't do it? God, right? Since when is God brought down to the level of man?
I get this kind of idiotic statement many times, put into different forms. A rough form of it could be asking something like, 'Can God make a rock so big He can't lift it?' Right there you're bringing God down to the level of man, and not considering He's God. This question is based on 'Can God do everything?' Of course not. He can't learn for one (already knows it all). He can't sin. He can't do anything unrighteous. Jesus often answered a question with a question. What do you say to these morons who ask this crap? Well, "In geometry, a ray goes on forever in one direction, and a line goes on forever in both directions. Tell me, which one is longer?" You ask 'em to answer that and then you'll tell him about the rock.
---> "God is so cruel; he puts people in hell cause he's mean." Whatever. This is based on the assumption that man is good, when he is not. Have you lied? You're a lier then. Have you stolen? Then you're a thief. Have you looked lustfully at another man/woman? Jesus said those who do this have committed adultery already in their hearts. Have you done this? Yes, so you're an adulterer. These are just three of the Ten Commandments (and there are more than just the Ten Commandments to live by). You are a thieving, lying, adulterer. Sounds pretty just to throw you into Hell. God cannot stand sin. You can't walk in like it's a bar. It's not like the cartoons where it's an eternal dream taking place in the clouds. It's holy. How do you get there? Commit your heart to Jesus.
---> If God intervened with every major and minor thing that happened on earth then He wouldn't be God. There would be no free will since he'd be a bodyguard to everyone and everything. God is letting "the suffering" occur because of man's sin.
---> An analogy by Kent Hovind about God. "In plane geometry, you deal with just flat substances. Now, we'll suppose we have two people: Mr. and Mrs. Flat. They are squares that live in Flatland on a piece of paper. They have no comprehention of the third dimension at all. We are three-dimensional people. We can see two-dimensions, and we understand width, height, and depth. But, in a sense, we really don't see depth. You can take a photograph of what you're looking at but you would still perceive the depth in it, even though it's a flat substance. 3D is just something we perceive; we cannot see it. Mr. Flat would see Mrs. Flat as a straight line. He can walk around her and understand she's a square. She can do the same, but they both only see each other as straight lines. Suppose I put a finger on the paper on Mr. Flat's side while Mrs. Flat wasn't looking. Since I created them by drawing them, I'd like them to get to understand me, the creator. Now, I cannot put a 3D object into a 2D land, I can only put my finger on the paper. So Mr. Flat comes along and sees my finger and tells Mrs. Flat, 'I've seen him: he's a circle.' He only saw the cross section of my finger. Then, I put three fingers on the paper next to Mrs. Flat while Mr. Flat wasn't looking. Mrs. Flat goes over to Mr. Flat and says, 'Oh no honey, I've seen him. He's three circles.' Both have a very small and limited view of what I truely am. Both are right...and wrong at the same time. There is no possible way that I'll ever be able to explain who I am to the 2D people. But yet, I have the capacity of being closer to them, than they are to each other, and they aren't even aware of my presence."
---> An explaination by me about God. I think God has a completely different deminsion to begin with. He is beyond length, width, height, and depth. He's beyond time and other dimensions. God's vision of the universe is beyond all nature, since He created it. The people who invented the car, the computer, and the calculator are above and beyond their creation. Those things can't envision it, however, if they were alive, since they can only understand the data put into the calculator, or car, or computer. The creators of these things aren't affected by them. The inventor of the watch isn't affected by it. He made the watch! And since God is the creator, and since He wouldn't be affected by His creation, this would rule out the god of the pantheist view, like god is the rock, or god is the tree, or god is the water. This is a very limited and pantheistic view of God. He's really above and beyond his creation: unaffected by it. If He wants to come down and walk on water or raise the dead He could if He wanted to. He is unlimited totally to it. That is the Christian God: the God that says "Poof! There's the world." And if it sounds fantastic to you, does God care?
---> Consider the movie "I, Robot." Yes, it's not a godly movie. But one point brought up in it is the fact that the robots are programmed to save the life of a person who has more of a percentage of surviving. That's where a programmed machine cannot discern what to do, like what a human can. In the case of saving people from Hell, the easier one to save would obviously be the one to save last, if the case were between two people in danger. The person more likely to survive can hold on longer than the other, so it's in human nature to take the harder first and the easier last. If a person is taking a test on something, the intelligent mind would choose to answer the hardest questions first. The easier questions can wait since the mind holds the information with less stress. Once the harder questions are accomplished no worries are held any longer. The easier questions become the target. This especially concerns a timed test. If the harder questions are answered, the easier questions can be answered at greater pace, thus finishing on time. The same logic must be applied with saving a soul. The less the risk, the better to hold it 'till the end.
---> The atheist excuse: "I can do anything I want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone." To any Christian this may seem as evil a statement as blaspheming God. There is, however, only one thing I can think of that cancels out this statement. It may be only a single reply, but it involves unlimited thought. Is abortion wrong? Naturally, the atheist would respond with, "It's the mother's choice." Does the baby have a choice? If the fetus or embryo is human, wouldn't it be murder? As if any atheist would have the right to judge if it is! Is murder wrong to an atheist? "Well it hurts someone, doesn't it? Of course!" Is killing an unborn child murder? By what standard does the skeptic judge if it is or isn't? If it is, it would be hurting someone, correct? If it isn't, proof must be supplied for this claim. Is there proof? Not a trace. So if an atheist or skeptic says something like, "I can do anything I want, as long as it doesn't hurt anyone," ask them if abortion is murder. That'll get them thinking. Explain the bumping and shoving inside the womb as the child is pinched apart and pulled out piece by piece in a mid-term abortion. Explain how the baby moves inside the womb. Explain the thrashing arms and legs of a baby just before the "doctors" plunge the scissors into the back of the neck and suction out the brains in a partial-birth abortion. That'll get them thinking.
---> Divorce is looked down at by God. Here's a parable. Let's say the man and the woman who married were two nails, put by point into into a single wooden board. The nails connot be taken out unless by force. If the nails were to be driven out after a very brief period they would probably still be straight and sharp enough to hammer into another board. On the other hand, if the nails were to be taken out after a long period, they would most definitely be stubbed, bent slightly, and/or rusted. After all, the nail has been out in the rain and sun for years. It would most definitely have something wrong with it if driven out after all it's been through. After a long while, a nail might come out without being destroyed, but on only very rare occasions. But the search for a new board to drive into would be very long, for the house is built. Occasionally there might be something in need of fixing, so the nail is used again. And that's the parable of the nail. A story like many people's divorce situations today, unless the couple has kids, then this is a totally void parable.
My Full Profile
Hello. This is my profile (the full version).
I'm a conservative, non-denominational, Christian, young-earth creationist, and I'm not afraid to say it like some Joel Osteen followers out there. I am a homeschooled student. I enjoy it and I'm not "socially inept" like some youth PSYCHO-logists presume.
I collect soundtracks, of which I currently own 48, which is practically nothing compared to the die-hard collectors (we're goin' into the 4-digit line here). Why? I don't just listen to the music and enjoy, I learn. I've studied fervently in the art (and I emphasize "art") of film composing and I wish to major in the subject. I'm studying piano and have been for 12 years. Earlier I wanted to be a concert pianist, but realized later that I'm not (and probably never will be) good enough for the task. I'm also not up to it. I'm much better at writing newer ideas, which is why I'm choosing composing for film.
I get obsessed easily. I collect. Music isn't much of a hobby to me; more like a future. I prefer classical. "Oh, I do too!" some might say. But I prefer it in the isolated sense, as well as instrumental/orchestral-only types. I dislike most other forms of music: hip-hop, rap, rock, metal, country, crooner, rhythm and blues, pop, techno, you name it... but rarely, I like some piano jazz...but just the piano. I guess that's a little close-minded to the rest of the music world, but then, I'm a little old-fashoned when I think of a band as people who can actually play instruments, and not just acrobatically dance the stage off like Jump5.
Back to soundtracks (gotta love those plastic pancakes!), I think up stories of my own to go along with the soundtrack I listen to. I try to get as far away as I can from the plot of the story that the soundtrack originally played to. I take it seriously though, and go a step further to write screenplays for the stories I invent. I've only written one so far, and am on my second. The second is about an obsessed detective who's been after a highly-wanted gangster named 'Harrison Odell', hence, my user name (not my real name, in case some of you were wondering). Soundtracks really play a role in my life.
I enjoy strategy games, (not just video games), collecting antique model cars, and collecting 'Lord of the Rings' trading cards (this collection is massive). I enjoy playing on my pennywhistle once in a while, and (most recently) creating recut trailers for certain films on YouTube (which my channel name is, of course, "HarrsionOdell").
If you've come this far, you've made it! That's about it for me... unless I edit.
I'm a conservative, non-denominational, Christian, young-earth creationist, and I'm not afraid to say it like some Joel Osteen followers out there. I am a homeschooled student. I enjoy it and I'm not "socially inept" like some youth PSYCHO-logists presume.
I collect soundtracks, of which I currently own 48, which is practically nothing compared to the die-hard collectors (we're goin' into the 4-digit line here). Why? I don't just listen to the music and enjoy, I learn. I've studied fervently in the art (and I emphasize "art") of film composing and I wish to major in the subject. I'm studying piano and have been for 12 years. Earlier I wanted to be a concert pianist, but realized later that I'm not (and probably never will be) good enough for the task. I'm also not up to it. I'm much better at writing newer ideas, which is why I'm choosing composing for film.
I get obsessed easily. I collect. Music isn't much of a hobby to me; more like a future. I prefer classical. "Oh, I do too!" some might say. But I prefer it in the isolated sense, as well as instrumental/orchestral-only types. I dislike most other forms of music: hip-hop, rap, rock, metal, country, crooner, rhythm and blues, pop, techno, you name it... but rarely, I like some piano jazz...but just the piano. I guess that's a little close-minded to the rest of the music world, but then, I'm a little old-fashoned when I think of a band as people who can actually play instruments, and not just acrobatically dance the stage off like Jump5.
Back to soundtracks (gotta love those plastic pancakes!), I think up stories of my own to go along with the soundtrack I listen to. I try to get as far away as I can from the plot of the story that the soundtrack originally played to. I take it seriously though, and go a step further to write screenplays for the stories I invent. I've only written one so far, and am on my second. The second is about an obsessed detective who's been after a highly-wanted gangster named 'Harrison Odell', hence, my user name (not my real name, in case some of you were wondering). Soundtracks really play a role in my life.
I enjoy strategy games, (not just video games), collecting antique model cars, and collecting 'Lord of the Rings' trading cards (this collection is massive). I enjoy playing on my pennywhistle once in a while, and (most recently) creating recut trailers for certain films on YouTube (which my channel name is, of course, "HarrsionOdell").
If you've come this far, you've made it! That's about it for me... unless I edit.
Blog Begins
Hello. I've decided to create a blog dedicated to what I've got to say about what matters to me. And you know what? Most would probably care less. But at least I'm writing what I write in a public spot instead of all alone, to myself.
I've got so much bottled up knowledge that I've gotta vomit it up somewhere. Why not here? In public? So the dawn of yet another blog among millions begins. It may be insignificant, but.... well, yeah... it's pretty puny. So please end the insignificance and comment on my posts. I'm open to everyone.
Enjoy your stay, people, whoever you might be!
I've got so much bottled up knowledge that I've gotta vomit it up somewhere. Why not here? In public? So the dawn of yet another blog among millions begins. It may be insignificant, but.... well, yeah... it's pretty puny. So please end the insignificance and comment on my posts. I'm open to everyone.
Enjoy your stay, people, whoever you might be!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
