What if billions of people are wrong?

Page 11 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Elledan

Banned
Jul 24, 2000
8,880
0
0


<<

<< BTW, any god that condones punishment or is actively involved in it is not 'just'. >>



if your father was a judge and you committed a clearly punishable crime (in this case he would be your judge ... not that it would happen in a real life scenario) ... but if it were to happen ... Would it be "right" to let you off the hook just because you were his son or daughter? even though he loves you, and has that family bond, it would not be "just" to let you off. God faced a similar dilemma which He solved through Jesus Christ ... who sacrificed Himself on the cross so that we wouldn't have to pay the penalty for our wrongs. this is what Christians believe.

this thread truly does not end ... and if it does ... it starts up once more. =)

edit: i'm going to sleep now. hopefully someone else will be able to answer your questions
>>


It's quite simple, actually: Punishment does not equal Justice. Punishment equals hopelessness, the inability to understand why people refuse to obey certain rules and to act accordingly (in a just way).
 

petrek

Senior member
Apr 11, 2001
953
0
0
In re"BTW, do you accept the statement that language is subjective and that the original meaning of a text is only clear to the one who wrote it down?"
No
 

Elledan

Banned
Jul 24, 2000
8,880
0
0


<< In re"petrek, the bible is everything but "a historically, scientifically, and prophetically accurate account of the history of the universe from beginning to end". It even contradicts itself (between Old and New Testament, and within the New Testament)."
Please provide examples you have personally come across while reading the Bible.
>>

There are countless books, sites and other sources which list inconsistencies and contradictions in the bible.

This should keep you busy for a while:

The Bible - Its Evolution, Contradictions and Inconsistencies
 

Elledan

Banned
Jul 24, 2000
8,880
0
0


<< In re"BTW, do you accept the statement that language is subjective and that the original meaning of a text is only clear to the one who wrote it down?"
No
>>

Why not?
 

petrek

Senior member
Apr 11, 2001
953
0
0
In re"There are countless books, sites and other sources which list inconsistencies and contradictions in the bible.

This should keep you busy for a while:"

I asked for personal references you came across while reading the Bible. As I could just as easily post links to sites that dispute the statements made in your links.
 

Elledan

Banned
Jul 24, 2000
8,880
0
0


<< In re"There are countless books, sites and other sources which list inconsistencies and contradictions in the bible.

This should keep you busy for a while:"

I asked for personal references you came across while reading the Bible. As I could just as easily post links to sites that dispute the statements made in your links.
>>

Not all of these inconcistencies and contradictions can be explained.

As for personal references, it's been some time since I've read the whole bible and not just parts of it. Besides, why should I do the work others have done many times before?
 

Elledan

Banned
Jul 24, 2000
8,880
0
0


<< In re"Why not?"

Conversation would be impossible.
>>

Your reasoning makes no sense. Try to elaborate some more.
 

petrek

Senior member
Apr 11, 2001
953
0
0
In re"Not all of these inconcistencies and contradictions can be explained."

And you've read everything???
 

petrek

Senior member
Apr 11, 2001
953
0
0
In re"Your reasoning makes no sense. Try to elaborate some more."

If I am the only person that understands what I write/wrote, then....
 

Elledan

Banned
Jul 24, 2000
8,880
0
0


<< In re"Not all of these inconcistencies and contradictions can be explained."

And you've read everything???
>>

Okay, let's whether you can grasp this:

Say you got a text consisting out of multiple parts. In one part the writer states that the man fell from the stairs, then in another part is written that the man tripped and almost fell from the stairs.

How can one explain this?

Now, look at this quote:


<< There is very little that can be ascertained from the four Gospels about the historic Jesus. His birthday is unknown. In fact, the year of Jesus's birth cannot be known. The writer of Matthew says Jesus was born "in the days of Herod the king." Herod died in 4 BC. Luke reports that Jesus was born "when Cyrenius [Quirinius] was governor of Syria." Cyrenius became governor of Syria in 6 AD. That is a discrepancy of at least nine years.

Luke says Jesus was born during a Roman census, and it is true that there was a census in 6 AD. This would have been when Jesus was at least nine years old, according to Matthew. There is no evidence of any earlier census during the reign of Augustus; Palestine was not part of the Roman Empire until 6 AD. Perhaps Matthew was right, or perhaps Luke was right, but both could not have been right.

Matthew reports that Herod slaughtered all the first-born in the land in order to execute Jesus. No historian, contemporary or later, mentions this supposed genocide, an event which should have caught someone's attention. None of the other biblical writers mention it.

The genealogies of Jesus present a particularly embarrassing example of why the Gospel writers are not reliable historians. Matthew gives a genealogy of Jesus consisting of twenty-eight names from David down to Joseph. Luke gives a reverse genealogy of Jesus consisting of forty-three names from Joseph back to David. They each purport to prove that Jesus is of royal blood, though neither of them explains why Joseph's genealogy is relevant if he was not Jesus's father: Jesus was born of the Virgin Mary and the Holy Ghost. Matthew's line goes from David's son Solomon, while Luke's goes from David's son Nathan. The two genealogies could not have been for the same person.

Matthew's line is like this: David, Solomon, eleven other names, Josiah, Jechoniah, Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, Abiud, six other names, Matthan, Jacob, and Joseph. Luke's line is like this: David, Nathan, seventeen other names (none identical to Matthew's list), Melchi, Neri, Shealtiel, Zerubbabel, Rhesa, fifteen other names (none identical to Matthew's list), Matthat, Heli, and Joseph.

Some defenders of Christianity assert that this is not contradictory at all because Matthew's line is through Joseph and Luke's line is through Mary, even though a simple glance at the text shows that they both name Joseph. No problem, say the apologists: Luke named Joseph, but he really meant Mary. Since Joseph was the legal parent of Jesus, and since Jewish genealogies are patrilineal, it makes perfect sense to say that Heli (their choice for Mary's father) had a son named Joseph who had a son named Jesus. Believe it or not, many Christians can make these statements with a straight face. In any event, they will not find a shred of evidence to support such a notion.

However, there is a more serious problem to this argument: the two genealogies intersect. Notice that besides starting with David and ending with Joseph, the lines share two names in common: Shealtiel and Zerubbabel, both commonly known from the period of the Babylonian captivity. If Matthew and Luke present two distinct parental genealogies, as the apologists assert, there should be no intersection. In a last-ditch defense, some very creative apologists have hypothesized that Shealtiel's grandmother could have had two husbands and that her sons Jechoniah and Neri represent two distinct paternal lines, but this is painfully speculative.
>>



(source: http://www.users.bigpond.com/pmurray/Rants/doc/lfif-51.html )

What's your explanation?
 

Elledan

Banned
Jul 24, 2000
8,880
0
0


<< In re"Your reasoning makes no sense. Try to elaborate some more."

If I am the only person that understands what I write/wrote, then....
>>

Only the person who wrote the text can fully understand what s/he meant. To make it clear to other people, this person must include many hints to make clear what the meaning was. This isn't a perfect method, but it helps. Good writers can be recognized this way.
 

Nefrodite

Banned
Feb 15, 2001
7,931
0
0
if your father was a judge and you committed a clearly punishable crime (in this case he would be your judge ... not that it would happen in a real life scenario) ... but if it were to happen ... Would it be "right" to let you off the hook just because you were his son or daughter? even though he loves you, and has that family bond, it would not be "just" to let you off. God faced a similar dilemma which He solved through Jesus Christ ... who sacrificed Himself on the cross so that we wouldn't have to pay the penalty for our wrongs. this is what Christians believe

you can't compare god to a father. god would be your creator and controller of everything in existence. say you grew up in horrible conditions and had a brain defect that caused you to be violent, add an enviroment that fed this violent streak and allowed you to commit many a "sin". when this guy dies god punishes him eternally in hell when god knowing all knew the man was doomed from the start. how is that equivalent to a father?
 

petrek

Senior member
Apr 11, 2001
953
0
0
In re"Only the person who wrote the text can fully understand what s/he meant."

Not true. If the text/paragraph/book incorporates only a few largely recognized concepts than there is a good chance that most people will understand what is said. If the text/paragraph/book incorporates some largely recognized concepts and a few not so recognized concepts than fewer people will initially recognize what is being said...
However it is always possible to study concepts.

Edit: Man's mind is finite, as opposed to God's which is infinite.
 

Elledan

Banned
Jul 24, 2000
8,880
0
0


<< In re"Only the person who wrote the text can fully understand what s/he meant."

Not true. If the text/paragraph/book incorporates only a few largely recognized concepts than there is a good chance that most people will understand what is said. If the text/paragraph/book incorporates some largely recognized concepts and a few not so recognized concepts than fewer people will initially recognize what is being said...
However it is always possible to study concepts.
>>

You're forgetting about something. Any thought relies on multiple other thoughts/memories. Without these the thought loses its significance. Once written down, the thought has little or no meaning. In order to make a language approach an objective way of communication, everything has to be strictly defined.

Especially with non-physical elements ('spiritual' stuff etc.), this is impossible.



<< Edit: Man's mind is finite, as opposed to God's which is infinite. >>

How do you know? Metaphysics again, eh?

BTW, why do you think there's just one supernatural being? Why not multiple? Or none? What convinced you?
 

linuxboy

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,577
6
76
"All right, Mr. Ug, just lay down on this stone couch here and just tell me what comes into your head. That's right just free associate."

UUUUUUH Ug need way to control population. Now got 2 times hands and feet in tribe. Pretty soon need 1000 swat teams to control. People crazy. Somebody always want bigger leg bone. Need to let unconscious solve problem Ug afraid..... uuuuuh uuuuuuh uuuuuuh Ug afraid, that's it. Ug control tribe with fear. Ug make up story bout boogy man who eat children, fire swat teams.


UUUUH crazy people locking up food. Need locks to protect food and make tools to protect food. Protect food not good enough, must steal others food to have more food. Ug need go away not lock up food, food for everyone. But pretty things with people who have food and lock up food. Ug join food hoarders, get pretty things. Ug get bigger leg bone. Need better way protect food, tools and weapons not good. Ug build city with walls. Ug have city. Now need control people. Ug need way to control people who have free time from having food. UUUUH, make them toil and grow more food. Ug smart. Now people under control and have food, and Ug is in command. But Tug also want be in command. Need have power. Ug afraid. Ug stressed and anxious. Need protext power. Need way to share power and maintain it. Ug think.... Ug control tribe with fear, make big angry men who punish if not obey Ug and Tug and other *Ugs. Make story real good, Ug pas story down make it part of Ug culture. UUUUUUUH. Now Ug fire swat teams... ;)


Cheers ! :)
 

JupiterJones

Senior member
Jun 14, 2001
642
0
0
Here we get some more pressure and vailed threat and some mumbo jumbo. Invisible clearly seen? Huh? Guess I'm blind. Being understood from what has been made. Not my idea of what it means to understand, and what's this business of being made. If I accepted that things were made, I'd be a believer already. No fair presuming that. And dang, here I am, caught without an excuse. Somebody trying to play off my guilt complex. What if I got past that. What if my opinion of agruments that appeal to guilt is that they are cheesy and display an intent to manipulate that's a bit immoral.

Moonbeam,
What you are responding to is an answer to a specific question. That question being about the Christian view of people who have not been exposed to the Gospel. This taken from a letter written to a Christian church in Rome, i.e. from Christians to Christians. This is in no way intended to influence the nonbeliever, so therefore is not a threat; veiled or otherwise. In fact, Scripture clearly teaches that the unbeliever will consider Scripture as foolishness. The only way anyone comes to Salvation is thru the calling of God, the Holy Spirit; based on Faith that is given by God as a gift.

The brainwashing technique being applied here is the natural tendency of most not to feel defective or lack mental development. Thus am I pressured to agree. I don't like such manipulation so I confess to being defective or mentally undeveloped or past a need to conform to somebody elses opinion.

I am referring to the mentally retarded and to children.
 

JupiterJones

Senior member
Jun 14, 2001
642
0
0
Then, the final blow: there are some civilizations on this planet who know nothing about any floods, yet their history stretches back further than the time this flood was supposed to have taken place. One of these civilizations are the Aboriginals. If the flood did take place, they wouldn't exist today.

Elledan,
Great to talk to you again. How goes the central nervous system project?

When you mention the aboriginals, I assume you mean the Australian aborigine. An aborigine is simply the first people to settle a land. For example, the American Indians are Aboriginal Americans. However, the Australian aborigine?s do have at least one flood legend. BTW, what date are you giving the Deluge?

From the Wunambal Aborigine tribe, Western Australia

In those ancient days Gajara was still a human creature, living along with his wife and with his sons who themselves were also married.

It came about that the earliest-time children living in those far-off days mocked, tormented and ill-treated the Winking Owl, Dumbi. They plucked out his feathers; they spat on him; they pierced him many times with grass spears, even thrusting a hole through his nasal septum.

Up into the air they tossed him, jeering at him, "Now fly!" But he fell down on to the ground with a thud. This they did again; and again Dumbi thudded to the ground. A third time those children threw him up into the air, but this time Dumbi continued to go up and up through the clouds out of sight and right on up to Ngadja, the Supreme One.

"What has happened to you?" asked Ngadja, the Supreme Being. "What have they done to you?"

The owl then presented his complaint to him, saying "The children mocked me; they held me in ridicule and persecuted me."

Ngadja, the Supreme One, was inwardly grieved and felt deep sorrow for him, so he gathered his followers together and held a council with them. Among the many followers of Ngadja gathered to this council meeting were Maguriguri [the sidewinder lizard]; Windirindjal, [another kind of lizard]; the eel; the freshwater turtle; and the black goanna.

"Go," said Ngadja, "see where these people are; peer over the range and see if they are still camping in that same area; then come and tell me." This he said to his followers for he was truly sorry that these children had mocked Dumbi.

The first one to be sent was Maguriguri [the sidewinder lizard]. He, the quick-legged one, ran to the place called Dumbey which is the range that lies across the country in that place. On returning he reported that they were all still there. Ngadja sent him again, saying, "Go again to the same place; see if they are still there. " Maguriguri [The sidewinder lizard] went to spy once more and returned again with the same report to Ngadja.

Ngadja, the Supreme Being, then instructed Gajara [who at that time was still a man], saying, "If you want to live, take your wife, your sons and your sons' wives and get a double raft. Because of the Dumbi affair, I intend to drown every one. I am about to send rain and a sea flood," he told them.

"Put on the raft long-lasting foods that may be stored," he told him, "foods such as gumi, banimba, and ngalindja, all these ground foods." So Gajara stored all these foods. He also gathered birds of the air such as the cuckoo, the mistletoe-eater, the rainbow bird, the helmeted friar bird and finches; those he took on the raft, and also a female kangaroo.

Ngadja then said, "All is ready now." He thereupon sent Maguriguri, [the sidewinder lizard] to peep at the people for the last time. "Ah!" the lizard said, gesturing in their direction, "They all remain in one place!"

Gajara gathered his sons as the crew, and his own wife and his sons' wives together. Ngadja the Supreme One gave Gajara some of his own foods. Then Ngadja sent the rainclouds down, shutting the clouds in upon them. The sea-flood came in from the north-northeast and the people were closed in by the saltwater flood and the tidal waters of the sea. The flood began to sweep all the living creatures together and was pushing them all along to one place, Dumbey. Here the waters were spinning in a whirlpool and the people were screaming as they looked for a way of escape. Ngadja whirled the flood waters and the earth opened, drowning and flattening them all. He finished them at Dumbey.

Meanwhile, the flood carried all those who were on the raft with Gajara along on the current far away to Dulugun where the world ends and the waters flow over. That is where the flood had been taking him all the time, the place of the dead, where there is no land. The waters were rolling him this way and that way and spinning him around for a long, long time.

At last, however, the flood-waters brought Gajara back in this direction. He sent some birds out from the raft, first the cuckoo. The cuckoo found the land and did not return to him. Gradually the waters were going down. The first land that Gahara sighted was the hilltop at Ngumbindji [Doubtful Bay]. "Oh!" he said, "I have found a hill!" and he was glad within himself. Then, as the waters continued to go down, he sighted Numbuzare [Mt. Waterloo].

Later on, the other birds returned to Gajara and he sent them out again the following day. They arrived on the land and met Dumbi, the owl who said, "Oh, you have returned already!" and invited them to stay. The land was already drying the waters up and the living creatures found a home and food. Soon in many places the owls were breeding.

As the flood subsided Gajara noticed that it was leaving a water-mark like a painting along the hills. This is the flood spirit line, left there where the flood made it. The waters were taking him past Munduli [Montilivet] when he bumped into a rock. [Munduli is "the tomahawk place" where they used to get stone for tomahawks.] Gajara was bumped off the raft with a splash and sank to the bottom. On the bottom of the sea he walked to the shore of the-mainland.

His sons and his wife paddled the raft towards the shore where they met him. His sons wailed for him, crying. "Father has come out to us with a lot of heavy seaweed and oysters all over him," they said among themselves. They removed some of the oysters, prising them off, and threw the seaweed into a heap. The heap turned into a lump of rock, where it remains a monument to this day.

The Wandjina's spirit went out into the cave where he is painted. "I want to turn off here," he said; so he turned off, and for this reason the place is called "The Turn-off Place". He went into the cave and lay down. The hornets are numerous down in that cave; we do not touch it; it is taboo. That is, the Gajara cave is taboo.

With regard to the kangaroo which they had taken with them on the raft and which was still with them when Gajara went down, and forced his way through the sea, and came out on the shore, they killed it after landing; and Gajara's wife Galgalbiri put it in the earth oven and cooked it with other foods.

The smoke rose slowly until it reached through into the sky. Ngadja, the Supreme Being, said, "Oh, what is that smell? Ah, they are cooking a good kangaroo! The marrow smells; I can smell the odour." He could smell the steam and smoke rising from the female kangaroo as it was cooking and he was pleased.

Ngadja, the Supreme Being, put the rainbow in the sky to keep the rain-clouds back.

The rainbow lies bent across the sky; He ties up the clouds behind it and the rain does not come. The rainbow keeps the clouds back and protects us so that the rainfall does not rise too high. Our people understand the significance of it. When we see the rainbow we say, "There will not be any abnormally heavy rain."


 

chickenhead

Banned
Jan 21, 2002
227
0
0
it is impossible for the ancinet people to remember the flood because the flood supposedly killed them all!

so much for the flood myth
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,736
6,759
126
PastorDon, OK OK, I'm mentally retarded or a child. :D

I was curious about the Romans thing:

Romans 2:14,15 "Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law, since they show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts now accusing, now even defending them.

I'm not much on Bible speak and often have no idea what is being said, sort of, I take it, like alot of people react to my writing, but for reasons that just plain escape me. Anyway, does this get it:

"Consider this: When people who don't have the ten commamdmants as core values by tradition, but act according to that law naturally, they sort of self replecate the commandments by their very being, finding that law sort of spontaneously or sui generus and all without reference to the commandments, which shows that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts as revealed by the fact that they act with conscience according to the commandments and accuse people who violate the law and defend the law just as if it were written for them."

In short is this saying that the basic notions of the ten commandments, the law, is written in the hearts of men as evidenced by the fact that people who deon't know the law follow it naturally?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
74,736
6,759
126
Maybe I should add some about why it matters to me. Among the several bones I have to pick with Christian Theology, or my limited understanding of it is the notion of original sin, that man is sinful by nature. The presence of sin in the world is one of those paradox points where deep synthesis is possible, reconciling opposits, but everything is screwball is man is basically sinful. The Romans quote sounds to me like an understanding of absolute truth, goodness is coded genetically as a feature of humanity. And that's what I think is the case.
 

linuxboy

Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
2,577
6
76


<< linuxboy, I've a hard time deciding who is crazier: you or Beam of Moon :p >>



Now it's interesting that you say this. Earlier this year, I pondered this very same question. In my cogitations, I realized that I could use SCIENCE to solve this problem once and for all. :D

So I went and asked everyone I know, people I hadn't contacted in years, and random people in the street whether they thought I was the craziest person they knew or had encountered. Or I asked them other questions and they told me that I was the most odd, if not the craziest person they have encountered.

Out of a sample size of 178 (still growing, the project is not over), 84% said that I was INDEED the craziest person they knew or had ever encountered. As for MB, well, he/she/it :D is normal :)


moving on


Maybe I should add some about why it matters to me. Among the several bones I have to pick with Christian Theology, or my limited understanding of it is the notion of original sin, that man is sinful by nature. The presence of sin in the world is one of those paradox points where deep synthesis is possible, reconciling opposits, but everything is screwball is man is basically sinful. The Romans quote sounds to me like an understanding of absolute truth, goodness is coded genetically as a feature of humanity. And that's what I think is the case.

MB, if I may add to our current ignorance.

Ezekiel 18:20: The person who sins will die. A son will not suffer his father's punishment, and the father will not suffer his son's punishment; the righteousness of the righteous person will be his own, and the wickedness of the wicked person will be his own.

What does that mean to you? To me, that kinda defeats the whole notion of original sin. Not to mention the whole Job thing, which I still have trouble with. In effect, the Calvinist assertion that we are fallen seems to be wrong. What I find in the Bible is that we have the choice to accept Christ. When we do, we follow that law, even which the gentiles know and obey (as you pointed out). With that in mind, we sin when we move away from God by losing that contact with Christ. Christ here can be synonymous with your idea of love, which seems to me to be accurate with the internal state of a person who has achieved that mystical unity and is joined through the Trinity to the Godhead (in theological drivel). I like your interpretation of the Romans passage. I happen to think that what really is important is the experience and the effects it has in terms of personality and emotional maturity. But I do have the bias of a therapist... If studies of tomes of lucubrations and the dual use of reason and psychological ego-ness appears to lead one to believe one has insight, then that may be so. Yet, I do not see that as being the case. But I'm rambling. The point is that orginal sin is refuted in the Bible.

Work our your salvation with diligence.

Cheers ! :)
 

JupiterJones

Senior member
Jun 14, 2001
642
0
0
Elledan,

I am way out of my area of expertise here, but the following are my initial thoughts.

Palestine was not part of the Roman Empire until 6 AD

This might be technically true, but according to historychannel.com General Pompey and his Roman legions conquer Jerusalem in 63 BC.

Luke reports that Jesus was born "when Cyrenius [Quirinius] was governor of Syria." Cyrenius became governor of Syria in 6 AD

2:1 And it came to pass in those days, that there went out a decree from Caesar Augustus, that all the world should be taxed.
2:2 (And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria.)

When was the decree and when was the taxing?

Which Cyrenius (Quirinius) are we talking about? Archaeologist Jerry Vardaman found a coin with the name of Quirinius on it in very small writing, or what we call ?micrographic? letters. This places him as proconsul of Syria and Cilicia from 11 B.C. until after the death of Herod.

An incomplete MS describes the career of an officer whose name is not preserved but whose actions sound as if he might have been Quirinius. He became imperial ?legate of Syria? for the ?second time.? While this is ambiguous, it may be a clue that Quirinius served both at the time of Jesus? birth and a few years later (cf. F.F. Bruce, ?Quirinius,? NBD, p. 9).

How reliable are our sources? The date of Quirinius is largley dependent on Josephus.

Reality is that the hard and fast dates given to declare this a contradiction are somewhat ambiguous. We just really don't know enough detail about the 1st century AD. Confusion does not equal contradiction.

Don
 

krakken

Senior member
Mar 8, 2001
309
0
0


<< you can't compare god to a father. god would be your creator and controller of everything in existence. say you grew up in horrible conditions and had a brain defect that caused you to be violent, add an enviroment that fed this violent streak and allowed you to commit many a "sin". when this guy dies god punishes him eternally in hell when god knowing all knew the man was doomed from the start. how is that equivalent to a father? >>



If that is what you beleive God does then you need to re-examine the Bible. There are clear reasons why man is in the state he is in and what God has/will do about it. To say God acts not like a father but like a Prison Warden is terribly mistaken if you look at the Bible.