Quite the contrary! There are many acts which are neither good nor evil. Eating ice cream, for example, is a morally neutral act. So is deciding whether to wear a red or a blue shirt to work.
Is evil a consequence of having free will? Certainly. However, this by no means implies that all acts are either good or evil. That conclusion simply doesn’t follow.
Again, cite? There is nothing in the bible that says if the popular culture changes than the rules change. If that were the case than why destroy soddom and gomorrah? It was just their culture that changed, therefore, certain other things have to change. :rolleyes:
Classified that way by supposed divine inspiration. If that god felt that way ever - even though he supposedly knows how all of history would work out in advance - he is barbaric and evil. He was then and he is now.
I don’t see how stoning a woman for not being a virgin helps with anyones well being. If it helps with their spirituality than their spirituality is based on evil notions.
If what is in the bible is only true for certain ages than there is your biggest inconsistency. An all knowing god who can’t write ahead all the correct rules. Obviously, biblical literalists face some real big problems in that book. The only way to make it seem reasonable is to come up with interpretations and make excuses for it. Laughable.
continuum, please provide biblical proof that the laws contained within the bible are only for certain people at certain times. Also, by which mechanism do we determine which rules are supposed to apply to today? You know what? I say the whole thing was written for people of that time by people of that time. It was written without the slightest idea of how things would work out, and it is absolutely useless today for anything except the fun in reading a good work of fiction.
The whole thing is all about money whether people want to accept it or not. Don’t believe me? How much money has been collected in the name of religion in the last 2000 years? How much money gets collected in churches on a single Sunday in America? Whether you like it or not, religion is tied into alot of money. People wrote this stuff to get that money (and power) years ago. That is why they were unable to come up with moral codes that seem reasonable 2000 years later. There was no divine inspiration and no real knowledge of events to come. Only greed and power struggles guided the authors of this literature.
The book deuteronomy is one of the ugliest bits of philosophy I have ever come across. Anyone who claims that everything in that book is true and must be followed to the letter should be ashamed.
DaLovin’ Dj
Notice that the original question was “can god get rid of evil without undermining whatever purpose it had in the first place.” God doesn’t “have to” do anything - I would assume as a self-respecting omnipotent being he should be able to get around that.
JThunder:
How we define evil, or even what we think about its existence, isn’t relevent. The fact is, the bible says it exists, and since we’re talking about the bible, that’s all we need to know. I simply questioned the existence of evil to provide a possible alternative veiwpoint. If you want proof for that veiwpoint, I refer you to my proof that God doesn’t exist. If the essays I read are correct, the existence of God and the existence of evil are inextricably linked, therefore since God doesn’t exist, evil can’t exist. (of course, that leaves open the possiblity that they were wrong, and God and evil aren’t inextricably linked, or that evil exists outside of a Christian framework. But for our purposes, we are assuming that they are correct, and we’re only looking at the Bible.)
BTW, even though it isn’t strictly nessecary for the debate, I’d like to clarify my position on evil a little more. I’m not saying that things that we label as evil (such as 9-11) don’t happen in the world, but rather I’m questioning the labels. I don’t think it’s possible to come up with a definition of evil that both isn’t arbitrary and that distinguishes it from good. “I know it when I see it” doesn’t cut it as a definition.
(and it’s also a fun word to call people we don’t like)
actually, I should add to that list of stipulations on the definition of evil “doesn’t include God”, since using God to prove the existence of evil to prove the existence of God would be circular reasoning (and besides which, I already proved that God doesn’t exist).
I don’t see why not. Assuming there is some greater purpose for evil (which I don’t), it’s not a leap to believe that at some point it will have served it’s purpose and run it’s course.
How so? If he’s getting rid of evil at his own pace, not our pace.
Sorry, I posted that before I was finished, and it’s not letting me edit the post.
If God’s getting rid of evil at his own pace, not our pace, then how are his actions contradicting his words?
It would certainly persuade me to believe that the book was not directly inspired by an omniscient being, and hence reduce the likelyhood that I’d be willing to devote my life to killing people who had a slightly different interpretation of it.
But really, quibbles about how many people were standing outside the tomb on the third day or how many times the cock crowed pale in comparison to the first part of that great book.
Arguments against the above (feel free to add your own):
It’s the Old Testament! – You put it in your handbook, I consider it a part of your philosophy.
**“Kill” really means “Murder without authorization” **(or somesuch) – It doesn’t say that. No version I’ve ever seen has said “Thou shalt not Murder without due process of law or the approval of God.” Footnotes are for lawyers.
No, I’m afarid you are wrong. You are the victim of a bad translation.
The verse in question, in the original Hebrew, reads lo tirtzach. This means do not murder. Murder (as opposed to killing) is killing without valid reason. I can kill someone in self defense – but it’s not murder. “Do not kill” would be lo taharog in Hebrew.
In any event, it should be obvious that if a general rule is stated, and then another specific rule comes along which contradicts the general rule, that the specific rule is an exception to the general rule.
For example:
One is forbidden to marry one’s brother’s wife. (Leviticus 18:16, 20:21). Yet, we are later told (Deuternomy 25:4) that when a man dies without children, his brother may marry his wife. Is this a contradiction? No, it’s an exception to the rule.
Likewise, we are not allowed to light a fire on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:3). Yet we are told to offer sacrifices on the Altar on the Sabbath (which involves burning parts of the animal. Numbers 28:9). A contridiction? No, its an exception to the rule.
Zev Steinhardt
Would you say, then, that all of the examples Scupper gave were justifiable morally?
Yes, so? Doesn’t Sunday morning come after the Sabbath sundown? It certainly did the last time I looked. And even if it did not, this would be a chronology inaccuracy, rather than an actual contradiction.
Please note that the gospels don’t say that they went immediately after the Sabbath. Rather, they simply attest that they went sometime afterwards. This may seem like a piddling detail, but such details are important if we are to evaluate the text with honesty and integrity.
I think you’re reading too much into that statement. There could have been any number of reasons why they did not go at night. Perhaps they were busy, or perhaps they were concerned for their own safety. If you’re claiming that this disproves the accuracy of the resurrection account – well, I think it’s a rather poor argument to make.
Besides, the tomb would still be fairly cool during the early morning, so if you’re concerned about the temperature and the smell, then the morningtime is a pretty good time to visit.
Is that a serious objection? With all due respect, I think it’s a pretty poor one.
People visit graves and tombs all the time, even to this present day. That’s what people in mourning do. I doubt that the mourners sought to accomplish anything. Rather, they simply wanted to pay their respects, and to see their fallen friend one more time.
I’m sorry, but these kind of objections strike me as… well, rather silly. Absurd, even. And even if they were valid, they would merely constitute implausibilities, rather than legitimate contradictions.
I’m just curious, Czarism, but what’s your stand on capital punishment? I mean, that is what those examples are. Capital punishment for spiritually despicable crimes.
Capital punishment for being desrespectful to your parents?
Capital punishment for belonging to the wrong nation, tribe or family?
Capital punishment for being the first-born?
Capital punishment for looking back in horror to watch your friends burn to death?
Capital punishment for not belonging to Noah’s family?
I could list a few dozen more, but I’m sure that those who are as appalled at such behavior as I am don’t need any more examples, and those that excuse any behavior if crouched in religious terms will ignore any examples.
Czarcasm wrote:
Ooh, and Scupper left out one of my old favorites, too:
Deuteronomy 22:20-21 (NIV translation):
“If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl’s virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father’s house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death.”
Not being a virgin when you are married is a capital offense! :eek:
And they pack along extra spices to anoint a decomposing body that is behind a stone they don’t even think they can move? I visit my family’s graves all the time, but I don’t take along spices hoping an angel will dig them up for me so I can anoint them one more time. That’s just silly. I looks to me like the writer was simply searching for a halfway plausible reason for them to go to the grave and that was the best he could do.
But, I think I understand finally what you are getting at. Flubbing the details isn’t a contradiction to you. If one book said, “Jesus is risen,” and another said, “Jesus is dead,” that would be a contradiction, right? But discrepencies, inaccuracies, mistakes, and exaggerations aren’t contradictions.
So let’s try this one on for size:
Children are held accountable for the sins of the father:
Exodus 34:7
Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation."
Leviticus 26
39 Those of you who are left will waste away in the lands of their enemies because of their sins; also because of their fathers’ sins they will waste away.
Numbers 14:18
‘The Lord is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.’
Deuteronomy 5:9
You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,
Jeremiah 32:18
You show love to thousands but bring the punishment for the fathers’ sins into the laps of their children after them. O great and powerful God, whose name is the Lord Almighty,
** Children are NOT held accountable for the sins of the father: **
Deuteronomy 24:16
Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.
2 Kings 14
6 Yet he did not put the sons of the assassins to death, in accordance with what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses where the Lord commanded: “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sins.”
2 Chronicles 25:4
Yet he did not put their sons to death, but acted in accordance with what is written in the Law, in the Book of Moses, where the Lord commanded: “Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sins.”
So should children be punished for their fathers’ sins or not?
Here are a few more:
Has anyone ever gone up into heaven besides Jesus?
John 3:13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven–the Son of Man.
2 Kings 2:11 As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind.
Can Jesus testify on his own behalf?
John 5:31 If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid.
John 8:18 I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me.
Does God ever do evil or change his mind?
Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie,
nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act?
Does he promise and not fulfill?
Exodus 32:14 Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.
Isaiah 45:7 I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the Lord , do all these things.
Who was Joseph’s father (and grandfather and great grandfather…)?
Matthew 1:15 Eliud the father of Eleazar,
Eleazar the father of Matthan,
Matthan the father of Jacob,
16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
17Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ.
Luke 3:23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
24 the son of Heli, the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,
Bonus question: Matthew and Luke give Jesus’ genealogy (though they conflict) back to Adam. But what does the Bible say about keeping genealogies?
1 Timothy 1:4 nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God’s work–which is by faith.
Titus 3: 9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.
Now the Titus quote is especially interesting, because it continues:
Titus 3:10 Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him. 11 You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.
Isn’t it funny how people like to continue to argue with us warped, sinful, and self-condemned people? But I digress.
Well first of all, you’re mistaken in emphasizing that Joseph of Arimathea had already embalmed the body. The Net Bible identifies the spices as the type used to cover up the stench of decomposition, rather than for embalming purposes. (The Jews did not practice embalming.)
As for entering the tomb, they may not have immediately realized that this would be a problem. In fact, Mark 16:1-3 clearly implies that the thought never occured to them until they had almost reached the tomb. So while one might accuse the women of not thinking ahead, that hardly makes this story a contradiction.
You know, there seems to be a recurring theme here. Other posters have already pointed out that many critics here are using the term “contradiction” way too loosely. There’s nothing contradictory in saying that the women planned to anoint the body, but didn’t know how they would gain access to it. At best, this indicates a lack of forethought on their part.
Oh, and before anyone scoffs… please don’t be too harsh on them. After all, have you never gone to work, not realizing that you left some important documents at home? Or have you never forgotten to drop by the hardware store on your way home? We all do foolish, thoughtless things… probably moreso than we realize.
Are you genuinely interested in an answer? Then please read http://www.rationalchristianity.net/punish_sons.html
This is answered in links available at http://www.rationalchristianity.net/ascend.html
Check out http://www.rationalchristianity.net/valid_testimony.html.
(As an aside, I think this is a classic example of how statements can be misrepresented by pulling them out of context.)
See http://www.rationalchristianity.net/change_mind.html for an answer.
Links to answers available at http://www.rationalchristianity.net/jesus_genealogy.html
The passages you cited say nothing about geneologies being inherently wrong. Rather, 1 Timothy 1:4 says that we should not “devote” ourselves to “endless genealogies” – that is, that these should not become the focus of religious work. It does not say that geneologies deseve no attention whatsoever.
Nor does Titus 3: 9 say such a thing. Rather, it enjoins us to “avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law.” Why? “Because these are unprofitable and useless.” Some controversy and argumentation can be profitable – indeed the book of Acts shows the Apostles arguing the case for Christ energetically. However, there are times when such discussions are fruitless – for example, arguing based on the nobility of one’s lineage.
Context, context, context! Always consider the context!
Let’s look at the previous verse (Titus 3:9), which you yourself posted. It was specifically talking about foolish controversies and discussions. While some foolish arguments have been set forth in this thread, the topic itself is far from foolish.
The context clearly shows that Paul was warning Christians not to engage in fruitless discussions with people who are being deliberately dismissive and divisive. It was by no means a blanket command not to argue one’s case. In fact, earlier in this same book, Paul specifically told Titus to rebuke grave deceivers (Titus 1:10-16), and elsewhere he commands believers to defend the gospel with careful, well-crafted arguments (2 Tim 3:16, 1 Peter 3:15), and lived this principle out himself (Acts 17:17).
And in that spirit, I urge you to pay closer attention to the details in the passages that you’ve cited. We’ve already seen many examples of how reckless readings can cause someone to conclude that a contradiction exists, or that an error is present where there isn’t necessarily any.
Still no concensus?
I think if anything, this thread is showing that you can always find some way of explaining an apparent contradiction.
Whether or not most people will accept it…
I think it shows that people are often too quick to call something a contradiction. In this case, it’s typically a sign of not studying the text properly.
Could “…studying the text properly.” happen to mean “not be willing to accept that there are contradictions in the Bible to the extent that any explanation, no matter how how farfetched or convoluted, will be gladly accepted.”? Either the Bible is supposed to be a straightforward account meant to be read and understood by all, or it is not and should be tossed in the trash with any other badly plotted-out manuscript.
because, if God is claiming to be able to do everything, time shouldn’t be a concern - he should be able to get it done right now, or actually he should have never even started the world with evil.