History Headscratchers / TheBible

21st Jan '17 6:29:24 PM nombretomado
Is there an issue? Send a Message


** It could be argued that there were some subtle principles he was learning about how to use his powers appropriately (see {{Anne Rice}} ''Out of Egypt'' & [[Literature/TheBrothersKaramazov Dostoyevsky's Grand Inquisitor scene]] for more on this.) With the powers at his disposal, he had very broad options of what to do. He could have fed himself and whoever else he wanted every day (and can you imagine what a following that could get him?), he could have raised an army, he could have called lightning down from heaven to get rid of the Romans and liberate his country, he could have really taken over. In fact this list of "power-options" begins to sound like the temptations themselves, especially if you take a view of sin that's less "breaking a specific rule" and more "moving in a wrong direction." This is very much the view espoused by Dostoyevsky. In the Grand Inquisitor scene, turning the stones into bread would simply be the first step towards Jesus' getting the poor to follow him unquestioningly because he feeds them, and Jesus rejects it because people must have free choice; he doesn't want to be a demagogue. (Later of course he does feed a group of five thousand people who've stranded themselves in an unpopulated place without food by following him there. Perhaps because he overcame this temptation early, he makes it quite clear in the gospel of John that he's not going to do it again, vehemently rejecting a group who want to make him king soon after.)

to:

** It could be argued that there were some subtle principles he was learning about how to use his powers appropriately (see {{Anne Rice}} Creator/AnneRice ''Out of Egypt'' & [[Literature/TheBrothersKaramazov Dostoyevsky's Grand Inquisitor scene]] for more on this.) With the powers at his disposal, he had very broad options of what to do. He could have fed himself and whoever else he wanted every day (and can you imagine what a following that could get him?), he could have raised an army, he could have called lightning down from heaven to get rid of the Romans and liberate his country, he could have really taken over. In fact this list of "power-options" begins to sound like the temptations themselves, especially if you take a view of sin that's less "breaking a specific rule" and more "moving in a wrong direction." This is very much the view espoused by Dostoyevsky. In the Grand Inquisitor scene, turning the stones into bread would simply be the first step towards Jesus' getting the poor to follow him unquestioningly because he feeds them, and Jesus rejects it because people must have free choice; he doesn't want to be a demagogue. (Later of course he does feed a group of five thousand people who've stranded themselves in an unpopulated place without food by following him there. Perhaps because he overcame this temptation early, he makes it quite clear in the gospel of John that he's not going to do it again, vehemently rejecting a group who want to make him king soon after.)
8th Jan '17 11:38:50 AM SeptimusHeap
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** At least if the definition of sin only included " stealing from, killing, and harassing other people". After all, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. But nowadays sin now included EVERYTHING, from being unbaptized, to doubting the WordOfGod, to committing suicide, to even just pornography and birth control and gluttony. Even thinking lustful thoughts qualifies you for thoughtcrime (Matthew 5:28). So, if I think lustful thoughts (which if FreudWasRight was impossible to suppress) or think about the wrongness of religion then I should have my brain taken away? If I look at RuleThirtyFour or look at the internet for an article about atheism then I should have my eyes gouged out and my hands cut off? If I swear, do {{Cluster F Bomb}}s, use God's name in vain, talk about the God delusion, commit excessive gluttony, etc. then I should have my mouth sewn shut? More like Jesus demanded all of us to go AndIMustScream. This Is Madness!

to:

*** At least if the definition of sin only included " stealing from, killing, and harassing other people". After all, an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth. But nowadays sin now included EVERYTHING, from being unbaptized, to doubting the WordOfGod, to committing suicide, to even just pornography and birth control and gluttony. Even thinking lustful thoughts qualifies you for thoughtcrime (Matthew 5:28). So, if I think lustful thoughts (which if FreudWasRight was impossible to suppress) or think about the wrongness of religion then I should have my brain taken away? If I look at RuleThirtyFour or look at the internet for an article about atheism then I should have my eyes gouged out and my hands cut off? If I swear, do {{Cluster F Bomb}}s, use God's name in vain, talk about the God delusion, commit excessive gluttony, etc. then I should have my mouth sewn shut? More like Jesus demanded all of us to go AndIMustScream. This Is Madness!
6th Jan '17 10:30:15 PM Luppercus
Is there an issue? Send a Message



to:

***About free will: Itís a placebo, because (according to biblical interpretations at least) if you still donít follow the rules you get punished (if is with an eternity in hell, cessation of existence, etc, depends on the Christian branch). Free will implies that you can choose, period. That you are given a choice. If the only two alternatives are; do what I want or suffer, then thereís no real choice, therefore no real free will. Itís like giving someone a car and telling him that he can drive to the left or to the right, but I want him to go right and if the go left the car would explode: ďbut hey, you have free will do what you want, Iím just saying that if is not my option then youíll die, but you can totally chose whatsoever.Ē\\\
On the other aspect of existence of evil for the existence of good thatís also a fallacy. Even by the biblical myth, Heaven had an absent of evil, so was Eden, and they were supposed to be paradises. \\\
In any case, modern neurology allows to know now that some people really has no free will at all. Psychopaths nor even have active the parts of the brain that control empathy or moral, they were born evil, they canít comprehend good nor empathy or love, nor even all prayer in the world would allow them to be good, so they will go to hell even when they were made like that for the creator. At the opposite people with mental disabilities are in many cases incapable of evil, people with Down Syndrome and Autism are in many cases unable to harm others, so they will go to heaven directly, are incapable of evil behavior. In both cases God already chose for them.
6th Jan '17 12:35:14 PM Reila
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** God created us with the "ability" of being evil. If people are evil, it is his fault for creating them that way. Free will doesn't imply that people can be evil. You can have free will and not have the "ability" of being evil, but god chose to create people in a different way.

to:

*** **** God created us with the "ability" of being evil. If people are evil, it is his fault for creating them that way. Free will doesn't imply that people can be evil. You can have free will and not have the "ability" of being evil, but god chose to create people in a different way.



*** God is omniscient, therefore he should know about past, present and future. If there was an Unicorn behind you, god should know about it before it even begins to exist. He should know everything that will happen to such Unicorn, including the occasion where it will stand behind you. Omniscience implies such being knows about everything there is to know about. Your argument doesn't stand up.

to:

*** **** God is omniscient, therefore he should know about past, present and future. If there was an Unicorn behind you, god should know about it before it even begins to exist. He should know everything that will happen to such Unicorn, including the occasion where it will stand behind you. Omniscience implies such being knows about everything there is to know about. Your argument doesn't stand up.



*** God is definitely omniscient according to the Bible (and how in the hell would the creator of everything not be omniscient?). Benevolent? Not quite.

to:

*** **** God is definitely omniscient according to the Bible (and how in the hell would the creator of everything not be omniscient?). Benevolent? Not quite.


Added DiffLines:

** That doesn't make any sense. If evil is necessary for good to exist, there is no reason as to why Heaven is somehow immune to such "rule". Also, while the concept of evil need to exist in order for the concept of good to exist, free will have nothing to do with it, especially when you consider that free will by itself is a flawed concept, when the god described in the Bible is omniscient, therefore he already knows what people will choose, before they choose.
6th Jan '17 12:32:45 PM Reila
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** God created us with the "ability" of being evil. If people are evil, it is his fault for creating them that way. Free will doesn't imply that people can be evil. You can have free will and not have the "ability" of being evil, but god chose to create people in a different way.

to:

*** **** God created us with the "ability" of being evil. If people are evil, it is his fault for creating them that way. Free will doesn't imply that people can be evil. You can have free will and not have the "ability" of being evil, but god chose to create people in a different way.



*** God is omniscient, therefore he should know about past, present and future. If there was an Unicorn behind you, god should know about it before it even begins to exist. He should know everything that will happen to such Unicorn, including the occasion where it will stand behind you. Omniscience implies such being knows about everything there is to know about. Your argument doesn't stand up.

to:

*** **** God is omniscient, therefore he should know about past, present and future. If there was an Unicorn behind you, god should know about it before it even begins to exist. He should know everything that will happen to such Unicorn, including the occasion where it will stand behind you. Omniscience implies such being knows about everything there is to know about. Your argument doesn't stand up.



*** God is definitely omniscient according to the Bible (and how in the hell would the creator of everything not be omniscient?). Benevolent? Not quite.

to:

*** **** God is definitely omniscient according to the Bible (and how in the hell would the creator of everything not be omniscient?). Benevolent? Not quite.





to:

\n*** Well, of the world described in the Bible. Not from this world, where we live.

6th Jan '17 12:31:24 PM Reila
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** God created us with the "ability" of being evil. If people are evil, it is his fault for creating them that way. Free will doesn't imply that people can be evil. You can have free will and not have the "ability" of being evil, but god chose to create people in a different way.

to:

*** **** God created us with the "ability" of being evil. If people are evil, it is his fault for creating them that way. Free will doesn't imply that people can be evil. You can have free will and not have the "ability" of being evil, but god chose to create people in a different way.



*** God is omniscient, therefore he should know about past, present and future. If there was an Unicorn behind you, god should know about it before it even begins to exist. He should know everything that will happen to such Unicorn, including the occasion where it will stand behind you. Omniscience implies such being knows about everything there is to know about. Your argument doesn't stand up.

to:

*** **** God is omniscient, therefore he should know about past, present and future. If there was an Unicorn behind you, god should know about it before it even begins to exist. He should know everything that will happen to such Unicorn, including the occasion where it will stand behind you. Omniscience implies such being knows about everything there is to know about. Your argument doesn't stand up.


Added DiffLines:

**** God is definitely omniscient according to the Bible (and how in the hell would the creator of everything not be omniscient?). Benevolent? Not quite.
6th Jan '17 12:30:07 PM Reila
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** God created us with the "ability" of being evil. If people are evil, it is his fault for creating them that way. Free will doesn't imply that people can be evil. You can have free will and not have the "ability" of being evil, but god chose to create people in a different way.

to:

*** **** God created us with the "ability" of being evil. If people are evil, it is his fault for creating them that way. Free will doesn't imply that people can be evil. You can have free will and not have the "ability" of being evil, but god chose to create people in a different way.



*** God is omniscient, therefore he should know about past, present and future. If there was an Unicorn behind you, god should know about it before it even begins to exist. He should know everything that will happen to such Unicorn, including the occasion where it will stand behind you. Omniscience implies such being knows about everything there is to know about. Your argument doesn't stand up.

to:

*** **** God is omniscient, therefore he should know about past, present and future. If there was an Unicorn behind you, god should know about it before it even begins to exist. He should know everything that will happen to such Unicorn, including the occasion where it will stand behind you. Omniscience implies such being knows about everything there is to know about. Your argument doesn't stand up.


Added DiffLines:

** He might not be called or considered a god by you and others, but for all intents, he is as powerful as one. In the myths described on the Bible, he is pretty much the embodiment of evil while god is the embodiment of good.
6th Jan '17 12:28:24 PM Reila
Is there an issue? Send a Message


*** That basically boils down to blaming God for [[TheEvilsOfFreeWill creating angels and humans with free will]], which is only a legitimate argument if you actually prefer not having free will. You could make an argument for blaming him ''if'' he knew about Satan's rebellion beforehand. But at the same time, it could be argued that God's foreknowledge is selective and he ''did not'' know Satan would rebel, which would absolve him from blame. Either way, it still doesn't take away the blame from Satan and humanity.

to:

*** That basically boils down to blaming God god for [[TheEvilsOfFreeWill creating angels and humans with free will]], which is only a legitimate argument if you actually prefer not having free will. You could make an argument for blaming him ''if'' he knew about Satan's rebellion beforehand. But at the same time, it could be argued that God's foreknowledge is selective and he ''did not'' know Satan would rebel, which would absolve him from blame. Either way, it still doesn't take away the blame from Satan and humanity.


Added DiffLines:

**** God created us with the "ability" of being evil. If people are evil, it is his fault for creating them that way. Free will doesn't imply that people can be evil. You can have free will and not have the "ability" of being evil, but god chose to create people in a different way.


Added DiffLines:

**** God is omniscient, therefore he should know about past, present and future. If there was an Unicorn behind you, god should know about it before it even begins to exist. He should know everything that will happen to such Unicorn, including the occasion where it will stand behind you. Omniscience implies such being knows about everything there is to know about. Your argument doesn't stand up.
5th Jan '17 8:25:13 PM Anythingsfine
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

** 1) It says right there in the Bible that God ''is'' in fact omniscient and omnipresent, and that literally ''everything'' that happens ''no matter what'' is part of his plans, free will or no free will (incidentally, what it ''doesn't'' ever say is that God gave anyone free will ...). It also says right there in the Bible that God sometimes makes mistakes in planning that he is somehow surprised by. This contradiction, like many others, is never explained, and in fact cannot properly be without liberally interpreting the texts to the point that they lose their intended meaning. [[SarcasmMode Gee, it's almost like the whole thing was written by different Bronze Age goat herders who didn't properly plan it out together.]] 2) Free will doesn't solve anything anyway, because God is omnipotent, meaning his power goes beyond the bounds of logical reasoning. He could have given everyone involved free will ''while still'' achieving all his plans, teaching all his lessons and letting no evil come of it whatsoever, and all of this ''without at any point'' or in any form curtailing the aforementioned free will. He didn't because, well, who knows, [[OmniscientMoralityLicence "mysterious ways" and all that.]]
5th Oct '16 8:20:09 AM Pattermat
Is there an issue? Send a Message

Added DiffLines:

* Just an outsider's perspective here, but at a guess it was probably a "who deserves the child more - love vs. greed" thingy, with the assumption of the challenge being that it would be the bio mum that cared more than had greed. As for it screwing up - who knows? Could have gone anywhere from tug-o'-baby, scissors paper rock (or its technological equivalent), or double mum ("No sex and marriage, no problem" maybe?).
This list shows the last 10 events of 866. Show all.
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/article_history.php?article=Headscratchers.TheBible