Results 1 - 11 of 11
|
|
|||||
Results from: Answered Bible Questions, Answers, Unanswered Bible Questions, Notes Author: Bruno Dosca Ordered by Verse |
||||||
Results | Verse | Author | ID# | |||
1 | Gen 6:6-7 vs. allmighty and omniscient | Gen 6:6 | Bruno Dosca | 220822 | ||
Hello, I see many problems trying to undestand this passage: Gen 6:6-7 How can this be true if God is omniscient and almighty? I see His regret totally incompatible with being omniscient and almighty at the same time. I would be very happy to read an answer. Thanks. |
||||||
2 | Reply to Mr. Doc | Gen 6:6 | Bruno Dosca | 220826 | ||
Thanks a lot, Doc. But, his later decision of make the flood was not symbolic. This shows a real "change of mind". Anyway, how do you know which verses take literally and which others take as symbolic? I mean, there are parts of the Old Testament which are really heavy and have worried me. Num 15:32-36 for example. You think that's symbolic or literally true? |
||||||
3 | Good and Evil logycally ANTERIOR to God! | Gen 6:6 | Bruno Dosca | 221198 | ||
Dear Doc, thanks for your answer and sorry for mu delay I've been really bussy those las weeks. About your sentence "we do not evaluate God by what He does, we evaluate what He does, by who He is" I see a problem with that. I mean with the relation between God and "Good and Evil". There are two options: Option 1: God decides what is Good and what is Evil so it depends on His, lets say "caprice". Option 2: God sees what is Good and Evil and supports the Good. But in that case Good and Evil are logycally ANTERIOR to God! Reading your comment it seems to me that you are a supporter od the Option 1. Am I right? |
||||||
4 | answer step by step | Gen 6:6 | Bruno Dosca | 221269 | ||
Thanks Beja for your answer. I will try to answer step by step, With your comments about good or bad/poor questions I clearly see where our disagreement comes from. It seems to me that you have 100 per cent (not 99.99 per cent but 100 per cent) confidence in the truth of the Bible. Well, I am trying to put first the logical consistency of arguments. Let's say that I put first the rule: If something is not logically consistent it can not be True. And indeed a second rule: If something is logically consistent may (not must) be True. I don't see a problem in questioning the Bible because if it is True it will stand upright without problem. In other words, I would feel very dishonest if I were deflecting my attention every time I see a problem, as it would happen if I follow your rule of not to "have some sort of unbiblical thinking". Well, that is my reply to your first post. I will continue my reply after the second part of your post. |
||||||
5 | step by step - PART 2 | Gen 6:6 | Bruno Dosca | 221270 | ||
... to continue my reply... I can't help being amazed at your statements. Do you realize that by saying "it doesn't flow from abstract morality but the honoring or belittling of God" you give the impression of accepting my "Option 1", which by the way, you say not to accept? I mean, it seems to me that you are saying that the "abstract morality" is not True and Real. Am I right? My reasons for not to kill or to rape are that I don't want to harm anybody. For all this things would harm me a lot and I assume that most other beings would be harmed in similar way. And all this pain would destroy one of the most precious thing we have: The joy of being alive, the incredible privilege of existence and sharing with other beings this wonderful fact. Also is not true that God excludes man from the killings. There are many counterexamples, but one of the most gratuitous is Num 15:32-36. By the way it is terribly easy to find contradictions in your reasons to obey governments. In your case just think in a non-Christian government. If you were living in Iran, would you obey the ayatollah? PS: Let me say for completeness that I think there is an "Option 3" which is the logical simultaneousness of God and the Good and Evil thing. Then I identify the hole discussion with being about Goodness and Evilness. But most people identifies God with something more than that. A God-being. |
||||||
6 | questioning | Gen 6:6 | Bruno Dosca | 221282 | ||
Dear Beja, Thanks for your post. I don't think questioning of the Bible is a "youthful questioning" in me. Leaving apart that this questioning have been more and more intense with time, I would like to say that is also a matter of putting things in context. I'm trying to seek Truth and in the process I find that I have to question everything and use reason. It is during this process that, to see thing in perspective, I should look to the Bible from the same point of view that I look to Koran, Tao-Te-Ching, Veda and the other holy books of the many religions of the world. I think it is very easy to understand why a Christian don't accept all this books and only accepts the Bible, while all the followers of the other religions do the same in respect to their holy books. Most of this people thinks they are right while the others are wrong. "How lucky I am for having been born in the true religion", many of them probably think. This is why I put first reason and logical consistence in order to avoid being lost in the labyrinth of the unknown. And to answer directly your question, yes I disagree with some things said in the Bible. There are many factual mistakes and contradictions, mostly in the OT but also in the NT. And many of them are just inescapable. I can point you some of them if you wish. About my three options I don't understand how can you be "fundamentally opposed to either of your options" as they cover the hole spectrum of possibilities (anterior, posterior, simultaneous). About government thing I just point that we no longer stone to death young people for disobeying their parents or for other reasons. Which is obviously a progress in our understanding of justice from the bronze age, the time when the OT was written. |
||||||
7 | questioning | Gen 6:6 | Bruno Dosca | 221306 | ||
Dear Beja, thanks for your post. I am sorry to have ticked the question check box, I didn't know the rule of using the note check box for continuing the conversation. I apologize. Regarding the "three options" now I see what you meant. It was my mistake to go too fast saying that the option "posterior" had a meaning of "caprice". I didn't set the "degrees of freedom" properly for other information coming from out the equation. In this case this kind of "necessity" for the criteria to be in the way it is (I wont ask you how do you know that). I the three options (anterior, posterior or simultaneous) this "flowing from God" that you say means that is posterior (with nothing negative to say about and in the sense you have said in your previous post). I am really surprised by you saying that I have suggested to have found the Truth. Where in my message did I say this? If you read my previous post you will see the verb "to seek" which according to Webster dictionary means "to go in search of". I can not say it more clearly. By the way, if one day I think to have found the Truth I will try to let other people make their own mind about it and my reasoning, since I don't see why that would be the "ultimate heresy". Odd enough you said this, when you are proclaiming not to have the slightest doubt about the truth of the Bible (you didn't buy into the 99.99 per cent certainty I mentioned). I remember once I heard somebody saying "The Bible is the Truth because it says so in the Bible". I noticed that you have left unanswered my last question about the government and the fact that at least in Western world we are no longer obeying the Biblical justice. Now I think this is important as you put so much emphasis in the truth of the Scripture. I agree that the point (I would say goal) of searching is to eventually make a stand. But I accept that it is possible to never reach this goal and I must say that I am not 100 per cent certain of ANYTHING. But sort of "90 per cent certain" of many things. And I am worried and even afraid of people who doesn't accept even the 99.99 certainty and claim to have the 100 per cent. Bruno. |
||||||
8 | questioning | Gen 6:6 | Bruno Dosca | 221307 | ||
Doc, I didn't know the "check box" thing. I wont do it again (except for the new questions regarding the factual mistakes and contradictions). First of all I am very happy to see that you accept that everyone of us have presuppositions. About my trichotomy and your mention of Aristotle, I should say that in my opinion he is still "overestimated" and the very fact of his teachings being adopted as "dogma" did a tremendous harm to the advance of many subjects, especially Physics. But I must say he did a tremendous work in mathematical logic. I can imagine that "there are answers to your [meaning mine] questions" but the very fact of the whole enterprise of theology existing and working hard during millennia (sometimes to reach solutions as explanatory as "God works in mysterious ways") is showing there are problems to be solved. Always happy to be educated by anyone who has something to offer, Bruno. |
||||||
9 | questioning | Gen 6:6 | Bruno Dosca | 221334 | ||
Beja, It is possible that I am misunderstanding things because of my still poor knowledge of the English language. I understood that you said I was claiming to have found the truth from your statement "to have dared to suggest you've found it is the ultimate heresy" (sic). If you were meaning a different thing I withdraw my protest. Regarding the government thing it all started as a minor part of our conversation but as you put so much emphasis in the truth of the Bible I am interested to see how you reconcile the whole thing. Here I summarize the thing and clarify what I am asking: 1- You put as an example the reasons to obey government: Romans 13:1 "Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God." 2- Then I said this was clearly not true and put an easy counterexample: The government from Iran. If you were living in Iran, would you obey the ayatollah? 3- Then you said: "I would not suggest that we are to obey governments in an occasion when they command us contrary to scripture." It is here where I find the contradiction with Romans 13:1. Did you meant that Romans 13:1 only applies when the government agrees with scripture? I can accept this hierarchy rank of guidelines. So to clarify I said a new example: 4- Then I did put a new example to let you clarify your position to me. I said: "we no longer stone to death young people for disobeying their parents or for other reasons. Which is obviously a progress in our understanding of justice from the bronze age, the time when the OT was written." So I repeat that our Western world governments are disobeying the Biblical justice. But still you are submitted to the government (unless you are campaigning for the stoning of sinners and I am not aware of this). Hope this is clear enough. Bruno. |
||||||
10 | questioning | Gen 6:6 | Bruno Dosca | 221355 | ||
Hello Beja, Now I understand what you meant by the "ultimate heresy" thing. Sorry to have misunderstood you. About the government: You ask: "How would it logically follow that Western governments not obeying scripture proves scripture false?" It simply doesn't follow. I agree with you. What I was pointing to was your personal behaviour not being against a government that was not applying the Biblical justice. But now I see you think the Biblical justice was meant to be applied to Israel and not as a general law for other cases. I am not sure if this the orthodox view since I have heard very different interpretations. But as you think this is the correct view then I see why the whole thing is reasonable and logical in your mind. Doing an exercise of the imagination, can you imagine yourself stoning to death somebody who has, lets say disobeyed his/her parents, if you were born in Israel during the bronze age? I think it is not difficult to understand why I am so worried about this things. Regarding the discussion about the truth or falsehood of the Bible I understand your reasons for not wanting to continue it and I accept it. Nevertheless I was invited by Mr. Doc to put my questions about different passages of the Bible that I think contain factual mistakes and/or contradictions. I will put them in a way that wont offend anybody, I wont present them as false and I will accept that the responses will take the scriptures as true. I will only ask if there is somebody who wants to explain it. Bruno. |
||||||
11 | questioning | Gen 6:6 | Bruno Dosca | 221358 | ||
Beja, The first paragraph of your last post clarifies a lot your views to me, thank you. But I have a doubt: In the process of obeying a wicked government should we, according to your views, do wicked things (with the exception of disobeying God) if the government commands so? Or do you think that by doing wicked things we always would be in itself disobeying God? To your question "are you suggesting that because I can or can not picture myself stoning a man that scripture is false based on that?" I answer negatively, of course. That would be, at least, logically incorrect. I just wanted to know to which extent your certainty about the truth of the Bible would lead you. Because, although you have implicitly suggested the answer to that, you haven't said so explicitly. I should notice here that, with the exception of my reference to the progress of our understanding of justice, I never mentioned any negative thing against the stoning tradition, and surely never applied any negative adjective to it. You are the one who brings the "horrify" word here. Why is it so if the stonings were just applied after God commanding it (equivalent to "right" from your point of view)? And even more important in order to find the exit in this labyrinth, from where do you think our emotions come and what are they for? Bruno. PS: You are right about the passage in the OT. Apart from disobeying parents there is also rebellion. Sorry for my bad memory. Therefore I change my example to a case equal to the one described in the OT. Bruno. |
||||||