Jump to content

Another Debate...


Greydon Square
 Share

Recommended Posts

Greydon Square [1:12 PM]:

Big Tim

 

Tim [1:13 PM]:

What up kid

 

Greydon Square [1:13 PM]:

Chillin reading this book and studying

 

Tim [1:13 PM]:

Did you make your Christian friend’s friend cry last week??

 

Greydon Square [1:14 PM]:

His argument was weak, i shot so many holes through him it wasn’t even an enjoyable debate, no im lying it was

 

Greydon Square [1:15 PM]:

It’s just...if you dont have your knowledge up, dont try and convert the world.

 

Tim [1:15 PM]:

I also thought his argument was week it was not accurate either. I was more upset at what he had to say regarding what the bible had to say than your rebuttals

 

Greydon Square [1:17 PM]:

I figured you would...he knew nothing about the bible. I mean not really. And if he did he would've made different arguments, at least i would have

 

Greydon Square [1:17 PM]:

I learned something this weekend

 

Greydon Square [1:17 PM]:

You ever hear of the "Paradox of Omnipotence"

 

Tim [1:17 PM]:

No I have not

 

Greydon Square [1:19 PM]:

Im sure you've heard the question "Could God create a rock so heavy that he would not be able to move it?"

 

Greydon Square [1:19 PM]:

That is one form of the Omnipotence Paradox

 

Greydon Square [1:20 PM]:

But in a very basic philosophical form

 

Tim [1:20 PM]:

To me that does not make any sense to me I understand that whatever Jehovah purposes he accomplishes which goes into your debate last week

Greydon Square [1:21 PM]:

So the question doesn’t make any sense to you?

 

Tim [1:23 PM]:

No not at all. Religion and philosophy really does not mix very much. There is hardly any backing when it comes to philosophy but the bible has all the backing it needs

 

Greydon Square [1:25 PM]:

thats not true because biblical theologians have philosophical debates on the interpretable aspects of the bible, you cant read the bible literally because then people tell you that you take things out of context, like they often tell me

Philosophy has logic to back it.

 

Tim [1:26 PM]:

Alright Genius what does interpretable mean???

 

Greydon Square [1:26 PM]:

Things that have the ability to be interpreted

 

Tim [1:29 PM]:

I hope you realize that I was kidding genius!! But when it comes to context I can understand your frustration. Let me know a few points (besides slavery I already know that one) that you are having trouble with and I will try to explain what they could possible mean and if I do not know than I will do research to find out.

 

Greydon Square [1:31 PM]:

Oh i know...lol...but let me save you the trouble, the bible isn’t supposed to be interpreted at all. It is suppose be literally accurate in all forms to the naked and LOGICAL eyes, in fact Peter spoke of this in 1 Peter 1:20

 

Tim [1:31 PM]:

I do agree and I do believe that it is a literal work

 

Greydon Square [1:33 PM]:

But if that’s the case then the contradictions that are presented or the vague scriptures of even polytheism should be taken literally

 

Greydon Square [1:33 PM]:

Gen 1:26

 

Greydon Square [1:33 PM]:

God refers to himself plurally

 

Greydon Square [1:34 PM]:

Based on 1 Peter 20 I am to take that literally, that there are multiple gods negating a singular God in its entirety

 

Greydon Square [1:34 PM]:

That’s one example

 

Tim [1:34 PM]:

That is not a polytheistic scripture. Jehovah and Jesus are two separate being Co. 1:15 says that Jesus is the firstborn of all creation and in Prob. He is refers to the master worker. I do not believe in the trinity

 

Greydon Square [1:35 PM]:

That’s your interpretation of the scripture and verse from YOUR prospective.

 

Greydon Square [1:36 PM]:

1 peter 20 says there are to be NO interpretation of prophecy or scriptures

 

Greydon Square [1:36 PM]:

Or no personal interpretation

 

Greydon Square [1:37 PM]:

Or somethin like that...lol

 

Tim [1:37 PM]:

That is not true. Jesus made numerous statements when on earth that Jehovah is greater than him my father sent me you have to understand they are two separate individuals. The Trinity is a false teaching just like the hell doctrine and that everybody goes to heaven

 

Greydon Square [1:39 PM]:

From a literalistic view....i only understand whats printed, but you saying that i have to understand is an indictment of the interpretation of Jehovah and Jesus being two different individuals

 

 

Tim [1:41 PM]:

You mean other than the fact that "Lets make man in our image" there is not cause for interpretation because the meaning is two separate individuals. The bible backs up that statement by say that Jehovah is one Jehovah Deut. 6:4

 

Greydon Square [1:44 PM]:

I remember that scripture being "Let us..." but in any case "THE MEANING", is left up to the reader. If they meant that Jehovah and Jesus were two separate individuals then why not say that "Jehovah and Jesus are two separate individuals"

 

Greydon Square [1:44 PM]:

Like The commandment "thou shall not kill"

 

Greydon Square [1:45 PM]:

Meaning what?

 

Greydon Square [1:45 PM]:

Thou shall not kill

 

Greydon Square [1:45 PM]:

That’s it

 

Greydon Square [1:45 PM]:

No interpretation needed

 

Tim [1:45 PM]:

People can say that you and I are having a debate right now or they can say that Greydon and Tim are having a debate is there a difference??

 

Greydon Square [1:48 PM]:

You and I doesn’t specifically refer to Greydon and Tim until it is specified that they are talking about Greydon and Tim, until then its speculation...in a court(which is how god is suppose to judge anyways) My defense attorney would object due to speculation. Specific details are needed. Remember Im still going off the scripture of 1Peter verse 20

 

Greydon Square [1:49 PM]:

So now my literalistic view of the scriptures can be validated and i can use logic to fill in the rest

 

Greydon Square [1:50 PM]:

If it doesn’t add up logically after the info was obtained literally then the conclusion is that the subject of argument (the bible) can’t be introduced as evidence

 

Greydon Square [1:50 PM]:

Because by its own admission it is to be interpreted literally

 

Greydon Square [1:50 PM]:

Do you disagree?

 

Tim [1:54 PM]:

Greydon I have a reply to that statement but I have to go when you are taking your lunch or a break so I can clarify and have your objection overruled

 

Greydon Square [1:56 PM]:

Sounds like a plan

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hmm... Here you go. About the omnipotence paradox, there are those that would argue against the definition of omnipotence as having nothing that is impossible. The idea is that omnipotence does not mean that such a being would be capable of any logically impossible or absurd actions. Ergo, the answer would be no, God could not create something so heavy he could not lift it. That does not solve all problems with omnipotence. Check this out; this is where I went to to study this idea, apparently there are many ways to look at it. Omnipotence Paradox Wiki There is the glaring problem of Omnipotence and Omniscience, which as far as I've studied and thought about this, are mutually exlusive; how can you do anything outside of your knowledge if you know everything you're going to do?

 

I got crapped on a little bit with that Genesis 1:26. Apparently, the term Elohim has two different spellings in Hebrew, one of which denotes 2 or more Els (Gods) and one which refers specifically to El (I'm not sure whether he was the Canaanite or Israelite father god, the other being Yahweh, who in some pre-judaic arcs was the favored son of El). According to the guy I was debating, the one used in Genesis is the latter. I still have to verify that, but be sure to note that for future reference. That's not to say that there isn't the implication that there were multiple gods :Genesis 3:4 "You will not surely die," the serpent said to the woman. 5 "For God knows that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened, and you will be like God, knowing good and evil."

Genesis 3:22

And the LORD God said, "The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever."

 

I've also read that the pre-judaic religion was likely henotheistic (They believed in multiple gods [Molech, Baal, Ashereh, etc] but only worshipped Yahweh.). And that's if they weren't outright polytheistic. I've had a very studied jew admit the likelihood of henotheism, but refused to acknowledge that jews were ever polytheistic.

 

To nitpick just a little more: it's actually thou shalt not murder. Most people don't seem to know that though.

 

It's all about helping improve each other's skills :thanks:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got crapped on a little bit with that Genesis 1:26. Apparently, the term Elohim has two different spellings in Hebrew, one of which denotes 2 or more Els (Gods) and one which refers specifically to El (I'm not sure whether he was the Canaanite or Israelite father god, the other being Yahweh, who in some pre-judaic arcs was the favored son of El). According to the guy I was debating, the one used in Genesis is the latter. I still have to verify that, but be sure to note that for future reference. That's not to say that there isn't the implication that there were multiple gods

El is a Canaanite god (which is the root of the Israelites anyway). He was displaced by YHWH and Baal later on (two sons of El) and eventually Baal lost to YHWH. Looking at them it appears that "lost" isn't quite accurate. Just as xianity absorbed the traits of the pagan religions I would say YHWH absorbed the competing gods rather than destroying them.

 

I've also read that the pre-judaic religion was likely henotheistic (They believed in multiple gods [Molech, Baal, Ashereh, etc] but only worshipped Yahweh.). And that's if they weren't outright polytheistic. I've had a very studied jew admit the likelihood of henotheism, but refused to acknowledge that jews were ever polytheistic.

I'd say that Jews were henotheistic (like many cultures) but the proto-Jews were simply Canaanites and were polytheistic just like everyone else. However, I'd also say (using the bible as my source) they returned to polytheism more than once (using your same references to Molech and Asherah for example...they have found many idols to her in what should be monotheistic Jewish homes showing she was worshipped by ancient Jews. In addition the references in the bible to the Asherah poles and all the warnings show the people simply couldn't stop going back to the "evil" ways of their pagan neighbors and had to keep being reprimanded). Even the NT and jesus smacks of henotheism so it was something that was a common belief IMO (each little nation-state liked to believe their particular god was the best and, of course this god had the most power in its home territory...think of the Exodus story where they had to build a little portable home for YHWH since they had no home territory for him to hold power in and this ark allowed him to go into battle with them).

 

To nitpick just a little more: it's actually thou shalt not murder. Most people don't seem to know that though.

A minor nit though. Almost like letting them off on a technicality isn't it? (I've argued this point as a xian though...showing how all those OT "killings" were justified since they weren't cold-blooded murder as per the real commandment :ugh: ).

 

mwc

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't know much about Molech, but I know Asherah was a consort both to El, and to Yahweh, which explains why her worship was especially hated when jews became primarily monotheistic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.