Please explain this Bible discrepancy

[GiantBear]

So Christ is not omniscient. Thank you for finally pointing out what this whole argument is meant to prove. When you say 'Christ' is part of the trinity: one being; yet you say that Jesus is not omniscient (I'll assume that is who you were talking about since you used 'Christ') yet part of a single being; and he is omniscient, yet not omniscient... This could not possibly explain how an omniscient god could be surprised, seen; yet not seen, etc., since it would debunk the part about the holy trinity being omniscient. If you have found out that you can be all this stuff; yet none of it, please go and tell the nearest philosopher to explain how you came to this conclusion and violated the law of noncontradiction. Also, explain what you could possibly mean by eyes having infinite power... Eyes take in light (they are photoreceptive). To me, it is basically like saying a tissue has infinite capacity to tell time; it does not make since. What kind of power do the eyes need (I'm guessing I'm going to get spiritual power...)?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I wrote a response and then I decided to re-read your post to make sure I was really talking to the points that you left. It is making me think a lot.

I've been reading your response over and over. It's hard to know exactly where you are coming from and why you wrote each thing that you wrote. You definitely have a different approach than I do.

I do not expect people who believe in an infinite God, to believe that they can fathom all about their god. If their beliefs about God are contradictory/paradoxical, then cool. It makes sense to me that those beliefs would be mysterious/transcendent/whatever. I happen to think that human beings are contradictory/paradoxical as well. So I'm definitely going to think that God is.

 

God in a finite form will not have infinte anything and can be seen. Christ is God in the finite form according to the Bible. He can be seen. He was in the Old Testament too according to Christian theology. Getting seen, surprised, outwrestled and having his mind changed.

 

When I was Christian, I believed in the Trinity and Incarnation. But I came to believe that, at the same time, Christ was not omniscient. The Bible teaches plainly that Christ was not omniscient. Not omni-nuthin. And he said "the Father is greater than I."

 

God the Father, Mr. Infinite, can not be seen fully. Not spiritually. Not physically.

 

For somebody to see the infinite God fully, then they would need an infinite capacity for sight. That would give the somebody a God-like power of sight.

I'm not sure where you and I were on the "infinite eyes" thing.

 

I don't consider the issue of understanding God's true nature to be a totally logical endeavor. In a way, when we use logic, we have to know all of the facts involved in order to use logic. In my opinion, nobody knows that much when it comes down to it. With my assumption about our ignorance, why should we know so much about God?

 

My de-conversion did not have to do with contradictions on God's nature from the Bible. I always left that one alone. And maybe I've assumed that other people will too if only they hear the Christian answer as I understand it.

 

I am so tired after working 3rd shift!!! I am basically done writing anyways. But, to be sure, I have to stop now. Maybe pick up again later.

[Kryten]

Now Kryten, with all due respect... and I do respect you... now tell me it is not easier to discern the Bible by its superficial literal interpretation than by digging down deep below the surface... really? The whole 'faith' must be built from doubt to convicted belief, 'faith'. How can one have a genuine conviction of a belief if they have not come from a place of doubt first? Anyway, one does not need to believe in the Bible as I. I appreciate your post, I know you. We have history that shows me who you are.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

As Sokudo said, millions inherit their beliefs from their parents. Do you honestly think that if you were born in Tehran to a devout Muslim family that you would be a Christian now?? I know my kids became Christians because we indoctrinated them from birth. For me personally, I wasn't so much a doubter (BC) as I was ignorant of the content of the bible and the doctrines of Christianity.

 

When I was 17 a few close Christian friends convinced me that the bible must be true by using arguments such as all the prohecies that have come true; and how there are no contradictions in the bible; and how evolution can't explain how we came to be; and how I had to know there was "something more" to life; and how throughout history many kings have tried to wipe out the bible but somehow (through a miracle) it has survived!!

 

By age 18 I bought into their lines because I didn't have any information to counter it. From then on, since I accepted Jesus and wanted to please him (-note the keywords "wanted to"), I read more and believed it all. All circular from then on. For many years I spent my energy on Christian teachings and never considered any of it could be false. At least not the core issues-- I did have doubts about certain "problems" in the bible and in church doctrine that I had to ignore.

But I think I'm drifting off into a testimony here, so let me get back on track. To answer your post-- I would say I was more ignorant than a doubter, mostly due to a lack of any available counter-arguments. My faith was built because I chose to build it by reading more and more and more-- but always only the Christian side, never the opposing view.

[Amanda]

So Christ is not omniscient.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ascendo, just curious... if... being omniscient, God... let's say, can that include having a part that understands what it is like to not know all things?

[Cerise]

As much as a circle can have a right angle.

[Amanda]

And how does that take into account the thousands, if not millions, who are simply born by default into the religion? They would probably claim to have faith, even if they've barely read the Bible, and go to church once a month.    Doubt did not give them faith.    Being constantly around such fairy tales gave it to them, in a superficial manner.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Sokudo Ningyou, it seems to me that blind faith and real faith are quite different.

[chefranden]

Sokudo Ningyou, it seems to me that blind faith and real faith are quite different.

 

Explain please.

[spamandham]

Sokudo Ningyou, it seems to me that blind faith and real faith are quite different.

Explain please.

 

Yes, please do. From my perspective, all faith is blind by definition.

[GiantBear]

Ascendo, just curious... if... being omniscient, God... let's say, can that include having a part that understands what it is like to not know all things?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

 

That was pretty clever.

[Amanda]

Explain please.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

My perspective is that blind faith is just 'going with the flow' kind of belief, it has been said for generations so therefore it must be true.... accepting it because everyone else is... so it must be so. Real faith is to approach it with a critical mind and to enter with doubt... challenging the statement, principle, whatever for its veracity, for its true implications. Continuing on in testing it for its errors, for its integrity to stand up to scrutiny, and if it stands up to that... then a real convicted belief is formed, not just accepted.

[Cerise]

No matter how critically you look at your faith, if you ever gain anything close to a verifiable form of evidence then you don't have "faith" anymore. Faith is belief in things without verifiable proof.

[chefranden]

My perspective is that blind faith is just 'going with the flow' kind of belief, it has been said for generations so therefore it must be true.... accepting it because everyone else is... so it must be so.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Real faith is to approach it with a critical mind and to enter with doubt... challenging the statement, principle, whatever for its veracity, for its true implications. Continuing on in testing it for its errors, for its integrity to stand up to scrutiny, and if it stands up to that... then a real convicted belief is formed, not just accepted.

Blindness is necessary for faith. That which you see you do not need faith for.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

No this is real science, unless you have entered into the investigation with a predetermined outcome in mind.

 

For example you expect things of the spirit to be evident to you since you are of the spirit. Where is your critical examination of the existence of spirit?

 

I asked you once to bring your spirit out so that I could passify it for you. You just got a little miffed by the suggestion. But it was the perfect chance to test your spirit to see if it is so. You slap that puppy on the table and every one has to go "by gum Dolly they is a spirit!" If you can't slap it on the table that tells you something else, doesn't it?

 

Jesus said if you had a puny bit of faith you could throw mountains around. Try it! Be easy on your self, a 10# rock will do for a start. My prediction is that even a truck load of faith wouldn't move the rock, let alone a mountain. But I could be wrong.

[spamandham]

Jesus said if you had a puny bit of faith you could throw mountains around.  Try it!  Be easy on your self, a 10# rock will do for a start.  My prediction is that even a truck load of faith wouldn't move the rock, let alone a mountain.  But I could be

 

He also said his followers would perform miracles even greater than those he performed. Other than a few charlatans, I don't see Christians performing any verifiable miracles.

 

Jesus raised Lazarus from the dead. Where are all the zombies that should be walking around as a result of all the miracles being performed? Jesus fed 5000 with a few fish and a few bits pieces of bread. Why hasn't world hunger been stamped out at the hand of Christians? etc.

 

Ignoring the evidence that falsifies faith and paying attention only to that which confirms it is blind faith.

[Sokudo Ningyou]

Sokudo Ningyou, it seems to me that blind faith and real faith are quite different.

 

 

Because of course, you made mention of that. Critical error. "Blind faith" and "real faith" are two sides of the same idiot stick. Having blind faith in walking off a cliff because a fairy tale told me a mythological man will catch me, and having real faith in the same will end up in the exact same mark on the rocks. The rest of us will just sit by with snacks and cold soda and watch the show.

[Amanda]

Now Amanda, with all due respct, tell me how it is that you know for a fact, that we as exchristians did not dig deep.  You see, my spirit, assures me that my interpretation of the bible is correct.  My spirit tells me that the bible is pure evil and that I need to show people that they don't need that dreaded book in order to live a good life.  My spirit is in sync with the intelligent designer(s) to make sure people know that all religion is man-made and blasphemous to him and that those who promote the books that make it look evil will not receive a good and eternal life but just simply die.

 

Crazy?  No more crazy than your interpretations of what your spirit tells you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Thankful, is it too much to ask for an example where you take a scriptural verse and show me how you go beyond its literal print to a deeper, more philisophical interpretation? I've done that for you.

[Amanda]

Because of course, you made mention of that. Critical error. "Blind faith" and "real faith" are two sides of the same idiot stick.  Having blind faith in walking off a cliff because a fairy tale told me a mythological man will catch me, and having real faith in the same will end up in the exact same mark on the rocks.    The rest of us will just sit by with snacks and cold soda and watch the show.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Really? I thought blind faith is accepting something from someone without collaborating testing of the statement. Real faith is accepting something in a progressive manner going from doubt, to a process of refinement or total rejection, to more certainty depending on how many tests it pasts. Did you attain your beliefs based on going with one person and all the tests of that belief conclusively agreed?

[Vigile]

Because of course, you made mention of that. Critical error. "Blind faith" and "real faith" are two sides of the same idiot stick.  Having blind faith in walking off a cliff because a fairy tale told me a mythological man will catch me, and having real faith in the same will end up in the exact same mark on the rocks.    The rest of us will just sit by with snacks and cold soda and watch the show.

 

[Vigile]

Really? I thought blind faith is accepting something from someone without collaborating testing of the statement. Real faith is accepting something in a progressive manner going from doubt, to a process of refinement or total rejection, to more certainty depending on how many tests it pasts. Did you attain your beliefs based on going with one person and all the tests of that belief conclusively agreed?

 

You are describing a process of accumulating observable evidence, which takes no faith at all. That's like saying it takes faith to believe the sun will rise in the morning. That is not faith, it is an observation of a repeatable process and an extrapolation based on the observation. Verrrrrry different from assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen.

[Lunar Shadow]

You are describing a process of accumulating observable evidence, which takes no faith at all.  That's like saying it takes faith to believe the sun will rise in the morning.  That is not faith, it is an observation of a repeatable process and an extrapolation based on the observation.  Verrrrrry different from assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen.

 

Absolutely

 

What Amanda was saying sounds closer to the scientific method then faith.

[Amanda]

You are describing a process of accumulating observable evidence, which takes no faith at all.  That's like saying it takes faith to believe the sun will rise in the morning.  That is not faith, it is an observation of a repeatable process and an extrapolation based on the observation.  Verrrrrry different from assurance of things hoped for, a conviction of things not seen.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Vigile del Fuoco1, let's just say that you buy tools for building things. You try many different manufacturer's brands and find that Stanley products seem to do better than the others by far. So you continue to expand your tool collection and now buy Stanley with continually impressive results. You find that they do the job great, last a long time, and now you put your faith behind that name when you go to buy a new tool. You now have faith in Stanley products. It started from doubt, that is why you tried different name brands in the beginning, and now have come to have faith, a convicted belief in their great value above others.

 

BTW, I was just using Stanley as an example and am not endorsing it... I don't know much about tools.

[Vigile]

Vigile del Fuoco1, let's just say that you buy tools for building things. You try many different manufacturer's brands and find that Stanley products seem to do better than the others by far. So you continue to expand your tool collection and now buy Stanley with continually impressive results. You find that they do the job great, last a long time, and now you put your faith behind that name when you go to buy a new tool. You now have faith in Stanley products. It started from doubt, that is why you tried different name brands in the beginning, and now have come to have faith, a convicted belief in their great value above others.

 

BTW, I was just using Stanley as an example and am not endorsing it... I don't know much about tools.

 

We may use the word "faith" as a way to explain our preference for Stanley products, but what you described is, again, not faith. Just as the sun coming up every morning provides you with enough evidence to make an intelligent prediction that it will rise again, the quality of Stanely tools in the past has provided you with evidence that Stanley will continue to provide good tools in the future. That will hold true until it doesn't.

 

Not faith, only an assessment based on probabilities. Nothing wrong with that. That is in fact how we make intelligent decisions in life. Poor decisions on the other hand are often made on faith.

[Hero of Hyrule]

If Stanley's Hammers are good that is not guarantee for the quality of his garden implements. With testing all there is some faith involved.

 

Just as always...it's a grey area of what you claim and what Amanda claims.

[chefranden]

Vigile del Fuoco1, let's just say that you buy tools for building things. You try many different manufacturer's brands and find that Stanley products seem to do better than the others by far. So you continue to expand your tool collection and now buy Stanley with continually impressive results. You find that they do the job great, last a long time, and now you put your faith behind that name when you go to buy a new tool. You now have faith in Stanley products. It started from doubt, that is why you tried different name brands in the beginning, and now have come to have faith, a convicted belief in their great value above others.

 

BTW, I was just using Stanley as an example and am not endorsing it... I don't know much about tools.

 

Let's just take this a bit farther down the path. Vigile after a life time of experience with Stanley tools tells his grandson, Pal, who admires Vigile for his wisdom and honesty, that Stanley tools are the best. Vigile says "Stanley tools will always do the job." Vigile dies and leaves his original tools to charity. Pal, buys his own set of tools from Stanley. He wants to saw a board, but the new Stanley saw gets dull before the job is 1/2 done. He wants to dig a hole, but the new Stanley shovel breaks on the second shovel full. He tries to set poles with his new Stanley level, but when he stands back he can see that they all lean. About this time he starts scratching his head wondering what in blue blazes is the matter! Should Pal conclude:

 

1. That he must be doing something wrong, because Grandpa Vigile would never lie, or give bad advice?

 

2. That Grandpa Vigile must have meant something deeper and more spiritual then what "Stanley tools will always do the job." means literally?

 

3. Or that Grandpa Vigile didn't know everything about Stanley Tools, and that they are crap and he should go get some Craftsman replacements.

 

Jesus said that prayer would work. It doesn't. I think that choice 3 is the best response to that.

[Vigile]

If Stanley's Hammers are good that is not guarantee for the quality of his garden implements. With testing all there is some faith involved.

 

Just as always...it's a grey area of what you claim and what Amanda claims.

 

 

How is that faith? Again, that is an extrapolation from past evidence. It is a simple application of probabilities. If Stanley's hammers are good it might be reasonable to expect that their garden tools are also good. I then assume the risk and buy his garden tools. I don't know that his garden tools will be as good as his hammers (knowing would be faith).

[Hero of Hyrule]

How is that faith? Again, that is an extrapolation from past evidence. It is a simple application of probabilities. If Stanley's hammers are good it might be reasonable to expect that their garden tools are also good. I then assume the risk and buy his garden tools. I don't know that his garden tools will be as good as his hammers (knowing would be faith).

 

That's why it is faith too.

Knowing something is imposible untill you really know it.

There is a huge difference from thinking you know it(faith & reason) and really knowing something.

[Vigile]

Let's just take this a bit farther down the path.  Vigile after a life time of experience with Stanley tools tells his grandson,

 

Now why am I getting pulled into the position of god's messenger in this example