This is a split board - You can return to the Split List for other boards.

Ask a Rabbi: Problem of Evil edition.

#111OrangeWizardPosted 4/17/2013 10:37:04 PM
From: JonWood007 | #109
Also, mr forensic science expert, how did he fall head first if he hung himself?


The rope, or branch snapped, in such relatively gradual way that his weight shifted and he ended up falling head-first.

OR

If I were judas, I'd put one end of the rope under a rock, near a cliff put the noose on, then dive headfirst off the cliff, with the assumption that the rock will support my weight. Perhaps it didn't.


OR

he hit a rock on the way down, hence, tumbling and reversing his orientation mid-air.

And if he fell head first, why did it mention the intestines?


Because his intestines were outside of him?

I don't see how falling headfirst means it's impossible for you to lose your intestines.
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive things.
#112JonWood007Posted 4/17/2013 11:01:12 PM
Known facts, such as "These were imperfect men who were not inspired of God to write his holy book with accuracy, and thus, error-prone?"

That's a known fact? Can you prove it?


Seeing how imperfection is pretty much the human condition, I believe the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate something other than imperfection.


Your point was that Jesus was sinful because Jesus was human. I don't see how Jesus not being born into sin like a regular human disproves any point of mine.


You brought up Jesus, not me.

No it does not.


If policemen lie, does that mean they're trustworthy? So yes, I did answer your question.

Were these two books written in alternate universes?
No.
These books were written in the same universe and they discussed the same event.they are already combined because of this.


The books are alternate accounts of the same events. Decades removed from the events themselves, they're probably full of hearsay. Think of a game of telephone, with exaggeration running rampant.


The rope, or branch snapped, in such relatively gradual way that his weight shifted and he ended up falling head-first.

OR

If I were judas, I'd put one end of the rope under a rock, near a cliff put the noose on, then dive headfirst off the cliff, with the assumption that the rock will support my weight. Perhaps it didn't.


OR

he hit a rock on the way down, hence, tumbling and reversing his orientation mid-air.


And once again, you're adding complexity when there is a perfectly natural historical explanation for why the books tell the story differently. You are acting out of a desire to believe the books don't conflict, because it's central to your belief system. You haven't justified your views here. Once again, I'm gonna ask, why assume these things? On what grounds do you assume these things? If you're not gonna divulge your reasons, then honestly, I have no reason to even entertain your point of view.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 8 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HDD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HDD | W7 | 1366x768
#113OrangeWizardPosted 4/18/2013 1:48:56 AM
From: JonWood007 | #112
Seeing how imperfection is pretty much the human condition, I believe the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate something other than imperfection.


Oh, you believe what the bible says about imperfection, but not what the bible says about people being inspired of God?

You brought up Jesus, not me.


DC brought up Jesus, and you hopped in the middle of our argument, then forgot you interrupted something.

If policemen lie, does that mean they're trustworthy? So yes, I did answer your question.


So your answer is "No, it is not unreasonable to believe the police officer's testimony"
Good.

The books are alternate accounts of the same events.


Prove it.

And once again, you're adding complexity when there is a perfectly natural historical explanation for why the books tell the story differently.


Like a detective is "adding" a gun to a gunshot wound, right? Oh wait, we went over that and you agreed it wasn't a leap.


If you want to claim a contradiction exists, you HAVE to rule out all the explanations. Whining about "adding complexity" isn't going to prove your point, so I suggest you hop to it. Reality can be as complex as it needs to be in order to preserve the law of noncontradiction.
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive things.
#114OrangeWizardPosted 4/18/2013 1:49:00 AM
If you're not gonna divulge your reasons, then honestly, I have no reason to even entertain your point of view.


You're not here to learn, and as such, I don't care what you take away from all this.

why assume these things?


Why assume they're telling the truth? Because I'm biased towards God and I already believe the rest of the bible.

Why do you assume they aren't telling the truth? Because you're biased towards God not existing, and a contradiction would just be a big validation of your beliefs.

On what grounds do you assume these things?


For the same grounds I believe in the bible. Historical accuracy, moral standards that seem divine, prophecy, teachings and wisdom that seems divine, love and unity among God's organization that seems divine, and probably some other stuff too.

On what grounds do you assume that the writers were lying/mistaken? I honestly do not know. Probably just your bias again.


But this isn't going to help you prove a contradiction. Whether or not you have reason to entertain someone else's viewpoint is irrelevant.

You must flip over ALL the cards on the table. If you want to prove a contradiction, then THAT IS YOUR REASON.

Or are you just going to fall back on "Well, it's PROBABLE, not proven..."
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive things.
#115black spiderPosted 4/18/2013 3:15:18 AM
moral standards that seem divine

Yeah, they sure do. "Love thy next! Unless he is gay, then thou shalt throw stones at him!!"

Very divine. Almost as divine as wanting people to die of HIV due to some symbolism that God apparently finds amusing, or wanting people to die for the sin of arguing against the "true faith" in public. How about the concept of paying for absolution of sin?

love and unity among God's organization that seems divine

Well, if you define "God's organization" extremely narrowly, I might be willing to give you this one. Of course, there are plenty of examples of Witness families that essentially cast out any family members that didn't feel like being a Witness and living the happy cult existence. That's divine unity and love? Or is that just something that doesn't count for whatever generic reason you might come up with?

How about the various crusades? Islam and Christianity, joining each other in the best possible expression of God's love, a brutal and merciless war? How about the relationship between Catholics and Protestants in Ireland and Scotland? How about the relationship between Protestants and Catholics in general? Divine love and unity?

teachings and wisdom that seems divine

What teachings and what wisdom would that be? The inane stupidity that women with herbal knowledge were witches? Or that people who in any way challenged the public truth of "God did it" were heretics that needed to be punished?

By the way, where in the Bible is the section on the proper treatment of wounds? What's the divine formula for antibiotics? Is there a cure for cancer or was that too divine for even the holy spirit to inspire into people?

Historical accuracy

Remind me again how Adam lived for hundreds of years and how the world was created a few thousand years ago? Or is that somehow not part of the "historical accuracy" claim? Or is it merely that the Bible managed to get the details about life in bronze age Israel right that convinces you of every other detail in the Bible being accurate and spot on? Does that mean there really was a Poirot, since the stories do get the overall details of the time period right? Or is that exclusively a Biblical privilege?

On what grounds do you assume that the writers were lying/mistaken?

Occam's Razor would be my guess. Same reason you're using when pastafarians talk about their FSM. It could be the omnipotent ruler of the universe that had some fun inspiring people to think of Him as a joke. You can't prove that it wasn't. But the much simpler explanation is that it's a load of made up nonsense. Well, if that reasoning works on one deity...
---
You want to try your hand at proving why genocide is inherently bad? - OrangeWizard
#116JonWood007Posted 4/18/2013 10:39:00 AM
You're not here to learn, and as such, I don't care what you take away from all this.


I am here to learn. However, I only wish to learn about actual valid arguments.


Why assume they're telling the truth? Because I'm biased towards God and I already believe the rest of the bible.

Why do you assume they aren't telling the truth? Because you're biased towards God not existing, and a contradiction would just be a big validation of your beliefs.


Why should I assume God does exist? This is why I always ask people to "prove it".

On what grounds do you assume that the writers were lying/mistaken? I honestly do not know. Probably just your bias again.


"Higher/historical criticism." Seems to be the best method to me, makes the least assumptions and attempts to be objective and scholarly.

You must flip over ALL the cards on the table. If you want to prove a contradiction, then THAT IS YOUR REASON.

Or are you just going to fall back on "Well, it's PROBABLE, not proven..."


You did a good job predicting my response, but it does not take away from its validity. Only a fool believes there is a lot of certainty in this world. I do deal with probabilities. And I strongly believe my view is by far the most probable one. I don't need to play your game of shifting the burden of proof and trying to prove you wrong. You demonstrate why your views are better than mine and maybe I'll consider them.
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 8 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HDD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HDD | W7 | 1366x768
#117wolf_blitzer85Posted 4/18/2013 11:25:43 AM
JonWood007 posted...
The answer also fails to address the fact that God could've simply chose to create a world with no evil.

You need to find a book on Daoism and read it through very throughly. I don't know of any offhand but:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Tao-Daily-Life-Enlightenment/dp/1585425834/
seems a safe place to understand good vs. evil as a balance.
kozlo100 posted...
Bear with me, I can't get this sentence to form clearly.

The way you word it, you it sounds like God is hiding from us for his benefit. Like a parent who wants a moment's peace from a needy child. The way the Rabbi worded it, sounds more like God is hiding himself from us for our benefit. Like a parent keeping out of the way so a child might solve a problem on their own.

I don't know the words, but it feels like there's a difference between hiding himself from us and hiding himself from us. You know what I mean?

That is an incredibly wise thing to say.
but what I think you mean to say is that he's hiding himself -from us- versus hiding himself.
---
Redcount doesn't even lift and he thinks he's all badass. -- Cynyn
#118DarkContractorPosted 4/18/2013 11:29:22 AM
I defended the contention that you can not rationalize the problem to an extent that wouldn't be on par with simply saying Zeus just moved away from Mt. Olympiad from the beginning of this little debate. All you have done is demonstrate that I was right. I never claimed the mutual exclusivity of these verses.

Here is a challenge for you Mr. Wizard. I want you to write some Biblical history for me. I would like you to take the 4 Gospels accounts of the Crucifixtion and the Resurrection, and tie them together. I want one, coherent piece of history that says what happened from the moment Jesus died to the moment he arose. However, you must include every single detail of every single Gospel that happened. And you must respect every chronological device used as well (Very early on Sunday morning, But as they arrived, etc.) Can you do it? Remember, not a single detail may not be omitted (except Mk 16:9 onwards for canonical reasons)
---
An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. PSN: MrPillow92 Steam: MrPillowtheGreat
#119OrangeWizardPosted 4/18/2013 12:12:24 PM
From: JonWood007 | #116
You did a good job predicting my response, but it does not take away from its validity. Only a fool believes there is a lot of certainty in this world.


Tell that to DC, then, who believes that there IS a contradiction, not that there MIGHT be a contradiction.

From: DarkContractor | #118
I defended the contention that you can not rationalize the problem to an extent that wouldn't be on par with simply saying Zeus just moved away from Mt. Olympiad from the beginning of this little debate. All you have done is demonstrate that I was right.


A rope breaking and causing someone to fall is on par with untestable supernatural occurrences?

Okay. If you say so.

I want you to write some Biblical history for me. I would like you to take the 4 Gospels accounts of the Crucifixtion and the Resurrection, and tie them together.


Nah, too much work for me. I have better things to do.
---
Trolling and making valid arguments are not mutually exclusive things.
#120JonWood007Posted 4/18/2013 12:31:00 PM
You need to find a book on Daoism and read it through very throughly. I don't know of any offhand but:
http://www.amazon.com/The-Tao-Daily-Life-Enlightenment/dp/1585425834/
seems a safe place to understand good vs. evil as a balance


No thanks, first, it costs money, second, I'm discussing Christianity here.



Tell that to DC, then, who believes that there IS a contradiction, not that there MIGHT be a contradiction.


Are you sure you're not reading absolutism in a relative claim? I know you have a habit of doing that, and is a major reason why we have so many misunderstandings between our own views.



Nah, too much work for me. I have better things to do.


Or maybe you can't do it?
---
Desktop: Phenom II X4 965 | 8 GB DDR3 | GTX 580 | 1 TB HDD | W7 | 650W Antec | 1600x900
Laptop: A6 3400m | 4 GB DDR3 | HD 6520g | 500 GB HDD | W7 | 1366x768