Viewing Thread:
"How the Bible disproves its own version of God"

Bit of Philosophy for you

The Bible claims God is:

All powerful (omnipotent)
All knowing (omniscient)
All loving
everywhere at once (omnipresent)

However because of the existence of pain the bibles version of god can only be three of the four things.

either Gods not all powerful (eg. can't stop pain)
not all knowing (doesn't know how to stop all pain)
not all loving (he couldn't care less)
not everywhere at once (cannot get to everywhere pain is)


What do you reckon? I don't exactly believe in God but its an interesting discussion.

Black Glove wrote:
> Why does Father Christmas not deliver shiny parcels to the starving
> children of Africa?

Maybe because - and apologies to all those under about 10 on here - Father Christmas is a creation of human culture, and I daresay Western Culture at that.

> Why does God allow babies to be born severly deformed and with
> terminal illnesses?

Possibly because many of these illnesses/deformities are caused by the way we have treated this planet, and the way we have chosen to live.

> The finite cannot comprehend the infinite. All we can do is invoke our
> own limited version of God.

Too true, too many people seem to have this idea that a God should be something which steps in at every disaster, illness e.t.c. and prevents it.

Why does Father Christmas not deliver shiny parcels to the starving children of Africa?
Why does God allow babies to be born severly deformed and with terminal illnesses?
It's not because these wonder-wizards don't exist, it's because they only exist within the confines of the human imagination.

Of course we can pontificate on how a belief in a 'personal' God affects society and the human psyche, but to attempt to clarify the TRUE nature and methods of 'God the Unknown' is futile.

The finite cannot comprehend the infinite. All we can do is invoke our own limited version of God.

believing there is a God is belief .. likewise BELIEVING there is no God is a belief

they are both equally unlikely when you consider the likeliness of a God being created and the likes of a Universe being created without a God and simply on the belief of a Grand Chance

But surely, no matter how reasoned anyone puts their argument, religion comes down to having faith in what you believe in - even if everything else around you is to the contrary.

Hence ( I haven't read all the posts here) it depends on who is doing the reading of the Bible, and their motivations for doing so.

After all, religion is also about interpretation, no one interpretation can ever be truly right, no matter how well argued. Half the time, if someone wants to find proof of something in a religious text they usually can, by interpreting it in that way.

loggik wrote:
> if getting hurt didn't give you pain then you would carry on doing it
> .. hence causing yourself damage


Getting hurt IS pain, it's the same thing.

Here's the quick and simple answer for you...

if getting hurt didn't give you pain then you would carry on doing it .. hence causing yourself damage

that's the fact of it .. pain is what stops us from being injured .. the proof of the pudding is with people who can't feel pain .. they often damage themselves because they can't tell when they are being damaged

---

i will read some more later but that pretty much answers your question

Garlic Bread!? wrote:
> What about Galaloe(sp?) who single handedly proved the bible was FULL
> of errors in the first chapter!


It is; the vulgate bible was translated (poorly) from Greek to Latin. The greek version is the more accurate, but most English language bibles are translated from the vulgate.

What about Galaloe(sp?) who single handedly proved the bible was FULL of errors in the first chapter!

Manda†are wrote:
> I follow the religion of evangelion :)
And yet, that's pretty much based on the biblical stuff too. Albiet a really warped version of it where the angels are monsters...

I follow the religion of evangelion :)