Why the Bible is wrong

Ok. I am a Buddhist, who converted from Christianity because I felt that Buddhism's princibles make more sense. However, I would like to state that the Bible cannot possibly be right. God, as described in the Bible, was a logical impossiblity. God is said in the Bible to be pure(ie non malevolent), and omnipotent, however, it is impossible-by the third law of logic- to be both at the same time. As stated in the riddle of Epicurus- "Is God willing to prevent evil, but not able? Then he is not omnipotent. Is he able, but not willing? Then he is malevolent. Is he both able and willing? Then whence cometh evil? Is he neither able nor willing? Then why call him God?" by the third law of logic, he can't be both. If he is willing to stop evil, but unable, he is not omnipotent, and therefore, not a God. If he is able to stop evil, but unwilling, he is then malevolent, therefore not God as the Bible describes him.That is why I believe that the Bible, has to be wrong about atleast one thing. I believe something or someone must have created the Universe, just that they are not omnipotent AND pure at the same time. (P.S. I believe in Nirvana as a collection of all the best things in this universe, sort of like this universe is a prototype, and that if you have achieved the state of those in Nirvana (i.e. Buddhahood) you pass between them.)

 

Mate, no religion is logicall. That is why it is called faith.

Buddhism has as many flaws as christianity.

 

If you want to be skeptical on the bible (or any religious scripture for that matter) via logic, you could have chosen a much easier topic then the attributes of God.

 

I think God is the creative force inside of us. Our imagination. Personally I think that organised religions are usually about power and control.

Remember that in a perfect world you would not have a freedom of choice. There could be only one ruler in a world without bad things happening.

 

You're right. Nothing is new. Try telling that to a religious person though. The bible is metaphorical when it is convenient for them.

 

One crucial mistake you're making here is trying to judge God by your sense of right and wrong without any understanding of how the mind of God works. If God is indeed God then his ways must be beyond our understanding. Is he incapable of stopping evil, no (otherwise he wouldn't be God). Does he allow evil? Yes he often does. Why? I don't know. Perhaps he brings good things out of bad situations and the greater good is achieved. I don't know. However, I do know that you cannot limit God with human logic and reason.

 

God moves in mysterious ways, conveniently so mysterious that an explanation that people can agree on is impossible. Oh well, i guess theres no way to prove God's existence or the 'truth' of the bible to a non-christian just as there is no way for an atheist such as myself to convince a strong christian that their ideas are flawed to say the least. There, i just saved this thread from pages and pages of points made a billion times over about religion.

 

Then you get into the problem of...

Is X good because god wills it. (If this is true, then god is not worthy of worship.... he is essentially a dictatorial figure, rather than a paternalistic one)

Or

Does God will X because it is good (God is stuck to certian moral codes, which are outside of his power... hence got isnt all powerfull, therefore not worthy of worship)

Its the euthyphro dilemma that plato pondered


The Euthyphro Dilemma


(1) If divine command theory is true then either (i) morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good, or (ii) morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God.

(2) If (i) morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good, then they are morally good independent of God’s will.

(3) It is not the case that morally good acts are morally good independent of God’s will.

Therefore:
(4) It is not the case that (i) morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good.

(5) If (ii) morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God, then there is no reason either to care about God’s moral goodness or to worship him.

(6) There are reasons both to care about God’s moral goodness and to worship him.

Therefore:
(7) It is not the case that (ii) morally good acts are morally good because they are willed by God.

Therefore:
(8) Divine command theory is false.

The first premise of the Euthyphro dilemma presents the two alternatives to the divine command theorist. The two options offered to the divine command theorist are intended to be logically exhaustive, so that if divine command theory is true then one of the options must be the case. The divine command theorist is therefore forced to choose one of the options to affirm.

The second premise states the consequences of the divine command theorist affirming the first of the options offered to him in premise (1), “morally good acts are willed by God because they are morally good”. It states that if the first option is true then the morally good is morally good independent of God’s will. This claim is supported by an argument known as the independence problem.

The third premise denies that the morally good is morally good independent of God’s will. Of course, the critic of divine command theory does not believe this premise to be true; he believes that morality is independent of God’s will. However, the divine command theorist is committed to accepting this claim because divine command theory just is the theory that all moral truths are dependent on God’s will. Though critics of divine command theory disbelieve this premise, then, they can still use it against the divine command theorist.

The first subconclusion, (4) is the rejection of the first option offered to the divine command theorist in premise (1). This follows from premises (2) and (3).

Premise (5) states the consequences of the divine command theorist affirming the second of the options offered to him in premise (1). It states that if the second option is true then there is no reason either to care about God’s moral goodness or to worship him. The first claim is supported by an argument known as the emptiness problem, the second by an argument known as the problem of abhorrent commands.

(6) states that we do have reason both to care about God’s moral goodness and to worship him. Again, this is used as a premise to which the divine command theorist is committed, rather than as a premise that the critic of divine command theory believes is true.

The second subconclusion, (7), is the rejection of the second option offered to the divine command theorist in premise (1). It follows from premises (5) and (6).

Finally, (8) concludes that divine command theory is false. Premise (1) stated that if divine command theory were true then one of the two alternatives offered to the divine command theorist would also be true. The argument from (2) to (7) has, it is claimed, shown that neither alternative is true. It is therefore inferred that divine command theory is false.

 

I've stayed silent on this site long enough. Evil is like darkness and cold. They are only the absences of heat and light. Evil is the absence of God in people's hearts because they chose not to follow good. Man introduced evil into the world, (if you're a Christian or Jew, you most likely believe it was when Adam and Eve ate the fruit from the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil) God gave us free will, the will to do good, or the will to do wrong. He didn't want mindless zombies. What tells us is basically when evil is present, trust in God to bring you out of that place, event, etc. God himself told his followers, Do not worry about what man does to you, for I created man, I know his innermost workings, what can man do to you. Man can only harm flesh. Like what has been said before, God cannot fit in the relm of men. His power and glory always has been and always will be. God is beyond the grasp of human comprehension, because he created our minds.

 

So, I'll go be a Christian Buddhist.

I think that God allows evil in the world, because he wants us as a race to grow as we overcome trails and tribulations that ultimately make us wiser and stronger.
If things were perfect then there would be no need for change, and everything would be sterile and lifeless.

My belief in the Garden of Eden story is that it is metaphorical, representing the point when man evolved a conscience of right and wrong, and that's when we had to start taking responsibility for our actions and we could therefore do something bad - "sin".

From there, I think that Christians and Buddhists have the same objective in life.
To overcome our physical bearings and become on with the spirit.
Although personally, I think Buddhism teaches this the best to me, explaining how your spirituality can change your entire outlook on the world, and with a good perspective, you can make the best and be happy among any worldly circumstances.

And finding your inner-spirit is how you become closer to God.


Very vague, muddled and muffled... but sort of along the lines of what I'm thinking.
That it's through enlightenment that you can trully enter the Kingdom of God?
That the Kingdom is inside and that the world is heaven once you learn to love everything about it... or something...

 

It's good to se you put TWO o's in that final word

So how can you comprehend that with your human mind? Seems very paradoxical. How can we comprehend that we can't comprehend something that we can't comprehend? If we cannot know? How do we know that?

 

..yea

Yea, I'm just going to agree that you cannot even begin to ATTEMPT to understand the one who created you. He is all powerful, therefore he is beyond our comprehension. Millions of Jews and Christians have attempted to understand God since the begining of time, but have always failed because we are ONLY HUMAN. God transcends logic. You cannot understand Him.

My thoughts.

 

This "god is beyond human understanding" argument is just the ultimate cop-out, the fact is there is no explanation that can be provided because there is nothing to be explained, 'God' doesn't exist. I can tolerate and even respect people having their own faith and ideals, i can't tolerate people saying that somebody should accept a concept without question because they can't possibly comprehend it.

 

Yeah, that is one of the dumbest things you can say. They keep saying that people like me should accept their religion as the word of god because I can not understand the truth. :bang:

 

Its easy to reconcile, as ive said before. Good and Evil have nothing to do with God. The concept of good and evil breaks down outside of our existence. I would also go as far as to say that god cant understand good and evil the way we can, if at all.

 

Have you been talking with him lately?

 

Monkeyjunkie,

Go speak to a Jesuit, i'll bet their amazing ability at somantics would convert you.
As to being pure and omnipotent, look up trinity (No! not the pvc clad one from the matrix, or the one in Optimus Prime's chest.)
Father (bit of a bad-boy), son (pure, soft-lad, would be picked on in a modern school) and holy spirit (kind of floating around, with a 4-D existance. Ominipotent ? maybe.)
The King James II bible has several flaws in it, maybe you should look further, deep into it's roots.

 

Just thought I'd throw this in (I am Christian by the way)

"God is Dead" - Voltaire
"Voltaire is Dead" - God