It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Loki
Originally posted by SimpleTruth
Originally posted by Loki
"Thou Shalt not commit adultery"
Inconsistency: Hagar.
Explain, please.
Sure, that's a good one. Used to wonder that myself. However, let's look at how Genesis is written. Genesis is simply narrative, just relating what happened and what the certain people that it focuses on did. So, yes Abraham had sex with Hagar, but the bible isn't condoning or endorsing that. True, it doesn't condemn it either, but again, it's simply narrative. Genesis is meant for explaining the origin of humans and the early parts of our existence. It doesn't focus on telling us what is right or wrong but is like a third party observation. So, because of this, it's not inconsistent.
However, as the story goes on, there are negative effects because of the fact that Abraham and Sarah didn't trust God would give them their own son, so Sarah had Abraham sleep with Hagar to produce a child. As it continues, things end up complicated and unfortunate. Sarah and Hagar have tensions between them from then on, Ishmael and Hagar are kicked out and struggle through the desert. So, in effect, the consequences of the adultery were shown to be negative. In THAT way, you can conclude that it was not smart and wrong. And you'll notice that ANY time in the bible that adultery is committed, something always results in a way that brings pain to the people involved. I hope that helps.
I have heard this argument before, but I've been told over and over that the bible is sacred because it is the word/work of god through men.
If it's just a narrative history, isn't that just another inconsistency?
Originally posted by DeusEx
What about Cain adn Abel? Cain did all he could to please God, but God just kept giving him the short end of the stick. Smacks him upside the head and whatnot.
here's the beef:
1.Omniscient folk generally don't ask where people are.
2. Benevolent people generally don't condemn peopel who did their best.
The second issue I can think of outside my personal fondness of Cain (everyoen shoudl actually go out and pour out a forty for the World of Darkness, by the way- they're killing it) is the parable of Jesus and the fig tree.
So, the Jesus and his homeboys are walkign along, adn they get hungry. So, they spies them a fig tree, but they can't find any figs on it. So jesus lays the smackdown on it and withers in and whatnot. Where's the compassion? Where's 'do unto others'?
[EDIT]- Bible-loving midwife foudn teh passage- Mathew 21:18
DE
[Edited on 6-3-2004 by DeusEx]
Originally posted by Amuk
Valhall
I must disagree with you on this....
God deliberatly chose not to see how his number one project, the entire reason he created the universe, the ones in his (or their) immage, would do?
Sounds like a sloppy way to run the universe if you ask me......LOL
Seriously I think thats kinda bending over backward to find an explaination that fits.
Actually, I don't think it is. People just keep viewing God from a people view. Yeah, if you think God has some required action or behavior in order to keep your selfish butt happy and alive, I guess you could have a big problem with Him allowing us to turn crap and then wanting to wipe us out and start over.
Originally posted by Amuk
Valhall
I must disagree with you on this....
God deliberatly chose not to see how his number one project, the entire reason he created the universe, the ones in his (or their) immage, would do?
Sounds like a sloppy way to run the universe if you ask me......LOL
Seriously I think thats kinda bending over backward to find an explaination that fits.
Originally posted by SimpleTruth
Yes DeuxEx, in regards to your first post, I think Valhall pretty much summed it up. Let me know if it still doesn't seem right. Thanks
Originally posted by Amuk
Its not him allowing us to turn to crap that I have a problem with it is him not KNOWING that this was EXACTLY what was going to happen. To me it says one of two things
1. He created the human race to be a failure.
OR
2. He didnt know this was going to happen
Number one seems kinda mean to me and number 2 means that he is somewhat less than all knowing
Originally posted by DeusEx
Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he hungered. 19 And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away. 20 And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is the fig tree withered away! 21 Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done.
Yes, yes, I read this Val. However, I thought that Jesus was agaisnt the smiting, and especially against the faith-based smiting. It wasn't the fig tree's fault it didn't have figs. Noen the less, Jesus smote it. This goes against his entire message, quiaff?
DE
Originally posted by ktprktpr
So watch out for excessive quoting, people of Christ.
Now to make this something of more than a one liner, I ask again, how the notion of God refering to itself as "us" fits into the concept of one God. Is God really just a name for a group of holy beings? Refer to my previous post for specifics.
He knew this I would say, but He still decided to go with His plan and because of the fact that Noah was still good, and God knew that the earth would repopulate and that there would be many more good people later on, so it was still worth it. Make sense?
Originally posted by Valhall
Well, the whole point to the tree-smiting incident was to get to the parable. Don't you think this particular incident kind of stuck out in the disciples' minds bein's that Christ didn't go around smiting all that often? So he smote a tree and taught a lesson - I don't think this is that big of a problem.
Originally posted by DeusEx
Originally posted by SimpleTruth
Yes DeuxEx, in regards to your first post, I think Valhall pretty much summed it up. Let me know if it still doesn't seem right. Thanks
Now in the morning as he returned into the city, he hungered. 19 And when he saw a fig tree in the way, he came to it, and found nothing thereon, but leaves only, and said unto it, Let no fruit grow on thee henceforward for ever. And presently the fig tree withered away. 20 And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is the fig tree withered away! 21 Jesus answered and said unto them, Verily I say unto you, If ye have faith, and doubt not, ye shall not only do this which is done to the fig tree, but also if ye shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; it shall be done.
Yes, yes, I read this Val. However, I thought that Jesus was agaisnt the smiting, and especially against the faith-based smiting. It wasn't the fig tree's fault it didn't have figs. Noen the less, Jesus smote it. This goes against his entire message, quiaff?
DE
Originally posted by DeusEx
Whatever happened to forgiving the tree? It's inconsistent behavior from Christ. He was all up and against the smiting as a whole. Most times he wanted to teach a lesson, he did somethign like fix a leper of turn water into funk. The question is why did he have to smite the tree to make this particular point (ei. faith goes a long ways)?
DE