Judas Contradiction

[pinkocommie]

Yes...the "firewall"...of course.  

[LoneMateria]

Why would I come to an atheist forum and expect anyone to agree with me?

We do have theists that run around here ...how many of them have showed up to agree with you?  The question is why would you think we wouldn't argue with you about trying put your god outside of reality (and thus not being able to know anything about it) while making definitive claims about it?  Also what does that say about the truthfulness of the bible with your god constantly interfering?

I believe you were making an arguement against my logical statement and I was showing that you were incorrect through example.

You didn't show it very well because I think I refuted it.

I don't believe I ever stated you were closed minded.

I'm sorry dtackett I misread your previous post.  You said the people in my area were small minded (closed minded) and I misread and thought you said I was small minded.  Which pissed me off ^_^.  I'm sorry that I misunderstood and i'm sorry if my reply was in any way hostile.

If you ask a proper question I'd be more than happy to answer. Don't fault me if you didn't clearly enough state your question. It helps if it ends with something like?

Actually I'm very anal about that.  If you see a question mark in one of my posts I am honestly asking a question.  When I don't i'm making a statement.

How exactly does the statement "I don't feel biblical creation and abiogenesis or evolution are incompatible." followed by 2 questions equate to demonstrating anything remotely close to you defintion of faith much less it's validity?

Let's recap my definition of faith.  Faith is believing in something to which there is no evidence or IN SPITE of the evidence.

The biblical account of creation saying that your god made everything says it happened in a very specific way.  The earth existing before the galaxies, the plants existing before the sun.  It has Adam and Eve poofed into existence as well as every animal as we know it today.  No evolution, no Big Bang, no 14 billion year galaxy or 4.5 billion year earth.  In order to believe that your god created everything as science has come to understand it means you would have to effectively ignore the entire book of Genesis, and thus the entire biblical creation story.  There was no Adam and Eve,  (since one male and one female cannot propagate an entire species genetically) there was no genetic bottle neck for us in more than 100,000 years.

In order to believe the scientific evidence for the existence of the universe and the biblical account of creation you would have to ignore almost everything from one or the other ... in which case you are being intellectually dishonest with yourself saying that they are compatible.  And just to note, believing that god created the universe so that in 9.5 billion years a single planet would develop which in just under 4.5 billion years later a species would develop and 100,000 years after that species developed you sent your son to die so that they can all go to heaven... that sounds asinine to me.

I'll define my God but none of that relates to your concept of God that you made an positive claim about. Nor have I positively claimed that God exists, based off any evidence. I won't go further unless you're more cooperative about sharing your concepts and definitions. My concept of God is an omniscient benevolent God existing outside our known universe and the originating cause of it.

My concept: There are billions of conflicting ideas for a god, they can't all be right, instead of sifting though the endless number of gods that once existed as well as looking though everyones personal concept of god to determine if there is one that is accurate I just dismiss them all.  The most general concepts of the gods currently being worshiped are self-contradictory and conflicting.  None has to be right but many, many, many, many, many have to be wrong.

Okay so a few questions about your god.  1: do you believe it answers prayers?  2: How can you know these things about your god if it exists outside of our known universe?  3: What makes you believe this god caused our universe?  4: What role does Jesus play in this (since your world view is Christian)?

Although you tried to keep this concept general I honestly don't think that is all you believe.  In addition your definition of your god currently makes it useless.  Thus not a factor and shouldn't be worshiped.  Typically when one describes a god they worship its a personal god who has an effect on reality.  If it can't do anything I don't see any reason to label it a god.  Maybe a helpless creator or something like that.  Also note that this has no bearing on if it exists or not.

That depends on your definition of yourself, which I have no concept of, you could be a computer generated hate algorythm for all I know   .

Sorry but you don't get to define yourself in reality.  Whatever my view of myself is is irrelevant to anyone but me.  You have a concept of me which you have deduced though logic and your senses that is completely independent on my definition or view of myself.  

I do program video games and some A.I. (which isn't an algorithm but a seemingly endless series of scripts containing algorithms typically compressed into it's own object ... don't worry most people who don't program don't know).  So how does not seeing me personally lend credit to the notion I am a computer program?  Thats the thing when it comes to religion, because of an uncertainty factor believers think they are justified in believing any crazy things they want.  We don't know for certain why the big bang happened ... so we are perfectly justified believing a wizard did it.  Sorry life doesn't work that way.  Because we aren't 100% certain doesn't mean that your wild beliefs have any merit.  Same is true for anyone.  If I thought there was a 30% likely hood that you are black doesn't make me justified saying that I know you are purple.  

I use my eyes to read, but only logic and reason can interpret those ideas, and they can't alone be used to prove the existance of said originating idea generator or deduce it's prupose.

What is this originating idea generator you speak of?  How do you know something has a purpose?  Also shouldn't fully determining if it exists take priority over what you think its purpose is?  

To answer your question: We can not with our known 5 senses percieve a difference between nothing things that exist outside our perception. Time however is an intangible and yet is within our perception, thus deemed real.

I subscribe to the notion that time is a human construct used to define the movement of atoms and particles, not as something tangible that we can travel through.  So sorry that argument won't work on me.  Do you have another one?

If you can't tell the difference between which of these are real ... then why does it make sense to say there is something real when you can't tell the difference?  All that sounds like is wishful thinking.

Balance, Motion, maybe someday soon intuition all senses. Perhaps as our perceptions increase so will our understanding of our known universe. I don't try and stifle that you shouldn't either.

What makes you think i'm trying to stifle this ... much less that there would be a way to stifle this?  I don't see how balance and motion would  or possibly could be senses.  Intuition (or instinct) could potentially be labeled a sense ... maybe ... one day far in the future.  Anyway what does labeling more things senses have to do with there being a deity?

[dtackett]

On a side note why no hide /hide BBcode.. I'm sure it would help a lot with readability?

@pink- So you're inferring what? That I'd rather not view your video rather than accept that I surf forums from work and streaming videos don't get through the govt. firewall? You're a conspiracy theorist too right ?  

Why would I come to an atheist forum and expect anyone to agree with me?

We do have theists that run around here ...how many of them have showed up to agree with you?  The question is why would you think we wouldn't argue with you about trying put your god outside of reality (and thus not being able to know anything about it) while making definitive claims about it?  Also what does that say about the truthfulness of the bible with your god constantly interfering?

Because arguement by bandwagon is really important to me? :hmm: .
[/quote]

Sorry but you don't get to define yourself in reality.  Whatever my view of myself is is irrelevant to anyone but me.  You have a concept of me which you have deduced though logic and your senses that is completely independent on my definition or view of myself.  

I do program video games and some A.I. (which isn't an algorithm but a seemingly endless series of scripts containing algorithms typically compressed into it's own object ... don't worry most people who don't program don't know).  So how does not seeing me personally lend credit to the notion I am a computer program?  Thats the thing when it comes to religion, because of an uncertainty factor believers think they are justified in believing any crazy things they want.  We don't know for certain why the big bang happened ... so we are perfectly justified believing a wizard did it.  Sorry life doesn't work that way.  Because we aren't 100% certain doesn't mean that your wild beliefs have any merit.  Same is true for anyone.  If I thought there was a 30% likely hood that you are black doesn't make me justified saying that I know you are purple.  [/quote]
Then why do you keep commenting on my intellectual dishonesty, like you opinion is going to affect my self-image? If your perception of me is just as irrelevant as my perception of you, why do you continue to use strawmen and adhominem instead of just discussing the points.

I use my eyes to read, but only logic and reason can interpret those ideas, and they can't alone be used to prove the existance of said originating idea generator or deduce it's prupose.

What is this originating idea generator you speak of?  How do you know something has a purpose?  Also shouldn't fully determining if it exists take priority over what you think its purpose is?  

It was a reference to the idea generator of the posts I'm reading meaning you.
Actually definition of X would be the first step, then existence of X and theny positing the why of X.

To answer your question: We can not with our known 5 senses percieve a difference between nothing things that exist outside our perception. Time however is an intangible and yet is within our perception, thus deemed real.

I subscribe to the notion that time is a human construct used to define the movement of atoms and particles, not as something tangible that we can travel through.  So sorry that argument won't work on me.  Do you have another one?

If you can't tell the difference between which of these are real ... then why does it make sense to say there is something real when you can't tell the difference?  All that sounds like is wishful thinking.

So time isn't real to you? Time doesn't exist? Time's not percievable, yet insubstantial?  I didn't say anything about traveling through time. I couldn't tell the difference between the two, that doens't mean that something doesn't exist in one. You should do some research on the senses outside the typical 5. The animal kingdom has several great examples of them detecting things we have no idea about. One day hopefully humans will see something in the "empty" jar, I just won't limit the possibilities and say it doesn't exist. I can say that I can't perceive it's existance, which is a lot different. I can however perceive aspects of God through the Holy Spirit.

Balance, Motion, maybe someday soon intuition all senses. Perhaps as our perceptions increase so will our understanding of our known universe. I don't try and stifle that you shouldn't either.

What makes you think i'm trying to stifle this ... much less that there would be a way to stifle this?  I don't see how balance and motion would  or possibly could be senses.  Intuition (or instinct) could potentially be labeled a sense ... maybe ... one day far in the future.  Anyway what does labeling more things senses have to do with there being a deity?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense
I think I've already answered that question but if not: God could exist outside our known perceivable universe yest still exist and I don't reject any possiblity of humans developing more senses by limiting our view of reality to such a simplistic and materialistic view. I understand it's very helpful for scientific theory to have objectifiable tangible evidence, but IMO there is more to reality than what we can touch.

[LoneMateria]

Because arguement by bandwagon is really important to me? wtf you were talking about .  

Why do you see this as the steps?  

In science we observe phenomena X (determine its existence), define what phenomena X is, then figure out why its doing what its doing and how.

So time isn't real to you? Time doesn't exist? Time's not percievable, yet insubstantial?

Did I say that? No.  Time is a human concept to explain the movement of atoms, particles, and changes in the universe.  It is real in the sense we use it as measurement.  But the units of measure are arbitrary based on our preference.  However it's not something that really exists as in tangible, that can be harnessed, traveled through, or used in any way shape or form.  It is something that currently exists as a human construct.  

One day hopefully humans will see something in the "empty" jar, I just won't limit the possibilities and say it doesn't exist. I can say that I can't perceive it's existance, which is a lot different. I can however perceive aspects of God through the Holy Spirit.

I take standard approach to this.  Until it can be demonstrated that the jar has something in it, i'm willing to say based on the evidence it is empty.  When you can't demonstrate there is something something there then there is no reason to believe there is.  If I said that jar contained $10 million that exists outside of our reality ... how likely is that?  How likely is it that some all powerful being who gives a damn about what you are thinking, doing or sticking your dick into is sitting outside of what we consider reality ... (which if you think about that its the same thing as saying that the god doesn't exist ... because what exists is real and thus in our reality).  

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense
I think I've already answered that question but if not: God could exist outside our known perceivable universe yest still exist and I don't reject any possiblity of humans developing more senses by limiting our view of reality to such a simplistic and materialistic view. I understand it's very helpful for scientific theory to have objectifiable tangible evidence, but IMO there is more to reality than what we can touch.

So can the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  Until it can be demonstrated that there is a place that is outside of reality I see no reason to believe a place exists or something lives there.  If its outside of reality then by definition it cannot impact reality so it's moot.

[pinkocommie]

@pink- So you're inferring what? That I'd rather not view your video rather than accept that I surf forums from work and streaming videos don't get through the govt. firewall? You're a conspiracy theorist too right ?  

It would make me happy, yes.  

[dtackett]

@pinkie- I did like the video, I hadn't seen that one yet. I would just remind you that I wasn't calling anyone closed minded except possibly inferring that the fundies living around Materia could be.

Because arguement by bandwagon is really important to me? :yay:  wtf you were talking about .  

Why do you see this as the steps?  

In science we observe phenomena X (determine its existence), define what phenomena X is, then figure out why its doing what its doing and how.

Yes observance is the first step..I misspoke, defining the observance would then be step two, etc.

So time isn't real to you? Time doesn't exist? Time's not percievable, yet insubstantial?

Did I say that? No.  Time is a human concept to explain the movement of atoms, particles, and changes in the universe.  It is real in the sense we use it as measurement.  But the units of measure are arbitrary based on our preference.  However it's not something that really exists as in tangible, that can be harnessed, traveled through, or used in any way shape or form.  It is something that currently exists as a human construct.  

A human construct but real, yet not harnessable, but measurable? Sonds pretty conflicted, unless you're a theist. So what if part of my definition of God was real, intangible, an absolute used as reference for all that is good, can not be reached by any mean we know today, and my ideas about him rest entirely as a human construct based off observations of reality?

One day hopefully humans will see something in the "empty" jar, I just won't limit the possibilities and say it doesn't exist. I can say that I can't perceive it's existance, which is a lot different. I can however perceive aspects of God through the Holy Spirit.

I take standard approach to this.  Until it can be demonstrated that the jar has something in it, i'm willing to say based on the evidence it is empty.  When you can't demonstrate there is something something there then there is no reason to believe there is.  If I said that jar contained $10 million that exists outside of our reality ... how likely is that?  How likely is it that some all powerful being who gives a damn about what you are thinking, doing or sticking your dick into is sitting outside of what we consider reality ... (which if you think about that its the same thing as saying that the god doesn't exist ... because what exists is real and thus in our reality).  

If you're suspending your judgement that's one thing. I think you're just happy to ignore the jar and call it empty for ease. I believe that somethings in there and attempt to measure it whenever and however I can. I think that's in the spirit of scientific discovery.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sense
I think I've already answered that question but if not: God could exist outside our known perceivable universe yest still exist and I don't reject any possiblity of humans developing more senses by limiting our view of reality to such a simplistic and materialistic view. I understand it's very helpful for scientific theory to have objectifiable tangible evidence, but IMO there is more to reality than what we can touch.

So can the Flying Spaghetti Monster.  Until it can be demonstrated that there is a place that is outside of reality I see no reason to believe a place exists or something lives there.  If its outside of reality then by definition it cannot impact reality so it's moot.

Ok,  how's this? Man X was born so long ago he/she only believed that the world existed as flat and the sun traveled around the earth and the stars were just tiny suns hanging in the sky. Do other galexies exists outide that man's reality? No, now seeing it from todays perspective his reality was smaller. What about if man Y was born before Rudolf Steiner  was even an idea. He'd believe our 5 senses are the only was we can percieve reality, from today's perspective his view was also dwarfed. Why are you assuming that our current understanding is all there is?

[pinkocommie]

@pinkie- I did like the video, I hadn't seen that one yet. I would just remind you that I wasn't calling anyone closed minded except possibly inferring that the fundies living around Materia could be.

I'm sorry, I totally misread what you had written before and then I thought I had already apologized for misreading it!    I am glad you watched it anyway, it's one of my favorite vids and one of the only ones I'll ever post as a reply to a comment.  Sorry again!

[dtackett]

No biggie,  :hissyfit:

[LoneMateria]

Little to nothing, which is my point. You were making the positive claim that God didn't exist. If you had said There is no evidence that God exists I wouldn't haveeven brought up the point. In case you're reading more into what I say tan is on the surface. I do not believe God exists. I have faith God dexists. I do however feel I have subjective evidence and logic for the aspects that God has revealed to me.

This misses what I was getting at.  How I define your god does no one any good since I don't believe in it.  In order to have a meaningful conversation you must define it.  And I can make the claim that your god doesn't exist.  When you say "God" (capital G) you are not saying any old deity.  You are referencing a specific deity which has done very specific things.  The specific thing this deity is credited with can be examined to see if it is naturally occurring, or explainable, or that if the only way for it to exist really is with the deity.  The biggest claims are that God made the universe, earth, man, answers prayers, authored/inspired the bible, etc..  Not only is there no evidence for any deity but there is contradictory evidence for the existence of God (as is typically defined).  Also subjective evidence is useless because it is subjective ... yes you've had an experience but since I have not had that experience (or any) why should I believe?  And if I don't believe and go to hell (or whatever punishment you believe waits non-believers) then how can you claim that your god is loving or just for giving you the experience that will save you and not me?  

Let's not go through the motions if you won't accept subjective evidence.

Are you at least going to agree that it is necessary for you to define your god for our conversation regardless of the claim i'm making?  I mean if I sat back and explained why a deity doesn't exist based on the traditional/orthodox definition and you don't agree with that definition did I really show that your god doesn't exist?  Or did I just re-affirm that the orthodox believers are wrong?

because first you observe, then define. If you can see the inherint properties then that helps form a proper definition, then we'll debate existence.

Not to sound snarky but if your god exists outside of the universe don't you find it dishonest that you require someone to observe another deity before debating its existence?

No of course not, thankfully my greeting here was a little more cordial than most one-on-one interaction, but I beleive that has a lot to do with the sheer amount of users.

I'm glad you feel welcome here.  I've seen Christians come on here and say they feel more welcome at HAF then at Christian forums.  We may have a difference that is irreconcilable but thats a good thing ... I think life would be completely boring if everyone agreed with each other.

Reaching a common valid definition is a first step in good communication. In this case I think it's a bit farther than a strech to say faith is completely based off of evidence against it. If you can provide positive evidence against God's existence then you're one step ahead of most people I've spoken with.

I'm sorry I must not have been clear.  I completely agree with you that it is a stretch to say faith is completely based off of evidence against it.  I'm saying that faith exists because of the lack of evidence and IN SOME CASES in spite of it.  Not just one or just the other but both.  Like I said my definition is based on experience living here in the bible belt.  I live in a fundie area and I hear things like, "I have faith that evolution is wrong ... evidence isn't everything."  Though I know this doesn't represent everyones view it is enough for me to change my definition from faith is what you believe in the absence of evidence to faith is what you believe in the absence of or in spite of evidence.  I'm sorry I must not have been clear on this.

something like that yes conceeded. My point was humans existed before the Eden scenario in one form or another. I believe we are in agreement on this.

Yes we agree.  I was just trying to point out that the humans before the Failed Garden Hypothesis weren't necessarily more like animals and that some species we co-existed with would probably be more intelligent then us had they survived.

I can't live in water yet I can reach into the water and pull out a fish or stir the silt. He exists outside our percieved reality, and can reveal himself to us, thus giving us an idea of the aspects of God.

You've previously claimed your deity exists outside of reality.  Either it does or it does not.  There is a big difference between perceived reality ... and reality.  So which one does your deity exist outside of  Also how do you know your god isn't like a cat sitting next to the pond trying to snatch a fish for a snack?

I don't ignore the bible at all. How does literal approach = assinine = ignore. I prefer the contextual approach, and I do reconcile them both.

If you don't ignore most of the OT you would be a criminal ... and if you didn't ignore most of the NT you'd be in a padded room.  So also lets just look at genesis and ask you what is fair and just about the context.  In what context would it be okay for anyone to punish a parent's children for the rest of time for something the parent was tricked into?  Yahweh punishes all of human kind forever for adam and eve eating some forbidden fruit.  In what context would it be okay for someone to punish an entire species because someone took the form of a member of that species and pissed you off?  The devil took the form of the form of a snake to con eve and thus god punishes all snakes.  Also in what context does this story reflect on reality?

It's not my fault...  roflol
1- God exists outside your perception. Since he exists outside reality it takes him revealing himself to us individually or in groups for him to be perceivable. God's influence is perceivable to me and many others. It's subjective but not without peer-review. If you were looking for tangible measurements of the intangible sounds like that's not a realistic approach. The type of proof should also match the assertion.

Like I said before either your god is real or it isn't.  If your god is real he either exists outside of reality or doesn't.  To claim the god exists outside of reality (something that by definition can't be proven to exist) yet is constantly in reality meddling with billions of people tirelessly, every day is a contradiction.  If the god is doing stuff in reality then we would be able to measure his effects.  Like I said events contributed to your god happen at the same rate as random chance ... go figure.  

The other problem here is that the same god is telling different people different answers to the same question.  I'd say what people perceive as their god's influence isn't really the case ... or else there would be some type of universally accepted theological truths.  Either that or you'd have to admit there is more then 1 god (probably thousands) that directs people, helps people, and tells them what they personally want. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kLBDFe3mDtk better describes what I mean.

2-Answered in 1. Can you not reconcile that a creator residing outside of a system can influence the system? I just think the tools/ methods to measure God's influence are what's lacking.

Not while saying you can't see him, find him, measure his influence, or look up any relevant information about it that isn't mysteriously hidden in myth and context and that you can't distinguish it from something thats not there.  Sooo in this case No.

3-No, it's not as awesomly accurate as science, but it doens't negate it's validity. Your subjective perceptions of your reality and mine probably aren't that different in determining what's real. Aside from delusions and lies then together they're a pretty useful tool.

So if it does not accurately depict reality it's okay its still true?  Is that what you are saying here?  

I'm sorry the concept of something that exists outside our percieved reality and the rules used in it doesn't fit in your little scientific box. There is a clear concise nonconflicting idea of God, The Creator, the Alpha, The Omega, the I AM. The rest of the ideas are people working on a better definition or having a better name within their own language.

So something that is loving, able to do anything, but still allows suffering to exists isn't contradictory or conflicting?  Something that exists outside of reality yet every hour of every day is constantly interfering in the affairs of this world isn't conflicting either?  Something that is so blatantly obvious but isn't recognized as real by the majority of the world isn't contradictory?  I mean seriously you are criticizing me for have "little scientific box" well if thats the case then you have a giant box of crazies.

A human construct but real, yet not harnessable, but measurable? Sonds pretty conflicted, unless you're a theist. So what if part of my definition of God was real, intangible, an absolute used as reference for all that is good, can not be reached by any mean we know today, and my ideas about him rest entirely as a human construct based off observations of reality?

Maybe I didn't make myself clear and if thats the case I apologize.  Time is real in the sense it is a human construct.  It exists only within the mind.  If you want to say your god only exists in the mind then we'd both be on the same page.  Time isn't something that is tangible.  It doesn't exist outside of our minds.

If you're suspending your judgement that's one thing. I think you're just happy to ignore the jar and call it empty for ease. I believe that somethings in there and attempt to measure it whenever and however I can. I think that's in the spirit of scientific discovery.

So you are saying that I should not say there is nothing in the jar and just believe something is there because one day we might be able to see something in it?  Really?  Based on all the available evidence there is nothing in that jar.  And if there really is nothing in the jar then there will not ever come a day when we will see anything in it.  Why should I base my life on the assumption there is something in the clearly empty jar?

Ok,  how's this? Man X was born so long ago he/she only believed that the world existed as flat and the sun traveled around the earth and the stars were just tiny suns hanging in the sky. Do other galexies exists outide that man's reality? No, now seeing it from todays perspective his reality was smaller. What about if man Y was born before Rudolf Steiner  was even an idea. He'd believe our 5 senses are the only was we can percieve reality, from today's perspective his view was also dwarfed. Why are you assuming that our current understanding is all there is?

I don't think they knew the stars were tiny suns.

Man X's perception of the situation was flawed.  What he perceived as reality wasn't reality.  His understanding of the world ... of the universe was smaller then today.  What is real is independent of yourself.  Because Man X's understanding was limited compared to todays standards doesn't mean reality was any different ... just his perception of it.

I never said our current understanding is all there is.  I've been saying that is all we have to work with.  We make decisions in life based on the amount of information available to us at the time.  Say you are changing channels on T.V. and you come across High Stakes Poker.  One player has pocket aces and the Other has a Ace Ten.  The board is Ten Ten Ace and the player with the bigger full house has shoved all in.  By your perceptive the player with the Ace Ten should fold because he is drawing dead.  However the player doesn't have your information to work with and calls and loses more money then your house cost.  Does that mean he made a bad decision based on the evidence he had available?  Not at all.  Does that mean he should fold the full house every time because he might be facing a bigger one?  No.  We are forced to make decisions in life based on available evidence.  I personally want my beliefs to reflect reality as much as possible and I am willing to change them.  Based on the evidence I don't see any deity ... If in 20 years conclusive information arises to show a deity exists then I will believe in a deity.  But i'm not going to base my life on the assumption something is there when there is no proof for it.  That would be like basing my life on the assumption that someone buried a treasure chest under my house.  No reason to tear down my house unless I find some conclusive evidence for someone burying it.

[hvargas]

First you can't say that God created everything, and for that the reply will be a simple one: In order for a God to exist " SPACE " had to be there first so that a God could occupied it. From there we can moved forward as to how long that " SPACE " had existed before the very first thing came into existence. Eventually we will arrieved at a question as to how did space came to be polluted. There is no GOD only exisrences of different species. Since God is not the creator of the Universe or Universes then we must asked just how did humans came upon that name called GOD. Our own history tells us just how we came upon that name, and that is that we created it just like we created RELIGIONS. The contradictions are there cuase they are man made and it contradicts coming from a superior mind. If the Bible would had been the words of God as we define God ( all knowing ) then we would had have a perfect Science. We would had been visiting galaxies instead of experimenting with space flights at this stage in our human developments. We are being lie to as a species both by theist and by some called atheist. We as individuals can search for the truth, I had done it and I had found it.

[McQ]

Interesting thread. I used to argue this as a christian apologist, myself, and it never seemed to go anywhere. However, it became one of the first things that made me question the validity of the bible as a source of truth or as a source of inspired writing. We apologists (then) would argue that this was clearly not a contradiction, by changing the definition of contradiction to suit our needs and by using the same argument that was used here (original greek, latin, language, translations, etc.). The issue I had with that then and still do is why would the test not simply and clearly state one way or the other how judas died? If it was crucifixion, just use the word crucifixion. If he hanged himself (as we think of hanging by the neck) why not just say it? Why say it two different ways in the gospels?

If he flung himself down upon rocks, just friggin' say it! You know? That always bothered me that "our god" would inspire writers to write so mysteriously, when they had the clear ability to write precisely. You can only be disingenuous so long with arguments like this. Then you either have to become intellectually honest and drop the bullshit (as I finally did), live in ignorance of the truth, or live with the knowledge that you aren't being honest with yourself and others.

Over 30 years as a christian, 18 years as an apologist, and I was never able to be convinced that the bible was to be adhered to literally, and at best, no more than metaphorically, or as a collection of fiction. Actually, I'll even give it the benefit of potentially being used for the good of humanity off and on over the centuries. Other people have found it convincing, I know, but I still think that they fall into one of the categories I mentioned earlier. Caveat: probably some other categories of belief there as well.

So after all of this, the question is how did judas die? What physically caused his death?

[McQ]

First you can't say that God created everything, and for that the reply will be a simple one: In order for a God to exist " SPACE " had to be there first so that a God could occupied it. From there we can moved forward as to how long that " SPACE " had existed before the very first thing came into existence. Eventually we will arrieved at a question as to how did space came to be polluted. There is no GOD only exisrences of different species. Since God is not the creator of the Universe or Universes then we must asked just how did humans came upon that name called GOD. Our own history tells us just how we came upon that name, and that is that we created it just like we created RELIGIONS. The contradictions are there cuase they are man made and it contradicts coming from a superior mind. If the Bible would had been the words of God as we define God ( all knowing ) then we would had have a perfect Science. We would had been visiting galaxies instead of experimenting with space flights at this stage in our human developments. We are being lie to as a species both by theist and by some called atheist. We as individuals can search for the truth, I had done it and I had found it.

First, let me say welcome to the forum, hvargas. Nice to see someone not shy about jumping right into the fray.

Second, feel free to post an introduction in that section, so we can get to know you better. I think we also need to try and gently steer this thread back on track to the original premise, that being a potential contradiction in the gospels regarding judas' death. It's a good topic and worth discussing.

Again, welcome and have fun!

[LoneMateria]

First you can't say that God created everything, and for that the reply will be a simple one: In order for a God to exist " SPACE " had to be there first so that a God could occupied it. From there we can moved forward as to how long that " SPACE " had existed before the very first thing came into existence. Eventually we will arrieved at a question as to how did space came to be polluted. There is no GOD only exisrences of different species. Since God is not the creator of the Universe or Universes then we must asked just how did humans came upon that name called GOD. Our own history tells us just how we came upon that name, and that is that we created it just like we created RELIGIONS. The contradictions are there cuase they are man made and it contradicts coming from a superior mind. If the Bible would had been the words of God as we define God ( all knowing ) then we would had have a perfect Science. We would had been visiting galaxies instead of experimenting with space flights at this stage in our human developments. We are being lie to as a species both by theist and by some called atheist. We as individuals can search for the truth, I had done it and I had found it.

First, let me say welcome to the forum, hvargas. Nice to see someone not shy about jumping right into the fray.

Second, feel free to post an introduction in that section, so we can get to know you better. I think we also need to try and gently steer this thread back on track to the original premise, that being a potential contradiction in the gospels regarding judas' death. It's a good topic and worth discussing.

Again, welcome and have fun!

Yeah i'm sorry ... I know I've been way, way , way OT.  You know how that goes, first you start looking at arguments, asking questions, highlighting things you don't agree with then 3 posts later the posts are a mile long and about Hitler >.< (w00t go Godwin's Law).  I wonder if anyone has been honestly following the conversation.

[elliebean]

I have been.  

[notself]

Nazi!