Contradictions in the bible

[IamsSon]

IamsSon

It's nice to see that at least you acknowledge that creation does not confer unbounded rights over the created.

That's because there is a gigantic difference between being the CREATOR of the universe and being the creator of a work of art or other craft.

In my view, when God created sentient beings, he also conferred interests upon them. He has no more "right" to torture my dog than I do. And he never did have any such right, since the dog's claim to respect was perfected from the inception of her sentience. If God wishes to pull apart an animal-shaped inert toy, then he has the right to do that, just as my dog does. Breathe life into that toy, and then there is a second party in interest, to which any decent being defers.

But, of course, there are things your God cannot do. One of them, apparently, is that your God cannot be embarrassed.

Thank you for sharing your view.

[GoldenWolf]

Have you received the grace to follow Jesus? If the answer is no how fair is your opinion? When it comes to God or Jesus Christ being fair is beyond our human scope. We also have our free will. I believe in my heart Jesus Christ treats His flock fairly and this treatment includes those who are not followers of Christ at the moment but are written in the Book of Life because of His tremendous eternal love.

He would have to treat everyone fairly, even his enemies. Free will includes the right to not worship him.

[GoldenWolf]

But, of course, there are things your God cannot do. One of them, apparently, is that your God cannot be embarrassed.

Or feel pity, or remorse, or fear, or empathy, or sympathy.

[IamsSon]

He would have to treat everyone fairly, even his enemies. Free will includes the right to not worship him.

Which everyone has. You and everyone else have the ability to choose not to worship him.

[GoldenWolf]

Which everyone has. You and everyone else have the ability to choose not to worship him.

How can there be free will not worship him when he declares death to those who do not worship him?

[scowl]

http://bible.cc/deuteronomy/32-42.htm

I kill ... I wound ...

I will make my arrows

drunk with blood,

and my sword shall devour flesh.

This was just one of God's many threats against the feckless, faithless, and clueless Israelites, not a boast of previous massacres. If I were God I would have given them much harsher threats and I'm no psychopath.

[+Liquid Gardens]

Which everyone has. You and everyone else have the ability to choose not to worship him.

In exactly the same way we are all 'free' to murder other people: under penalty of punishment and/or death. At least with murder most understand why those are somewhat just penalties; the crime/sin of 'failure to worship him', not so much.

[IamsSon]

How can there be free will not worship him when he declares death to those who do not worship him?

In exactly the same way we are all 'free' to murder other people: under penalty of punishment and/or death. At least with murder most understand why those are somewhat just penalties; the crime/sin of 'failure to worship him', not so much.

Why is it shocking that decisions have consequences?

Yes, you are free to choose not to commune with God, but there are consequences that go with that choice. You are already dying, if you choose not to accept His gift, which is life, then the obvious consequence is death.

You are confusing free will with freedom from consequences.

[GoldenWolf]

Why is it shocking that decisions have consequences?

Yes, you are free to choose not to commune with God, but there are consequences that go with that choice. You are already dying, if you choose not to accept His gift, which is life, then the obvious consequence is death.

You are confusing free will with freedom from consequences.

I think you are.

I have a birth certificate stating who my parents are, and it is not god.

Edited February 18, 2013 by HavocWing

[eight bits]

IamsSon

That's because there is a gigantic difference between being the CREATOR of the universe and being the creator of a work of art or other craft.

It was your analogy, see post # 412, so if it's defective, then you need to be talking with yourself about that.

Regardless of how that conversation turns out, the principle remains that whoever freely gives another entity an interest in their work can be expected to conform their conduct accordingly.

I also notice that it is not God who is making this pleading, but rather you, speaking on God's behalf. I think he needs new representation. Your argument appeals to a principle of creator's rights that simply doesn't exist, and is almost as capricious, arbitrary and unwholesome as the misconduct you aspire to rationalize with it.

[+Liquid Gardens]

Yes, you are free to choose not to commune with God, but there are consequences that go with that choice. You are already dying, if you choose not to accept His gift, which is life, then the obvious consequence is death.

That'd be great if God only threatened us with non-existence, it'd be a vast improvement and would certainly help the tortured apologetics that are attempted to explain how eternal suffering is 'good'. The idea of mortal souls seems to be a minority position within Christianity though, no?

You are confusing free will with freedom from consequences.

I'm certainly not, I'm quite clear on the difference, thank you. I'm just noting how 'free' this decision really is. A woman in the more backwards Middle East countries is 'free' to drive and dress how'd they'd like under the exact same reasoning, for some very narrow definitions of 'free'.

[+joc]

That's because there is a gigantic difference between being the CREATOR of the universe and being the creator of a work of art or other craft.

Thank you for sharing your view.

Really? What is the difference? Is it that this particular creation is...Aware? How many times have I heard from the Podium of the Baptist, on Father's Day, how much God loves us...how Jesus cried out Father, why have you forsaken me...and the name Father was actually Abba which meant Daddy...so, Jesus was crying out for Daddy...(enough times to have eventually made a choice between not going and going with a barf bag). And then all of the deep hearted longings for us to be good fathers and how if you aren't a Christian you aren't raising your children correctly. The whole point of my point is that if the Creator isn't a role model...then there isn't a role model...and killing babies for any reason is not something I or you would really support...but Bible stories take on a surrealistic realism that makes it ok somehow. It wasn't okay...it isn't okay...but the difference really is that, I don't believe a word of it! Not one word of it! It isn't possible for you to 'not believe' any word of anything...that is because you are 'in the box' and and I am not. Just saying.

[hellig heilige]

He would have to treat everyone fairly, even his enemies. Free will includes the right to not worship him.

I'll go back to my original questions. Have you received the grace to follow Jesus? If the answer is no how fair is your opinion? Free will includes the right to not worship Him but it doesn't make you an enemy of the Lord unless you call yourself an "enemy" of Jesus Christ. I believe God will not place that label because of free will. Ask yourself, who started the war? It's up to God how He will treat His "enemies". The Bible has examples. All is fair in love and war. Have you labeled yourself an "enemy" of God?

[Doug1029]

Some thoughts here:

Many of the Bible's contradictions arise as a result of it having been written at widely differing times by people who were not aware of what previous authors had written. The dual descriptions of Creation stem from there having been two religious traditions, one affiliated with the Kingdom of Judah and the other with the Kingdom of Israel. Each version reflected the political realities of the time in which they were written. Such a situation is begging for contradictions. Why are people surprised that they happened?

The Bible's topic(s) are designed for confusion: two separate kingdoms of Israel/Judah, two separate kingdoms named Cush/Kush, two separate places named "Sheba," eleven different Pharaohs names "Ramses," four different historical people who could be Moses (probably all of them contributed to the legend), two different tribes named Massai/Media (They're pronounced the same.), a dozen different gods all in the same book with little distinction between them, dozens of place-names with multiple meanings in different langauges, not to mention the use of puns which make sense in the original, but are totally lost when translated into English.

Many of the Bible's "contradictions" just vanish once you dig up all the facts behind them - the same applies to its "miracles." Careful Bible study, might make you a better Christian, but it might also make you an atheist. At any rate, it will cure you of reading.

The Books of Matthew and Mark were written just before, or during, the Bar Kochba Rebellion. The Apocalypses of Matthew and Mark are perfectly normal reactions to the knowledge that twelve Roman legions are about to descend on you, not promises of some future end-time - though it certainly was the end-time for Bar Kochba and his followers.

The Book of Luke is addressed to "most excellent Theophilus." The Book of Acts likewise references Theophilus. There are only two known people named Theophilus from before the Council of Nicea: a high priest of the Temple from 37 to 47 AD - probably not the author's penpal. The other was the Patriarch of Antioch from about 169 to about 183 AD (Would one address a Patriarch as "most excellent?"). Acts uses the phrase "most excellent" to address a Roman official named Felix (Felix was governor of Egypt beginning in 51 AD; he is mentioned in the writings of Justin Martyr.).

A testament written between 100 and 600 years after-the-fact would be like me trying to write the history and conquest of North America from stories my grandfather told me - think there might be some mistakes and contradictions?

So why are we surprised that the Bible has some contradictions?

Doug

Edited February 18, 2013 by Doug1029

[IamsSon]

I think you are.

Look, whether you believe in the Biblical God or not, in the current discussion we are talking about that being and, therefore, have to presume, for the purpose of the discussion, that the Biblical God is real (much like we would presume Captain Kirk and Mr. Spock are real if we were discussing their reasons/reasoning for a particular action in a movie, book or TV episode).

So, you ask, "Why don't we have free will not to worship him?"

The answer, is, obviously you can choose not to worship God, since you are doing it. So, unless you really have not realized you are capable of choosing not to "worship" God, your question is not really about your inability to withhold worship. So, what is your real question? "Why is it that I can't have eternal life if I refuse to worship God?"

So, the problem is not that you don't have free will, the problem is that you want to be able to make consequence-free decisions.

I have a birth certificate stating who my parents are, and it is not god.

Really? This is your best reply? Come, on, I know you can do better.

IamsSon

It was your analogy, see post # 412, so if it's defective, then you need to be talking with yourself about that.

Yes, it was and it served quite well for the point I was making, it just didn't stretch as far as you wanted.

Regardless of how that conversation turns out, the principle remains that whoever freely gives another entity an interest in their work can be expected to conform their conduct accordingly.

I'm not sure how this applies to God and His creation, so please explain.

I also notice that it is not God who is making this pleading, but rather you, speaking on God's behalf. I think he needs new representation. Your argument appeals to a principle of creator's rights that simply doesn't exist, and is almost as capricious, arbitrary and unwholesome as the misconduct you aspire to rationalize with it.

I know you're overawed with my logic and reasoning abilities, but I cannot take credit for the ideas I posted. I am merely paraphrasing ideas that have been around for thousands of years, and can even be found in the Bible.

That'd be great if God only threatened us with non-existence, it'd be a vast improvement and would certainly help the tortured apologetics that are attempted to explain how eternal suffering is 'good'. The idea of mortal souls seems to be a minority position within Christianity though, no?

Well, since it's not Christians who will decide how God deals with you, why does it matter what the consensus position is or isn't?

I'm certainly not, I'm quite clear on the difference, thank you. I'm just noting how 'free' this decision really is. A woman in the more backwards Middle East countries is 'free' to drive and dress how'd they'd like under the exact same reasoning, for some very narrow definitions of 'free'.

You most certainly seem to be. Are humans able to commit murder? Yes, it happens many times a day every day. The fact that choosing to act on that ability comes with the potential repercussion of being punished for that act does not in any way remove your ability to commit murder.

Really? What is the difference? Is it that this particular creation is...Aware?

It's that nothing would exist if the creator had not willed it, while the artist would have to acquire the canvas, paint, marble, yarn, clay, wires, or whatever he would use for his work.

How many times have I heard from the Podium of the Baptist, on Father's Day, how much God loves us...how Jesus cried out Father, why have you forsaken me...and the name Father was actually Abba which meant Daddy...so, Jesus was crying out for Daddy...(enough times to have eventually made a choice between not going and going with a barf bag). And then all of the deep hearted longings for us to be good fathers and how if you aren't a Christian you aren't raising your children correctly. The whole point of my point is that if the Creator isn't a role model...then there isn't a role model...and killing babies for any reason is not something I or you would really support...but Bible stories take on a surrealistic realism that makes it ok somehow. It wasn't okay...it isn't okay...but the difference really is that, I don't believe a word of it! Not one word of it! It isn't possible for you to 'not believe' any word of anything...that is because you are 'in the box' and and I am not. Just saying.

For something you claim not to believe a word of, you sure seem to be incensed by it. I guess you've lived a much more pampered life than I have, because I have no trouble believing it. Is it sad? Gruesome? Heart-wrenching? Yes, it is. Really, the only difference between your perspective and mine is that I accept that as creator and only giver of life, God can do with His creation as He sees fit to accomplish His will. Edited February 18, 2013 by IamsSon

[eight bits]

IamsSon

Yes, it was and it served quite well for the point I was making, it just didn't stretch as far as you wanted.

It did not serve at all. Your statement,

If you created a work of art, and then decided to destroy it, you would have every right to do so, as long as it was still under your ownership.

was untruthful.

I'm not sure how this applies to God and His creation, so please explain.

Please see my post #422, third paragraph.

I know you're overawed with my logic and reasoning abilities, but I cannot take credit for the ideas I posted. I am merely paraphrasing ideas that have been around for thousands of years, and can even be found in the Bible.

I didn't comment on the originality of your statement, only its inadequacy as a justification.

[+Liquid Gardens]

Well, since it's not Christians who will decide how God deals with you, why does it matter what the consensus position is or isn't?

The consensus position assists us in determining whether or not I truly die when I die or whether I continue on living in some manner of torment for not believing in your God, and as I noted I think the answer to that has very significant implications on the character of God. If you believe we just die, I think it's fair to note that interpretation is a minority position. And why do we have positions to begin with? Because the supposed word of the supposed God as represented in the Bible is unclear on the question, as it is on many things. Do you find the idea of mortal souls utterly unsupportable by the Bible? Do you find the idea of eternal torment of some degree after death utterly unsupportable by the Bible?

You most certainly seem to be. Are humans able to commit murder? Yes, it happens many times a day every day. The fact that choosing to act on that ability comes with the potential repercussion of being punished for that act does not in any way remove your ability to commit murder.

If we must get all pedantic, do you feel that 'freedom' is a binary value, you either have it or you don't? You are just as free to go to your mailbox as you are to break in and rob your neighbor's house? If someone robs you at gunpoint and threatens your money or your life, that's the word you'd choose, 'free', you were free to not give him your money? To ask a question that starts with the phrase "How free were you to...x" is a meaningless construction?

God can do with His creation as He sees fit to accomplish His will.

I'd argue that he cannot do anything he wants to his creation and still be considered 'good'. Depending on what you think he does with non-saved people after he dies, he may already have lost his claim on that adjective actually.

[GoldenWolf]

I'll go back to my original questions. Have you received the grace to follow Jesus? If the answer is no how fair is your opinion? Free will includes the right to not worship Him but it doesn't make you an enemy of the Lord unless you call yourself an "enemy" of Jesus Christ. I believe God will not place that label because of free will. Ask yourself, who started the war? It's up to God how He will treat His "enemies". The Bible has examples. All is fair in love and war. Have you labeled yourself an "enemy" of God?

He's supposed to love his enemies. I don't like him because he is a remorseless narcissistic madman, he has condemned the whole world through his pettiness. He makes Hitler himself look like a little hitler, he makes Vlad the Impaler look like mother theresa.

The horrors I have endured through my life he has no reason to expect praise from me.

You would think "god" would have more important people to judge and condemn, like rapists, murderers, extortionists than someone who doesn't worship him. He would have more important things to do like feeding all the starving people in the world.

Edited February 19, 2013 by HavocWing

[shrooma]

''It has served us well, this myth of christ''

-Pope Leo X

(1475-1521)

[+Paranoid Android]

''It has served us well, this myth of christ''

-Pope Leo X

(1475-1521)

Ah yes, Pope Leo's FICTIONAL quote, passed off as fact on the internet. You know that the first time we see this quote is in a work of satire. It's like watching "Yes, Prime Minister!" and attributing what is said in that tv-series to David Cameron, Gordon Brown, or Tony Blair or any of the other PM's who have served.

[+Paranoid Android]

You would think "god" would have more important people to judge and condemn, like rapists, murderers, extortionists than someone who doesn't worship him. He would have more important things to do like feeding all the starving people in the world.

1- So you believe that some people like rapists, murderers, extortionists, etc, do deserve God's punishment if God exists. So you agree in principle that our actions (if God exists) should lead to condemnation in ome situations. I wonder, what is your criteria for being "good enough" to avoid this condemnation.

2- re: starving people in our world - we have enough food here in the Western countries to feed everyone in the whole world, including the starving people in the Third World. Blame humankind's selfishness for not willing to put the required money into shipping this food where it is needed. Blame the greed of the First World nations who want to hoard the food which spoils and simply gets thrown out anyway. Look at human action before going and demanding that if God exists it should be the one to food the starving. Why should God do for us what we could do for ourselves? Isn't that just teaching further irresponsibility on our part? We in the west can hoard food and get fat off all the excesses of our life, and God will simply nod and shrug and provide MORE food than he already has, in order to feed a group of people the First World seems to care little about.

~ Regards,

[hellig heilige]

He's supposed to love his enemies.

Why would Jesus' "enemies" want His love? Who did the initial labeling? You didn't get what I wrote. Read my previous post carefully. Jesus' salvation is always available.

The horrors I have endured through my life he has no reason to expect praise from me.

It's the nature of living in this world. You have your free will dont you? Do you feel you're the only one suffering? Did Jesus directly cause your horrors? You always have the choice to turn things around and call on Jesus. Isn't it time to ask for a deeper answer to enter your mind?

Come to me, all you that labor and are heavy laden, and I will give you rest. Matthew 11:28

[Whatsinausername]

This may be worth a look, also, here's the link mentioned http://www.kingdavid...5d-24359c72639b

[media=]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1h0AIN_tAYs[/media]

Edited February 19, 2013 by Whatsinausername

[+Liquid Gardens]

1- So you believe that some people like rapists, murderers, extortionists, etc, do deserve God's punishment if God exists. So you agree in principle that our actions (if God exists) should lead to condemnation in ome situations. I wonder, what is your criteria for being "good enough" to avoid this condemnation.

How about something more in line with the morality that he has supposedly written into the heart of everyone, including atheists? Eternal suffering, punishing people for not believing the correct ideas, the Amalekites, purposeful plagues, why does my god-given morality give off all the alarms at these actions? Because they have absolutely no correlation to anything we call 'good' in this reality, most of those we clearly and correctly call evil, or at best apathetic. It's odd that God would behave in ways that are the exact opposite of what we call good under any other circumstances. I would guess you would have no problem terming these actions as, at the least. 'not good' if it was Satan or a God from another mythos committing them.

[GoldenWolf]

1- So you believe that some people like rapists, murderers, extortionists, etc, do deserve God's punishment if God exists. So you agree in principle that our actions (if God exists) should lead to condemnation in ome situations. I wonder, what is your criteria for being "good enough" to avoid this condemnation.

2- re: starving people in our world - we have enough food here in the Western countries to feed everyone in the whole world, including the starving people in the Third World. Blame humankind's selfishness for not willing to put the required money into shipping this food where it is needed. Blame the greed of the First World nations who want to hoard the food which spoils and simply gets thrown out anyway. Look at human action before going and demanding that if God exists it should be the one to food the starving. Why should God do for us what we could do for ourselves? Isn't that just teaching further irresponsibility on our part? We in the west can hoard food and get fat off all the excesses of our life, and God will simply nod and shrug and provide MORE food than he already has, in order to feed a group of people the First World seems to care little about.

~ Regards,

Do you consider non-believers to more evil than rapists, murderers and extortionists? Do you consider condemning non-believers to be more important than feeding the starving?