Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9
Bling

Contradictions in the bible

592 posts in this topic

No means no.

The reasons why I have always hated him throughout my life (besides the unrelenting pain of his so called love) summed up in one page:

http://dwindlinginun...not-fan-of.html

Love is not supposed to hurt. I seriously question your understanding (and all of the religious people on earth) of love.

Hi HavocWing,

Most people still see Jesus Christ in the past tense. Humans have a tendency to put a god in a box and put it away in some dark corner until "it" is needed. Also keep in mind that Jesus was on a mission, as regards to that website link.

"Understand what power is, understand what glory is. If you knew all that I knew, my poor Jerusalem,

you'd see the truth, but you close your eyes. While you live, your troubles are many..." JESUS CHRIST SUPERSTAR

Love doesn't hurt when the "mind" is shut and only "awareness" is present. Human love is complicated by "mind." The "mind" is very dubious, it's the slayer of the soul. It's filled with unnecessary ideas, especially in this day and age; there are too many diversions. The immature free will resides in the "mind." In fact, Jesus' love, an unconditional love (from a divine being), is all absorbing, and through grace alone that one is able to want to leave it.

Question your beliefs. Seek the resurrrected, "transformed" Jesus Christ -- directly. Find out what this love that I'm sharing with you is all about. It will change your life, I guarantee it.

Peace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Copa

I have complete confidence that you can imagine things that cannot be.

You give me too much credit :yes:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But joc, so far you have not shown any actual contradictions, the supposed contradictions you have so far seem to have more to do with what people who rarely read the Bible "believe" is in the Bible than what is actually written there. One of the big arguments seems to be with the idea of "omni-benevolence," meaning that God is all-good and wants nothing more than to be everyone's genie with unending wishes, and as I pointed out in an earlier post, that idea does not match what we actually find in the Bible. What we do find in the Bible is that God is an eternal being, that God The Son, Jesus, told His followers that in this world they could expect to have hardships (John 16:33), and we also see God saying that He will do what He needs to do and we see that in the end, those who trusted Him will live in eternity in an Earth that is perfect and in perfect communion with Him. So, God's benevolence can't be separated from eternity, and the trials and tribulations that humanity experiences in this world are part of that benevolence. This idea of God's omni-benevolence meaning that He wants to be everyone's omnipotent slave has ZERO Biblical support. So, the contradiction exists in people's perceptions, not in the Bible.

I agree with everything you said above. I am not one of those who haven't read the Bible...I've read it...I've studied it. In hind sight, I really think that my perception of contradictions are more about the church than with the Bible itself. But that is probably a whole different thread. I don't believe the Bible is the word of God. I believe it is the word of many different men with many different agendas. But...that too is another thread. So, I'll just leave you be then and let you do what you do within the context of the thread as it is. :yes:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I realise you are. However, I'm confused by the fact that your statement is contradictory in nature when you seem to uphold it's not and that puzzles me.

Likewise I'm confused how you seem to not understand it. Guess we're both stuck then, so no point going further.

Such 'training' in action is possible, but inside our head? That's less simple, especially since we really have no control over what we think and feel.

I disagree. I think with careful application of training we can teach ourselves to think a different way. To react in our minds in a different way than we did in the past.

Obviously. I think that christian teaching on this has resulted in a real danger. The focus on sex has been that it should be in marriage, but without a focus on it being consentual. Marital rape happened for a long time because of that teaching, because sex was about marriage not conent and it was a woman's 'duty' to have sex and they shouldn't say no to their husband.

And that's all down to the rather backward focus on sex. (Which is pretty much all I'll say but I feel that's something that needs to be said.)

Fair enough, we've both said our piece.

Oh, so I'm not allowed to change points am I? I guess I should just agree with you and keep my mouth shut then.

Yes, I do know that women were given 'new rights' in the religion And yes, that was an impovement at the time. However, two parts of teaching at the time ended up having lasting consequences for womens rights. The one was about women talking in church which was because of those new rights of being put together with men. Now, I understand why it was put in. I've read what you've said before that it was about women asking questions and being disruptive. But because it was a rule specifically targetting women, it became expanded on very easily in later on. If the rule had been gender neutal and general, it couldn't have been abused. The second is about women having a senor role in the church. Which again makes sense for a similar reason at the time, but again, it's been hijacked and applied elsewhere to.

Now you can say that because we have the benefit of hindsight, we can see those obvious problems and how they've been abused. Now that would be fair enough if the bible was treated like any book written by men (because hey, you're right, those men wouldn't necessarily realise how thoe things would be abused). However, the bible isn't that is it? It has the claim that god (and onmipotent/all seeing/all knowing being) has a hand in it.o why would god let something in thta would be abused by so many so easily? (The same could be said for other parts that have been used in a similar way too.)

Why write in a gender-neutral language when the issue being dealt with by the letters was gender specific? Just because humans corrupted the word of God to bring oppression to women is not the fault of the BIble. It is the fault of humanity. That's all I can really say. I don't blame God because mankind corrupted his word for their purposes. I blame mankind for that.

First off, we are all human and we all have free will. We all have our own lives and should be able to our thing. Here are some examples of things that we choose: what classes we take, what job we do, what kind of car we drive, what we have for lunch. Now these are just a few and these are things we can and do choose for ourselves. Correct me if I'm wrong, but such decissions aren't covered in the bible are they? You have to (by necessaity) bmake choices for yourself. Now yes, some do have consequences, but many are fairly innocent. Now labelling choosing to go 'our way' as bad seems... well, bad because we have to go our way. We have to make decisions and think for ourselves, because the bible isn't a self-help guide that has answers for every decision we make in our lives.

And in and of themselves, many of those things (what classes we take, what job we do, what kind of car we drive, what we have for lunch) aren't necessarily sinful. But sometimes the action we take is in direct opposition to what God wants - should I buy a new and completely unnecessary second $100,000 car, or should I use that money to serve God's ministry? That's not to say that a second car may be sinful, I'm saying that if money is devoted to yourself alone with complete disregard to God, then it is sinful, for God wants us to be generous and kind (I'm not talking about paying money to a church, either - it may be that, but it may be through charity work or such). Think to the example that I gave as a prime example - travelling 50km/h in a 40 zone - most people don't think anything wrong with that. At least, whenever I drive through any speed zone, there's almost ALWAYS several people overtaking our car which is doing the speed limit.

Children make mistakes and they do stuff like that all the time. My mum works at a playgroup with kids that age and younger and sometimes I help out there at events like parties. Every day one kid or another does something of that nature but they are kids. That's what they do. They're not fully developed emotionally/psychologically or in any other way you'd want to put it and yes, they make mistakes but it's through those mistakes that they learn.

The problem (and I know I've said this before) is that the bible lists so many things as being 'wrong' that it is impossible ot do them all. You're right, we are human and yes we make mistakes. But, like kids, everyone makes me mistakes, To quote The Simpsons 'Everyone makes mistakes, that's why they put erasers on the end of pencils'.

Exactly, children make mistakes. At some point in their cognitive development they choose to willingly do something that goes against God. At that point, they have sinned. It may be just a "mistake" but it's also a conscious decision to act for their own needs and against God's needs. And the older we get, the more we do it. No one is with excuse. I don't see that as a problem.

You see, the problem I have with the 'harsh penalty' is what it's for. Is it reserved for murderers, rapists, pedophiles, genocidal dictators? Nope. Anyone that's anger for a nano second gets that punishment. Anyone that disbelieves in god gets that piunishment. The list goes on and it rapidly because absolutely absurd.

The zero tolerence policy and what it covers, sounds completely like it comes from the mind of a genocidal madman. Yet no. It's out of 'love'.

I've heard the god/person relationship compared to a parent/child one. If a parent treated their kid (zero tolerance, anything labelled a sin getting a punishment/expusion from the family) you would say without doubt or hesitation that said paret was an unfit one and shouldn't have kids in the first place. You certainly wouldn't be encouraging the kid to try and form an obsessive need to please their parent.

The thing is, while one sin is enough to condemn us, we don't only commit one sin, we sin repeatedly. We don't have an excuse and say "oh, I only got angry for a nano-second" because undoubtedly you have sinned far more significantly than that.

Zero tolerance is God's response to the seriousness of sin. But to use the parent/child analogy, for your extension of the logic to apply, God would have to react immediately - you're angry for a nano-second, he smites you down in righteous retribution. That's not what happens though. We have a lifetime of sins to work through (and true, some lifetimes are longer than others), and God has a method for you to avoid the punishment that you can accept any time. All you need do is ask.

No. My comment can be generalised differently than that.

Christians have a reward for doing good. Also they have a command to do good. Now, if a christian does good, they have an incentive to do good (heaven) and they have a command to do good. That means they have two drives to do good (and you could add fear to that too).

Now you've assumed I've said all christians do good for one reason of the other, which I've to said. I've just said that a christian has those two things in play. That doesn't mean either impact on the good a christian does (indeed it could even happen that they influence the person subcnciously).

Now on the flipside an atheist doesn't do good deeds because of heaven or a command from god. They don't have those two things in play. What puzzles me is that, all things considered, a christian (who has incentives to do good) doing a good deed is better thought of than the person that has no such incentive.

What do you mean "better thought of"? A good deed done by an atheist and a good deed done by a Christian are both good deeds. The only difference between the two (from a Christian perspective) is that a Christian has had their penalty of sin paid for.

Fine The trouble I have is that if i were any other situation labelling any form of genocide/ethnic cleansing as necessary would be considered as a completely immoral stance.

Well, the fact is that this is not "any other situation".
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with everything you said above. I am not one of those who haven't read the Bible...I've read it...I've studied it. In hind sight, I really think that my perception of contradictions are more about the church than with the Bible itself. But that is probably a whole different thread. I don't believe the Bible is the word of God. I believe it is the word of many different men with many different agendas. But...that too is another thread. So, I'll just leave you be then and let you do what you do within the context of the thread as it is. :yes:

Thank you, Sir.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Love is not supposed to hurt.

Are you certain of this? I certainly think you're wrong. Someone I knew was telling me about their child's teething problems. The kid was shuffling around the house crying all the time because the new teeth were coming through. Then one day the kid found something that helped the pain. It was a cold, while bar, just high enough for the child to reach. The kid sucked on it, and the coolness helped her whole mouth. But then her nasty and evil parents picked her up and told her "no". They wouldn't let her suck on this thing that helped her pain. Couldn't her parents see that she was suffering? But the parents knew something that the child didn't - sucking on that white, cool bar was unsafe. Toilet bowls have germs. The child couldn't understand it, all they could see was that their parents were causing her pain when they could bring relief.

In this instance, love did hurt!

~ Regards, PA

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Are you certain of this? I certainly think you're wrong. Someone I knew was telling me about their child's teething problems. The kid was shuffling around the house crying all the time because the new teeth were coming through. Then one day the kid found something that helped the pain. It was a cold, while bar, just high enough for the child to reach. The kid sucked on it, and the coolness helped her whole mouth. But then her nasty and evil parents picked her up and told her "no". They wouldn't let her suck on this thing that helped her pain. Couldn't her parents see that she was suffering? But the parents knew something that the child didn't - sucking on that white, cool bar was unsafe. Toilet bowls have germs. The child couldn't understand it, all they could see was that their parents were causing her pain when they could bring relief.

In this instance, love did hurt!

~ Regards, PA

You know what I meant, that was a poor analogy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You know what I meant, that was a poor analogy.

No, I didn't know what you meant. Perhaps you can explain it further, because I can conceive of several instances where love can and does hurt (and not in the "oh, you can't leave me, I love you and would die without you" kind of hurt) Edited by Paranoid Android

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I didn't know what you meant. Perhaps you can explain it further, because I can conceive of several instances where love can and does hurt (and not in the "oh, you can't leave me, I love you and would die without you" kind of hurt)

I would like to point out the story I related earlier in the thread about having to hold my son down so he could be vaccinated. I did that out of love, but, I can tell you my son experienced quite a bit of pain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I didn't know what you meant. Perhaps you can explain it further, because I can conceive of several instances where love can and does hurt (and not in the "oh, you can't leave me, I love you and would die without you" kind of hurt)

Like god commanding abraham to sacrifice his son.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Like god commanding abraham to sacrifice his son.

That's an example, not a principle. You stated a principle - love is not supposed to hurt. I shared examples where that is indeed the case, so your principle is either faulty (love can hurt) or you had something different in mind (which requires a clarification of the principle). Stating an example of where a character did x action cannot prove the principle you stated since it's already been disproven unless clarification can be given!

That said, for the sake of comprehensiveness, you are right that God told Abraham to sacrifice his son. However, if you go back a few chapters, you also have evidence of God keeping his promise to Abraham that he would give birth to a child (this while his wife was barren and elderly - a double-whammy against the physical possibility of childbirth). God then gives Abraham another promise - that Isaac (the son he is to sacrifice) will grow up to be the one whom God counts Abraham's descendants. This promise was given after God had already kept his promise about Sarah's childbirth, so Abraham knew God would keep his word. So when Abraham was asked to sacrifice his son, Abraham had no worries in doing so. He wasn't afraid of losing Isaac because he knew God would keep his promise to make Isaac into a great nation. God had essentially given Isaac a DPG (Divine Protection Guarantee, my own invention that term is).

So Abraham was not afraid of losing his son, Abraham knew Isaac was safe. So in this sense, I am uncertain how this example proved your principle that "love is not supposed to hurt". But, as I've said, you still haven't explained the principle clearly, since I can think of several times where love can and does hurt.

~ Regards, PA

Edited by Paranoid Android
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PA

you are right that God told Abraham to sacrifice his son. However, if you go back a few chapters, you also have evidence of God keeping his promise to Abraham that he would give birth to a child (this while his wife was barren and elderly - a double-whammy against the physical possibility of childbirth). God then gives Abraham another promise - that Isaac (the son he is to sacrifice) will grow up to be the one whom God counts Abraham's descendants.

So, there you have it, a contradiction in the Bible: God says one thing, and then a few pages later, God says something else. A few pages later still, God says a third thing, and we're back to the first thing being in force again.

That all of that is a contradction is a fact. And how should we discuss the contradiciton? Well, it can be discussed as a literary choice, and we see the whole thing as a parable, except with proper names, teaching the lesson that God doesn't like human sacrifice, but does like the sacrifice of other sentient beings.

So, yes, the attempted murder of Isaac has elements which contradict the larger narrative of which it is a part (the fact of contradiction never goes away). But if it were in fact simply a parable with proper names, then it can be read as the lesson it is under this assumption, rather than reading it as history. Notice that we never reach the question of divine inspiration, because there is no Biblical foundation for denying God the prerogative to inspire parables.

A different approach to analysis, still "literary," but now premised upon the intent is to tell real events, wonders why Abraham, supposedly a real character in a real situation in this analysis, doesn't remark on the contradiction. He's been promised something, he has mutilated his own penis (no minor operation for an adult man, BTW) and those of others in consideration of the promise, and now the promise is, to all appearances, rescinded. And not a peep out of Abraham.

I think it is a worse comment on those who would aspire to follow this God: that not only do they appluaud attempted child-murder on his say-so, they also would do so without protest. It is impossible to read this incident as a real report and not feel that Abraham has succumbed to a severe inability to apply his rational faculties to what is going on around him, and he has thereby become an immediate danger to himself and others. In American terms, he is "certifiable," meaning that he could be involuntarily confined to receive emergency custodial care and mental health services.

And then, as a third thing, there is the familiar counterapologetic analysis, which is directed to the character of God, rather than of Abraham. This incident easily exceeds the callous indifference one would expect when one species interferes in the affairs of another species. It is how human beings treat lab rats.

I am not eager to rehash with you the merits of your reading, which we have already done to no great effect on either side. What I do point out is that your reading is unresponsive to any of the analyses of the contradiction that exists regardless of analysis.

If it is a parable anyway, then no further explanation is needed. If yours is "the correct reading," then Abraham's failure to comment upon the contradiction compounds an already troubling willingness to kill an innocent for no reason except the voice in his head told him to do it. And, of course, if the "usual" counterapologetic reading is being discussed, that God is a player, not a lover, of humankind, then God's supposed giving, taking back, and then giving again is no rebuttal at all, but rather a confirmation and an ampilification of the web-counterapologists' view.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why write in a gender-neutral language when the issue being dealt with by the letters was gender specific? Just because humans corrupted the word of God to bring oppression to women is not the fault of the BIble. It is the fault of humanity. That's all I can really say. I don't blame God because mankind corrupted his word for their purposes. I blame mankind for that.

Because god is supposedly part writer. All would have taken is to change 'not letting women speak' to 'not letting anyone speak' and bam! an excuse to keep women down is gone. Because it was targeted at one group, it was used (and for a shamefully long time I might add) against said group of people. Again the problem is that god is meant to be co-author and he let something slip in that could be misued so easily.

And in and of themselves, many of those things (what classes we take, what job we do, what kind of car we drive, what we have for lunch) aren't necessarily sinful. But sometimes the action we take is in direct opposition to what God wants - should I buy a new and completely unnecessary second $100,000 car, or should I use that money to serve God's ministry? That's not to say that a second car may be sinful, I'm saying that if money is devoted to yourself alone with complete disregard to God, then it is sinful, for God wants us to be generous and kind (I'm not talking about paying money to a church, either - it may be that, but it may be through charity work or such). Think to the example that I gave as a prime example - travelling 50km/h in a 40 zone - most people don't think anything wrong with that. At least, whenever I drive through any speed zone, there's almost ALWAYS several people overtaking our car which is doing the speed limit.

The problem with that is you could use that logic to apply to anything which drags you down a slippery slope. Why buy anything when that money could go elsewhere? Then (by default) buying just about anything because a sin. The whole thing rapidly becomes ridiculous and absurd.

Now I'm not saying doing things for others is a bad thing at all, but sometimes you have to do things for you as a person or you're no good to anybody. I see no point in labelling doing things for you as a sin in and of themselves. ie: You could do charity work 16 hours a day with no breaks for 7 days a week. Now if you do that for too long, youd burn out and be no good to anyone so you have to take time and do things for you.

Well, I'm no expert on driving or cars or anything so I cna't feel confident to comment too much on that example. I do know some people overtake others and, yes, some go over the speed limit and think nothing of it. It may be a cultural thing or because you're in a more urban area, because here it doesn't really happen that often as far as I'm aware.

Exactly, children make mistakes. At some point in their cognitive development they choose to willingly do something that goes against God. At that point, they have sinned. It may be just a "mistake" but it's also a conscious decision to act for their own needs and against God's needs. And the older we get, the more we do it. No one is with excuse. I don't see that as a problem.

No. They don't 'choose to go against god'. I highly doubt many children are even away of god in any real sense, let although making such a choice.

I see it as a very big problem because it's punishing humans for being human.

Let's say you have a bird. The older it gets, the more it flies because it's in it's nature to do so. Now would it make sense to punish that bird for flying? No it wouldn't. The bird needs to fly to get around, to feed itself and it's young, to escape from predators.

Punishing humans for being human for their humanity makes as much sense as punishing a bird for flying, or a fish swimming. Yet not only do you accept it, you don' see it as a problem.

The thing is, while one sin is enough to condemn us, we don't only commit one sin, we sin repeatedly. We don't have an excuse and say "oh, I only got angry for a nano-second" because undoubtedly you have sinned far more significantly than that.

Zero tolerance is God's response to the seriousness of sin. But to use the parent/child analogy, for your extension of the logic to apply, God would have to react immediately - you're angry for a nano-second, he smites you down in righteous retribution. That's not what happens though. We have a lifetime of sins to work through (and true, some lifetimes are longer than others), and God has a method for you to avoid the punishment that you can accept any time. All you need do is ask.

Have you ever considered that, looking at the list of sins, god is just a little too touchy? I mean come on. The sheer volume and number of things labelled as a sin seems patterned especially so that (no matter what we do) we're all guilty.

It's a situation where the house always wins and everyone else gets screwed over.

And god's method of avoiding the punishment is becoming a slave to religion instead. Doesn't sound worth it.

It sounds like having a debt to pay off but instead of being allowed simply to pay it off, you're forced to do whatever the person you owe wants indefinitely.

What do you mean "better thought of"? A good deed done by an atheist and a good deed done by a Christian are both good deeds. The only difference between the two (from a Christian perspective) is that a Christian has had their penalty of sin paid for.

God things absolutely nothing of any good done by an atheist. All that matters to god is that theyre an atheist and that's worthy of death. That sounds like being better thought of to me.

Well, the fact is that this is not "any other situation".

That sounds like an excuse. And genocide/ethnic cleansing is immoral. Doesn't matter if it's done by a psychotic dictator or your god. God doing it doesn't instantly make it right/ok/necessary. It's still mass murder of men, women and children. But hey, you excuse him doing it to sinners so I'm not terribly surprised. Just disappointed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PA

So, there you have it, a contradiction in the Bible: God says one thing, and then a few pages later, God says something else. A few pages later still, God says a third thing, and we're back to the first thing being in force again.

That all of that is a contradction is a fact. And how should we discuss the contradiciton? Well, it can be discussed as a literary choice, and we see the whole thing as a parable, except with proper names, teaching the lesson that God doesn't like human sacrifice, but does like the sacrifice of other sentient beings.

So, yes, the attempted murder of Isaac has elements which contradict the larger narrative of which it is a part (the fact of contradiction never goes away). But if it were in fact simply a parable with proper names, then it can be read as the lesson it is under this assumption, rather than reading it as history. Notice that we never reach the question of divine inspiration, because there is no Biblical foundation for denying God the prerogative to inspire parables.

A different approach to analysis, still "literary," but now premised upon the intent is to tell real events, wonders why Abraham, supposedly a real character in a real situation in this analysis, doesn't remark on the contradiction. He's been promised something, he has mutilated his own penis (no minor operation for an adult man, BTW) and those of others in consideration of the promise, and now the promise is, to all appearances, rescinded. And not a peep out of Abraham.

I think it is a worse comment on those who would aspire to follow this God: that not only do they appluaud attempted child-murder on his say-so, they also would do so without protest. It is impossible to read this incident as a real report and not feel that Abraham has succumbed to a severe inability to apply his rational faculties to what is going on around him, and he has thereby become an immediate danger to himself and others. In American terms, he is "certifiable," meaning that he could be involuntarily confined to receive emergency custodial care and mental health services.

And then, as a third thing, there is the familiar counterapologetic analysis, which is directed to the character of God, rather than of Abraham. This incident easily exceeds the callous indifference one would expect when one species interferes in the affairs of another species. It is how human beings treat lab rats.

I am not eager to rehash with you the merits of your reading, which we have already done to no great effect on either side. What I do point out is that your reading is unresponsive to any of the analyses of the contradiction that exists regardless of analysis.

If it is a parable anyway, then no further explanation is needed. If yours is "the correct reading," then Abraham's failure to comment upon the contradiction compounds an already troubling willingness to kill an innocent for no reason except the voice in his head told him to do it. And, of course, if the "usual" counterapologetic reading is being discussed, that God is a player, not a lover, of humankind, then God's supposed giving, taking back, and then giving again is no rebuttal at all, but rather a confirmation and an ampilification of the web-counterapologists' view.

I honestly don't understand what you are pointing out. The fact is that Isaac was given a DPG (read last post for meaning), thus anything else that is said is meaningless. Certainly I don't understand how this is being used to combat the comment made by HavocWing that somehow his statement that "Love is not supposed to hurt". This comment has yet to be proven true, not by you, not by anyone.
2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Because god is supposedly part writer. All would have taken is to change 'not letting women speak' to 'not letting anyone speak' and bam! an excuse to keep women down is gone. Because it was targeted at one group, it was used (and for a shamefully long time I might add) against said group of people. Again the problem is that god is meant to be co-author and he let something slip in that could be misued so easily.

And man is also part-writer. You have to remember (and this is a MUST) that every text has its own audience and context to consider. I'll repeat what I said, I see no reason why the earthly authors must needs to make it gender neutral when the issue in the church was gender specific. You apparently feel otherwise, just don't expect me to agree.

The problem with that is you could use that logic to apply to anything which drags you down a slippery slope. Why buy anything when that money could go elsewhere? Then (by default) buying just about anything because a sin. The whole thing rapidly becomes ridiculous and absurd.

Now I'm not saying doing things for others is a bad thing at all, but sometimes you have to do things for you as a person or you're no good to anybody. I see no point in labelling doing things for you as a sin in and of themselves. ie: You could do charity work 16 hours a day with no breaks for 7 days a week. Now if you do that for too long, youd burn out and be no good to anyone so you have to take time and do things for you.

Well, I'm no expert on driving or cars or anything so I cna't feel confident to comment too much on that example. I do know some people overtake others and, yes, some go over the speed limit and think nothing of it. It may be a cultural thing or because you're in a more urban area, because here it doesn't really happen that often as far as I'm aware.

The logic was inclusive, not exclusive. I was making suggestions not giving dogmatic ideas for you to follow. Every person must act according to their heart, and every Christian acts with their heart and with God in mind. Does buying a second car qualify as a "sinful act"? It depends on the motives of the person buying! Only God can decide. I'm not offering absolutes, I'm offering ideas. Everything that Christian adults do should revolve around God, if they can fit a second car into that and still remain faithful, then so be it, God will decide. If they are being selfish and not giving back to God what is God's, then also - so be it.

No. They don't 'choose to go against god'. I highly doubt many children are even away of god in any real sense, let although making such a choice.

Hence the reason I brought up the "Age of Accountability". I don't hold to a specific age (7 years, 8 years, whatever), but at some point children do willingly turn against what is right and willingly do what is wrong. Your only argument against this is to say it's part of human nature, and that really supports my argument....

I see it as a very big problem because it's punishing humans for being human.

Let's say you have a bird. The older it gets, the more it flies because it's in it's nature to do so. Now would it make sense to punish that bird for flying? No it wouldn't. The bird needs to fly to get around, to feed itself and it's young, to escape from predators.

Punishing humans for being human for their humanity makes as much sense as punishing a bird for flying, or a fish swimming. Yet not only do you accept it, you don' see it as a problem.

You still don't understand sin....

Have you ever considered that, looking at the list of sins, god is just a little too touchy? I mean come on. The sheer volume and number of things labelled as a sin seems patterned especially so that (no matter what we do) we're all guilty.

It's a situation where the house always wins and everyone else gets screwed over.

And god's method of avoiding the punishment is becoming a slave to religion instead. Doesn't sound worth it.

It sounds like having a debt to pay off but instead of being allowed simply to pay it off, you're forced to do whatever the person you owe wants indefinitely.

Have you ever considered that your standards of what is "acceptable" for heaven are too low?

God things absolutely nothing of any good done by an atheist. All that matters to god is that theyre an atheist and that's worthy of death. That sounds like being better thought of to me.

After all we've spoken of, if that is what you still think then I'm afraid no amount of further discussion will help. I accede the debate to you.

That sounds like an excuse. And genocide/ethnic cleansing is immoral. Doesn't matter if it's done by a psychotic dictator or your god. God doing it doesn't instantly make it right/ok/necessary. It's still mass murder of men, women and children. But hey, you excuse him doing it to sinners so I'm not terribly surprised. Just disappointed.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that this situation is very different to every other situation you are trying to compare them to.

~ Regards, PA

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And man is also part-writer. You have to remember (and this is a MUST) that every text has its own audience and context to consider. I'll repeat what I said, I see no reason why the earthly authors must needs to make it gender neutral when the issue in the church was gender specific. You apparently feel otherwise, just don't expect me to agree.

And you have to remember (and this also is a must) that this text has persisted for long after those audiences have died. It has been twisted and manipulated so many times and a text like that is just one thing that was (very easily) used in that way.

I think otherwise solely because there's meant to be a second author (god) who wants this text around for a lot longer and yet he did absolutely nothing to inculde parts to prevent the misuse.

The logic was inclusive, not exclusive. I was making suggestions not giving dogmatic ideas for you to follow. Every person must act according to their heart, and every Christian acts with their heart and with God in mind. Does buying a second car qualify as a "sinful act"? It depends on the motives of the person buying! Only God can decide. I'm not offering absolutes, I'm offering ideas. Everything that Christian adults do should revolve around God, if they can fit a second car into that and still remain faithful, then so be it, God will decide. If they are being selfish and not giving back to God what is God's, then also - so be it.

It does depend on the motives of the person you are quite right. But people do need to be able to do their own things for them (and their families) without being guilted all the time because (instead) they could have been 'giving back to god' (which is extremely vague). It just sounds like (yet anothher) system that is open to abuse and manipulation which can be especially felt amongst the vulnerable.

Hence the reason I brought up the "Age of Accountability". I don't hold to a specific age (7 years, 8 years, whatever), but at some point children do willingly turn against what is right and willingly do what is wrong. Your only argument against this is to say it's part of human nature, and that really supports my argument....

My arguement is (simply) that everyone makes mistakes in some way or another during their lifetime. Now the key thing isn't necessarily that you made the mistake (in most cases anyway) but what you do about it. Now if someone lies and then makes it up to the person the person is forgiven. That is the mature response from both of those people. However, to you there''s a third party (god) that gets offended by lie. unlike the person that was lied to, making things right doesn't change anything to god. God does not act like a mature adult, but an immature child holding a grudge.

You still don't understand sin....

Because, quite frankly, it sounds like an absolutely insane concept. It is utterly and completely absurd.

When I strated talking to you i thought the concept of sin was mad. Everything you've said just confirms it's insanity.

Have you ever considered that your standards of what is "acceptable" for heaven are too low?

Have you ever considered that your standards are too high?

After all we've spoken of, if that is what you still think then I'm afraid no amount of further discussion will help. I accede the debate to you.

It's still what I think, largely because all you've said hponestly comes off as double speak. You've not said anything to make me change my mind.

Nevertheless, the fact remains that this situation is very different to every other situation you are trying to compare them to.

~ Regards, PA

Ah yes because 'god did it'. God could make the moon fall and kill off all life on the planet and you'd still be singing his praises and excusing him, despite mass murder. But hey, it's god.

Edited by shadowhive
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PA

The fact is that Isaac was given a DPG (read last post for meaning), thus anything else that is said is meaningless.

That surely is one possible explanation of your statement,

I honestly don't understand what you are pointing out.

since you have flatly assumed that what I am pointing out is meaningless.

However, does it really need to be said that I don't find that to be persuasive rebuttal?

As you will recall, you and I disagree whether, based on the text, Isaac enjoys any guarantee that he won't die then and there. Another Jewish fellow, later in the book, at least in your version of the book, dies and lives to tell about it. At least two Jewish fellows, in fact, one of whom we have no clue whether or not he later had children.

I don't see how any Bible-believing Christian could deny that it is within God's power to allow a man to be killed, and yet later that man might yet have children of his body. Even if Jesus was held to be unique in other ways, Lazarus came back, too.

In any case, Abraham wouldn't know about Lazarus or Jesus, nor has he any basis to think that God would tell him to do something God didn't want done. This same Abraham is depicted earlier as questionning God's promise, and even bargaining with God for the safety of other kin. His failure to inquire here about how God's request squares with the fulfillment of God's earlier promise, then, is unexpected within some (like yours, but not all) interpretations of the incident. His disinterest in his son's safety is also unusual in some interpretations, even when compared with his own behavior on another occasion.

This comment has yet to be proven true, not by you, not by anyone.

I don't recall ever having addressed HavocWing's comment, not even to say whether or not I agreed with it. This would account for my not having proven it.

As my post said, my interest in the attempted murder of Isaac by his father is as an example of the topic of the thread, which is "contradictions in the Bible." I'd like to discuss the variety of ways in which those contradictions can be interpreted, without denying their presence. That you have had a discussion with another poster about some other aspect of the same incident needn't interfere with anybody else's discussion of this topical aspect of the story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And you have to remember (and this also is a must) that this text has persisted for long after those audiences have died. It has been twisted and manipulated so many times and a text like that is just one thing that was (very easily) used in that way.

I think otherwise solely because there's meant to be a second author (god) who wants this text around for a lot longer and yet he did absolutely nothing to inculde parts to prevent the misuse.

I don't think you quite understand the concept of "dual authorship" quite yet.

It does depend on the motives of the person you are quite right. But people do need to be able to do their own things for them (and their families) without being guilted all the time because (instead) they could have been 'giving back to god' (which is extremely vague). It just sounds like (yet anothher) system that is open to abuse and manipulation which can be especially felt amongst the vulnerable.

As long as God is being considered in each decision, then God is being glorified. If someone is doing something for no other reason than they want to glorify themselves (or their money/status/whatever) then that is a different question..

My arguement is (simply) that everyone makes mistakes in some way or another during their lifetime. Now the key thing isn't necessarily that you made the mistake (in most cases anyway) but what you do about it. Now if someone lies and then makes it up to the person the person is forgiven. That is the mature response from both of those people. However, to you there''s a third party (god) that gets offended by lie. unlike the person that was lied to, making things right doesn't change anything to god. God does not act like a mature adult, but an immature child holding a grudge.

You're focusing on the "one mistake" issue. While I agree that this "one mistake" is what condemns us, you are trying to avoid the fact that a lot of what we do since that point is also a sin. And sure, I get that we try to make up for what we do when we sin. But how do we make up for what we do against God? It's (relatively easy) to make up for what we do against others if we can see the trail, but what about God?

Because, quite frankly, it sounds like an absolutely insane concept. It is utterly and completely absurd.

When I strated talking to you i thought the concept of sin was mad. Everything you've said just confirms it's insanity.

Which is entirely your Right to believe and feel as such.

Have you ever considered that your standards are too high?

Yes. I have. It was interesting to say the least. And so I repeat, have ou considered that your standards are too low?

It's still what I think, largely because all you've said hponestly comes off as double speak. You've not said anything to make me change my mind.

Then so be it.

Ah yes because 'god did it'. God could make the moon fall and kill off all life on the planet and you'd still be singing his praises and excusing him, despite mass murder. But hey, it's god.

Dismiss it if you wish, I'm simply pointing out what is.
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think you quite understand the concept of "dual authorship" quite yet.

i understand it seems to mean pretty much anything you want.

As long as God is being considered in each decision, then God is being glorified. If someone is doing something for no other reason than they want to glorify themselves (or their money/status/whatever) then that is a different question.

Why should he be considered in each decision? How is (for instance) what we have for breakfast a decision that we should think about god for? Why we considered god whenever we do anything?

You're focusing on the "one mistake" issue. While I agree that this "one mistake" is what condemns us, you are trying to avoid the fact that a lot of what we do since that point is also a sin. And sure, I get that we try to make up for what we do when we sin. But how do we make up for what we do against God? It's (relatively easy) to make up for what we do against others if we can see the trail, but what about God?

I'm not avoiding that. However, when god can't get over one mistake (regardless of how minor) and then keeps being offended by just about everything we do (which is his fault alone for having an exhaustive list of things to have a problem with) it becomes rather impossible doesn't it. While we can make it up to others, we cant make anything up to god because there's always another thought/feelign/deed that he'll hate us for, so by the time you fix one he's found five more to hold against you.

Now if there was a person and they were that critical of you, would you honestly want a relationship with them? Would it be worth the time trying to deal with every issue they raised with you?

Which is entirely your Right to believe and feel as such.

It is now thankfully.

Yes. I have. It was interesting to say the least. And so I repeat, have ou considered that your standards are too low?

Hmm.

I believe everyone deserves an afterlife. Everyone, without acception. I don't think you deserve to have your soul cast into a fire for being christian (and it's a shame the same can't be said in return). While your god would gladly cast the whole human race into the fire, there's no way I could condone it or share in that bloodlust. Most people (for all their flaws) are good people and certainly wouldn't deserve the fate you condone.

I'd be reluctant to say that anyone deserved that fate.

But then again, I think our ideas of what an afterlife is differ greatly.

Dismiss it if you wish, I'm simply pointing out what is.

It comes down to this. When is mass murder not appalling? When god does it. The danger there, of course is that some people also say that when god orders it makes mass murder acceptable too. Cue all the bloodshed done in the name of god.

Edited by shadowhive
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No, I didn't know what you meant. Perhaps you can explain it further, because I can conceive of several instances where love can and does hurt (and not in the "oh, you can't leave me, I love you and would die without you" kind of hurt)

For me, I would say it is the reality of teething that hurts. I would not see this as "love" or lack of, I would see it as a reality that has a practical solution ( a teething ring to relieve the pain or call the dentist for suggestions.) Kids that young would not put that kind of thought into swappping one cold thing for another. IMO

I say this understanding that your understanding of love is different from mine, so this is really just another way to look at this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to point out the story I related earlier in the thread about having to hold my son down so he could be vaccinated. I did that out of love, but, I can tell you my son experienced quite a bit of pain.

I have 3 sons, all who got vaccinations, all who were scared of the process. I didn't hold anyone down, I was honest and expalined how it would feel (like a pinch) but I assured them it would be over quick, and that I was there I reassured them they could handle it. The interesting thing is all of my sons were astonished how well they handled their shots (turned out it wasn't so bad.) There are things in life that are not pleasant including getting shots, but we all get through it.

Now I ask you am I more loving then you as a parent? The answer is no, we just have different approaches to the reality of getting shots.

Edited by Sherapy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe anyone feels any kind of pain nowadays from a simple vaccination. Even blood draws nowadays are done with needles so thin you don't feel a thing -- not even the proverbial "pinch." Where are your clinics getting their needles from? Maybe Vietnam is more advanced?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe anyone feels any kind of pain nowadays from a simple vaccination. Even blood draws nowadays are done with needles so thin you don't feel a thing -- not even the proverbial "pinch." Where are your clinics getting their needles from? Maybe Vietnam is more advanced?

You do have a point, I am talking about 20 years ago, myself. Incidently-- to this day I do not like to have blood drawn, it's a mental thing for me ( and it includes the damn pinch) LOL.

Edited by Sherapy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't believe anyone feels any kind of pain nowadays from a simple vaccination. Even blood draws nowadays are done with needles so thin you don't feel a thing -- not even the proverbial "pinch." Where are your clinics getting their needles from? Maybe Vietnam is more advanced?

I guess you missed that I said my son is now 20 years old and this happened when he was 1. But, unless needles in Vietnam are made of cotton candy, I'm sure they still "pinch."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So, there you have it, a contradiction in the Bible: God says one thing, and then a few pages later, God says something else. A few pages later still, God says a third thing, and we're back to the first thing being in force again.

Where's the contradiction? It's a perfectly consistent narrative. I must wonder if you've even read the relevant passages.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 9

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.