What is the most fundamental contradiction in the Bible? [Archive]

JThunder

04-19-2002, 12:01 PM

Originally posted by tracer
Well, if you're including the New Testament, there are some pretty basic philosophical contradictions:
God is merciful and forgiving; yet God holds everyone accountable for the sins of Adam and Eve, for which the punishment is eternal torture.
It's only a contradiction if you assume that such forgiveness is unconditional, which it isn't. It's contingent on repentance.

Remember, in order to present a contradiction, the text must state two mutually exclusive and irresolvable terms. That is, it must simultaneously say "A" and "not A." One might ponder the exact sense in which the terms "mercy" and "forgiveness" are being used, and the implications thereof, but the theological difficulty that you described does not constitute a contradiction per se. (Additionally, one must also consider the other aspects of God's character, such as justice. One could draw any number of unwarranted conclusions by focusing on one aspect to the exclusion of the entire person.)

Additionally, the Book of Romans quite clearly dictates that all humans are sinful (verses 3:23 and 6:23), so it's overly simplistic to say that we are punished for the sins of Adam and Eve. Also, while various verses do depict Hell as a terrible, hellfire-ridden place, theologian J.P. Moreland makes a case for such imagery being symbolic. According to his view, Hell is a place of torment (http://www.gospelcom.net/lpea/firstpriority/fall2000/pf_feature_strobel.shtml), but not torture. (I'm not prepared to accept his view unconditionally, but he does make an interesting case.)

The death of God's only begotten Son, which takes away the sentence of eternal torture, is supposed to have been the supreme sacrifice; yet God's Son was only dead for 3 days, and God and his Son both knew He would only be dead for 3 days, which doesn't exactly sound like much of a "sacrifice."
Once again though, that's a theological difficulty, but it's not a contradiction per se. We should be very careful about how we use that term.

I agree that the value of such a sacrifice may not be evident, and that this is a matter which merits theological study. Such a discussion would cover an entire volume, though. For the purposes of this particular discussion, I would simply like to emphasize that it's not a contradiction in any precise sense of the word.

Newton meter

04-19-2002, 01:33 PM

Darwin's Finch, I don't think I'm competent to try to defend a biblical literalist interpretation of the fall, so I think I have to withdraw my supposition. On the other hand:

Originally posted by Darwin's Finch
Even allegorically, I don't see what is gained by the assumption that there were "others" besides Adam and Eve. Unless it is also to be assumed that all of God's creations did the same thing...which might lead one to doubt the infallibility of the Creator.
Maybe you missed the allegory. There's no assumption that there were "'others' besides Adam and Eve". There were literally no Adam and Eve. They were all "others" besides Adam and Eve.

Perhaps there was sometime (but no, not a single instance), when our cognitive capacity became such that we were able to be fully self-aware. A certain kind of moral choice became available to us at that time that was not accessable before then. And we made the wrong moral choices. There's no escaping the observation that we quite frequently make the wrong moral choices, doing harm to others.

Personally, I don't spend a lot of time worrying about our fallen nature other than to observe that fallen appears to be the default state for mankind, and we all need to do a little bit of something to rectify that.

kg m²/s²

Spoke

04-19-2002, 01:57 PM

Well, if you believe in the literal truth of the Bible, there's this one:

1. God creates day and night on the first day. (Gen. 1:3-5)
2. God creates the sun on the fourth day. (Gen. 1:16-19)

Huh?

auntie em

04-19-2002, 02:23 PM

Originally posted by spoke-
Well, if you believe in the literal truth of the Bible, there's this one:

1. God creates day and night on the first day. (Gen. 1:3-5)
2. God creates the sun on the fourth day. (Gen. 1:16-19)

Huh?

Well, maybe it was just kind of "cloudy" looking for three days, because God was busy trying His hand at various prototypes of the lightbulb.

Eventually, He was like, "Wait a second... I'm GOD, medammit, I can do better than this!" So he came up with the sun, and decided to leave the petty inventions like the lightbulb to us mere mortals. ;)

Or maybe His concept of day and night were simply "Time to be awake and doing stuff" and "Time to go to sleep".

But then He had to figure out how the people would know the difference, how we'd know when it was time to get our asses up and start milking the cows.

So then he was like, "I know! I'll make this giant bright gob in the sky..."

Oh, the possibilities are endless... :p

Polycarp

04-19-2002, 02:30 PM

Spoke, it was obviously the light of all the giant supernovas that illuminated earth on the first three days!

tracer

04-19-2002, 02:40 PM

Polycarp wrote:

BTW, Tracer, the presumption is that Jesus did not know that He'd rise from the dead in three days -- He had to take the idea on faith. Which kind of puts a different perspective on His willingness to undergo the Crucifixion, doesn't it?
Matthew 20:19, Mark 8:31, Mark 10:34, and Luke 18:33 all have Jesus telling the disciples, before He is crucified, that He is going to rise from the dead after 3 days.

Where did this "presumption" that he didn't know come from?

Darwin's Finch

04-19-2002, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by Newton meter
Maybe you missed the allegory. There's no assumption that there were "'others' besides Adam and Eve". There were literally no Adam and Eve. They were all "others" besides Adam and Eve.

I understand the point of the story: Man is sinful, and has been pretty much from the beginning. I'm simply stating that the explanation often given for Cain's wife (there were "others" besides Adam and Eve) is unsatisfactory. Even if we go for a non-literal interpretation, along with this explanation, the question will be raised as to why, if only some humans were initially disobedient toward God, are all humans necessarily sinful?

Given that, zev's explanation makes sense, but many literalists probably object to it because it introduces the taboo of incest.

Which, to me, shows just what kind of problems you can run into by adhering to strictly literal interpretations.

zev_steinhardt

04-19-2002, 02:49 PM

Originally posted by Darwin's Finch

Given that, zev's explanation makes sense, but many literalists probably object to it because it introduces the taboo of incest.

Huh? How could you possibly get around it? Of course Adam's children cohabited with their siblings. Who else was there?

Zev Steinhardt

Polycarp

04-19-2002, 02:55 PM

Precisely, Darwin's Finch. Recommended reading: Job: A Comedy of Justice, by Robert A. Heinlein -- set in a universe where the Bible is literally true -- but not the whole truth.

Or perhaps you'd enjoy the anecdote that I cadged from Madeleine L'Engle:

A conservative literalist Christian couple decided to read through the Bible together. As they got into the New Testament, they had a baby boy, and when they finished, he was about four years old. They decided to start over, to read it aloud with him. As they read the account of creation in Genesis 1, his eyes got bigger and bigger. "What did you think of that story," the mother asked, "God making everything in the world in just six days." "Wow," the boy answered, "and just think -- he did it all with just his left hand!" "Why do you think that?" his mother asked. The boy replied, "Because it says that Jesus was sitting on his right hand!"

Homebrew

04-19-2002, 03:00 PM

I'm GOD, medammit, I can do better than this!Instant Classic. Sig worthy.

Homebrew

04-19-2002, 03:24 PM

Oh yeah,

I agree with auntie em. She is very wise and stunningly beautiful.

TheeGrumpy

04-19-2002, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by Newton meter
If one believes that the bible is literally true, and one believes in the law of non-contradiction, then any contradiction in the bible is fundamental.

Or, as St. Paul put it...

2nd Timothy 3:16
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness

VS.

1st Corinthians 14:33
For God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all churches of the saints.

If you find one contradiction in the Bible, you've automatically found at least two -- since it contradicts the verse that says there are no contradictions. (Strictly speaking, "All scripture" does not refer to the Pauline Epistles, which were not included until much later.)

Mangetout

04-19-2002, 04:56 PM

I didn't see a verse that said there were no contradictions, could you point it out again?

ianzin

04-19-2002, 05:40 PM

'The Encyclopedia of Biblical Errancy' (edited by C. Dennis McKinsey, Prometheus Books, 1995) has a complete and very thoroughly researched list of Biblical contradictions. There are over 18 pages of them.

Old Testament. 2 Kings 8:26 Ahaziah is 22 when he began to reign. 2 Chron 22:2 says he was 42.

New Testament. John 5:22 says "The Father judgeth no man, but hath committed all judgement unto the Son". In John 8:15 and 12:47 Jesus says "I judge no man".

There are dozens and dozens of examples. The most fundamental? Purely a matter of taste. Someone being both 22 and 42 at the same time is pretty fundamental. But perhaps you think it doesn't carry much theological significance. Well, Jesus judging or not judging certainly does carry significance.

Here's another fairly fundamental one. Ex 20:13, "Thou shalt not kill". Ex £2:27: God tells every man to put his sword by his side and go out frm the gate... and slay every man his brother, and every man his companion, and every man his neighbour.

Take your pick...

FriendRob

04-19-2002, 07:06 PM

I would think the most fundamental contradiction is between the God of Peace and Love and the Angry God.

As ianzin pointed out, many places in the OT God demands that the Iraelites kill their neighbors, directly contradicting the 10 commandments as well as various statements of Jesus.

Another example is I Samuel 15: v.3 "No go and crush Amalek... kill man and woman, babe and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and donkey." Saul carries this out, slaughtering the babies and all, but spares the king, Agag, and some of the livestock. God gets very mad about this. Finally Saul "repents" and the prophet Samuel "then butchered Agag before Yahweh". (Quotes from NJB)

JThunder

04-19-2002, 07:35 PM

Originally posted by FriendRob
As ianzin pointed out, many places in the OT God demands that the Iraelites kill their neighbors, directly contradicting the 10 commandments as well as various statements of Jesus.
Not true. The ten commandments were not meant as a proscription against, say, capital punishment -- which WAS explicitly laid out in the Mosaic law. Nor would it have covered acts of war. This is discussed further at http://www.rationalchristianity.net/law_killing.html .

That's one of the problems with the usual "A God of love wouldn't kill" arguments. While this is purportedly a contradiction, this "contradiction" rests on the premise that a truly loving person would only act in tender and gentle ways, to the exclusion of all others. Of course, any parent should know otherwise.

In addition, I daresay that the giver of life --- especially one who is credited with omniscience -- would have greater latitude in deciding when life should be taken away. It would be wrong to assume that the Creator should have no such latitude, or that humans have the same knowledge and freedom to judge such circumstances.

TheeGrumpy

04-19-2002, 07:41 PM

Originally posted by Mangetout
I didn't see a verse that said there were no contradictions, could you point it out again?

I should've been more clear. God is not the author of confusion. Yet the Bible is confusing (and contradictory). Which means iGod is not the author of the Bible. Except that the Bible says God is the author. Which means it's confusing, which means....

Thus, I point to this as the granddaddy of Biblical contradictions, though it only works in concert with other putative contradictions.

David, God of Frogs

04-19-2002, 10:18 PM

So can God get rid of evil without undermining whatever purpose evil had in the first place?

If he can, his actions contradict his words, in which he seems to want to get rid of all evil on the face of the earth.

If he can't, that would contradict his almightiness.

Either way, it's a contradiction, and it's one of the fundamental points in the bible, not some technical detail.

furt

04-19-2002, 11:50 PM

Originally posted by TheeGrumpy
I should've been more clear. God is not the author of confusion. Yet the Bible is confusing (and contradictory). Which means iGod is not the author of the Bible.

I have a very hard time reading Chaucer.
It is confusing.
I do not wish to ask for help with the text.
ergo,
Chaucer wrote a confusing book.

JubilationTCornpone

04-20-2002, 12:16 AM

Originally posted by David, God of Frogs
So can God get rid of evil without undermining whatever purpose evil had in the first place?

If he can, his actions contradict his words, in which he seems to want to get rid of all evil on the face of the earth.

If he can't, that would contradict his almightiness.

Either way, it's a contradiction, and it's one of the fundamental points in the bible, not some technical detail.
That would be the old problem of evil (http://www.str.org/free/commentaries/apologetics/evil/bosnia.htm) objection. Such an argument adds various implicit assumptions to what the Bible says though, as discussed in various articles here (http://members.tripod.com/~vantillian/prob_of_evil.html).

The best response I've ever heard to the problem of evil was an audiotape lecture by philosopher Dr. William Lane Craig. I don't think it's available in RealAudio online; however, a similar discussion can be found here (http://www.leaderu.com/events/rz/rzforum.html).

Czarcasm

04-20-2002, 07:43 AM

Furt, what if you decided to consult more than one "authority" on Chaucer, and found that none of the "authorities" could agree with each other on even the meanings of a lot of the words used, when it was written, or who might have written all or parts of it? Would finding the authority that gave you the interpretation that most pleased you be good enough for you? If Chaucer claimed that everything he wrote were factual and you found apparent contradictions in his work, would changing the meanings of some of the words or saying that the part of the story you agreed with was real, while the part you disagreed with must be a parable or "unimportant" to the story sound intellectuallly honest to you?

Polycarp

04-20-2002, 12:28 PM

Hmmm. If I were to point out that the moon was rising over Minas Tirith one hour after sunset at the exact same time as it was setting over Edoras, only a few hundred miles north of west, on the same day, would this mean that there is no good reason to read Tolkien? Or would it simply mean that the author made one error?

Biblical contradictions simply militate against reading the entire collection as though it were sober history and cosmology.

Czarcasm, I respect your criticism. However, may I observe that if you have a pool of respected scholars who concur for the most part what Chaucer meant by most words and phrases he used, while differing on details, and off to one side a society of bizarre Medievalist-wannabes who insist that Chaucer's work reveals the secret of the Holy Grail and Arthur's Tomb, who insist on this belief despite debunkings by the scholars, would you be justified in rejecting the scholars' work because of the Chaucer-Grailists?

furt

04-20-2002, 01:17 PM

Originally posted by Czarcasm
Furt...

You're going way farther than I was, or care to. I was merely pointing out that finding a book confusing is not evidence that the fault lies with the author. It may be due to me. It may be due to the cultural and temporal distance. And it may be that what I call "confusion" is actually an effect that the author meant to create (cf. some modernist novels). That's all.

David, God of Frogs

04-20-2002, 02:58 PM

All of the counterarguments (that I read, at least) presuppose that I presuppose the existence of evil. I don't. (What I was calling evil above was in reference to what the bible calls evil.) I guess if you want to argue that evil is not an object in the bible, that would nullify my argument, but every impression I have is that the purpose of the bible is to destroy evil (or, conversly, to encourage goodness).

(Admittedly, I have this impression more from followers of Christianity than the bible itself, but the belief in evil is so prevelent, along with what I do know about the bible, that it seems like a pretty secure point)

HubZilla

04-20-2002, 04:18 PM

1 Corinthians 15:3-5

"For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance : that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, 4that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Peter, and then to the Twelve."

And then to the twelve? What happened to Judas?

Mark 16:14 "Later Jesus appeared to the Eleven as they were eating; he rebuked them for their lack of faith and their stubborn refusal to believe those who had seen him after he had risen."

Although I do give Paul a bit of latitude here, since he wrote before Mark... and probably well before the 2nd half of Mark was added in.

Mangetout

04-20-2002, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by TheeGrumpy

I should've been more clear. God is not the author of confusion. Yet the Bible is confusing (and contradictory). Which means iGod is not the author of the Bible. Except that the Bible says God is the author. Which means it's confusing, which means....

Thus, I point to this as the granddaddy of Biblical contradictions, though it only works in concert with other putative contradictions.
Hmmm, there are some problems with this one; whether or not the bible is confusing doesn't sound like something that could be objectively proven, certainly it is complex, but confusing? maybe, maybe not.
Then it doesn't say that God is the author, it says that all scripture is inspired by God, small but important difference I think; certainly anybody claiming that God actually dictated the Bible word-for-word is in trouble, but I don't think such a view is held by the majority of believers.

Now don't get me wrong, I'm not going to claim that the Bible is inerrant, I just think that the point you are making takes a little too much for granted.

JThunder

04-20-2002, 07:41 PM

Originally posted by David, God of Frogs
All of the counterarguments (that I read, at least) presuppose that I presuppose the existence of evil. I don't.
Wait a minute. Are you seriously claiming that you don't believe that evil exists in the world?

Czarcasm

04-20-2002, 09:25 PM

I disbelieve that "evil" exists as some sort of supernatural force that infects people or is carried by gene or curse.

JThunder

04-20-2002, 10:19 PM

Originally posted by Czarcasm
I disbelieve that "evil" exists as some sort of supernatural force that infects people or is carried by gene or curse.
Well, I was really hoping to hear from David, God of Frogs.

Still, let's assume that you're correct... that evil is not some supernatural infectious force. That still doesn't address the issue at hand; after all, the counterarguments that David mentioned are not contingent on such a description.

So the question remains... do we believe that evil exist? If so, then the objection to these counterarguments is invalid. And if not... well, I'd be really interested in hearing why it doesn't exist.

(FTR, I believe that Czarcasm's description of evil is most inaccurate, but that's not really relevant to the topic at hand.)

Musicat

04-20-2002, 10:31 PM

I haven't seen The (online) Skeptic's Annotated Bible mentioned yet, so I will do the honors.

List of Bible Contradictions (http://skepticsannotatedbible.com/contradictions.html)

BTW, this site has sections listing biblical verses in several categories:
Violence to women
Sex
Absurdities
Intolerance
Foul language
Cruelty
Injustice
...and more. A thoroughly despicable book, not recommended for children or other civilized beings. But that's another thread.

Czarcasm

04-20-2002, 11:22 PM

JThunder, if you could give your definition of "evil", I could tell you if I believe it exists.

JThunder

04-20-2002, 11:42 PM

Evil: That which is morally wrong.

As for investigating alleged Biblical contradictions, I've found the following web sites to be useful:

http://www.rationalchristianity.net
http://www.tektonics.org/index2.html
http://www.apocalipsis.org/difficulties.htm

Mostly, I've used the first two sources, as I think they are more thorough. The Tektonics web site can be difficult to wade through, due to the depth of its material, but I found it to be worthwhile.

Czarcasm

04-20-2002, 11:51 PM

If you believe that eating pork is morally wrong, and I believe it isn't, is it:
a. absolutely evil?
b. relatively evil?
c. a mere difference of opinion and not evil at all?

Czarcasm

04-21-2002, 12:58 AM

Let's suppose that there are absolutely evil acts, such as the killing of innocents without provocation. Whould you say that anyone who commits this act is evil? If so then it cannot be true, as the Bible asserts, that we are to try to become "God-like" in our actions, because it is recorded over and over in the Bible of his direct and indirect actions involving the murder of innocents.

continuum

04-21-2002, 01:09 AM

I think that it is important to realize that many "mistakes" in the Bible are simply translational errors. The OT was originally written in Hebrew. The NT was in Greek. Subsequently, books from both of these were canonized into one Bible, as we now know it, more or less. And, as with any translation from one language into another, some of the fundamental meanings inherent to the original language were lost. This presents a problem when examining things literally in English, or any other unoriginal language. For instance, there is a verse that states that the meek shall inherit the earth. In French, that same verse says that the debonair shall inherit it.

Also, certain errors might occur from version to version. In fact, the King James version, which might be seen by some as the most accurate, is full of translational inaccuracies. Newer versions have less of them, but, as stated above, certain language barriers still exist.

Another thing to consider is the fact that as the Bible was inspired by God the ominicient, humans, who have limited understanding, cannot be expected to comprehend the full meaning of the Bible in its entirety. Instead, it is reasonable to say that many so-called contradictions are no more than petty human misunderstandings. To augment this, I noticed that in one particular site that listed contradictions, a verse was taken entirely out of context to support a certain point. One must be careful not to do this, lest they make foolish generalizations that are really not true.

And finally, I must rest by saying that God's word is a moral foundation, not a tool to destroy evil. Our understanding of it changes every time we read it, and it is our interpretation of the Bible that makes it true or not true.

Czarcasm

04-21-2002, 01:19 AM

So either the Bible is full of contradictions, or it's full of mistakes, or it's written for some other species because we simple humans are not capable of understanding it?

Urban Ranger

04-21-2002, 05:29 AM

It seems to be one of the fundamental contradictions of the bible is this. On one hand, God declared he created evil (Isaiah 45:7, Lamentations 3:38) and used evil (Jeremiah 18:11, Ezekiel 20:25,26). On the other hand, the impression of this god is supposedly to be good. So what gives?

The defense of such bible contradictions generally rests on creative interpretations of it. Czarcasm hit it right on the head, though. The criticism of said interpretations do not rest on any established set of rules but on a desire to explain away the contradictions. Thus, various apologists and/or theologicians could have contradictions among themselves.

Furthermore, IIRC, bible scholars indicate that the bible should be taken literally unless indicated internally otherwise. For example, if the bible decribes a parable that Jesus told, it is an internal indication of not taking that section at face value. On the other hand, when the bible speaks of an account where Jesus cursed a fig tree, we need to take that as literal.

tracer

04-21-2002, 01:05 PM

Polycarp wrote:

If I were to point out that the moon was rising over Minas Tirith one hour after sunset at the exact same time as it was setting over Edoras, only a few hundred miles north of west, on the same day, would this mean that there is no good reason to read Tolkien? Or would it simply mean that the author made one error?
Well, it could mean that the moon orbits Middle Earth really really fast....

Lemur866

04-21-2002, 01:06 PM

Can we stipulate that there is a difference between collective ownership and government ownership? After all, I'm one of the collective owners of Microsoft, and I have the stock certificates to prove it. Collective <> State owned.

tracer

04-21-2002, 01:07 PM

No, wait, it couldn't. You said "at the exact same time." Hmmm ...

Aha! What if Middle Earth is really really small? Say, less than a thousand miles in circumference?

Lemur866

04-21-2002, 01:15 PM

Crap. While I stand by the above statement, it seems to be pretty irrelevant to the above discussion. Posting in the wrong thread again. Move along, nothing to see here, move along...

Darwin's Finch

04-21-2002, 01:15 PM

Originally posted by continuum
Also, certain errors might occur from version to version. In fact, the King James version, which might be seen by some as the most accurate, is full of translational inaccuracies. Newer versions have less of them, but, as stated above, certain language barriers still exist.

But isn't this God's own fault? According to the Bible, He scrambled everyone's language after the Babel Incident:
Genesis 11:6 And the LORD said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.
11:7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.
11:8 So the LORD scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.
11:9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the LORD did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the LORD scatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

One would think He might have thought things through a bit more, if He really wanted His word spread in an accurate manner.

David, God of Frogs

04-21-2002, 04:40 PM

So, we have an apparent paradox. I believe I have proven logically that God (as described in the bible) cannot exist, while the people in the links Jubilation provided, since they seem to be the main source of counterargument at the moment, also seem to have proven that God must exist. So, to resolve the paradox, we must look at the relative strengths of each argument.

My original argument asks a question (can God get rid of evil), and with either a yes or a no answer, it disproves God's existance. Possible flaws in the argument (that I can think of) are in either the yes or the no answer not disproving His existence, or in there being an answer to the question besides yes and no. It's a fairly short and concise logical progression, and as far as I can tell each step holds up.

The arguements in the links, while diverse, all assume the existence of evil and then go from there to prove that God must exist (or at least to neutralize arguements that he can't). The possible flaw I see in those arguments is in that initial assumtion. (There might be others that would allow for the existence of evil too, but we only need one to render the argument invalid).

So we have established that the assumtions of the counterargument are debatable (regardless of who eventually wins the debate), if for no other reason than the fact that we have been debating it, while there has yet to be a chink in the armor of my original assertion. So it is pointless to keep on debating the existence of evil until someone shows me any possible flaws in my original assertion. If someone manages to break my arguement down to the point where it's debatable, then the two arguements are on equal footing and we'll actually have to duke it out to see who wins. But until that happens, any arguments on the existence of evil, while interesting perhaps, aren't necessary. (and I personally have doubts that will happen, but I invite any attempts)

dalovindj

04-21-2002, 05:36 PM

What about in Deuteronomy? The bible dictates that wives who are not virgins on their wedding nights (proven by whether or not they bleed on the sheets) should be taken to the center of the town and stoned by the elders. Same for insolent sons.

Then Jesus comes along and says "Let he who is without sin throw the first stone" or some such thing. So only non-sinners can throw stones at people who have sex before marriage? I thought the elders were supposed to stone people as per tough guys demands.

The whole tone of OT vs NT is so different that it's almost like two different myths. Either way you end up with a cruel ugly god who likes to punish others for things he caused and then take credit for "saving" you, but only if you worship him like a sheep. What a dick.

DaLovin' Dj

JThunder

04-21-2002, 06:35 PM

dalovindj, can you please reproduce the specific passages to which you are referring? That way, we can examine their specific contents, in their specific contents, as any true scholar should.

Clearly, while references to "some such thing" may suffice for off-the-cuff conversation, they do not lend themselves adequately to scholarly investigation.

dalovindj

04-21-2002, 07:21 PM

Sorry, I used to have a bible - but I threw it out with the rest of the trash years ago. Know a good online place to review the passages? If so, I'll pull the line out later.

DaLovin Dj

Gr8Kat

04-21-2002, 07:22 PM

There are quite a few contradictions surrounding the details of the resurrection.

Mark:

1. Three women went on Sunday morning to "anoint" Jesus' body with spices
2. They wonder who will roll the stone away from the tomb (didn't plan ahead)
3. But the stone is already rolled away
4. An angel is sitting in the tomb, but the women don't realize he's an angel, they think he's just a young man
5. The young man tells them Jesus has risen and instructs them to tell the disciples to meet Jesus in Galilee
6. The women tell no one anything because they are too scared
7. Jesus has to reappear to Mary Magdeline, then to two other people, and finally to the Eleven before they believe he has risen, despite having listened to him for the last three years and supposedly expecting that this would come to pass

Matthew

1. Two women go to the tomb on Sunday morning
2. The tomb was supposed to have been sealed by Jewish authorities and has soldiers guard it (because evidently the authorities had more faith in Jesus' resurrection than the disciples)
3. An earthquake cannot move the stone from the tomb, but an angel of the lord does
4. He is sitting on the stone and the soldiers are terrified to be in the presence of an angel
5. The angel tells the women Jesus has risen and instructs them to tell the disciples to meet Jesus in Galilee
6. The women take off excitedly to tell the disciples
7. Jesus meets the women on the way and reiterates that the disciples are to meet him in Galilee

Luke

1. An unspecified number of women go to the tomb on Sunday morning
2. The stone is rolled away
3. The women enter the tomb but it is empty
4. Then two angels suddenly appear
5. They tell the women Jesus has risen
6. The women tell the disciples but they don't believe the women.
7. Peter checks the tomb out himself but is still clueless. Jesus appear to the Eleven in Jerusalem.

John

1. Mary Mageline goes to the tomb alone
2. The stone is rolled away
3. The tomb is empty
4. Mary goes to Simon Peter and tells him the body is gone
5. Simon Peter and another disciple (John?) race to the tomb but it is empty
6. Confused, the disciples go home.
7. Jesus appears to Mary, but she doesn't recognize him at first. A week later he appears to the Twelve.

If you were on trial, would you want these people to be witnesses for your defense? Not a one of them seems to be able to agree on the most basic of details (how many women? How many angels? Were there soldiers or not? To whom did Jesus appear and where?), so how much credibility should they be given?

Gr8Kat

04-21-2002, 07:25 PM

Originally posted by dalovindj
Sorry, I used to have a bible - but I threw it out with the rest of the trash years ago. Know a good online place to review the passages? If so, I'll pull the line out later.

DaLovin Dj

Try the Bible Gateway at http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?language=english&version=NIV-IBS

JThunder

04-21-2002, 07:49 PM

Originally posted by Gr8Kat
There are quite a few contradictions surrounding the details of the resurrection.
Gr8Kat, these alleged contradictions are discussed at http://www.rationalchristianity.net/apol_index.html#contr_resurrection . These difficulties are easily resolved by a careful examination of the text.

As I've said many times before, we need to be very, very careful about what we consider to be a "contradiction." A true contradiction is one which says both "X" and "Not X." All too often though, people dwell on open-ended questions or textual difficulties, and these quickly label these as outright contradictions.

JThunder

04-21-2002, 07:57 PM

BTW, Gr8Kat, I'd appreciate it if you could type in the specific textual references which support your breakdown of these perceived contradiction. As I reminded dalovindj, it's important to substantiate our claims with detailed and specific references. That way, we can see if the Bible truly says what you claim it says.

For example, there is no indication that the disciples actually understood that Christ would return from the dead. Hence, there is no contradiction in their being surprised at his resurrection.

JThunder

04-21-2002, 08:02 PM

Originally posted by David, God of Frogs

The arguements in the links, while diverse, all assume the existence of evil and then go from there to prove that God must exist (or at least to neutralize arguements that he can't). The possible flaw I see in those arguments is in that initial assumtion.
Well, I think it's clear that the overwhelming majority of people believe that evil exists in the world (September 11th, anyone?). We can all name a number of acts -- genocide, rape, torture, and more -- that reasonable people would deem to be evil. In fact, many skeptics use this point (misguidedly, IMO) as an argument against God.

In that light, I think the burden of extraordinary proof would rest on the person who claims that there is NO evil in the world. (That is, evil as implicitly defined by the arguments presented -- namely, acts of moral wrongdoing.)

Czarcasm

04-21-2002, 08:31 PM

Again I ask, is your perception that of "absolute evil", acts that are evil no matter what religious sect you follow? Did those who perpetrated the acts of September 11th think that they were doing evil?

dalovindj

04-21-2002, 08:40 PM

From John 8:But Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. At dawn he appeared again in the temple courts, where all the people gathered around him, and he sat down to teach them. The teachers of the law and the Pharisees brought in a woman caught in adultery. They made her stand before the group and said to Jesus, "Teacher, this woman was caught in the act of adultery. In the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. Now what do you say?" They were using this question as a trap, in order to have a basis for accusing him.
But Jesus bent down and started to write on the ground with his finger. When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her." From Deuteronomy 22:If a man takes a wife and, after lying with her, dislikes her and slanders her and gives her a bad name, saying, "I married this woman, but when I approached her, I did not find proof of her virginity," then the girl's father and mother shall bring proof that she was a virgin to the town elders at the gate. The girl's father will say to the elders, "I gave my daughter in marriage to this man, but he dislikes her. Now he has slandered her and said, 'I did not find your daughter to be a virgin.' But here is the proof of my daughter's virginity." Then her parents shall display the cloth before the elders of the town, and the elders shall take the man and punish him. They shall fine him a hundred shekels of silver and give them to the girl's father, because this man has given an Israelite virgin a bad name. She shall continue to be his wife; he must not divorce her as long as he lives.
If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death. She has done a disgraceful thing in Israel by being promiscuous while still in her father's house. FInally, the bit about the sons - also Deuteronomy:If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who does not obey his father and mother and will not listen to them when they discipline him, his father and mother shall take hold of him and bring him to the elders at the gate of his town. They shall say to the elders, "This son of ours is stubborn and rebellious. He will not obey us. He is a profligate and a drunkard." Then all the men of his town shall stone him to death. You must purge the evil from among you. All Israel will hear of it and be afraid. All in all, that book of the bible is one of the best examples I have seen of the cruel and ugly nature of it's philosophy. Stone your son for acting up. Yeah, sounds like a kind and loving god to me. :rolleyes:

If any human were to propose the same punishment for the same offenses today, he would be considered cruel and his barbaric ideas would be dismissed by reasonable and compassionate people. The christian god deserves the same treatment.

DaLovin' Dj

Gr8Kat

04-21-2002, 08:54 PM

How much more information do you need?

Mark 16:1 When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body.
Matthew 28:1 After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.
Luke 24:1 On the first day of the week, very early in the morning, the women took the spices they had prepared and went to the tomb. (Verse 10 goes on to say it was Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, "and the others with them.")
John 20:1 Early on the first day of the week, while it was still dark, Mary Magdalene went to the tomb and saw that the stone had been removed from the entrance.

So right off the bat, the writers of the Gospels can't even figure out who, besides Mary Magdalene, discovered the empty tomb. And not one of them even mentions if anyone actually witnessed the resurrection itself. The characters in the stories all seem to think the body was stolen until they are told otherwise, despite Jesus having told them that he will be killed and rise again on the third day. See Matthew 16:21, Mark 8:31, and Luke 9:22.

Furthermore, the Gospels display a shocking lack of knowledge of Jewish custom because they assert that the women went Sunday morning "after the Sabbath." The Sabbath would have officially ended on Saturday after sundown, though. If they believe Jesus to be dead and decomposing in the grave for two or three days, then why would they go when the sun is about to rise and make things hot and more uncomfortable (ever smelled a dead thing in the heat of the day?) instead of going in the cool of the night? Why even go at all? What are they supposed to accomplish? Joseph of Arimathea was supposed to have already had the body prepared with 75 pounds(!) of aloe and myrrh (see John 19:38, 39). How much more seasoning did he need?

You can read the chapters cited above for yourself. They can't agree on who went to the empty tomb, what they saw when they got there, who they told, to whom Jesus appeared after the resurrection, and so on. When you read the Bible Gateway version of Mark 16 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Mark+16&version=NIV-IBS&showfn=yes&showxref=yes&language=english), at least it's honest enough to say the original text ended at verse 8 and the parts about Jesus appearing to the Eleven and ascending into heaven were added later. (This kind of revising appears to have happened a lot during the early centuries of the church. The earliest versions gospels fail to mention any kind of resurrection, but resurrection was an important part of many Middle Eastern mystery cults. Adonis, Tammuz, Attis, Osiris, Mithra, and more all were murdered by evil, descended into the netherworld, and were resurrected. If Jesus was going to compete, he had to get in on the act because the pagans were not going to be impressed by a god that died and stayed dead.)

As for the web site that supposedly answers the contradictions, all it does is combine the texts. That kind of "logic" would never stand up in a court of law. Just imagine that kind of a trial: "Witness A says Joe hit the pedestrian while driving East in a red Cadillac, while Witness B says Mike hit the pedestrian while driving South in a blue Buick, and Witness C says Mike and Joe were both in a yellow Datsun traveling West when they ran down the pedestrian. So, even though we can't even find the pedestrian or any of the cars, we better hang both Mike and Joe." It does not add up.

Soup_du_jour

04-21-2002, 09:28 PM

David, if God got rid of evil, He would also have to get rid of free will. We would be reduced to automatons.

I believe that it is infinitely better to have the choice between good and evil, rather than to have no consciousness whatsoever..

zev_steinhardt

04-21-2002, 10:16 PM

Originally posted by dalovindj
Stone your son for acting up. Yeah, sounds like a kind and loving god to me.

I don't suppose you want to hear that under Jewish law that never happened.

There is an entire chapter in the Talmud (in Sanhedrin) devoted to the laws of ben sorer u'moreh (the wayward and rebellious son). Under the laws mentioned in that chapter, it is nearly impossible to ever execute a son under the law of ben sorer u'moreh. In fact, the Talmud even goes so far as to expecilitly state that such a case never occured and never will.

Zev Steinhardt

Gr8Kat

04-21-2002, 10:27 PM

Let's see if this flies as a contradiction:

In Isaiah chapter 7 we find, "1 When Ahaz son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah, was king of Judah, King Rezin of Aram and Pekah son of Remaliah king of Israel marched up to fight against Jerusalem, but they could not overpower it. 2 Now the house of David was told, 'Aram has allied itself with Ephraim'; so the hearts of Ahaz and his people were shaken, as the trees of the forest are shaken by the wind." Ahaz was scared his kingdom was in jeopardy. So God sent Isaiah to tell Ahaz to not to that his Kingdom will be taken over because "It will not take place,
it will not happen," (Isaiah 7:4-9). Then God tells Ahaz to ask for a sign, but Ahaz refuses, so Isaiah gets all huffy and says, "Is it not enough to try the patience of men? Will you try the patience of my God also? Therefore the Lord himself will give you a sign: The virgin will be with child and will give birth to a son, and will call him Immanuel. He will eat curds and honey when he knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right. But before the boy knows enough to reject the wrong and choose the right, the land of the two kings you dread will be laid waste. " v. 13-17.

Then, in chapter 18, Isaiah describes laying with a prophetess and making a baby. And God says, "Before the boy knows how to say 'My father' or 'My mother,' the wealth of Damascus and the plunder of Samaria will be carried off by the king of Assyria." V. 4

However, the prophecy must have failed, because 2 Chronicles 28 describes God handing Ahaz and his kingdom over to Aram. (v. 5)

OR DID IT?? Because, 400 years later, the virgin Mary conceived and bore a son which, according to Matthew 1:22, 23 fulfills Isaiah's prophecy.

So when Isaiah prophesied about a virgin bearing a son to King Ahaz as proof God wouldn't let his kingdom fall, he actually meant that the Messiah would be born 400 years later?

If that's not a "contradiction" in the strictest sense, it is at least a big inconsistency.

(Although, this may be another contradiction, 2 Kings 16:7 says that Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria bailed Ahaz out, so was he defeated or not? I can't tell.)

zev_steinhardt

04-21-2002, 10:29 PM

And with regard to the second quote by Dalovindj, Jewish law makes it much harder for such a sentence to be carried out than a simple reading of the verses would lead one to believe.

First of all, it would have to be proven that the woman betrayed her husband during her betrothal. If it was done before her betrothal, she is not guilty of the capital crime.

Secondly, even if it was done during the betrothal, the chances of the new bride being executed are remote. Please see this post (http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?postid=2014702#post2014702 ) that I posted a few days ago outlining just what is required to have the death penalty carried out under Jewish law.

Zev Steinhardt

continuum

04-21-2002, 10:31 PM

The terms "mistake" and "contradiction" are too limiting. As we know the Bible, they are inaccuracies brought on by translation. That's why so many scholars go back to the original text to read it. And, we as humans are unable to comprehend the entire meaning of it. However, with the help of the Holy Spirit, we can acquire greater spiritual meaning from the Bible as needed. No, we aren't going to be able to completely understand everything that was said, but we don't need to. God will reveal that which is necessary when we need that help.

Secondly, when Jesus cursed a fig tree, he certainly did curse it. But "forty days and forty nights" is meant to be interpreted as "a lot of time." This comes from the fact that in the middle eastern culture of the time, the number 40 represented a lot of something. Remember that the Bible was written by humans, as inspired by God, for humans that lived over 2000 years ago. While the message is unchanged, the culture is not. Not everything is perfect.

continuum

04-21-2002, 10:49 PM

To clarify, I said this to point out that literal interpretations are not always the most accurate, especially when one looks to the spiritual side of things. And I do wish people would realize the difference between the OT and the NT. There was a period of 400 years between the two. When Jesus came to earth, his purpose was to create a New Covenant with man--all of mankind--that overruled the old one. He was to teach people and educate them on the rules, and to dismiss ones that no longer applied to an up and coming civilization. Id et, He was an entirely new chapter to Jewish history. After that, He was to die on the cross and three days later conquer death. He did. Old laws were cast out. People were no longer killing lambs on the altar. Ergo, the contradictions between OT and NT pretty much null.

JThunder

04-21-2002, 10:59 PM

Gr8Kat, I don't think you've done a proper job of reading these passages, or the web site to which I pointed you. Remember, if you're going to claim that a contradiction occurs, then the burden of proof rests upon YOU to show that these passages are utterly irreconcilable.

So Mark said that Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, and Salome visited the tomb, whereas Matthew said that Mary Magdalene and "the other Mary." Are they both right? Well, if Mark is correct, then Matthew is correct too. After all, Matthew didn't claim that only Mary Magdalene and the second Mary visited said tomb. Ditto for the other passages which you cited.

Remember: The burden of proof rests on the person who claims that there is no way that both passages can be true. Only then can a genuine "contradiction" be claimed.

Now one might ask, "But wait! Why don't these Evangelists report this event in exactly the same way?" Well first, there may be any number of reasons, but that's irrelevant to the question of whether a contradiction exists. And second, if they had reported in exactly the same way, then one could accuse them of collusion in their reporting. In fact, historians routinely expect minor (but not necessarily irreconcilable) differences in the details of historical accounts, as this comes naturally when different people report on the same event.

JThunder

04-21-2002, 11:06 PM

Originally posted by Czarcasm
Again I ask, is your perception that of "absolute evil", acts that are evil no matter what religious sect you follow? Did those who perpetrated the acts of September 11th think that they were doing evil?
Are you suggesting that if they didn't think they were doing evil, that they did not indeed commit evil? Because if you do, then you can not legitimately accuse God or Christians of doing evil, when they act in accordance with Christian teaching.

Remember, this topic came up becaus David accused God of allowing evil to exist, and claimed that this constituted a contradiction (which it does not, but more on that later). If we adopt such a fluid definition of evil -- one where evil is merely in the beholder's eye -- then such an accusation becomes meaningless. After all, if God does not consider it to be evil, then he is not guilty of the implied hypocrisy.

And as I said, even if we grant that, it's still not a contradiction. Remember what I said earlier... We must make clear distinctions between exegetical difficulties and genuine contradictions. Asking why God would ever allow evil to exist is a Biblical difficulty, but not a contradiction per se.

JThunder

04-21-2002, 11:09 PM

Originally posted by Soup_du_jour
David, if God got rid of evil, He would also have to get rid of free will. We would be reduced to automatons.

In fact, when people complain about God allowing evil, it seems they only refer to the evil committed by others. I have yet to hear a skeptic ask why God doesn't stop him from committing acts of sinfulness.

And why don't we ask such things? Because we don't want to give up free will.

dalovindj

04-21-2002, 11:10 PM

zev, I didn't see any reference to any of the procedures you talked about in that post in the bible while reading deuteronomy. Why should I interpret that passage to mean anything other than what it says? Either way, whether you need a bunch of judges or bunch of elders or whatever - the idea that stoning someone for such an offense is reasonable is barbaric, ugly, and goes a long way to show the mindset of the people who wrote this garbage down.

You say there is some sort of loophole so that chances of someone getting killed for these expressions of free will and choice becomes "remote." I say that if the text has to be contradicted to make sense, then that just further weakens the consistency and validity of the material.

I have a theory. Everyone who believes this stuff is getting hoodwinked.

DaLovin' Dj

JThunder

04-21-2002, 11:34 PM

Originally posted by Gr8Kat
As for the web site that supposedly answers the contradictions, all it does is combine the texts. That kind of "logic" would never stand up in a court of law. Just imagine that kind of a trial: "Witness A says Joe hit the pedestrian while driving East in a red Cadillac, while Witness B says Mike hit the pedestrian while driving South in a blue Buick, and Witness C says Mike and Joe were both in a yellow Datsun traveling West when they ran down the pedestrian. So, even though we can't even find the pedestrian or any of the cars, we better hang both Mike and Joe." It does not add up.
Your specific example does not add up because the testimonies are mutually exclusive. That is not the case with the gospel accounts of the resurrection... as explained earlier. They list different sets of women, but not a single one of the accounts says "ONLY <so-and-so> went, and nobody else."

Newspaper accounts and history books do this all the time. A history book may record that Nixon went to China in 1972, but it won't necessarily mention everyone in his entourage -- not even the high-ranking officials. When relating a story to co-workers, I may say "I went to Nevada last week," but I would not be implying that I'm the only one.

Again, you seem to be seeing the word "only" inserted into the text, where none exists.

zev_steinhardt

04-22-2002, 08:48 AM

Originally posted by dalovindj
zev, I didn't see any reference to any of the procedures you talked about in that post in the bible while reading deuteronomy. Why should I interpret that passage to mean anything other than what it says?

I wasn't asking you to interpret it any other way. Since (AFAIK) you aren't Jewish, I don't expect you to take Jewish oral and legal traditions into account. I was just pointing it out "matter-of-factly".

Zev Steinhardt

continuum

04-22-2002, 09:07 AM

Originally posted by dalovindj
The idea that stoning someone for such an offense is reasonable is barbaric, ugly, and goes a long way to show the mindset of the people who wrote this garbage down.

What you are trying to do is to apply a BC culture to today. No matter what culture you look at, it can't work. Not one was as refined or culturally mature as you might think that we are (which is a debate in and of itself). Even if you took the culture of the Middle Ages, it would still seem barbaric. So, no, you cannot try to do that. The rules were for the overall spiritual and physical well-being of the Hebrew people.

dalovindj

04-22-2002, 09:19 AM

Originally posted by continuum

What you are trying to do is to apply a BC culture to today. No matter what culture you look at, it can't work. Not one was as refined or culturally mature as you might think that we are (which is a debate in and of itself). Even if you took the culture of the Middle Ages, it would still seem barbaric. So, no, you cannot try to do that. The rules were for the overall spiritual and physical well-being of the Hebrew people. So God's rules change based on what year it is? Cite?

DaLovin' Dj

continuum

04-22-2002, 09:44 AM

In a sense. Those were general rules for living based on a certain culture. Needless to say, culture changes, therefore, certain other things have to change. That was the point of Jesus coming to earth. I mean, I don't see anyone sacrificing lambs anymore. Basically, Jesus changed everything. Many of the food rules were created for health reasons. And, back then, certain things were classified as crimes worthy of capital punishment. And, to be honest, is that really any more barbaric than beheading or electrocuting a person?

Polycarp

04-22-2002, 09:55 AM

Furthermore, IIRC, bible scholars indicate that the bible should be taken literally unless indicated internally otherwise.

You don't RC. Fundamentalist (AKA literalist) bible scholars do hold that view. They are in a minority among those trained in the disciplines of biblical analysis and exegesis. Check with any group of ten reputable seminaries; you'll find that it's about 8:2 in favor of interpretive analysis, rather than literalism.

The other point I'd like to make is that the particular sub-thread discussion on relative vs. absolute evil need not be examining some abstract "absolute" but rather what might be absolute as regards human beings. To show what I mean, consider the proposition that an adult male should/should not mate with his mother. The negative is probably as close to an absolute as we get across human cultures, but the positive is entirely appropriate and expected of many social insects.

It's the Christian understanding that while God can bring good out of evil, nonetheless humans are instructed not to commit evil deeds. Definitions of what is evil vary substantially within a general set of themes. There are a large group of Christians, for example, who hold that the various legal provisions of Scripture are to be understood within a "constitutional" framework of actions showing love of God and of one's fellow humans, and are to be followed only to the extent that they meet those overarching moral guidelines. That is, just as a law, innocuous in and of itself, may be applied in ways that violate the Bill of Rights, and as applied to those particular cases may be unconstitutional, so any "Thou shalt/shalt not" passage is to be applied if and only if it conforms to love of God and man.

Freyr

04-22-2002, 10:00 AM

Soup_du_jour wrote:

David, if God got rid of evil, He would also have to get rid of free will. We would be reduced to automatons.

I've always been bothered by this as it seems to be a strawman argument. You either do it God's way or you're doing something evil. There's not inbetween, acts that are neither good nor evil.

Prehaps this is the contradiction the OP is looking for. The J/C/I God is saying Do it my way or you're doing evil when obviously there are other choices.

JThunder

04-22-2002, 10:42 AM

Originally posted by Freyr
Soup_du_jour wrote:

David, if God got rid of evil, He would also have to get rid of free will. We would be reduced to automatons.

I've always been bothered by this as it seems to be a strawman argument. You either do it God's way or you're doing something evil. There's not inbetween, acts that are neither good nor evil.
Quite the contrary! There are many acts which are neither good nor evil. Eating ice cream, for example, is a morally neutral act. So is deciding whether to wear a red or a blue shirt to work.

Is evil a consequence of having free will? Certainly. However, this by no means implies that all acts are either good or evil. That conclusion simply doesn't follow.

dalovindj

04-22-2002, 10:54 AM

Those were general rules for living based on a certain culture. Needless to say, culture changes, therefore, certain other things have to change. Again, cite? There is nothing in the bible that says if the popular culture changes than the rules change. If that were the case than why destroy soddom and gomorrah? It was just their culture that changed, therefore, certain other things have to change. :rolleyes: And, back then, certain things were classified as crimes worthy of capital punishment. Classified that way by supposed divine inspiration. If that god felt that way ever - even though he supposedly knows how all of history would work out in advance - he is barbaric and evil. He was then and he is now. The rules were for the overall spiritual and physical well-being of the Hebrew people.I don't see how stoning a woman for not being a virgin helps with anyones well being. If it helps with their spirituality than their spirituality is based on evil notions.

If what is in the bible is only true for certain ages than there is your biggest inconsistency. An all knowing god who can't write ahead all the correct rules. Obviously, biblical literalists face some real big problems in that book. The only way to make it seem reasonable is to come up with interpretations and make excuses for it. Laughable.

continuum, please provide biblical proof that the laws contained within the bible are only for certain people at certain times. Also, by which mechanism do we determine which rules are supposed to apply to today? You know what? I say the whole thing was written for people of that time by people of that time. It was written without the slightest idea of how things would work out, and it is absolutely useless today for anything except the fun in reading a good work of fiction.

The whole thing is all about money whether people want to accept it or not. Don't believe me? How much money has been collected in the name of religion in the last 2000 years? How much money gets collected in churches on a single Sunday in America? Whether you like it or not, religion is tied into alot of money. People wrote this stuff to get that money (and power) years ago. That is why they were unable to come up with moral codes that seem reasonable 2000 years later. There was no divine inspiration and no real knowledge of events to come. Only greed and power struggles guided the authors of this literature.

The book deuteronomy is one of the ugliest bits of philosophy I have ever come across. Anyone who claims that everything in that book is true and must be followed to the letter should be ashamed.

DaLovin' Dj

David, God of Frogs

04-22-2002, 01:35 PM

originally posted by soup du jour:David, if God got rid of evil, He would also have to get rid of free will. We would be reduced to automatons.

I believe that it is infinitely better to have the choice between good and evil, rather than to have no consciousness whatsoever..

Notice that the original question was "can god get rid of evil without undermining whatever purpose it had in the first place." God doesn't "have to" do anything - I would assume as a self-respecting omnipotent being he should be able to get around that.

JThunder:
How we define evil, or even what we think about its existence, isn't relevent. The fact is, the bible says it exists, and since we're talking about the bible, that's all we need to know. I simply questioned the existence of evil to provide a possible alternative veiwpoint. If you want proof for that veiwpoint, I refer you to my proof that God doesn't exist. If the essays I read are correct, the existence of God and the existence of evil are inextricably linked, therefore since God doesn't exist, evil can't exist. (of course, that leaves open the possiblity that they were wrong, and God and evil aren't inextricably linked, or that evil exists outside of a Christian framework. But for our purposes, we are assuming that they are correct, and we're only looking at the Bible.)

BTW, even though it isn't strictly nessecary for the debate, I'd like to clarify my position on evil a little more. I'm not saying that things that we label as evil (such as 9-11) don't happen in the world, but rather I'm questioning the labels. I don't think it's possible to come up with a definition of evil that both isn't arbitrary and that distinguishes it from good. "I know it when I see it" doesn't cut it as a definition.

(and it's also a fun word to call people we don't like)

David, God of Frogs

04-22-2002, 02:56 PM

actually, I should add to that list of stipulations on the definition of evil "doesn't include God", since using God to prove the existence of evil to prove the existence of God would be circular reasoning (and besides which, I already proved that God doesn't exist).

davidw

04-22-2002, 03:17 PM

Originally posted by David, God of Frogs
So can God get rid of evil without undermining whatever purpose evil had in the first place?

I don't see why not. Assuming there is some greater purpose for evil (which I don't), it's not a leap to believe that at some point it will have served it's purpose and run it's course.

If he can, his actions contradict his words, in which he seems to want to get rid of all evil on the face of the earth.

How so? If he's getting rid of evil at his own pace, not our pace.

davidw

04-22-2002, 03:22 PM

Sorry, I posted that before I was finished, and it's not letting me edit the post.

If God's getting rid of evil at his own pace, not our pace, then how are his actions contradicting his words?

Scupper

04-22-2002, 04:18 PM

Originally posted by Polycarp
Hmmm. If I were to point out that the moon was rising over Minas Tirith one hour after sunset at the exact same time as it was setting over Edoras, only a few hundred miles north of west, on the same day, would this mean that there is no good reason to read Tolkien? Or would it simply mean that the author made one error?

It would certainly persuade me to believe that the book was not directly inspired by an omniscient being, and hence reduce the likelyhood that I'd be willing to devote my life to killing people who had a slightly different interpretation of it.

But really, quibbles about how many people were standing outside the tomb on the third day or how many times the cock crowed pale in comparison to the first part of that great book.

All from Exodus (New English Translation, emphasis mine):
20:13 You shall not kill.

21:12 Whoever strikes someone so that he dies must surely be put to death.

21:14 But if a man willfully attacks his neighbor to kill him with guile, you will take him from my altar to die.

21:15 And whoever strikes his father and his mother must surely be put to death.

21:16 And whoever kidnaps someone and sells him, or he is found still holding him, must surely be put to death.

21:17 And whoever curses his father or his mother must surely be put to death.

From Joshua (emphasis mine):
10:28 That day Joshua captured Makkedah and put the sword to it and its king. He annihilated everyone who lived in it; he left no survivors. He did to its king what he had done to the king of Jericho.

10:30 The Lord handed it and its king over to Israel, and Israel put the sword to all who lived there; they left no survivors. They did to its king what they had done to the king of Jericho.

Arguments against the above (feel free to add your own):

It's the Old Testament! -- You put it in your handbook, I consider it a part of your philosophy.

"Kill" really means "Murder without authorization" (or somesuch) -- It doesn't say that. No version I've ever seen has said "Thou shalt not Murder without due process of law or the approval of God." Footnotes are for lawyers.

zev_steinhardt

04-22-2002, 07:29 PM

Originally posted by Scupper

"Kill" really means "Murder without authorization" (or somesuch) -- It doesn't say that. No version I've ever seen has said "Thou shalt not Murder without due process of law or the approval of God." Footnotes are for lawyers.

No, I'm afarid you are wrong. You are the victim of a bad translation.

The verse in question, in the original Hebrew, reads lo tirtzach. This means do not murder. Murder (as opposed to killing) is killing without valid reason. I can kill someone in self defense -- but it's not murder. "Do not kill" would be lo taharog in Hebrew.

In any event, it should be obvious that if a general rule is stated, and then another specific rule comes along which contradicts the general rule, that the specific rule is an exception to the general rule.

For example:

One is forbidden to marry one's brother's wife. (Leviticus 18:16, 20:21). Yet, we are later told (Deuternomy 25:4) that when a man dies without children, his brother may marry his wife. Is this a contradiction? No, it's an exception to the rule.

Likewise, we are not allowed to light a fire on the Sabbath (Exodus 35:3). Yet we are told to offer sacrifices on the Altar on the Sabbath (which involves burning parts of the animal. Numbers 28:9). A contridiction? No, its an exception to the rule.

Zev Steinhardt

Czarcasm

04-22-2002, 07:40 PM

Would you say, then, that all of the examples Scupper gave were justifiable morally?

JThunder

04-22-2002, 08:02 PM

Originally posted by Gr8Kat
Furthermore, the Gospels display a shocking lack of knowledge of Jewish custom because they assert that the women went Sunday morning "after the Sabbath." The Sabbath would have officially ended on Saturday after sundown, though.
Yes, so? Doesn't Sunday morning come after the Sabbath sundown? It certainly did the last time I looked. And even if it did not, this would be a chronology inaccuracy, rather than an actual contradiction.

Please note that the gospels don't say that they went immediately after the Sabbath. Rather, they simply attest that they went sometime afterwards. This may seem like a piddling detail, but such details are important if we are to evaluate the text with honesty and integrity.

If they believe Jesus to be dead and decomposing in the grave for two or three days, then why would they go when the sun is about to rise and make things hot and more uncomfortable (ever smelled a dead thing in the heat of the day?) instead of going in the cool of the night?

I think you're reading too much into that statement. There could have been any number of reasons why they did not go at night. Perhaps they were busy, or perhaps they were concerned for their own safety. If you're claiming that this disproves the accuracy of the resurrection account -- well, I think it's a rather poor argument to make.

Besides, the tomb would still be fairly cool during the early morning, so if you're concerned about the temperature and the smell, then the morningtime is a pretty good time to visit.

Why even go at all? What are they supposed to accomplish?
Is that a serious objection? With all due respect, I think it's a pretty poor one.

People visit graves and tombs all the time, even to this present day. That's what people in mourning do. I doubt that the mourners sought to accomplish anything. Rather, they simply wanted to pay their respects, and to see their fallen friend one more time.

I'm sorry, but these kind of objections strike me as... well, rather silly. Absurd, even. And even if they were valid, they would merely constitute implausibilities, rather than legitimate contradictions.

continuum

04-22-2002, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by Czarcasm
Would you say, then, that all of the examples Scupper gave were justifiable morally?

I'm just curious, Czarism, but what's your stand on capital punishment? I mean, that is what those examples are. Capital punishment for spiritually despicable crimes.

Czarcasm

04-22-2002, 10:51 PM

Capital punishment for being desrespectful to your parents?
Capital punishment for belonging to the wrong nation, tribe or family?
Capital punishment for being the first-born?
Capital punishment for looking back in horror to watch your friends burn to death?
Capital punishment for not belonging to Noah's family?

I could list a few dozen more, but I'm sure that those who are as appalled at such behavior as I am don't need any more examples, and those that excuse any behavior if crouched in religious terms will ignore any examples.

tracer

04-22-2002, 11:03 PM

Czarcasm wrote:

Would you say, then, that all of the examples Scupper gave were justifiable morally?
Ooh, and Scupper left out one of my old favorites, too:

Deuteronomy 22:20-21 (NIV translation):
"If, however, the charge is true and no proof of the girl's virginity can be found, she shall be brought to the door of her father's house and there the men of her town shall stone her to death."

Not being a virgin when you are married is a capital offense! :eek:

Gr8Kat

04-22-2002, 11:09 PM

Why even go at all? What are they supposed to accomplish?

Is that a serious objection? With all due respect, I think it's a pretty poor one.

People visit graves and tombs all the time, even to this present day. That's what people in mourning do. I doubt that the mourners sought to accomplish anything. Rather, they simply wanted to pay their respects, and to see their fallen friend one more time.

And they pack along extra spices to anoint a decomposing body that is behind a stone they don't even think they can move? I visit my family's graves all the time, but I don't take along spices hoping an angel will dig them up for me so I can anoint them one more time. That's just silly. I looks to me like the writer was simply searching for a halfway plausible reason for them to go to the grave and that was the best he could do.

But, I think I understand finally what you are getting at. Flubbing the details isn't a contradiction to you. If one book said, "Jesus is risen," and another said, "Jesus is dead," that would be a contradiction, right? But discrepencies, inaccuracies, mistakes, and exaggerations aren't contradictions.

So let's try this one on for size:

Children are held accountable for the sins of the father:

Exodus 34:7
Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation."

Leviticus 26
39 Those of you who are left will waste away in the lands of their enemies because of their sins; also because of their fathers' sins they will waste away.

Numbers 14:18
'The Lord is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation.'

Deuteronomy 5:9
You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me,

Jeremiah 32:18
You show love to thousands but bring the punishment for the fathers' sins into the laps of their children after them. O great and powerful God, whose name is the Lord Almighty,

Children are NOT held accountable for the sins of the father:

Deuteronomy 24:16
Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin.

2 Kings 14
6 Yet he did not put the sons of the assassins to death, in accordance with what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses where the Lord commanded: "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sins."

2 Chronicles 25:4
Yet he did not put their sons to death, but acted in accordance with what is written in the Law, in the Book of Moses, where the Lord commanded: "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sins."

So should children be punished for their fathers' sins or not?

Here are a few more:

Has anyone ever gone up into heaven besides Jesus?

John 3:13 No one has ever gone into heaven except the one who came from heaven--the Son of Man.

2 Kings 2:11 As they were walking along and talking together, suddenly a chariot of fire and horses of fire appeared and separated the two of them, and Elijah went up to heaven in a whirlwind.

Can Jesus testify on his own behalf?
John 5:31 If I testify about myself, my testimony is not valid.

John 8:18 I am one who testifies for myself; my other witness is the Father, who sent me.

Does God ever do evil or change his mind?
Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie,
nor a son of man, that he should change his mind.
Does he speak and then not act?
Does he promise and not fulfill?

Exodus 32:14 Then the Lord relented and did not bring on his people the disaster he had threatened.

Isaiah 45:7 I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the Lord , do all these things.

Who was Joseph's father (and grandfather and great grandfather…)?
Matthew 1:15 Eliud the father of Eleazar,
Eleazar the father of Matthan,
Matthan the father of Jacob,
16 and Jacob the father of Joseph, the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ.
17Thus there were fourteen generations in all from Abraham to David, fourteen from David to the exile to Babylon, and fourteen from the exile to the Christ.

Luke 3:23 Now Jesus himself was about thirty years old when he began his ministry. He was the son, so it was thought, of Joseph,
24 the son of Heli, the son of Matthat,
the son of Levi, the son of Melki,
the son of Jannai, the son of Joseph,

Bonus question: Matthew and Luke give Jesus' genealogy (though they conflict) back to Adam. But what does the Bible say about keeping genealogies?
1 Timothy 1:4 nor to devote themselves to myths and endless genealogies. These promote controversies rather than God's work--which is by faith.

Titus 3: 9 But avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless.

Now the Titus quote is especially interesting, because it continues:
Titus 3:10 Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him. 11 You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.

Isn't it funny how people like to continue to argue with us warped, sinful, and self-condemned people? But I digress.

JubilationTCornpone

04-23-2002, 12:24 AM

Originally posted by Gr8Kat

And they pack along extra spices to anoint a decomposing body that is behind a stone they don't even think they can move? I visit my family's graves all the time, but I don't take along spices hoping an angel will dig them up for me so I can anoint them one more time. That's just silly.

Well first of all, you're mistaken in emphasizing that Joseph of Arimathea had already embalmed the body. The Net Bible (http://www.netbible.com/) identifies the spices as the type used to cover up the stench of decomposition, rather than for embalming purposes. (The Jews did not practice embalming.)

As for entering the tomb, they may not have immediately realized that this would be a problem. In fact, Mark 16:1-3 clearly implies that the thought never occured to them until they had almost reached the tomb. So while one might accuse the women of not thinking ahead, that hardly makes this story a contradiction.

You know, there seems to be a recurring theme here. Other posters have already pointed out that many critics here are using the term "contradiction" way too loosely. There's nothing contradictory in saying that the women planned to anoint the body, but didn't know how they would gain access to it. At best, this indicates a lack of forethought on their part.

Oh, and before anyone scoffs... please don't be too harsh on them. After all, have you never gone to work, not realizing that you left some important documents at home? Or have you never forgotten to drop by the hardware store on your way home? We all do foolish, thoughtless things... probably moreso than we realize.

JubilationTCornpone

04-23-2002, 12:58 AM

Originally posted by Gr8Kat

So let's try this one on for size:

Children are held accountable for the sins of the father:
[...]

Children are NOT held accountable for the sins of the father:

Are you genuinely interested in an answer? Then please read http://www.rationalchristianity.net/punish_sons.html

Here are a few more:

Has anyone ever gone up into heaven besides Jesus?
<<John 3:13 and 2 Kings 2:11 cited>>
This is answered in links available at http://www.rationalchristianity.net/ascend.html

Can Jesus testify on his own behalf?
<< John 5:31 and John 8:18 cited >>

Check out http://www.rationalchristianity.net/valid_testimony.html.

(As an aside, I think this is a classic example of how statements can be misrepresented by pulling them out of context.)

Does God ever do evil or change his mind?
<< Numbers 23:19, Exodus 32:14,Isaiah 45:7 cited >>

See http://www.rationalchristianity.net/change_mind.html for an answer.

Who was Joseph's father (and grandfather and great grandfather?)?
<< Matthew 1:15 and Luke 3:23 cited >>

Links to answers available at http://www.rationalchristianity.net/jesus_genealogy.html

Bonus question: Matthew and Luke give Jesus' genealogy (though they conflict) back to Adam. But what does the Bible say about keeping genealogies?
The passages you cited say nothing about geneologies being inherently wrong. Rather, 1 Timothy 1:4 says that we should not "devote" ourselves to "endless genealogies" -- that is, that these should not become the focus of religious work. It does not say that geneologies deseve no attention whatsoever.

Nor does Titus 3: 9 say such a thing. Rather, it enjoins us to "avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law." Why? "Because these are unprofitable and useless." Some controversy and argumentation can be profitable -- indeed the book of Acts shows the Apostles arguing the case for Christ energetically. However, there are times when such discussions are fruitless -- for example, arguing based on the nobility of one's lineage.

Now the Titus quote is especially interesting, because it continues:
Titus 3:10 Warn a divisive person once, and then warn him a second time. After that, have nothing to do with him. 11 You may be sure that such a man is warped and sinful; he is self-condemned.

Isn't it funny how people like to continue to argue with us warped, sinful, and self-condemned people? But I digress.
Context, context, context! Always consider the context!

Let's look at the previous verse (Titus 3:9), which you yourself posted. It was specifically talking about foolish controversies and discussions. While some foolish arguments have been set forth in this thread, the topic itself is far from foolish.

The context clearly shows that Paul was warning Christians not to engage in fruitless discussions with people who are being deliberately dismissive and divisive. It was by no means a blanket command not to argue one's case. In fact, earlier in this same book, Paul specifically told Titus to rebuke grave deceivers (Titus 1:10-16), and elsewhere he commands believers to defend the gospel with careful, well-crafted arguments (2 Tim 3:16, 1 Peter 3:15), and lived this principle out himself (Acts 17:17).

And in that spirit, I urge you to pay closer attention to the details in the passages that you've cited. We've already seen many examples of how reckless readings can cause someone to conclude that a contradiction exists, or that an error is present where there isn't necessarily any.

Beastal

04-23-2002, 02:46 AM

Still no concensus?

I think if anything, this thread is showing that you can always find some way of explaining an apparent contradiction.

Whether or not most people will accept it...

JubilationTCornpone

04-23-2002, 03:19 AM

Originally posted by Beastal
I think if anything, this thread is showing that you can always find some way of explaining an apparent contradiction.
I think it shows that people are often too quick to call something a contradiction. In this case, it's typically a sign of not studying the text properly.

Czarcasm

04-23-2002, 08:10 AM

Could "..studying the text properly." happen to mean "not be willing to accept that there are contradictions in the Bible to the extent that any explanation, no matter how how farfetched or convoluted, will be gladly accepted."? Either the Bible is supposed to be a straightforward account meant to be read and understood by all, or it is not and should be tossed in the trash with any other badly plotted-out manuscript.

David, God of Frogs

04-23-2002, 09:12 AM

originally posted by davidw
If God's getting rid of evil at his own pace, not our pace, then how are his actions contradicting his words?

because, if God is claiming to be able to do everything, time shouldn't be a concern - he should be able to get it done right now, or actually he should have never even started the world with evil.

Newton meter

04-23-2002, 09:58 AM

Originally posted by Czarcasm
Could "..studying the text properly." happen to mean "not be willing to accept that there are contradictions in the Bible to the extent that any explanation, no matter how how farfetched or convoluted, will be gladly accepted."?
It could.

Either the Bible is supposed to be a straightforward account meant to be read and understood by all, or it is not and should be tossed in the trash with any other badly plotted-out manuscript.
Those are really the only two choices? Let me suggest two others. Parts of the bible are true and parts are not. Or, the true nature of reality contains contradictions.

There is a real, and I think unavoidable, philosophical flaw in any argument to reject the bible based on contradictions it contains. The argument contains the following essentials: the bible contains contradictions; since reality does not permit contradictions, the bible cannot accurately describe reality; therefore, the bible ought to be rejected.

This misses two points, one minor and one major. First, there is no automatic reason to suppose that a particular contradictory account is in general less accurate than any non-contradictory account. Contradiction in and of itself is not a cause for rejection. Second, rejection is contingent on reality not allowing a contradiction.

I don't think that question is yet settled satisfactorily. Relativity tells us that there are no priveleged reference frames. An object can be (for instance) both contracting along its direction of motion and not contracting in that direction. Quantum physics suggests that a particle can both be in a particular position and not be in that same position. Again, I won't claim that this is the true nature of reality; but the question is certainly not settled. It might be the case that reality is pervasively contradictory.

You cannot compel rejection of the bible, unless you also insist on rejection or non-standard (i.e. kooky) interpretation of the last 100 years of science.

Besides the philosophical fallacy, there are also three particular logical fallacies often committed. Two are avoidable, the third is problematic.

First, there is a misunderstanding of logical conjunction. If the bible is validly interpreted as a conjunction of propositions, each of which has a logical truth value independent of the others (required for the program of rejection by contradiction), then the entire conjunction fails if any of the propositions is shown to be false. If we adopt classical logic, then the law of non-contradiction holds, and a contradiction implies at least one falsehood. Thus, a biblical contradiction causes us to reject the entire bible.

The flaw is in the interpretation of "entire". We are not logically committed to reject every single thing in the bible. The falsehood of a conjunct does not compel rejection of any other proposition that happens to be related only by the conjunction. That is, if I claim "God exists AND God does not exist AND St. Paul is the capital of Minnesota", you are not required to reject "St. Paul is the capital of Minnesota". There is no automatic reason to suppose that falsehood of a proposition pollutes other propositions. The only reason is when, as you've done above, you insist that it be the case.

It is quite reasonable to simply accept all the non-contradictory propositions in the bible, and one half of every pair of contradictions. That is still logically valid. In fact, that is exactly (part of) what we do when we say "I don't accept the bible as entirely literally true".

Second, there is a misunderstanding of logical implication. If the bible is validly interpreted as drawing conclusions (how we ought to live) based on premises (propositions contained in the bible), and we find a false premise due to a contradiction (or any other reason), then we ought to reject the conclusions.

Logic doesn't say anything of the sort. If we find a false premise, we are not compelled to accept the conclusions, but there is also no compulsion to reject them. If I claim: "if George was born in Minnesota, then he is a US citizen", and you demonstrate that George was born in California, you are not required to conclude that he is not a US citizen. There is no logical sense that a contradiction in the bible should cause me to (for instance) stop believing in God, stop praying, or stop attending church.

Finally, and quite damning, are the very consequences of an insistence on non-contradiction. The intuition is that we ought to reject contradictions because they are, in some way, offensive to logic (I have already argued that they are not offensive to the structure of reality). The reason that classical logic requires non-contradiction is due to the (classical) entailment relation, where certain sets of propositions imply other sets of propositions. In this relation, a contradiction implies everything. Thus, if we want to reject anything at all (which we probably can agree on), then we must reject all contradictions.

It is this sense that the bible is a contradictory theory that is supposed to cause us to reject it. To be concrete, suppose we have two statements:

A = "thou shalt not kill"
~A = "whoever strikes someone so that he dies must surely be put to death"

And we claim that one is the logical negation of the other. Then, any theory containing both these statements can be used to derive anything, and must be rejected as a theory.

However, non-contradiction carries with it the law of the excluded middle. In classical logic, the law of non-contradiction and the law of the excluded middle are equivalent: you must either accept both of them or reject both of them. A very weak case can be made for accepting the law of the excluded middle and rejecting non-contradiction. The opposite (accepting non-contradiction, rejecting excluded middle) leads to a contradiction itself, and you cannot both accept non-contradiction and a contradiction. Anyway, insistence on non-contradiction requires insistence on excluded middles.

That is, in the example above, it must be the case that either A or ~A is true. You cannot insist on rejection of the bible on these grounds, without being forced to insist on the validity of exactly half of each pair of contradictory statements in the bible.

And I don't think you want to do that. You have two choices. You can insist that the two statements above (for instance) are somehow not a pair of a proposition and its negation. That is what we do when we "interpret" the bible. For instance, when we see "thou shall not kill", followed in the next chapter by a list of times when you should "put [someone] to death", we should ask if "killing" and "putting to death" are really the same thing, or if one of them is an exception to the rule of the other, or if there is some deontic reading (as things we "ought" to do but are sometimes "required" to violate).

Or, you can insist on some third possibility to A and ~A (like "God does not exist", or "God never said either of those"). That is, you can reject the law of the excluded middle and thereby accept contradictions. You can reject classical logic (and I think you should, on the grounds that it has nothing to do with the world), which has two consequences. The appearance of contradictions in the bible no longer compels anything. We can tolerate the contradiction. It just might be the case that God embodies a paradox, or commands us to do contradictory things (he's pretty demanding :) ). And, we are no longer forced into your false choices ("accept this interpretation of the bible, or reject the entire thing").

I guess I'm just stunned at the philosophical program of discrediting the bible. Until we have established that the world is straightforward and meant ot be understood by all, we cannot reject the bible on those grounds as "inaccurate". Perhaps its accuracy comes at this expense. This idea is the intellectual older brother of fundamentalism. Both insist, at their core, that the bible can only be "all or nothing", and that any contradiction is fatal.

Consistency is not all its cracked up to be. And a foolish consistency is just that: foolish. If you're interested in pursuing the hobgoblin of little minds, then there you have it. If you're interested in truth, you have to be more sophisticated.

kg m²/s²

Polycarp

04-23-2002, 10:28 AM

Bravo, Newton Meter. I think that because some part of the Great Unwashed urge on us that the Bible is in some way the literally true, verbatim inspired Word of God, and such a statement flies in the face of virtually every fact we know, does not require rejecting it as total garbage. There are some meaningful and valuable insights into human nature to be gained from just reading it as literature. For those of us who believe in a God who tries to communicate a way of living to humanity and used the human authors as vehicles to try to get this across (and in consequence had His intent besmirched with things like a genocidal Israelite commander claiming that He commanded that all of some given group among the enemies of Israel be killed, man, woman and child), it gives, intelligently read, an insight into God's purpose -- but one has to be careful to keep the context straight to do this.

davidw

04-23-2002, 10:49 AM

Originally posted by David, God of Frogs

because, if God is claiming to be able to do everything, time shouldn't be a concern - he should be able to get it done right now, or actually he should have never even started the world with evil.

"Time shouldn't be a concern" is not equivalent to "getting it done right now." If time isn't a concern, then it seems to me that that should mean God can do what he wants, when he wants, and how he wants. Our opinion on whether it's taking too long don't matter.

Scupper

04-23-2002, 11:26 AM

Originally posted by zev_steinhardt

No, I'm afarid you are wrong. You are the victim of a bad translation.

The verse in question, in the original Hebrew, reads lo tirtzach. This means do not murder. Murder (as opposed to killing) is killing without valid reason. I can kill someone in self defense -- but it's not murder. "Do not kill" would be lo taharog in Hebrew.

Why is it never translated that way except in footnotes?

In any event, it should be obvious that if a general rule is stated, and then another specific rule comes along which contradicts the general rule, that the specific rule is an exception to the general rule.

Thou shalt not kill.
Except when thou shalt.

Is there not a contradiction when God tells his people that they should not kill, then gives them specific exceptions, but He Himself repeatedly kills people who haven't met those exceptions? Or are we to believe that, for instance, every single man, woman, and child in the world outside of Noah's immediate family met one or more of His criteria for execution?

God repeatedly kills children, or condones, endorses or allows the killing. Most toddlers I know aren't capable of meeting any of the criteria for execution except that God doesn't happen to like their people. Heck, the book of Joshua alone features several cities being "annihilated," leaving no survivors.

What's the excuse? "God was really moody back in the day?" I have yet to hear a satisfactory answer as to why people still include the Old Testament in their Bible when they have to make excuses for the God described therein.

Flat contradictions?

God Loves Everybody but destroys cities.
God Loves Everybody but kills children.
God Hates Evil but allows it to exist, blaming humans for temptations He creates. If he's so concerned about Free Will, how does that explain His making it more tempting to do Evil? How does it explain His allowing the Devil to tempt people?

davidw

04-23-2002, 11:41 AM

Originally posted by Scupper

Why is it never translated that way except in footnotes?

It's translated as "You shall not murder" in the New International Version, the New American Standard Bible, the New King James Version, the Amplified Bible, and "Do not murder" in the New Living Translation. See http://www.bible.com

davidw

04-23-2002, 11:46 AM

Originally posted by Scupper

Is there not a contradiction when God tells his people that they should not kill, then gives them specific exceptions, but He Himself repeatedly kills people who haven't met those exceptions? Or are we to believe that, for instance, every single man, woman, and child in the world outside of Noah's immediate family met one or more of His criteria for execution?

So what you're saying is that God should be living by the same rules that he lays down for man. Would you also argue that parents should live by the same rules they lay down for their children?

Scupper

04-23-2002, 11:51 AM

Originally posted by davidw

It's translated as "You shall not murder" in the New International Version, the New American Standard Bible, the New King James Version, the Amplified Bible, and "Do not murder" in the New Living Translation. See http://www.bible.com

I stand corrected on that point. I should have said something more to the effect of "Why have I never seen it translated that way except in footnotes?"

But don't allow my error there to prevent you from explaining why it's OK for God and His people to murder and then immortalize it in their holiest book.

In the long run, if it says "Thou shalt not murder," then gives the specifics of what constitutes legitimate killing, it is more damning to the book as a whole, as a vast number of murders are perpetuated by God and his people.

God hardened Pharoah's heart, no? And then killed all the firstborn of Egypt because of that selfsame heart-hardening? Murder.

Scupper

04-23-2002, 11:54 AM

Originally posted by davidw

So what you're saying is that God should be living by the same rules that he lays down for man. Would you also argue that parents should live by the same rules they lay down for their children?

When lives are at stake? Yes, I think that's reasonable.

Father: You should not murder people.
Son: Can I go over to Joey's house?
Father: No, I'm going to kill Joey because his dad made me angry.

JThunder

04-23-2002, 12:12 PM

Originally posted by Scupper
But don't allow my error there to prevent you from explaining why it's OK for God and His people to murder and then immortalize it in their holiest book.
I think it's safe to say that the original giver of life should have more freedom to determine when life should be taken away... especially when that person is omniscient and has more knowledge of the circumstances than any mortal can claim.

God hardened Pharoah's heart, no? And then killed all the firstborn of Egypt because of that selfsame heart-hardening? Murder.
Not quite. Pharaoh had already hardened his own heart, several times beforehand. As for the final hardening, see this analysis of the text (http://www.rationalchristianity.net/pharaoh.html).

JThunder

04-23-2002, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by Czarcasm
Either the Bible is supposed to be a straightforward account meant to be read and understood by all, or it is not and should be tossed in the trash with any other badly plotted-out manuscript.
Why should we claim that those are the only options? I think the fallacy of the excluded middle applies here.

What if the Bible is a text which requires some effort in order to understand... diligent and prayerful study, with close attention to detail? Or what if it is deliberately vague on some matters that are not imperative (e.g. fine points of end-times eschatology)? The Bible does warn people to be vigilant about Christ's return, so it's reasonable that some matters won't be perfectly clear until after then.

As seen in this very thread, much of the miscomprehension regarding the Bible has been due to incomplete and careless readings of the text. Such mistakes are virtually inevitable, especially when people set out with the intent of finding errors. I think it's unfair to expect the Biblical authors to water down their text, simply to accomodate the lowest denominator.

Gr8Kat

04-23-2002, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by Gr8Kat

So let's try this one on for size:

Children are held accountable for the sins of the father [...]

Children are NOT held accountable for the sins of the father

Are you genuinely interested in an answer? Then please read http://www.rationalchristianity.net/punish_sons.htm

Yes, I'm genuinely interested in the answer. However, I'm disappointed that the link did not provide it.

"When parents do wrong or experience punishment on earth, their children share the ill effects - if a parent is put in jail, their children are adversely affected; if a parent is abusive or negligent, their children suffer. This sort of thing occurs in many places in the Bible. For instance, Achan and his family died as a result of his disobeying God (Joshua 7). However, while children often shared the earthly punishment of their parents, they would not be punished for their parents' sins in the afterlife. Ezekiel 18 makes it clear that the real guilt belongs to the person who sinned, not their family."

A. This makes God sound like a jerk. He punishes the parents with no regard to how it will effect the children, but he's not really punishing the children. They're just "collateral damage."

B. However, Exodus 34:7 makes it sound like he is deliberately punishing the children. "Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children and their children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation."

C. "In other words, the true distinction is between life on earth and the afterlife. People do not receive precisely what they deserve while they are on earth; they are affected by the actions of those around them, and thus can be said to be punished (i.e. experience suffering) for their relatives' wrongs." However, 2 Kings 14 makes it clear that Amaziah believes the statement to pertain to this life on Earth. Allow me to reiterate verses 5 and 6:

After the kingdom was firmly in his grasp, [Amaziah] executed the officials who had murdered his father the king. Yet he did not put the sons of the assassins to death, in accordance with what is written in the Book of the Law of Moses where the Lord commanded: "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sins."

So God himself says he will punish the fathers and the children unto the third and fourth generations because the guilty will not go unpunished, thus implying the children and children's children are also guilty. God does not say, "I'll punish the fathers and their innocent kids, grandkids, and great grandkids will just have to deal with the fallout." But the Law says that children are not to be killed for their fathers' sins because they are not guilty.

Finally, as Scupper and Czarcasm have pointed out, God often commanded the Israelites to go in and destroy entire villages, including children, infants, and the unborn. (See Numbers 31:17; 1 Samuel 15:2, 3; 1 Samuel 22:19; Isaiah 13:16, 18.) These children's only "sin" was being conceived by parents who were not Israelites, yet they had to pay for that with their lives. God punished the children for their fathers' beliefs. Therefore, God definitely delivers a conflicting, contradictary message.

Scupper

04-23-2002, 03:42 PM

Originally posted by JThunder

I think it's safe to say that the original giver of life should have more freedom to determine when life should be taken away... especially when that person is omniscient and has more knowledge of the circumstances than any mortal can claim.

I think it makes him a hypocrite.

Not quite. Pharaoh had already hardened his own heart, several times beforehand. As for the final hardening, see this analysis of the text (http://www.rationalchristianity.net/pharaoh.html).

Okay.

Then the LORD said to Moses, "Go to Pharaoh, for I have hardened his heart and the hearts of his officials so that I may perform these miraculous signs of mine among them that you may tell your children and grandchildren how I dealt harshly with the Egyptians and how I performed my signs among them, and that you may know that I am the LORD."

In other words, Pharaoh's hardening his heart is considered to be the same as God hardening Pharaoh's heart. I take this to mean that Pharaoh did the actual hardening, as we see it - he decided on his own to not listen to God and let the Israelites go. But God knew in advance what Pharaoh would do in any given situation, and deliberately placed Pharaoh in this situation (i.e. God decided that Pharaoh would be born at the time and place that he was and thus placed him in this position of power). (See Exodus 9:13-16.) Thus God brought about the situation, namely that Moses would encounter a pharaoh whose heart was hardened against God, though Pharaoh hardened his heart of his own free will.

Um, this isn't an analysis, this is an opinion. "I take this to mean..." doesn't mean anything to me other than this person doesn't like what it actually says. Even as an opinion, it's a weak defense of God's actions in this case. He even says "God brought about the situation," which I take to mean "caused the whole problem in the first place."

"I have hardened his heart," is not vague. Trying to say God didn't mean what he said is a bit of a dodge.

Scupper

04-23-2002, 03:44 PM

Please note that the third quote on the post above was not from the same author as the first two. It is from the link provided by JThunder. Sorry for any confusion.

David, God of Frogs

04-23-2002, 04:06 PM

orignally posted by Davidw
"Time shouldn't be a concern" is not equivalent to "getting it done right now." If time isn't a concern, then it seems to me that that should mean God can do what he wants, when he wants, and how he wants. Our opinion on whether it's taking too long don't matter.

I should clarify, I'm not saying that God's taking to long by my standards, but rather that God is taking too long by his own standards. I get the distinct impression from the Bible that evil is bad and should be gotten rid of as soon as possible. (which, of course, for an omnipotent being is right this instant.)

emarkp

04-23-2002, 04:47 PM

Originally posted by Scupper
God hardened Pharoah's heart, no? And then killed all the firstborn of Egypt because of that selfsame heart-hardening? Murder. No, he didn't. I believe the phrase "God hardened Pharoh's heart" and related phrases are errors in the text. But then I'm a Mormon, and most people ignore what I say anyway. :)

If you care about the LDS interpretation, see http://scriptures.lds.org/ex/4/21#21 vs. http://scriptures.lds.org/ex/4/21d#21d. See http://scriptures.lds.org/bdj/jsphsmth for what "JST" means.

emarkp

04-23-2002, 04:53 PM

Originally posted by Scupper
When lives are at stake? Yes, I think that's reasonable.

Father: You should not murder people.
Son: Can I go over to Joey's house?
Father: No, I'm going to kill Joey because his dad made me angry.I'm afraid that's not a valid comparison. If you're going to accept the premise of the existence of the Christian God (I'm not familiar enough with Judaism to properly represent it, so I'm sticking to what I know), then you must accept the afterlife. Hence death is not the ultimate end, and is not as severe as it would be if there were no afterlife. Jesus quite clearly indicated that wickedness was worse than death (http://scriptures.lds.org/matt/16/26#26).

Gr8Kat

04-23-2002, 07:10 PM

As seen in this very thread, much of the miscomprehension regarding the Bible has been due to incomplete and careless readings of the text. Such mistakes are virtually inevitable, especially when people set out with the intent of finding errors. I think it's unfair to expect the Biblical authors to water down their text, simply to accomodate the lowest denominator.

Lowest common denominator? Isn't the word of God supposed to be for everyone? Jesus spoke in parables to make his message easier for the "lowest common denominator" to understand. But that's beside the point.

The Bible is supposed to be the word of God. It is supposed by many to be "inerrant" and "perfect." They go so far as to insist that it should be in the classroom along side, or in place of, science books because it is so inerrant and perfect. But it is clearly not. It was written by dozens of different people over several centuries. These writers all write from their own point of view. They have their own agendas to push and they all have their own take on history. And sometimes these views conflict with each other.

Check this out: Everyone knows David killed Goliath, right? However, 2 Samuel 21:19 states, "In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod." Elhanan killed Goliath? Oopsy daisy! Some Bible scholars give a scholarly reason for this flub: Elhanan killed Goliath. But, when a person becomes king, often things they did not do are attributed to them to make them sound bigger and better than they were. In this case, the editor of 2 Samuel overlooked this reference to Elhanan when he was replacing his name with David's.

BUT, 1 Chronicles 20:5 calls Elhanan the son of Jair and says he killed Lahmi, the brother of Goliath.

So, does 1 Chronicles 20:5 contradict 2 Samuel 21:19? Does 2 Samuel 21:19 contradict every other passage in the Bible that says David killed Goliath? Does this or does this not reflect that these passages were written or edited by someone with a political agenda? Therefore, does this or does this not affect how we should view the rest of the Bible? Are we really reading the word of God or are we instead reading what some king, politician, prophet, poet, etc., wanted the word of God to be?

After all, even Jesus claimed in Matthew 19 that Moses told the Israelites they were permitted to divorce "because your hearts were hard," but that wasn't "the way from the beginning." I've heard Christian apologists claim this means Moses told the Israelites the opposite of what God intended because he (Moses) didn't think they could meet God's impossibly high standard. In other words, God commanded X but Moses told them Y and that's what got put in the Bible. So if we accept that individual writers let their views color the word of God, then… call it throwing the baby out with the bathwater, but how can we accept any of it as the pure, perfect, inerrant word of God? How can we be sure that any of it represents what God wanted? God says he's not the author of confusion, yet these contradictions do cause confusion and division.

As for "setting out with the intent of finding error," some of these examples have troubled me since I was a child. It disturbed me that the Christmas and Easter stories couldn't be read the same way twice. It disturbs me to this day when people hurl Bible verses at each other as weapons. Christians are also very good at pulling verses out of context to fit their purposes, and it disturbs me when people go back and forth fighting, each person using conflicting verses to back up their positions. It disturbs me that people use the Bible as justification to discriminate against homosexuals, and in the past used it as justification to enslave blacks. Are these peoples' actions the Bible's fault for not being written to accommodate the "lowest common denominator"? The pastors' fault for not being able to explain the Bible to the "lowest common denominator"? Or the individuals' fault for being the "lo

Czarcasm

04-23-2002, 07:11 PM

Originally posted by JThunder
What if the Bible is a text which requires some effort in order to understand... diligent and prayerful study, with close attention to detail?

What if scholars from around the world try to "translate" the Bible through diligent and prayerful study, but still come up with completely different ideas on which parts are fact and which are parable? You surely are not making the claim that those who believe differently from you about what the Bible actually says are not studying and praying as diligently as you.

Qwertyasdfg

04-23-2002, 07:44 PM

My personal favorites:

God is "merciful." Yet he helps and promotes the slaughter of Amalakites, Egyptian first borns, and denizens of Jerusalem, and dozens of other atrocities.

I Samuel 15:3

"Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, childrem and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys."

Exodus 12:12
"On that same night I will pass through Egypt and strike down every firstborn--both men and animals--and I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt. I am the LORD."

Numbers 31:17

"Now kill all the boys. And kill every woman who has slept with a man, but save for yourselves every girl who has never slept with a man."

Ezekiel, 9:4 - 9:6

"Go through the midst of the city, through the midst of Jerusalem....let not your eye spare, neither have ye pity: Slay utterly old and young, both maids, and little children, and women...."

I fail to see how anyone (even the most interpretive Christians) can explain away these Hitlerish(to coin the term, maybe) orders.

tracer

04-23-2002, 08:30 PM

Qwertyasdfg:

You left out the ordained genocide of Joshua 10:40 :
So Joshua subdued the whole region, including the hill country, the Negev, the western foothills and the mountain slopes, together with all their kings. He left no survivors. He totally destroyed all who breathed, just as the Lord , the God of Israel, had commanded.
(NIV translation, emphasis mine)

Qwertyasdfg

04-23-2002, 08:58 PM

Thanks tracer.

Czarcasm

04-23-2002, 09:45 PM

Is this an example of the "God-like" we are supposed to strive for?

continuum

04-23-2002, 11:01 PM

Originally posted by Gr8Kat

Check this out: Everyone knows David killed Goliath, right? However, 2 Samuel 21:19 states, "In another battle with the Philistines at Gob, Elhanan son of Jaare-Oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite, who had a spear with a shaft like a weaver's rod."

BUT, 1 Chronicles 20:5 calls Elhanan the son of Jair and says he killed Lahmi, the brother of Goliath.

Actually, the Bible that I have states in both passages that it was the brother of Goliath.

JubilationTCornpone

04-23-2002, 11:03 PM

Originally posted by Czarcasm

What if scholars from around the world try to "translate" the Bible through diligent and prayerful study, but still come up with completely different ideas on which parts are fact and which are parable? You surely are not making the claim that those who believe differently from you about what the Bible actually says are not studying and praying as diligently as you.
I certainly wouldn't claim that. It could be that they're being MORE diligent than I -- or that we're both lacking in diligence.

Either way, it still shows that you're presenting a false dilemma. The choices are not limited to merely (a) the Bible must be clearly understood by everyone, or (b) it must be thrown away.

continuum

04-23-2002, 11:08 PM

When God ordered that a certain people were to be "eradicated," so to speak, He knew that if the Jews were to come into that place while the pagans were still there, the pagans would pollute the Jews spiritually and physically. Secondly, He also knew that the pagans would not turn from their evil ways to worship Him, but would turn the Jews to their lifestyle. And, in many cases, when the Jews failed to totally wipe out a particular race, that is [i]exactly[/] what happened.

JubilationTCornpone

04-23-2002, 11:11 PM

Originally posted by Gr8Kat

Lowest common denominator? Isn't the word of God supposed to be for everyone? Jesus spoke in parables to make his message easier for the "lowest common denominator" to understand. But that's beside the point.

Again, you're missing the point. YES, the Bible is meant for everyone, but that does not mean that its interpretation should be effortless. People are expected to apply themselves to its interpretation and study.

It's like studying the Mona Lisa. Da Vinci could have simply painted a pretty picture -- something that everyone could understand. Instead, he created something more masterful. He created a more complex work -- one wherein the essentials could be seen by anyone who makes a modest effort to understand, but with shades of meaning and detail that require more study, and more effort to see. These shades of meaning and detail yield their own rewards.

Besides, do remember that the Bible purports to address some of the most troubling and profound issues in existence -- including sin, human worth, our purpose on earth and our eternal destinies. One should not expect to discuss such weighty issues in a manner that requires no effort to understand.

Darwin's Finch

04-23-2002, 11:42 PM

Originally posted by JubilationTCornpone
It's like studying the Mona Lisa. Da Vinci could have simply painted a pretty picture -- something that everyone could understand. Instead, he created something more masterful. He created a more complex work -- one wherein the essentials could be seen by anyone who makes a modest effort to understand, but with shades of meaning and detail that require more study, and more effort to see. These shades of meaning and detail yield their own rewards.

Then again, maybe he did just paint a pretty picture, and any shades of meaning are in the mind of the beholder.

Darwin's Finch

04-23-2002, 11:51 PM

Originally posted by JubilationTCornpone
Besides, do remember that the Bible purports to address some of the most troubling and profound issues in existence -- including sin, human worth, our purpose on earth and our eternal destinies. One should not expect to discuss such weighty issues in a manner that requires no effort to understand.

Judging from the verses quoted earlier, it seems we aren't worth much.

As flies to wanton boys, are we to God,
He kills us for His sport.

JubilationTCornpone

04-23-2002, 11:51 PM

Originally posted by continuum
When God ordered that a certain people were to be "eradicated," so to speak, He knew that if the Jews were to come into that place while the pagans were still there, the pagans would pollute the Jews spiritually and physically. Secondly, He also knew that the pagans would not turn from their evil ways to worship Him, but would turn the Jews to their lifestyle. And, in many cases, when the Jews failed to totally wipe out a particular race, that is [i]exactly[/] what happened.
Quite true. Quite true.

Also, please note that some posters are still bringing up God's acts of judgment, as though this contradicts the notion that he is merciful. Frankly I'm disappointed, since we've been on that road before. We've already pointed out that such argumentation,while interesting, does NOT constitute a *contradiction*. A contradiction occurs when someone claims both "Statement A" and "Not Statement A."

So why would a merciful God ordain such harsh judgments? Such a topic is worthy of great theological debate... but it's not a contradiction in any accurate sense of the term.

The implicit assumption is that God's mercy would preclude such wrath. Maybe, or maybe not... but either way, it's an assumption. One could just as easily argue that the omniscient God knew these people would reject his mercy, and so chose to exercise judgment. Or one could surmise that God's mercy had already come to an end, and that it was now time for these people to face the consequences of rejecting Yahweh. For so long as any such option remains a possibility, we can not claim that a contradiction occurs.

JubilationTCornpone

04-23-2002, 11:53 PM

Originally posted by David, God of Frogs

I should clarify, I'm not saying that God's taking to long by my standards, but rather that God is taking too long by his own standards. I get the distinct impression from the Bible that evil is bad and should be gotten rid of as soon as possible. (which, of course, for an omnipotent being is right this instant.)
You get this impression from the Bible? To which specific passages are you referring? Or is this merely a vague overall impression?

Twin

04-24-2002, 07:55 AM

Gr8Kat said:
Jesus spoke in parables to make his message easier for the "lowest common denominator" to understand. But that's beside the point.

Actually, you have it backwards. He spoke in parables so that the truth would only be understood by those who were truly seeking to learn. Jesus had developed quite a following after the feeding of the 5,000 and some of them were just coming to see miracles and get free food. Even the disciples were confused by some of the parables and Jesus had to explain the parables to them.

Czarcasm

04-24-2002, 08:17 AM

If someone studies the Bible diligently and prayerfully and comes up with conclusion A, a second person studies the Bible diligently and prayerfully and comes up with conclusion B, and a third person studies the Bible diligently and prayerfully and comes up with conclusion C, then either "studying diligently and prayerfully" is the wrong way to go about it, or there is nothing of signifigance to understand. We can't even reach an agreement on whether parables are meant to simplify matters or make them more complicated then they already are.

JTCornpone, if there is no example that can be put forward to you that will show you that your god is not merciful, from the slaughter of the innocent first born to the destruction of all life on Earth(both human and animal) except for one family and some species samples, then there is no reason at all to discuss this with you. This conversation is meaningless if you insist that we start with the pre-supposition that the Bible cannot contain contradictions and that your god is merciful not matter what he does or who he kills.

Newton meter

04-24-2002, 09:15 AM

First, thanks Polycarp. I'm glad someone read it. I'm still fighting that battle with conciseness and clarity of expression.

This whole debate still seems a little incongruous from where I sit. I hope the following two points are not controversial, though I expect they are.

1. We are all talking about a reading of the bible. This is unavoidable. The only way it gets into our brains is by having (a translation of) it filtered through the rest of the stuff in our brains. You may insist that you did not "interpret" the bible, but that's silly. You may insist that other's are not allowed to "interpret" the bible, but that's silly too.

Is there a priveleged interpretation of the bible? Perhaps, but that's another debate. It's clear that we (on both sides, with only a few exceptions) are not interested in the correct reading of the bible. Back on page 2, zev_steinhardt talked about the context of Jewish law and the Hebrew words used in Exodus, and was told (I paraphrase): "But my version says 'kill', so I don't care about what you say." At one point, somebody called any interpretation of scripture (other than their own, obviously) "laughable".

A more idealistic me would have expected an outcry on both sides of the debate. If you want to claim that the bible is inaccurate, it is not effective to claim that your reading of it is inaccurate. The whole force of the criticism is that it is relevant to the most common, or most likely, or intended reading.

2. We are all implicitly talking about an idea of God. The "contradictions" discussed in this thread are only contradictions given a God who does not change his mind, who cannot be both loving and hateful, who does not hide his nature, etc. I'm not arguing that such a God does exist. I'm pointing out that the entire argument is relative to a particular idea of God.

So the argument goes like this: a particular reading of the bible and a particular idea of God are inconsistent. Now, if we think that the actual world can be described by classical Aristotelian logic (it's clear that I do not believe this is the case. I'll point out that Aristotle lived 350 years before Christ, so don't mistakenly believe that you've found a "modern" position) then it must be the case that either this reading of the bible is incorrect or this idea of God is incorrect, or both.

Big deal. That's not very problematic. I don't even have to point out (though I will) that the reading of the bible you are using is very literal and the idea of God you are assuming is very unsophisticated. It seems like it's problematic (for believers) only when coupled with the insistence that your reading of the bible is the (only) correct one, and that God (if he existed) would be exactly as you imagine him.

Whoop-de-doo. I can't even believe that I'm participating in this thread. This sort of thread would be interesting if it were honestly: "What apparent contradictions are there in scripture, and how do Christians (Jews, Muslims) reconcile them?". I could imagine many atheists I know honestly asking that question and honestly interested in my answer.

In this case, I fear that JThunder, JubilationTCornpone, and continuum cannot ever give a "good enough" answer. It is not satisfactory to show how their interpretation of the bible leads to their idea of God. They are in the unenviable position of providing evidence for a faulty idea of God based on an impoverished reading of scriptures.

kg m²/s²

Newton meter

04-24-2002, 09:33 AM

Originally posted by Czarcasm
This conversation is meaningless if you insist that we start with the pre-supposition that the Bible cannot contain contradictions and that your god is merciful not matter what he does or who he kills.
I don't think I've seen JubilationTCornpone yet say anything that would cause me to think he presupposes (or even believes) the bible cannot contain contradictions.

But Czarcasm this conversation is also meaningless if you do not insist that either the bible is literally true, or a parsimonious God exists. We cannot be compelled to reject one without also being compelled to accept the other, by the very logic of this argument.

continuum

04-24-2002, 09:38 AM

Originally posted by Newton meter

In this case, I fear that JThunder, JubilationTCornpone, and continuum cannot ever give a "good enough" answer. It is not satisfactory to show how their interpretation of the bible leads to their idea of God. They are in the unenviable position of providing evidence for a faulty idea of God based on an impoverished reading of scriptures.

kg m²/s²

As for the idea of God being faulty, I'll disagree with that, if you are saying that the above names' ideas are faulty. However, I will agree with the idea that this thread has become a discussion over God's goodness and the literal correctness of the Bible, not over contradictions and their resolutions.

catsix

04-24-2002, 01:16 PM

'God' is omniscient.

It is not predetermined that a person is going to heaven or hell (one can save himself or damn himself).

So if 'God' is omniscient, how can 'God' not already know where that's going? And if 'God' already knows, then there's nothing a human can do to change what 'God' knows, because if they could, 'God' would be wrong, and thus not omiscient.

Even if 'God' knows that a person is going to change paths once, twice, thirty times, it's still known *right now* where that person will go when that person dies. The outcome is known, predetermined. If it's not, then 'God' is not omniscient, because an omniscient 'God' knows everything. And the future is included in everything.

dalovindj

04-24-2002, 01:29 PM

When God ordered that a certain people were to be "eradicated," so to speak, He knew that if the Jews were to come into that place while the pagans were still there, the pagans would pollute the Jews spiritually and physically. continuum:

This is one of the ugliest things I have ever seen posted here. The fact that anyone would try to justify the "eradication" of an entire race is so wrong and evil I can't believe I read it. If anyone here believes that there is ever any good reason to eradicate a whole race then you are an evil bigoted bastard. Whether you are god or human.

My goodness. The fact that some agree with wiping out people because of their race to make this bible make sense is exactly the reason I find this religion to be so repulsive. Excuse the pit like demeanor, but:

Screw anyone who thinks wiping out a whole race is reasonable, neccesary, or acceptable. You are evil in my book. Shades of Hitler this christian god of "love".

DaLovin Dj

JThunder

04-24-2002, 01:35 PM

Originally posted by Czarcasm
If someone studies the Bible diligently and prayerfully and comes up with conclusion A, a second person studies the Bible diligently and prayerfully and comes up with conclusion B, and a third person studies the Bible diligently and prayerfully and comes up with conclusion C, then either "studying diligently and prayerfully" is the wrong way to go about it, or there is nothing of signifigance to understand.
That's another false dilemma, Czarcasm. There are many degrees of diligence and prayerfulness. To say that the method fails because some people were diligent and prayerful... well, that's just fallacious binary-level thinking. In addition, one must consider the manner and technique with which one studies the scriptures. This is evidenced by the alleged "contradictions" presented here, which contain such basic errors as interpreting "after" to mean "immediately after."

Besides, who's to say that all these things must be made clear right now? Certainly the end-times matters don't have to be perfectly clear to everyone at this stage.

[
JTCornpone, if there is no example that can be put forward to you that will show you that your god is not merciful, from the slaughter of the innocent first born to the destruction of all life on Earth(both human and animal) except for one family and some species samples, then there is no reason at all to discuss this with you.
Once again though, bear in mind that the burden of proof lies on the accuser. For the purposes of this particular debate, it is sufficient to point out that judgment does not necessarily imply lack of mercy. There comes a time when judgment and sovereignty must ultimately override warm fuzzy mercy.

Earlier, Newton meter lamented the fallacy of using an unsophisticated idea of God, and attacking the Scriptures based on that idea. I think this is a perfect example of such careless thinking. Mercy does not preclude judgment -- not even harsh, earthshaking judgment. It can mitigate or delay judgment, and in some instances, even turn it away. However, mercy does not have to be exercised to the exclusion of wrath.

Newton meter

04-24-2002, 01:39 PM

Originally posted by catsix
So if 'God' is omniscient, how can 'God' not already know where that's going? And if 'God' already knows, then there's nothing a human can do to change what 'God' knows, because if they could, 'God' would be wrong, and thus not omiscient.
How is this a biblical contradiction?

There is a third possibility, catsix. You are confused about the nature of time. Earlier today, you made a "choice" to post this. Now, I know that you chose it. You cannot change your choice. Does that mean it wasn't a choice?

Qwertyasdfg

04-24-2002, 04:03 PM

Originally posted by JubilationTCornpone

The implicit assumption is that God's mercy would preclude such wrath. Maybe, or maybe not... but either way, it's an assumption. One could just as easily argue that the omniscient God knew these people would reject his mercy, and so chose to exercise judgment. Or one could surmise that God's mercy had already come to an end, and that it was now time for these people to face the consequences of rejecting Yahweh. For so long as any such option remains a possibility, we can not claim that a contradiction occurs.

Ok, If we take the assumption that "the genocide of innocent people (and animals) is merciful and loving" than its not a contradiction. If we take the assumption that "genocide is not merciful and loving," then you have a contradiction.

Regardless of what assumption you take, the bottom line is that "God" as portrayed in the Testaments is much worse than Hitler. Why anyone would choose worship him is beyond me.

JThunder

04-24-2002, 04:56 PM

Originally posted by Qwertyasdfg
Ok, If we take the assumption that "the genocide of innocent people (and animals) is merciful and loving" than its not a contradiction.
Once again, assumptions come into play. Your response assumes that those people were genuinely innocent, whereas the Bible claims that nobody merits that description. In fact, the Old Testament makes it clear that those people were judged because of their wrongdoings. Besides, even if we grant the innocence (or even relative innocence) of individuals in those camps, God's sovereignty allows for the innocent to die according to his purpose. After all, the giver of life must surely have some freedom to decide when people must face their inevitable deaths, no?

Regardless of what assumption you take, the bottom line is that "God" as portrayed in the Testaments is much worse than Hitler. Why anyone would choose worship him is beyond me.

Comparing God to Hitler is logically indefensible. Hitler was not the giver of life, and had no authority to take it away on such a massive scale. Hitler had no legitimate claims to sovereignty or omniscience, and thus, could not claim the same authority to determine when life should end, or even when its end is permissible. On the other hand, Hitler did choose to exterminate millions based on their racial background alone, whereas Yahweh passed judgment based on the wickedness and inequities of those people.

Now, one might disagree with the judgment of Yahweh, as portrayed in the O.T. Even then though, that would be a mere theological disagreement, and it would be intellectually dishonest to pass this off as an (ahem) "contradiction."

dalovindj

04-24-2002, 05:20 PM

Even if it isn't a contradiction, it sure is an example of how ugly that book and that philosophy are. The fact that in this day and age otherwise reasonable people would argue that there are circumstances where genocide (killing people because of the way they look) is justifiable is shocking. Whatever would make such a thing reasonable in anyones eyes is evil in my book.

The bible seems to be able to make people think that it is OK to kill people who don't believe or worship the same things you do. It wasn't written by a god based in love, it was written by men based in hatred. The more I review the literature, the more I think christianity may be in the top 5 most evil things ever, if not number 1. People who preach that this genocide stuff is acceptable are racist and barbaric. If anyone were to come here and imply that it is OK to kill a whole race outside of this topic the flames would be piling on. Religion cheapens peoples goodness. Responsible, intelligent, and compassinate people should do all they can to rid it from the world. It makes weak minds believe evil things are OK after all this time. After all who have died in the name of equality and ending racism. After all who have stood up to evil men to end pain and suffering. Still, idiots find a way to imply that racism and murder are justifiable if done in the lords name. Absolutely disgusting.

DaLovin' Dj

Newton meter

04-24-2002, 05:45 PM

Originally posted by dalovindj
The bible seems to be able to make people think that it is OK to kill people who don't believe or worship the same things you do.
That is bullcrap, and I have to believe you're sophisticated enough to know it. Tell me again how the book makes people think anything. Is it an invisible mind ray that it shoots out? Can I protect myself with a special hat?

I've noticed that people who've never even heard of the bible kill people who don't believe or worship the same things [they] do. Can you provide any cite that indicates this behavior is more prevalent among Christians than non-Christians? Don't forget to account for the real reasons people kill each other, like when they're in the wrong place or have the stuff we want.

I've also noticed that people think whatever they damn well want, and then go looking for justification.

Even if it isn't a contradiction, it sure is an example of how ugly that book and that philosophy are....Whatever would make such a thing reasonable in anyones eyes is evil in my book....It wasn't written by a god based in love, it was written by men based in hatred....I think christianity may be in the top 5 most evil things ever, if not number 1....Religion cheapens peoples goodness. Responsible, intelligent, and compassinate people should do all they can to rid it from the world....Absolutely disgusting.
Do you think you're part of the solution, or part of the problem?

Icerigger

04-24-2002, 06:08 PM

What I find as the most interesting contradiction, is the athiest/agnostics who are supposed to be, according to believers morally bankrupt arguing against the genocide's in the bible and the believers claiming genocide is moral and acceptable if it is ordained by God.

When it comes to religion believers will justify anything to support their theologies.

Czarcasm

04-24-2002, 07:41 PM

How much diligent and prayerful studying is necessary to understand the Bible, JTCornpone, and why do you assume that you've reached that level of understanding? How can you think that you've got the ability to tell fact from fiction, truth from parable, or evidence from poetry if someone else using the same Bible comes to a completely different conclusion than you? Which scholars' excuses do you believe? Do you believe them because they've studied the Bible more than anyone else, or because they tell you what you want to hear?
I'm sorry, but if anybody tried to publish a non-fiction book with so many inaccuracies and contradictions today, they wouldn't be able to do it.
Even if they provided a complicated guide that told the reader what half the passages really meant, and which parts of the book were really just tales and not part of the actual history.

JThunder

04-24-2002, 07:51 PM

Originally posted by dalovindj
Even if it isn't a contradiction, it sure is an example of how ugly that book and that philosophy are. The fact that in this day and age otherwise reasonable people would argue that there are circumstances where genocide (killing people because of the way they look) is justifiable is shocking.
That would indeed be shocking. Thankfully, the Bible says no such thing... unless, of course, you can produce a passage which says that they were killed due to their appearance.

If not, then this strikes me as an obvious misrepresentation of what the text says.

he bible seems to be able to make people think that it is OK to kill people who don't believe or worship the same things you do. It wasn't written by a god based in love, it was written by men based in hatred. The more I review the literature...
With all due respect, I don't think you've done a very thorough job of reviewing it. These Old Testament tribes weren't killed merely because they had other beliefs. Rather, they were killed due to the severity of their abominations. The worshippers of Moloch (http://www.carm.org/misc/1722_moloch.htm), for example, practiced ritualistic child sacrifice. Their worship involved starting a fire inside a large idol, and then heating it up until it was glowing red hot. Newborn infants would then be placed into the idol's fiery, glowing arms.

Clearly, such tribes go way beyond merely disagreeing with the teachings of Yahweh.

In addition, note that the Bible does not say that mere theological disagreement is enough reason to kill someone. Quite the contrary; believers are routinely instructed to rebuke, correct and instruct those who have erroneous viewpoints regarding God and salvation (2 Tim 3:16 immediately comes to mind, as do the examples of Joseph, David and Moses in the Old Testament).

Darwin's Finch

04-24-2002, 08:01 PM

It appears to me that all of the issues being raised in this thread are being dismissed by the apologetics solely on the basis that they are not strictly logical contradictions. Indeed, the entire notion of a "Biblical contradiction" has been dismissed.

So, how about replacing "contradiction" in the thread title with "inconsistency"? How then might these issues be defended? Indeed, in the OP, Beastal asked:
While I know that most die hard fundies would argue that there aren't any contradictions in the Bible, period, I was wondering what some, or most other people view as the biggest inconsistency contained within the sacred text?

As such, I don't think it's appropriate to simply dismiss the points made by posters here because they are not "true" contradictions.

Personally, I don't feel that the "loving God" thing has been addressed satisfactorily from a contradictory (or inconsistent, if you prefer) standpoint: given the existence of the Biblical God, we must accept that a) He is loving, or b) He is not. He cannot be both "loving" and "not loving".

Of course, this raises the question of "loving to whom?" To the Jews of the Old testament, I don't doubt that they felt God was a loving God: He protected them, He smote their enemies, He laid down the Law, and punished those who transgressed.

However, to those who weren't Jews, it doesn't appear that He was very loving at all. He did not punish non-Jews, He destroyed them. To me, punishment implies the possibility of redemption; it is a form of aversion therapy. You punish the sinner in the hopes that he will sin no more.

However when someone is deemed "wicked" by the OT God, that person, and everyone around him, is destroyed, with no possibility of redemption. The sinner is damned now and for all eternity, along with his entire family for generations to come. That's not punishment, that's spite. I honestly don't see how anyone can rationalize that God was, indeed, "loving" to non-Jews, based on OT evidence.

Then, we have the New Testament God. Based on the evidence, this seems to be a very different God from that of the OT. For one thing, we rarely, if ever, hear anything directly from Him. In the OT, "God spoke" to lots of folks. In the NT, all we have are largely personal letters sent all over the Mediterranean region spelling out that particular letter's author's impressions of God. God no longer speaks to anyone directly.

But this God "so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." Even still, this God also has a condemnation clause for all who do not believe: "He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." (John 3:18, KJV)

Now, while I can accept the whole "free will" thing, I still don't believe that grants God a "get out of spitefulness free" card. Sure, we have the choice which way to go, but how can a God be truly called "loving" if He still insists on condemning all those who oppose Him? Where is the forgiveness that Jesus preached as The Word of God?

So, what I see, and I freely admit I am no Biblical scholar, is a lot of talk about a loving God, but not a whole lot of evidence to that effect. It may not represent one of Newton meter's "logical contradictions", but it should be fairly evident, based on the responses so far, that this inconsistency between word and deed in the presentation of God plays a significant role in the dismissal of the Bible as a whole.

Gr8Kat

04-25-2002, 12:29 AM

Thank you, Darwin, for a very eloquent, well reasoned post. You've hit that nail squarely on the head.

With all due respect, I don't think you've done a very thorough job of reviewing it. These Old Testament tribes weren't killed merely because they had other beliefs. Rather, they were killed due to the severity of their abominations. The worshippers of Moloch, for example, practiced ritualistic child sacrifice. Their worship involved starting a fire inside a large idol, and then heating it up until it was glowing red hot. Newborn infants would then be placed into the idol's fiery, glowing arms.

Clearly, such tribes go way beyond merely disagreeing with the teachings of Yahweh.

I'm not sure such teaching even go against Yahweh. Think about it: When God tested Abraham by telling him to sacrifice his son, Abraham didn't even think twice about obeying. There was no conflict, no internal diaglog, no "Does my supposedly non-child-sacrificing God suddenly want a child sacrifice or have I gone stark raving mad?" No, it was, yes, sir, right away, sir, one fresh child sacrifice coming right up, sir. Yeah, God supposedly stopped him this time...

... but what about Jephthah? According to Judges 11:30-40, Jephthah promised God that, if he "delivered the Ammonites into my hands, whatever comes out of the door of my house to meet me when I return in triumph from the Ammonites will be the LORD's, and I will sacrifice it as a burnt offering." So God helped Jephthah whoop the Ammonites, and when he got home his daughter greeted him at the door. And did Jephthah say, "Whoops, God would never want my daughter as a burnt offering, I better look around for a goat or something"? No, he gave her two months to mourn because she'd never be able to grow up, get married, and raise a family, then burnt her up. And did God smite Jephthah and his family? Nope, God was oddly silent about the incident. No, in fact Jephthah and the Gileadites went on the defeat the Ephraimites and Jephthah led (or judged) Israel for six years. Where was his punishment for child sacrifice?

Tell me truthfully, was the sacrifice to Molech detestable because it involved children or because it was to a rival god?

JubilationTCornpone

04-25-2002, 01:58 AM

Originally posted by Gr8Kat

I'm not sure such teaching even go against Yahweh. Think about it: When God tested Abraham by telling him to sacrifice his son, Abraham didn't even think twice about obeying. There was no conflict, no internal diaglog, no "Does my supposedly non-child-sacrificing God suddenly want a child sacrifice or have I gone stark raving mad?"

Can you substantiate that, please? How do you know that there was no internal conflict or dialog? How do you know that Abraham had no such struggle?

It seems to me that you're assuming an AWFUL lot about what went on in Abraham's head.

Besides which, you're missing the obvious. This was no ritualistic practice, and in the end, Abraham was NOT required to sacrifice his son. It was clearly meant as a learning experience for Abraham, as a way to develop his trust in Yahweh. To suggests that this means God would approve of sacrificing children to Molech... well, that would be intellectually dishonest, wouldn't it?

JubilationTCornpone

04-25-2002, 02:05 AM

Originally posted by Gr8Kat

... but what about Jephthah?
What about him? The answer to your challenge can be found here (http://www.rationalchristianity.net/human_sacrifice.html) and here (http://www.tektonics.org/tekton_03_02_04.html). Besides which, it is sufficient to note that God did not command Jephthah's actions. So, while one might use this as an example of Jephthah's foolishness, there is no indication that God actually desired him to commit this deed.

JubilationTCornpone

04-25-2002, 02:24 AM

Originally posted by Czarcasm
How much diligent and prayerful studying is necessary to understand the Bible, JTCornpone, and why do you assume that you've reached that level of understanding?
Why do you assume that I make that assumption? I have certainly said nothing of the sort. I merely offer the suggestion that studying the Bible requires effort and diligence, due to the nature of its material. Such a claim says nothing of whether my own understanding is complete.

This appears to be another example of drawing reckless conclusions based on matters which are nowhere said.

How can you think that you've got the ability to tell fact from fiction, truth from parable, or evidence from poetry if someone else using the same Bible comes to a completely different conclusion than you?
How does one claim to intepret Shakespeare, if other people have differing intepretations? The fact that others draw differing interpretations does not mean that one should not believe oneself to be correct.

Besides which, your objection is irrelevant to the topic at hand. I merely suggest that studying the Bible requires considerable effort. Your objection -- that different people who attempt exegesis can draw different conclusions -- does nothing to refute my proposition. If anything, it illustrates my point, insofar as it demonstrates that exegesis does require studiously applying oneself in order to refute contrary views -- or perhaps to ultimately accept them.

Once again, consider Shakespeare, or Anton Chekov, or Dostoevsky. Different scholars will have different interpretations of their work. Does this make them poor writers? Hardly; in fact, to make their work immediately comprehensible to all would be to remove much of their majesty.

Does this mean that it's futile to interpret their work, since different scholars hold different interpretations? Not at all, and the scholars themselves would be quick to agree. To pretend that this suggest some inadequacy in the texts themselves -- or by analogy, in Yahweh or the Bible -- is to resort to a blatant red herring.

dalovindj

04-25-2002, 02:30 AM

That would indeed be shocking. Thankfully, the Bible says no such thing... unless, of course, you can produce a passage which says that they were killed due to their appearance. Babies are ordered killed. Not because of any crime they commited but because of who their parents are, ie their nationality, ie what they look like. Genocide. Defend it and you are disgusting in my book.

There is never any justifiable reason for genocide. There is never any justifiable reason for the murder of children. The bible encourages both several times as has been noted in this thread. The bible's philosophy is barbaric and evil. Simple. Suppose I were to say that all of those who oppose my view should be killed, their wives ravaged, their towns burnt and their children murdered. What would you think of that? Well let's give it a try.

All christians should die, so should their children and wives. They are evil and evil must be removed from the world. They have murdered and attacked people for no reason. Kill em all. Kill men and women and babies. Fuck em. They have it coming for messing with my people (agnostics).

Pretty fucking repulsive, eh? Pretty damn offensive, no? I quote the bible, Samuel 15:This is what the Lord Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.' " Evil bastards. Anyone who supports a god even as he orders babies murdered is a real fucking jerk.

DaLovin' Dj

JubilationTCornpone

04-25-2002, 02:41 AM

Originally posted by Darwin's Finch
It appears to me that all of the issues being raised in this thread are being dismissed by the apologetics solely on the basis that they are not strictly logical contradictions.
Not at all. People have pointed out that they are NOT logical contradictions, so as to keep this thread on topic. That is done in order to keep this thread from digressing. At the same time though, various posters have made concerted efforts to answer such objections without diverging too far from the topic (see the explanation for why God executed the Molech worshipppers, for example).

Indeed, the entire notion of a "Biblical contradiction" has been dismissed.

Where did that occur? From what I've seen, people have been answering the alleged contradictions, but that's not the same as categorically saying that Biblical contradictioons don't exist. (FTR, I do believe in sola scriptura, but I'm not using that as an argumen in this debate.)

So, how about replacing "contradiction" in the thread title with "inconsistency"? How then might these issues be defended?
That would be playing a mere word game -- a way to argue the same point by using a different word. A contradiction occurs when inconsistent claimsare being made, so by using "inconsistency," we're not really changing the terms of the debate. We are merely substituting one word for another.

The objections raised have been falling into two categories: alleged discrepancies, and objections to the nature of God. The vast majority of them fall into the second category, and as explained earlier, it would be inaccurate to consider them as potential contradictions. As for the former, I haven't had time to evaluate every single one, but the ones that I have examined have displayed some fairly clear fallacies.

dalovindj

04-25-2002, 02:44 AM

The elders in Deuteronomy stoning responsibilities are contradicted by Jesus in the NT - I have already pointed out the passages.

Either the elders are supposed to stone people (women who aren;t virgins and disobediant sons :rolleyes:), or only non-sinners are supposed to stone people. Two very different and contradictory stances.

DaLovin Dj

dalovindj

04-25-2002, 02:46 AM

The elders in Deuteronomy stoning responsibilities are contradicted by Jesus in the NT - I have already pointed out the passages.

Either the elders are supposed to stone people ( women who aren't virgins and disobediant sons :rolleyes: ), or only non-sinners are supposed to stone people. Two very different and contradictory stances.

DaLovin Dj

Mangetout

04-25-2002, 05:54 AM

It's not as if the story of Jesus at the stoning is presented without reference to OT laws.

David, God of Frogs

04-25-2002, 09:26 AM

Originally posted by Jubilation
Originally posted by David, God of Frogs
I should clarify, I'm not saying that God's taking to long by my standards, but rather that God is taking too long by his own standards. I get the distinct impression from the Bible that evil is bad and should be gotten rid of as soon as possible. (which, of course, for an omnipotent being is right this instant.)
You get this impression from the Bible? To which specific passages are you referring? Or is this merely a vague overall impression?

Like I said before, most of my impression of what the Bible says comes from Christians I have talked with, so feel free to correct me.

It is possible that the struggle against evil described in the Bible isn't because God actually wants to get rid of evil - rather, he created people as fighting machines, and fighting evil is what they do natrually, without being told. Much like I can stuggle against an opponent in a game or a sport, not actually wanting to wipe that opponent off of the face of the Earth, but rather to perfect my own game.

The reason I doubt that interpretation is that the Bible does tell us things that we don't already know - i.e. how to be a Christian. The whole reason God wrote the Bible was to got rid of all the non-Christians in the world and replace them with Christians. My descision as to whether or not I convert is always cast as a moral descision - God wants me to become Christian, and I will go to Hell if I don't. That makes me wonder, if God's ultimate purpose is to create Christians, couldn't he have done it in a more efficient manner which doesn't involve evil?

Newton meter

04-25-2002, 09:29 AM

Originally posted by Darwin's Finch
So, how about replacing "contradiction" in the thread title with "inconsistency"? How then might these issues be defended?
I don't think that solves the problem. A (classically) inconsistent theory is just one that contains a contradiction.

Personally, I don't feel that the "loving God" thing has been addressed satisfactorily from a contradictory (or inconsistent, if you prefer) standpoint: given the existence of the Biblical God, we must accept that a) He is loving, or b) He is not. He cannot be both "loving" and "not loving".
I adore my dog. I yelled at her this morning, because I caught her peeing on the floor (again). I'm sure she has a lot of trouble understanding how I can be both "loving" and "not loving".

I don't think it is possible to address this issue in a way that you would find satisfactory. That's fine, you don't have to be satisfied. I think inconsistent accounts of the nature of God are probably a better reason than most to reject God, the bible, or religion in general.

Obviously, though, others do resolve this issue. Here are several ways.

1. The bible is true, God is what he is. If he appears both loving and not loving, then he embodies a paradox. Or we don't understand him completely. In any case, we better damn well figure out what he wants before he gets mad.

2. Words and analogies fail when we speak of God. He's not "loving" in the sense that he feels an attraction to, or a cameraderie with, or a dependence on, us. He's like loving. Just like when we say God is the Father, we don't mean he has a penis and fertilized all our mothers.

3. (This is what I choose). God didn't ever kill tons and tons of people like the Old Testament claimed. I can understand how a people who felt that they were God's chosen could attribute every victory to him. And how an extremely oppressed people could delight in their oppressors' misfortune. But I don't think that God actually sent down the forces of heaven and really leveled Sodom (if any disaster ever befell Sodom at all). I don't think Jesus causes every St. Louis Rams' touchdown, either, even if Kurt Warner thinks he does.

You might not like any of these explanations, you might find them facile. Fine. The point is, there is nothing in these problems that compels us to discard either God or (a not-entirely-literal-mostly-historical-largely-allegorical reading of) the bible. These are good reasons for you to reject religion, but they are not good reasons for me to reject religion. I didn't accept religion because I picked up a bible and said "Yup, duh, this must be true."

Personally, I find biblical contradictions interesting. And important. They are things that should be resolved internally by believers. The program of "conversion by contradiction" doesn't work, because nearly every believer has already resolved the contradictions to their satisfaction. They don't carry the philosophical force to convince anyone to not believe. Yet that is how they are used by atheists. It was thought at the beginning of the enlightenment that religion would just fade away and be replaced with a scientific worldview. It hasn't happened yet, and I don't think you can accelerate it.

kg m²/s²

Newton meter

04-25-2002, 09:45 AM

dalovindj, I'm worried about you man. Here's a chronology of bigotry:

1. forms false impression of beliefs or lifestyle of others
2. incorrectly attributes that false belief to entire group of people
3. judges said beliefs evil for thier foreignness
4. concludes that it would be a positive good to eradicate said evil beliefs from the world
5. discovers that believers do not relinquish beliefs easily
6. concludes that it would be a positive good to eradicate people who hold said evil beliefs from the world

Reality checks out at step 1. You no longer care to hear about what others believe, because you alread know what they believe. If they claim otherwise, they're just apologists or liars.

It looks like you're at about 4.5, maybe 5.5. That troubles me. I think you should back way up to 1, where you formed an incorrect opinion of Christianity and what the majority of Christians actually believe. I think you should post a thread called "Somebody please tell me what Christians actually believe", or maybe even "Somebody tell my why I should give a crap what religion others follow".

You're on the very slippery slope that leads to the justification that an entire group of people do not deserve basic human rights based on your opinion of them.

Tell me again why religious bigotry is bad, but your religious bigotry is OK? Oh yeah, you think you've found the correct beliefs.

kg m²/s²

Captain Amazing

04-25-2002, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by dalovindj
There is never any justifiable reason for genocide. There is never any justifiable reason for the murder of children. The bible encourages both several times as has been noted in this thread. The bible's philosophy is barbaric and evil. Simple. Suppose I were to say that all of those who oppose my view should be killed, their wives ravaged, their towns burnt and their children murdered. What would you think of that? Well let's give it a try.

...

Pretty fucking repulsive, eh? Pretty damn offensive, no? I quote the bible, Samuel 15:Evil bastards. Anyone who supports a god even as he orders babies murdered is a real fucking jerk.

I'm not disagreeing with you here, but remember, it wasn't just the Israelites at the time who were doing it. "Take an enemy village and kill or enslave its people." was the standard method of dealing with war captives at the time. Every tribe and group in the area did the same thing, and every tribe and group in the area said their gods approved. Why expect the Israelites to be any different.

One of the problems, I think, when it comes to understanding the bible, is that we're really not the intended audience. The intended audience, especially for the torah, were tribal nomadic herdsmen, and a lot of stuff that doesn't make sense to us, things like the importance of bloodlines and the horror of adultery, or the fact that cities are almost always descibed as bad places, or the strict emphasis on honoring your parents, make sense if you look at it from that perspective.

Hoopy Frood

04-25-2002, 10:04 AM

Originally posted by Darwin's Finch
Of course, this raises the question of "loving to whom?" To the Jews of the Old testament, I don't doubt that they felt God was a loving God: He protected them, He smote their enemies, He laid down the Law, and punished those who transgressed.

However, to those who weren't Jews, it doesn't appear that He was very loving at all. He did not punish non-Jews, He destroyed them.

Ruth, Naaman, Job, Rahab, Nebuchadnezzar, the Ninevites.

What do all these have in common?

They were all Gentiles in the OT. They also were considered "saved."

That list is also not all encompassing. There are a few more mentioned whose names escape me. And there are no doubt more who are never even mentioned, because the OT is after all about the plight of the Hebrews.

Also, God was pretty much an equal oppurtunity smiter. He used the Gentile nations to teach the Jews a lesson many time in the OT. He destroyed a lot of them, too, through these means. Particularly when He let the Assyrians destroy Israel and the Babylonians destroy Judah.

Now you could make the argument that God was a jerk in general if you wanted to, but don't go saying that he played favorites when it came to doleing out judgement. (If anything, because the Jews had an established covenant with Him, he was harsher on them for disobyment than on the Gentiles.)

JubilationTCornpone

04-25-2002, 10:33 AM

Originally posted by dalovindj
Babies are ordered killed. Not because of any crime they commited but because of who their parents are, ie their nationality, ie what they look like.
There you go again. Once again, you're insisting that their nationality can be determined based on what they look like. Do you SERIOUSLY hold that view? Can you distinguish a Canadian from a U.S. citizen, based on mere appearance? What about distinguishing Koreans from Singaporeans?

And even if you could, how does this prove that they were killed BECAUSE of their appearance? They were killed because of their wickedness. Even if these wicked tribes have different physical traits, these would be merely incidental details, and would say nothing about the motive for these killings.

Surely you see the difference. If you still insist that they were killed because of their appearance, I can only conclude that you're being deliberately dishonest in your debating tactics.

As for infants being killed, that is a more difficult question to resolve. Ultimately, this falls under God's sovereignty and omniscience -- not to mention his prerogative, as the provider of life, to determine when people ultimately die. As Dr. Norman Geisler said, "We tend to forget that God takes the life of every human being. It's called death. The only question is when and how, which we leave up to him." (The Case for Faith, Lee Strobel).

Geisler also points out that in thoroughly deprived cultures such as those of the Amalekites, the children were bound to have been corrupted. In a sense, ending the children's lives was an act of mercy, insofar as it prevented them from being corrupted by the wicked culture. Such a decision is beyond our prerogative to make, but it's within the purvey of the giver of life.

Geisler even points out that the Canaanites and Amalekites had four hundred years to repent, and yet they did not turn away from their path of destruction. There comes a time when mercy must ultimately give way to judgment, especially as a culture corrupts the communities around it.

JubilationTCornpone

04-25-2002, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by David, God of Frogs
You get this impression from the Bible? To which specific passages are you referring? Or is this merely a vague overall impression?

Like I said before, most of my impression of what the Bible says comes from Christians I have talked with, so feel free to correct me.
Consider yourself corrected. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible which says what you claim.

JubilationTCornpone

04-25-2002, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by dalovindj
The elders in Deuteronomy stoning responsibilities are contradicted by Jesus in the NT - I have already pointed out the passages.
I haven't gotten around to answering that one yet, but in brief... the culprits did not follow the Deuteronomical laws correctly, and they assumed authority which they did not have. For example, they charged her, but did not charge her male sexual partner. This tells us that there's more going on that what a superficial reading would reveal.
Again, I don't have time for a detailed discussion right now, but the bottom line is that the Old Testament commands were being twisted for the stoners' purposes, rather than being followed properly.

Darwin's Finch

04-25-2002, 01:54 PM

Originally posted by JubilationTCornpone
Not at all. People have pointed out that they are NOT logical contradictions, so as to keep this thread on topic. That is done in order to keep this thread from digressing. At the same time though, various posters have made concerted efforts to answer such objections without diverging too far from the topic (see the explanation for why God executed the Molech worshipppers, for example).

Re-read the OP. The topic of inconsistency was raised, not just contradiction. Therefore, such topics are very much relevant to this thread, and do not represent digressions.

That would be playing a mere word game -- a way to argue the same point by using a different word. A contradiction occurs when inconsistent claimsare being made, so by using "inconsistency," we're not really changing the terms of the debate. We are merely substituting one word for another.

No. A contradiction requires us to accpet "A" or "not A", as has been discussed earlier. An inconsistency occurs when in one place "A" is said (or action "A" is taken), and in another "B". If God smites some folks for a certain behavior, but not others, that's inconsistent, but not contradictory.

The objections raised have been falling into two categories: alleged discrepancies, and objections to the nature of God. The vast majority of them fall into the second category, and as explained earlier, it would be inaccurate to consider them as potential contradictions. As for the former, I haven't had time to evaluate every single one, but the ones that I have examined have displayed some fairly clear fallacies.

Whether these discrepancies are contradictions or not shouldn't matter for the purposes of this thread. While certain details-oriented discrepancies (such as how many people went to the Tomb) may not be fundamental to the message, they do raise the question of the reliability of the sources. If you question the source, then you begin to question the message: if they can get the details wrong, how can we be sure they got the "big picture" right, and that the Bible is not, in actuality, a collection of tales with an ultimately political, rather than spiritual, message?

dalovindj

04-25-2002, 02:19 PM

Newton Meter:

1. forms false impression of beliefs or lifestyle of others
No false impression here. Not everyone who claims to be a christian takes that book literally. I'm talking about biblical literalists who insist all of what is in that book must be true and should be obeyed. The type who say that every action by god in the book is perfect. Well murdering babies aint right. If you look at the book as a parable and not to be taken literally then we don't have to accuse you of endorsing baby murders.

2. incorrectly attributes that false belief to entire group of people
Where? I just said anyone who supports a god who they believe orders babies murdered is being a jerk. I never said that everybody here feels that way. Again, I'm talking biblical literalists which is not all christians.

3. judges said beliefs evil for thier foreignness
Listen, if we can't agree that the murder of infants is evil, then you are way to detached from reality to even talk to.

4. concludes that it would be a positive good to eradicate said evil beliefs from the world
Yup. Any philosophy that justifies genocide and the murder of infants should be removed from the world meme court as far as I'm concerned.

5. discovers that believers do not relinquish beliefs easily
No shit. I figured that out 20 years ago.

6. concludes that it would be a positive good to eradicate people who hold said evil beliefs from the world
I offered up the irradication of christians as an example of how ugly such an idea is. Then I quoted the bible throwing up such an idea to illustrate how ugly it's ideas are. I don't advocate the murder of anyone. It was to illustrate a point. I would love for the philosophy contained in that book to go the way of the dinosaur, but only through non-violent means. If you have a problem with number 6 here, apply it to the bible in the passage about the Amalekites. Either 6 is bad or it is not - for both me and god.

Hope I cleared that up for you. Are you a biblical literalist? Do you support your god even as he orders the murder of infants? Would you like me to link to some pictures of murdered infants so we can discuss whether anything kind and loving could ever order such a thing?

Finally, let me say this. There are many people I love who are biblical literalists. My family is full of them. For the most part they are kind and loving people who only want to help others and have a good life with a good family. I think most of the christians here are pretty much the same. So even the literealists aren't jerks in all parts of their lives. There is just no way I can think it is reasonable for someone to defend the murder of infants. It is a horrendous repulsive thing (don't make me link). These people, who I love and know to be good, would rally against the idea of anyone ordering infants slaughtered were they to encounter it any place else. For some reason, once it's in that book, the murder of infants become defensible. I can't understand why people will go as far as to throw away their most basic morals to defend that book. Jerkish move, but I will concede that you may all be wonderful people otherwise. I do get heated in these debates, and I am sorry if I implied that all christians are all bad people all the time. That is not what I'm trying to say.

DaLovin' Dj

Darwin's Finch

04-25-2002, 02:27 PM

Originally posted by Newton meter
I adore my dog. I yelled at her this morning, because I caught her peeing on the floor (again). I'm sure she has a lot of trouble understanding how I can be both "loving" and "not loving".

Perhaps not as much trouble as you might think. After you yell at her, eventually you will warm up to her again, and all is well. In the process, she may have learned a lesson. This represents the "punishment" that I referred to.

However, if you were to simply kill your dog when she angered you, I don't think anyone would consider that a "loving" act. There is no longer a possibility for her to learn from her mistakes.

3. (This is what I choose). God didn't ever kill tons and tons of people like the Old Testament claimed. I can understand how a people who felt that they were God's chosen could attribute every victory to him. And how an extremely oppressed people could delight in their oppressors' misfortune. But I don't think that God actually sent down the forces of heaven and really leveled Sodom (if any disaster ever befell Sodom at all). I don't think Jesus causes every St. Louis Rams' touchdown, either, even if Kurt Warner thinks he does.

Just to be clear as to my position: I don't know if God exists or not, or what His nature is if He does. The Bible, however, does have some problems as written. If one's faith is to be based on this work (as is often said to be the case by various relgious factions), then a literal reading of the Bible is very likely to cause some confusion (as evidenced by this thread). I do not believe that the Bible represents accurate history, or that God really did smite Sodom and Gamorrah, or anyone/thing else, for that matter. But, again, taken at face value, there are problems. This goes back to my earlier point about how I don't believe that one can read the Bible literaly without introducing a great deal of other issues. It is only in a literal reading that one has to start dealing with inconsistencies or inaccuracies.

If read non-literally, however, one might see the Bible as a collection of tales, arranged in a vaguely chronological fashion, in which one might gain insight as to each author's conception of God. Taken individually, all one learns is what that particular author believes. Taken together, one might start to gain a more general conception, and/or begin to formulate one's own conception, of just who/what this "God" is and what He is all about.

You might not like any of these explanations, you might find them facile. Fine. The point is, there is nothing in these problems that compels us to discard either God or (a not-entirely-literal-mostly-historical-largely-allegorical reading of) the bible. These are good reasons for you to reject religion, but they are not good reasons for me to reject religion. I didn't accept religion because I picked up a bible and said "Yup, duh, this must be true."

I certainly agree. I certainly don't wish to argue that there is anything that should compel one to believe one way or another. Nor do I wish to make the point that, based on Biblical inaccuracies (to the extent that one believes they are inaccuracies), one should abandon one's faith. If anything, I guess I would make the point that just because you (in the general sense) can read the Bible literally and not find it wanting, nor be bothered by any apparent or real contradictions / inconsistencies / innaccuracies / whatever, you shouldn't expect that everyone else can or will.

dalovindj

04-25-2002, 02:30 PM

JubilationTCornpone:the culprits did not follow the Deuteronomical laws correctly, and they assumed authority which they did not have. For example, they charged her, but did not charge her male sexual partner. This tells us that there's more going on that what a superficial reading would reveal. [/b]I'm glad you brought this one up. You know what the charge is for the male partner? Nothing. Check this out, Deteronomy 15 [quote]15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, 16 when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. 17 He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father's strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him. For a woman it is death, for a man it's a property issue.

Either way, I'm very interested to see your biblical proof of what you said. So you come out in favor of having old men murder non-virgins? You know, if she turns out to be a version (vlood on the sheets) then the man who accused her gets a fine. This really seems reasonable to people?

DaLovin' Dj

dalovindj

04-25-2002, 02:36 PM

Grrr. Let's try again. Sorry for the double posts.

JubilationTCornponethe culprits did not follow the Deuteronomical laws correctly, and they assumed authority which they did not have. For example, they charged her, but did not charge her male sexual partner. This tells us that there's more going on that what a superficial reading would reveal. I'm glad you brought this one up. You know what the charge is for the male partner? Nothing. Check this out, Deteronomy 15 If a man has two wives, and he loves one but not the other, and both bear him sons but the firstborn is the son of the wife he does not love, when he wills his property to his sons, he must not give the rights of the firstborn to the son of the wife he loves in preference to his actual firstborn, the son of the wife he does not love. He must acknowledge the son of his unloved wife as the firstborn by giving him a double share of all he has. That son is the first sign of his father's strength. The right of the firstborn belongs to him.For a woman it is death, for a man it's a property issue.

Either way, I'm very interested to see your biblical proof of what you said. So you come out in favor of having old men murder non-virgins? You know, if she turns out to be a virgin (blood on the sheets) then the man who accused her gets a fine. This really seems reasonable to people?

DaLovin' Dj

zev_steinhardt

04-25-2002, 02:47 PM

Dalovindj,

I'm afraid you made a mistake. The verses in Deuteronomy you qouted have nothing to do with adultery; they have to do with inheritence rights.

If a man sleeps with a married woman, both are subject to capital punishment (Leviticus 20:10).

Zev Steinhardt

dalovindj

04-25-2002, 03:07 PM

zev,

The passage you refers to a woman who is already married. The Deuteronomy bit is about a girl who lost her virginity before the wedding night. And the passage from D15 shows that a man can have two wives, therefore sleep with multiple virgins, while a woman is put to death for the same.

DaLovin' Dj

zev_steinhardt

04-25-2002, 03:10 PM

Yes, only sleeping with a married woman incurs the death penalty.

I've already pointed out that in Jewish law, a woman cannot be put to death (or punished in any way, for that matter) unless she betrayed her husband during her betrothal (and the burden of proof is on him, not her). Simply being a virgin at the time of marriage does not make her eligible for the death penalty.

And you are correct that a man polygamy was allowed in biblical times.

Zev Steinhardt

dalovindj

04-25-2002, 03:17 PM

But the woman Jesus was with was an adulteress. So the man she slept with should also have been put to death. However, there is no mention that they did not do the same for the man - it isn't discussed. They are strictly speaking about her case. Either way, it would seem that Jesus dictates that only those without sin are eligible to carry out the death penalty which is a contradiction of what is in the OT (elders can stone away non-virgins - such a waste).

DaLovin' Dj

zev_steinhardt

04-25-2002, 04:39 PM

Agreed, if found guilty he should have been executed too. Maybe he escaped? Or maybe he had already been executed before Jesus arrived?

In any event, since I do not hold the NT to be divine, I don't have a problem with the contradiction...

Zev Steinhardt

Captain Amazing

04-25-2002, 04:55 PM

Originally posted by zev_steinhardt
Agreed, if found guilty he should have been executed too. Maybe he escaped? Or maybe he had already been executed before Jesus arrived?

Well, actually, at that point, could anyone be sentenced to death? The Romans were occupying Judea, so could the Sanhedrin order a death sentence at that time?

zev_steinhardt

04-25-2002, 04:58 PM

I don't know. There was a time, toward the end of the Second Temple era, when the Sanhedrin left their chambers on the Temple grounds. When they did so, all Jewish courts lost the power to try capital cases. Off the top of my head, I cannot remember if this was before Jesus' time or not. I'll have to do some research.

Zev Steinhardt

Qwertyasdfg

04-25-2002, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by JThunder

That would indeed be shocking. Thankfully, the Bible says no such thing... unless, of course, you can produce a passage which says that they were killed due to their appearance.

So killing people simply for being the first born isn't arbitrary in your opinion? I don't want to speak for Dalovindj, but I think his point is that God is killing people who don't deserve it for no justifiable reason.

With all due respect, I don't think you've done a very thorough job of reviewing it. These Old Testament tribes weren't killed merely because they had other beliefs. Rather, they were killed due to the severity of their abominations. The worshippers of Moloch (http://www.carm.org/misc/1722_moloch.htm), for example, practiced ritualistic child sacrifice. Their worship involved starting a fire inside a large idol, and then heating it up until it was glowing red hot. Newborn infants would then be placed into the idol's fiery, glowing arms.

Clearly, such tribes go way beyond merely disagreeing with the teachings of Yahweh.

So its like Hitler going to war with Stalin. Both committed atrocities, so its acceptable for one to commit genocide on the other? And would you tell me why the virgins deserved to be raped, babies and animals deserved to be murderd. You will not convince me that the people were so bad that even their babies and animals were wicked.

David, God of Frogs

04-25-2002, 08:27 PM

originally posted by Jubilation
Consider yourself corrected. There is absolutely nothing in the Bible which says what you claim.

Thank you. I was hoping for something a little more comprehensive, like if God didn't create the Bible to make more Christians in the world, then why did he?

Czarcasm

04-25-2002, 09:40 PM

Even if we are like ants to your god, it doesn't excuse his behavior. If my child deliberately destroyed an ant hill that posed no threat whatsoever to him, just because they didn't obey his command to march in a particular direction, at the very least I would seriously question his judgement. If he showed a pattern of such behavior I would seek professional psychiatric help for him, especially if he declared that he didn't have to reveal his reasons to anyone.

Perhaps your god was raised badly?

JubilationTCornpone

04-26-2002, 12:02 AM

Originally posted by David, God of Frogs

Thank you. I was hoping for something a little more comprehensive, like if God didn't create the Bible to make more Christians in the world, then why did he?
Excuse me? Why the sudden leap in logic?

Earlier, you said "I get the distinct impression from the Bible that evil is bad and should be gotten rid of as soon as possible." I pointed out that the Bible does not say that evil should be removed immediately. How does this even remotely imply that God doesn't want more Christians in the world?

Quite simply, it doesn't. That much should be patently obvious. Why are you now attempting to draw a conclusion which has no basis in your original claim?

JubilationTCornpone

04-26-2002, 12:12 AM

Originally posted by JThunder
That would indeed be shocking. Thankfully, the Bible says no such thing... unless, of course, you can produce a passage which says that they were killed due to their appearance.

Originally posted by Qwertyasdfg
So killing people simply for being the first born isn't arbitrary in your opinion?

Why do people keep insisting on changing the topic? Please stop moving the goalposts around. The question at hand is whether God commanded people to be killed based on their appearance. The issue of whether such killings are arbitrary is an interesting topic, but it's obviously a separate question altogether.

If you keep moving the goalposts, then you're obviously not interested in an honest discussion.

I don't want to speak for Dalovindj, but I think his point is that God is killing people who don't deserve it for no justifiable reason.
That is certainly his claim, but the arguments he uses are absurd. For example, there is simply NO basis for saying that the Amalekites, the Canaanites and so forth were killed because of their appearance, and dalovindj has failed to substantiate that claim. (Not to mention that it's absurd to think that one's nationality can be identified on the basis of mere outward appearance.)

JubilationTCornpone

04-26-2002, 12:37 AM

Originally posted by dalovindj

JubilationTCornponeI'm glad you brought this one up. You know what the charge is for the male partner? Nothing. Check this out, Deteronomy 15 For a woman it is death, for a man it's a property issue.
Well first off, Zev has already pointed out your misapplication of Deuteronomy 15. As Zev said, that passage refers to property rights, not adultery.

Second, the attempted stoning of this woman was illegal. For one thing, Leviticus 20:10 commands that both the adulterer and the adulteress were to be condemned. The fact that only one of them was condemned demonstrates that the law was misapplied. While it is possible that the male partner has simply escaped, this defect also suggests that she had been convicted in the absence of a key witness.

Also note that such cases were to be settled by a duly constituted court of law. Instead, she was about to be stoned by a group of laypeople -- a vigilate lynch mob. Clearly, something is amiss here!

Finally under Roman rule, capital punishment could only be carried out with the Roman government's authorization. In fact, John 18:31 states, "Pilate therefore said to them, 'Take Him yourselves, and judge Him according to your law.' The Jews said to him, 'We are not permitted to put anyone to death.'" Yet this angry mob was willing to kill her on the spot, without even seeking the governor's counsel. This suggests that there was far more going on than what met the casual eye.

Zev has already pointed out other flaws in your contention, such as noting that Leviticus 20 is not about mere non-virgins, but refers to a more grievous offense. The bottom line: Christ's sparing of the adulteress was not in violation of the Levitical law; rather, it was in response to the twisting of that law by an opportunistic vigilate mob.

Czarcasm

04-26-2002, 12:43 AM

He killed innocent babies.
He is good.

That is all the contradiction that needs to be pointed out, unless you can convince me that killing innocent babies is good.

Czarcasm

04-26-2002, 12:56 AM

He has devised the same eternal punishment for all sins.
He is just.

Czarcasm

04-26-2002, 01:01 AM

He flooded the Earth, killing untold millions of animals and thousands of people.
He is loving.

dalovindj

04-26-2002, 01:47 AM

Biblical proof of your claims please JubilationTCornpone. You state alot that is not written.

DaLovin' Dj

dalovindj

04-26-2002, 01:50 AM

Czarcasm is right. Unless they can justify the murder of infants, bilical literalists are at the losing end of the debate. You must become amnster for that book to be taken literaly.

DaLovin' Dj

dalovindj

04-26-2002, 01:52 AM

make that "a monster"

JubilationTCornpone

04-26-2002, 03:02 AM

Originally posted by dalovindj
Biblical proof of your claims please JubilationTCornpone. You state alot that is not written.
As opposed to, say, claiming that the opposing tribes were killed because of their physical appearance? What an ironic accusation!

First off, I already cited Leviticus 20:10, to show that it required trying both the male and female parties. This is perfectly reasonable, as ignoring one of them would be to ignore potentially vital testimony. I also cited John 18:31, demonstrating that the Jews were subject to Roman authority in the execution of their sentences. In addition, Zev has pointed out that Deuteronomy 22:22-24 was being misapplied, as one might expect of an unruly lynch mob.

Furthermore, it should be obvious that an authority is required to pass judgment and sentence an individual. Otherwise, chaos would reign as neighbors seek to implement the "law" on their own accord, with no accountability. In other words, vigilante reign would rule.

History professor Gleason L. Archer says that "such an action as this has to be taken before a duly constituted court of law, such as a panel of elders near the gate of the city, whose duty it was to hear cases. What this group of accusers had undertaken was not a lawful court action, therefore, but a lynching. Since Jesus of Nazareth was no official judge in criminal actions, even as He made clear in an attempted civil case (the settling of a probate dispute in Luke 12:14: "Who has appointed me a judge over you?"), this attempt to remand the case to him was an obvious farce, devoid of legal justification, and intended only to embarrass the Teacher from Nazareth whom they hoped to discredit." (Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties, p. 372, (c)1982).

So by viewing this case form multiple angles, with attention to what Leviticus and Deuteronomy actually say, we can see this accusation for the farce that it truly is.

Mangetout

04-26-2002, 03:13 AM

If you're going to describe the incident with Jesus at the stoning as an inconsistency (a fallacious view, IMHO, as the passage specifically mentions the law given by Moses), then you might as well call this one too:

Mark 10:
2 Some Pharisees came and tested him by asking, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife?"
3 "What did Moses command you?" he replied.
4 They said, "Moses permitted a man to write a certificate of divorce and send her away."
5 "It was because your hearts were hard that Moses wrote you this law," Jesus replied.
6 "But at the beginning of creation God `made them male and female.'
7 `For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife,
8 and the two will become one flesh.' So they are no longer two, but one.
9 Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

Czarcasm

04-26-2002, 07:24 AM

If anything your god does is just and good, only for the reason that he is your god, made the rules, and thus is above them, then "just" and "good" are null terms and are useless to this conversation. For the purposes of this conversation, these terms must have a consistant definition that applies across the board.

Your god, according to your own Holy Bible, killed untold millions of people and animals during the flood. He killed the first-born sons of Eqypt, whose only crime was that of not belonging to the right group of people(btw, there's your bigotry). He ordered his people directly to slaughter whole villages of people(man, woman, and poor unsuspecting and innocent babies.)
He claims to be good and just.
Contradiction.

dalovindj

04-26-2002, 08:00 AM

As opposed to, say, claiming that the opposing tribes were killed because of their physical appearance? What an ironic accusation!I already explained that. They murder children whos only crime is who their parents are. How can you tell who has these people as parents? What they look like is all they will have in common - genetics. It is racism, pure and simple. Just so we are clear, you are in favor of murdering infants, as long as "god" commands it?First off, I already cited Leviticus 20:10, to show that it required trying both the male and female parties.Please provide a cite that proves they did not try the man. It is simply unmentioned. You cannot prove this. I also cited John 18:31, demonstrating that the Jews were subject to Roman authority in the execution of their sentences. Please show a cite that illustrates that this woman was not tried in the proper manner before jesus was there. All that is said is that according to the law, she is supposed to be stoned. That would imply that all necessary steps had been met. You cannot prove this either. It is not discussed.Furthermore, it should be obvious that an authority is required to pass judgment and sentence an individual. Yes, the elders are all that is required according to the book. Either way, what do you think Jesus message is here? That stoning is Ok if done within the premises of the law? No. First, there is no proof that any law has been broken in the handling of this woman. Second, the moral here is that only non-sinners are worthy to judge people - a contradiction from the several places in the OT where the death penalty is supposed to be carried out which don't mention sinners at all. What this group of accusers had undertaken was not a lawful court action, therefore, but a lynching. Again, please prove this hadn't just happened before they brought her to jesus to see what he had to say.

Again, just to be clear, you come out in support of the murder of women who are not virgins when married? You come out in favor of the murder of disrespectful sons? Sounds like a great philosophy.

DaLovin' Dj

davidw

04-26-2002, 09:17 AM

Originally posted by Czarcasm
He killed innocent babies.
He is good.

That is all the contradiction that needs to be pointed out, unless you can convince me that killing innocent babies is good.

Why stop at babies? He killed my grandmother, both of my grandfathers, many of my childhood friends, all of whom worshipped him. He killed Moses, Solomon, Abe Lincoln, and billions and billions of other people, including his own son, Jesus Christ. And you know what else? He's gonna kill all of us one day. Man, he's truly one sick dude.

dalovindj

04-26-2002, 09:27 AM

I've got a plan to keep him from killing me. I'm a use the old genetic science advances to extend my lifespan (with a stint in cryo-freeze if neccesary) until I load myself into a Tipler machine providing a subjective infinity of time to do whatsoever I please. Death be damned.

DaLovin' Dj

JubilationTCornpone

04-26-2002, 11:49 AM

Originally posted by dalovindj
I already explained that. They murder children whos only crime is who their parents are. How can you tell who has these people as parents? What they look like is all they will have in common - genetics. It is racism, pure and simple.
Tell me then -- how do you distinguish a US citizen from a Canadian? Or an Indian from a Pakistani? Different nations and tribes do not necessarily have different appearances. And even if they did, that would only be an incidental detail. It would not imply that the neighboring tribes were killed BECAUSE of their appearance.

You know this, of course. Any reasonable individual can see the difference. Why do you keep pretending that they were killed because of outward traits?

Please provide a cite that proves they did not try the man. It is simply unmentioned. You cannot prove this.
The crowd was seeking JESUS' judgment on whether the woman should be stoned. The fact that they consulted him regarding the woman, but not the man, suggests that they were merely trying to entrap Christ and make him look bad. (If they truly wanted to comply with the law, why did they not bring both of the accused parties forth?)

Besides, even if the man had been executed earlier, this would mean that he had been tried without the other accused party being present. In other words, he would have been tried in the absence of some vital testimony.

In fact, the crowd was seeking JESUS' judgment on whether the woman should be stoned. The fact that they consulted him regarding the woman, but not the man, suggests that they were merely trying to entrap Christ and make him look bad.

Moreover, you're the one who claimed that Jesus was contradicting the Mosaic law. Hence, the burden of proof rests on your shoulders to show that the man HAD been tried and executed. So even if we grant the small possibility that the man MIGHT have been previously tried and executed, your accusation remains unsubstantiated.

Please show a cite that illustrates that this woman was not tried in the proper manner before jesus was there.
Once again, the absence of the man demonstrates this, as does the absence of a ruiling body such as the council of elders, AND the fact that they were acting in defiance of the civil government. Even if we suppose that the man was tried before the woman, that would constitute a miscarriage of justice itself.

All that is said is that according to the law, she is supposed to be stoned. That would imply that all necessary steps had been met. You cannot prove this either.

No, the lynch mob CLAIMED that the steps had been met. The circumstances clearly dictate otherwise -- and if you're to claim hypocrisy on Christ's part, the burden of proof rests on you.

It is not discussed.Yes, the elders are all that is required according to the book. Either way, what do you think Jesus message is here? That stoning is Ok if done within the premises of the law? No. First, there is no proof that any law has been broken in the handling of this woman. Second, the moral here is that only non-sinners are worthy to judge people - a contradiction from the several places in the OT where the death penalty is supposed to be carried out which don't mention sinners at all.
Again, you're oversimplifying. Jesus merely said "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." In other words, he used this incident as an object lesson for people to examine their own sinfulness. That is not hte same as saying that only the sinless can judge the actions of others.

Again, just to be clear, you come out in support of the murder of women who are not virgins when married?

Why do you keep beating that deceased equine? Zevp and I have already pointed out that Leviticus 20 and Deuteronomy 22 are about adultery, not premarital sex. You know this, since we've pointed this out repeatedly. Of course, it does make one's shaky case sound more appealing if we pretend that it's about merely being a non-virgin... and calling it "murder" (as opposed to capital punishment) gives the emotional appeal an extra bit of oomph.

Yeah. Why should accuracy be placed above saving face, eh?

emarkp

04-26-2002, 02:20 PM

Originally posted by dalovindj
I've got a plan to keep him from killing me.Entropy

tracer

04-26-2002, 03:04 PM

JThunder wrote:

These Old Testament tribes weren't killed merely because they had other beliefs. Rather, they were killed due to the severity of their abominations.
Pray tell, what abominations had the Canaanites commited which warranted having Joshua commit genocide upon them? So far as I can tell, the only "sin" of the Canaanites was that they happened to already be living in the Promised Land when the Israelites got there.

Newton meter

04-26-2002, 03:56 PM

Thanks a lot, Darwin's Finch. Seen in light of your characterization of inconsistency, I think I understand the problem even better.

You are talking about two observations, A and B that are inconsistent with each other. I maintain that observations are not inconsistent with other observations, they are inconsistent with hypotheses. For instance, if I form a hypothesis after observing A that A and B are both true, and then I observe B, there is no inconsistency. It is only if my hypothesis does not include B that we would call it an inconsistency.

Imagine that we observe A in the bible (or measure it in the lab), and we form a hypothesis, call it H(A) that describes why A. Later, we observe B in the bible (or the lab), which conflicts with H(A). What you (and others) seem to be arguing is: if we are firmly convinced that our hypothesis H(A) is good, we ought to reject the observation B. Something is wrong with it. In fact, since we measured both A and B the same way (reading the bible, measuring with calipers, whatever), then we should also seriously consider whether we are mistaken about A as well. And if A is mistaken, then we should not longer accept H(A), which apparently describes an observation that isn't even correct.

This is what appears incongrous to me. The reason to reject B was our firm belief that H(A) was true. But rejection of B lead to rejection (or doubt) of A, which led to abandonment of H(A). So we didn't need to reject B after all!

There is another, quite reasonable way, that one can look at the problem. We observe A and form a hypothesis H(A). Later, we observe B, which conflicts with H(A). If we are firmly convinced that our observations are accurate (we believe that our calipers measure length within a mm, or we believe that the bible is true), then we can't simply throw out the data that doesn't fit our hypothesis. That would be completely irresponsible. Our only choice is to reject the hypothesis H(A), in favor of another, say H(A,B). And now, we can explain both A and B.

And you just object to H(A,B) on the grounds that it's too complicated (or offensive). Perhaps you're right. Maybe it seems like the equivalent of the geocentric theory, with orbits and epicycles and deferents and all kinds of other complicated junk. It seems kind of silly, actually. It almost seems like people will just make up anything to fit the data. But that's hypothesizing for you.

Others will insist that throwing out observations because we don't like them is incorrect. If God kills babies and claims to be loving, there must be a reason. We need a theory to explain this stuff, even a complicated or strange one, since we're astronomers and the emperor needs to know about eclipses.

At bottom, the entire problem is: what are the sources of correct observations of the divine? If it is a literal interpretation of the OT+NT, you must arrive at a hypothesis that describes at least those observations, and you cannot reject observations no matter how strange. If it is a literal interpretation of the Torah plus commentaries, you arrive at other hypotheses. If it is a allegorical reading of the Quran, you reach a third. If it is none of these, then you arrive at very different ideas.

You might rail against "rationalizing away any inconsistency", but if one believes that the bible is literally true, one can do no other. Does that make it wrong? No, that does not follow. And if so, then what? Do you have an alternative other than "throw out all the data"? Even the geocentric theory worked pretty well in its day.

And I still think that the tone of most discussions of biblical contradictions strays pretty far from the useful. The game is: here are the contradictions, you must either resolve them or reject the bible, but you're not allowed to resolve them.

kg m²/s²

dalovindj

04-26-2002, 04:31 PM

JubilationTCornpone, all that you state is conjecture which is not based on what is said, it is based on what is not said. You must back up your own statements as I have backed up mine. There is no line which shows any evidence that they had not followed the letter of the law. If you wish to state that they had not, YOU must prove that they didn't. Either way, Jesus was addressing stoning people in general so the Deuteronomy bit is related since it contains stoneable offenses. Jesus says only non-sinners should stone people, and the OT says different. Contradiction. Either way, this: He ordered his people directly to slaughter whole villages of people(man, woman, and poor unsuspecting and innocent babies.)
He claims to be good and just.
Contradiction.Pretty much puts a cap on this one in my book. There is your most fundamental contradiction. It will take explaning away slaughtering babies as a good thing. Good luck.

DaLovin' Dj

Newton meter

04-26-2002, 04:57 PM

Originally posted by Czarcasm
He killed innocent babies.
He is good.

That is all the contradiction that needs to be pointed out, unless you can convince me that killing innocent babies is good.
Well, I have stopped beating my wife.

As usual, there are other options. The fact that they were "babies" is probably not relevant (would innocent adults have been OK?). Has the fact that they were "innocent" been established?

1. When God kills someone, maybe it ain't all bad. God can take babies painlessly into heaven, where they're probably now just kicking back and having a good time. Is it possible that being "killed" by God isn't all that bad? Under this reading, taking the first born of every Egyptian family was a punishment to the parents, not the babies.

2. Does God reside on a different moral level than humanity, or the exact same? We usually place the welfare of humans on a higher moral level than the welfare of plants. In fact, we often engage in the wholesale slaughter of plants for pretty trivial reasons. We might consider someone who destroyed plants for no reason at all to have done something wrong, but certainly we sometimes have reasons to destroy plants. Is God to humans as humans are to plants?

3. Are the babies innocent? We ourselves have great difficulty accounting for sin and its presence in the world. Surely, since the whole discussion is predicated on the existence of an omniscient, omnipotent, creator God, we could allow that he might have been better able than us to judge the guilt or innocence of this case?

4. Does a loving agent never do anything offensive? Sometimes, we have to choose the lesser of two evils. Sometimes we have to amputate a limb to prevent some worse medical calamity. Could it not be the case that the evil that God sought to prevent far outweighed the evil of killing young humans?

Frankly, "he killed babies" vs. "he is good" is really only a contradiction in the case where you assume it is a contradiction. In the case where you assume it is not a contradiction, it is not a contradiction.

And before anyone starts with it, I'm not much of a baby killing advocate. In fact, it seems that crucial to any attempt to explain Czarcasm's criticism is that the only way it is explained is that he is God and operates under different rules than we do. The explanation reinforces that we cannot do things like this ourselves.

Newton meter

04-26-2002, 05:18 PM

Originally posted by dalovindj
1. forms false impression of beliefs or lifestyle of others
No false impression here. Not everyone who claims to be a christian takes that book literally.
In fact, most Christians do not believe that the bible is entirely literally true. And those who do believe that do not interpret it as licensing the wholesale slaughter of innocents when they feel like it. In point of fact, anyone who claims to be Christian and advocates genocide is a liar. It's called a "strawman", dj. It's not true just because you say it is.

2. incorrectly attributes that false belief to entire group of people
Where?
Right here: "The more I review the literature, the more I think christianity may be in the top 5 most evil things ever, if not number 1." You're calling a whole bunch of people "evil" who hold views 180 degrees opposed to the ones that you insist they must hold.

3. judges said beliefs evil for thier foreignness
Listen, if we can't agree that the murder of infants is evil, then you are way to detached from reality to even talk to.
And listen, if you can't see that Christians do not advocate the murder of infants, then you are a bigot. Reality checked out long ago.

4. concludes that it would be a positive good to eradicate said evil beliefs from the world
Yup. Any philosophy that justifies genocide and the murder of infants should be removed from the world meme court as far as I'm concerned.
Yeah, that would be true, but you screwed up way back at step 1, where you somehow misattributed "advocates genocide" to "religion".

5. discovers that believers do not relinquish beliefs easily
No shit. I figured that out 20 years ago.
So you are at 5.5. It's worse than I thought.

6. concludes that it would be a positive good to eradicate people who hold said evil beliefs from the world
I offered up the irradication of christians as an example of how ugly such an idea is.
No, you said quite seriously: "Religion cheapens peoples goodness. Responsible, intelligent, and compassinate people should do all they can to rid it from the world."

See, you don't rail against any real problems. But you have indicted a whole bunch of good people there. You sound like Fred Phelps, except your bogeyman is "religion" instead of "queers". And your protestations "I know some OK Christians" sound as ridiculous as my bigoted uncles claiming there are some "good niggers".

I agree, the philosophy you've invented for Christians is horrible. But wrong. Horrible. But wrong.

Czarcasm

04-26-2002, 05:52 PM

God cannot operate under a different set of rules from us and be called "good" and "just". These words have meanings, and if what he does violates these definitions, they cannot apply.
It makes no more sense than if I say that the sky is plaid and justify it by saying that I am using a different definition of "plaid" than you. Saying that maybe your god fixed it so that the poor babies felt no pain and were taken to a better place when he ordered soldiers to hack them to death with swords is nothing more than desparate wishful thinking on your part. It might quiet that pang of guilt you might feel when you read of such religious atrocities, but there is nothing in the Bible that says that this is what really happened.

JThunder

04-26-2002, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by dalovindj
JubilationTCornpone, all that you state is conjecture which is not based on what is said, it is based on what is not said
How many times do we have to point out that you've misapplied Leviticus and Deuteronomy? It seems that no matter how often we show you the passages in question, you remain deadset in misapplying them.

You also keep forgetting that the burden of proof rests on your shoulders to demonstrate that Christ was contradicting the Mosaic law. This means that you must shoulder the burden of proof that she was being tried in compliance with the law. For so long as there's reason to believe that she wasn't (and there is an abundance of evidence to that effect), your case remains nebulous at best.

You suggest that the male adulterer had already been tried beforehand. Well then, why did the crowd ask Jesus to pass judgment on the woman alone? Why did they not ask him to pass judgment on them both?

You also suggest that the woman had previously been tried in compliance with the law. Once again though, if that were the case, then why would the crowd be asking Jesus for his judgment? Their true intentions were utterly transparent. Their intent was not to seek a fair and lawful judgment, but to embarrass the Messiah and make him look bad.

True, there is no line which explicitly says "The woman's trial was illegal" -- but come on! Do you seriously suggest this as a compelling argument? A true investigator would examine the circumstances of her so-called trial to determine if it DID comply with the law, and it clearly did not.

JThunder

04-26-2002, 07:08 PM

Originally posted by dalovindj
The fact that in this day and age otherwise reasonable people would argue that there are circumstances where genocide (killing people because of the way they look) is justifiable is shocking
You keep saying that, dalovindj. You keep saying that the opponents of Israel were killed because of the way they look, and the logic you use is absurd. I'm confident that you know better, and so I can't help but think that you're being deliberately disingenuous here.

You attempt to justify this by asking "How can you tell who has these people as parents? What they look like is all they will have in common - genetics." Do you honestly believe that physical appearance is the only way to identify a tribe? And even if it's so, how does this prove that they were killed simply because of their looks?

I saw a news report a while back about a group of brothers who were arrested in conjunction with a robbery. These brothers all looked similar -- indeed, it wasn't hard to tell that they were related. Does this mean that they were arrested because of their looks? Or did their looks merely help establish the fact that they were kinfolk?

What if I said that some students flunked out of a high school class, and that they were all Hispanic? Does this mean that they were kicked out because of their ethnicity? Obviously not. In fact, even if one could show that all the Hispanics had flunked out, that still wouldn't prove that they were the victims of racism. One would have to dig deeper to establish that fact.

And on that note, as we dig deeper into the Old Testament, we see that Israel was not hostile to Gentiles in general. Hoopy Frood already mentioned several such people -- Ruth, Naaman, Job, Rahab, Nebuchadnezzar and the Ninevites. I n addition, Joshua 16:10 shows that Canaanites were allowed to continue living in their land, even after they had been conquered by Israel. So clearly, the people who were killed were not judged simply because of appearance, or because they were of gentile origin.

JThunder

04-26-2002, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by tracer
Pray tell, what abominations had the Canaanites commited which warranted having Joshua commit genocide upon them? So far as I can tell, the only "sin" of the Canaanites was that they happened to already be living in the Promised Land when the Israelites got there.
The Old Testament texts aren't explicit in stating their specific offenses. However, archaeology tells us that the Canaanites were worshippers of Baal and other pagan gods. Baal's cult included such practices as child sacrifice and ritualistic sex, among others. (More details can be found here (http://www.theology.edu/canaan.htm).

Qwertyasdfg

04-26-2002, 08:39 PM

Jubilation: Your insistance on "physical appearance" isn't impressing anyone. Rather it smacks of you deperatly trying to avoid having to justify "God" 's actions in a case where they were clearly unwarranted. The Amalekites may or may not have looked different, but that is besides the point. Since I'm not the one who stated it, I need not be bound to the "physical appearance" claim. So I'll ask you more directly: do you believe in genocide as a practical solution to every situation?

NewtonMeter: Have you ever seen a wicked baby? Have you even seen an entire race of people, for that matter, who all were totally evil? How about a wicked ox? Is rape a viable supplement to genocide, when something is inconvenient.

If "God" was almighty, surely he could have been more precise, or found a non-genocidal method of solving the "problem" of an indigenous people, versus outsiders.

"God" 's words, and his actions are clearly incosistent.

dalovindj

04-26-2002, 08:47 PM

In fact, most Christians do not believe that the bible is entirely literally true. Fair enough. As I said, I am speaking of biblical literalists. Others are a different topic for a different thread. You are off topic here. I never said all christians are biblical literalists.Right here: "The more I review the literature, the more I think christianity may be in the top 5 most evil things ever, if not number 1." You're calling a whole bunch of people "evil" who hold views 180 degrees opposed to the ones that you insist they must hold.No, I called the philosophy evil. It is. If you think it's OK to kill infants as long as god says so - you count as evil to me. Sorry. People who would murder infants (even if they believe it comes from divine command) or support others murdering infants in gods behalf are below dispicable. They are pathetic. Not all christians would defend this - I'm talking about the ones who do.And listen, if you can't see that Christians do not advocate the murder of infants, then you are a bigot. Reality checked out long ago. Biblical literalists do - provided it is ordered by god. :rolleyes:Yeah, that would be true, but you screwed up way back at step 1, where you somehow misattributed "advocates genocide" to "religion". Again, I am talking about biblical literalists. If you claim that every word in that book is true and perfect, than you support genocide as long as god ordered it. I say there is no justification no matter who you're god is. Genocide is, was, and always will be evil.I agree, the philosophy you've invented for Christians is horrible. But wrong. Horrible. But wrong.I'm just reading what it says. It says god occaisionaly orders the murder of children. It says god orders the murder of people because of where they live or who their parents are. It says some pretty dispicable things. I don't have to make any of it up. It truly is disgusting on it's own. Murdering kids and virgins is written right in with the genocide all nice and neat like.

Also, the deuteronomy bit is about virgins, the bit in the NT is about an adulteress, but they are both related because they both concern stoning (which is what jesus addresses). None of you have proved there is anything wrong with their method of trial. There is no text to support what went on either way. Jesus doesn't speak about it and neither does the book. I've shown it says everything I've said, you guys keep talking about stuff that isn't written. It is not obvious that anything was done in an improper fashion. YOU must prove statements you make, not me. I have proved it says people are to be stoned in the OT, and I have proved that Jesus says only non-sinners should stone people. Contradiction. But it is a minor one compared to the whole issue of a "good" entity commanding armies to slice up babies and children.

DaLovin' Dj

JThunder

04-26-2002, 10:17 PM

Originally posted by Qwertyasdfg
Jubilation: Your insistance on "physical appearance" isn't impressing anyone.
Don't forget though, it's dalovindj who brought that up. He claimed that the Amalekites, et al. were killed because of their appearance. It's only fair to refute that contention.

Rather it smacks of you deperatly trying to avoid having to justify "God" 's actions in a case where they were clearly unwarranted.
I think that is patently unfair. dalovindj made a very specific accusation -- namely, that Israel's opponents were killed because of how they look. We are refuting that very specific accusation. Is that not fair?

Nobody, and I mean absolutely nobody, has claimed that refuting dalovindj's claim is sufficient to justify the actions of Yahweh, as portrayed in the O.T. That topic is certainly worthy of discussion, but it's a separate topic altogether! The answers to dj's accusation were not meant to address the issue which you raise, so please desist for criticizing them on that basis.

Shouldn't we avoid conflating tangentially related issues? Should we not tackle these issues one at a time? We can discuss dalovindj's specific claim regarding human appearance on its own merits (or lack thereof). This is not meant as a blanket defense of Yahweh's actions -- an altogether separate topic -- and NOBODY has claimed that it constitutes such a defense.

Qwertyasdfg

04-26-2002, 10:49 PM

Sorry, I think i might have misattributed that comment to Jubilation, instead of Thunder.

Anyway, I think the fault is that DJ defined genocide as "killing people for how they look." Genocide is a lot more than that. Eitherway, I think its a technical issue and barely worth pursuing to this degree. With that said, would you care to answer my questions stated above.

Czarcasm

04-27-2002, 12:04 AM

What someone mind telling me what crimes/sins/ misdeeds an infant could possibly commit that would justify death by drowning or sword? A valid explanation would eliminate a glaring Biblical contradiction.

quixotic78

04-27-2002, 12:14 AM

(1) JThunder, JTC, or anyone else--could you give me an example of what would be a contradiction, inconsistency, or what have you? You don't have to phrase it in Biblical parlance, although that would be helpful. Because from where I'm sitting, I don't think you're going to be able to come up with one, given the seemingly clear-cut nature of the ones you've "shot down."

(2) I'll re-ask and slightly rephrase Qwertyasdfg's question, because it's an interesting one--do you believe in genocide as a practical solution to any non-Biblical situation? IOW, could genocide be justified today, if someone has a mandate from God?

(3) If babies are liberated when they are slaughtered in genocide, can I take it that you're pro-abortion? That you're pro-killing-the-first-born-in-every-case? That, so long as a baby has not reached the age where they can "sin," we might as well set em free?

(4) How did Judas die?

JubilationTCornpone

04-27-2002, 01:01 AM

I'll get to your first three questions sometime this weekend, as I have to get up early in the morning. In brief though, you're confusing godly prerogatives with human prerogatives (e.g. if God deems that an infant should die, that does not mean that we humans have the same authority to make that judgment). As stated at least thrice earlier, this stems from God's sovereignty and omniscience, and the fact that he gave all beings life to begin with.

As for the manner in which Judas died, that is answered on this site (http://www.tektonics.org/judasdeath.html), and on this one (http://www.rationalchristianity.net/contra7.html#79).

Czarcasm

04-27-2002, 01:49 AM

I'm a bit confused. Are we the children of your god, to be cared for and loved, or are we like ants to him, to be destroyed without justification?

As far as the explanations for the "Judas" contradictions go, it seems that we have yet still another mistranslation in a book that does not have mistakes in it. Might I suggest that you send the Bible to a good editor, and not use it for a reference until all of these pesky errors are corrected?

quixotic78

04-27-2002, 03:09 AM

JTC, here is a direct quote from the first site you listed, emphasis added: "In his book Judas Iscariot and the Myth of Jewish Evil, he notes that the phrase translated "becoming headlong" (prenes genomenos) is a mere transcription error away from being "becoming swollen" (presthes genomenos). The latter may well be what was originally written, and as such might describe Judas' body swelling up after hanging for a while." To me, this is mere conjecture, and doesn't address the question at all. If one is going to introduce copyist errors as possibilities, then it's easy to dismiss any and all would-be contradictions! They're just typoes!

And as far as your second site, the author is going to have me believe one of the following:

(a) Judas bought a field with a cliff in the middle of it (which, I'll admit, isn't entirely impossible, given what I know of the geography of the Holy Land). However, the field does have a name, Aceldama, and so it'd be interesting to know if this is true;

(b) He attempted to hang himself, it didn't work, and so he hurled himself onto some pointy rocks... and the author of Acts simply didn't mention the former attempt because... why? He didn't want to embarrass Judas? (Can't even kill himself properly! What a maroon! Still, that'd be mean to include);

(c) "Judas could have tied a rope to a tree branch that extended over a cliff." I can almost picture this in my head. Judas, standing at the edge of a big cliff, finds a tree, shimmies out onto the branch, ties the rope, comically shimmies back to the edge of the cliff, gets on his tiptoes to get the rope, and THEN hangs himself? If the man wanted to kill himself, he sure took a roundabout way to do it!

It's possible, I suppose, but possible only in the "It's possible Tom Green could win a Nobel Peace Prize for Freddy Got Fingered" sense of the word.

This is exactly what I am addressing with my Question 1. You (well, not just you, in fairness) have a belief--the Bible is internally consistent. If Judasgate is indicative of the hoops you're willing to jump through to hold this belief... well, what was it Sherlock Holmes had to say about that? "It is a capital mistake to theorize before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts."

Yeah, I know, I'm using a fictional character's words to address the question of whether the Bible has any fiction in it. Kind of silly, no? But I still think Mr. Holmes has a point.

JubilationTCornpone

04-27-2002, 10:55 AM

Originally posted by quixotic78
JTC, here is a direct quote from the first site you listed, emphasis added: "In his book Judas Iscariot and the Myth of Jewish Evil, he notes that the phrase translated "becoming headlong" (prenes genomenos) is a mere transcription error away from being "becoming swollen" (presthes genomenos). The latter may well be what was originally written, and as such might describe Judas' body swelling up after hanging for a while." To me, this is mere conjecture, and doesn't address the question at all. If one is going to introduce copyist errors as possibilities, then it's easy to dismiss any and all would-be contradictions! They're just typoes!

I heartily disagree. To qualify as a typo (or more accurately, a copyist error), one would have to show that the mistake can be attributed to a minor difference in the text -- a misspelled word, for example. Obviously, that's a far cry from saying that ALL discrepancies can be dismissed as typos.

And as far as your second site, the author is going to have me believe one of the following:
...

It's possible, I suppose, but possible only in the "It's possible Tom Green could win a Nobel Peace Prize for Freddy Got Fingered" sense of the word.

I hardly think that's a reasonable analogy. His explanation, while not evident on a casual reading, is consistent with the text AND explains some subtle details (e.g. why one Evangelist merely said that Judas went to hang himself, rather than saying he was successful). Also, unlike the accusation that a contradiction occurs, this exegetical exercise pays close attention the details of the Judas accounts. And finally, as we must have stated over a dozen times by now, THE BURDEN OF PROOF rests on the accuser -- the one who claims that a contradiction does occur.

FTR, I lean more toward the copyist error explanation, as I think it's a simpler and more elegant explanation -- but that's neither here nor there.

JubilationTCornpone

04-27-2002, 11:00 AM

Originally posted by Czarcasm
I'm a bit confused. Are we the children of your god, to be cared for and loved, or are we like ants to him, to be destroyed without justification?
Yet another false dilemma. With all due respect, you seem awfully fond of those things.

The answer is that we are children to be cared for, but we are also to be judged, disciplined and punished as necessary -- or even to be condemned, as necessary. Any parent knows that their unconditional love for a child does not preclude punishment or chastisement . In extreme cases, a child may even be banished from the family, if he poses a danger to other family members. Even the government seeks to care for its citizens, and yet must occasionally mete out harsh punishment toward its offenders.

This is getting frustrating, and my patience is wearing thin. Before you hurl these challenges, will you please consider whether you've presented all possible options? Perhaps then we can help avoid discussing another false dilemma.

Czarcasm

04-27-2002, 12:14 PM

The only thing I'm fond of is getting a straight answer to a direct question. What could a child be guilty of that would justify condemnation and a violent death? Why do all sins bring the same pujnishment? Why do you accept any excuse for a glaring contradiction in the Bible, no matter how unfounded, as long as it supports your beliefs?

dalovindj

04-27-2002, 03:09 PM

They are ordered to kill entire races. What is race? From Miriam Webster:2 a : a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b : a class or kind of people unified by community of interests, habits, or characteristics. Including appearrance (characterisitics) when defining race is standard usage. God orders an entire race killed, he's talkin about how they look, where they live, and who their parents are. That is part of what defines a race. What else could a group of people called "Amalekites" have in common down to the last child? The truth is nothing. You can never make umbrella statements about the goodness of people based on race - it's an example of racism. Get it? This is real simple stuff. The god of the literal bible is a racist. Something tells me the racist who wrote that crap down wasn't in touch with "god" - more like a man who wanted to convince a bunch of people to kill a bunch of other people for barbaric Hitler-esque motivations. It worked. That's what is so damn evil about that book. In this thread alone Newton Meter offered up four reasons baby killing might not be so bad. What a horrible distortion of morality people will engage in to defend that book.

DaLovin' Dj

Darwin's Finch

04-27-2002, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by JubilationTCornpone
The answer is that we are children to be cared for, but we are also to be judged, disciplined and punished as necessary -- or even to be condemned, as necessary. Any parent knows that their unconditional love for a child does not preclude punishment or chastisement . In extreme cases, a child may even be banished from the family, if he poses a danger to other family members. Even the government seeks to care for its citizens, and yet must occasionally mete out harsh punishment toward its offenders.

As I mentioned earlier, I can buy the judgeing, disciplining and punishing argument...but where does condemnation fit in with any conceivable notion of a "loving God"? Does God truly feel that some Men, whom He created, are beyond redemption?

As for the government, it does not, and never has claimed to, "love" its citizens. It enacts harsh penalties to suit what it deems the greater good, not out of any feeling of "love" towards the people.

This is getting frustrating, and my patience is wearing thin. Before you hurl these challenges, will you please consider whether you've presented all possible options? Perhaps then we can help avoid discussing another false dilemma.

Perhaps, then, you could define what "love", in the sense of a "loving God" is. Clearly, there are those here who feel that it does not correspond to the concept that most of us are familiar with. When we are instructed to "love thy neighbor", it's a fair guess that smiting isn't part of the package.

David, God of Frogs

04-27-2002, 05:53 PM

(BTW, "evil" in the last few posts kinda morphed into "not Christian", sorry if I didn't make that clear. I'm not claiming that that's what evil really means in all contexts, but that was how I have been using the word.)

Let's assume that God wanted there to be some Christians and some non-Christians in the world, at least until the second coming, when there would only be Christians.

One of the duties of Christians, at least acording to many interpretations of the Bible, is to prostelytize, to go seek out new converts. They are supposed to convince people that God wants them to bevome Christian. But, according to the assumption above, God wanted some people not to be Christian. Would God put his own people in a logically indefensible position like that?

Put a little more generally, if God is almighty, we have to assume that the world is exactly the way God wanted it. Why then are people who follow God out to change the world, supposedly because the Bible says so? Either they're using a wrong interpretation of the Bible, or if they're right, the Bible contradicts itself. If you don't believe in this interpretation, I'm curious to hear why, if for no other other reason then it should give me some nice ammo the next time someone stops me on the street...

Qwertyasdfg

04-27-2002, 06:02 PM

Originally posted by JubilationTCornpone

Yet another false dilemma. With all due respect, you seem awfully fond of those things.

The answer is that we are children to be cared for, but we are also to be judged, disciplined and punished as necessary -- or even to be condemned, as necessary. Any parent knows that their unconditional love for a child does not preclude punishment or chastisement . In extreme cases, a child may even be banished from the family, if he poses a danger to other family members. Even the government seeks to care for its citizens, and yet must occasionally mete out harsh punishment toward its offenders.

But governments don't drop tactical nukes on entire cities because one guy did something wicked (except Sadamm Hussien, who used chemicals on the Kurds)! Nor does a good, just, merciful or caring government give one punishment for crimes of vastly different natures and degrees of severeity. In fact, the nearest a government gets to behaving like god is in Fascism or Communism.

quixotic78

04-30-2002, 12:20 AM

I really would like to hear what would be considered a Biblical contradiction. JThunder, JubilationTCornpone, or whoever--give us a hypothetical that you would accept as a contradiction.

JubilationTCornpone

04-30-2002, 12:55 AM

I haven't forgotten about this thread. I'm really, really busy right now, and I had hoped to get back to this a couple of days ago. I do promise an answer soon, but it's been really hard to find time.

Polycarp

04-30-2002, 12:00 PM

God cannot operate under a different set of rules from us and be called "good" and "just". These words have meanings, and if what he does violates these definitions, they cannot apply.

The second sentence is true. But sometimes the application of words to different situations causes a different meaning to apply. In your many years as an adult, I presume that you have often crossed the street without taking your mother or father's hand? Principle's the same: "Cross the street safely" -- but the rules for a three-year-old and an adult differ. (And if you were severely retarded, the rule for the three-year-old would still apply even if you were an adult, introducing yet another variable.)

God is "good" when He does what it is good for God to do. Man is "good" when he does what it is good for man to do. This gets us into some complex metaphysics, but consider the proposition: Everything that is reported in the Bible as being God's action or intent may not have been. Very few of us posting, from any point of view, are literalists. And I find it quite easy to believe that a genocidal Israelite could ascribe to God his own command to wipe out the Amelekites (at least one of the times they were all killed off; that tribe had resurrection down pat long before Jesus! ;))

One interesting question: where do we get the ideas of "good" and "right" and "just"? We're using some overarching concept of what is good or right or just to judge the hypothetical god of the Bible's behavior here. Where'd that concept come from?

quixotic78

04-30-2002, 01:07 PM

Originally posted by Polycarp
God is "good" when He does what it is good for God to do. Man is "good" when he does what it is good for man to do.
This seems to only be a slight tautology ;)
One interesting question: where do we get the ideas of "good" and "right" and "just"? We're using some overarching concept of what is good or right or just to judge the hypothetical god of the Bible's behavior here. Where'd that concept come from?
Let me shoot something back at you--what use do the ideas of "good' and "right" and "just" have when their meanings change, even with respect to God's actions? I'm particularly reminded of God's words after Noah and his family leave the Ark. To my reading (your interpretation may vary), it almost seems like "Woah, that was maybe a bit too much." If it was "good" the first time to flood the Earth, why couldn't it be "good" in the future?

You can establish that there are things that children aren't allowed to do that parents are: stay up late, drink, cross the street without holding someone's hand, what have you. Call me crazy, but it seems like there are some things that neither parent nor child are allowed to do: rape, murder, genocide, etc. If the former analogy holds when you extend it to the human/God twosome, why not the latter?

Why should it be considered "good" for God to wipe out an entire nation of people, including the young and the animals, when every moral fiber of my being rejects such an abhorrent idea? Where do I get that flavor of "good," the genocide is WRONG flavor, if God doesn't have it in himself?

Quix

Czarcasm

04-30-2002, 05:34 PM

And doesn't the notion that it is right for God to wipe out nations, including the young and the animals, make it just a touch easier for his followers to do the same in his name in an attempt to become closer to him?

Polycarp

05-01-2002, 05:06 PM

Yeah, I fully admit that your points are valid. But a large number of Christians -- IMHO the majority, but I'll table numerical quibbles if you don't mind -- do not believe the Bible to be literally inspired so that every word in it is "true" in the sense of being a precise reportage sanctioned by God. On another thread, I suggested that it may very well have been the case that some genocidal Israelite "blamed God" for the wiping out of the Amelekites by invoking His name over the decision to kill 'em all.

The God in whom I believe has been trying to get his message across to man, and it's the stuff that Jesus's alleged platitudes are composed of, not the doctrinaire fundamentalist legalism and allegation of every crime listed in the Bible to "God's will" that has got most thinking people around here ticked off against Him to one degree or another. The sort of God who "loves" us enough to damn us to eternal torture unless we subscribe to some contrary-to-the-evidence theological propositions is the construct I call the Divine Weasel, and I do not believe in him and despise the idea as much as any of you.

Qwertyasdfg

05-01-2002, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by Polycarp
Yeah, I fully admit that your points are valid. But a large number of Christians -- IMHO the majority, but I'll table numerical quibbles if you don't mind -- do not believe the Bible to be literally inspired so that every word in it is "true" in the sense of being a precise reportage sanctioned by God. On another thread, I suggested that it may very well have been the case that some genocidal Israelite "blamed God" for the wiping out of the Amelekites by invoking His name over the decision to kill 'em all.

The God in whom I believe has been trying to get his message across to man, and it's the stuff that Jesus's alleged platitudes are composed of, not the doctrinaire fundamentalist legalism and allegation of every crime listed in the Bible to "God's will" that has got most thinking people around here ticked off against Him to one degree or another. The sort of God who "loves" us enough to damn us to eternal torture unless we subscribe to some contrary-to-the-evidence theological propositions is the construct I call the Divine Weasel, and I do not believe in him and despise the idea as much as any of you.

I don't get this. You're only picking the message you like out of the Bible, and ignoring some parts? You're entitled to your beliefs, but to me this sounds sort of... not Christian. Sort of a "religious buffet" so to speak. If I was to call myself a Marxist, but say something like "There will never be a Dictatorship of the Proliteriat" or "Marx didn't really think the worker was exploited." (when he clearly did, and stated it) wouldn't that negate my claim to Marxism. Wouldn't that make me my own thing then, a Qwertyasdfgist perhaps?

BlackKnight

05-01-2002, 11:28 PM

I'm curious how many of the Christians who do not think the entire Bible should be interpreted literally believe that Jesus was literally resurrected? (Or that he was literally the son of God, and similar claims.)

If the Bible is part literal truth and part metaphor / parable / poetry / whatever, how do you decide which parts are which?

Gr8Kat

05-04-2002, 05:54 PM

I watched a program on the History Channel the other day called "The Violent God" or something like that. It addressed this very issue of how can God be loving and yet command genocide.

They brought up the story of the Amalekites. Here is the command God gave, according to 1 Samuel 15:2-3, "This is what the Lord Almighty says: 'I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do
not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.'"

According to the program, the Amalekites and their animals were sacrificed to God. That's why none could be spared, God wanted it all. In fact, King Saul got in trouble for sparing King Agag and bringing back some of the best livestock. His excuse whem Samuel confronted him, from verse 21, "The soldiers took sheep and cattle from the plunder, the best of what was devoted to God, in order to sacrifice them to the Lord your God at Gilgal." Emphasis mine. God wanted the entire race, as well as all their stuff, as one big sacrifice. God was mad that Saul stole some of it from him and we wasn't about to buy the excuse that it was going to be sacrificed to him later.

Again, God supposedly frowns on human sacrifice. Here he commands it. As pointed out in one of my earlier posts, he did nothing to condemn Jephthah's sacrifice of his daughter. This is a contradiction.

The Amalekites' babies were also killed. They were killed for being the children of Amalekites. I repeat, in 2 Kings 14:5, 6, Amaziah kills the officials who murdered his father. But he does not kill the officials sons, citing Deuteronomy 24:16, "Fathers shall not be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their fathers; each is to die for his own sin."

This is another contradiction.

But I've already learned you can't win this contradiction game with true believers. They have an out for everything. Like if I were to point out how Matthew 27:28 says the governor's soldiers put a scarlet robe on Jesus, and Mark 15:17 says it was a purple robe, the true believer will say:

1. The two phrases aren't mutually exclusive. Maybe they put the red robe on him first, then took it off and put the purple robe on him. Just because Matthew only mentions the red, and Mark only mentions the purple doesn't mean he couldn't have worn two robes at different times.

2. Maybe they didn't even take the red robe off first, they put both robes on him at the same time. Again, just because each book only mentions one robe doesn't mean he wasn't wearing two.

3. It was the same robe. Scarlet is a very dark red and to the writer of Matthew maybe the robe looked more like a dark purply red like burgundy or cranberry, while to the writer of Mark it just looked like purple.

4. You aren't reading it right. You don't understand it. Read it more prayerfully.

Et voila, the contradiction, she is gone!

It's an exercise in futility.

Gr8Kat

05-04-2002, 05:57 PM

Oh, in case you were wondering, the History Channel's program ended by quoting Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 -- in case you haven't heard the Birds in a while:

1
There is a time for everything,
and a season for every activity under heaven:

2 a time to be born and a time to die,
a time to plant and a time to uproot,
3 a time to kill and a time to heal,
a time to tear down and a time to build,
4 a time to weep and a time to laugh,
a time to mourn and a time to dance,
5 a time to scatter stones and a time to gather them,
a time to embrace and a time to refrain,
6 a time to search and a time to give up,
a time to keep and a time to throw away,
7 a time to tear and a time to mend,
a time to be silent and a time to speak,
8 a time to love and a time to hate,
a time for war and a time for peace.

There you go, number 8 sums it up, there's God's out. The end.

MEBuckner

05-04-2002, 06:34 PM

Erm, actually, Gr8Kat, the famous dye known as Tyrian purple (http://www.bartleby.com/61/7/T0450700.html) was actually more of a red (or scarlet). Remember, all this stuff has to be translated, and different languages divide up the color spectrum differently (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_168b.html).

"Kokkinos" (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1020564047.html#28) and "porphura" (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1020563873.html#17) were probably much more synonymous than the modern "scarlet" and "purple".

Gr8Kat

05-04-2002, 06:56 PM

Originally posted by MEBuckner
Erm, actually, Gr8Kat, the famous dye known as Tyrian purple (http://www.bartleby.com/61/7/T0450700.html) was actually more of a red (or scarlet). Remember, all this stuff has to be translated, and different languages divide up the color spectrum differently (http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a2_168b.html).

"Kokkinos" (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1020564047.html#28) and "porphura" (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1020563873.html#17) were probably much more synonymous than the modern "scarlet" and "purple".

Toldya! :p

OK, OK, I can end on another contradiction, here goes:

Matthew 27:45 says Jesus' last words, the only words he spoke from the cross, were, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?"

Mark 15:30 agrees.

But Luke 23 says Jesus said:

v. 34 "Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing."
v. 43 "I tell you the truth, today you will be with me in paradise."
v. 46 "Father, into your hands I commit my spirit."

From John 19

v. 26 "Dear woman, here is your son"
v. 27 "Here is your mother."
v. 28 "I am thirsty."
v. 30 "It is finished."

Matthew and Mark paint a picture of Jesus despairing. Luke and John show him in control, putting his affairs in order, and being at peace. Luke and John show a Jesus calmly fulfilling his duty, while Matthew and Mark show a Jesus who appears to have expected something else to happen. To me it appears a contradiction, both literally (books 1 and 2 say Jesus said X, while book 3 says Y and book 4 says Z) and in content. Was Jesus in despair or in control? Which is a more accurate picture of the events?

One answer I've heard says that Matthew and Mark are the older books, they may have been written within the Disciples' lifetimes by people who saw the crucifixion first hand. Therefore, they may be more accurate. Luke and John were written later by people troubled by the image of Jesus not being sacrificed so willingly so they rewrote his last words to make him seem more accepting. These are probably less accurate. There is a contradiction and it was caused by spin doctors trying to make the crucifixion a more positive experience.

But to the true believer, there's no contradiction at all. There's no reason Jesus couldn't have said everything attributed to him, just because Matthew and Mark didn't write down what Luke and John quoted, and vice versa. Maybe Matthew and Mark got there late and didn't hear the peaceful stuff. Maybe Luke and John left early and didn't hear the despairing stuff. Or maybe I'm just reading it wrong and not prayerfully enough.

So there.

JThunder

05-05-2002, 12:27 AM

Originally posted by Gr8Kat
According to the program, the Amalekites and their animals were sacrificed to God. That's why none could be spared, God wanted it all
That's a very interesting claim. What proof do they have for its accuracy?

Remember: We've been talking about alleged Biblical contradictions. Biblical. One could assert that Amalekites were killed as a sacrifice, but to the best of my knowledge, there's nothing in the Mosaic law to support that claim. Quite frankly, this sounds like a lot of empty speculation to me.

Also, I'd be interested in knowing exactly what the History Channel said. Did they said that it WAS a sacrifice, or was this merely the opinion of some historians? Let's be precise, please.

Czarcasm

05-05-2002, 12:33 AM

Precisely what type of example would it take for you to admit that the Bible contains a contradiction?

MEBuckner

05-05-2002, 01:28 AM

In 1 Samuel 15:3 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=1SAM+15:3&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on) Samuel supposedly relates God's direct commandment regarding the Amalekites: Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys. The Hebrew verb translated as "totally destroy" is charam (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/strongs/1020597319.html). (See this English to Hebrew concordance for the verse (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1020597727.html#3).) This verb is usually translated as something along the lines of "utterly destroy", but it seems to have something of the sense of giving something or someone over to God (note the NIV's footnote (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=1SAM+15:3&language=english&version=NIV&showfn=on&showxref=on#footnote_185804240_1) from the first link); thus, the same verb is used in Leviticus 27:28 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1020597604.html#28): Notwithstanding no devoted thing, that a man shall devote unto the LORD of all that he hath, [both] of man and beast, and of the field of his possession, shall be sold or redeemed: every devoted thing [is] most holy unto the LORD. (Words which are translations of charam or of cherem (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/strongs/1020598337.html) are emphasized.)

In Micah 4:13 (http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/c/1020597529.html#13), charam is translated as "consecrate": Arise and thresh, O daughter of Zion: for I will make thine horn iron, and I will make thy hoofs brass: and thou shalt beat in pieces many people: and I will consecrate their gain unto the LORD, and their substance unto the Lord of the whole earth.
(I dunno where the sense of "having a flat nose" comes from. For some reason, it makes me think of some Klingon insult involving foreheads; some things just don't translate well, I guess.)

Qwertyasdfg

05-05-2002, 12:09 PM

MEBuckner: Adjusting that quote for "totally destroy" = "devote" (which I'm skeptical about to begin with) you get:

Now go, attack the Amalekites and devote everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.

Much better!

Czarcasm

05-05-2002, 12:27 PM

If we translate "spare" to mean "neglect", "put to death" to mean "provide a nice pension plan to", and "cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys" to mean "in-laws", it makes even more sense. :)

Polycarp

05-05-2002, 01:01 PM

I don't get this. You're only picking the message you like out of the Bible, and ignoring some parts? You're entitled to your beliefs, but to me this sounds sort of... not Christian. Sort of a "religious buffet" so to speak. If I was to call myself a Marxist, but say something like "There will never be a Dictatorship of the Proliteriat" or "Marx didn't really think the worker was exploited." (when he clearly did, and stated it) wouldn't that negate my claim to Marxism. Wouldn't that make me my own thing then, a Qwertyasdfgist perhaps?

Well, Hell. If you take the Bible literally in all its parts, you're forced to reject about 95% of geology, cosmology, evolutionary biology, ethnology, and Eris only knows what the heck else. And you're called an idiot by anybody with an ounce of common sense.

On the other hand, if you read the Bible as a mass of literature with varying value as historical reference and as ethical guidance, you're accused of being a cafeteria Christian...including by the same people that would have called you an idiot for taking it seriously.

Therefore, the received wisdom must be that the Bible is totally false. So I want somebody to explain to me what happened to the Roman Republic/Empire between 28 BC and about 50 AD -- because this business about Caesar Augustus and Tiberius has just been demonstrated false.

To lay off on the irony for a moment, I believe in a God who has revealed himself as being loving and insistent on a humanist ethics. Only part of my proof derives from some Biblical passages; more derives from the behaviors of other Christians and from my own experiences in knowing Him. I see other parts of Scripture as being in contradiction, more or less, to that basic premise and reject them. Where's the problem there?

In short, with all the proof available that the Bible as a whole is not a literally true document in all its parts, what in the name of all that's holy do you have against finding truth in it?

Perhaps, Querty, like the Bibliocentric evangelists, you have put Descartes before the horse?

Czarcasm

05-05-2002, 01:12 PM

But you can find an element of truth in any piece of literature. Would it not make more sense to find a book that has a higher degree of accuracy to base your religion on?

Gr8Kat

05-05-2002, 02:47 PM

Originally posted by JThunder

That's a very interesting claim. What proof do they have for its accuracy?

Remember: We've been talking about alleged Biblical contradictions. Biblical. One could assert that Amalekites were killed as a sacrifice, but to the best of my knowledge, there's nothing in the Mosaic law to support that claim. Quite frankly, this sounds like a lot of empty speculation to me.

Also, I'd be interested in knowing exactly what the History Channel said. Did they said that it WAS a sacrifice, or was this merely the opinion of some historians? Let's be precise, please.

Did you even read the rest of my post? If not, allow me to reiterate:

His excuse whem Samuel confronted him, from verse 21, "The soldiers took sheep and cattle from the plunder, the best of what was devoted to God, in order to sacrifice them to the Lord your God at Gilgal." Emphasis mine. God wanted the entire race, as well as all their stuff, as one big sacrifice. God was mad that Saul stole some of it from him and he wasn't about to buy the excuse that it was going to be sacrificed to him later.

Furthermore, read the footnote for 1 Samuel 15:3 (http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=1+Samuel+15&version=NIV-IBS&showfn=yes&showxref=yes&language=english#footnote_132333543_1). Allow me to repeat it for those who don't want to click the link:

1 Samuel 15:3 Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy [1] everything that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.

Footnote 1 The Hebrew term refers to the irrevocable giving over of things or persons to the Lord , often by totally destroying them; also in verses 8, 9, 15, 18, 20 and 21. Emphasis mine.

Finally, these historians were Rabbis, you know, guys who make their living reading and interpretting this stuff, so they weren't just pulling it out of their butts.

I'd like to make one more point. God specifically states that he wants the Amalekites dead for what they did to the Hebrews as they made their exodus from Egypt. Exactly how many generations was that before the reign of Saul? Surely, not a single Amalekite living was part of the party that "waylaid" the Hebrews. Again, it gives lie to the whole "sons will not be killed for their fathers' sins" law.

emarkp

05-06-2002, 02:51 PM

Originally posted by Czarcasm
God cannot operate under a different set of rules from us and be called "good" and "just". These words have meanings, and if what he does violates these definitions, they cannot apply.
It makes no more sense than if I say that the sky is plaid and justify it by saying that I am using a different definition of "plaid" than you.Read Flatland. Then tell me if this makes sense:
God: What is that shape you see?
Flatlander: A circle.
God: Actually it's a sphere.
Flatlander: What's a sphere?
God: You're just going to have to trust me on this one.

JThunder

05-06-2002, 05:26 PM

Originally posted by Gr8Kat
Did you even read the rest of my post? If not, allow me to reiterate:
I most certainly did read those passages. They merely said that the animals were to be sacrificed to Yahweh. They most assuredly did NOT say that "the Amalekites and their animals were sacrificed to God."

You yourself quoted verse 21,

The soldiers took sheep and cattle from the plunder, the best of what was devoted to God, in order to sacrifice them to the Lord your God at Gilgal.
It merely says that the sheep and cattle were to be a sacrifice. It would be intellectually dishonest to assert that the human beings were intended as a sacrifice as well.

JThunder

05-06-2002, 05:37 PM

Gr8Kat you also cited the following footnote to verse 3 in supposed defense of your claim.

The Hebrew term refers to the irrevocable giving over of things or persons to the Lord , often by totally destroying them; also in verses 8, 9, 15, 18, 20 and 21.
However, this footnote refers specifically to the word "destroy" in verse 3. Let use examine that word in its proper context.

Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy everything that belongs to them. (Emphasis mine.) Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.
Clearly, the context shows that the Israelites were to sacrifice everything that belonged to the Amalekites. In other words, it was the Amalekites' possessions that were to be sacrificed -- not the Amalekites themselves. The Amalekites were to be executed, but they were not part of the sacrifice -- not part of the "irrevocable giving over of things or persons to the Lord."

In other words, this footnote does not truly support your conclusion. Quite the contrary; it shows a definite distinction between the animal sacrifices and the execution of the Amalekite tribe.

Qwertyasdfg

05-06-2002, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by JThunder
Clearly, the context shows that the Israelites were to sacrifice everything that belonged to the Amalekites. In other words, it was the Amalekites' possessions that were to be sacrificed -- not the Amalekites themselves. The Amalekites were to be executed, but they were not part of the sacrifice -- not part of the "irrevocable giving over of things or persons to the Lord."

Phew. He only wanted genocide and pillaging! What a relief. Contradiction gone!

Seriously though, it does seem that that word can include people.

The Hebrew term refers to the irrevocable giving over of things or persons to the Lord , often by totally destroying them; also in verses 8, 9, 15, 18, 20 and 21.

Bolding mine.

In either case, the contradiction stands. One cannot order mass murder for the crimes of previous generations and call himself loving or merciful.

Mapache

05-06-2002, 06:07 PM

emarkp made some remarks about Flatland. Maybe the dialog should have gone more like this:
Flatlander: Looks like a circle from here.
God: No, actually it's a sevensided purple triangle, with
feathers and a tuxedo. Trust me on this.
Flatlander: If you're going to make looney statements like
that, why should I trust you?
God: Because if you don't, I'll smite you.

Newton meter

05-06-2002, 06:50 PM

I was traveling last week, so I haven't had an opportunity to participate in this thread. I would like to address some of the points that have been made:

Czarcasm:
God cannot operate under a different set of rules from us and be called "good" and "just".
Why not? I'm glad you used the scare quotes to emphasize that you are insisting that God logically must conform to your notion of those words. The essential inconsistency is not between God's words and actions, but between your interpretation of God's words and your interpretation of God's actions. Are you certain that you have the priveleged reference frame required to make all other interpretations invalid?

I'm not trying to be antagonistic. I think you have assumed something about God in order to find your contradiction. I would not dream to tell you that I knew that your assumption was incorrect, but I wonder why you believe that it is, and why we should accept it?

Qwertyasdfg:
NewtonMeter: Have you ever seen a wicked baby? Have you even seen an entire race of people, for that matter, who all were totally evil? How about a wicked ox? Is rape a viable supplement to genocide, when something is inconvenient.
Never seen a wicked baby. Never seen an entire race of people who are totally evil. Never seen a wicked ox. Do not believe rape is a viable supplement to genocide (or that genocide is moral).

However, have we ascertained that I can accurately and precisely determine wickedness? Is it valid for me to extrapolate from the tens or so of babies I've seen to all babies? Do we believe that my failure to see a wicked baby (hell, my failure to even be able to conceive of it) guarantees that such a thing does not exist?

I'm not claiming there are wicked babies or races or oxen. I do not believe that. But if you want this to be your contradiction, you need to make the case for others to accept these assumptions. I'm already on board with you, Qwertyasdfg.

dalovindj:
No, I called the philosophy evil. It is. If you think it's OK to kill infants as long as god says so - you count as evil to me. Sorry. People who would murder infants (even if they believe it comes from divine command) or support others murdering infants in gods behalf are below dispicable. They are pathetic. Not all christians would defend this - I'm talking about the ones who do.
Right. You called Christianity evil because of the uses that some might put it to. In fact, though, you said that nobody in this thread believed that and that you had a lot of biblical literalists in your family and they didn't believe that either.

So what's the point? It's a little like if I popped into a thread about how atheists could have morals in the absence of God, and said that I believed that all atheists had intercourse with goats. Well, OK, not the ones in this thread, and not any of the ones I know about, but still, they could interpret atheism that way. And any philosophy that allows one to believe that goat intercourse is acceptable is evil. You would probably think I'm a fruitcake.

And if I wanted to claim over and over that atheism caused one to engage in goat intercourse, you would expect me to demonstrate that there was a higher incidence of goat intercourse among atheists than non-atheists. And that the causal relationship proceeded from atheism to goat intercourse, and not vice versa.

Failing that, you would be justifiably peeved if I repeatedly insisted in the dabate that the fundamental problem with the moral philosophy of atheism is that it encourages goat sex. It's not that it's offensive, dj. It's just not a very honest debate tactic. If I want to win, I can convince myself that I won. If I care to learn anything about atheism, I lost. And if I've got big problems with goat sex, I should attack that problem directly, rather than atheism.

You might actually be quite interested in a discussion of how Christians seem to manage to maintain a prohibition against child murder and genocide in the face of OT biblical stories. But you don't seem to want that conversation, because you've already decided the answer.

And frankly, I don't understand how your claim that Christianity is evil and should be eradicated as a belief is anything other than an insistence that my beliefs are wrong and yours are right. That I should relinquish my beliefs at your insistence. The first part I understand, everyone thinks their beliefs are right and (probably) at least some others are wrong. But the second part, that I must give up my beliefs? I'm still interested in how you differentiate this from "religious intolerance". Is this a fundamental contradiction? Should you not reject your philosophy as well?

dalovindj:
That's what is so damn evil about that book. In this thread alone Newton Meter offered up four reasons baby killing might not be so bad. What a horrible distortion of morality people will engage in to defend that book.
Well I claimed that I didn't believe any of those, so you should certainly not interpret them as damning to a biblical literalist's position. In any case, I am not trying to defend "that book". Rather, I am trying to defend others' ability to interpret it differently than you do.

Qwertyasdfg:
I don't get this. You're only picking the message you like out of the Bible, and ignoring some parts?
Certainly, and aren't you?

BlackKnight:
I'm curious how many of the Christians who do not think the entire Bible should be interpreted literally believe that Jesus was literally resurrected? (Or that he was literally the son of God, and similar claims.)

If the Bible is part literal truth and part metaphor / parable / poetry / whatever, how do you decide which parts are which?
Well, I would imagine that most Christians pretty much by definition believe that Jesus was the literal son of God, though the son-father relationship needs some theological clarification. And I think most Christians believe that he was resurrected, though not all believe that he literally got up in his body and started walking around.

As for how you know which parts are true? There is usually some authority outside the bible that must guides its interpretation: the Catholic church, Luther, Calvin, or your own personal experiences. The latter is the most interesting. Some things in the bible have a sense of spiritual veracity. They make sense. Loving your neighbor, that does. Killing infants, that doesn't. I suppose, without any such intuition, the process appears indistinguishable from picking and choosing. But really, if one picked and chose exactly the pleasant parts of the bible, is there any harm in that?

Czarcasm:
Precisely what type of example would it take for you to admit that the Bible contains a contradiction?
Depends completely on who the antecedent of "you" is. I predicted as much way back on page 1.

kg m²/s²