Logical Errors in the Bible? Show me!

Great Debates
181

**

This is true. I wasn’t fully aware of the baggage I was bearing when I came in here asking this question. I did attempt to clear this up in my second post. And I did give a good reason for not being able to post. It was an unfortunate situation, how this thread started out.

**

**

True again. My stance is pretty close to what you outlined there. To believe otherwise is a non-foundational, illogical leap of faith. I must decide on what grounds to be logical and what grounds to have faith, and this is not a faithful decision I am prepared to make.

**

**

True. Exactly my thoughts. God’s message might have been altered, but the essence did not.

**

**

I agree.

**

I am.

182

I agree with you completely! :smiley:

It’s a wonderful tool that allows those who use it to emulate the behavior of any of various carnivorous mammals of the genus Mustela!

183

It isn’t a rule, it’s just irritating.

BTW, you didn’t answer me in any substantive way on the issue of things like “making” morality or changing moral rules (both of which would render the concept of morality meaningless). Simply saying “we cannot conclude” is, as I pointed out, a dead end. If we cannot conclude whether God’s acts are just, then you have no basis from which to call God just, or object to me calling god unjust.

“Seeing it from God’s perspective” is a ruse: it becomes an argument by definition, which in this context automatically invalidates it (since you are trying to ascribe qualities TO god in order to increase our understanding, to say that god has them by definition NO MATTER WHAT is to make those qualities meaningless, because they are consistent with anything at all, nothing in specific). To say that God is just, when “just” can include any sort of behavior at all, no matter how vicious and pointless, is to say precisely nothing at all about God, and at the same time to destroy the meaning of the word “just.” And the problem is, if you think this is “just what the Bible says” then the Bible is simply being incoherent.

Furthermore, I can see things from a murderer’s POV, and that doesn’t make me more likely to condone a pointless act of murder.

184

Ahh yes, the old- “Our minds are finite and feeble, we can in no way understand God and his workings argument.”

Gotta love this one.

What makes me think I can judge God? Assuming he exists, many things. For one, I have the free will to do so. God given right and all. For one, he allowed our minds to be capable of logic, ethics, empathy, sympathy, love, hate, fear, and terrible things. In his Image. Exact, because it seems God reflects the mass human experience in all his glory. Childish, petulant, yet loving at times, generous, inconsistant and posseses delusions of grandeur. He not only gave us these abilities, he encourages us to use them, in some passages, and in others he tells us not to use them. Shall I quote the bible for you, I am sure you are a educated enough man to know of the various passages of which I refer…

Is Gods great plan so above ours? Very doubtful. In fact is is pretty sophmoric to assume that humans cannot be capable of such a high order thought. If you can’t imagine what such a thought is, why bother bringing it up.

I have spent most of my life studying the bible and trying to make logical sense of it, and it certainly is too big of a chain of reasoning and based on such a wide spectrum of information and induction that it would only clog this discussion. In fact it would prove fruitless, because you cannot convince the delusional that what they are seeing is a delusion.*

Really, though, why I feel I can judge God, is because I know that does he exist- I am BETTER than God. In every way- excepting that I don’t have the power- perhaps it would corrupt me into some vile disgusting creature that torments the things he creates for sheer pleasure like he/it/she supposedly does, I dunno.

YMMV
*A man goes and sees his psychologist. Laying on the couch he tells the doctor. “Doctor, I am dead”. The doctor looks at him, and starts discussing his situation. The doctor tries in vain to throw enough questions and logic and reasoning to convince him of his error. The Doctor asks every question he could imagine- How are you talking to me if you are dead, How did you get here, how, how did you die, why do you think you are dead and so on. Every question asked the troubled man had some explination- no matter how far stretched. The doctor finally asked him “Do dead people bleed?” The troubled man said “No, of course not, their heart doesn’t beat.” The doctor quickly drew a pocketknife and cut the troubled man. The man looked down at shock at his now bleeding arm and seemed troubled for a bit. Finally he looked up with a sad look on his face and said “I guess I was wrong doctor- I don’t know how I could have been, but the evidence is right before my eyes- The dead DO bleed.”

185

Two questions , Fuel:

1.) Did the Pharaoh have free will when God “hardened his heart?”

2.) Did David have free will when he was “moved” (by whoever) to number Israel?

Actually I have a third question, too:

3.) Was David right or wrong to number Israel?

186

Fuel, I have a challenge for you:

prove that Satan is evil.

187

(emphasis added.)

Great- more fundie porn. At least this is a prideful fantasy, rather than a vengeful one.

Fuel, do you have any idea how colossally arrogant you’re being? How dare you presume to know our experiences with the Bible!

188

Is it possible that God sent you to learn something, Fuel?

(Also, it really is kind of silly to make assumptions about our Biblical knowledge. You don’t know what we have or haven’t studied.)

189

What part of that post was wrong? I said that Apos did not “read, meditate on and accept” God’s message. Isn’t this obvious and true?

If there is a God, that’s what he is thinking, so I don’t consider it arrogant. Maybe arrogant on the God’s part, but not mine. I in no way think lower of anyone who rejects the Bible. It’s the logical thing to do, I don’t blame them. All I was doing was outlining the thought process to someone. I have no alterior motives and I cast no judgement whatsoever.

190

Have you guys realized it is impossible to get any work done in a thread like this? So many of you are either not reading my posts or misinterpreting them, or I am not being clear enough, that we will never get anywhere. Granted I am having a tough time finding words to communicate, but on the other hand, many of you guys are simply not thinking before posting. Seriously. You are reading and the first interpretation of my words that pop into your heads (usually a negative interpretation), you immediately hit the reply button and don’t even stop to think that what I said might be true or a good point.

I guess this is how it is when you got people who are averaging a post a minute on this board. Too much clicking and not enough CONSIDERING.

It’s a shame that an open-minded, reasonable guy like me can come in here and not be able to have a calm, objective discussion with you about facts. I get an automatic “literalist” and “inerrancy” label thrown on me. What’s the problem? Since this is a debate forum, we can’t have an objective analysis of errors in the Bible without getting sidetrack with other theological topics?

If we were all sitting around in a coffee house or something, I assure you, this discussion would have been much more friendly and communicative. Internet boards don’t accomplish anything with debates, IMO.

Finally, here is a quote of mine I wrote down a couple months ago: “Many times when two people verbally disagree about something, in actuality, they agree……. It’s just that they find it hard to communicate their agreement because of certain frame of reference or emotional blockages such as pride, prior arguments’ outcomes, logically irrelevant outside-the-scope-of-the-discussion information, ect. – Jon”

This is a perfect example.

I am done here, just so you know. But, no bad blood. I just don’t think it’s worth my time anymore. I respect all of you guys here for your zealousness and education, but this has got to end.

191

It’s neither obvious nor true that Apos (or any of us) hasn’t studied the Bible. Accepting it as true does not necessarily follow from studyng it**
[/quote]

You’re presuming that the existence of God would prove the truth of the Bible. It would not. What if God exists but the Koran is his message? Have you studied the Koran and reflected on it? How about the Book of Mormon? There are quite a few books that claim to be God’s word. How do you know which is authentic?

192

Why don’t you give an example of someone not understanding your posts? Frankly it seems to me that you’ve been quite unresponsive in this thread to any number of relevant questions. You asked for errors, you got them. You tried to redefine “error,” you stll got them. At the last you seem to have been resorting to a non-argument that doctrinal inconsistencies or moral contradictions cannot be proven because God may have motives that we are unaware of…in other word, the old “mysterious ways” argument which, I assure you, is not likely to inspire any epiphanies around here.

You wanted to know if the Bible has errors but you have continually redefined what constitutes “error” to the point where the word has no meaning. We understand you fine, you just don’t like the answers.

I’m sorry you don’t want to continue this discussion but I’m not surprised.

193

**

Not even remotely. For that matter, I’m an ex-fundamentalist-Christian. I have read, meditated on, and accepted God’s message, and come to the conclusion that your God is evil incarnate.

How do you explain that?

So you presume to speak for God- and then you blame God for being arrogant?

An interesting variation on “shit in the street and blame it on the dog,” to be sure.

194

This seems extremely unlikely, to me.

As one who has no iron in this fire, I have been a mostly amused spectator. However, I would be more likely to characterize your posts as well-meant but unconsidered–and very definitely unclear as to meaning. People are responding to their “first interpretation” because re-reading your posts does not make them clearer. (Note that my only serious contribution, so far, has been to express a real confusion as to your intent–and I did not actually find your restatement any clearer, so I dropped it.)

I can also assure you that several of your skeptic/agnostic/atheist opponents in this thread have, over the last many months, demonstrated a very clear grasp of biblical scholarship (rather more than you have, at this point).

I suspect that abandoning this thread is probably wise. There are too many tangled themes and misunderstandings to carry it forward. However, I would recommend that you stick around. Go back and read several of the many previous debates we have had on this topic. (There are also good threads in General Questions and Comments on Staff Reports (and even the BBQ Pit.) Take a look at what has already been put forth, adjust your views according to the information you find (both factual and as aspects of belief), and then, if you feel a need to try this again, come back with a clearer question.

As Diogenes noted.*

Pope John Paul gets a phone call. “Hello, it is I, Jesus. I have returned to Earth.”
Pope JP II says, “That’s wonderful, but where are you calling from?”
Jesus replies, “Well, that’s the bad news: I’m calling from Salt Lake City.”

The chief rabbi is visiting the pope and, at the end of the visit notices a gold phone of the pope’s desk. “Is that what i think it is?” he asks. “Yes” says the pope, “it is a direct line to God.”
The rabbi asks, “If it is not too much trouble, could I make a call?”
The pope replies, “O course.” So the rabbi makes his call, after which he insists on paying for it.
At first, the pope tries to demure, but the rabbi insists, so the pope does some figuring in his head and announces 2 million lira.

A few months later, the pope is paying a reciprocal visit, notices that the rabbi also has the same phone, and asks to use it. When he is done, he also insists on paying for the call. The rabbi thinks for a second and says “That will be two shekels.”
“But that is fantastic! Why is the rate so low?”
“Local call.”

Substitute any other religious leaders and religious locations, as needed.

195

**
[/QUOTE]

Unbelievable. I am replying to this only because it strengthens my last post.

DtC, did you not see the word “and” there? It is obvious that Apos has read and reflected on the Bible. But he didn’t accept it. That was my whole point! I never said that all three must follow each other, where did you get that from? That thought was straight from your head and no one else’s.

You are the exact kind of person that makes this forum useless, I hope you realize this.

Here is the order: read, think, consider, re-read, empathize, give benefit of the doubt, write, proof-read, re-consider, send.

196

“Christians aren’t perfect- just infinitely capable of blaming their problems on non-Christians.”

If you don’t want to get sidetracked by other theological topics, then why are you talking about them? Why is it solely the fault of the non-Christian that you can’t stick to the topic of Biblical errors?

197

Is it just me, or does Fuel remind you of Adrian Mole?

198

Another example of not reading. Unbelievable.

Here is a quote of mine from one of the last posts: “I respect all of you guys here for your zealousness and education,” Here is another quote where I admitted you all knew more about outside sources than I: “I am just like you guys pounding at the Bible, minus your outside-the-Bible knowledge”

I realize that you are all more knowledgeable in this area than I. That’s why I am posting here!!! I have acknowledged this fact twice in this thread, in a very humble way I might add. But, OF COURSE, you didn’t see these instances. OF COURSE, because no one reads and understands here, only in GQ do they understand.

Unbelievable. I hope you people realize this. Sad, sad day at SD as far as I am concerned. So much knowledge, and intelligence, so little communication. Useless.

199

Whether or not it was true, it is

  1. merely an ad hominem argument and
  2. clearly exposes that your claim that you are concerned only with “objective” analysis is false.

Objective analysis does not require that any particular someone do anything. It is the ANALYSIS that is good or not: the person making it is irrelevant. If you want to criticize someone’s analysis, then you should do so.

Anyone can make accusations that they are being misrepresented or misunderstood, or that other posters and being rash or irrational. But people who make these accusations are honor bound to BACK THEM UP by documenting exactly where the misunderstanding lies. I welcome you doing so in my case.

200

Actually, you are proving the point of your opponents.

You back and re-read what you posted. You created an imaginary stream of thought into which you inserted what you believe God might be imagining. You then come back and assert that those are God’s thoughts and that you are not arrogant (although God might be). Where is your phone link to God to know what he thinks of humanity or any individual humans?

You have made declarations, based on your beliefs. That is fine (and witnessing is allowed, here), but it is not up to your correspondents to accept what you say.

You are also being extremely disingenuous. You post that the “and” in the construction was a mathematical conjunction that required that if any of the “reading,” the “meditating,” and the “accepting” were not true, that would make the statement valid. However, your construction is ambiguous. A normal reading of that sentence would lead to the conclusion that the “and” joined all the verbs together under the same “not” so that it actaully reads as though you have said that Apos “did not read and did not meditate and did *not accept.” English is not COBOL. Playing boolean games with word play does not make your thoughts more intelligible.
We are left with the impression that you post first and think (and rationalize) later. Rather than insisting that your audience must pay more attention to you, consider paying more attention to your audience.