# What is the most fundamental contradiction in the Bible? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [April 19, 2002, 3:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529 "2002-04-19T15:12:17Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 10
**Author:** ![JubilationTCornpone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee59a6/32.png) [@JubilationTCornpone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JubilationTCornpone)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2002, 5:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/181 "2002-04-26T05:12:42Z")
> [@](#): > > _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.) ---
**Author:** ![JubilationTCornpone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee59a6/32.png) [@JubilationTCornpone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JubilationTCornpone)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2002, 5:37am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/182 "2002-04-26T05:37:31Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by dalovindj \* > \*\* > **JubilationTCornpone** I’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. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2002, 5:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/183 "2002-04-26T05:43:49Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2002, 5:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/184 "2002-04-26T05:56:54Z")
He has devised the same eternal punishment for all sins. He is just. ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2002, 6:01am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/185 "2002-04-26T06:01:37Z")
He flooded the Earth, killing untold millions of animals and thousands of people. He is loving. ---
**Author:** ![dalovindj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/65b543/32.png) [@dalovindj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalovindj)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2002, 6:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/186 "2002-04-26T06:47:22Z")
Biblical proof of your claims please **JubilationTCornpone**. You state alot that is not written. DaLovin’ Dj ---
**Author:** ![dalovindj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/65b543/32.png) [@dalovindj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalovindj)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2002, 6:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/187 "2002-04-26T06:50:13Z")
**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 ---
**Author:** ![dalovindj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/65b543/32.png) [@dalovindj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalovindj)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2002, 6:52am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/188 "2002-04-26T06:52:17Z")
make that “a monster” ---
**Author:** ![JubilationTCornpone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee59a6/32.png) [@JubilationTCornpone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JubilationTCornpone)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2002, 8:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/189 "2002-04-26T08:02:18Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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 **mis** applied, 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, ©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. ---
**Author:** ![Mangetout](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mangetout/32/19_2.png) [@Mangetout](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mangetout)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2002, 8:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/190 "2002-04-26T08:13:44Z")
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.” ---
**Author:** ![Czarcasm](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/czarcasm/32/4050_2.png) [@Czarcasm](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Czarcasm)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2002, 12:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/191 "2002-04-26T12:24:39Z")
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**. ---
**Author:** ![dalovindj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/65b543/32.png) [@dalovindj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalovindj)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2002, 1:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/192 "2002-04-26T13:00:13Z")
> [@](#): > > 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 ---
**Author:** ![davidw](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/c4cdca/32.png) [@davidw](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/davidw)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2002, 2:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/193 "2002-04-26T14:17:28Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. ---
**Author:** ![dalovindj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/65b543/32.png) [@dalovindj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalovindj)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2002, 2:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/194 "2002-04-26T14:27:14Z")
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 ---
**Author:** ![JubilationTCornpone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/ee59a6/32.png) [@JubilationTCornpone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JubilationTCornpone)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2002, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/195 "2002-04-26T16:49:13Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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? ---
**Author:** ![emarkp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3be4f8/32.png) [@emarkp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emarkp)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2002, 7:20pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/196 "2002-04-26T19:20:00Z")
> [@](#): > > _Originally posted by dalovindj_ > I’ve got a plan to keep him from killing me. **Entropy** ---
**Author:** ![tracer](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/tracer/32/20578_2.png) [@tracer](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/tracer)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2002, 8:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/197 "2002-04-26T20:04:04Z")
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. ---
**Author:** ![Newton\_meter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/57b2e6/32.png) [@Newton\_meter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Newton_meter)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2002, 8:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/198 "2002-04-26T20:56:03Z")
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 ---
**Author:** ![dalovindj](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/65b543/32.png) [@dalovindj](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dalovindj)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2002, 9:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/199 "2002-04-26T21:31:18Z")
**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 ---
**Author:** ![Newton\_meter](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/57b2e6/32.png) [@Newton\_meter](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Newton_meter)\ **Post date:** [April 26, 2002, 9:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529/200 "2002-04-26T21:57:14Z")
> [@](#): > > \*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. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529.md?page=9) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/what-is-the-most-fundamental-contradiction-in-the-bible/104529.md?page=11)